Talk:Melbourne Star

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images?[edit]

Does anyone have a more recent photo? It's almost complete.Wai Hong (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the builder HansenYuncken not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.200.45 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now added, feel free to add any further details yourself Melburnian (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any photos of the views that are not taken by a professional photographer? The southern star is placed at the edge of an industrial area to the west of the city as part of a ambitious docklands area regeneration project. From ground level it looks ideally placed for a view of the container terminal and not a lot else. I would like to see how the view compares to say the Rialto Towers or the Eureka SkyDeck.

When I checked on 1 March 1009 the southern star is to reopen but the work will take up to 6 months to fix Press release Teddnalex (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. This move seems to have occurred before, but I have done it again on the basis of this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Star (observation wheel) → Southern Star (observation wheel) –

I accept that. However, I feel that the obvious natural disambiguation candidate isn't desirable, for the reasons I've already given above and below. 94.196.212.197 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC) - previously 94.196.19.27[reply]
The disambiguator (ie 'observation wheel' when it's in brackets) can't be capitalised, as when it's used separately it isn't a proper name (like 'wheel' and unlike 'Ferris' in 'Ferris wheel') which rules out Southern Star (Observation Wheel). 94.196.212.197 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) - previously 94.196.19.27[reply]
Clarify: No capital 'O'. "Southern Star Observation Wheel" hasn't been ruled out. Just because other wheels have a certain name - doesn't mean this one should follow suit. -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean no capital 'O' and no capital 'W'? Also, I'm not simply suggesting the naming of other wheels sets a precedent for this one, as their individual naming circumstances are clearly different. What I am saying is that the differences that result are confusing and misleading, as I've already explained. 94.196.0.103 (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC) - previously 94.196.19.27[reply]
Given the problems with the alternatives, and bearing in mind that there currently is no primary topic, plus the possibility of this becoming the obvious primary topic when the wheel reopens, maybe it's the best compromise. 94.196.212.197 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC) - previously 94.196.19.27[reply]
Best option is actually, "Southern Star Observation Wheel," considering it's referred to as the latter - and there is no real problem with this alternative (Wikipedia wise). There are 17 other "Southern Star" topics that also have a possibility of becoming primary topics. -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that there is no real problem, for the reasons I've already given. Also, only 4 other topics require disambiguation of the name 'Southern Star', not 17. See Southern Star. 94.196.0.103 (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC) - previously 94.196.19.27[reply]
Yes, we understand that you disagree. You don't need to respond to every single comment.--Cúchullain t/c 13:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe it's not, bearing in mind WP:BALL. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Southern Star (observation wheel). This is the most pressing problem and there seems to be consensus to fix it. No prejudice against a future RM to deal with any of the other less important issues raised above (good luck) but the lack of consensus there should not prevent fixing the more important problem. Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reconstruction section[edit]

In the Reconstruction section there was a reference to the likely opening date, quoting a private individual self-described as "a Docklands resident and a budding science communicator". I have replaced that with a mainstream reference from The Age newspaper.

Have dated the change of name to Melbourne Star, April 2013, based on examining the source code of the Melbourne Star website to see when they updated it with the new name. Awaiting notification of exact date from the owner's representative. Melbourne3163 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update re the change of name to Melbourne Star. The name was changed on 27 April 2013, as advised via an email from the PR firm for the wheel. Not sure how to provide a reference for this as it is an email to me, not a public document. The PR person advised they did not issue a press release for the name change. Melbourne3163 (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

I requested that the undiscussed move from 'Melbourne Star' to 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' be reverted at WP:RM 'Requests to revert undiscussed moves' as follows[1]:

[Melbourne Star Observation Wheel -> Melbourne Star]... Moved without discussion, original name was correct per WP:COMMONNAME and as used in running text on official website [2], and per London Eye, Singapore Flyer, Star of Nanchang, etc. Use of 'Observation Wheel' would only be appropriate if this were simply 'Melbourne Observation Wheel' (per Suzhou Ferris Wheel, etc) NOT 'Melbourne Star', or possibly if further disambiguation was necessary (as it was with the previous name, Southern Star Observation Wheel), which it clearly is not. EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE in Category:Ferris wheels and its sub-categories is 100% consistent with this rationale. Thanks. –

27.55.199.195 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Star → Melbourne Star Observation Wheel – I feel that Melbourne Star doesn't clearly encapsulate the subject matter. Melbourne star could be anything; the name of a star, a prominent person from Melbourne, a prominent Melbourne sports person or any number of other things. The simple addition of the words Observation Wheel effectively tells any reader what the subject matter is about. That is the reason I submit that this change should be made Melbourne3163 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the title doesn't need further disambiguation. See London Eye for a similar example. Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This thing's common name at the moment is "that silly wheel at Docklands that broke down and looks like it might never operate", or something similar. Nobody calls it Melbourne Star. In contrast, the name London Eye is very well known all around the world. Maybe the Melbourne one will gather more fame, but right now the only sensible thing to do is describe it properly in its title here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one actually calls it this name? Hot Stop talk-contribs 08:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's intended as some sort of rhetorical question, but it's not working for me. What point are you trying to make? HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just wondering if this is the common name or not. If it isn't, I would agree that a better name is needed. Hot Stop talk-contribs 08:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hot Stop is correct to say the title doesn't need further disambiguation (to be accurate, it doesn't need any disambiguation at all), because it's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and there's nothing to disambiguate it against, nothing else on the dab page currently has its own article. 27.55.134.179 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a look at sources like Wheel's reopening at least six months away - Retailers hang on as operator says Southern Star Observation Wheel at Docklands won't open until the second half of 2013. It was called Southern Star Observation Wheel back in 2008, as was this article. "..Observation Wheel" is not just random verbiage, it's the bit of the name which has stayed constant, would be guessing to speculate whether the owners consider it is needed for disambiguation or consistency or why, but it is still part of the name and that is reflected in print sources too. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: prior to the wheel being renamed, the article was at Southern Star (observation wheel), not Southern Star Observation Wheel. It couldn't be at Southern Star because disambiguation was needed. 27.55.173.196 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Melbourne Star (Observation wheel) and Melbourne Star (Ferris wheel). Melbourne Star is very clearly the current WP:COMMONNAME and there's absolutely no realistic prospect of that changing unless the wheel itself is renamed again. Obviously, neither Melbourne Star (Observation wheel) nor Melbourne Star (Ferris wheel) have any prospect whatsoever of ever becoming the WP:COMMONNAME. The only reason to ever use a disambiguator in parentheses is to disambiguate against other WP:PRIMARYTOPIC candidates, and in this case there are none. 27.55.135.54 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that your claim that "Melbourne Star is very clearly the current WP:COMMONNAME" is very clearly wrong. Have you any evidence at all that the bulk of people in Melbourne, or Victoria, call it that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME states: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." 27.55.135.54 (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know what common name means, but there is no evidence that Melbourne Star is the most commonly used name when talking about this Ferris wheel. Snappy (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is the usage in the English-language reliable sources. 27.55.130.252 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any sources. Just saying that is it, doesn't make it so. Snappy (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't? 27.55.201.57 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am. If there are reliable sources to suggest otherwise, then please provide them. Snappy (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are seriously suggesting that the WP:COMMONNAME is not 'Melbourne Star', then what are you suggesting that it actually is? 27.55.211.74 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I told you that earlier. It's "that silly wheel at Docklands that broke down and looks like it might never operate", or something similar. It might more nicely be known "the Docklands wheel" or similar, but the current commercial name is simply not well known at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Note that "if the name ... changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." 27.55.211.74 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, find some such sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply providing sources for the current name isn't going to get the name changed. To move the article, we need to come up with a name that is more frequently used in recent English-language sources than the current name. 27.55.211.74 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the IP won't get any sources, he is just saying they exist and they prove his point. Its quite clear that the current common name is the "Southern Star". The recent change to "Melbourne Star" is too new to have caught on. Google hits prove this to be true. Snappy (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If by "common name" you mean WP:COMMONNAME, then it is wrong to say it's "quite clear that the current common name is the 'Southern Star'" because WP:COMMONNAME states that "if the name ... changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." You suggest that "Google hits prove this to be true" - the same applies to 'Melbourne Star' if you take into account (per WP:COMMONNAME) the fact that it is the new name. 27.55.217.10 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No sources (frustratingly) have been provided here at all for what the common name is. I am reasonably sure that the proposed landing place for the article is not, however, the common name under any circumstance. "Melbourne Star" could be anything, I guess, but that's why we have articles, to explain what things are. Red Slash 15:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That fact it could be anything is irrelevant, as this is what it is. We only disambiguate to distinguish things with the same name from each other, not to provide further information. That's what the text of the article's for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 'Melbourne Star' is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, as used in running text on the official website [3], and per London Eye, Singapore Flyer, Star of Nanchang, etc. Use of 'Observation Wheel' would only be appropriate if this were simply 'Melbourne Observation Wheel' (per Suzhou Ferris Wheel, etc) NOT 'Melbourne Star', or possibly if further disambiguation was necessary (as it was with the previous name, Southern Star (observation wheel)), which it clearly is not. EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE in Category:Ferris wheels and its sub-categories is 100% consistent with this rationale - the same rationale I supplied in the #Article name section, above this one, when I requested the undiscussed move to 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' be reverted. Thanks. 27.55.159.219 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'm so glad you linked Commonname, in case anyone missed it the previous ten times its been linked it in this short discussion. Secondly, claiming that because the official website uses 'Melbourne Star' proves that this is the common name is nonsense, this website is a primary source. Thirdly, on the same page on the website it quite clearly says 'Obervation Wheel' underneath 'Melbourne Star'. The text is a bit smaller but according to your logic, 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' must be its commonname then. Snappy (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' is clearly the official name, 'Melbourne Star' is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. Even the official website uses 'Melbourne Star' more often than the full official name in running text (on this page, in running text, the official website uses 'Melbourne Star' six times, 'the Star' four times, and 'Melbourne Star Observation wheel' just once). The same is true of recent English-language reliable sources in general. 27.55.161.41 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear to you maybe but not to me. The Melbourne Star website is a primary source and therefore is inadmissable. WP:COMMONNAME (just linking again in case anyone missed the last dozen times), says: "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". These sources are claimed to exist but have NOT been provided. Snappy (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state or infer that the official website is not a primary source. My point was that "Even the official website uses 'Melbourne Star' more often than the full official name in running text ... the same is true of recent English-language reliable sources in general". For the proposed move to succeed, evidence that the majority of recent English-language reliable sources demonstrate that 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' is the WP:COMMONNAME, and not 'Melbourne Star', is needed. 27.55.144.51 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re 23:42, 7 September 2013, comment, it is difficult to provide too many references for the Melbourne Star Observation wheel, as it has not been in the news that much while undergoing its excruciatingly slow rebuilding (I live in Melbourne). Here are three recent references though:-
Age newspaper
Dockland News
Herald Sun newspaper
Melbourne3163 (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles supports 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' as the WP:COMMONNAME.
The Age [4] uses 'Docklands wheel'/'Docklands "wheel"' five times, 'Docklands 'white elephant' ' once, 'Docklands observation wheel' once, 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' once, and 'Southern Star Observation Wheel' once.
Dockland News [5], in a very brief article specifically about the change of official name, which must therefore be expected to contain exceptional emphasis on the official name, uses 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' twice, 'Southern Star Observation Wheel' once, and 'Southern Star' once.
Herald Sun [6] uses 'Southern Star Observation Wheel' once and the proper name 'Melbourne Star' once (the actual usage is 'Melbourne Star observation wheel', the same as saying 'Melbourne Star Ferris wheel'). It does not use the proper name 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' at all.
Here is a better example (primarily running text, as opposed to just photo captions, and which does not discuss the change of official name) from the Herald Sun [7] - it uses 'Melbourne Star' three times and 'Docklands wheel' once. It does not use 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' at all.
27.55.147.54 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon my ignorance, but can I ask how a discussion like this is finalised? For me it is definitely not an 'earth-shattering' thing, I just think it is worth changing the name for the reasons I raised in my original post. At some point the discussion ends, there is, or is not, a change and we all move on. How is that facilitated? Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Requested moves/Closing instructions 183.89.165.188 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Melbourne3163 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It's an encyclopedia[edit]

Is it really relevant for an encyclopedia to record minor glitches that occur in a privately owned business? For example, the 24 January 2014, entry that records that this business has had a software problem. Sure, record things like safety issues but let's not descend into some chronicle of mundane matters. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for the owners, this wheel has made the news far more often for its problems than for its successes. The problems are really what make it notable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melbourne_Star&oldid=1195605692"