Talk:Melbourne/Archive 6

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)

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)

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)

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

• "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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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,

Easel3

12:48, 28 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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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 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 avu 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from

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 (

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• Hi

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

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)

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

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)

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

Easel3 (talk

) 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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:

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

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

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!

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)

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.

talk

) 14:07, 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)

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?

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)

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)

On a sidenote, does anyone think a Melbourne template (similar to Template:Victoria) would be a good idea to tie everything together? Wongm (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm surprised the template doesn't already exist. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 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)

To me it seems like merely a statement of what the government is doing with the exception of the phrase "secure the future" which has a ring of political rhetoric to it. Melburnian (talk) 14:36, 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)

Yes, and there is a G^HCotham road too! --Jaded-view (talk) 04:14, 26 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)

It's a somewhat awkward matter, but I don't see much reasoning in your post against using "mainland China" in the table of overseas-born populations, apart from saying you don't like it. "Mainland China" is a brief, and to my knowledge, fairly uncontroversial, term to describe exactly the area of China in question, is this not correct? Keep in mind that an unweildy name such as "China (excl. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau)" causes the table to expand to accommodate the length of its longest line, meaning that nearly half of the article width is used up on a 1024x768 screen, mostly by empty space inside the rest of the table. The table can't be left like that permanently, as it ruins the layout of the page. And of course, the unqualified use of "China" outside the brackets means someone will inevitably want to insert "People's Republic of" in front of it, further swelling the table to ridiculous proportions. Also, your wording prominently implies that China includes Taiwan, which is a matter of controversy, while "mainland China" sidesteps that matter altogether. Unless you have some information that "mainland China" is somehow very offensive or non-neutral, I just don't see why it should be changed. I would suggest though that the phrase "Country of Birth" be changed to "Place of Birth" since neither mainland China nor Hong Kong are countries.

Easel3 (talk

) 16:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Maybe they should be included under a less POV/OR title. The information should also be sourced. I think something like Paris#Cityscape is a good way to go. BalkanFever 04:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Should they be deemed important, why not expand on an article such as Tourism in Melbourne rather than this article? -- Longhair\^talk 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As with

It's ok. But I hate the top image. A better image of the CBD skyline should be used instead. Also the Royal Exhibition would be good to fit in there because it is World Heritage listed, at least before you go putting Luna Park in that is. And the aerial pic of Fed Square is uninspiring. Perhaps the Arts Centre instead ? --Biatch (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Star might also be a possibility, when it is complete and some reasonable photos are taken. Mvjs (talk

) 08:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An issue I see with the wheel is that it seems every city has one these days, and isn't that unique to Melbourne. I think a tram is the way to go! Wongm (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at doing a revised version of this and am seeking suggestions for which pictures to use. So far, I really can't find a reasonable picture of a tram. Any suggestions? I think this is the best picture of the Royal Exhibition Building. MvjsTalking 08:55, 22 October 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

This has been previously discussed [6] Format (talk) 19:17, 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

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Melbourne/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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:

• Per
  WP:LEAD
  , the lead should summarize the article. As such, there should be few citations (if any) in the introduction. Insofar as the lead is meant to summarize the article, it's unclear how "It was the host city of the 1956 Summer Olympics[20] and the 2006 Commonwealth Games.[21] Politically, it was host to the 1981 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and the 2006 G20 summit.[22]" describes the city, especially in the lead.

Done - The prose is very 'fact dense' and I have left only the necessary references/inline cites. The rest have moved/copied to other parts of the article. --Flewis^(talk) 04:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• The infobox should be fixed to provide more meaningful figures to the reader. To say "various" in an infobox is just plain bad since its supposed to be a quick glance at information, readers shouldn't have to link anywhere.

Comment - I haven't removed the links, becuase they are both informative and necessary in this case. --Flewis^(talk) 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are too many images in the article and they are formatted improperly. For example, images such as the one of a tree in the botanical garden or the plane taking off are not helpful to the reader because they're not specific to Melbourne at all.

Done - removed redundant, superfluous pics --Flewis^(talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• No images/charts/graphs should be left-aligned next to or under a section heading. All vertical images should be marked as being "upright", and ideally images should rarely be hard-sized, but if they are, cannot be hard-sized under 300px (i.e. [[Image:Federal Coffee Palace.jpg|thumb|upright|left|200px|The Federal Coffee Palace...]]. The reason for this is that hard-sizing overrides users set preferences on how the images appear.

Done --Flewis^(talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done Images are still left-aligned next to or under section headings, they're still hard-sized in areas, and only images that are vertically oriented should be tagged with "upright". -

epicAdam^(talk

) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved any left aligned images from under the section headings, removed hard-sizes and removed all the upright tags on horizontal images. MvjsTalking 11:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image captions in areas are far too long. They should be descriptive, but concise, and the images themselves should have some relevance to the section topic.

Done --Flewis^(talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Numbers and their units should appear with non-breaking spaces. (e.g. 16 miles should appear in Wiki markup as 16&nbsp;miles). Using the convert or nowrap templates will automatically add the necessary markup.

Done - used the "convert" template --Flewis^(talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Either a percent sign (%) should be used or the word percent. It doesn't matter either way, as long as the article is consistent the whole way through.

Done --Flewis^(talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• The references section should not be used for notes (e.g. current ref #8), they should be in a separate note section.

Comment - How is this done? --Flewis^(talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See

epicAdam^(talk

) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ive added a "notes" section --Flewis^(talk) 05:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some references are missing publishers and access dates (e.g. current ref #24).

Comment - 24 looks fine. . .?? Otherwise, I've checked over the article with the Link checker tool, and removed any dead links --Flewis^(talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is now number 36 "UPDATE ON PIGEON MANAGEMENT ISSUE", missing publisher and access date. There are also many, many, improperly formatted references left. If you're going to use the "cite" template, great. Then all the references should use it. -

epicAdam^(talk

) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's about all of them. Could you please check that all the ref's are now formatted properly? --Flewis^(talk) 05:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• All references to books should have pages numbers (e.g. current ref # 32).
• References have to be formatted consistently the entire way through the article, either with a template or manually. There are citation variations all over the place.
• Some references are not appropriate such as "Australian Bureau of Statistics 1961". That tells the reader absolutely nothing about how to go about finding the data.

Done Fixed up most/all of the refs. Are there any more that need to be fixed? --Flewis^(talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done - Fixed up only the first references in each group, so as to avoid redundancy. --Flewis^(talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done - First, there's no such thing as redundancy in citations, they all have to be formatted properly, even if many came from the same place. Second, it's still not a proper citation. What is the actual publication?? "Australia Bureau of Statistics 1961" seems like just the publisher. Is it the actual document the census of Australia? Is it a community survey? Is it a book/pamphlet/magazine? If so, what is the page number?

• The URLs of web references do not need to be written out in the citation, just appear as a link within the title.

Comment - Which references in particular? --Flewis^(talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples:

1. Dr Robert Lee (2003). "Chapter 6: Transport and the Making of Cities, 1850-1970". Linking a Nation: Australia's transport and communications 1788-1970. www.environment.gov.au (This should be the Australia Environment Ministry, or whatever its called, since that is the actual publisher.)
2. "Garrett approves Port Phillip Bay dredging". ABC News. www.abc.net.au (5 February 2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-18.

• Section headers should not be linked (for example, in the religion section). In fact, the religion section should not even have those headers and is far too long.

Done - removed header links.

Comment - What exactly is the problem with the religion section? --Flewis^(talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Its far too long with too many subheaders. Check out

WP:POV sentences like "As a community Hindus live relatively peacefully and in harmony with the local populations." What does that even mean?? and again, "Since the World trade center attacks and the Bali bombings, Islams place in Melbourne and indeed, Australian society has been the subject of much public debate.[125][126] The role of Islam and Muslims in terrorism and extremism are discussed in the media. A number of forums and meetings have been held about the problem of extremist groups or ideology within the Australian Islamic community.[127][128]" So what relevance does this have? This should be present in the article Islam in Australia

, not here.

I noticed this and took it upon myself to edit this section before I actually read this ... some good points raised here --Biatch (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per
  WP:SUMMARY
  , the "Main" and "See also" links should be specific to Melbourne itself, not Australia or the state of Victoria as a whole.

Done - removed --Flewis^(talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per
  WP:CRYSTAL
  , articles should not project future population growth.

Comment - This is official projected growth which is

WP:IAR can apply in this case --Flewis^(talk)

05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on this. ABS data isn't some rampently speculative data - it's the government published information. Saying that, featured city articles don't seem to include future population growth. MvjsTalking 06:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because information comes from a reliable source does not necessarily mean that it can be included. As Mvjs has correctly pointed out, no other city articles provide future-dated population data, because the community has a general guideline that such information is trivial and heavily subject to change, and therefore should not be included. -

epicAdam^(talk

) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The projected group within the population growth table has been removed and merged with this article instead:Demographics of Melbourne. Other than that, toward the end of the 'Demographics section', information remains from ABS on Melbourne's projected growth rate vis-a-vis Sydney's growth rate. Will this also need to be removed? --Flewis^(talk) 11:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• The "Gallery" section is not appropriate. At most, it should be in the external link section.

Done - Link to commons picture gallery --Flewis^(talk) 05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The commons category is already linked on the right. MvjsTalking 06:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the breadth of these issues, Melbourne will be put on hold. Once the

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,

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)

Nick feel free to edit the article - preferably with sources. That is what Wikipedia is about. Same message to Peter Campbell above. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:54, 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 ?

Agree with your reading of the current paragraph, and support your change. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also agree, although I don't think it is particularly wrong to say that they lived more sustainably than we currently do. They simply did not have the population to do any major damage to the environment. There is no way we can say we are at all sustainable within the confines of the metro area. ;-) Where do we get our food/materials from? Certainly not much of it from metropolitan Melbourne! Thats the thing about modern society. The cities depend on the country and the country depends on the city (although to a lesser extent). No single location these days would be particularly sustainable within it's bubble, but the indiginous people largely were. I'm assuming thats what was meant by the term, but it probably does only confuse things as-is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Object to proposed changes I have put in relevant citations to support the assertions in the existing text. I checked these references before adding the citations.--Takver (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thankyou Tirin for the clarifications, however I still don't think that these facts need to be duplicated in the opening paragraph. For the same reasons it isn't in the opening paragraph for Sydney, any other Australian city or even articles like New York City for example which don't mention the indigenous habitation in the opening paragraph. Not sure there is any real reason why Melbourne should stand out from the crowd. My reason for this is that the article is about "Melbourne", a modern metropolis, the urban growth largely attributed to Europeans. If the article was about a largely indigenous habitation (such as an article called People of the "Merri Merri") then it would be fine to mention this in the opening paragraph, however the numbers of indigenous people living in Melbourne today is quite low compared to other parts of the country. While it is idealistic to elevate the contribution of indigenous people to founding status, you must remember that Melbourne has not been a city for 40,000 years and it is both misleading and contradictory to overstate their influence in the shaping of the modern metropolis. --Biatch (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, the opening paragraph mention of the first inhabitants should be much briefer with perhaps a link to the

Bunurong as the original inhabitants. I did not put that detail in the opening paragraph. My focus was getting the first part of the history section accurate with good citations. If you look at the Wurundjeri and Bunurong articles I have been working away on them (and other associated articles) for the last 10 days adding substantial referenced detail. As to what New York or other cities do in terms of original inhabitants, that is not our responsibility. The Melbourne page should reflect issues and information on Melbourne, and clearly mention of the original inhabitants in the opening paragraph is part of Melbourne's history and culture.--Takver (talk

) 07:36, 10 November 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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 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)

You're correct but I guess some people may see Williamstown as being Melbourne but it's only a suburb. For a temporary fix I've put located on the Yarra River but IMO needs to be rewritten. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've stated that Melbourne is located "on the lower reaches" of the river. Is that more accurate? - Mark 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep and it's also much better wording. Bidgee (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that is fine. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:47, 5 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)

Already in the article. Please read the end part of the Climate section. Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 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)melthescoutygalMelthescoutygal (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe on the Victoria page, not on the Melbourne page. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:23, 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 ruining is a bit strong, but given that there is a page dedicated to the Culture of Melbourne then I agree the bulk of the information should be there. There are only three paragraphs in that section, and others are similarly appropriate in length. But those subheadings form the standard for articles on cities on Wikipedia. In this case, it is better to conform, such that our articles are easy to read across the board. --Carbon Rodney 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I give up, I've tried to salvage this article, but unfortunately what was a great article has been ruined by editors who have no clue of what they're doing. Once again it is (perhaps irreversably) riddled with poor, undescriptive images and POV. I'm not sure what one person can do to stop it. I'm considering quitting Wikipedia altogether because if is heartbreaking to see all the constructive effort wasted. --Biatch (talk) 14:02, 28 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 gave a reason. You obviously have not yet figured out edit notes. The image you used is the South Melbourne Town Hall - not the Melbourne Town Hall. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the city would be able to tell the difference. The image of the Melbourne CBD was not the Melbourne CBD at all. It was the Melbourne skyline from Port Phillip Bay. There is a difference. This is an encylopedia not Flickr. Get a grip. --Biatch (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I know very little about Melbourne itself beyond a high-shool course, but I know the number of recent edits is not exactly normal for wikipedia. I don't see any edit-warring yet, but I don't see a whole lot of discussion here on the talk page either. I'll tentatively agree with Dutch that entire sections shouldn't be taken out - but they should be concise summaries appropriate for an overview article such as this one. Would it be easier to ask for

page protection

, or can you guys sort it out? I'll help where I can and however I can. Biatch, there's never a need to walk away permanently - although it's always good to head down to the seashore when things get sticky.

What exactly are the problems here? Franamax (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Culture should stay but needs to be edited to and Encyclopedic standard. Main issues that I have is part of the article was turning into a list (rather then having content of text about the subjects) and the articles was getting too many photographs. Bidgee (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem we've had with the culture sectino in the past (refer to the discussion archives) is that everyone wants every single thing to appear in the main article. You mention Aussie Rules, for example, and all the rugby league and soccer nuts have to get on the front page too. You mention art history and all of a sudden there is a huge discourse on Melbourne's "world renowned" stencilling street Graffiti. The article is long enough and has a complete page dedicated to Melbourne's culture. Believe me, its better to let sleeping dogs lie. --Biatch (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 3 days. Around 100 edits in 24 hours, a large number without any

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)

• Good work. I haven't had the chance to figure out exactly who has been constructive and who has been destructive to the article, but I have noticed that two editors in particular have made up the bulk of the edits in the last 24 hours (and indeed the last couple of weeks): User:Millere08 and User:DutchSupremacy. Both have not been leaving edit summaries and both have been making very long strings of edits in a row with only a minute or two's peace between them, which I agree is a very unproductive way to edit and causes difficulty down the track. I had already left a message on Millere09's page about this prior to the protection, and noticed that another editor had kindly asked the same as I did for edits on the Australia page, but so far, no response. He hasn't responded to anyone else's request either, and seems a bit stubborn/uncommunicative... None of the changes to the article in the last couple of weeks seem overtly malicious but perhaps a bit of Wikieducation is in order, but.. you can lead a horse to water... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: this edit - There is no "map" field in

Similarly, there is no "demonym" field in

I used what is running on the Brisbane page because I felt the article needed a map. Perhaps someone should edit the Brisbane page also. --Biatch (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the person who added the hidden comment[8], but at the time the field was "image", not map. It was changed when consensus was finally reached[9] to replace the current map with the built in one and an image. It's all fixed now. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:47, 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)

Please learn to read and write. --Biatch (talk) 02:02, 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)

There is no need for demands. This is about consensus. Nothing has 'gotta be' restored, if anyone believes that material should be included or removed they should calmly and clearly state their reasons in an appropriately named talk section so that the matter can be calmly discussed. That is the meaning of consensus. No one persons version is right. If the matter has not been fully discussed and the passing of the block sees further edit warring by parties who were not prepared to engage, then assumptions of good faith on their part will be impossible to maintain. This encyclopedia is based on consensus editing, not on what was at one point, and in the absence of previous consensus for a section or anything to be included or removed with good reasons, such demands mean nothing. Mfield (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)First of all do not demand as it gets you and the project no where, Second please keep your comments

assume good faith. The other parts of the Culture section (Basically a list.) was not there for months it's only been there for a week or two. Just because parts of the article may have been there for a week to a few months doesn't mean that it suits Wikipedia standards. Bidgee (talk

) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Being the pedant that I am, and since it seems appropriate at this time, I have to point out that this edit summary is a little misleading. Much of the information that was restored to the culture section by that edit was added no earlier than 18 February 2008.[10] The culture section that exists within the article is the section that existed before then. Clearly there is opposition to the new additions so they need to be discussed and

be civil to each other. --AussieLegend (talk

) 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. DutchSupremacy (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What? I don't think your addition is all that helpful either. I just could write a decent summary of Vandemonian society and the Volunteer statutes in fewer words. It still wouldn't be useful to the average reader looking for background information. Ottre 18:17, 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)

Once is more than enough. Twice is inappropriate unless there's a really, really good reason. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I almost removed the two images in the Culture section (which needs a lot of work to be done to it) but at last minute I left it (I didn't really look up). I agree and if I had of known at the time I would have left the images out. Bidgee (talk) 05:28, 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)

• I think part of the issue is that you seem so sure that you are right. I haven't had a chance to look at all your edits, but a couple of the regular editors would dispute the validity of some of the changes made. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Biatch find an image you added that wasn't even Melbourne Town Hall? Everyone makes mistakes, but I get the impression that you don't have a particularly intimate knowledge of the city, nor are you willing to compromise or discuss the rationale of your changes on the talk page before you make them. The more mature and complete that Wikipedia gets, the more that editors need to collaborate to improve the articles to ensure that we're not all stepping on each others toes and making conflicting changes. Are you willing to do this? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sir, for sure you are wrong along with Biatch and others, the image is the pure town hall of Melbourne as you can see it here in the title

    

    , so Im correcting you, more, I accept about improving the article each 2 days to ensure that we're not all stepping on each others toes and making conflicting changes. I think now we finished this. thanks. DutchSupremacy (talk) 17:33, 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)

• • • This is Melbourne Town Hall. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BDuke is correct - the second one is Melbourne's town hall. --Carbon Rodney 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your cooperation then ! I will use this picture as you say, even if there is almost no diference between South Mel and Melbourne, Sth M is jut a suburb of Melb DutchSupremacy (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To be a pedant (and since town halls are related to local government), the part of South Melbourne that the South Melbourne Town Hall resides in is actually part of the City of Port Phillip. invincible (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • DutchSupremacy there is a big difference. 1, both halls are in two different locations. 2, Different buildings and designs. and 3, both are in different LGA's. ;). Bidgee (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I know, South Melbourne or th City of Port Philip are in the local Government areas of Melbourne; but now its no more a problem as i will use this Appropriate one ;) DutchSupremacy (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • • To be pedantic for those who do not know the fair city of Melbourne, there is Melbourne, a vast city, and there is the City of Melbourne which is a very small part of the former. Please take care about adding photographs. The article already has a lot and it should be cluttered up with images. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Can I just say that perhaps you should learn from this... You were trying to make changes to the article about subjects that you simply did not have a detailed understand of, yet you were accusing us of getting it wrong. This is pretty important when we're trying to build a mature, succinct and accurate article. There is one more issue that I do think needs to be addressed, DutchSupremacy. It is a touchy subject as I don't think any of us want to seem elitist, but your standard of English grammar/expression is quite poor, and I worry that your edits may be poor as a result. I am not saying that you should not contribute at all, but you should make a solid attempt to at least get the grammar and spelling right, or we and the readers of the article may not understand what you are trying to say and it would reflect poorly on the encyclopaedia. If we find that your edits continue to be incorrect, counterproductive or not collaborative, then we may need to take it to an administrator for again. We have tried to be an inclusive as possible, I think, but we should not allow the article to get to the point where established editors of this article are tearing their hair out at the changes made by yourself (and also Millere08). I don't know if you have just begun editing or you have just created a new account but are a more experienced editor, but perhaps you should slow down and not demand your sweeping changes be accepted, and discuss each important change here before making it in the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:36, 3 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)

Just an update. User:DutchSupremacy was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Historian19. Bidgee (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well that sorts that then. Until he returns under a different psydonym anyway. So maybe we've been trolled all along... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:34, 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)