Talk:Melbourne/Archive 1

Walking tour

So, I'm really pretty unhappy with this walking tour stuff. Can we please break it down to the attraction listings format? It might be useful to do an itinerary like An afternoon in Melbourne on foot, or A walking tour of Melbourne's Central Business District, but I don't think this belongs in the main article. --(WT-en) Evan 10:00, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

I agree with the principle of what Evan said. A walking tour is really an itinerary. The only thing I'd change is the title -- something like Melbourne walking tours, Walks in Melbourne or Melbourne on foot. Such an article could act as a container for several walking tours. (WT-en) DhDh 11:03, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

Actually, Walks in ... might be suited for national parks and the like too, eg. Walks in Kakadu National Park. And this makes me think of having articles like Treks in the Himalaya... (WT-en) DhDh 11:07, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

So, I screwed up cos I plunged in before reading attraction listings. Then I read attraction listings and came back and changed the page. Now I discover that I caused unhappiness. I'm really pretty sorry. Hopefully though the article is better now and people are only a bit unhappy with it, but I had better check it again. :-/ (WT-en) Nurg 19:42, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

Sorry to make it sound so harsh! Don't take "unhappy" the wrong way. My only unhappiness is to see good work that needs to get changed.

To tell you the truth, I really liked the walking tour, but I think it's best for travellers to have articles in consistent format. It's more painful when the work is good than when it's slapdash. Anyways, I'd love to see the walking tour turned into its own article. --(WT-en) Evan 20:28, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

If anyone wants to make this itinerary, the place to find the original is User:(WT-en) Nurg's revision of 08:49, 26 Dec 2003. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:50, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)

Rail/public transport link

I have deleted "catch public transport" because a. the link isn't working and b. VicTrip seems to be the main public transport site. 202.154.157.115 21:10, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)

• The actual public transport site for Melbourne is [Metlink]. Victrip is good for around Victoria, however in Melbourne the public transport system is known as, and run by, Metlink.

Nepean Highway

I thought the Nepean Hwy went from Melbourne to Mornington Peninsula rather than Sydney. Isn't Princes Hwy the coastal hwy to Sydney?

That travel guide link

Hmmm.. I went to that site, and it doesn't look all that bad. I know that I'd rather have its author contributing the actual info to Wikivoyage, but what if I go to a bar because the link is on Wikivoyage, and then make a writeup about the bar. On the Geneva page we've left a well meaning but very poorly designed page in the links for some time just in case there's something useful in there (also cause I wanted the guy to think about contributing.) -- (WT-en) Mark 17:00, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)

Well, according to Project:external links, we normally just link to primary sources -- official Web sites for destinations, attractions, restaurants, bars, etc.

Wikivoyage is not a Web directory or link farm. It's a travel guide. I'm not convinced there's a good reason to link to another travel guide from ours. --(WT-en) Evan 18:30, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)

Huge city

I've listed Melbourne as needing attention because it looks like it's ready to be split into districts. There's already a bunch of sections that are beginning to get district headings: See and Sleep have sort of unofficially been split into districts by their headings. However, I don't know Melbourne well enough to do a split which is: sensible, not too fine-grained (say, 4-8 districts, rather than 30); and comprehensive. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 22:45, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)

My Travels

Hi folks,

I'd like to offer words and pictures from a few days' travels around Melbourne to Wikivoyage. If there's anything good in there (or in anything else I've put on my site) that fills a hole in Wikivoyage, grab it, or give me a shout and I'll rustle something up. You can use all of my Travel stuff under the WikiTravel Creative Commons licence. --(WT-en) Iain 13:16, 2 Mar 2005 (EST)

Chapel St

"While there is some reasonable food on Chapel St, South Yarra, travellers who are not into pretentious phallic symbolism may wish to avoid the place while the local automotive parade is taking place on Friday and Saturday nights (there are more genuine phallic cars in Williamstown on a Sunday afternoon). The clothes here are overpriced." Whilst I concede that this particular quote is both hilariously worded and absolutely true, I don't think it is appropriate for this page.

Are you aware of our 3-step procedure? 1) Click edit tab. 2) Change the item. 3) Click "save page". --(WT-en) Evan 17:22, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)

Yes I am, thank you. However, I wanted a concensus before I deleted it outright. Thanks for the great welcome.

It's an interesting question about WikiTravel's tone. To be honest I kind of like the phrasing; I think it's friendly, informative and offers insight into local culture. Personally, I really appreciate when guidebooks provide a glimpse into the rites and rituals of a city I'm travelling through. My only gripe is that it makes reference to shopping (which should be in the Buy section) and doesn't spell out any of Chapel Streets virtues, of which even its ardent critics admit there are some. How about: "Eclectic Chapel Street has a wide selection of restaurants and cafes and offers the chance to observe Melbourne's 'beautiful people' at play. Be warned, though, Friday and Saturday nights can turn into a logjam as phallic symbolism takes over and a parade of techno-blaring customised cars perform the young Melbournian ritual of 'Chap-lapping'." (WT-en) Allyak 01:58, 15 Mar 2005 (EST)