Talk:Geelong/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Geelong. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Page history
This page was at Geelong, then moved to Geelong, Australia, is now moved back again. Some history was lost from deletion, summarised below.
- M 01:31 Feb 18, 2002 . . Conversion script (Automated conversion)
- M 01:37 Feb 18, 2002 . . Ted Longstaffe (spelling correction)
- M 15:43 Feb 25, 2002 . . Graham Chapman (minor copyedit; add country)
- 19:20 Jun 23, 2002 . . Karen Johnson (redirect to Geelong, Australia)
Tannin 14:30 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Confusion
Is Geelong really that confusingly similar to Keelung? The names don't seem that similar to me. TPK 12:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Could anyone really get that confused? Sounds rather bizarre to me. Ambivalenthysteria 16:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I went ahead and got rid of it. TPK 08:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
addition of media section
Is it worth adding a media section to the geelong page, there are three major newspaper groups producing over 6 different papers and 4 radio stations as well as a cable tv/net company that is not available in Melbourne. Geelong has bid goverment for their own tv station but its proximity to Melbourne prohibits that. Several Geelong groups have produced content for Melbourne's comunity TV station Ch31
- Free free - it'd be a useful addition. You may want to consider registering an account, too - it's always good to have more people interested in editing Victorian topics. Ambi 12:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Issues
This article could really do with a lot of work. The Infobox needs replacing with the Australia-wide one, it could do with more images, the structure is...odd, and the history section is wretched. Anyone interested in giving this some time? Ambi 03:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'll pitch in. I've disliked this article for a while now. It needs something complete to compare with and aim for, then we're off. I still live here so images aren't out of the question either. -- Longhair 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Canberra is probably the best example of a city article on Wikipedia these days, so perhaps that's something we could work towards. I have access to a digital camera while I'm down here, so I may be able to take photos as well. Hmm. It needs so much work that I'm not even sure where to put my foot in the water. Ambi 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Which infobox are you referring to and I'll work on replacing it? -- Longhair 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I was referring to Template:Infobox Australian City. It's still in development, but I think it's more useful at this point anyway; it's certainly neater. Ambi 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Updated, the long and lat indicator may need a tweak though. -- Longhair 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll pitch in too, seeing as I live here and all. Reyk 02:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Climate
Are the temperatures right? Are summer nights really colder (on average) than winter nights? --Scott Davis Talk 14:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly doesn't look correct, although Geelong has some strange weather at times. I'll find a better source. Thanks for the heads up. -- Longhair 19:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Restored with new numbers from the Bureau of Meteorology. --Scott Davis Talk 09:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Largest
"Geelong is the largest regional city in the state of Victoria, Australia." Wouldnt it just be easier to say it's Victoria's second largest city? It would be a lot less misleading too.
- Good point. Reyk YO! 07:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Availability of newspapers
"Melbourne newspapers, The Age and The Herald Sun are readily available." This line cracks me up. Should we also include the ready availability of milk and bread, but that Rolls Royces are a bit hard to find?
Greglocock 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
www.geelong.com
G'day,
Why is it that when I add a link to [1] in the external link section it get's removed all the time?
Surely, News and Weather for the Geelong region is relevant? ((unsigned|59.167.65.240}}
- Well, yes. I'm in favour of keeping this one unless someone points out that the site is somehow dodgy. Reyk YO! 06:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. The site looks largely automated with irrelvant news scrapes (which are mostly Football related). The entire forum has just 2 registered members. The Google ads are far too prominent when viewing external links from the site also, making me think it's a vehicle for Google adsense dollars. This site isn't a popular representation or a reliable news source for Geelong information. -- Longhair 07:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's move
- Support -- Zondor 05:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Reyk YO! 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, and will move back if moved. There is a national convention to put all non-capital Australian cities at City, State. If you wish to overturn the national guideline, then bring that up somewhere else. Rebecca 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- Tell me where and I will. I don't think much of this convention; IMO an article ought to have the simplest and shortest practicable name. I'd prefer to use [[City X, State X]] only if there's otherwise a chance of getting it mixed up with another city of the same name. I do not approve of enforcing the unnecessary for the sake of sameness. Reyk YO! 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- We've been over the reasons for this at length, and this is the way it has been for at least a couple of years. This convention allows us to point all links to the one case, avoiding the (previously widespread) problem of duplicate articles, and having to check up to five different possible titles when trying to link to a town or city article. If you wish to change it, however, bring it up on a national level. Rebecca 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you read this, it's not as though any decision was reached. The "official" policy was added to the page a year later, without comment and without discussion. Saying, "we've always done it that way" does nothing to convince me when it's still unclear why we've always done it that way. Reyk YO! 07:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I explained above why. It makes sense from the perspective of making sure that all the links actually point where they're supposed to point with minimal duplication and fuss, even if some poor dear has to type a few more characters. The actual decision, with discussion and vote, was held on the WP:AWNB. Rebecca 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK then. Change my vote to abstain. And on the subject of "minimum fuss", I've changed the disambig page Geelong to a redirect to this article. The only entries were for the city and the footy club. My main objection to the convention is that the shortest and simplest version is going to be the one typed into the search pane, and the one people will link to when they're editing articles. An extensive system of appropriate redirects solves this problem. Reyk YO! 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I understand the concern, but that's why we have redirects from the undisambiguated title - so it won't be an issue for anyone typing it in to the search bar. I can't remember if people not disambiguating the links when editing was a problem in the beginning, but it's pretty much become habit for the Australian editors now. Changing the disambiguation page is fair enough, too - there's no need for the football club to be there. Rebecca 08:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK then. Change my vote to abstain. And on the subject of "minimum fuss", I've changed the disambig page Geelong to a redirect to this article. The only entries were for the city and the footy club. My main objection to the convention is that the shortest and simplest version is going to be the one typed into the search pane, and the one people will link to when they're editing articles. An extensive system of appropriate redirects solves this problem. Reyk YO! 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I explained above why. It makes sense from the perspective of making sure that all the links actually point where they're supposed to point with minimal duplication and fuss, even if some poor dear has to type a few more characters. The actual decision, with discussion and vote, was held on the WP:AWNB. Rebecca 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you read this, it's not as though any decision was reached. The "official" policy was added to the page a year later, without comment and without discussion. Saying, "we've always done it that way" does nothing to convince me when it's still unclear why we've always done it that way. Reyk YO! 07:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- We've been over the reasons for this at length, and this is the way it has been for at least a couple of years. This convention allows us to point all links to the one case, avoiding the (previously widespread) problem of duplicate articles, and having to check up to five different possible titles when trying to link to a town or city article. If you wish to change it, however, bring it up on a national level. Rebecca 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- Tell me where and I will. I don't think much of this convention; IMO an article ought to have the simplest and shortest practicable name. I'd prefer to use [[City X, State X]] only if there's otherwise a chance of getting it mixed up with another city of the same name. I do not approve of enforcing the unnecessary for the sake of sameness. Reyk YO! 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason as Rebecca. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#Australia. -- Chuq 07:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, also for the same reason as Rebecca. Having consistency also prevents any arguments about disambiguation, such as occurred with Darwin. --bainer (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Pronunciation
Is the initial G pronounced as in ‘gyroscope’ or as in ‘gift’? David Arthur 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Usually people say Jillong, facetiously GGeeeeeeelong. Emphasis is on first syllable, typically. The pronunciation in the AFL anthem "We are Geelong" is definitive.Greglocock 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)