Talk:Moe, Victoria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Moe, Victoria is within the scope of 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 Australian places.
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Jaidyn Leskie

I have added back the paragraph about Jaidyn Leskie as it relevant, neutral POV and referenced. The reason I added it in the first place was to replace the unreferenced, POV and irrelevent material on the incident. If it is removed I am confident that some editor would include an unsatisfactory reference to the incident.--Mattinbgn 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2001 census data

Hmmm, some census data has already been included (although it differs from what I found on the ABS website), however it has not been cited. I'm going to add some for info on population. Tinkstar1985 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Town or City

Someone made a change to the page (which I have reverted) stating that Moe is a city. Moe actually has a population of about 17,000 which makes it quite small in the scheme of things. If you have evidence, such as government documentation etc., that states that Moe is a city rather than town, please link it in the discussion group/add it as a reference prior to editing the page. If you do have a credible reference and can show then please change it back to city, with my apologies. That said, the only alternative to 'town' that seems like it would be appropriate is 'suburb', as in 'Moe is a suburb within the Latrobe Valley/Latrobe City (which includes towns such as Traralgon, Moe, Morwell, Churchill, Yallourn North, Newborough, Hernes Oak, Hazelwood, Tyers, Westbury, etc). The term 'Latrobe City', is actually the title of the shire. Tinkstar1985 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, "City" has two meanings in Australia
As can be seen from the above examples these are different things altogether and it is important not to confuse the two.
Since the development of new Local Government Acts in Australia in the early 90s, the official title of "city" is a stylistic choice only, without any practical effect (see Local Government Areas of New South Wales). If, for example, the Shire of Melton wished to call itself the City of Melton, it could with no legal effect on its workings (provided it followed the statutory process for doing so). What this means is that there is no longer any formal criteria to divide urban localities into "towns" and "cities".
My opinion is that an urban locality is a "city" when it is generally accepted by the wider community as being a city. That is: A city is whatever is called a "city" by the greater public. While this is a little vague, it should be suitable in most cases. I dont think anybody disputes that Melbourne and Bendigo are cities. However with borderline cases such as Moe and Melton, Victoria, I think the best course of action is to reach consensus based on demonstrated use of the term "city" or "town" (or suburb even) when describing these places by the wider community.
My 2c--Mattinbgn/ talk 08:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point Mattinbgn, however the point I meant to get across (sorry I wasn't very clear) is that even if you were to go with the idea that 'Latrobe City' is a proper city, Moe is only a small part of it and thus should not be termed a city on its own. It might however be called a suburb, rather than town. I am happy with either suburb or town.
If Moe were to be called a city of its own, then other towns like Yallourn North and Newborough would be just as entitled. I would also like to point out that it would be quite unusual and remarkable for a 'city' to not even have population enough to have its own high school, that it would actually need to share one located in the next town (city?) over, being Newborough. I would not call Moe a borderline case. The previous, now reverted reference to Moe being termed as a city is the only occasion I have ever seen or heard Moe referred to in that way. Tinkstar1985 08:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
While I am indifferent as to whether Moe is called a city or not, I don't see that it necessarily follows that if Moe is a city, that Newborough should be called a city. It is quite possible to have a range of types of urban locality (i.e. city, town, suburb) in a Local Government Area, regardless of whether the LGA is styled a city or otherwise. Just because Shepparton is a city inside the City of Greater Shepparton doesn't necessarily make Dookie a city as well. Nor does it make sense to call Dookie a suburb as it is not contiguous with the Shepparton urban area. Dookie is best described as a town that happens to be in the City of Greater Shepparton LGA. An LGA styled as a city and a city as generally understood are two entirely separate concepts. Another example is Maryborough, Victoria. Maryborough is described as a city, yet it is located in the Shire of Central Goldfields LGA.
To look at the specific example of Latrobe City, it seems clear to me that it is an artificial "city" created for Local Government purposes as part of the Kennett amalgamations and is made up of at least three places that could possibly be described as cities; Moe, Traralgon and Morwell. Moe, to my mind, is at least as good an example of a city as Swan Hill and Benalla. I don't see Moe's location in the Latrobe City as being relevant as to whether is a city in the second sense of the word I described above. Cheers--Mattinbgn/ talk 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As fun as it is to argue with you over the semantics, I think the point is being missed. One person was of the oppinion that Moe should be called a city. There has been no evidence to back this up besides what you have said, which seems to be that anywhere can be called a city, should someone feel inclined. I am aware of the difference between a city as in LGA and a city as in an important or densely populated urban area (take a look at wiki article City. Moe is neither of these, nor are Morwell or Traralgon (although out of these, if one were to be termed a city it would be Morwell rather than Moe, as it is both geographically central within the Latrobe City, and possesses the regional Justice Precinct and Art Gallery, among other things). Tinkstar1985 00:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Last comment as I think we are talking at cross purposes. Why does the geographical location in the LGA and facilities of Morwell have any influence on whether Moe is a city. If Moe is a city it would be on the basis of Moe's size and characteristics and how Moe is percieved by its residents and the wider public. There is absolutely no reason why Moe and Morwell can't both be cities. I also feel you have created a caricature of my argument by claiming that "...anywhere can be called a city, should someone feel inclined." which is not what I said. I said that a city is what is called a city by the general public. As I said, this may be difficult to define but not impossible, should evidence be provided from reputable sources. In the case of Moe , this article describes Moe as a town and is one piece of evidence that Moe is a "town" rather than a city. While subjective, I don't know of a better way and I don't see how it is any less subjective than the method you have used.
As I said earlier I am not concerned about the specific case of Moe. I am hoping to arrive at some criteria for general use in Australia for defining urban units as cities or towns with at least a little more rigour than individual editors opinions. At the least this debate has helped me clarify my thoughts even if we agree to disagree. Cheers--Mattinbgn/ talk 06:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a definition in WA that 20,000 is a city for planning purposes (i.e. independent of LGAs) - not sure if this applies in other states. If so, Moe wouldn't quite qualify on the above as it's not big enough. Orderinchaos 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Due to the fact that Moe's LGA (latrobe city) was considered a city by state government in year 2000, Moe (and Morwell, and Traralgon) has gained rights to consider themselves a city. Regardless of size, or characteristics, we have been proclaimed a 'city' People down this way don't see moe as one town, they see all 3 towns (moe, morwell, traralgon) as one large, linked city. Thats how I see the technicality anyway. ClEeFy 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't think my edit would lead to all this. Here's a reference: the Latrobe City website itself [1]: "1963: Moe is proclaimed a city" or something like that.GSTQ (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving the page as "city". I know that it is incorrect, but I'm not going to keep arguing about it or get involved in an edit war. "People down this way" have a range of opinions, and ClEeFy, that is not my oppinion. I "go into town" when I go to Moe, I don't say, "I'm going into the city". I don't think there is anything wrong with the term town, nor with using it to describe Moe.
As for the reference to the council website, the term city used in City of Moe (including Moe, Newborough, Moe South and Yallourn Heights), and later used to describe the current wider grouping of towns, Latrobe City, is simply the term for the LGA. You may also notice from that website that the term city hasn't been used to describe Moe since it became a part of La Trobe Shire (now Latrobe City). This is bad referencing and should be removed, even if the term city is maintained in the article. At a stretch, and to incorrectly paraphrase the council website, Moe is a former city. The website only states that in the LGA sense, Moe used to be a part of City of Moe, but is now a part of Latrobe City.
However, if you feel strongly about it, keep the article how it is. Like the bard says, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet" - or in this case, the odd whiff of papermill stink. Tinkstar1985 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Newborough schools

I'm just wondering what the consensus is about including Newborough primary schools in the Moe article. This is a grey area because I have had to include the two high schools, Lowanna and Lavalla which neither now have a Moe campus, but are the closest high schools to Moe, being located in Newborough. I thought a good way of working it out would be based on where the majority of Moe students attend - and this would rule out the Newborough primary schools. However, if Newborough primary schools are to be included then the Catholic school, Immaculate Heart of Mary school, should also be included. However, I think that the Newborough primary schools should be included in the Newborough article, and I will rectify this. Let me know what you guys think. Tinkstar1985 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)