Talk:Marysville, Victoria

Unconfirmed fatalities

To Melburnian: I see that you deleted the sentence about unconfirmed fatalities. I agree that including information that is "unconfirmed" is not exactly a wise thing. However, I did flag the paragraph about the brushfire with a "citation needed" statement in the hope that some verifiable information would come our way soon. In the end, though, I feel you made the right move by removing this one sentence and leaving the rest of the paragraph intact. It's playing it safe while still allowing the possibility for further information, when verified, to be added. --Ericdn (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference! Have you considered making your own account on Wikipedia? --Ericdn (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

This string of reverts and counter-reverts is beginning to look like an Edit war, and those involved are also coming very close to violating the Three-revert rule. I strongly recommend the users involved to bring their issues to this talk page to discuss which edits are most appropriate for the article. By simply fighting back and forth with the "undo" button, you are helping absolutely no one, and you are coming no closer to proving your case. If I feel it is necessary to keep this article free from needless edits and vandalism, as well as to preserve Wikipedia's code of conduct, I will recommend this page for conflict resolution. Please don't risk getting blocked for violating the Three-revert rule and Edit warring. --Ericdn (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Past Tense

I notice that several people insist on changing the town to the past tense. There has never been any indication that the town won't be rebuilt. In fact, it would be extremely unusual if it wasn't rebuilt and no news report I have seen, and certainly no reference in the article, has suggested that this might be the case. Putting the town in the past tense is not just morbid, it's factually incorrect. Debate 木 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unless it is specifically mentioned that the town has been completely destroyed and/or abandoned, and will not be rebuilt/repopulated, it is incorrect to refer to it in the past tense. The present tense should be used until there is a verifiable source that can prove that the town no longer officially exists. --Ericdn (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be present tense unless the town charter, incorporation, or whatever equivalent legal mechanism exists in Australia, is abolished. We've had this argument numerous times on towns destroyed by natural disasters, and present tense always prevails. See this section for Greensburg, Kansas, which was erased by an F5 tornado a couple years ago. Antandrus (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Marysville's official status as a town [1] remains unchanged by recent events. Melburnian (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One House Left Standing

The "one house left standing" quote was early speculation which Fran Bailey has more recently repeated with appropriate caveats ("I've heard that"). That information is now known to be plainly wrong. It is not supported by more recent news reports, nor from the emergency services nor the major news outlets. There is more than one house left standing, as is obvious from the available videos, see http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/?search=[bushfire%20bushfires]. Of course, we don't have to base the article on the video because no recent information on Marysville uses the quote anymore, other than when quoting Fran Bailey. Debate 木 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim "I've heard that" is not a verifiable source and should never be used to support an edit made on Wikipedia. It is nothing more than heresay and rumor, at best. --Ericdn (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just correcting myself - the quote from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25024310-12377,00.html is "Marysville I understand, there's only one building left in the town.", which is lower down the page from the lead, which simply states "VIRTUALLY the entire township of Marysville in the Yarra Valley has been destroyed by bushfires. Victoria's Country Fire Authority (CFA) said there had been "significant structure losses" in the town, but everyone was safe." There were early reports using the quote which presumably is where she came to "understand" the situation. Regardless, Fran Bailey is not an authoritative source on this matter, especially given that the quote is not being repeated by the CFA or other directly involved source. Debate 木 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the known, rather than inserting speculation. There will be plenty of time to update the article with a highly detailed account of the events of the past couple of days. --Robert Merkel (talk) 21

56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

At the video source you gave there is a video called Marysville "wiped off the map" and it features the footage of a completely destroyed town. According to the narration, what hasn't burned - melted and people say it's all gone. I assume when you gave the link and said "There is more than one house left standing, as is obvious from the available videos" this video wasn't posted. It doesn't only come down to Fran Bailey quote, far from it. But OK I will exclude the quote and include numerous sources. We can't remove things per "Oh I don't believe this!" because it goes against all Wiki rules, you need verifiable sources for that not your view that journalists are making things up.--Avala (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that you read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. In particular, it is perfectly reasonable for us to assess the relative credibility of various sources. There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies that suggest that we must accept random newspaper articles regardless of what everyone else is saying. Newspaper articles are, in fact, often contradictory, especially in the early stages of an event. The simple fact that something has been published in a newspaper is not of itself sufficient grounds to quote it, and certainly when quoted it has to be quoted in context and not selectively misquoted. In this case, the misquoting is occurring by relying on a comment substantially down in the article rather than taking its context from the lead. In fact, the newspapers have always been careful to attribute the phrase to one, unnamed commentator (hence the fact that it's always had quotes around it). Regardless, where earlier quoted information is updated by newer information clearly the earlier information has been superseded. If you look at the main article, there are already more recent articles providing up to date information. Unfortunately I'm at work and don't have time to sort through them here for the purpose of updating this article. In any case, in the video I posted you can see for yourself from the aerials that several buildings remain standing. I'm not entirely sure why there is such a high demand for this one quote to be included, I can only assume that it sounds compelling. Compelling, however, is not the main basis on which information should be added to an encyclopedia, it has to be verifiable as well, preferably from multiple reliable sources. Debate 木 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that The Australian, The Weekly Times, Sky News Australia, the Geelong Advertiser, Brisbane Times, The Courier-Mail, ABC News are unreliable sources while an average wp user with his thoughts on the event is the most reliable thing we should look for? You need to reread WP:OR.--Avala (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A pile of rubble is still a town so long as it remains gazetted as such by the state of Victoria, in accordance with the Geographic Place Names Act 1998. At present Marysville remains gazetted, according to VICNAMES, Victoria's official Register of Geographic Names. The fact that some media outlets employ over-the-top rhetoric like "wiped off the map" does not alter this basic fact. Hesperian 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now reported as "almost destroyed" and "up to 80% destroyed."[2] So there's at least 20% of Marysville still standing, which with a starting population of 519 would suggest that's more than "one house."

This dwindling hyperbole in newspaper coverage is a good example of the perils of recentism. In the last 24 hours we've rushed in and declared Marysville gone, destroyed, a "former town", wiped from the map, de-gazetted, an ex-place, like the ruins of Babylon. We've based this on breathless media coverage, now replaced with slightly less breathless coverage which makes clear Marysville still has large parts standing. And given freehold ownership and probable insurance coverage, do we seriously doubt most of the town will be rebuilt in a few years?

To quote from a relevant essay:

All material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable from a reliable source. A reliable source has a good reputation for accuracy, and the source can be verified by other editors. However, with breaking news, reports are often made without the usual level of background checking, and are often superseded by later reports. Thus, when evaluating a source for reliability, attention should also be given to the stability of the source, considering whether the speed of publishing is likely to result in the source issuing updates in situ. Citing a source which subsequent corrects its information will result in wikipedia reporting incorrect information which is not backed up by the source it cites.

A great virtue of Wikipedia over paper encyclopedias is it can be updated for current events. But the disadvantage is visible here - our descriptions of Marysville as "destroyed" and a "former town" were well cited but factually wrong. Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well cited, but badly quoted. We removed all the qualifiers that were in the original reports. Still, no long term damage done. Ben Aveling 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and the current wording seems fine. I'm not a fan of "as of (date)" but as this is still an unfolding event I'll just live with it. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Channel 9 News late tonight reported that there were 12 houses left standing in Marysville.--124.171.177.56 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Channel 9 news is by no means a credible source. Ever seen the MediaWatch program on ABC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Railway

Is it possible to find another reference for the mention of a railway from Marysville to Healesville? The now defunct Australian Places web site is cited, but in fact this does NOT say there was ever a railway to Marysville (only that the railway to Mansfield affected the number of travellers passing through Marysville). The VR History web site shows railways from Melbourne to Healesville, and also to Mansfield and Alexandra, but not to Marysville; something reflected elsewhere on Wikipedia in: Mansfield railway line, Victoria and Healesville railway line, Melbourne. Suggest if no evidence of Marysville having a rail line can be cited, that mention of it be removed. --Danielbowen (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruno's in back!

I can confirm from personal experience that Bruno's is back up and running. The place is beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marysville, Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090211135038/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25035386-2862,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25035386-2862,00.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marysville, Victoria. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=152205
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130216172613/http://ridervid.com/rides/australia/black-spur to http://ridervid.com/rides/australia/black-spur
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130216172613/http://ridervid.com/rides/australia/reefton-spur to http://ridervid.com/rides/australia/reefton-spur

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)