Talk:Melbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Melbourne is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Melbourne was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

November 9, 2006

Good article nominee

Listed

December 20, 2005

Peer review

Reviewed

October 1, 2007

Good article reassessment

Delisted

Current Status: Delisted good article

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

	Melbourne Meetup Next: In planning? Previous: Sunday 20th April, 3pm This box: view • talk • edit

[edit] Culture section

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)

[edit] Local government history

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)

I don't know anything about these particular cases, but surely that information belongs at City of Melbourne, with at most a brief reference here. JPD (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Orange Mike 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Distance

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.

A quick google search came up with neither of these figures. However the shorter distance is close to a figure for "as the crow flies" while the longer distance is close to the road distance. --Michael Johnson 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Population figures

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)

[edit] GA on hold

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:

"2006 was among the driest years on record with virtually no rainfall in September and October, despite October being on average the wettest month of the year. Higher than average temperatures were recorded. In a very rare occurrence, it actually snowed in more elevated parts of the metropolitan area on 25 December 2006, in the early stages of the Southern Hemisphere summer."
"It was officially announced on May 15, 2007 that the previous 12 months had seen a record low rainfall. The official results of 316mm from May 16 2006 to May 15 2007 show the lowest amount of rainfall since records began in 1855. The normal average rainfall is 653.2mm. Because of this record low rainfall, Melbourne has experienced ever increasing levels of water restrictions for over 9 months."
"Many multinational corporations (approximately one-third of the 100 largest multinationals operating in Australia as of 2002) also have their main Australian office in Melbourne."
"The tallest office tower, the Rialto Towers (251m above street level) is also the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere."
"The project involved rebuilding the northern half of the stadium and laying a temporary athletics track at a cost of $434 million."
"Construction began in February 2006 of a $1 billion 5000-seat international convention centre, Hilton Hotel and commercial precinct"
" In recent years, the number of international students at Melbourne's universities has risen rapidly, a result of an increasing number of places being made available to full fee paying students."
"In June 2007, the Bracks Government announced a $4.9 billion water plan to secure the future of water supplies in Melbourne, including the construction of a $3.1 billion desalination plant on Victoria's south-east coast, capable of treating 150 billion litres of water per year."

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)

Finished off the last few. What else is needed? Hide&Reason (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of...

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)

That one's simple - the one that the reference says. If anythign else belongs there, it needs a different reference. JPD (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I was the one who referenced it in the first place, and still didn't see it - [smack head on desk] Wongm 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts are, more people come from all over Australia to Melbourne than any other city for the sport, fashion, general culture and live music. This not only includes clientel of such areas but the actual sportspeople, musicians, etc. Facts are facts, references from mass media are not always nessasarily factual or unbiased. I would place more trust in what you know is true than what Newscorp tells you is true. I guess in short, references are not the be all and end all of factual information for encyclopedias. 124.190.198.64 (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything you say may be true but as editors we are bound by Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. It is can't be verified, it can't be included no matter how true it may be. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mt Dandenong panorama

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)

Oppose. You cannot see the CBD. Also, the sun is overexposed in the middle. Suicup 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Although you can just barely make out the CBD in the full-size photograph, for anyone seeing the smaller version in the article page, it's basically a photo of Bayswater and Kilsyth industrial areas and it misrepresents the size of Melbourne. If your camera could take a large zoomed-in shot of just the CBD from there then that would be great, as we don't seem to have any pictures of the entire CBD. But as it is, when you have fixed the stitching/exposure issue I think this panorama would be better suited to other pages such as Mount Dandenong and perhaps some of the suburbs visible in the foreground. Easel3 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for including images which do not feature the CBD, but in this particular image, it is there but not easily visibile, especially at the size it appears in the article. JPD (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The panorama is not representitive of Melbourne, and not particularly identifiable. It is also not a very good photo (sorry). --ozzmosis 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I was the one that originally removed it from the article and I still stand by that decision. Peter, its hard to be impartial about your own images sometimes, but I do feel it just isn't worthy of inclusion in the article, regardless of whether the stitching/blending issues are resolved, although it would certainly be an improvement if they were. This panorama is best taken mid-morning or around sunrise so that the sun is directly behind the camera. Too low to the horizon and it may have the same effect of creating a haze though. I will be back in Melbourne in December/January so I may have a go at taking a similar shot if I have the time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:23, 20 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)

A view of Melbourne from Mount Dandenong

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)

Support. I actually don't mind this one - you can clearly see the CBD in its entirety and surrounding suburbs. Suicup 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that you can see the CBD in its entirety clearly. Sure, you can see a few skyscrapers poking out of the ground, but there is no detail. Other than being able to point out the CBD and perhaps Port Philip Bay, can you actually identify a single other feature or object of note in the entire image? I certainly can't look at it and say "Oh, theres Richmond and theres Carlton, and theres the Yarra river." There are a few lighter, reflective blobs in the photo and I simply cannot figure out what they are. In that sense, it is a pretty useless photo that adds little to the article. It simply needs to be more encyclopaedic and useful in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A few? You can see the whole CBD. Suicup 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was being facetious about the 'few' skyscrapers. :-) But the point is, all you can see is the basic shape of the skyscrapers, and very little actual detail OF them. Theres no significant detail of anything outside of the CBD either. You ignored my entire point and focused on the fact that I jokingly dismissed it as a few skyscrapers. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On any shot of Melbourne at that scale, I doubt you'd be able to make out individual suburbs. Viewed from afar, most cities look pretty homogenous. The lighter 'blobs' are obviously water, the one on the left being Port Phillip bay, and the others being Yarra/tributaries. That said, if a better photo came along, I would have no problem switching it, however for now, this photo is better than nothing, and better than the old one IMO. Suicup 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this sort of shot results in such photos, but that isn't a good reason to use it in the article if it adds very little to the understanding of the city. As for the lighter blobs, I think you're only right about Port Phillip Bay. The other lighter blobs are definitely not the Yarra and tributaries. They're in the wrong place geographically and the wrong size/shape. They're something else thats reflective. Possibly tin roofs or something. The point is, its so indistinguishable as to be pretty useless. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:36, 23 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)

[edit] Melbourne closer to Murray than Wilsons Prom?

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)

[edit] Fix the images, the article looks crap !

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)

Fix what? What are you referring to? I don't think you should removing images without discussion or appropriate edit summaries as you did here. diff Peter Campbell 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should have to discuss every single image removal Peter. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done. Discussion should usually only be occur when it is a particularly controversial change or a change of an established image. If the image has lasted years in the article and is still just as relevent today as it was then, then maybe it should be discussed before removal. I do agree with you that an edit summary is essential to justify removing images (or making any change to an article, really). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit rich coming from you Biatch. ;-) You were the one that filled many articles with superfluous architectural images in galleries. That said, I agree with you, there are too many images in the article and the formatting is becoming quite messy. Images such as the old spencer street power station demolition are quite unworthy of an extra big portrait format placement in the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:37, 20 October 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)

The present images are a mish mash - someone puts in a decent photo, then a dozen others say 'I have a photo of that too' and throw their version into the page. We need to draw up a list of 'representative' things of Melbourne we need images of, then chase up the best possible example of each. Any suggestions? Wongm 07:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A short list for starters:

City skyline from Williamstown, over the Bay. (I think shows Melbourne to its best advantage)
A park (either Domain, Fitzroy gardens etc.)
MCG, Tennis centre and precinct
Yarra River, Southbank, Casino precinct
Melbourne laneway with coffee shop, laneway dining
Flinders St station, Y&Js, or Fed Square
W class tram
The cheeststick on CityLink?

Just my thoughts, any others. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd replace the W class tram with a more modern class of tram. W class trams don't really represent Melbourne's tram fleet since they are isolated to a small number of routes. As for a laneway picture, I've got this, but the umbrella might be a bit annoying. But send photo requests for anything in the CBD my way, I'm quite willing to go and take a few photos. I'll also release the photos here and elsewhere in that forum under a free licence, just let me know and I'll post a higher res version. invincible 18:04, 3 November 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)

I have poked though the categories on Commons, and I hope it looks a bit better and representative now. And only one of my photos is in there. ;-) Wongm (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks much better; good work and well done on being bold. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You people are after a representative snapshot of the city yet haven't thought of photographing the average suburban home/street/primary school/shopping strip... 124.188.58.88 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An image like this one of the Geelong suburbs might be the go: Wongm (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Example photos of suburbs

[edit] Sport?

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)

You are right, there does need to be a sport section here. The article did have a section on sport until recently, which was part of the Culture section. However, the culture section became too long and was moved into its own article, Culture of Melbourne. Unfortunately the short summary that has replaced this section of the article is much too short and lacks anything on sport. I would write something myself but don't have the time right now to do it any justice. Feel free to have a go at it yourself, if you like, and welcome to Wikipedia :) Easel3 12:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counties and L.G.A.s

Melbourne is described as being in the county of Bourke, yet the list of L.G.A.s of Melbourne includes those beyond Bourke.

Yes, this does need to be rectified, I would suggest including Grant, Evelyn and Mornington counties to the list. Missjaye (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think long-obsolete county names belong in the infobox at all. Placing them among the most basic details of the city creates a false impression to readers outside Australia that they are somehow relevant. Bourke County should instead be mentioned somewhere in the text of the history section, as it had some relevance during Melbourne's early years, but the surrounding counties did not, so I would leave those out. Easel3 (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More images

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)

If you look at many of the better articles on cities you will find that the images tend to alternate on both sides of the page. In this article, the images and tables of statistics instead form a solid column down the right, sometimes clashing with section dividers. In my opinion this looks quite ugly and needs an overhaul; the purpose of my edit which you reverted was to try this new layout for the History section. I may have added one more picture than the current length of the section can comfortably fit, but you could have commented out one of them for now, for example the Tullamareena one, without reverting the other changes. Using images on both the left and right is common practice in many good articles and only really clutters the screen if your resolution is 800x600 or smaller, which is rare these days. It is one of the things that needs to change in this article to improve the situation with images, but it is of course not the only one. 128.250.6.247 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't ever been a fan of images on both the left and the right. I'm not sure what the overall consensus is on it though. Anyway, some of those historical images that were removed might be better suited in one of the history / timeline articles anyway. Wongm (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map please

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)

Well, there is this one here that is included in the article. Is that what you are looking for? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article which may be useful

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)

[edit] Republic of Macedonia

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)

WP:MOSMAC doesn't say anything about "FYR Macedonia" being discouraged and it certainly doesn't say that it is considered derogatory. Furthermore, a cursory check of Australian Government websites shows that Australia refers to the country as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and uses the abbreviation "FYR Macedonia". [3] [4]

In case you didn't notice, the country has only been mentioned in that table since I expanded it on Thursday. I have no position whatsoever on the country in question and have no intention to cause any offence; I was born overseas myself but not in any of the countries listed. I have tried to choose a neutral yet compact name for each country, and I think it is appropriate that the shortest acceptable name for each country be used, since we are dealing with a table here, not prose.

What I don't particularly want to see here is the table being ruined by a flurry of unnecessary "Republics of" and other official titles, of which your edit is the first. Easel3 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I understand your positions and I don't suspect you of any hidden intentions: I'm sure your motives are good and honest. The position of Wikipedia is that the name Republic of Macedonia is used in all articles, regardless of whether they concern countries in which the country is called by that name or not, so the position of the Australian government doesn't influence this particular topic. The reason for this is to avoid creating disambiguation. FYR Macedonia is indeed derogatory and WP:MOSMAC makes it very clear that the Republic of Macedonia is the form to use. If your concern is the width of the column, and I fully believe you when you say it is, one suggestion could be to write just Macedonia and direct it to the page of the Republic of Macedonia. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty common knowledge that people of most parts of Macedonia dislike very much the reference to Yugoslavia, being why the country's name is now considered to be the Republic of Macedonia. FYR Macedonia is an old terminology that is now not what we're supposed to use (I know some do, but that doesn't mean it's correct. we're putting together an encyclopaedia, not writing a blog here). The full terminology is the appropriate one. --rm 'w a vu 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from Macedonia naming dispute that there is still no name for the Republic of Macedonia that isn't disliked by either its own population or that of neighbouring Greece. While I have no particular objection to JdeJ's suggestion of using "Macedonia" (with the piped link to Republic of Macedonia), my original inclusion of the letters "FYR" was a pragmatic attempt to acknowledge the dispute over the use of the unqualified name "Macedonia" by using an abbreviated title that had some semblance of 'officialness' through its use by neutral bodies such as the UN and Eurovision, while still prominently displaying the name "Macedonia", unlike the more stark "FYROM". I hoped to reduce the likelihood of future edit wars over the name, keeping in mind that Melbourne has far more Greeks than it does Republic of Macedonians. This is why I made this edit after JdeJ's first edit, which I thought was a reasonable compromise, after consulting WP:MOSMAC (which unfortunately only refers indirectly to the use of "FYR Macedonia" and gives no guidance on this type of case, in which a list of countries in a table are all referred to by short common names).

Either way, I have a strong preference for using a short name, with a piped link to Republic of Macedonia, rather than writing Republic of Macedonia out in full. The current name is inconsistent with the level of formality used in the other country names, and its length spoils what was quite a decent-looking table. Easel3 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely right, any name is met with objection from some party. The solution on Wikipedia is to use the name prefered by the people in the country; this is the result of long and very detailed discussions and it is to be applied on all Wikipedia-pages (WP:MOSMAC). If a short name is to be used, Macedonia would be an option. I still prefer the official name, Republic of Macedonia. While I respect your wish for a neat table, I would give higher priority to using the proper name as per Wikipedia policies. I'm sure we'll be able to reach some sort of solution. JdeJ (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, how about using Rep. Macedonia, with the link pointing to Republic of Macedonia? It is about the same size as what was originally there, and it will clearly appear as a shortened form of the country's name for itself, while heading off the criticism that could come from using Macedonia alone. Easel3 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! I'm with you 100% JdeJ (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, I'll make the change then. If only all Wikipedia disputes could be resolved so cleanly! :) Easel3 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree 100% :) Keep up the good work! JdeJ (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne Urban Area vs Statistical Division

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)

[edit] "known today as the central business district or CBD"

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)

[edit] Flags representing people country of origin

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)

See discussion being conducted at Talk:Sydney#Flags representing ~~people~~ country of origin --AussieLegend (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Melpedia

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)

Not sure this meets the criteria set out at Wikipedia:External links. It's a relatively new wiki, with very little activity. Only 5 registered users... -- Longhair\^talk 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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)

Hmm, well it seems like there has been little action over this one. I'm the photographer in question and although I don't regularly participate in the article, I do drop by from time to time. I'm a bit biased but I do think that at least this image should be in the article somewhere, as it shows part of the CBD, Yarra and Southbank all in the one shot, while being aesthetically pleasing too. I do agree with you that a million panoramas of the CBD don't add much, but why not at least keep some of the better ones? Seems a bit disingenuous to replace it with a poorer quality, less pretty photo that illustrates only a single concept. I'm from Melbourne but unfortunately not living there at the moment, otherwise I would put a bit of effort into improving the existing images, but alas I'm stuck with London for now. That said, while I appreciate the kind words of Donald Tong, I'm also not sure that his lead image in the infobox is really the best image, either. No single image can properly encapsulate all of Melbourne, but I do think that the image of mine above does a better job than most. I'm tempted to be bold and replace it as the lead, but don't want to tread on people's toes and appear self-serving. Any objections? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 2 April 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)

There is some seriously flawed logic in that argument, but agree that the picture is worth having somewhere. Can we please remove the terrible section with no text and American-style heading "Cityscape", though? There might be a place for an image, but not in a section by itself JPD (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the composition of Image:Melb cbd.jpg but it is a bit fussy and a thumbnail, and seems a bit soft in a medium view. Image:Melb cbd.jpg has a curve in it because it has been stitched - I have used Autostitch before and it seems to stitch without these issues - perhaps the original uploader can have a tinker about the eliminate the 'bend'. Wongm (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images in the article of Melbourne

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 Image:Melb cbd.jpg to Image: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 Image: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 Image: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) -

[edit] sister cities improvement

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)

Huh? What do telephone lines have to do with it? JPD (talk) 02:18, 15 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)

The section already answers that question and mentions that some of the other local councils in the metropolitan area have sister cities too. I don't see any good reason for deleting it. Easel3 (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they should all be listed then. It is misleading otherwise58.174.41.169 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because the City of Melbourne's sister city relationships are of a citywide significance and serve to link Melbourne with other large cities overseas, in the absense of a government covering the whole metropolis. Sister city relationships formed by the other local governments tend to be with small towns etc, and are of little or no importance outside the council government itself. Therefore I think the section places an appropriate amount of weight on these relationships by listing only those 6 sister cities as they are currently listed, while correctly identifying the City of Melbourne in that sentence.

Instead of removing the section, perhaps it would be beneficial if it featured a link to a main article called Sister cities of Melbourne, which covered the topic in greater detail and listed the relationships of all Melbourne's LGAs. I probably don't have the time for such a project right now, but if you are interested then feel free to give it a try yourself. Easel3 (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement map

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:

New Map Draft 1 - PNG Format.

New Map Draft 4 - PNG Format.

Old Map - Low res PNG Format.

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)

Great work there. However, a few points: 1) I think you could make the pink city colour contrast more with the background green colour. At the moment, the city is not as obvious as in the old picture because the pink is too light. 2) the Yellow font is a lot harder to read than the black font on the original. I suppose what i'm saying is in both these cases, play around with the colours so that the text and city is bolder than it currently is, and background colours/parks(?) as less bold. ie not necessarily darker/lighter, but more contrast. 3) Another colour thing. I'm guessing the blue lines are roads, however I thought they were rivers initially! Possibly change the colour to a different shade of the freeway colour to make it clear they are roads too. 4) As for the inset map, I don't think this is necessary. What should happen though is a separate map should be made showing the location of Melbourne within Australia (or Victoria), and put in the info box. This is the case for New York City and London. Cheers Suicup (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Points taken. I've increased the font sizes, made the text white and changed the colours to be a bit more contrasty. Minor freeways are now brown (wasn't sure what colour to use to differentiate and still stand out). Just tried to make everything a bit more bold in the thumbnail. Thoughts? Oh, and I also increased the road sizes slightly. As a result the road joins were a bit messy, so I masked them with a little white join symbol. They can easily be removed, as it concerns me that they do confuse things slightly with the city location symbols. And yes, the dark green is parks, I'll put together a proper legend once I've finished with the editing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking good! I think the parks should be a lighter shade of green, so they contrast less. Because they are such a bold colour (compared to the pink city and light green country) it is almost as if they are the focus. I would recommend removing the white join dots. Also, I know Eastlink isn't open yet, however it will be in a months time, and so in your map it would be worth extending the M3 to the M11 across the M1 using the brown road already in place. cheers Suicup (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those points taken on board and updated in draft 3. Is it nearly there do you think? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work there, definitely an improvement on the old map. A few comments no particular order: I would recommend adding labels for Dandenong and the Mornington Peninsula if possible, and a blue line representing the Yarra. Lilydale is misspelt with an extra 'l'. Also it appears you have turned Springvale Road into a freeway, you should use the brown version you had in the previous map as it is just a major road. EastLink is further to the east of Springvale Road and it ends where the Eastern Freeway begins, see here for a good map. Finally, sorry to nitpick but I think "km" and "mi" should be spelt in lower case. I don't think there is much need for a legend to explain the colours though, everything is fairly self-explanatory and it would just add more clutter. Hope this helps. Cheers, Easel3 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking much better. Sorry as Easel3 said, the brown road you changed into Eastlink was actually Springvale Rd - my mistake. In any case, you need to remove the extension of it above the Eastern Freeway - it begins there, but doesn't go any higher. I agree with putting in the Yarra river, with a small label. I'm not sure if you'll have room or if this is even a good idea, however I was thinking perhaps put 'To <city/region>' at the end of the roads leading off the map. eg for the left road thru melton (m8?) you could put 'To Ballarat'; in between the M79 and M31 you could put "To Bendigo" etc. That said, it might clutter it up a bit too much, or not look good. Other than that I think we are onto a winner! Suicup (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree with all of the above. I have also added a couple of region labels (Yarra Valley and Mornington Peninsula) and made them a yellow colour (but still quite readable in the thumbnail unlike the original yellow in draft 1), and I also figured that the Port Phillip and French/Phillip Island labels could also be yellow since they also designate regions rather than locations. I don't think there would be room to show where the highways lead without widening the image (which would have the knock-on effect of making the text smaller in the thumbnail and therefore less visible) so I'm not sure I could do it. I'm away for the weekend so I won't have a chance to upload the new draft until Tuesday'ish but will try to incorporate all the suggestions as best I can. I'll have a go at the Yarra River, but it will be hard to put it in and label it as it is already quite cluttered in that portion. Shame it doesn't run through the western suburbs - its just a flat, desolate backwater both literally, geographically and on the map. *ducks* ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How does this one look? Apart from the 'To Bendigo' etc labels, I think I've addressed everything? Is it ready for the main page? I suppose I could add it and wait for a revert. :-) I'll do that, but still, if there is anything else to add (or remove), please do mention it here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done :) Easel3 (talk) 22:45, 20 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 could do that given a bit of time. It would make sense to create a generic Australia map with states labelled and designated, and create one for each capital city, but I might then be stepping on the toes of the other city article participants. I haven't looked at their respective articles recently, but it might be worth doing. Do you think the same colour/symbol combination would work equally for a map of Australia? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There actually is a 'locator map' which Sydney, Perth and Adelaide already use, however frankly it is crap. The reason the 'Australian' locator map is crap, is because the red locator dot is comically small, and thus it is difficult to see the city at all. I think this occurs because Australia is far too big, relative to the cities themselves. There is no uniform standard for the major world cities, everyone seems to do their own thing. IMO this can be resolved by partially following the lead of EU country locator maps such as this one for France. In the small inset map, you show where Victoria is in relation to Australia, and then in the main map, you show where Melbourne is in relation to Victoria. The two stage map makes it easier to have a meaningful marker of the city, rather than a tiny dot.Suicup (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environment subsection

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)

No idea, but if you think it important you can put it back, and see if you can get a discussion going. There is no requirement to bring an edit to the talk page if an editor thinks it is not controversial. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might have been me who nuked it, and I think my reason was that it was a big chunk of new stuff with no references. Throw some reliable ones in (the topic pops up in The Age and the Herald Sun every so often) and I won't have any objections. Wongm (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but shouldnt you have just put {{fact}} tags in there, rather than just deleting it? Suicup (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly - I have revered my content removal, and added fact tags. Now someone can jump in and clean it up. Wongm (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted a cleanup with some references. Overall, however, the section was extremely POV, and still remains that way a little.--Biatch (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] messy

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)

[edit] Map

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)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.