This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm glad that someone has moved the culture section to a separate article, however it would be helpful if there was at least a brief summary of the section rather than just a link to separate page. 61.68.149.210 11:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody from Oz put something in the History section to explain how and why the local elected officials were twice replaced for a while by appointed commissioners? The city's own page [1] is damned coy about how and why the State did this. -- Orange Mike 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
When you look at Location it says that the distance to Sydney is 876km. When you then click on Sydney the distance to Melbourne is 697km. There is a difference of almost 200km!!! Haven't checked distances with other cities.
Michael, you are pretty well on the money. A sign in Sydney Road, Brunswick, near the corner of Barkly Street, said "Sydney 857" as at 13 Sep 2007. That makes it about 861 by road. About 25 years ago a nearby sign said "Sydney 880". Walkingmelways 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted to the offical Estimated Resident Population (ERP) figures. Both the estimates and the raw figure are based on the 2006 census. The difference is that the raw figure gives the number of people in Australia on 8 August 2006 who were listed on a census form as usually living in the Melbourne Statistical Division, while the ERP estimates the number of people usually resident in Melbourne on 30 June 2006, allowing for census undercount and residents temporarily overseas (as well as births/deaths/migration between 30 June and 8 August). I think the ERP is the more appropriate figure in this case, but if anyone does reinstate the raw figure, make sure you use the correct title for the reference - don't just change the link. JPD ( talk) 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The Bureau of Statistics projections are utter rubbish, as usual. At the current growth rate of 1.06 % - which is easy to maintain given the Third World is an infinite source of population in practical terms, Melbourne will reach close to 4.7 million 2021 and and about 5.5 million by 2031. More likely than not it will easily surpass these figures.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur ( talk • contribs)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there is a lack of references. These statements require inline citations:
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As little improvement has been made in the past two weeks, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent rev: [2]
"sporting and cultural capital" versus "fashion capital"
Which one? I would have to say sporting. Wongm 08:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeking views about whether the "Melbourne viewed from Mt Dandenong" panorama image (see User:Peter_Campbell#Panoromas) is worthy of inclusion in the article. One view expressed against is that it is a "poor quality panorama from mt dandenong - not very encyclopaedic as you can barely see any part of melbourne other than a couple of the outer suburbs). In favour is that the image depicts a view and sunset over Melbourne with features such as the Eastern Suburbs (outer an inner), downtown and Port Phillip Bay visible. I am working on resolving the stitching/exposure variation. Please indicate below whether you "support" or "oppose" the inclusion of this image. Peter Campbell 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Taking onboard the feedback on the quality of the panorama, here is an alternative shot that more clearly shows the CBD and the inner eastern suburbs. Peter Campbell 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose both of these. The first for all the reasons already listed. The second for some of the same reasons: unclear shot, doesn't show Melbourne much at all, hard to see that it adds much to the article. -- RdR2007 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Another though on this - if you go up on a clear morning you should be able to get a photo that will show everything clearly, rather than clouds and everything backlit. Wongm ( talk) 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
An almost useless but interesting piece of trivia: According to some maps (eg. Google Earth and Bureau of Met's rain radar map) you can actually see that the centre of Melbourne is closer to the Murray River than it is to the most southerly point of the mainland. Using the centre of the Bourke St. Mall as a reference on Google Earth it is about 4 Km closer to the Murray near Echuca than to the southern most tip of Wilson's Prom. Anyone think this is worth mentioning in the main article? It might surprise a few peple who think Melbourne is "way down south with not much below it". But it might rank amongst those things such as "Southern most city with more than a million people". - Rick69p 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Fix it ! And stop trying to fill the article with superfluous images -- Biatch 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey all... Loking at the Melbourne page, there are some issues with the images and their order. May I suggest that maybe we create a pictures table towards the bottom of the page so that people are able to add more photos in there? I have a few photos laying around that I think could add to representing Melbourne's 'culture'; the Formula One Grand Prix, AFL Footy, A-league etc. I think that, for a city the size that it is, it doesn't seem to be represented very well visually. What are your thoughts on this? Pyroslim 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, Peter. After a while people will get tired of the old images and substitute others. I haven't yet seen iconic images here ;-) Words might only be worth 1/1000th a picture, but they seem to last longer. RdR2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.134.185 ( talk) 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
More images have been added. I have taken the opportunity to
be bold and removed some. How many shots of the CBD and skyline do we need? Feel free to add or substitute images as you see fit, but I think the article has just about reached its limit in terms of images. If others have images of Melbourne, they can upload them at Commons and add them to the
commons:Melbourne gallery. --
Mattinbgn\
talk 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything on sport in Melbourne? Its known as the sporting capital of the world. There needs to be a Sport section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.250.114 ( talk) 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Melbourne is described as being in the county of Bourke, yet the list of L.G.A.s of Melbourne includes those beyond Bourke.
I have reverted the addition of new images from the article as the layout squashed the text between images and cluttered the article considerably. Once again, I would suggest that anyone planning to add new images think about what images they would remove first. As always, if consensus is to add these images back, I have no objections. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The infobox gives an area of over 3,400 square miles, which is massive (over 5 times the area of Greater London) so it obviously extends well out into the surrounding satellite towns. It would be helpful to have a map showing just which areas are included. Amirada ( talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Found this while looking for something else. Also gives a book list at the end, which the library-inclined might be interested in :) Orderinchaos 13:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Macedonia is known under that name on Wikipedia, as per WP:MOSMAC. Having a slightly smaller column width is hardly a good reason for using a name seen as derogatory by the citizens of that country. JdeJ ( talk) 11:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course the SD for Melbourne hasn't changed, but has the ABS released the latest Urban area figures ? I mean contiguous urban built up area size. It must have increased in the 2006 Census, but by how much compared to overall population growth ? -- Biatch ( talk) 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
As in "I can see the city from here" or "I'm going into the city" or "Which way is the city"? I agree that the term "CBD" is often used in print, but in conversation 'city' is still used normally, or even exclusively. 218.214.18.240 ( talk) 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The flags representing foreign-born people don't serve any purpose and might even be insulting for some of the people the flags are supposed to represent. First of all, they no longer live there, and they might have left that country precisely because they disagree with the government represented by that flag. Secondly, they might have left the country before the government represented by that flag came into being. DHN ( talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I run the site Melpedia. Once the site is a little bit more polished would it be ok if I added it to the external links section? 59.167.189.48 ( talk) 09:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone else brought up the issue images in the article here but later changed their mind. I was the one who removed the images - my reasoning is that it doesn't matter if an image is featured or not (they were good images) but the purpose of the article to to have written content about Melbourne, and the photos should illustrate the content. No matter how good photography-wise they are, a million different panoramas of the CDB don't add much to the article other than screen bulk and download time. Thoughts? Wongm ( talk) 11:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion on 27/03/08 and 02/04/08 between Wongm and Diliff was withdrawn after 10/04/08 for some reasons (I don’t know) from this page. Now I put it back into this discussion page and have some points quoted from Wikipedia.
(1) A selected Wikipedia Featured picture means it Adds value to an article and Has a good caption (please see Wikipedia Featured picture criteria points 5 & 7).
(2) Wikipedia – How to improve image quality indicates that Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish.
Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg, is recognized/selected by Wikipedia as Wikipedia Picture of the day. Therefore, Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg precisely endorses Wikipedia’s spirit/mission and adds value and credibility to the article of Melbourne. Hope this gives the clarification of the above discussion.-- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia Administrator
I am honored that couple of my contributed images to the Wikimedia Commons about Melbourne have been selected by the Wikipedia administrator and other Wikipedians. Also I added and changed some images by myself to improve the photo quality and better to reflect the features of Melbourne (my thought only), one of the most livable cities in the world.
I noticed some changes I made were removed over the Easter weekend (I did not login my user’s name during the editing). e.g. I inserted the following images; Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg , Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg and Image:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg , which have been accepted at this stage. All these three images won the Wikipedia:Featured pictures. They are deserved to be included in the Wikipedia article – Melbourne (my thought only) and I inserted under a sub-section Cityscape I created in the article of Melbourne. The photo maker David Iliff is a well-recognized professional photographer and these images fully reflect Melbourne’s natural beauty and economical perspectives as the article of Melbourne described. For example, both Yarra Southbank and Docklands have been developed only in the past decade and now are the most attractive places and icons in Melbourne.
Furthermore, I changed File:Melb cbd.jpg to File:Melb (CBD).jpg, which I thought that it gives a broader view of Melbourne CBD and Hoddle Grid, but this change was reversed and not accepted.
In the meantime I have just edited them back again into the article of Melbourne to enhance the article project of Melbourne. I am just one of the millions of Wikipedia contributors and supporters. Therefore, any comments (both criticism and support) on this message are welcome.
Please note: Image:Melb (CBD).jpg was stitched from four photos took by this discussion author from Rialto Tower observation deck. -- Donaldtong ( talk) 12:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please find a further discussion about the change of images in the article of
Melbourne at the following;
Hoddle Grid
Hi Donald,
why are you changing my photo?
User: Vincentshia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.235.47 ( talk) 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Melb cbd.jpg File:Melb cbd.jpg
Hi Vincentshia
Wikipedia is a free editable website. I may not be able to understand your message. My purpose is trying to upload the Image:Melb (CBD).jpg File:Melb (CBD).jpg, which has a broader and clear view of the Hoddle Grid to the viewers of the free encyclopedia. Now I have uploaded Image:Melb (CBD).jpg into the article of Melbourne again but it seems there is a sort of the duplication of the image for the Wikipedia project of Melbourne. Your comments will be welcome Regards -- Donaldtong ( talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Donald. You've got some great photos here on Wikipedia, but it would be great if we could keep my photo of the CBD.
Do you have a website for your photos?
--
Vincentshia (
talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
The sister cities section has a map with lines to Melbourne. The map should be removed or changed to remove the lines. Melbourne has telephone lines to more cities than just the ones shown. Chergles ( talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Are those sister cities listed for City of Melbourne or all of Melbourne? If the former, they should be removed 58.174.41.169 ( talk) 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well they should all be listed then. It is misleading otherwise 58.174.41.169 ( talk) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the awful map of greater Melbourne for the last couple of years, I finally decided to see if I could improve on it. After spending more time on it than I really should have, I've come up with a first draft.
I know it looks slightly cartoonish and simple (as does the old one), but I think a map such as this needs to show things quite clearly in the thumbnail as well as when clicked and I found that if you tried to make it too detailed, you simply lost the ability to view it properly in the article.
The other issue I found was (this was my first serious outing into vector image files) the SVG output looks much worse (shadows, fonts are different, etc) on Wikipedia than it does on Inkscape, so I've exported it as a PNG file as well. I've always assumed SVG are better because they're unlimitedly scalable, but apparently there are downsides too...
Anyway, here are the maps as a comparison to the current one:
As you can probably see even from the thumbnail, the SVG format version is visually inferior... But how do you think the PNG one compares to the old map? Obviously the new map has elements that the old one doesn't (better detail, particularly when viewing at higher resolution rather than thumbnail), but the old one does have an inset map and a bit more annotation. Is this important? What about the colours? Too garish? Feedback would be good as there is no reason why I can't improve on the map. Consider it a work in prgress. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks fantastic! If you can find a way to label the Yarra River that would be great. Otherwise, great job! Next you should put your skills towards making a map showing Melbourne's place in Vic/Australia, for use in the infobox... Suicup ( talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a bit about the environment in Melbourne a little while ago including; native vs non-native vegetation, low-density suburban sprawl, river and creek pollution, etc, but now it's gone, why was it removed and why was this revert not discussed here? I agree it's probably the least most pleasing information, being a Melburnian myself I can assure you I'm not proud of it, but it must be included. Nick carson ( talk) 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is a mess of overlapping ill-placed images. i don't know how to position images, perhaps there are just too many? Can someone who knows how fix it. -- Brideshead ( talk) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had a play and moved some images about. Don't know that it's any more aesthetically pleasing but it does at least stop them overlapping. -- Brideshead ( talk) 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about appearance, but I felt that the content of this article was great. It didn't blow me out of the water, as articles go, but I think that it gave a well-rounded taste of the city. It looks fine, too.-- LC 72.54.202.49 ( talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from a map of Australia showing Melbourne's location - unfortunately, I'm not very map-savvy so I don't know to do it myself. (Incidentally, I came here to learn more about Melbourne after watching the film On the Beach - apparently Melbourne's southern location is critical in that film to its survival after other Australian cities. Kelly hi! 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick map (reason for the poor quality) but something like this Image:Melbourne Map.png? Bidgee ( talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"The largest number of cars are bought in the outer suburban area, while the inner suburbs with greater access to train and tram services (Met zone 1 and 2) enjoy higher public transport patronage."
This is no longer descriptive. Zone 3 was abolished and absorbed into zone 2 a while ago (last year IIRC), so "zone 1 and 2" now encompasses the entire public transport infrastructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.85.67 ( talk) 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Is redlined at the moment. Does the article exist under a different name? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Content about the 'water plan' is government POV - there is signficant community opposition to section of the plan, such as the Goulburn pipeline, the desalination plant and logging in water catchments. I think information about these should be added. Peter Campbell 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Melbourne being previously known as Batmania. As far as I can determine at this time, Batmania was a tongue-in cheek-reference in the context of John Batman being mocked as the "King of Batmania" by WL Goodwin of the Cornwall Chronicle in Launceston. [5]. Melburnian ( talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So Batman found the city? LOL! What a laugh. Blue Mirage ( talk) 12:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The ABS refers to what is described as "mainland China" as "China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)". I do not like either definition - "Mainland China" is not used as an official term (except perhaps in Taiwan), and if Wikipedia is going to use Australian Bureau of Statistics data, then it is appropriate that we use terms that at least have some resemblance to official credibility. And in trying to be politically correct the ABS have used an unwieldly term. I would prefer simply "China (excl. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau)". Kransky ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Various people have been removing this section, I think it doesn't belong in the article either. Some reason include:
If someone can give a reason to include it, then we can always add it back in. Wongm ( talk) 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
All these places are clearly notable, in that they all have large articles on them. I originally thought they should not be in the article, but I now think they add something useful, directing readers to other Melbourne articles. However, I do agree that we have to have a criteria for which items to include. I think that pretty well everyone, if asked, would come up with the same list. What do others think? -- Bduke ( talk) 04:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As with San Francisco, New York and London's infoboxes, I've been bold and added a montage image. I'd like to know your thoughts on the choices of images. My other thoughts would be including an picture of a tram or Luna Park. How's it look? Mvjs ( talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I liked the idea of the infobox montage but i think some of the pics don't really show off the places too well. So I hope you don't mind, but I tried making a new one with what (I hope) are better pics, If you don't like it feel free to change it back. So anyway I added a new skyline pic, Flinders Street Station with a longer angle looking down Flinders street, the Arts Centre, a ground view of Federation Square and a night pic of the MCG because I think it looks better. Now to see if I can actually upload it, I'm really new to this you see... —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Pear ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Need to include a proper picture of the skyline, which includes the rialto towers which is the most famous building in melbourne by far. Also i agree the royal exhebition buildings should be shown. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
60.230.101.190 (
talk) 05:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
While I know how 'Melbourne' is SUPPOSED to be pronounced, I'm quite certain that if you surveyed 100 people you'd get a 50-50 split on how it is ACTUALLY pronounced by Victorians. Let me be clear: /'maelbən/ (MALb'n) vs /'mɛlbən/ (MELb'n). Granted its original research but is it possible to acknowledge that many people don't pronounce the word with a received accent? Proberton ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Further, see salary-celery merger Proberton ( talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I hadn't thought to check the archive.. I'll pull my head in :) Proberton ( talk) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Victoria market is worth a mention in this article - not too sure where. It is signficant for history and architecture. Peter Campbell 14:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have quick-failed this article at WP:GAN because it is currently undergoing a peer review. Please let the peer review process conclude prior to nominating for GA. Thank you. Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was nominated for GA in September, 2007, however it failed due to these problems. Recently the article was peer reviewed and now it is well referenced, interesting and comprehensive. If there are any minor problems that need tweaking, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches GA status. -- Flewis (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This article is certainly interesting and comprehensive but is not yet ready for GA for the following reasons:
Given the breadth of these issues, Melbourne will be put on hold. Once the WP:Manual of Style problems are fixed, I will offer a second review. Best, epicAdam( talk) 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for the late review, I've had little time as of recent. However, upon reviewing the article again, there are still problems with the article including images that still appear left-aligned next to section headers (often a result of far too many images) and improperly formatted references. A number of images are unnecessary (the lithographs and watercolors in the history section, and the tiny image of Hoddle Grid, for example) and removing them out would avoid the "bunching up" effect that causes the text to render awkwardly. As for the citations, there are still books without page numbers (The Gentrification of inner Melbourne), websites without access dates ("Cost of living — The world's most expensive cities". City Mayors.), and a hodgepodge of formatting styles, for example: "The Land Boomers. By Michael Cannon. Melbourne University Press; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1966" and "Lewis, Miles (Melbourne the city's history and development) p47", neither of which are properly formatted. I would highly suggest using a wiki reference generator or the built-in citation tool (you can turn it on in your user preferences) to properly format the citations. The article will fail for now, please renominate when ready. Best, epicAdam( talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Where are the references to the original inhabitants of the area of land currently occupied by Melbourne? There are none in the intro and only 2 centences in the History section. Some reference in the into at least must be given to the 40,000 years of sustainable habitation of the land we now live on so very unsustainably. Nick carson ( talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with what this sentence is trying to say, just how it is saying it.
Prior to European settlement, the area of land now occupied by Melbourne was occupied by Indigenous Australians, of the Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung nations, who lived sustainably on the land for around 40,000 years.
Firstly, there are no citations. The articles linked to also have no references. I understand the topic is pre-history, but surely there are some sort of anthropological studies to reference.
The sentence contains a couple of points to clarify:
1. Did the people who inhabited the area that is now Melbourne 40,000 years ago consider themselves to belong to nations ? For a political nation to exist for 40,000 is a pretty significant thing to be unreferenced.
2. The statement "lived on the land" implies some sort of permanent habitation. However there is no way this can be evidenced and there are theories that indigenous people were nomadic. So the article needs to be clear about this.
3. There is no need to include the word sustainably. It indirectly implies that Melbourne is no longer sustainable which is itself neither defined or stated in the article or referenced. I think it needs a clear definition in what sense the habitation was claimed to be sustainable. It also downplays the impact that humans had on the land, flora and fauna over 40,000 years.
I'd propose it be re-worded.
Prior to European settlement, the area of land now occupied by Melbourne was occupied by Indigenous Australians. The people of the Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung nations are widely believed to have descended from the first inhabitants of the the area who are estimated to have arrived around 40,000 years ago.
any objections ?
To answer the questions above: 1. Our Western concept of nation is fairly recent - maybe a few hundred years. Aboriginal society was centred around tribal groups, language groups, and trading groups. The Kulin people was composed of many tribes in half a dozen language groups that met and traded together. The Kulin are often described in current literature as a nation. This groupings has existed for probably tens of thousands of years.
2. Aboriginal society was largely a hunter gatherer society. They moved from one campsite to another, but often revisiting the same areas where there was an abundance of food or resources. In the western District of Victoria there is archeological evidence of permanent shelters and elaborate fish and eel traps. The Yarra valley was relatively rich in food resources so the Wurundjeri tribes often hosted larger meetings of the Kulin people. The Wurundjeri had regular camping spots, and in winter built sturdy bark miams where they stayed more or less as a permanent camping site (see People of the Merri Merri)
3. The Kulin people practiced land management over tens of thousands of years, changing the landscape to some extent by the use of fire to encourage more grasslands and grazing animals for hunting. Probably the greatest impact, ecologically speaking, was the introduction of the dingo from Asia 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, which quickly spread throughout the continent and was often domesticated by aborigines. The dingo was probably responsible for wiping out the thylacine on the mainland, and many other species. But generally speaking, I think 'sustainable' is an acurate description of how aborigines managed the land for about 40,000 years prior to European colonisation, especially when compared to the last 170 odds years of land management since European settlement.-- Takver ( talk) 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The third sentence in the first paragraph should be dropped. It is unnecessary and totally cumbersome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider669 ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There are two images of it in the article. One in black and white, while the other in colour, is this necessary? Aaroncrick ( talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been a comment about Melbourne being at ("based" or "located") the mouth of the Yarra. Williamstown is at the mouth of the Yarra and that was different from Melbourne for many years. Melbourne CBD is certainly not at the mouth of the Yarra. How do we fix this? -- Bduke (Discussion) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states that people of two particular Aboriginal tribes lived in the Melbourne area for at least 31,000 years. Whilst I don't doubt that there were Aboriginal peoples living on the land that long ago, does the archaeological evidence actually show that the inhabitants of the area that long ago were of the same named peoples as occupy the area today? Or just that indigenous people lived in the area that long ago? If it's the latter, it should probably be reworded. - Mark 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As of today, it's now 46.4.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2466004 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/bmelbournes-hottest-day-on-recordb/2009/02/07/1233423548653.html
Ta, muchly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.58.117 ( talk) 12:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we add something after that along the lines of: "This extreme temperatue combined with high winds culminated in the worst bushfires in Victorian (Australian?) History, with 84 lives lost and over 700 homes destroyed."? Ta! Melthescoutygal ( talk) 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)melthescoutygal Melthescoutygal ( talk) 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
People keep trying to elevate stuff from subpages like the Culture of Melbourne ie cuisine and universities into the main article. This is ruining the article and returning it to a bunch of lists. I think the main article should remove the subheadings and instead just summarise each subsection in one sentence or less if possible. -- Biatch ( talk) 00:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the remooval of the culture section was unecessary as each article on wikipedia concerning a city, have a culture section, for the images, Melbourne Town Hall in the Governance section was removed with no reason as it shows the Town Hall; for Economy section, unexplained remooval of "Melbourne central business district" even if the article redirects to "Melbourne city centre". Keep Quiet. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 03:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the article for 3 days. Around 100 edits in 24 hours, a large number without any edit summaries vs. no discussion here on talk is not the way things are or should be done in a community edited encyclopedia based on consensus. Such extensive (and thus potentially controversial) changes to an established article with active editors should have been brought up for discussion first, and certainly need to be fully explored and explained here now to avoid further edit warring and good stable content being lost in the process. Mfield ( talk) 07:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Reminder - the version of the article that is currently protected is, as explained in the protection message, not an endorsement of any version of the article, what should or should not be included, or who might be right or wrong. That is what needs to be hashed out here now over the next 3 days so it can be worked into a stable article when the protection expires. Mfield ( talk) 08:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: this edit - There is no "map" field in Template:Infobox Australian Place and it should be deleted from the infobox. The locator map is controlled by the "state", "loc-x" and "loc-y" fields. A full explanation of how to use the map function may be found at Template:Infobox Australian Place#loc-x and loc-y if you're really interested.
Similarly, there is no "demonym" field in Template:Infobox Australian Place and this should be deleted from the infobox as well. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Granted that the page is currently protected however I noticed that someone has - once again - added these images into the Culture section. I have lost count how many times I've removed it with and explanation as well only to have it put back in with zero discussion. Now I have no problem with the image, but as I've explained, the problem I have is that it already appears in the infobox. Therefore there is absolutely no need to repeat it in the article unnecessarily as there are already too many images vying for attention. It just makes the article inanely repetitive. -- Biatch ( talk) 11:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Please restore the former culture section thats exists before this conflict beguns. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Im not here to discuss another subject, you gotta restore the previous version; please learn to not remove sections that exists long time ago. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 03:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Right. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 04:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Either have the montage or not. I really don't see the point repeating an image more than once on a page. -- Biatch ( talk) 04:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The images are necessary to an article, and there is no repeated images on the article; if there is really one, then you should talk or create this unecessary problem; otherwise, its not a problem as far I know to place appropriate images. thanks. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, everything that Diliff said is spot on. You are not aware that the City of Melbourne and the City of South Melbourne are quite different cities. The image is the town hall of the City of South Melbourne. It is not that of the City of Melbourne, which is in the central business district. There is also a City of North Melbourne and a city of East Melbourne, or rather there was before amalgamation a few years ago. However the City of Melbourne still exists and the City of South Melbourne is not part of it after amalgamations. You do need to recognise that your knowledge of Melbourne is not very good and you need to listen to people and collaborate more. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to jump back on this as I have watched it progress. It seems that Millere08 ( talk · contribs) does not want to engage here. Multiple approaches have been made, I believe now successfully, about their non discussion and non use of edit summaries so that may lead to some dialog here soon hopefully. Should that not happen though and barring any vaguely persuasive arguments to the contrary, this could and should be unprotected sooner if the situation has calmed suitably and the consensus is to revert and (integrate any useful changes) rather than attempt to rebuild. Mfield ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We should have both the international and local pronunciations of Melbourne, just as we do with any other city. People already mispronounce it "mell-born"; without a more universal guide, we're going to get "male-bun" instead. It would be different if we only expected Aussie readers - but in that case, why bother with the pronunciation at all? kwami ( talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm glad that someone has moved the culture section to a separate article, however it would be helpful if there was at least a brief summary of the section rather than just a link to separate page. 61.68.149.210 11:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody from Oz put something in the History section to explain how and why the local elected officials were twice replaced for a while by appointed commissioners? The city's own page [1] is damned coy about how and why the State did this. -- Orange Mike 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
When you look at Location it says that the distance to Sydney is 876km. When you then click on Sydney the distance to Melbourne is 697km. There is a difference of almost 200km!!! Haven't checked distances with other cities.
Michael, you are pretty well on the money. A sign in Sydney Road, Brunswick, near the corner of Barkly Street, said "Sydney 857" as at 13 Sep 2007. That makes it about 861 by road. About 25 years ago a nearby sign said "Sydney 880". Walkingmelways 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted to the offical Estimated Resident Population (ERP) figures. Both the estimates and the raw figure are based on the 2006 census. The difference is that the raw figure gives the number of people in Australia on 8 August 2006 who were listed on a census form as usually living in the Melbourne Statistical Division, while the ERP estimates the number of people usually resident in Melbourne on 30 June 2006, allowing for census undercount and residents temporarily overseas (as well as births/deaths/migration between 30 June and 8 August). I think the ERP is the more appropriate figure in this case, but if anyone does reinstate the raw figure, make sure you use the correct title for the reference - don't just change the link. JPD ( talk) 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The Bureau of Statistics projections are utter rubbish, as usual. At the current growth rate of 1.06 % - which is easy to maintain given the Third World is an infinite source of population in practical terms, Melbourne will reach close to 4.7 million 2021 and and about 5.5 million by 2031. More likely than not it will easily surpass these figures.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur ( talk • contribs)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there is a lack of references. These statements require inline citations:
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As little improvement has been made in the past two weeks, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent rev: [2]
"sporting and cultural capital" versus "fashion capital"
Which one? I would have to say sporting. Wongm 08:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeking views about whether the "Melbourne viewed from Mt Dandenong" panorama image (see User:Peter_Campbell#Panoromas) is worthy of inclusion in the article. One view expressed against is that it is a "poor quality panorama from mt dandenong - not very encyclopaedic as you can barely see any part of melbourne other than a couple of the outer suburbs). In favour is that the image depicts a view and sunset over Melbourne with features such as the Eastern Suburbs (outer an inner), downtown and Port Phillip Bay visible. I am working on resolving the stitching/exposure variation. Please indicate below whether you "support" or "oppose" the inclusion of this image. Peter Campbell 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Taking onboard the feedback on the quality of the panorama, here is an alternative shot that more clearly shows the CBD and the inner eastern suburbs. Peter Campbell 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose both of these. The first for all the reasons already listed. The second for some of the same reasons: unclear shot, doesn't show Melbourne much at all, hard to see that it adds much to the article. -- RdR2007 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Another though on this - if you go up on a clear morning you should be able to get a photo that will show everything clearly, rather than clouds and everything backlit. Wongm ( talk) 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
An almost useless but interesting piece of trivia: According to some maps (eg. Google Earth and Bureau of Met's rain radar map) you can actually see that the centre of Melbourne is closer to the Murray River than it is to the most southerly point of the mainland. Using the centre of the Bourke St. Mall as a reference on Google Earth it is about 4 Km closer to the Murray near Echuca than to the southern most tip of Wilson's Prom. Anyone think this is worth mentioning in the main article? It might surprise a few peple who think Melbourne is "way down south with not much below it". But it might rank amongst those things such as "Southern most city with more than a million people". - Rick69p 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Fix it ! And stop trying to fill the article with superfluous images -- Biatch 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey all... Loking at the Melbourne page, there are some issues with the images and their order. May I suggest that maybe we create a pictures table towards the bottom of the page so that people are able to add more photos in there? I have a few photos laying around that I think could add to representing Melbourne's 'culture'; the Formula One Grand Prix, AFL Footy, A-league etc. I think that, for a city the size that it is, it doesn't seem to be represented very well visually. What are your thoughts on this? Pyroslim 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, Peter. After a while people will get tired of the old images and substitute others. I haven't yet seen iconic images here ;-) Words might only be worth 1/1000th a picture, but they seem to last longer. RdR2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.134.185 ( talk) 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
More images have been added. I have taken the opportunity to
be bold and removed some. How many shots of the CBD and skyline do we need? Feel free to add or substitute images as you see fit, but I think the article has just about reached its limit in terms of images. If others have images of Melbourne, they can upload them at Commons and add them to the
commons:Melbourne gallery. --
Mattinbgn\
talk 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything on sport in Melbourne? Its known as the sporting capital of the world. There needs to be a Sport section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.250.114 ( talk) 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Melbourne is described as being in the county of Bourke, yet the list of L.G.A.s of Melbourne includes those beyond Bourke.
I have reverted the addition of new images from the article as the layout squashed the text between images and cluttered the article considerably. Once again, I would suggest that anyone planning to add new images think about what images they would remove first. As always, if consensus is to add these images back, I have no objections. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The infobox gives an area of over 3,400 square miles, which is massive (over 5 times the area of Greater London) so it obviously extends well out into the surrounding satellite towns. It would be helpful to have a map showing just which areas are included. Amirada ( talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Found this while looking for something else. Also gives a book list at the end, which the library-inclined might be interested in :) Orderinchaos 13:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Macedonia is known under that name on Wikipedia, as per WP:MOSMAC. Having a slightly smaller column width is hardly a good reason for using a name seen as derogatory by the citizens of that country. JdeJ ( talk) 11:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course the SD for Melbourne hasn't changed, but has the ABS released the latest Urban area figures ? I mean contiguous urban built up area size. It must have increased in the 2006 Census, but by how much compared to overall population growth ? -- Biatch ( talk) 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
As in "I can see the city from here" or "I'm going into the city" or "Which way is the city"? I agree that the term "CBD" is often used in print, but in conversation 'city' is still used normally, or even exclusively. 218.214.18.240 ( talk) 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The flags representing foreign-born people don't serve any purpose and might even be insulting for some of the people the flags are supposed to represent. First of all, they no longer live there, and they might have left that country precisely because they disagree with the government represented by that flag. Secondly, they might have left the country before the government represented by that flag came into being. DHN ( talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I run the site Melpedia. Once the site is a little bit more polished would it be ok if I added it to the external links section? 59.167.189.48 ( talk) 09:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone else brought up the issue images in the article here but later changed their mind. I was the one who removed the images - my reasoning is that it doesn't matter if an image is featured or not (they were good images) but the purpose of the article to to have written content about Melbourne, and the photos should illustrate the content. No matter how good photography-wise they are, a million different panoramas of the CDB don't add much to the article other than screen bulk and download time. Thoughts? Wongm ( talk) 11:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion on 27/03/08 and 02/04/08 between Wongm and Diliff was withdrawn after 10/04/08 for some reasons (I don’t know) from this page. Now I put it back into this discussion page and have some points quoted from Wikipedia.
(1) A selected Wikipedia Featured picture means it Adds value to an article and Has a good caption (please see Wikipedia Featured picture criteria points 5 & 7).
(2) Wikipedia – How to improve image quality indicates that Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish.
Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg, is recognized/selected by Wikipedia as Wikipedia Picture of the day. Therefore, Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg precisely endorses Wikipedia’s spirit/mission and adds value and credibility to the article of Melbourne. Hope this gives the clarification of the above discussion.-- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia Administrator
I am honored that couple of my contributed images to the Wikimedia Commons about Melbourne have been selected by the Wikipedia administrator and other Wikipedians. Also I added and changed some images by myself to improve the photo quality and better to reflect the features of Melbourne (my thought only), one of the most livable cities in the world.
I noticed some changes I made were removed over the Easter weekend (I did not login my user’s name during the editing). e.g. I inserted the following images; Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg , Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg and Image:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg , which have been accepted at this stage. All these three images won the Wikipedia:Featured pictures. They are deserved to be included in the Wikipedia article – Melbourne (my thought only) and I inserted under a sub-section Cityscape I created in the article of Melbourne. The photo maker David Iliff is a well-recognized professional photographer and these images fully reflect Melbourne’s natural beauty and economical perspectives as the article of Melbourne described. For example, both Yarra Southbank and Docklands have been developed only in the past decade and now are the most attractive places and icons in Melbourne.
Furthermore, I changed File:Melb cbd.jpg to File:Melb (CBD).jpg, which I thought that it gives a broader view of Melbourne CBD and Hoddle Grid, but this change was reversed and not accepted.
In the meantime I have just edited them back again into the article of Melbourne to enhance the article project of Melbourne. I am just one of the millions of Wikipedia contributors and supporters. Therefore, any comments (both criticism and support) on this message are welcome.
Please note: Image:Melb (CBD).jpg was stitched from four photos took by this discussion author from Rialto Tower observation deck. -- Donaldtong ( talk) 12:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please find a further discussion about the change of images in the article of
Melbourne at the following;
Hoddle Grid
Hi Donald,
why are you changing my photo?
User: Vincentshia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.235.47 ( talk) 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Melb cbd.jpg File:Melb cbd.jpg
Hi Vincentshia
Wikipedia is a free editable website. I may not be able to understand your message. My purpose is trying to upload the Image:Melb (CBD).jpg File:Melb (CBD).jpg, which has a broader and clear view of the Hoddle Grid to the viewers of the free encyclopedia. Now I have uploaded Image:Melb (CBD).jpg into the article of Melbourne again but it seems there is a sort of the duplication of the image for the Wikipedia project of Melbourne. Your comments will be welcome Regards -- Donaldtong ( talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Donald. You've got some great photos here on Wikipedia, but it would be great if we could keep my photo of the CBD.
Do you have a website for your photos?
--
Vincentshia (
talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
The sister cities section has a map with lines to Melbourne. The map should be removed or changed to remove the lines. Melbourne has telephone lines to more cities than just the ones shown. Chergles ( talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Are those sister cities listed for City of Melbourne or all of Melbourne? If the former, they should be removed 58.174.41.169 ( talk) 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well they should all be listed then. It is misleading otherwise 58.174.41.169 ( talk) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the awful map of greater Melbourne for the last couple of years, I finally decided to see if I could improve on it. After spending more time on it than I really should have, I've come up with a first draft.
I know it looks slightly cartoonish and simple (as does the old one), but I think a map such as this needs to show things quite clearly in the thumbnail as well as when clicked and I found that if you tried to make it too detailed, you simply lost the ability to view it properly in the article.
The other issue I found was (this was my first serious outing into vector image files) the SVG output looks much worse (shadows, fonts are different, etc) on Wikipedia than it does on Inkscape, so I've exported it as a PNG file as well. I've always assumed SVG are better because they're unlimitedly scalable, but apparently there are downsides too...
Anyway, here are the maps as a comparison to the current one:
As you can probably see even from the thumbnail, the SVG format version is visually inferior... But how do you think the PNG one compares to the old map? Obviously the new map has elements that the old one doesn't (better detail, particularly when viewing at higher resolution rather than thumbnail), but the old one does have an inset map and a bit more annotation. Is this important? What about the colours? Too garish? Feedback would be good as there is no reason why I can't improve on the map. Consider it a work in prgress. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks fantastic! If you can find a way to label the Yarra River that would be great. Otherwise, great job! Next you should put your skills towards making a map showing Melbourne's place in Vic/Australia, for use in the infobox... Suicup ( talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a bit about the environment in Melbourne a little while ago including; native vs non-native vegetation, low-density suburban sprawl, river and creek pollution, etc, but now it's gone, why was it removed and why was this revert not discussed here? I agree it's probably the least most pleasing information, being a Melburnian myself I can assure you I'm not proud of it, but it must be included. Nick carson ( talk) 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is a mess of overlapping ill-placed images. i don't know how to position images, perhaps there are just too many? Can someone who knows how fix it. -- Brideshead ( talk) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had a play and moved some images about. Don't know that it's any more aesthetically pleasing but it does at least stop them overlapping. -- Brideshead ( talk) 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about appearance, but I felt that the content of this article was great. It didn't blow me out of the water, as articles go, but I think that it gave a well-rounded taste of the city. It looks fine, too.-- LC 72.54.202.49 ( talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from a map of Australia showing Melbourne's location - unfortunately, I'm not very map-savvy so I don't know to do it myself. (Incidentally, I came here to learn more about Melbourne after watching the film On the Beach - apparently Melbourne's southern location is critical in that film to its survival after other Australian cities. Kelly hi! 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick map (reason for the poor quality) but something like this Image:Melbourne Map.png? Bidgee ( talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"The largest number of cars are bought in the outer suburban area, while the inner suburbs with greater access to train and tram services (Met zone 1 and 2) enjoy higher public transport patronage."
This is no longer descriptive. Zone 3 was abolished and absorbed into zone 2 a while ago (last year IIRC), so "zone 1 and 2" now encompasses the entire public transport infrastructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.85.67 ( talk) 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Is redlined at the moment. Does the article exist under a different name? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Content about the 'water plan' is government POV - there is signficant community opposition to section of the plan, such as the Goulburn pipeline, the desalination plant and logging in water catchments. I think information about these should be added. Peter Campbell 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Melbourne being previously known as Batmania. As far as I can determine at this time, Batmania was a tongue-in cheek-reference in the context of John Batman being mocked as the "King of Batmania" by WL Goodwin of the Cornwall Chronicle in Launceston. [5]. Melburnian ( talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So Batman found the city? LOL! What a laugh. Blue Mirage ( talk) 12:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The ABS refers to what is described as "mainland China" as "China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)". I do not like either definition - "Mainland China" is not used as an official term (except perhaps in Taiwan), and if Wikipedia is going to use Australian Bureau of Statistics data, then it is appropriate that we use terms that at least have some resemblance to official credibility. And in trying to be politically correct the ABS have used an unwieldly term. I would prefer simply "China (excl. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau)". Kransky ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Various people have been removing this section, I think it doesn't belong in the article either. Some reason include:
If someone can give a reason to include it, then we can always add it back in. Wongm ( talk) 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
All these places are clearly notable, in that they all have large articles on them. I originally thought they should not be in the article, but I now think they add something useful, directing readers to other Melbourne articles. However, I do agree that we have to have a criteria for which items to include. I think that pretty well everyone, if asked, would come up with the same list. What do others think? -- Bduke ( talk) 04:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As with San Francisco, New York and London's infoboxes, I've been bold and added a montage image. I'd like to know your thoughts on the choices of images. My other thoughts would be including an picture of a tram or Luna Park. How's it look? Mvjs ( talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I liked the idea of the infobox montage but i think some of the pics don't really show off the places too well. So I hope you don't mind, but I tried making a new one with what (I hope) are better pics, If you don't like it feel free to change it back. So anyway I added a new skyline pic, Flinders Street Station with a longer angle looking down Flinders street, the Arts Centre, a ground view of Federation Square and a night pic of the MCG because I think it looks better. Now to see if I can actually upload it, I'm really new to this you see... —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Pear ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Need to include a proper picture of the skyline, which includes the rialto towers which is the most famous building in melbourne by far. Also i agree the royal exhebition buildings should be shown. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
60.230.101.190 (
talk) 05:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
While I know how 'Melbourne' is SUPPOSED to be pronounced, I'm quite certain that if you surveyed 100 people you'd get a 50-50 split on how it is ACTUALLY pronounced by Victorians. Let me be clear: /'maelbən/ (MALb'n) vs /'mɛlbən/ (MELb'n). Granted its original research but is it possible to acknowledge that many people don't pronounce the word with a received accent? Proberton ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Further, see salary-celery merger Proberton ( talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I hadn't thought to check the archive.. I'll pull my head in :) Proberton ( talk) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Victoria market is worth a mention in this article - not too sure where. It is signficant for history and architecture. Peter Campbell 14:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have quick-failed this article at WP:GAN because it is currently undergoing a peer review. Please let the peer review process conclude prior to nominating for GA. Thank you. Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was nominated for GA in September, 2007, however it failed due to these problems. Recently the article was peer reviewed and now it is well referenced, interesting and comprehensive. If there are any minor problems that need tweaking, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches GA status. -- Flewis (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This article is certainly interesting and comprehensive but is not yet ready for GA for the following reasons:
Given the breadth of these issues, Melbourne will be put on hold. Once the WP:Manual of Style problems are fixed, I will offer a second review. Best, epicAdam( talk) 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for the late review, I've had little time as of recent. However, upon reviewing the article again, there are still problems with the article including images that still appear left-aligned next to section headers (often a result of far too many images) and improperly formatted references. A number of images are unnecessary (the lithographs and watercolors in the history section, and the tiny image of Hoddle Grid, for example) and removing them out would avoid the "bunching up" effect that causes the text to render awkwardly. As for the citations, there are still books without page numbers (The Gentrification of inner Melbourne), websites without access dates ("Cost of living — The world's most expensive cities". City Mayors.), and a hodgepodge of formatting styles, for example: "The Land Boomers. By Michael Cannon. Melbourne University Press; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1966" and "Lewis, Miles (Melbourne the city's history and development) p47", neither of which are properly formatted. I would highly suggest using a wiki reference generator or the built-in citation tool (you can turn it on in your user preferences) to properly format the citations. The article will fail for now, please renominate when ready. Best, epicAdam( talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Where are the references to the original inhabitants of the area of land currently occupied by Melbourne? There are none in the intro and only 2 centences in the History section. Some reference in the into at least must be given to the 40,000 years of sustainable habitation of the land we now live on so very unsustainably. Nick carson ( talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with what this sentence is trying to say, just how it is saying it.
Prior to European settlement, the area of land now occupied by Melbourne was occupied by Indigenous Australians, of the Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung nations, who lived sustainably on the land for around 40,000 years.
Firstly, there are no citations. The articles linked to also have no references. I understand the topic is pre-history, but surely there are some sort of anthropological studies to reference.
The sentence contains a couple of points to clarify:
1. Did the people who inhabited the area that is now Melbourne 40,000 years ago consider themselves to belong to nations ? For a political nation to exist for 40,000 is a pretty significant thing to be unreferenced.
2. The statement "lived on the land" implies some sort of permanent habitation. However there is no way this can be evidenced and there are theories that indigenous people were nomadic. So the article needs to be clear about this.
3. There is no need to include the word sustainably. It indirectly implies that Melbourne is no longer sustainable which is itself neither defined or stated in the article or referenced. I think it needs a clear definition in what sense the habitation was claimed to be sustainable. It also downplays the impact that humans had on the land, flora and fauna over 40,000 years.
I'd propose it be re-worded.
Prior to European settlement, the area of land now occupied by Melbourne was occupied by Indigenous Australians. The people of the Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung nations are widely believed to have descended from the first inhabitants of the the area who are estimated to have arrived around 40,000 years ago.
any objections ?
To answer the questions above: 1. Our Western concept of nation is fairly recent - maybe a few hundred years. Aboriginal society was centred around tribal groups, language groups, and trading groups. The Kulin people was composed of many tribes in half a dozen language groups that met and traded together. The Kulin are often described in current literature as a nation. This groupings has existed for probably tens of thousands of years.
2. Aboriginal society was largely a hunter gatherer society. They moved from one campsite to another, but often revisiting the same areas where there was an abundance of food or resources. In the western District of Victoria there is archeological evidence of permanent shelters and elaborate fish and eel traps. The Yarra valley was relatively rich in food resources so the Wurundjeri tribes often hosted larger meetings of the Kulin people. The Wurundjeri had regular camping spots, and in winter built sturdy bark miams where they stayed more or less as a permanent camping site (see People of the Merri Merri)
3. The Kulin people practiced land management over tens of thousands of years, changing the landscape to some extent by the use of fire to encourage more grasslands and grazing animals for hunting. Probably the greatest impact, ecologically speaking, was the introduction of the dingo from Asia 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, which quickly spread throughout the continent and was often domesticated by aborigines. The dingo was probably responsible for wiping out the thylacine on the mainland, and many other species. But generally speaking, I think 'sustainable' is an acurate description of how aborigines managed the land for about 40,000 years prior to European colonisation, especially when compared to the last 170 odds years of land management since European settlement.-- Takver ( talk) 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The third sentence in the first paragraph should be dropped. It is unnecessary and totally cumbersome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider669 ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There are two images of it in the article. One in black and white, while the other in colour, is this necessary? Aaroncrick ( talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been a comment about Melbourne being at ("based" or "located") the mouth of the Yarra. Williamstown is at the mouth of the Yarra and that was different from Melbourne for many years. Melbourne CBD is certainly not at the mouth of the Yarra. How do we fix this? -- Bduke (Discussion) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states that people of two particular Aboriginal tribes lived in the Melbourne area for at least 31,000 years. Whilst I don't doubt that there were Aboriginal peoples living on the land that long ago, does the archaeological evidence actually show that the inhabitants of the area that long ago were of the same named peoples as occupy the area today? Or just that indigenous people lived in the area that long ago? If it's the latter, it should probably be reworded. - Mark 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As of today, it's now 46.4.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2466004 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/bmelbournes-hottest-day-on-recordb/2009/02/07/1233423548653.html
Ta, muchly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.58.117 ( talk) 12:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we add something after that along the lines of: "This extreme temperatue combined with high winds culminated in the worst bushfires in Victorian (Australian?) History, with 84 lives lost and over 700 homes destroyed."? Ta! Melthescoutygal ( talk) 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)melthescoutygal Melthescoutygal ( talk) 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
People keep trying to elevate stuff from subpages like the Culture of Melbourne ie cuisine and universities into the main article. This is ruining the article and returning it to a bunch of lists. I think the main article should remove the subheadings and instead just summarise each subsection in one sentence or less if possible. -- Biatch ( talk) 00:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the remooval of the culture section was unecessary as each article on wikipedia concerning a city, have a culture section, for the images, Melbourne Town Hall in the Governance section was removed with no reason as it shows the Town Hall; for Economy section, unexplained remooval of "Melbourne central business district" even if the article redirects to "Melbourne city centre". Keep Quiet. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 03:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the article for 3 days. Around 100 edits in 24 hours, a large number without any edit summaries vs. no discussion here on talk is not the way things are or should be done in a community edited encyclopedia based on consensus. Such extensive (and thus potentially controversial) changes to an established article with active editors should have been brought up for discussion first, and certainly need to be fully explored and explained here now to avoid further edit warring and good stable content being lost in the process. Mfield ( talk) 07:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Reminder - the version of the article that is currently protected is, as explained in the protection message, not an endorsement of any version of the article, what should or should not be included, or who might be right or wrong. That is what needs to be hashed out here now over the next 3 days so it can be worked into a stable article when the protection expires. Mfield ( talk) 08:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: this edit - There is no "map" field in Template:Infobox Australian Place and it should be deleted from the infobox. The locator map is controlled by the "state", "loc-x" and "loc-y" fields. A full explanation of how to use the map function may be found at Template:Infobox Australian Place#loc-x and loc-y if you're really interested.
Similarly, there is no "demonym" field in Template:Infobox Australian Place and this should be deleted from the infobox as well. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Granted that the page is currently protected however I noticed that someone has - once again - added these images into the Culture section. I have lost count how many times I've removed it with and explanation as well only to have it put back in with zero discussion. Now I have no problem with the image, but as I've explained, the problem I have is that it already appears in the infobox. Therefore there is absolutely no need to repeat it in the article unnecessarily as there are already too many images vying for attention. It just makes the article inanely repetitive. -- Biatch ( talk) 11:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Please restore the former culture section thats exists before this conflict beguns. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Im not here to discuss another subject, you gotta restore the previous version; please learn to not remove sections that exists long time ago. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 03:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Right. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 04:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Either have the montage or not. I really don't see the point repeating an image more than once on a page. -- Biatch ( talk) 04:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The images are necessary to an article, and there is no repeated images on the article; if there is really one, then you should talk or create this unecessary problem; otherwise, its not a problem as far I know to place appropriate images. thanks. DutchSupremacy ( talk) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, everything that Diliff said is spot on. You are not aware that the City of Melbourne and the City of South Melbourne are quite different cities. The image is the town hall of the City of South Melbourne. It is not that of the City of Melbourne, which is in the central business district. There is also a City of North Melbourne and a city of East Melbourne, or rather there was before amalgamation a few years ago. However the City of Melbourne still exists and the City of South Melbourne is not part of it after amalgamations. You do need to recognise that your knowledge of Melbourne is not very good and you need to listen to people and collaborate more. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to jump back on this as I have watched it progress. It seems that Millere08 ( talk · contribs) does not want to engage here. Multiple approaches have been made, I believe now successfully, about their non discussion and non use of edit summaries so that may lead to some dialog here soon hopefully. Should that not happen though and barring any vaguely persuasive arguments to the contrary, this could and should be unprotected sooner if the situation has calmed suitably and the consensus is to revert and (integrate any useful changes) rather than attempt to rebuild. Mfield ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We should have both the international and local pronunciations of Melbourne, just as we do with any other city. People already mispronounce it "mell-born"; without a more universal guide, we're going to get "male-bun" instead. It would be different if we only expected Aussie readers - but in that case, why bother with the pronunciation at all? kwami ( talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)