Talk:Geelong/Archive 2

Archives
Archive 1 April 2003 - September 2007 Archive 2

Translation to Japanese

This article has been requested to be translated on the Japanese Wikipedia. [1] If anyone has good skills in Japanese and would like to help translate, please feel welcome! --Candy-Panda 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to exist now, but just a short stub in case anyone is interested - http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/日本語 Wongm (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Future section

Seems full of speculation and NPOV. not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Michellecrisp 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone though and edited with more factual information, not just opinions. Added references as well. Wongm 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Michellecrisp 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Todo

Does anyone have suggestions to bring the quality of this article above B grade? Referencing the history section is one. Does anything else need to be added? Wongm 09:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You could send the article for Peer review. It's getting close to a GA standard once the history section is referenced I think. The discussion above (now archived) occured long before the history section went in. btw-- Longhair\^talk 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it look now? Wongm 12:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable people from Geelong

Do we even need this section in the article anymore? It's getting a tad long, and at times is a magnet for vandalism. The category:People from Geelong achieves the same thing. -- Longhair\^talk 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Others agree so I have done so. Wongm (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review feedback

• OK, I'd put sport as the last item on the lead (not to diss the Cats or anything but...). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Needs an etymology section, why was it named thus, who named it etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

more soon

I've edited the lead a bit to reduce the length. Wongm (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have added origin of the name as well. Wongm (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a great job, but it still reads like a rather desperate tourist brochure. A vistor might be saddened to learn that on a summer's day the shipwreck coast is a further two hours drive away. You might need to read up on wiki policy for redlinks (don't use them) and whether schools are sufficiently notable to be included, I'd guess College and Grammar probably are, not so much the others. I'm glad to see my favourite sentence is still in there. Yes folks, unlike the whole of the rest of country Victoria, we are allowed buy the Age and the Hun. Greg Locock (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on your other comments, but your understanding of project policy concerning redlinks is completely wrong - they're perfectly encouraged as a means of promoting new article development. It's only if being taken to good article status or higher that people are asked to actually fill in any redlinks in the article, not get rid of them. Rebecca (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had assumed that an editor who did the same to one of 'my' articles was correct. However my advice to read up on them was correct, it is just I should have done it as well! And links to non notable schools? Bleagh. Greg Locock (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is quite crowded with images. This may be less of a probelm if another 20kb of text is forthcoming. Many sections come across as rather sparse and could be fleshed out. Has good structure and shouldn't be too hard to get to FAC. I'll drop in along the way. I began copyediting but really shouldn't do too much until more info is in. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How big is Geelong?

Apparently Geelong stretches from north of the You Yangs, to Queenscliff, to Barwon Heads, to Bells Beach. I'd suggest that that is a fact not commonly acknowledged by denizens of those areas.Greg Locock (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is important to clarify the difference between the Local Government Area City of Greater Geelong and the urban locality recognised as Geelong, Victoria; the subject of this article. The first is much larger than the second. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it goes back to the 'tourist brochure' comment - Lara, Leopold, Mound Duneed, Wandana Heights, and Lovely Banks would be the real border of Geelong. The other bits seem to be in the article because they have 'always been there'. Wongm (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos

The lead photo is downright nasty, and the third one of Grovedale is a bit bizarre. While the wife-swapping suburb may be of some interest to some people, to most people it just looks like a typical bit of newish suburbia. If anyone has suggestions for some better pictures to lead with I'll take them. How about a view of the waterfront wool stores? And down Moorabool towards the bay? or the town hall?Greg Locock (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree a better photo for the infobox could be found. I would strongly prefer a shot with water somewhere. Geelong is a port city. I would keep the suburbia photo however. There has been a recent request at Talk:Melbourne#Fix the images, the article looks crap ! for a similar photo. -- Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterfront looking towards city

Give Category:Views of Geelong and Category:Geelong a squiz. A photo from the Cunningham Pier / Smorgeys looking towards the city might be go, but I think you need a bit of 'elevation' to get more in - the helicopter rides are too expensive. ;-) I have some panos from Montpellier Park in Highton uploaded, but they don't really show enough in my mind, and are too wide anyway. How about this shot: from the waterfront for now?

Wongm (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very nice picture. Maybe a bit misleading though! How about a view from Rippleside across towards the waterfront? At least that is a view that everyone could see. I still disagree about Grovedale. It's too generic. Hey how about down by the river? Greg Locock (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep - the fishing boats are a bit misleading. There is a photo from Point Henry (in the article already), but that is a bit 'far away' - next time I am out Rippleside way I will have a look. On the Grovedale front, the photo would be better if it has the 'skyline' (or what one Geelong does have) in the background. Driving down Torquay Road today I noticed you can see St Marys and a few other buildings at the top of the hill, with houses stretched out in front. Wongm (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh the fishing boats are real enough (I sail with Alex the mussel man), it is just that you have cleverly framed the photo to make it look pictureseque. There's a terrific photo you can take driving back in from Torquay in a lightning storm. If you like that sort of thing. Well, hell, let's put your pretty picture in. At least it is fun. The current lead is just ug. Greg Locock (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)