Talk:Port Phillip

	Australia portal Port Phillip 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Names and definitions

Isn't Port Phillip Bay technically a gulf? Anyone know for sure? Hypernovean 12:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bayside, how did you decide that Port Phillip without Bay is the correct name? I've seen it referred to with Bay just as often as without, if not more. Remember that Port Phillip is also a Local Government Area. Hypernovean 12:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is a body of water that contains many bays - official charts of area call the body of water Port Phillip. You are correct that common usage uses the term bay but it is not correct.

I also am unsure about the definition of gulf - will do further research and let you know. bayside

I think it should be classified as a bay, as it gets called that so much, and Port Phillip without the bay on the end could be anything, even the name of someone.

It is absurd that this pedantic nonsense is being accepted. Even the government website cited as the source of the so-called "official name" uses the term "Port Phillip Bay" when referring to it in actual usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googsey (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is any technical difference between a gulf and a bay. Port Phillip is always refered to locally as "the bay", which is why it is so often incorrectly named as Port Phillip Bay. Adam 11:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Geographic Place Names Register of Victoria (at [1]), Port Phillip is an "Official Place Name", and Port Phillip Bay an "Official Alternative Place Name". Philip J. Rayment 16:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Updated link to VICNAMES here:[2]. Port Phillip Bay is clearly "alternative", not "incorrect". Lainagier 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done a minor tidy up... however despite what the Vic Place names book says about Port Phillip Bay being an alternative name I reckon it is no more correct than writing ' I Would of' instead of 'I Would have' FDrummondH (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly by definition, its more a lake or a gulf than it is a bay. I was compiling a list of geographic features of the bay (like; rivers, beaches, bays, points, etc) and came across a bit of a paradox, Port Phillip can't have tributaries like rivers and creeks if its a bay, that would suggest that its fed by the ocean. Am I just insane, can a bay or a lake have tributaries? Surely streams of water flowing into lakes or bays contribute water to them? But that's beside the point, I don't think its a gulf because that definition is generally reserved for larger bodies of water that are quite open and part of other oceans, basically small oceans. Lakes are not connected to oceans, or can they be? If so, Port Phillip must be a lake, if not, its a bay. Nick carson (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formed only 10,000 years ago?

As it states here: "Port Phillip was formed about 10,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age, when the sea-level rose to drown what was then the valley of the Yarra, which flowed down what is now the eastern side of the bay". If this is the case, why do we have such sandy beaches? I was under the impression that sand takes in the order of hundreds of thousands/millions of years to form? Is thousands enough? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the figure of 10,000 years indicates that the bay has been around since the last ice age when sea levels rose again. There has certainly been water in the Port Phillip basin before. I found a paper analyzing the sediments in the bay and it suggests that the sandy beaches were all deposited in the last 6,500 years and that the oldest marine sediments are at least 35,000 years old. Maybe someone who knows a bit about geography can point us to some good sources on this subject? --bainer (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the sand would have been around a lot longer than the last ice age. Sand really refers to a particular grain size of grated rock; big grains = gravel, tiny grains = clay, medium grains = sand. Wash the organic matter out of soil and you are left with grated rock. The south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne are built on sand. The beaches are just this sand, with the organic stuff washed out, piled up by the waves. The beaches are young; the sand is not. Maias 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

miles?

why are we using miles here, when australia only use kilometres?

depth

Why does it say the deepest part of the bay is only 24m? I was diving there today deeper than that... I would edit it but not sure how deep it is. At least 60m for sure though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.69.232 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Ok well I found out the answer to my question. :] Port Phillip Heads is not considered part of Port Phillip Bay and it gets down to over 90m there but not inside the bay.[reply]

I'm new to this so I hope my comment is going in an appropriate spot! The depth of Port Phillip Bay is definitely greater than 24m. The popular dive location Portsea Hole which lies about 1 km offshore from Portsea Pier is around 33m deep. Many thousands of divers have dived this location and could confirm the depth here. I have personally dived to 50m within the Bay (not at the entrance) at a site called Sanctum Reef. On our dive we did not go to the bottom of this site so the depth is something greater than 50m. This dive charter website lists at least 2 sites within the Bay as being 60m - Sanctum which I have already mentioned and Spec Reef (Spectacular Reef) is also listed as 60m. http://www.divevictoria.com.au/?q=node/2

BlueDevilfish

BlueDevilfish (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct Prisons?

Why is Port Phillip Bay in the defunct prisons of Melbourne category? Shelbypark (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The about the early penal colony? Wongm (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just me, but penal colony doesn't equal prison. The article doesn't make any mention of the fact there was a penal colony of Port Phillip - other than the category listing at the bottom of the page. Shelbypark (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water condition on 2010-11-20

The water in the bay looks brown and outright abnormal, probably due to some form of algae bloom. Does anybody have any information on this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.134.106 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Kilda Beach View.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:St Kilda Beach View.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1803 settlement

The historical information on the 1803 settlement is largely duplicated in Sullivan Bay, Victoria, History of Victoria, History of Melbourne and Port Phillip. It should be in one place. I suggest History of Victoria. Billingd (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Should the main image (top) be an actual map rather than a picture of the view? - RusselNorthrop (Talk2Me--Contribs) 03:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Port Phillip/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

First time in a talk page.. hope I am doing this correctly.... I have just done a minor tidy up... however despite what the Vic Place names book says about Port Phillip Bay being an alternative name I reckon it is no more correct than writing ' I Would of' instead of 'I Would have' FDrummondH (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Port Phillip. 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: 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) 05:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First World War

Port Philip is an important location in the context of WW1, as per this?

https://maritime-executive.com/article/world-war-i-australia-fired-the-first-shots

The article doesn't seem to have any mention of this historical event.

Bolding of Aboriginal name

MOS:BOLDSYN applies only to "significant alternative names". The examples provided are commonly-used alternative names. I'm not convinced this reaches the threshold. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]