Talk:Queen Victoria Market

Former Cemetery

Is there a source for the removal of the disinterred statement (that only 10% of the former cemetery was disinterred)?? Citizen D 00:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got the new Encyclopedia of Melbourne on my Christmas list. Hopefully I'll be able to confirm this information in a few weeks. :) Cnwb 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Should be the source of many new Melbourne additions here I would hope. Dropped hints for my copy but nothing confirmed from family OR friends :(. Interesting to find out though simply because I find it hard to believe that most bodies would not be relocated, even in the 19th century. Citizen D 03:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Verification?

Can someone please explain to me why a small, 200 odd word article that has reference to a print encyclopedia, and an official website for the subject has a banner asking for more references for validation? This textbox/banner should be removed until the article expands and more information is introduced (a lot more in my opinion) Citizen D 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference

I'm not sure how to use this reference or where to put it, so il just leave it here

• Brown-May, Andrew & Swain, Shurlee (2005) The Encyclopedia Of Melbourne. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84234-4

Chumchum14 (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just add it in under the References section exactly as you've done here. Citizen D (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But there is no inline citation, i don't know where the references actually cites in the article. Chumchum14 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference added. Citizen D (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just copy another reference from another article, that's what I still do. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This article had over half a dozen references in the usual style, and two using a largely superceded style. I put the two non-standard references in the usual style. One of these references had disappeared because it wasn't being handled properly. Geo Swan (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

The lead is rather biased and isn't very 'encyclopaedic' in its tone. I would fix it but no-one else seems to have pointed it out. Deonyi (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)