Talk:Frankston South, Victoria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Frankston South, Victoria is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I suspect whoever began this article considered Frankston South to be a bit bigger than it really is! I've fixed up some things, but still am not happy with it. Hello to anyone reading this. ozzmosis 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What is here looks fine - although it could use more content. Why isn't it NPOV, anyway? --Commking 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I forget why I put that there. I'll remove it. ozzmosis 08:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankston Suburbs

This doesn't look right to me - Mt. Eliza is not due West? --Commking 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the table? The majority of Mt Eliza is west of South Frankston. ozzmosis 06:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm.. yeah.. From some parts of South Frankston, going West takes you into the bay.. where do we measure from? --Commking 01:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I chose the geographic centre. --ozzmosis 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that started this, and I pretty much did it so that it would register that there is a Frankston South. I wanted people to correct and update it so I knew it was being viewed. Thanks for doing so! -- User : Guest|Valmothg 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

None of the information in this article is sourced and it makes some very bold claims. Verifiability and neutral point of view are among the cornerstones of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that some of the claims are true (for instance the ABS 2001 Census spreadsheets for the two areas suggest this suburb is upper-middle-class while Frankston North is not), but that needs to be stated in NPOV language and clearly sourced (as for example many would disagree what "upper-middle-class" means). Claims about the school also come to mind, and this article used my bugbear word "leafy" twice - "leafy" IMO has no place in a Wiki article, its meaning in usage is unclear and imprecise. Orderinchaos78 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody is actually claiming the article is telling porkies, I hope we can deal with this without getting too anal about it. I'm not too comfortable with the "upper middle class" statement, but the rest of it looks OK to me. I'm not sure what the objection to "leafy" is either - I think most people understand what that means? --Commking 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "leafy" is imprecise and theoretically could apply to almost any suburb in Australia except the very newest ones. I know of suburbs which are in the depths of poverty (and even one Perth industrial suburb) that could easily be described this way, and correctly so. With the other bits it's not a question of what but how - if we can find sources for the claims and cite them, and ensure the language is factual, then the problem's fixed. I'm personally a big fan of incorporating (verified) local knowledge into articles, as I think it adds to character and understanding. Orderinchaos78 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of local knowledge. I want it to remain in this article - but how to reference it? i.e. Everybody knows the Frankston High zone is sought after, and affects property values. While you are not incorrect with your comments about "leafy", surely everybody understands what is meant? By all means, suggest an alternative. --Commking 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"The leafy suburbs" is a modern-day and somewhat pejorative idiom for the suburbs where the rich cultural elite live. Here is an example of it in use. There are lots more examples. Invokation of this idiom, intentionally or otherwise, should be avoided.

If you're trying to say that the suburb has a lot of rich, cultural elite living there, please just say so. If you're trying to say that the suburb has lots of trees and is well-shaded, then please find a way to say so without using the term "leafy".

Hesperian 02:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Leafy? I have no idea whether you mean the picture had a lot of trees in it or not. If it is a class word - drop it for something more descriptive. No, not everyone knows what is meant by it. Unclear. Imprecise. Needs correcting.SauliH 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean a lot of trees, and it's well shaded - areas around Humphries and Overport roads fit into this category. There's more bush up there, bigger blocks with more trees on them - simple. It's leafy. Again, if you don't like the term, then give me a better one! "Well vegetated" doesn't sound too good? --Commking 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)