Talk:Brunswick, Victoria

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

2004 messages[edit]

To the anonymous user who added the stuff on the Bombay Rock, sounds like an interesting venue...which particular ethnic groups used to fight it out there, and was there a live music score to accompany such brawls? --Robert Merkel 03:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moreland Council was not the first in Victoria to have a majority Green representation. No council in Victoria has ever had a majority Green representation. Moreland has one Green councillor out of nine, the other eight being notionally ALP (they have this thing about not actually endorsing councillors). Neighboring Yarra Council, which does not extend into Brunswick, has four out of nine Greens and they had the mayoralty for a while, but that's about all. Can someone please find out what was trying to be said and fix it? --User:MrPC 6 Oct 2004

Corrected the misinformation highlighted by MrPC --Takver 08:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A little bit of History of Brunswick (feel free to add it to the main text)[edit]

--144.139.89.106 11:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1838 and Before Brunswick was a small plateau tilting from a hill facing the Moonee Ponds Creek to the Merri Creek, timbered by stunted eucalypt trees, badly drained naturally and thus marshy. Aboriginals did not spend long in it and used it as hunting grounds for it had plenty of kangaroo and wallaby roaming over it.

It was very windy which no doubt caused the aborigines to name it Boort Moornmount Bullarto - very windy country". There are claims that there were Aboriginal camps oil the site of the present Town Hall and just behind the Brunswick Railway Station. These claims are on hearsay and even if correct, the camps were not permanent residences and the Aborigines seemingly regarding the area only as a happy hunting ground.

1839 Acting on the instructions of Robert Hoddle, chief surveyor, an assistant Darke surveyed the future Brunswick area. He marked it out in big blocks 1-1/2 miles long by 1/4 mile wide. A road was marked down the centre of the survey, much too narrow. The size of the blocks ensured that they would go to the rich and the shape of the blocks spreading horizontally across the area would ensure traffic chaos of the future.

1840 Land was sold at three separate auction sales. Most of it went to speculators. One man only, settled on his, another established a workable estate but did not work it himself.

1841 James Simpson the only original purchaser to settle on his land, did so mainly to supervise its division into allotments and the sale of such lots. He began by marking out two streets Carmarthen (later Albert) and Llandillo (later Victoria) Streets and proceeded to sell. The marshiness of the land on his block hindered sales. He left Brunswick in 1852 with the greater part of his block unsold. Thomas Wilkinson and a friend, E.P. Stone bought the central block on the eastern side of the marked block from the original purchaser. Stone left for elsewhere and surrendered the block to Wilkinson who proceeded to divide it into allotments for sale or rental. He marked the two streets - Albert Street and Victoria Street - which served as a right of way to the allotments.

1841 - December 27 First church in Brunswick opened. It was a Wesleyan Chapel, a small brick building on land donated by Thomas Wilkinson.

1842 - October First hotel in Brunswick, the Retreat Inn in Sydney Road. It had a weighbridge alongside. It served the stone-carrying bullock wagons which weighed in there while the drivers refreshed themselves at the inn. Miss Amelia Shaw was the first licensee. The inn was rebuilt in 1892 and became the Retreat Hotel. The weighbridge disappeared.

1842 Beginning of the main road to Brunswick. The New Sydney Road had been projected in 1841 and work on it began. The route was marked out and the removal of the trees followed with the smoothing of the surface. This work reached as far as Albert Street, Brunswick.

1843 William Lobb established a cattle farm on the hill on the north part of the projected main road from Melbourne. The hill became known as Lobb's Hill and the lane that ran along the farm as Lobb's Lane. In later days it would become Stewart Street.

1846 Post office established on Wilkinson's Estate. It was named after the name of Wilkinson's Estate, Brunswick which had been named from Princess Caroline of Brunswick, wife of King George IV of England. A plaque celebrating the event was installed on the front of the Sortino shop on the site in 1986. The road from Melbourne had by now hardened enough to be usable in Brunswick, except in wet weather. It became known as Brunswick Street in Brunswick.

1847 The main road reached Pentridge. It was then named Pentridge Road. There were drainage problems caused by the construction of the road and the parts on the west side were turned into marshes as the water was dammed up. The problem was met by constructing an open drain down Albert Street which gave some relief.

1849 - January Thomas Manallack, a Cornishman arrived in Melbourne. He owned land in Little Collins Street, Melbourne and also in Brunswick. He opened a brickyard and pottery in Philipstown. He taught John Glew how to make bricks. He operated until 1851 when he went to the goldfields with his son, Thomas.

1849 Michael Dawson, who had acquired the whole of one of the original blocks 1843, now completed the construction of his English style ivy covered mansion. The estate was named Phoenix Park, after the famous park in Dublin and Dawson gave his postal address as Philipstown which was a place in Ireland where a Repeal riot had taken place three years before.

1849 - June John Glew opened his brickyard in Hodgson Street, Philipstown. Within six months he was employing two men, he is the first known employer of labour in the brick industry in Brunswick. He ran the yard until the pit was worked out in 1857 when he closed it and opened a new yard elsewhere.

1850 Henry Search opened a retail butchers shop on the south-west corner of Albert Street and Sydney Road. It was the first retail shop in Brunswick. Search retired from the business in 1858 and it was taken over by Charles and Ebeneser Rosser and it remained in that family until the 1890s.

1851 James Whitby a Flinders Lane merchant erected a property which he named Whitby House. He named the estate Whitbyfield and the street that led to it became Whitby Street. Whitby had first come to Brunswick when he settled on a property at the corner of Pentridge Road and later Merri Street. This was in 1848. Gold Rush. Brunswick lay on the track to the goldfields. Would be diggers on their way to the fields coming from the populated suburb of Collingwood and other eastern villages, working their way to pick up the main roads to the fields at Essendon, found a lunch time stopping place at Pentridge Road. A set of shops sprung up to cater for their needs, a camp formed on the later site of the Cumberland Arms Hotel. It was accompanied by a bazaar like tent market where diggers were sold things required by them on the goldfields and supplies to take with them.

1852 Brunswick Hotel opened. Situated at the corner of Weston Street it caught the traffic coming from Collingwood en route to Essendon as well as that coming up from Melbourne. Licensed in 1854. John Heller opened his slaughteryards in Union Street, Phillipstown. That village had grown rapidly as the demand for bricks was facilitated by the rapid growth of Melbourne. The stone quarries of East Brunswick were worked to a point of exhaustion.

From "IT HAPPENED IN BRUNSWICK, 1837-1987" by Les Barnes

The Comfortable Chair[edit]

It is actually far enough up Lygon Street to be in Brunswick (or possibly Brunswick East). Still probably shouldn't be mentioned specifically here. --Robert Merkel 07:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's in Brunswick East, as Lygon Street is the border between Brunswick and Brunswick East. Cnwb 11:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This points to a problem with the way information is included in these kinds of articles. Yes, the boundary between Brunswick and Brunswick East runs down the centre of Lygon St. Does that mean we have to state that the No.1 & 8 trams are only in Brunswick when they are travelling north? Its true, but ... how technical does Wikipedia need to be? User:Eyedubya 11:55pm AEST, 25/4/07

The boundary between Brunswick and Brunswick East is not the centre of Lygon Street, but along the back fences of the properties on the western side of Lygon Street (ie any property with a Lygon St address is in Brunswick East). Trams 1 and 8 are therefore completely in Brunswick East. I notice someone has also mentioned the Quarry and Lyndhurst Hotels as being in Brunswick. These should be referred to in the Brunswick East article if one is being technically correct. Mustard Pot 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The issue is, how technically correct should we be? Eyedubya 22:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are separate articles for Brunswick East and Brunswick West, features in these suburbs should probably appear in those articles only. That's just my view on things - happy to go with any consensus. Mustard Pot 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, though because historically all three Brunswick suburbs were under the former City of Brunswick, some historical materials don't treat them as separate places, nor do some contemporary materials either. Eyedubya 12:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True - most materials around (and people) would probably have no idea what a suburb is let alone its boundaries. I'm sure North Fitzroy, Hawthorn East etc suffer in the same way. The three Brunswicks have been separately identified (with their own postcodes) at least since the 1930s based on old maps i have seen. Mustard Pot 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No heading messages from User:eyedubya aka User talk:124.191.205.72[edit]

To User: Sarah who reverted my edits to a previous version on the basis of 'POV', 'editorialising', 'unsourced references' etc, I have undone your edit because I my edit was made in good faith and I can provide evidence to support every single statement that I added. Much it is evidence that can be gained from visiting Brunswick itself, the rest can be gathered from the public record, local media, histories, demographic data, etc. As Wikipedia does not seem to have a standard of citation comparable with academic writing it is not clear to me how much you would require in relation to the edits of mine you have removed. Moreoever, the main addition was the section on 'multiculturalism' to replace the one on 'Controversy'. I note the 'controversy' section had been there since April 15 without amendment, despite the fact that it contains information which is unsourced or verifiable and potentially vilifying of an actual business. All of the material that I have added can be sourced, and before anyone attempts to change or delete it, perhaps they could ask for a clarification on this page first. --user idubya 25 April 2007 7:05pm AEST

I'm sorry but much of the text you are inserting into articles contains editorial comment, is not of a neutral point of view and is unencyclopedic. You need to provide sources for all that demographic info and claims of fact. Actually, you need to provide sources for all of it. Sarah 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is true, then the whole page as it is should be deleted. Very few of the statements in it have referencing of any kind. When I first started editing it, it was to remove a claim about a controversy that was completely anecdotal and without any referencing. In My understanding of the policy is that before merely reverting you should discuss the matter with the user who did the edit and also, if you believe you are an authority on the topic, then make specific edits to improve the article. Not all of the information my edits have provided are of the nature that you suggest, and certainly do not require any more referencing than the statements I altered in many cases - i.e. there was none! And the claims that there are POV problems with my edits suggest that you misunderstand the word 'neutral' - i.e. I made the edits in order to balance what I saw as bias in the text. user:Eyedubya 7:40pm AEST, 25/4/07

MULTICULTURALISM - Has it become the dreaded 'm-word' for some unknown reason?[edit]

I've noticed that edits containing anything to do with 'multiculturalism' are being removed from this article. Some explanation is called for - otherwise it can only be regardded as vandalism. Given that Brunswick Council had and Moreland Council maintains formal policies regarding the promotion of multiculturalism, celebration of diversity, etc and its demographic fact of life that Brunswick is multi-cultural, then it seems perverse to censor the use of this word in relation to this suburb. Perhaps User:Sarah or another administrator with an interest in this can explain Wikipedia's policy on this kind of thing? User:Eyedubya 12:20pm AEST 26/4/07
In addition to wanting to know which ethnic groups it was, is it an issue that this piece of information has been allowed to sit there for so long without any referencing? I realise that Wikipedia isn't supposedly the place for 'original research', but I do have it on good authority that at least some of the ethics would have been anglo-celtic youths. However, my source is someone who has signed a confidentialy agreement. (surely there were some good things about Nupedia and the commitment to expertise?) --User:Eyedubya 12:02am 26/4/07

Heritage deleting[edit]

I am going to delete in 5 days unless someone can find a good reason to keep it. As per WP:NOT#DIR Michellecrisp 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please state exactly which clause of WP:NOT#DIR you regard as applicable to support the case for such a deletion. In support of leaving the material for a judicious edit, it's worth noting that these items were placed in the article (and a number of others) following a discussion about the notability of a range of places mentioned in this and other similar place-based articles. As part of that discussion on notability, it was suggested by other editors that places with heritage significance were eminently notable because of the process by which such significance is ascertained. Eyedubya 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both of you in a way. The current list is unencyclopaedic but could be rewritten in a way which is not simply a directory listing - heritage listings are notable, but content about them is preferable to just noting its existence (which one could do on the relevant Heritage Council website). Orderinchaos 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is notable, but I don't think its current presentation meets:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted

I could alternately propose moving heritage in Brunswick to its own article. Michellecrisp 02:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at it is to consider how the information about heritage would be dealt with if all articles about neighbourhoods/suburbs/local places contained a section on heritage. Some places have more of it than others, but almost everywhere has something that has been formally assessed as having heritage significance. Heritage is thus one of those notable attributes that might be regarded as essential for inclusion in place-based encyclopedia articles. The question becomes how such information should be presented in each case, and under what circumstances a place has so much heritage that it warrants a separate article on the topic. As it stands, the sources of the information upon which the current presentation is based, are hard to use, since they are not ordered by suburb. As such, these WP articles are the only places that I know of that actually do present this information in such an accessible form - i.e. this 'list' (such as it is) is actually a useful resource for people interested to know about the topic of heritage on a place-by-place basis - with links that make it easier for them to follow up on heritage places that interest them. If this information were to be included in all WP articles about places, then the notability component of much of the information contained therein, as well as its usefulness overall, would be improved. Eyedubya 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is not all WP locality artices contain heritage. And there is generally a preference for some explanatory text with the most notable examples (as this is an encyclopaedia) rather than long lists. There is nothing wrong with creating separate articles linked to the main article, see Melbourne. Put it this way, if someone still wanted to know the Heritage of Brunswick on Wikipedia, they could first go to Brunswick then click on a link to the main article of Heritage of Brunswick. Michellecrisp 11:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - basically, write a potted summary that those wanting to browse Brunswick can view and obtain a superficial understanding of the issue, with a {{main|Heritage of Brunswick}} link at the top of that section. Orderinchaos 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, If having many heritage places isn't a characteristic if all localities, then a category would be useful for grouping localities with significant amounts of heritage places in them - so that people who are interested in heritage in Melbourne, Victoria or Australia can see at a glance which articles will be of interest from that point of view. I don't know if such a category exists, perhaps someone with more experience can advise, or create one? Eyedubya 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like an idea worth discussing. Perhaps the best place to discuss is Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places. I am still proposing a new entry for Heritage of Brunswick (no deletion of content). Michellecrisp 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Brunswick, 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brunswick, 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:

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) 21:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tinning Street silo[edit]

I see in the media that the Tinning Street silo will get an artwork of Jacinda Ardern painted on it. Maybe somebody would want to take a photo of the structure (link to its location) before that happens; taking photos after the artwork is finished will probably be a copy-violation (not sure about the Australian freedom of panorama rules). Schwede66 23:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brunswick,_Victoria&oldid=1195559380"