Talk:Esplanade Reserve/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Esplanade Reserve. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Neutrality disputed
ResolvedI've put a "Neutrality disputed" tag on this page, because the material about the proposed changes to the foreshore looks distinctly non-neutral to me. Actually it's poorly written as well. Possibly we need more and/or more specific tags on this article, but disputed is the main problem for now. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
poorly written and biased - at what points are you holding off on to concede a balanced article - improved article ? please indicate what points you have issue with - as sitting like that for so long without further comment is open ended, inherently ambiguous and not helpful to fellow editors SatuSuro 13:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm working on this. As you've no doubt noticed, I'm fixing some things that I can do - hopefully without changing the scope or neutrality/POV significantly, and I'll list details of what's left that I'm not happy with when I'm done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Mitch, thanks for editing my edits. Hopefully, I've not made too many mistakes.Morethangrass (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, the main specific problems that I have with the current version are:
Significant changes to adjacent features such as Supreme Court Gardens, Riverside Drive and the Barrack Street Jetty and environs are planned as well
Are "Supreme Court Gardens, Riverside Drive, Barrack St Jetty and environs" part of "The Esplanade" or not? If not, this text doesn't belong here. (The impression I get is that the writer is opposed to the development and trying to raise awareness of how much change there will be.) If they are part of "The Esplanade", then the words "as well" should be removed.
- Response - the Supreme Court Gardens, Barrack Square are not part of the Esplanade, although Riverside Drive now goes over part of the original Esplanade area. The sentence here refers to the Waterfront Development and should be read as such. This is one of the sections that could perhaps go to the Perth Waterfront page58.7.246.120 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
In the websites created by the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and the Waterfront Project there is no direct mention of the investigations and documentation that are required for the demolition of a heritage site, ...
We're reporting a non-fact here (no mention of investigations and documentation), implying (but not stating) that they are failing to do something that they should do. Then the weasely:
The History Council of WA symposium ... suggests that if the developers abide by any legal requirements or common sense regulations in relation to destruction of historic relics/rescue archaeology - there is a lot to consider for the Esplanade area alone.
Again, implication that the developers are not doing the right thing. This sounds like POV and soapboxing to me. Either state the verifiable facts that the developers are doing the wrong thing (including the appropriate specific "wrong thing" in the text) or remove the text.
... the main thrust of the overall proposals appear to rely on commercial joint ventures to develop with the broader plans.
"Appear" is a weasel word. If the proposal relies on commercial joint ventures, say so explicitly. If someone else says it "appears to", then quote that person as saying so. Mitch Ames (talk) 2012-03-25 14:26:14 (UTC)
- Reply - appearances are deceptive, agreed. But given the speculative nature of the commercial proposals, and the somewhat nebulous content on the MRA site, I'm not sure what other phrase might be suitable. 58.7.246.120 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree all of above. Current wording is hopelessly non-neutral and/or irrelevant to this article and should be removed. 60.230.202.182 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
good example
Resolvedremoved section - is an excellent example of the complaint above - poorly written, fly-by edit that has not been substantiated - and as it is a controversial collection of assertions have removed. any replacing of this needs good WP:RS to substantiate any of the claims; -
Others[who?], however, consider that the heritage of the Esplanade site revolves around its status as "a place for the people" and that the development will provide an important linking of the Perth CBD to the banks of the Swan river. [citation needed] The ecology of the river has been carefully considered and provisions for its protection and care can be seen in the earlier referenced details of the plan.[citation needed]
to leave such a section in mainspace is tantamount to allow ip edits with no cites or WP:RS as a valid way to maintain articles
further
ResolvedIn view of the issue raised above about neutrality - the traffic issue has no sufficient reliable sources as to what has been planned or what is in concrete and is complete conjecture - better out than in SatuSuro 01:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Traffic and development section
ResolvedWould much of this content be better on the Perth Waterfront Development page, as it is more about that the development than about the Esplanade per se? Morethangrass (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Morethangrass
good idea - the other article is the more appropriate location - but the info needs to be sourced...SatuSuro 05:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Done - I hope. Also need to find details about the Bike users Morethangrass (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
neutrality tag
Resolved2012 proposal neutrality tag needs talking to by the nominator ... SatuSuro 12:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. See #Neutrality disputed above. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
merge tag
Resolvedneeds talking to - specially as the text says It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Perth Waterfront Development. - ambiguous and pointless, it is already see also to the other article anyway, and the two subjects are sufficiently separate SatuSuro 12:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- See details in #Merge to Perth Waterfront Development and #perth waterfront development merge tag below. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge to Perth Waterfront Development
ResolvedCurrently the Redevelopment section is more than half of the article, and the bulk of it is about proposal, not even changes that have happened. While it is appropriate to mention the current proposal, I don't believe that this much detail for a proposed future development is appropriate for this article. I suggest that we keep a brief mention of the proposed development in this article, but move / merge the bulk of the text to the relevant section of the Perth Waterfront Development article. Perhaps we should even consider a separate article for the current proposal. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
perth waterfront development merge tag
Resolved- oppose - the subjects are discrete and are different in scope and coverage, specially the difference between the meaning of what the esplanade entails versus the perth foreshore in totality SatuSuro 12:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could have a new subsection of Perth Waterfront Development called "Esplanade" - since the Esplanade development is undeniably (as I understand it) part of the current Perth Waterfront Development. I agree that there may be merit in keeping the development of the esplanade separate from the foreshore development in general. But I also believe we should keep the bulk of the proposed future development material with the "Development" article rather than with the "Esplanade" article. I do not think that splitting the development over two separate articles is a good idea. If the scope of the Perth Waterfront Development is too broad (including past proposals) then perhaps we need a separate article for the 2011 Perth Waterfront Development, which would include specific Esplanade section. Currently we have material about the 2011 development scattered over The Esplanade (Perth)#2012 proposal and Perth Waterfront Development#Barnett Government plans 2011, and I don't think this is a good idea. I believe we should merge the bulk of the 2011 development material into one place - a new article if needs be - and have brief summaries (with links) elsewhere. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
If we are talking about this section - 2012 proposal - then a brief summary on The Esplanade (Perth) page is appropriate, with the majority of the section moved to the Perth Waterfront Development page. I don't believe a subsection on the Esplanade on the Perth Waterfront Development is the way to go. But two pages are needed, and possibly a third for the history of development of the Perth foreshore generally (Esplanade, Supreme Court Gardens, Barrack Square, Langley Park, Ozone Reserve, Narrows Interchange and Oldham Park, etc).Morethangrass (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest that the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL requires us to separate the bulk of the material about the proposed future development from the current and historical information. Hence my suggestion that we need a separate article for the 2011/2012 proposal/development. CRYSTAL doesn't prevent us from having an article about the proposed development (it being sufficiently notable and well documented) but it does suggest that we keep it mostly separate. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- support merging redevelopment section into Perth Waterfront Development. But two articles only - The Esplanade (Perth) and Perth Waterfront Development. Latter can easily cover new developments. If and when it gets too big, it can be split. Regards, 60.230.202.182 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, it appears we have 3 (Mitch Ames, Morethangrass, 60.230.202.182) in favour, 1 (SatuSuro) against moving the bulk of the material to Perth Waterfront Development. I'll move the material soon. I'm no expert on the subject, so I'll just cut/paste the bulk of the material to [[Perth Waterfront Development#Barnett Government plans 2011] (leaving a brief summary in this article) and do minimal clean up. Outstanding neutrality issues will move with the text (and I'll try to fix or at least enumerate them at the target). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)