Talk:Tecoma, Victoria

Supermarket

It says an Aldi is coming, I thought is was a Coles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supt. of Printing (talk • contribs) 04:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

McDonalds editing

What's going on?! What an edit war. The funny thing is that most of the anti-McDonalds edits seem to think thay are being neutral. The current info on the Maccas proposal is either biased or very selective. I propose deleting all references to McDonalds in Tecoma until ther can be consensus on NPOV. Supt. of Printing (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My concern was that the additions made more than half the article about McDonalds. That's completely undue. We obviously have some inexperienced editors in action. I understand their case, but adding massive amounts of content here won't help it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is far too much weight in the article being placed on the McDonald's issue. Remember that this is an encylopedia article and not a play-by-play of goings-on in the community, and it's certainly not a forum for promoting one side or the other. Unless the controversy has been noticed nationally, a couple of sentences, along with a link to the most reliable source, should suffice. ... discospinster _talk 18:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The proposed Macdonald's should not be mentioned in the article at all. My own suburb has a Macdonald's, and no-one has ever thought it worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article. And the one in Tecoma doesn't even exist! Maproom (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The question here is not whether the presence of a MacDonalds makes the suburb/town notable. Obviously it does not. The issue the anti-macdonalds lot want to raise is that they have mounted a huge campaign. As for whether the issue has been noticed nationally, it made the news here in Darwin without involving a crocodile. That is a pretty good example of 'getting noticed nationally'. When major corporations are allowed to overturn planning process and act in contravention of planning guidelines and against the wishes of the local population, that is an interesting situation.

I do agree of course that any entry must be NPOV and should have appropriate weight, not dominate the article. Some of the other features of the area such as the history of Mountain Ash harvesting and the historical significance of Mast Gully are also worth mentioning. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something balanced could be added to the article, but it must come from more than the sources that told you that McDonalds was "allowed to overturn planning process and act in contravention of planning guidelines and against the wishes of the local population". McDonalds has not been "allowed to overturn planning process and act in contravention of planning guidelines". The problem is the planning guidelines themselves. Many are unhappy with them, but that would require some careful reporting. I don't think loud public protests are part of the planning guidelines. As for whether McDonalds has acted "against the wishes of the local population", that would need some broad surveying. I'm not sure that has happened. Obviously some of the local population have protested loudly. I don't know how representative they are. Nor does Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The planning guidelines I refer to are the Yarra Ranges guidelines that state that the character of the street-scape of Tecoma (as well as Olinda and other identified locations) should be maintained, which would mean logically that the golden arches and modern building with its drive-through should not be dumped in the middle of the street. The process followed process and guidelines as far as the council planning meeting but the VCAT finding was in conflict with all the established policies of Yarra Ranges and directly in conflict with those guidelines in several ways (not just street-scape). The petition which TVAG collected received the signatures of a huge majority of the residents of Tecoma, I cannot remember the specific details, but the figure is something like 90% of the adults resident in the suburb. TVAG door-knocked the area which is a pretty thorough (although not unbiassed) survey. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise that you were one of those pushing the POV here. This is not the place for a debate, but as I understand it, VCAT can legally overturn council decisions, so no planning guidelines were breached. As for a poll, sources will help you there. But door knocking is not the be all and end all. I'll point out that teenagers in my local community (not that far from Tecoma) were using Facebook to run a petition to actually get a McDonalds at our local mall shopping centre. But, get some decent sources, and we can discuss this objectively. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not "pushing a POV" here. You dismissed my comment about the planning process out of hand so I replied to that. As I stated above I believe any mention of the issue would have to be watched for weight, and being a passionate issue for many we would have to be careful to maintain NPOV.

There were also a few teens in Tecoma campaigning against TVAG, but there is pretty good evidence to support the TVAG claims that popular opposition to the proposal was strong. The Yarra Ranges site does not give much detail [[1]], but I understand there were some hundreds of submissions opposing the development and about six in favour. Here is a link to the VCAT decision [2]. I don't know if anyone would have time to wheedle a appropriate summary out of that...

As far as my personal POV goes (and of course we all have one) I dislike the litter which comes from fast food drive-throughs, but other than that I don't have much of an opinion.

I remember a bit of a campaign for a Maccas in Emerald a while ago. Is that what you refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I just re-read your comment above and I see where our misunderstanding is coming from. You said "VCAT can legally overturn council decisions, so no planning guidelines were breached" which is true, except that I was using the terminology differently. By "planning guidelines" I meant the planning policies of the relevant local council. What you are referring to I would describe as the "planning process" which you are correct, was followed correctly. VCAT is the reviewing body and can rightly overturn Local Council decisions. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not Emerald. I get annoyed at the litter too. I was forced to eat at Maccas recently by a group of teenagers I'm involved with, and found the food bland and of a strange texture. (is that grey stuff really meat?) I am no fan. But we must find some decent sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

True. Is Rod Quantock a good source? Unfortunately I suppose not. He has some rather amusing observations on the topic he has shared at times. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My comments, for what they're worth, on the general opposition or otherwise to Maccas in Tecoma, based on many discussions with my large local clientel, is that most locals are against Maccas in Tecoma—or at least on that site—but not against Maccas in the hills per se. This is a view that seems to get little attention.Supt. of Printing (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's no surprise. These matters are covered initially by local newspapers, not often the source of the world's best journalism these days, so complexity is often overlooked. The sensational bits ("Locals take on multinational", etc) get picked up by bits of the national media, but in an even shallower, and often less accurate form. It's hard to find good sources for this stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

McDonalds has won the VCAT case to build, they have been granted a demolishing permit for the old dairy to the cottage. Friday 14th June, McDonalds reps & contractors turned off the mains power to those building. Demolishion of the building is said to happen within the next month. With the new store to be open by August 2013.

TatRattis (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a spelling mistake with McDonalds in the heading. It says "MacDonalds".

Mbt321 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2013

Please change: According to McDonald's Australia spokeswoman Skye Oxenham-Lupul, "It’s a sad state of affairs when the promises made publicly by community organisers that protests will be peaceful, free from verbal abuse, threats of physical violence and intimidation and not involving children or animals have proven to be empty".[5]

To: Marketing expert Dean Wilkie, from the Australian School of Business at the University of New South Wales told BBC News, "McDonald's stresses this idea of helping the local community as one of its core values, but the fact that they are going against the people of Tecoma in such a manner is to me inconsistent with what they say their cores values are. It creates a lack of credibility."

McDonald's told BBC News: "We have followed due process every step of the way to build a family restaurant on a highway that houses a number of food and service outlets. The area is appropriately zoned, we have an approved planning permit and we are moving forward.

Because: The first statement was from an old article that has been discredited. ref>ref> The BBC article is more credible and current, just published last week ad it is the BBC, one of the most respected news organisations in the world. Katealtizer (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be a reasonable edit request, but could you also provide a link to the BBC article/articles to use as a reference? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Partly done:. @Djapa84: she did provide a link to it, but it's hidden inside ref tags. The BBC source is already used in the article, in fact (FN4). @Katealtizer: I've removed the first statement, but not added the replacement. The point is that both of these are judgemental commentary rather than information, and therefore go against the need for a neutral point of view. I have also copy edited the whole section, which had a number of problems of presentation. By the way, the old source is still used for several other things in the article, and you haven't provided any reference to show that it's discredited. --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2014

Please change As of October 2013, the standoff is still ongoing, to As of October 2014, the standoff is still ongoing, Nicholas Valentine (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done – but can you provide a reference? a recent mention of the standoff in a local newspaper would do. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased McDonald's Section

The entire section relating to McDonald's is incredibly biased, particularly as the issue is contentious, and the legitimacy of notion that 9/10 locals didn't want the restaurant has been disputed by many. There is no need to refer to the specifics of the court details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Rayon (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

McDonald's Section Rewrite

I took it upon myself to rewrite the section on McDonald's. I'm not a Tecoma resident however coming upon this page I couldn't help but note how poorly written the section was. It was bloated, messy and read like a running commentary of events from someone who may not be unbiased. All that is needed on this Wikipedia page is a short summary of factual events and I feel like I gave that.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

I would like to add a photo I took of the Tecoma shops in the infobox, as there is currently no photo of Tecoma.

Tecoma, Victoria, Australia shops

NatoV (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Just to check if the semi-protection of the article is still needed? It's been many years since the controversy and it's not a current topic (at least of which I'm aware). Takerlamar (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)