Jump to content

Talk:Melbourne/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Melbourne the Suburb vs "Melbourne the metropolis" vs "City of Melbourne"

The article causes a bit of confusion for me. Melbourne is the name of the Greater metropolitan area and the name of the municipality, the City of Melbourne, but isn't it also the name of the actual place Melbourne - ie. the suburbs within Greater Melbourne and the City of Melbourne which have the postcode of 3000 (CBD) and 3004 (St Kilda Road) as indicated by the Melways and any official map of the city ?. Whereas the municipality includes parts of the suburbs of Carlton and South Yarra. City of Melbourne suburbs infobox seems to indicate this, but redirects to the page on Greater Melbourne. Should there be a separate article which explains this ? (ie. Melbourne (suburb)).

I know it is being petty, but I myself consider myself to be a Melburnian, but I don't normally associate its bleak outer burbs with the great city which consists primarily of the inner city. --Biatch 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to do a bit of study to figure out what you were getting at there, but yes, to be consistent and comprehensive, there should be an article for the suburb of Melbourne, as distinct from the local government area and the metropolis of Melbourne. Melbourne, Victoria would be okay as the article name.
However, as one who was raised and lives in the outer suburbs, I still consider myself a Melburnian!
Philip J. Rayment 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no "suburb of Melbourne." There is the City of Melbourne, a municipality, and there is Melbourne, which is the whole Melbourne metropolitan area. Adam 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Melbourne CBD"? -- Chuq 04:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, strictly the "suburb of Melbourne" would I suppose be Melbourne 3000, ie. the centre of Melbourne, which as Biatch points out is a slightly different beast to the Municipality of Melbourne. But yeah, you're right, no-one ever calls it anything else apart from "the city" or "the CBD". I don't think we really need a separate article about the CBD, do we? There's already City of Melbourne - about the municipality - so anything further seems a bit redundant to me. Tpth 04:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually there is a separate article. All of Melbourne Central Business District, Melbourne central business district, Melbourne CBD and Melbourne city centre redirect to the article Hoddle Grid. Whether that last is an optimal name for an article about the "suburb" of Melbourne is another matter. Thylacoleo 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Hoddle Grid article is strictly not the same as Melbourne the suburb, as it does not mention the St Kilda Road, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne Park (Rod Laver Arena) and even Queen Victoria Market area which is also part of Melbourne, but not part of the Hoddle Grid and not considered part of the Melbourne CBD per se, as Philip J. Rayment correctly points out. If your office is on St Kilda Road, then you are located in MELBOURNE, 3004, but you would be outside of the Melbourne CBD and you could actually be in the City of Port Phillip ! Conversely, Parliament House in Spring Street is actually located in EAST MELBOURNE 3002. This area, as appears on Melway is larger than the Hoddle Grid, but smaller than the City of Melbourne and definately not an LGA ! The City of Melbourne article at once mentions it being part of the greater metropolis of Melbourne and that Melbourns is one of its suburbs ! This is both circular and confusing and definately needs clarification in my opinion.

I suggest that Melbourne, Victoria be defined as the area bordered by Spencer Street, La Trobe Street, William Street, Peel Street, Grattan Street, Berkeley Street, Victoria Street, Spring Street, Wellington Parade, Brunton Avenue, Punt Road, the Yarra River, Anderson Street, Domain Road, Domain Street, Arnold Street, Fawkner Park, Commercial Road, High Street, St Kilda Road, Queens Road, Lakeside Drive, Albert Road, Kings Way, Palmerston Cresent, Wells Place, St Kilda Road and Flinders Street .... It has its own history as well, when in the 1960s, the Victorian Government annexed the St Kilda Road area into the suburb of Melbourne as postcode 3004. --Biatch 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how it is circular, but it could be confusing and should be clarified.
You don't need to suggest how to define it; my understanding is that these days suburbs do have defined boundaries, so there is already a definition, which articles here should simply recognise.
Philip J. Rayment 04:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

When I type in 'Melbourne' and press Go, I should be directed to the metropolis. All several hundred marvellous square ks of it. Hide&Reason 08:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The expression "Melbourne" must refer to the whole of metropolitian Melbourne. Within that you can specify the City of Melbourne and within that the Melbourne CBD. There is no "suburb of Melbourne." What does the word "suburb" mean? It means an outlying or subordinate district of a city. The centre of a city cannot be a suburb of itself. The district described by Biatch has no status. It is just his idea of "inner Melbourne." Three articles giving three definitions of Melbourne is quite enough. Adam 08:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Flip open a Melway and you'll see it exists, even if it's not a "suburb" per se. --Evan C (Talk) 08:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Adam, I agree with what you are saying about the meaning of the word "suburb", but the fact remains that "suburbs" are now officially defined, and that includes one for Melbourne, regardless of the correctness of the use of the word. Melway is a useful resource, and apparently has the official boundaries, but it is not the authority in itself. However, here is an official map that shows the boundaries of the "suburb" of Melbourne. Philip J. Rayment 09:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because other people use the word "suburb" wrongly doesn't mean we have to follow them. The "precinct" or "district" (better words) shown on that map is just the CBD with some parkland attached because it doesn't belong anywhere else. It's not an entity which has any meaningful existence and I don't see why it would merit an article beyond what is at Melbourne CBD. Adam 09:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone was actually proposing using the word "suburb" in the title. Whether or not it covers more than the CBD depends on what you consider to be the CBD, but it is more than just the Hoddle Grid that Melbourne CBD redirects to, even ignoring the parkland. And the Hoddle Grid article is about the design and layout of the street, not the suburb/precinct/district itself. So there seems to be justification for an article on the area covered by the suburb/precinct/district named "Melbourne", but because it covers more than just the CBD, I suggest that it be consistent with the articles for the suburbs and be called Melbourne, Victoria (which currently redirects to Melbourne), and that Melbourne CBD be redirected to Melbourne, Victoria, not to Hoddle Grid. —Philip J. Rayment 09:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles Melbourne (with Melbourne, Victoria redirecting to it) must be about the Melbourne metropolitan area. I will revert any edit which alters that. If people wish to write an article about this amorphous entity hovering somewhere between the Melbourne CBD and the City of Melbourne I can't stop them, but it must not be titled in a way likely to confuse readers, and it must not incorrectly use the word "suburb." Adam 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created the article Melbourne (suburb). Now I don't care what it is called suburb or otherwise, feel free to move it to a less ambiguous name, but it does exist and it is a distinct place with its own history and identity. I don't suggest redirecting Melbourne, Victoria to it. Instead, I suggest that if you are in a neighbouring suburb and click on a suburb in the Suburbs near infobox, that it goes there. That and at any point where it is to appropriate to specifically refer to the difference. This prevents some of the silly links which appear to link to "Melbourne CBD" and "St Kilda Road" (which is not a suburb either). The article should exist. Why have an article on a suburb such as Southbank or Docklands that have been created in the last 15 years when Melbourne 3000 has existed for over 150 years. Look around other cities, it is consistent with the city of Toronto downtown, Manhattan and several other cities of this nature that have a central area distinct of its suburbs. --Biatch 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The CBD is not even the demographic centre of Greater Melbourne, which is currently Glen Iris, Victoria. So here is my proposal.

1. Move Melbourne, Victoria to Melbourne, Australia. This will keep the overseas Melbournes happy and there is only one Melbourne in Australia, so there is still no confusion.

2. Maintain a redirect of Melbourne to Melbourne, Australia and keep the disambiguation links. This will keep Hide&Reason happy.

3. Maintain the Hoddle Grid article and the redirects for Melbourne CBD. Technically the Melbourne CBD is the Hoddle Grid, and areas like Docklands, Southbank and St Kilda Road are not really considered part of it.

4. As Philip J. Rayment suggests, move Melbourne (suburb) (which I have created - please review) to Melbourne, Victoria. Adam can acertain that the article explains the difference adequately. The removal of references to suburb should satisfy Talk. This will also solve the problem of some older suburb navigation infobox automatically adding ", Victoria", making it unable to support the inconsistent title of Melbourne (suburb). Most articles should link simply to Melbourne (which is currently redirected). Any articles that link incorectly to Melbourne, Victoria should simply be updated.

Is anyone in disagreement with this proposal ?--Biatch 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am in disagreement. I don't think Melbourne, Victoria should be moved to Melbourne, Australia. And I am absolutely 100% certain that you must not perform such a move without first obtaining a wider consensus to do so i.e. at WP:AWNB. Hesperian 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Melbourne (suburb) should be renamed Melbourne (locality) if the article is to be retained. As far as I can tell it exists only as a locality for the purposes of addressing, as defined by the Australia & New Zealand Rural and Urban Addressing Standard (AS/NZ 4819:2003 Geographic Information - Rural and urban addressing). Hesperian 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But the term locality in Australia usually refers to a minor part of a suburb. For example, Jolimont is a locality of East Melbourne. This would get highly confusing. Melbourne is not a locality, it is most definately an inner city suburb. I don't understand why the article shouldn't be retained. --Biatch 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right about "locality" versus "suburb". "Suburb" used to mean an area on the outskirts of the city. But these days it seems to have been co-opted to mean something else, so that "inner city suburb" is an oxymoron no longer. More and more I hear people using that ghastly neologism "periurban" to describe the city outskirts. Hesperian 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Biatch, you seem to be saying that Melbourne redirects to Melbourne, Victoria. It doesn't. The latter redirects to the former.
The CBD is not even the demographic centre of Greater Melbourne, which is currently Glen Iris, Victoria
I can't see what relevance this has to the discussion.
1. Move Melbourne, Victoria to Melbourne, Australia.
2. Maintain a redirect of Melbourne to Melbourne, Australia and keep the disambiguation links. This will keep Hide&Reason happy.
There is no need for this article to be (effectively) renamed Melbourne, Australia, and it has been discussed earlier on this page and rejected.
3. Maintain the Hoddle Grid article and the redirects for Melbourne CBD. Technically the Melbourne CBD is the Hoddle Grid, and areas like Docklands, Southbank and St Kilda Road are not really considered part of it.
I still prefer my earlier suggestion that Melbourne CBD redirect to the article about the "suburb" of Melbourne. The Hoddle Grid article is about the design and layout of the streets, not about the business, activities, etc. of the "suburb" of Melbourne.
Historically, the Hoddle Grid area was considered to be the CBD, but I don't think that there is anything official on that, and I think that adjacent areas outside the Hoddle Grid are now considered, by some at least, to be part of the CBD. And that's ignoring that some people now call it the CAD—the Central Activity District.
4. As Philip J. Rayment suggests, move Melbourne (suburb) (which I have created - please review) to Melbourne, Victoria.
Agree, not just because I suggested it, but for all the reasons you list.
I believe that Melbourne (suburb) should be renamed Melbourne (locality) if the article is to be retained. As far as I can tell it exists only as a locality for the purposes of addressing, as defined by the Australia & New Zealand Rural and Urban Addressing Standard (AS/NZ 4819:2003 Geographic Information - Rural and urban addressing).
How is this different to any suburb? And given that it is no different, why not use Melbourne, Victoria as per every Melbourne suburb's article?
Philip J. Rayment 03:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What you have said makes complete sense to me, and you are right. Other cities like Brisbane have recently redefined expanded boundaries of their CBD to include parts of Kangaroo Point, Spring Hill and South Brisbane (postcode 4000), however Melbourne has not officially redefined theirs since the advent Hoddle Grid. By the way, I found this interesting article on this confusing topic of "arbitrary boundaries" in which Gary Morgan argues that Melbourne is but one of many "urban villages"[1].--Biatch 03:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The CBD probably does deserve an article other than the Hoddle Grid, and there aren't any particularly strong reasons why that article shouldn't describe the area being discussed here. It's debatable to what extent the word "suburb" applies to it - in a sense it's more the area left over after all the suburbs are defined. JPD (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just another vote/comment to say I strongly disagree with either Melbourne, Australia or Melbourne, Victoria being changed from their present form (as redirects to Melbourne). Neither are suitable disambiguation names for Melbourne metro/City of Melbourne/Melbourne "suburb" - - all three of these places are within Australia and within Victoria, so by definition those names do not disambiguate. I do recognise the need for separating the part of City of Melbourne which is not part of any suburb (Docklands, South Melbourne, etc) but taking over one of these redirect's names is definitely not the best way. Melbourne (suburb) isn't great but I think it is best for now. This discussion will affect other Australian cities as well so although "Hoddle Grid" may be a possible answer for Melbourne, we still need a more generic naming format. -- Chuq 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If the Hoddle Grid article is really about this 'left-over' area after all the suburbs are subtracted, then rename it to something meaningful, and leave the Hoddle Grid as a subsection of that article. After all, the Hoddle Grid itself is a big part of this location's development. I would propose Melbourne Central Business District become the replacement article for Melbourne (suburb), and merge the Hoddle Grid into it.SauliH 01:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The Hoddle Grid is suitable as an urban planning article not about the leftover area. So you are arguing that the Royal Botanic Gardens and Queen Vic Market are part of the CBD then ? --Biatch 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe I am. We cannot help the reality that this area is odd shaped. We need to live with the reality, and go at it. If you do not like 'Melbourne CBD' then conjure up a better name which reflects the reality. I cannot imagine why Melbourne Central Business District redirects to a town planning article. As someone who has never lived in Melbourne, I would never think to enter a search for 'Hoddle Grid' to locate information about the CBD of Melbourne. To an outsider this is twisted. We can do better than the status quo.SauliH 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we call it Urban Melbourne? After all it is not a 'suburb', but the 'urban' portion.SauliH 07:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Urban" has the connotation of being "not rural". ie. anywhere that is built up is urban, such as the greater Melbourne metropolitan area. -- Chuq 08:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
How about Melbourne inner city or Melbourne city-centre? I'd be prepared to accept almost anything that didn't misuse the word "suburb" as the present title does.--cj | talk 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


I have redirected "Melbourne (suburb)" to Melbourne CBD. I said I would not accept an article which misused the word "suburb" and I meant it. The centre of a metropolitan area is not a suburb of itself. I see nothing in that article which cannot be accommodated in City of Melbourne or Melbourne CBD. I am completely unpersuaded that there is a third entity in inner Melbourne distinct from those two. Adam 09:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this so hard for you to accept? There are numerous documents showing that this "third entity" does exist. Yes, "suburb" isn't the best name for it - most of us agree on that, but it exists - and it would be very helpful if you could suggest a term for it. --Evan C (Talk) 10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Things are (as usual) not so clearcut. The authority on Australian place names is the Gazetteer of Australia. It is complete. It is online. It uses the feature code "SUB" for places of type "suburb". It does not contain an entry for a place named "Melbourne" with feature code "SUB". That ought to settle the matter: there is no suburb named "Melbourne". However, to muddy the waters a little, the states remain custodians of the Gazetteer data, and different states do things differently. Western Australia, for example, defines a suburb as any postal subdivision, so it lists around 400 suburbs, including "Perth". Victoria, on the other hand, apparently requires its suburbs to be genuinely sub-urban, and so has gazetted only about 30 suburbs. So if we're going to refuse Melbourne suburb status on the grounds that it is not gazetted as such, then we also must refuse suburb status to Carlton, Richmond, St Kilda, etc. Hesperian 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, this is an interesting little oddity. Even Box Hill, quite definitely a suburb by the common definition, does not have a "SUB" code. --Evan C (Talk) 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What does it classify St Kilda as? I live here and it looks like a suburb to me. Adam 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It classifies St Kilda as LOCU, which means one of "Locality (unbounded), Place nnme, Road corner, Road bend, Corner, Meteorological station, Ocean place name, Surfing spot". Melbourne is also a LOCU. Melbourne is a LOCB, "Locality (bounded), Town, Village, Populated place, Local government town, Town site (no population)" - it also has two entries, one is two minutes south of the other. Honestly, I think the records may need a good thorough revision. --Evan C (Talk) 12:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Melbourne CDB is a redirect page to a town planning article. Adam, are you suggesting that we should hijack the town planning article Hoddle Grid for this area? I think it has been clear in the discusiion that the area we are discussing is quite different to the Hoddle Grid itself.SauliH 13:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To list some of the proposed names for the article...

Feel free to add any if I've missed them. --Evan C (Talk) 10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How about The Melbourne CBD plus a few streets round the edges and some parkland? Adam 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected "Melbourne (suburb)" to Melbourne CBD.
As that redirects to Hoddle Grid, that seems a bit pointless.
I said I would not accept an article which misused the word "suburb" and I meant it.
Wouldn't it be better to wait until this discussion reaches agreement, instead of just acting unilaterally?
Things are (as usual) not so clearcut. The authority on Australian place names is the Gazetteer of Australia.
That is a secondary source, consolidating information from the various state (and other?) authorities.
It uses the feature code "SUB" for places of type "suburb". It does not contain an entry for a place named "Melbourne" with feature code "SUB". That ought to settle the matter: there is no suburb named "Melbourne".
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that, as your next sentences touch on:
However, to muddy the waters a little, the states remain custodians of the Gazetteer data, and different states do things differently. ... Victoria ... apparently requires its suburbs to be genuinely sub-urban, and so has gazetted only about 30 suburbs.
How did you find that there were 30? I couldn't find any way of listing all places classified as "SUB". What I did find, however, is that Victoria seems to use "LOCB" for "suburb". Using the official Victorians list at [2], I selected "Suburb" from the Feature Type box, and because I had to supply at least a partial name, I selected "ton", and in the Match box, selected "containing". That is, I asked for all suburbs containing the letters "ton". I got a list of 153 "suburbs", and every one came up with the code "LOCB"! (None had "SUB".) It is clear to me that, in Victoria, "LOCB" is used for "suburb". And Melbourne is listed as "LOCB".
Philip J. Rayment 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"That is a secondary source". Yes, VICNAMES is certainly preferable. But your link above is broken; here is one that works.
"How did you find that there were 30? I have the gazetteer data on my PC. Not the most current, unfortunately.
Yes, if you do a search for SUBURBS named "MELBOURNE", you get two hits, both named "MELBOURNE", both of feature code "LOCB". Apparently these are the one suburb on different sides of the municipal boundary that runs through it. A search for suburbs named "ST KILDA" yields nothing, which on the one hand confirms that VICNAMES maps "SUBURB" to "LOCB", but on the other leaves us with not so much faith in the data. Hesperian 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Melbourne name search page on VICNAMES will show one of the pages refered to. The 'Feature Code Descriptions' tab brings up these options for the 'LOCB' feature code.
  • LOCALITY BOUNDED
  • SUBURB
  • RURAL DISTRICT
  • TOWN
It seems that there are multiple uses for the LOCB code. But where is this pedantic discussion actually leading us? Is it really to find out that Melbourne is not technically a suburb? I think we should all take a step back and take note of what we are trying to achieve; and article about a specific area of turf in central Melbourne which is not effectively covered (in some peoples perspective) at the present time. Putting '(suburb)' into the article title runs against the grain of naming conventions, so let's decide what the article title should be, and let those who want to write it, go to town.
After all this discussion it had better be good.SauliH 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How about Melbourne city-centre (with or without hyphen) as an article with broad scope. It can cover the area concerned, as well as the central business district, the Hoddle grid, parks and gardens and so forth.--cj | talk 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Melbourne city centre seems good to me. JPD (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, that was a long discussion to read through. I seem to have been caught up with it in a completely unintended way: Adam Carr took it upon himself to redirect the article Melbourne (suburb) without so much as a hint on that page as to where anyone might find the discussion behind it, an action I believe was completely inappropriate. So I wrote a bunch of stuff at Talk:Melbourne (suburb) which basically gives my opinion.

I do not think that the term ‘suburb’ is being inappropriately used to describe what I’ve always known as the suburb of Melbourne, a distinct entity from the city/CBD, the LGA City of Melbourne, or the metropolis Melbourne. It is common practice to refer to Carlton etc. as ‘inner suburbs’ of Melbourne, which although it does not adhere to the apparently ‘standard’ definition of the term is what is used and understood in Australia. If someone can find an alternative term that includes what is commonly meant by ‘suburb’, excludes what is not meant by that use, is not ambiguous or confusing (like ‘locality’ or ‘neighborhood’ would be), I would be happy to use it. The fact that calling Melbourne a suburb of Melbourne might be completely non-standard outside of Australia would seem much less bad than happily calling Richmond a suburb; in the first case the reader will be more inclined to think ‘hm, something odd’s going on here’, in the latter case they might just think Richmond’s out somewhere near Ringwood. But I do object to not having an article on the suburb of Melbourne, just as we have articles on the suburbs of Brunswick or Richmond or Endeavour Hills.

As for the title of the article, I think ‘Melbourne, Victoria’ would be appropriate because the only areas which are appropriately addressed as ‘(blah), Melbourne, Victoria’ are places within the suburb/LOCB (however we might call it) of Melbourne. Just as when someone in conversation might say I live in the city of Melbourne to refer to the entire metropolis, yet the article City of Melbourne still refers to the LGA. The article on the entire metropolis should remain Melbourne, to which ‘Melbourne, Australia’ should redirect. But I hold no particular objections to calling the article ‘Melbourne (suburb)’ or even ‘Melbourne (LOCB)’ or whatever else we might decide to standardise upon; after all, it is an article on the Melbourne which is a sort of LOCB.

I stongly object to using the title ‘Melbourne city-centre’ for the article on the LOCB of Melbourne. I would be surprised to learn that it was common to include the King’s Domain in the definition of ‘Melbourne’s city centre’, but exclude Southbank. ‘Melbourne’s city-centre’ to me implies the city/CBD. For similar reasons, I also object strongly to using terms such as ‘Melbourne CBD’ for the article on the LOCB.

—Felix the Cassowary 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of Felix the Cassowary to call the article Melbourne, Victoria has merit. Anyway you cut it readers looking for information on the Melbourne LOCB are going to land on the Melbourne article unless they know the the exact article name we decide on. Melbourne, Victoria treats the LOCB just as any other suburb would be treated ie ', Victoria' appended to the end of the name. It makes sense to me. I do agree with Felix that any other article name can be misconstrued as being a broader area encompassing more of the downtown suburbs.SauliH 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn’t my idea, it was Philip J. Rayment’s! When I first saw it, I actually disliked the idea, but the more I thought about it the more sensible it seemed.
And just to provide some more confusion on the matter, there’s two more non-co-terminus Melbournes no-one’s mentioned yet: the federal electorate the Division of Melbourne and the state electorate the Electoral district of Melbourne (there’s no article on that one, but that name follows the same scheme as the other state electorates; the VEC’s website just calls it ‘Melbourne District’). I suppose there’s also still the upper house state electorate of ‘Melbourne Province’ until parliament is dissolved, but I doubt we particularly need an article on that as it’ll be historic in two month’s time.
—Felix the Cassowary 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that discussion on this has slowed down. Opinion is on the table, and if everyone else is ready should we decide what to do? I withdraw my nominations for Urban Melbourne and Melbourne urban centre. If someone else likes them go ahead and nominate them again. Personally I am sold on Melbourne, Victoria, Brisbane, Queensland Sydney, New South Wales etc I think it works.SauliH 04:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I definitely have to agree with Melbourne, Victoria. Any confusion is easily overcome with disambiguation notes at the top of the pages. --Evan C (Talk) 09:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A reader should generally be able to tell which article is about which topic just from lokoing at the names of the articles. Melbourne and Melbourne, Victoria don't do that. As for the other cities, Sydney seems to manage quite well without an article with that sort of name. Perhaps this is because Sydney the suburb as defined by the GNB "more or less encompasses" the Sydney central business district. JPD (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if a reader could tell what an article is about from the name of the article, but that is often not the case, and why there are so many disambiguation notes at the starts of articles. But fine, if you know of a cleat title that people would expect to type in for the article under discussion, please suggest it, because the very root of the problem seems to me to be that there is no such obvious name. Philip J. Rayment 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that a reader should be able to tell what an article is simply from the name of the article. I said that disambiguation should work so that given two (or more) articles with similar names, the reader should be able to tell which is which simply from the titles. True, the most important thing is to be able to quickly navigate to the required article, but I think it is still worth sticking to the principle of making disambiguations as clear as possible. JPD (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places. It would be better to add your comments to that page. Quote comments from this page if you must in your entry at that page.SauliH 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Is it time for a formal vote on this? I think it is.

Please indicate your preferred article name for the "LOCB" of Melbourne below by putting the name in bold and signing it with ~~~~. You can include comments if you wish, if you feel the need in addition to all the discussion above!

I anticipate that the article will want to have a disambiguation note at the beginning along the lines of This page is about the central-city "suburb" named Melbourne. For the Melbourne metropolitan area, see Melbourne., or what is already at the top of the Melbourne (suburb) article. However, whether or not we put that and how we word it could depend on the outcome of the vote, so we can decide that after the article name is decided.
Philip J. Rayment 15:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this poll is a little premature. I'd allow more than 24 hours to conclude that the "discussion on this has slowed down", as someone stated above. Melbourne, Victoria is an inadequate solution when one considers that the outcome of this discussion will likely set a precedent for other cities. In that event, the complications of Perth and Darwin need to be noted. --cj | talk 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with cj, discussion on this hasn't "ended". As well as that, Melbourne, Victoria will never be acceptable under current Australian city naming standards, so it is entirely pointless voting for it. -- Chuq 01:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Per convention, Melbourne, Victoria naturally refers to this article. It cannot be usurped.--cj | talk 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I see no problem with titling it Melbourne central business district, and explaining that there are some areas outside of this typically referred to as being part of this "suburb of Melbourne". Rebecca 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope the people who want the suburb article at Melbourne, Victoria are going to take responsibility for fixing the gazillions of links that will be created to point there when they ought to point to Melbourne. Hesperian 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this poll is a little premature.
I didn't start the poll on the basis that the discussion had ended or slowed down; rather that it seemed to me that the discussion could go on forever and get nowhere without being brought to a head.
Per convention, Melbourne, Victoria naturally refers to this article. It cannot be usurped.
That is debatable. Melbourne, Victoria is following the convention of every other suburb of Melbourne, such as Box Hill, Victoria, Essendon, Victoria, etc. It seems to me, and this is the main reason that I support using Melbourne, Victoria, that Melbourne, Victoria is the correct (according to convention) title to use for the "suburb" of Melbourne.
I hope the people who want the suburb article at Melbourne, Victoria are going to take responsibility for fixing the gazillions of links that will be created to point there when they ought to point to Melbourne
The number of existing links is a valid point to raise, although it could have been made more nicely. There seems to be a bit of bitterness in this discussion, with the attitude that people who hold a different opinion are somehow being silly.
Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If the concern is setting a precedent, and changing existing naming conventions, then this debate needs to be moved to the broader discussion page Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places or evenWiki:AWNB.
'Melbourne, Victoria will never be acceptable under current Australian city naming standards, so it is entirely pointless voting for it.' I disagree. The whole point of having an article Melbourne refering to the metropolis is that the most common usage of 'Melbourne' is the broader city - therefore double clausing it with the ', Victoria' appendage is superfluous. When it comes to this little patch of land under debate, which is actually called 'Melbourne', then using the existing naming convention of appending the ', Victoria' to the town, city, suburb name, makes sense and is absolutely and totally consistent. SauliH 03:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The city centre, the local government area, and the metropolitian area are all called "Melbourne", are all in "Victoria", and are all in "Australia". Therefore, it makes no sense to say that you can call one of them "Melbourne" and one of them "Melbourne, Victoria", or even "Melbourne, Australia". All names can apply equally to all three geographical areas, so you aren't disambiguating at all - just causing more confusion. I think this does need to be discussed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places as Melbourne isn't the only city with this naming conundrum. -- Chuq 04:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Chuq. These conventions are supposed to simplify things for us by making things predictable, but not at the expense of being confusing to the casual reader. Any non-Wikipedian who finds completely different articles at Melbourne and Melbourne, Victoria will think we're bloody fools, and rightly so. It is impossible to disambiguate Melbourne the metropolis from Melbourne the suburb on the basis of geographic location, so please let's not pretend to do so.
Before the reader will even start into the article there will be a very clear disambig. link to the other article defining the scope of the other article. Anyone who stumbles onto the one will be a 'bloody fool' if they cannot take note that one is dealing with a subset of the other. Furthermore, the defining paragraph at the head of the article will quite clearly state the scope of the particular article they are on, with further links to the broader or narrower contexts (depending on whichever article they are on) in the text of the article. Where would the 'confusion' and the 'bloody fools' reaction come from?SauliH 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That will handle the confusion, except for readers who follow incorrect links, of which there will be plenty. Speaking for myself, if I came to Wikipedia as a casual reader, typed in Melbourne, Victoria and found myself at an article on a suburb instead of the great city, I would think that was bloody foolish.
Let me put it this way: what percentage of the people who type "Melbourne, Victoria" into the search box and hit Go will be looking for the suburb, as opposed to the city? Maybe one tenth of one percent? What percentage of links to Melbourne, Victoria innocently created by contributors who haven't bothered to check the target article will be intended to refer to the suburb, as opposed to the city? Perhaps one tenth of one percent? Therefore, would Melbourne, Victoria be more appropriate and useful as a redirect to Melbourne or as an article on a suburb? I am absolutely convinced that it should be the former.
Redirects are important; they allow the casual reader to find what they're looking for even if what they type into the search box isn't quite what our naming convention says the article title should be. What bothers me about your proposal is not the use of Melbourne, Victoria for a suburb article, but the unnecessary loss of a critical redirect. Hesperian 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
" what percentage of the people who type "Melbourne, Victoria" into the search box and hit Go will be looking for the suburb, as opposed to the city? " The number of people that type in the ', Victoria' appendage is going to be small. A casual reader looking for the Melbourne article is more likely to enter 'Melbourne' than Melbourne, Victoria. That is why the 'Melbourne' metropolis article is under the simpler title. SauliH 06:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of the 349 links to Melbourne, Victoria are intended to link to the metropolis not the suburb.
Look, the title is irrelevant, as long as it is unbiased and reasonably accurate, which all of the proposals appear to be. That's what we have redirects for, so that the title isn't crucial. What is important is preserving the user expectation that obvious search terms like "Melbourne", "Melbourne, Australia" and "Melbourne, Victoria" will lead to the intended article, which will almost always be Melbourne. If you place the suburb article at Melbourne, Victoria you kill that functionality. And for what reason? I can't find one. It's certainly not to conform with naming conventions, as the convention supports Melbourne (suburb): Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia states:
Ambiguously named features that are co-located and therefore cannot be distinguished on location use [[Geographic Feature (type)]], e.g. Wolfe Creek (crater) and Wolfe Creek (watercourse)
which supports Melbourne (suburb) by my reading. Hesperian 07:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If you place the suburb article at Melbourne, Victoria you kill that functionality. And for what reason? I can't find one.
Two have been given. One is that it conforms to the conventions used for every other suburb, and the other is I think someone said that the suburb info boxes linking to neighbouring suburbs automatically append ", Victoria" to the names.
Philip J. Rayment 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding retitling Melbourne (suburb) Moved

As noted in the above discussion, due to the impact that the proposed renaming of Melbourne (suburb) may have on setting naming convention precedent for other capital cities, the discussion should now take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places. I have done my best to summarise this discussion. As for the vote below, I will leave that up to others to comment on.SauliH 06:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that I haven't voted, because in its current state the result will not be acted upon, and discussion is ongoing. -- Chuq 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes

And I'll just point out that (a) if you are talking about Melbourne, Victoria as being the "non-disambiguative" one, that title seems to me to be the one that follows current naming conventions, and (b) there are no "options" specified from which to choose. However, the vote is effectively on hold pending discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places#Metropolis/LGA/Inner city Suburb - disambiguation article titling discussion that may well make the vote redundant. Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption policy

Are we putting periods at the end of them or not? We seem to like alternating thus far. Hide&Reason 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK it depends on whether it's a sentence or not. For example "A screenshot of Wikipedia" would not have a full stop, but "Melbourne has many gardens, including the Flagstaff gardens, shown." would have a full stop. --Evan C (Talk) 06:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Public transport investment

I removed the following sentence from the section on transport:

Comparatively little has been invested in Melbourne's public transport system since the 1940s, two exceptions being the major projects of the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop and Regional Fast Rail including a privately-funded upgrade to Southern Cross Station.

It understates the investment that has been made. Since the 1940s, apart from the underground loop, five new train fleets have been introduced (Harris, Silver, Comeng, X'trapolis, and Siemens), duplications have been provided on the down sides of Ringwood, Dandenong, Heidelberg, Coburg, and much of the Glen Waverley line, triplication and quadruplication has occurred between Richmond and Box Hill, Caulfield and Moorabbin, and North Melbourne and Footscray, electrification has been extended to Werribee, Sydenham, Upfield, Epping, Belgrave, Pakenham, and Cranbourne, a new line was built between Altona and Laverton, most of the manual signalling and safeworking systems have been replaced, train control has been computerised, etc. etc.

On the tram side, there have been several new tram fleets, some duplications, and extensions to Vermont South, Box Hill, and Bundoora, plus some other minor ones.

That's all just off the top of my head, and may not be 100% accurate, but would also not be 100% complete.

About the only thing that has not been done is significant construction of new railway lines.

Also, Regional Fast Rail is not an investment in Melbourne.
Philip J. Rayment 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The preceding statements mentioned that the network had been maintained and modernised. Perhaps it means comparatively little when compared to the amount spent on major freeway works. Still, this extra info would be great in the Transport in Melbourne article. It could be argued that Regional Fast Rail and Southern Cross upgrades are an investment in Melbourne, as they pump more country users into the Metropolitan system. --Biatch 04:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest number of surviving Victorian era buildings of any city in the world after London ??

Can anyone substantiate this ? Has someone counted all of the Victorian buildings in each city ? --Biatch 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just following this one up, since noone has replied. I am certainly one to appreciate the city's Victorian heritage, however in my search to validate this comment, I found this Australian Government article [3] which seems to strongly suggest that Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) had more surviving Victorian buildings than Melbourne in 1995. Has this changed ? Or is this a factoid ? --Biatch 07:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right to question the assertion. I believe that an article shouldn't make any claim of highest, largest, most etc. without reference to a quantitative study that has produced comparitive figures. IMO the statement should be deleted, or suitably reworded unless/until such a reference can be produced.--Melburnian 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this statement until someone can come up with a suitable reference. --Biatch 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Second largest city in British Empire ???

I am still trying to find a reference for this, but I think it is a factoid. Several cities claim this title at one stage or another. I have found references for Philadelphia, Glasgow and Bombay as being the second largest cities in the British Empire behind London at one stage or another. Plenty of references clearly state that Melbourne grew the fastest of any city in the British Empire during the 1880s, but not that it was the largest. The best reference I could find for Melbourne was this from the ABC[4] which claims that Melbourne was ranked about 4th during the 1860s and 1870s. I have found nothing that indicates that it overtook any other city during the 1880s.

Are there any objections to me removing this statement for the sake of accuracy of the article ? --Biatch 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no objection, I have changed the statement and removed the claim. --Biatch 05:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Population loss during the 1890s

The article makes some claims about population loss and possible reasons for it in the 1890s. Is there anyone who can backs this up ? Was there population loss and are there any conclusive reasons ?

If this claim can't be backed up, perhaps it belongs in the History of Melbourne article until such time as a citation can be found for it. --Biatch 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No discussion, so I removed the statement. --Biatch 05:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Climate

The material added fairly recently to the climate section really needs to be sourced. Most of it seems ok, but the autumn sentence baffles me. What is meant by saying the autumn is more pronounced? Is Melbourne's autumn more pronounced in any way that autumn in Hobart or Canberra? It seems to imply that it is about trees losing leaves, but even though Sydney's autumn may be less "pronounced", deciduous trees still lose their leaves there. JPD (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the climate table is really long with the left most column wrapping to mutliple lines. Can someone work out how it can be reduced to single or double line? I see the 60% parameter for width, but I do not know too much about how this would change things, and what people are expecting from climate tables in terms of width standardisation.SauliH 14:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the table is being forced to a small width by the images to the right. As for my earlier comment, I really don't see what the autumn sentence is trying to say, so unless someone replaces it with someone mor meaningful (preferably referenced), I think I will remove it. JPD (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know enough about deciduous trees and what cities have more of them, but I think that is what was implied. In any case it sounds like opinion rather than a factual statement. I am ok with removal. Nobody has come up with an argument to keep it.SauliH 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It is in reference to the types of trees most common in inner Melbourne, which are exotic deciduous variety. Melbourne has the most significant stand of mature elm trees in the southern hemisphere. After Dutch Elm Disease almost totally destroyed elm populations in the northern hemisphere, Melbourne also has one of the largest in the world. This is combined with a much more temperate climate than Sydney's. Of the capitals, only Canberra and Hobart have more spectacular autumns, but both are far smaller in comparison. --Biatch 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Good edit.SauliH 05:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no images to the right of the table forcing it smaller. I removed the width parameter entirely; I don't see a problem with doing so. I doubt that there is any expectation on these things, otherwise it would probably be a template. If you don't know how it would change things, use the Preview button! :-).   — Philip J. Rayment 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

looks a whole lot better, thanks. SauliH 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it obviously depends on your screen resolution and so on, but for me there is definitely an image which is low enough to force the table into a smaller column, even though most of the space to the right of it is not filled (so it still looks slightly strange even now). The 60% parameter does not cause the line wrap unless the width available for the table has already been reduced by the images. Thanks for the rewrite of the snow sentences. JPD (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I considered variations in screen resolution, and didn't find any problems. However, with further testing I now find that yes, the previous picture can end up next to the table if you have a high resolution or a narrow font and small text. On my home computer I had to set IE to use smallest text size (View>Text Size>Smallest) before I could get it to overlap, and even then only with the window as wide as I could make it. My work computer has a narrower default font for some reason, and it happens more readily there. However, it still does not appear to actually cause any problems that I can find. And despite your comment, on my computer the text in the first column was wrapping to several lines when the table width was set to 60%. Again, that would depend on resolutions, text sizes, etc. — Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we just need to build the climate prose section until there isn't an issue? :) I have looked at building on the drought paragraph as it is significant for Melbourne. Climate variances are significant across the metropolitan area also. SauliH 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions in lead

I have undone some of the changes to the lead again. The issues are:

  • I don't think what tourists guides say about the city is the sort of thing that belongs in the introduction to an encyclopedia article.
  • The fact that Melbourne was founded by free settlers may be important to some extent, but being the largest Australian city founded by free settlers isn't particularly significant. On top of that, the sentence as it stood was not relevant to the rest of the paragraph, and was false, as Melbourne was not the largest free-settler city at the time of its founding.
  • Melbourne was the temporary meeting place of the federal parliament. It may be fair to call it the "temporary national capital", but simply "national capital" is taking it a bit too far, especially when Australia had a constitution stating that the situation was temporary and that the seat of government must be somewhere else. JPD (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
On that last point, I agree that the article should say "temporary". The recent edit comment "temp is unnecessary, until already implies", is incorrect, as "until" only implies that it is no longer the case; it does not imply that it was always intended to be a short-term situation until a separate national capital was provided. Philip J. Rayment 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


  • I have re-added mention of common claims of Melbourne's status as cultural capital to the lead, but with a reference to the Federal Government rather than a tourist site, as suggested.

Melbourne's cultural status is a large part of its identity, probably larger than its sporting status and certainly a much more recognised and longer appreciated aspect of the city.

  • The manner in which a city is founded, particularly contrasting a penal colony with pastoral settling, has an enormous impact on its present life. However this seems to be a much more disputed issue than the frequency of the city being referred to as 'cultural capital', the occurance of which is universally appreciated, whether it is agreed with or not.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.40.193 (talk • contribs) .
Although I am not convinced of the "enormous impact", the mention of free settlers is still in the article. It was the rather contrived "largest Australian city founded by free settlers" that was removed. Government sources or not, I would rather have sources that weren't so obviously promotional for both the "capital" statements. In my experience, the culture capital claim is more likely to be disputed, but more important is that if it is to be included, it is included well. It sounds very silly to say "Often referred to as the cultural and sporting capital, Melbourne has a rich sporting history." JPD (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

As of 9 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I passed this article for Good Article status. The article is well-written, easily be understood by a non-specialist reader, well-referenced and broad enough to describe the subject. I have some small technical suggestions for further improvement of this article (perhaps for FA), but they don't prevent this article for GA.

  • Remove all vague terms to state time, such today, now, etc., because an encyclopedia item should be accurate whenever it is read in the future. Please read WP:MOS#Date_and_time.
  • Avoid weasel words and peacock terms that seems to promote the article like in a travel brochure. For instances,
    • "...is arguably the best known street in Australia."
    • "Although it is claimed by the government that..."
    • "Melbourne is arguably Australia’s most vibrant arts and cultural centre."
    • "...was arguably the first distinctly Australian school of Western art."
    • "With one of the most significant stands of mature deciduous elm trees in the world..."
Those are unencyclopaedic sentences.
  • Make a consistent style of citations. Please take a look at the References section, as there are some URL-only citations. You may want to use WP:CITET templates for standardization. And consider to add more citations (I found somebody asked for a citation).
  • Please consider to put only related images. All images are nice to illustrate the article, but overcrowded makes this article looks like a tourism page. Select only images that are related to the section, where they are located, to illustrate what is written in that section.
  • Consider to expand a little bit of lead section to summarize other sectors of Melbourne. Per WP:LS, the lead section is to promote the article, not the subject.
  • One last important thing is to improve the prose by the professional-style standard. I suggest editors to ask a good copyeditor, who does not familiar with the subject, to copyedit the article. Just browse through Wikipedia to find such a person.

Thank you for the editors for such a nice work. — Indon (reply) — 13:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given the first half of the article a bit of a brush-up as per these suggestions - ran out of time halfway through, unfortunately.

A few potentially contentious bits of wording etc raised their head during this process - I've summarised them below.

  • "The city has a rich history" - seems a bit non-specific and unverifiable. Should we cut it?
  • The bit about the first European settlement refers to the area being occupied by the Kulin people, but then to a deal being struck with the Wunrundjeri. My grasp of the minutae of Aboriginal tribes is a bit tenuous - were the Kulin part of the Wurundjeri? Were the two separate tribes? Can this be clarified either way?
The Wurundjeri people of the Melbourne area were (and still are) part of the Kulin "nation" - a grouping of several tribes from central and western Victoria that spoke similar languages. (Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - you can always look up other articles if unsure of something like this.) Thylacoleo 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Melbourne was made capital of the Port Phillip district of NSW"... is this verifiable? When did this happen? I didn't think Melbourne was capital of anything until Victoria was established as a separate colony, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
In 1836 by Governor Bourke, he commissioned the first city plan, I put the necessary info into the article. I will see if I can source an online reference, if not I will find a book quote. --Biatch 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Melbourne grew rapidly as a port and service centre." What do we mean by 'service centre'? As the wording stands at the moment, the first thing that springs to mind is a BP or Mobil :)
Have clarified this. It was a centre of the service industry for the region. --Biatch 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "...home to the big banks..." Which big banks?
  • "the city became Australia's leading manufacturing centre" - any stats to back this up?
31 percent of total manufacturing capacity; 32 percent of aerospace; 35 percent of metal fabrication; 41 percent of electronics; 45 percent of precision engineering, and 46 percent of scientific equipment manufacturing capacity. From Business Victoria. Will reference in article.--Biatch 07:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "...a wave of modernism" - not at all sure what this is on about. Modernism is a broad term for a cultural movement that occurred in the early 20th century, so dunno what it's got to do with a building boom in late 1960s Melbourne. I've removed it.
  • "Even after the national capital was transferred..." - this happened in 1927 and is mentioned in the context of the city's economy during the 1970s. I've cut it.
  • "Throughout the 20th century Melbourne continued to develop as a centre of the arts." This sentence seemed a bit out of place where it was (in a discussion of Melbourne's economic growth) and is a bit woolly anyway, so I've cut it.
  • The paragraph about parks is a bit tourist brochure-y. Melbourne's parks are certainly a prominent and attractive feature, but can we make this sound a little less "Where the bloody hell are you?" :)
  • I've trimmed the para about snowfalls - it goes on a bit, considering how rare snowfalls actually are.
Snow does fall in Melbourne, but the frequency needs to be considered similarly to other cities with nearby mountains such as Hobart and Tokyo. CBD - extremely rare, suburbs, once a decade, Mount Dandenong (which is also a suburb of Melbourne) once every couple of years. The article needs to make this very clear.
OK, if you think so, then fair enough.... Tpth 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Date format - surely these should be in Australian format (ie d/m/y), rather than American? I've converted them accordingly.
  • "Autumn in the city is highly pronounced" - er... what? Cut.
I will endeavour to put this back in because Autumn in the city is notable. No other large city has autumns like Melbourne. --Biatch 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean "No other large city in Australia"? Even then, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. "Autumn is highly pronounced" just doesn't mean anything. On top of that, even if the facts about deciduous trees and leaves are true, it seems very very odd to resort to the effects on foreign trees when describing the climate of an Australian city. JPD (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
And your point is ??? I don't see why not, we refer to the effect that gravity has on men walking on the moon, and we've only done that a couple of times in the few million years that it has been there. We talk about the demographics of Europeans in Australia and yet they have only been here 150 years. The reference I supplied stated that there are 25,000 mature exotic trees in inner Melbourne, the majority of which are deciduous and many of which are on the significant tree register and National Trust listed. Autumn has the effect of deciduous trees losing their leaves. --Biatch 07:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I had several points, and you're addressing the least important one. The main point is that the "highly pronounced" statement doesn't communicate anything coherent, let alone verifiable. As for the other points, autumn undoubtedly causes deciduous trees to lose their leaves. The question is whether this is something worth noting in a section on the climate of Melbourne. The reference tells us there are a reasonably significant number of deciduous trees in inner Melbourne. It doesn't at all suggest that this makes the loss of leaves more significant in Melbourne than anyone else, or give us a reason to consider this an important fact about the climate. Europeans are much more significant to the demographics of Melbourne than deciduous trees are to Melbourne's vegetation, let alone its climate. JPD (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Have to agree with JPD here. The statement as it stood was pretty meaningless, and I wasn't even sure of what it was trying to say, so I removed it. Tpth 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Melbourne's overwhelming dominance of the state of Victoria's population and economy means the Victorian state government is also effectively the city government of greater Melbourne." I kinda get what this is trying to say, but it sounds POV to me and could do with some stats or citations to back it up. Can anyone think of some better wording? The rest of the para is fairly POV (esp the stuff about governments' reluctance to create city-wide govt bodies) - do people think we really need it?
  • "In February 2006 a AUD$1 billion project was announced to build a 5000-seat international convention centre, Hilton Hotel and commercial precinct adjacent to the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre with construction due to commence in May 2006"... so has construction started? (I must confess to not caring less)
Construction has started. It is the largest public work in the state at the moment and one of the largest in the country. One would think that a project so large would be notable regardless of what you care for. --Biatch 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely... which is why I left it in the article. However, the statement was out of date, which is why I've queried it here. Tpth 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Have clarified this point. --Biatch 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Almost a quarter of Victoria's population was born overseas"... "43.5 per cent were either born overseas, or have a parent who was born overseas" - this sounds a little self-contradictory. Does this mean that some 25% were born overseas, and another 18.5% have overseas parentage? Can someone confirm / source this?
I have added a source, the Dept of Multicultural Affairs. --Biatch 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Tpth 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We mention the fact that Melb has 70-80% of Victoria's population several times, each time with slightly different percentages. Can someone clarify exactly what the figure is?
  • "Attraction of a large proportion of overseas immigrants and interstate migration from Sydney due to more affordable housing are two recent key factors." Any proof of the latter?
Yes, will add. --Biatch 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Melbourne is seen as an international educational hub, " - sounds like a promo brochure for one of the unis (and I should know - I work at one). I've reworded it.
  • "Melbourne has a large and diverse range of school types." - really? It's got state schools and private schools and, er, that's it. Not so different to anywhere else, surely?
  • "Marvellous Melbourne"... does anyone really still use this? I've lived here for most of my life, and I've never heard it outside of history books.
You've obviously not read the Age or Herald Sun in the last 50 years. Just do a Google search .... The Vic government uses it [5] "Marvellous Melbourne rates" [6] "Work in Marvellous Melbourne" [7] "Marvellous Melbourne Jazz Festival", an education company uses it [8] someone's blog [9] just a few .... and you reckon it is never used. give me a break ! --Biatch 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Biatch... calm down. I was merely asking a question. Perhaps I should have been clearer - I've never heard a resident of Melbourne use it. It does crop up occasionally in the papers, as you point out. Still don't think it's particularly common, but if it's so important to you, then fine. Tpth 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Utne Reader quote - I think it's true, but it's still tourist stuff. Cut.

And finally...

Actually it is. Look it up the dictionary. --Biatch 07:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Depends which dictionary you use. It's a neologism. Tpth 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
But surely being a neologism doesn't deny that it is a word?? :-). And as for the dictionaries, I'm sure that you are correct, but see here. Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's a matter of opinion. Mine is that not a word in the same way that, say, "authoring" isn't a word. In any case, it doesn't really matter, as the world is unquestionably the one used in the context of the surveys cited - it just irks me :) Tpth 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
PS, sorry for running rough-shod over any changes people made in between my edits. 'Twasn't intentional. Tpth 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add in light of the above that I think that Biatch and the others who've worked on this article have done a great job. The whole point of Wikipedia, though, is that articles can be constantly improved, and improved by all contributors. If anyone thinks that any of the edits I made in copy-editing this article are unjustified or incorrect, then by all means revert them and discuss them here. And for goodness' sake, don't take it personally. Tpth 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's taking your comments personally, and I don't see any evidence that anybody has any serious concerns about most of your edits. I reverted one or two things that you did, but on the whole your edits seemed to me to be fair. Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Good to hear. Biatch seemed to be getting a little hot under the collar, so I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to step on anyone's toes - I just wanted to help improve an already impressive article about my home town. Tpth 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Prester John, 19-11-06

Prester John made numerous small edits on 19th November 2006. On many of these he put edit comments indicating that the things that he removed were "not true". Unfortunately, the things he removed had no citations to support them, but then neither did he offer any evidence that they were false. Yet some were true. And many others were vague generalisations, so were not appropriate anyway as they stood.

One of his edit notes said that Britain is not part of Europe. Britain is part of Europe, but it was the British, rather than other Europeans, that settled Australia, so although his rationale was wrong, the edit is fair enough.

Perhaps he was confused with the term continental Europe. However, what about the claims that the Dutch people arrived here first and perhaps even interbred with the indigenous peoples ? For instance, refer to Shipwrecks of Western Australia, if these people survived, then isn't that also a "settlement" ? Using the general term covers these instances also. --Biatch 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The bit that he changed was in this sentence:
The area of the Yarra Parks and Port Phillip that is now Melbourne was first settled by Europeansthe British in 1835.
So your counter-examples don't apply. But I have a feeling it would be better the way it was.
Philip J. Rayment 05:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne Wiki

I've added Melbourne Wiki several times before and my edit was always reverted giving different reasons. The first time I was told there were not enough users, the second time there were not enough articles and the third time it was just "not notable". This is ridiculous. There are 46 articles plus stubs and some of this information is already helpful. Then link popularity will help the site grow and a link on the Melbourne page of Wikipedia will not only drive people to the site that look for information but also those who are willing and able to contribute. So why not leave the link and give Melbourne Wiki a chance? I don't get it what is wrong with the link even if the project is still young. It is definitely active. --Jsfan 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Articles should usually only include links that offer meaningful, relevant content. When your site expands enough to become a notable resource that offers meaningful, relevant content, then the link would be appropriate. --bainer (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Political bias

There is a politically biased reference to the Liberal party. The article fails to mention that the slump was part of a world wide recession and also that the Liberal party turned the states fortunes around by selling off public assets which the people of Victoria are still paying for. This section suggests that the fortunes of the state were caused by the actions of the Liberal party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.93.8 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

or maybe it just tells the truth? (arguing for arguing sake) -- Viva43 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The article does not need to mention the denomination of the party. The History of Melbourne and Victoria articles both go into detail on this issue. The slump may have been part of a world recession, but one cannot argue that Victoria's situation was not the worst in Australia and that it was not caused by mismanagement and the collapse of several of the state's biggest financial institutions. --Biatch 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melbourne/Archive_3&oldid=1137002515"