Talk:Parliament House, Melbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Melbourne / Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Parliament House, Melbourne 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-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Do we need another image?[edit]

Melbourne Parliament House.jpg

I have another image (taken by me) of this building. It's not pretty, but maybe with a bit of photoshopping...:) Anyway, just in case, it's here. Stevage 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut out the car and the street and it is probably better than the one there now. Xtra 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've cut out as much of the car and road as possible and uploaded the image as Image:Melbourne Parliament House edit.JPG. (In retrospect, I probably should have uploaded it as a replacement of this picture.) I'll try it out in the article and see how it fits. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it's better than the original one (I am of coursed biased since I took the first one). In any case it shows exactly the same aspect of the building. Adam 06:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the aspect, plus the new picture shows the tram wires. I'll put the original back at the top and start a small gallery at the bottom. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest 19th Century Public Building claim[edit]

I have ammended this, but it still requires a citation.

The statement was wrong. There was a larger 19th Century building even in Melbourne ! The Victorian Railways Administration building, constructed in the 19th Century and completed in 1896 next to Spencer Street Station [1] still exists and is larger. However it no longer functions as a public building (it was converted to private apartments in the 1990s). So there may still be a basis for the "largest 19th century public building claim", however it is dubious and would need to be cross-checked. It is a big world and I'm sure there are some big ones out there. --Biatch (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

SNIPER RIFLE SLITS IN THE SPRING STREET FACADE OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE.[edit]

When I was a small boy, of about 10 years of age, in 1950, I was living in Melbourne, Victoria.

As a metter of interest, my Mother pointed out to me two slots in the Spring St. facade of Parliament House, Melbourne.

They were readily visible, if you knew where to look for them, and from memory, they were about 25 x 5 cm in dimensions, and horizontal in aspect to a viewer.

My Mother told me that the slots were incorporated into the design of the Victorian House, to allow a rifle to be placed behind the slots to protect Parliament House in the event of civil insurrection.

In my business life between the 1970's and the 1990's, I took the opportunity of showing many visitors to Melbourne, these rifle slots.

I have absolutely no doubt that the slots in the facade of Melbourne's Parliament House used to be there. I clearly saw them many times. Yet, when I looked for them a few weeks ago, they are no longer there!

What has happened to the Victorian Parliament House "Sniper Slots"?

By the way, no, I am not a "nut".

Peter Roberts.

Brighton, Melbourne, VICTORIA.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.51.198 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 

Style[edit]

If possible, a link which describes the Architectural style, should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)