Talk:Mallee (region, Victoria)

Determining the Mallee area

As you will see on the article page I have begun to draw a map of the Mallee including what is referred to as the Loddon Mallee Region. At this stage I can not definitively determine if this map includes too much area to the south - that is are Campaspe Shire, Greater Bendigo Shire, Greater Goldfields Shire, Mt Alexander Shire and Macedon Ranges Shire part of the Mallee or not. The views of other editors would assist (with references please) I can then adjust my drawing to be more accurate. --VS ^talk 12:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Those shires you mentioned in the south (Campaspe Shire, Greater Bendigo Shire, Greater Goldfields Shire, Mt Alexander Shire and Macedon Ranges Shire) are definately not part of the Mallee. The Mallee area is bound by the Murray River to the north and east, the South Australia border to the west and a line running through Birchip to the south. Well that is what local residents believe. I think there is also this or a very similar description in Govt Land books.

Yes agreed the map and definition of Mallee make no sense and do not correspond to common usage (the map represents an administrative convenience). We should ditch it, this is a better map:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/vic/mallee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiafelix (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the population is now about 90,000. See the latest ABS release 2005-06. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.6.10 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for this information. I do not have any problem relating to your general map references (and I was clearly not totally convinced that some of the shires that you mention were not part of the Malee) but the suggestion relating to Birchip needs further consideration as it does not appear that the line running through Birchip is exactly horizontal or perhaps even correct. For example this map [1] which declared last year an Exceptional Circumstances (EC) case for the Eastern part of the Mallee appears to include Donald, Charlton, Boort, Mitiamo,and Echuca to the south of Birchip as part of the Mallee. Any further input would be much appreciated. --VS ^talk 07:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mallee, in one sense, is any part of Victoria where mallee vegetation is dominant. In another, it is the area that is dependant on Mildura and Swan Hill. The "Shire of Greater Bendigo" (sic) is certainly not part of the area. The district of "Loddon Mallee" is of course two areas - the Loddon Valley and the Mallee. Perhaps you should have tried using the Federal Division of Mallee as a base, which would also be wrong, but it would be closer. I think what you're looking for is the appropriate ABS region, though I'm not sure that's right either. matturn 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image has now been adjusted to give a better approximation of The Mallee region (and can still be adjusted as necessary - without unnecessary comment on the article page) - but still using some previous determinants. As I also expected (because this is the sense of it for all electoral divisions) but confirmed somewhat ambiguously by Matturn the Federal Division of Mallee does not assist much.--VS ^talk 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was a bit emotional, but VirtualSteve did edit a page so it was full of clearly incorrect information, when it was not before. Mentioning the "Shire of Greater Bendigo", something that has never existed, was a particularly clear sign he had little idea about what he was writing. The image caption was warranted, as there was no guarantee it's wrongness would be corrected quickly, if it all. The only other option I thought I had was to remove it - which in hindsight that would have been better. The revert wasn't warranted either; if it was a "modification" as the edit history records, then I assume the author wouldn't have gone to the effort of re-misspelling "wheat". 220.253.54.244 11:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (or more accurately: matturn 12:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC))

Glad to see you have come back on to the project in a somewhat more positive manner matturn. You did leave out several other positive options (other than obscure manipulation) however - you could also have (3) adjusted the map, (4) put in a new map, (5) left a message on my talk page (you would have noticed that I would be more than pleased to assist), (6) or written what you have now written in the opening paragraphs and the map would have been adjusted. As you may have now noticed when you look at the first entry above - I (we?) have been working on the premiss that previous editors (including myself) did not know the area very well and I was seeking the input of other editors who perhaps did have. No need to get emotional about it and I note that your second rewrite actually does assist quite well. But now a request (and politely if you may) can you tell me what else needs to adjust on the map that we are left with? --VS ^talk 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The second rewrite was almost identical to the first. The comment about the map was the only notable difference. You reverted all sorts of changes I made the to article, like spelling fixes and adding a national park to an incomplete list. Such reversions could easily be perceived as being quite "negative". You appear to have acted in a fairly irrational way, apparently under the influence of emotion... Last time I visited this article it said something similar to what it does now, though not as detailed - but without the huge mistakes (surely a negative) you added. And I did add comments about the map to the map itself. 220.253.54.244 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahmmm - 220.253.54.244 (or more accurately: matturn) I am not sure who you are referring to in the above comments. I don't want to see you getting quite so upset so can I just state again that all editors are trying to get this article up to scratch - and I appreciate that you are too. However referenced NPOV additions are the most important items now needed - for example see below to an adjustment that in this case I personally have made. --VS ^talk 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Referencing and NPOV

I have removed this sentence .... Some people living in Sunraysia would like to see a "Mallee" departmental region established so that they don't have to travel 300km to access certain state government services and administration from the article at this time as it certainly requires some relevant citation or reference before it can be added. It may or may not be NPOV and it may or may not be Original research. If 220.253.54.244 (or more accurately: matturn) could please get back to this talk page with a valid reference it can go back into the article. --VS ^talk 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The above comment has now been put into article in a much better way - and with a reference. Great work 220.253.54.244 (PS Matturn why not sign in so that your edits will appear even more legitimate and be counted against your user ID?)--VS ^talk 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mallee (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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819125756/http://dsdbi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0003/65235/Meaning-of-Regional-Victoria.doc to http://dsdbi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0003/65235/Meaning-of-Regional-Victoria.doc

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)