Talk:Melbourne/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Melbourne. 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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Moomba

How can an article about Melbourne seriously not mention Moomba .. ? --Biatch (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Population numbers are in conflict

The given population density multiplied by the given land area is over three times the given population - this can't be right. Can someone straighten out the figures so they're talking about the same things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic9mushroom (talk • contribs) 10:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sister cities?

I could've sworn there was a section with Melbourne's sister cities a few months ago. And now it seems it has gone. Why was such a useful section removed? If there's no opposition, I will re-add it at some point, as it is a common suggestion through the article feedback form. JamesA ^>talk 06:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You would find that it was removed since it belongs in the City of Melbourne article, Melbourne (metropolitan area) itself is made up of a number of local governments which all have their own sister cities and wouldn't belong in the Melbourne article. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne pronunciation

For sake of noting, John beta was the one who insisted (twice) that the general diaphonemic transcription of the pronunciation was not acceptable and that a rhotic pronunciation should be removed. That was why I made an edit, providing the apparently Australian pronunciation at the beginning, followed by the general diaphonemic pronunciation. I did that because he reverted and edited it and other users edited over his edits which made the IPA notation look gibberish. I believe that Accentman comment was reasonable, because the template {{IPAc-en}} was meant to explain the notation by hovering over with the pointer. Even though, I believe that providing a narrow Australian pronunciation won't hurt and may be essential as the name is pronounced in that way by the people living it. (A similar case when users decide to provide pronunciations of Egyptian Arabic names in a Saudi Arabian accent of Classical Arabic.) The issue may have arose after Aeusoes1 decided to remove the pronunciation explanation. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Polluted river?

Is the yarra polluted or just very dirty? The large image of the river intersecting the city on this page looks like the entire population took a dump in there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.39.232 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The river comes from a muddy catchment. A look at Yarra River#Pollution and environmental issues gives a lot of detail on why it's muddy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Third image in Sports section and other additional image requests

Would anyone be opposed to having an additional image (File:Vodafone arena.jpeg) in the Sport section? Currently, there are no images representing sport in Melbourne in the 21st century or any important arenas etc. In addition to that, would it really effect anyone greatly if a second image of the Shrine of Remembrance was included to illustrate its architectural merit in the Architecture section? One editor in particular seems to have a drama with an image being represented twice (even though one is in broad daylight from a distance, and the other is taken at night in a much closer angle). If you look at Featured Articles like Boston, Massachusetts, Canberra and Manchester, you'll find that many images in the infobox are repeated in the article throughout to represent their importance to the city itself. Why can't Melbourne, of a lesser standard (B-class), follow that league? It certainly doesn't tarnish the quality, and if your argument consists of "too many images", you need to re-think arguing something like that, it's just not valid - especially when Boston (which is as previously mentioned an FA) has almost 50 images not including those in the infobox montage. I'm a bit sick of certain editors in particular thinking they literally own this page. 138.217.220.81 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is image heavy, and new images would need to replace existing ones. The sport section seems full, but anyone more deeply interested can click on the more detailed article. Also think that by a broad topic like this, it doesn't make sense to show two images of the same subject while other subjects are omitted. Regarding the FA examples: note that when the FA status was last time reviewed Boston had 14 images, Canberra 22 and Manchester 17, while Melbourne currently has 33 (infobox not counted). In its current sorry state Boston would be delisted. Unfortunately article quality is often diminished in time, by poor quality additions. Also note the still relevant in the 21st century MCG image at the very top of the article. --ELEKHH^T 06:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What about if the Shrine image replaced the Stained Glass room image? I feel the Shrine is significant enough to be mentioned twice, the lead infobox just introduces what it looks like and the name. If a second image is included in the Culture section, it could add further detail in the caption over why it's so important to Melbourne culturally. A stained glass ceiling is hardly important enough to be one of the four images in the Culture section. Plenty of cities have stained glass windows and ceilings, its not really that momentous. 138.217.220.81 (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the culture section, it will be impossible to illustrate all aspects of Melbourne culture with five images, and that's a good reason not to repeat two images of the same building. If the infobox is simplified and reduced to one skyline image, than it can be argued to include the Shrine elsewhere. The image you are referring to is showing the NGV, which is probably a representative choice for exhibition/museum. The weakest image in the section I find the South Melbourne Town Hall, which is neither the best image of that building, nor one of the most outstanding buildings representing Melbourne architecture (GPO, Melbourne town hall, Storey Hall not included...) --ELEKHH^T 12:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that is fair enough, and understandable. How about the current proposal for a change of images in the Housing section? The current image is 5 years old and the recent one is a great example of a famous Heritage Listed, upper class Terrace House known as "Cypress Terrace", it's much newer as well and it doesn't have to stay there forever, it's just a temporary replacement. 121.220.131.7 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a very interesting concept you're proposing to deal with the difficulty of adequately illustrating the diversity of Melbourne within the constrained space of the article, by changing images in time. There is a template that can randomly display one image out of a number of options, currently in use at portals such as Portal:Society, the technical solution being at Portal:Society/Intro/Image. I don't know of any such application though within article space. Similar proposals have been advanced previously such as here, but did not have much support. I am in principle open to experiments, but you would need broad consensus to implement. The usual way to offer readers a more comprehensive illustration of a topic is by creating a nice image gallery on Commons, and providing a link to it at the top of the external links section. The Melbourne image gallery could do with some improvement, the current version being unstructured, repetitive, and lengthy. --ELEKHH^T 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's generally my objective. I find many images on Australian articles in particular to be repetitive, of poor quality and quite dull (not to mention many of them are very old). I'm not singling out the Melbourne article itself, but I do think that there are far nicer images out there that truly represent a beautiful city like Melbourne and I don't think a lot of the current images in the article meet the criteria. I do understand that Wiki's objective is to illustrate articles rather than promote beauty but I think it's fair to do a city justice with decent photos. Also noteworthy is the fact that London is listed as a Good Article, is kept under good standard due to the Lock feature and it has many images. Do you suggest I get a consensus on replacing the Victorian Housing image on this talk page here? 101.103.70.92 (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the normal process, as explained in edit summaries before, disputes have to be resolved on the talk page. "Old" is not a good argument for replacing images, as encyclopaedic value is not necessarily diminished by age. With the London example, again(?), when promoted to GA status five years ago it did not look like it does now. Generally image-sandwiching is regarded as undesirable. --ELEKHH^T 07:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Melbourne Sport needs to be updated. There are up to 9 games per week of AFL played not 5. 203.208.65.83 (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be extremely unlikely that 9 AFL games would be played in Melbourne in any single round. In fact, I'm trying to work out if it's even possible mathematically. Yes, there are 9 AFL games played each round, but there's always some played in other states, and often in Geelong too. (Whatever you do, don't try to tell Geelong people that their city is part of Melbourne!) The main issue is probably availability of grounds. With only the MCG and Docklands available, squeezing in 9 games would require 5 games at one venue and 4 at the other. Not likely. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.168 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne pronunciation, again

The anonymous IP 125.253.96.133, edited the pronunciation to diff /ˈmɛwbənˈ/. He claimed that it's how Melburnians pronounce the word, but after I did some research, I couldn't find proof for the w pronunciation. I only found that the first vowel is pronounced [æ] and the second consonant is [ɫ], not [w]. Fairly reliable sources [1][2] don't say anything about the [w] pronunciation, even in Australian English article. So Melburnians should pronounce the word [ˈmæɫbən], but refer to the previous edits, you'll notice that other editors disliked providing the exact Melburnian pronunciation. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite some effort on my part, I'm still incapable of using IPA, but this video contains the Melbourne pronunciation of Melbourne. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Melburnian, I can live with 'melbern' or 'melben,' though i believe the former is accurate FlatOut 09:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks HiLo48 for the video. It was pronounced [ˈmeɫbən], but even though that video looks kind of formal and may not had elaborated the casual pronunciation. Thanks also to FlatOut. If both of you are familiar with the North American pronunciation, it would be easier to explain the pronunciations, because this is the most I'm familiar with. In IPA, [e] is like the first part of the diphthong /eɪ/ in the words way, hey, May in the North American pronunciation (remember that Australians pronounce the sound differently, which would sound to the America ear closer to why, high, my). [æ] has the same value for the vowel in cat, hat, fat, sad in the North American pronunciation but the vowel is pronounced long, especially in moderate speed speech. Finally, the [ɫ] is what is known as the dark-L, which is the only pronunciation for the letter L for North Americans and Australians, however that also exists at the end of words and syllables in British pronunciation, otherwise in British, it's clear-L [l] as in Spanish, German, Italian, Greek, Israeli Hebrew, and probably other European languages you might have heard of. So, now I understand that Melbourne is pronounced by Melburnians as [ˈmeɫbən] or [ˈmæɫbən]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the references to the pronunciations. I wonder why would someone remove them? Does he intend to degrade the quality of the article? That edit approaches trolling. It was very clear I wrote in a note, away from the lead, the narrow transcription of the sourced local pronunciation of Melburnians for those who are not familiar with it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You're gonna get far by accusing others of trolling. The pronunciation of Melbourne is in nearly every dictionary out there. We don't absolutely need to cite it. — Lfdder (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going any far. There is no rational reason why not to add the local pronunciations. How would it hurt to add them in a note, away from the lead? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

1) it's not standard practice; 2) narrow transcription get no key so the reader's got to know IPA pretty well; 3) the 'local' pronunciation (all Australian English) only differs in that the /e/ is a bit higher....frankly, who cares? — Lfdder (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the first part of /eɪ/ is actually somewhat mid in most varieties (incl. RP and GA). — Lfdder (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thinking as I write here... In English Wikipedia we don't include the local pronunciations of Paris, and Rome (or Roma), presumably because those pronunciations are by speakers of other languages. We include only the Anglicised pronunciations. But Australia is an English speaking country. It's obvious that the local pronunciation, as used by English speakers in that place, MUST be included. I cannot think of a rational reason to exclude it. Whether pronunciations used by English speakers elsewhere should be included is the only question that should matter. Some Americans obviously want their pronunciation of Melbourne in the article, but we don't go to the trouble of including the Australian pronunciation of New York in the article on that city. So where does the borderline lie? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The local pronunciation is included: /ˈmɛlbən/. — Lfdder (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for now, but there are obviously some who feel that it shouldn't be. And there was more to my post than just that issue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you make an assumption that no one would care for transcription precision? Aren't encyclopedias supposed to be precise? Answering you, yes, I'm of the ones who care. It's not standard practice if the narrow transcription were written for Melburnian pronunciation in the lead. I didn't do that. I wrote it in a note. When did I specifically refer to the General American pronunciation? I was referring to North American English in general. The west of North American English pronunciation fits exactly the [e] (and the English of Wales as an example outside of the area) while the Midwest American fits the [e̞]. The latter is still closer to the Melburnian vowel I referred to. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a comment on this discussion (I don't even understand half of it), but who, precisely, is "you". It really isn't obvious, and maybe you need to calm down just a little so that you contribution becomes comprehensible to ALL readers of this page. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think they meant me. I said "who cares" above. — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are meant to be precise ergo we've got to have narrow transcriptions. Fantastic. — Lfdder (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over infobox image

Since nobody else seems to have done so, I'll start a section here to discuss this. My 2 cents is that the existing montage is a far better representation for the infobox than this single image of a distant skyline. Opinions may, of course, differ. Begoon ^talk 07:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the montage is far superior than that distant shot of the skyline. Most of the single shot is the bay, whereas the montage gives you a much better idea of what the city actually looks like. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer the montage, along with the images that are currently inline throughout the article. Flat Out Let's discuss it 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To bring this up again, I think the montage image is of extremely poor quality. I'd pefer a skyline image, but a better quality one then the previous image proposed --Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think a panaroma done well is perhaps more representative than a photomontage/collage comprising specific buildings or areas of Melbourne. That having been said, were I to buy a postcard and send it to people, I'd rather send them one with the latter.

If, however, there were aerial photos or other options, that might be better yet; but, between the two choices of a skyline photo and a collage, I'd have to go with the collage to better convey the sights and soul of the city. Currently, the quality of the collage seems reasonable enough and it contains an image of the skyline, if but of a low quality. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Population density

The population density looks incorrect. With 4.2m people and an area of 9990km2 the population density (by my calculation) is 425 people/km2 not the 1567 listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.222.20 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Resolved

Consensus

Anyone opposed to this image of the famous 'Cypress Terrace' block replacing the current Terrace Housing image under "Housing"? 101.103.70.92 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes it more notable than Tasma Terrace, Canterbury, Clarendon Terrace, Burlington Terrace, Dorset Terrace, Nepean Terrace and Annerly Terrace, Blanche Terrace, Cobden Terrace, Holyrood Terrace, Rochester Terrace and the St Vincent Gardens precinct, Royal Terrace, Holcombe Terrace, Denver Terrace, Dalmeny House & Cramond House, and Benvenuta, Marion Terrace and Finn Barr, also heritage listed? In terms of image quality, I think the current image is much better. --ELEKHH^T 09:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:121.220.222.63 I am wondering why the image you have edited in has any more relevance than the image it replaced? FlatOut 06:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What makes the current image irreplaceable? It's an overly bright image, the grass looks dead and the terrace itself resembles just about any other odd terrace in Australia/Victoria. The image I was replacing it with was of one of Victoria's oldest remaining apartment buildings - surely that is more notable than some run of the mill Victorian terrace. I understand your trying to depict a recurring trend in Melbourne's housing styles but surely it's not that crucial. Speak now (oppose or support), or forever hold your peace. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

While the current image is obviously not irreplaceable, it is of a much higher quality than the image you're attempting to replace it with. I personally don't find it to be to bright, however if that's the case, you can simply rework it in post production. Yours on the other hand was poorly composed and framed; rather than standing a few metres back, you decided to take the picture from a weird angle, resulting in the corners of the building being cut off. While the following aspects of the image can be edited in post production, there are far too many issues that need to be dealt with. Saturation is oddly low given that you took the image on a cloudy day, one explanation for this would be that your white balance was off. Additionally, the image is overly dark, causing many of the building's more subtle features to be hidden. I can go on, my point is it's subpar compared to the current image. In regards to Wikipedia guidelines/normalities, the image clearly doesn't represent the typical Melburnian home and thus shouldn't be presented in such a manner.Perhaps if it were of a higher quality, it could be somehow included in the history section. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 14:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose change. Current image and caption are far more edifying re character of the city. Brycehughes (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose change. This article is big enough without cluttering it with images of atypical housing styles - this one belongs in Architecture of Melbourne if its technical problems could be sorted out. John beta (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aren't there any other better photos of terraces in Melbourne on Wikipedia? I find the one you people are supporting unsatisfactory... or perhaps someone who is decent at taking photographs could go out and take one? Ashton 29 (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What about this one? It's a lot brighter than the other. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Out of date religious statistics

At the moment, the religious statistics for Melbourne are based on the 2006 Census. This has now been superseded by the 2011 census and it gives the following information "The most common responses for religion in Melbourne (Significant Urban Areas) were Catholic 27.2%, No Religion 23.3%, Anglican 10.6%, Eastern Orthodox 5.7% and Buddhism 4.1%." [http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/2011?opendocument&navpos=220} The figures in the article at the moment include Catholic (28.3%), no religion (20.0%), Anglican (12.1%), Eastern Orthodox (5.9%) and the Uniting Church (4.0%). Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs collectively account for 9.2% of the population. Updating the figures from the quickstats web page for would mean considerable changes to the amount of information given. How do other editors feel about that? Michael Glass (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course they should be updated, but the religion stats from the Australian census are almost meaningless anyway. They are typically misused by others trying to prove an inaccurate point. HiLo48 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New Gold Mountain

It's not as prominent as "Old Gold Mountain" for San Francisco but the article should mention the Chinese name 新金山 (p Xīn Jīnshān). — $Llywelyn II$ 01:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cars

The article seems to suggest cars became common in the early years of the twentieth century. It was true that they were about in some numbers before WWII, but it wasn't until the 1950s and 60s that cars really took off as a common mode of transport in Australia's cities. Until then it was trams, trains, buses, bikes or walking for the great majority.

Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC) included the stats on passenger vehicles in the 1950s and 2013 "Australian Social Trends". http://www.abs.gov.au/. Retrieved 29 May 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)</ref></ref>

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute related to this page. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Melbourne". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Scorch (talk | ctrb) 10:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer).

Montage

Kind of boring. Apparently an update is enough to warrant discussion. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The boring bit is the constant unexplained changes by editors who are apparently yet to discover Edit summaries. It's very rude to just keep placing what we assume are YOUR favourite photos there without any explanation or discussion at all. When you think a change is appropriate, how about at least explaining what's wrong with the present pic(s), and what's so good about yours, BEFORE you actually change anything? HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty common procedure across Wikipedia to discuss changes to a lead image/montage before anything goes ahead. It's the first thing readers see so it's important we get it right. If you don't like these discussions and/or explaining the reasons behind your bold edits then maybe Wikipedia isn't your thing. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be the first time there's been issues with Ashton 29's image changes in the article. They also got into an edit war over the 'housing' image a few months ago. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not that hard to see why certain images I've chosen are better. Firstly, these images in the montage are so tiresome, because they are so heavily used on their respective articles Wikipedia (the one of the Shrine of Remembrance, Federation Square etc). It's the same view every time. The current shot of the MCG is quite dull, and I much prefer this one... it's clearer with a fantastic perspective. I'd like people to look at the montage I have selected in the edit history of the article and give their feedback. Ideally, I also think a shot of the State Library could be included. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Statements like "It's not that hard to see why certain images I've chosen are better" are never going to be helpful. It hardly indicates an ability to see things from someone else's perspective, whatever that might be. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that my edits weren't destructive or unwarranted and I don't understand the rigidity in certain editing methods particularly on Australian articles. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

From past experience you should have learned by now that not everyone agrees with your choices of images, and that if you wish to change images on well maintained articles you should use the talk page first. Regarding your proposed changes: generally I prefer daylight images rather than night images so I do not agree with the proposed change for the Shrine. The State Library is worth considering, but clearly Fed Square is more iconic so I disagree with that swap too. The current shot of the MCG that shows it as part of the cityscape provides a better sense of scale and identity than your proposal. Also have a look at the ordered layout of the current montage and compare it with what you were proposing. --ELEKHH^T 23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The question of what is more iconic (State Library or Fed Sq) is not factual based and is really a matter of opinion, so I think what you said is entirely subjective. Federation Square has only been around since 2002, the State Library is one of Melbourne's most iconic buildings and also one of the oldest remaining. It's a well known meeting place for city residents and has thousands of visitors on a weekly basis. Normally I would be inclined to agree with you regarding night images in the montage, but this is a well lit, well taken and well composed photo so I don't think it should be a huge problem if it was used. In regards to the ordered layout of the montage, do you mean compare the sizes of the images I was proposing? I'm a little confused. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There is already an image of the SLV (interior) in the Culture section. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that's an interior image. A lot of these reasons against said changes are hackneyed. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to look at two or more images of the SLV then go to the SLV article. This article is about a city with many more landmarks worthy of coverage. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, Wikipedia rigidity and stasis has prevailed again so here I am (again) requesting a change. Every image I've chosen contains a notable and significant part of Melbourne, whether it be a public square, a building, etc., yet HappyWaldo objected on the basis that it did not have the Royal Exhibition Building. The reason for its exclusion was that I could not fit the REB into this montage because it kept producing black bars at the top or bottom every time I tried to include it, probably because of the image size. So to settle the problem of not having it included, I moved it to the architecture section where it would be much more fitting than having the South Melbourne Town Hall... if we're going to talk town halls in terms of Melbourne architecture, then why aren't we including the one in the CBD? But that's a different story all together. I'd like some feedback this time, so basically let's cue all the reasons why HappyWaldo's decision is favoured. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already an image (lithograph) of REB in the history section, so having another image of REB somewhere else in the article body would be superfluous. If a modern image of REB belongs anywhere it's the lead montage. The current Fed Square panorama shows a public square with an array of interesting buildings. The proposed Fed Square image shows a grey mass from the vantage point of Eureka Skydeck. Compositionally the current Shrine of Remembrance image is better. The SLV panorama appears to tilt and the man in front is distracting. Fed Square panorama and skyline are far more professional looking. The proposed MCG image isn't bad. I'm all for changing the montage if better images can be found. This article has a number of problems, but the montage isn't one of them. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I used some of those images purely because I couldn't find any others that fit. However, I determined them all to be well composed, well lit and well representative of the subjects they portrayed bar perhaps one (Shrine). I do find your objections to be a little superficial, but alas I'll agree until further comments. If there's no real sway for the current montage or against my proposed montage then I don't see why we can't replace it for a little while, at least until other images are found. Ideally, a panoramic image similar to the one I proposed of SLV but without said distraction and tilt would be great. I do agree however with your sentiments on the Shrine of Remembrance photo... it was chosen hastily because no other image seemed to fit so I can definitely accept your opinion on that one. The image of Fed Square isn't a bad aerial shot IMO and the grey mass you attribute to the photo is largely due to the fact that the buildings in the square are similar in colour so from the distance they will have the same tonal quality. However, if someone could make a montage with the image of the MCG I have put forward, and a panoramic similar to the one of the SLV, with REB included, then I'd love that. Having said that, I don't think that your objections towards SLV image are enough to leave it out or discount it. The tilt isn't that bad and the passerby's and people in the image that you consider "distracting" really just shows the frequency of visitors. If the image was devoid of people, the SLV and surrounds would look lifeless. So if someone is a whiz with montages on Photoshop, perhaps we could reach an agreement if you include these three at least because I just cannot seem to get the REB to fit in the Wiki photomontage template. Ashton 29 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My initial personal response to the Fed Square image was one of complete puzzlement. I simply couldn't tell what it was. I wondered if it was a construction or transport site with some weird shaped objects in it. No, it doesn't work. And I have a personal objection to skylines that contain nothing unusual. Melbourne's doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I said in the previous comment I don't care what is included, as long as the three images above of the MCG, SLV (or a similar pano) and REB are used. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to make a mock up montage of the three images I've chosen of the MCG, SLV and REB just to see how it looks? Ashton 29 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any serious opposition to this as this montage? Ashton 29 (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Melbourne, from top: Melbourne skyline at night, the State Library of Victoria from above, Melbourne Cricket Ground, the Royal Exhibition Building, Parliament House, Yarra River at sunset and the Shrine of Remembrance

Considering the previous suggestion hasn't warranted any discussion or opposition, does anyone have any feelings towards this one? I threw it together just before, because I feel the current one is largely outdated. That skyline photo is from 2008. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Melbourne infobox montage.jpg

suggestion

File:Melbourne infobox montage 2.jpg

option two

As said earlier, I think Fed Square should be included. Strange that you argue for 'update' by replacing new buildings with older ones. Also, the current image of the Shrine is much better than what you are proposing here (bad framing). Please listen to what other editors are saying. --ELEKHH^T 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, why should Fed Square be included? What makes it so notable? It's just a public space, hardly noteworthy at that. What are you talking about when you say I've "argued for update by replacing new buildings with older ones"? Perhaps it's because the older buildings have far more significance, especially in regards to Melbourne's history. I also don't understand what is so wrong about the framing of the Shrine of Remembrance... it gives the building momentum and provides good detail of its architectural columns. Boston, Massachusetts has a similarly framed image of one of its heritage buildings in the infobox montage of that page. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The current montage is fine. There's balance and consistency; the images compliment each other. Your images are almost always compositionally impaired and don't add up to a cohesive whole. And the Boston montage looks awful. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not "fine". As I previously addressed, it's dated and far too busy. The skyline shot is terrible (and going on 8 years old), there's far too many coloured lights, the shot of Federation Square is impossible to distinguish on a low-resolution, low-brightness monitor. "Compositionally impaired", how on earth so? All of those views I've used are neat, tidy and attractive. It's these kinds of vague statements that you use which make me think you're just picking arbitrary and meaningless problems in order to keep a sense of stagnancy and complacency with Melbourne's montage. I think you should stop tempting fate, articles are going to change, because editors are going to have different ideals. You need to accept that. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

When there's a consensus for change, it will change. You have been unable to build one. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That's because the only one who keeps digging their heels in, is you. Nobody else has a concern, as evident when I proposed the last change on February 2. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's because no one else (so far) has supported your proposal. It comes down to the content itself and the quality of your arguments. It's worth remembering here that you've changed and added more images on the Melbourne page than any other user. Count them. The idea that there's some kind of unspoken policy of "stagnancy", or that I'm out to revert all your edits, is simply not true. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, the current montage is plain and dreadful, and in no way does justice to Melbourne. The skyline photo is years old and is so dark that is is very unclear. It could be anywhere in the world. Why on earth anyone would choose this as a skyline photo for Melbourne, which has a very impressive skyline, is beyond me. Replace it with something during daylight from Williamstown, which would show the full length of the skyline from what is known to be its best vantage point, and will allow people to actually see its form and a bit of the bay too. In the very least, this should be changed. As for the rest, there is space for 2 more photos. Brisbane has more photos as do many other cities. There are a handful more from the CBD alone that could improve the montage overall. As it is, it looks quite gloomy.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree, which is why I have proposed two recent suggestions for an update. The skyline shot I have used is indeed in daylight and from Williamstown. If HappyWaldo has any comments on how these proposed montages could be improved on, I'd greatly appreciate it. Ashton 29 (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think montages need to be reined in or abandoned altogether. The Boston one referred to by Ashton is a classic example of the montage being used as a surrogate image repository. It's a shame to see Boston, a featured article, fall victim to image overload. More doesn't equal better. The current Melbourne montage is close to ideal: simple, ordered layout, aesthetically pleasing. For example, I like the way the dazzling lights in the night panoramas seems to reflect each other. Likewise, the greys/greens of the Shrine and MCG, and the orange/blue of REB and Flinders. Shrine and Flinders face each other at equal height with equally blue skies. And there's a consistency in the quality of the images. There isn't a jarring HDR in the mix or some sloppily taken holiday snap with bad light and framing. The current skyline image is getting old, but I don't think the skyline itself has changed all that drastically to merit an update. Australia 108 hasn't gone up yet. The proposed day skyline shot is alright, but I'm not sure it improves on the current one. It's still faraway and indistinct, not that much can be expected from a skyline shot at thumbnail level anyway. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think the daylight skyline shot improves dramatically on the current one. It features 568 Collins Street and it's more classically Melbourne, a very recognisable and iconic view of Port Phillip with the boats. Idyllic, in that sense. I still would like to trial the latest proposal I suggested, which is why I vote in support for it. Ashton 29 (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean option 2? It's poorly put together, the skyline shot and REB are blurry for some reason, the Shrine has clearly been stretched horizontally to fit, the view from the Shrine is pretty much pointless (two Shirne-related images, why?), the Flinders shot is inferior. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I mean either option. Instead of sitting there complaining about minor details, why don't you change them? I've seen little contribution from you here other than as a voice of negativity. If you're the only voice of opposition here, I think I'm going to go ahead and make a change. And when I click the current montage, I can see plenty of stretching and poor juxtaposition, but I'm not a stickler for detail that hardly matters. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with HappyWaldo's assessment of this proposal. Also disagree with the previous change of the MCG image (as stated previously). Most importantly however, I find your sustained disregard of WP:CIVIL very problematic. --ELEKHH^T 05:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, Ashton's second montage option is vastly superior to the extremely bland, boring, dull montage that currently exists and looks like it could be from about 1993. The skyline image in particular is about the worst picture ever taken of the impressive Melbourne skyline. It is totally nondescript and makes the city look much smaller than it really is.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to take hyperbole seriously. The worst skyline comment is laughable, 1993 comment nonsensical. What is "bland" and "boring" to you is straight forward and neutral to me. More so than, say, the decorative chocolate box that is the Brisbane montage. This is an encyclopedia, not a tacky tourism brochure. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Even the Adelaide montage manages to showcase the city 100 times better than the Melbourne one currently does and looks 100 times more appealing at the time. They've just made the effort to pick really nice photos. If anything, just let Ashton, who has a knack for finding interesting images among what we have available on wiki, change the skyline and the fed sqaure pics at least. If anything else, these two are so dark that it is unclear what we are looking at. The federation square picture, because of its darkness and skinnyness, really could be any place or room in the dark.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Even the Adelaide montage manages to showcase the city 100 times better" It features a rotunda. Pure decoration. Replace it with Adelaide Oval or a structure that actually has its own Wiki page. The image of Glenelg is unclear even at original size. First building to appear is "the UniSA Building on North Terrace". Is this really the most notable landmark Adelaide has to offer? If Ashton or anyone else can create a better Melbourne montage, then I'll support change. Personally I wouldn't ask Ashton to find another Fed Square image. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Pure decoration"? Isn't architecture in general all about "pure decoration"? Anyway, you still seem to be picking the most incidental problems. There is nothing wrong with the montages I have designed, and other people support them. There's no rule about what belongs in a montage, and it's not exactly easy to find icons within Adelaide that define the city. It's not Paris with the Eiffel Tower. It's a city of modest architectural history. The Elder Park rotunda is certainly recognisable to anyone who visits Elder Park in the same way the Washington Square Arch is recognisable to someone who visits Washington Square Park in Manhattan. Victoria Square is an example of the sizeable open space the city has to offer, Glenelg is a popular tourist spot, the city has a moniker as the City of Churches and that's represented by the cathedral image. But that's Adelaide, this is Melbourne and I've done the same for that city (highlighted public space and greenery with the Shrine of Remembrance park photo, and easily identifiable landmarks–Shrine, the Flinders St Station and Royal Exhibition Bldg). If you want me to add the current Flinders St station photo into my proposal and we can debate how that looks, I'll get on it sometime soon. Ashton 29 (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To rehash a point I made over a year ago: "If you want to look at two or more images of [landmark] then go to [the landmark's] article. This article is about a city with many more landmarks worthy of coverage." - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. And there's no image in my montage that is duplicated in the article body. Ceremonial Avenue is separate to the Shrine of Remembrance. Re "replace images with structures that have a Wiki page"...Go to the Vancouver page, and there are Totem poles that don't have an individual page on those particular poles. Not everything has to be some iconic landmark, as long as it accurately represents the city and its character. Please indicate what you mean by image distortion and stretching. What monitor are you using? I can see no problems with my images from my screen. They just aren't as cropped or compressed as the ones in the montage you keep replacing. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You have stretched the Shrine, Flinders and possibly REB horizontally so they appear fatter. Compare the current montage (1,230 × 1,642 pixels, file size: 1.3 MB) with your proposal (646 × 822 pixels, file size: 310 KB). Did you throw this together in MS Paint or something? - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There's been no stretching her, just low res to fit everything in. Still, most people will not see it in large, they will just view it in the article, and its appearance is fine at article/infobox size. Ashton 29 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Users will click for a larger view which is why higher res and better quality is always preferable. I won't support a montage that features two Shrine-related images, just as I wouldn't support a montage featuring two images of REB and Carlton Gardens. It's giving precedence to one site. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not all users, though. Which image will go then: Ceremonial Ave or the Shrine itself? I am not opposed to using both, because they are not the same subject. i'd like more than just your opinion until this is resolved. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Montage of images of Melbourne

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for Image A. AlbinoFerret 18:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Which of these two images should be used in the infobox?

!Vote for Current Image or A or for Proposed Image or B. Do not reply to the comments of other editors in the Survey. Discussion should be in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A. Current image

B. Proposed image

Survey

A Not any sort of photo expert, but my eyes immediately went to the current image when I opened up the RfC. The skyline at night perhaps did it for me? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
A. Same deal. I like the night skyline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Elements of both - A. has two night shots. Why not keep just one (top skyline shot) and add the bottom left elongated shot of the pedestrian path from B? (editor is volunteer from RfC feedback request service.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
B. It is about the town, not about the nights in a town. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I support the current image over the proposal for the following reasons: It's at a much higher resolution (1,230 × 1,642 pixels, file size: 1.3 MB, against ‎595 × 822 pixels, file size: 322 KB) and the image quality/sharpness is better (compare the two images of the Royal Exhibition Building); it covers more ground with the panorama of Federation Square, Melbourne's best-known public space (the proposal has replaced it with Ceremonial Avenue which is partially visible in the Shrine of Remembrance image as it forms part of the site's courtyard, thus giving precedence to one Melbourne landmark over all else); the placement of the images is more aesthetically pleasing, for example the night panoramas seem to reflect each other, and colours and architectural features contrast well in the standard size images; the skyline has been criticised for being an indistinct night shot, but I don't think the proposal gives any greater level of clarity, it appears out of focus, like oil has been dabbed on the lens, notice how the antenna of 120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street shine brightly in the night shot but almost fail to show up at all in the proposed skyline. Also judging from the number of Flickr comments/faves, the night shot is a better photograph than the proposed skyline. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the proposed image. One idea would be to make the images smaller in this discussion as they would be on the actual page when people are reading them. The current image (particularly the skyline photo) looks dreadful in a small size in the sidebar, particularly the very unclear skyline photo.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I also support my change. You've significantly scaled up the images of your proposal, so of course they look higher res. As far as "clarity and aesthetic pleasing" goes, that's an entirely subjective matter, dependent purely on personal taste. Currently two in favour of my proposal. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"that's an entirely subjective matter, dependent purely on personal taste" Ask any professional photographer and they'll tell you the same thing. With the proposal, it's the water and boats in the foreground that's the focus, not the skyline, which is rendered blurry. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, per my previous arguments I prefer the current composition. This is based mainly on content. --ELEKHH^T 12:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the tram. Where is the tram? --Pete (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation yet again

Why has someone yet again inserted an /r/ in the pronunciation? There is no /r/ in the Australian (and Melburnian) pronunciation of "Melbourne". This is made abundantly clear in the references to the Macquarie and Oxford dictionaries that are cited in the footnotes. This all got thrashed out years ago, with a clear decision by the community to favour the pronunciation in Australian English. 27.34.66.1 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Intro line

|the senior men's football team|Melbourne City FC|

why am I not being allowed to add this to the about section at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtalic (talk • contribs) 07:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hatnotes are not there to provide links to everything related to a subject. It is appropriate to include links to the CBD and LGA because people searching for those are likely to end up here but people looking for a soccer club are not. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy it. Typing the name of the soccer team, "Melbourne City", directs the user to the page for the city of Melbourne, when they wanted to go to Melbourne City FC. Adding the City FC to the search is an inconvenience that can be circumvented by adding it to the hatnote section. Shtalic (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What else would you expect to turn up when you enter something vague like "Melbourne City"? Search functions are not magic. You have to give them some help. Search for "Melbourne City soccer" and you'll find the link. That it might be an inconvenience for you is not an excuse to make the hatnote larger than the article, which is what you'd have to do if everyone had the same attitude. There are a lot of "Melbourne" articles listed at Melbourne (disambiguation), including Melbourne City FC, and we can't add them all to the hatnote. That's what disambiguation pages are for, and why the disambiguation page is included in the hatnote. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There are only two potential things I can get when I type "Melbourne City"-- the city itself, or the soccer team with the same name. However, the reason you can't add all the pages listed on the disambiguation page is because their names are specific-- writing "Melbourne Vixens" would give a user the page of melbourne vixens, not the City itself. Same with Storm, Tigers, Cup, Football-- none of those entries would unexpectedly give a user the city's page. However, since there are two possible intentions (that are not already on the hatnotes) behind searching "Melbourne City"-- that is, Melbourne City the football club or Melbourne the City-- a user searching for one may not want to get a page of the other. That's why a hatnote of it should be added, so that a user intending to go to "Melbourne City the football club" may easily access it from there. Melbourne Victory is different to Melbourne City, because there is no Victory of Melbourne, but there is a City of Melbourne, which is the page a soccer-seeking user might not want to access. And I believe the third rule of hatnotes which you linked me applies to this case. "Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." Shtalic (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Somebody typing "Melbourne City" would normally be looking for 1 of 3 things (not 2), the city itself, the LGA or the CBD. Somebody looking for the Melbourne City soccer club would, hopefully, have the sense to realise that they need to be more specific and add "soccer" or "football club". If they end up here by mistake, they can find the link on the disambiguation page. We simply can't include every possible similar title. You're arguing that it's inconvenient for you to add "FC", which is only two letters. What if somebody finds it inconvenient to add "Vixens", which is 6 letter? Should we then include Melbourne Vixens? What about Melbourne, Arkansas? Somebody looking for that would probably know it simply as "Melbourne". Should we add that? The same applies to Melbourne, Florida. You're proposing an addition that is inconsistent with the way that we handle such links, which is why your addition was reverted by two editors.

their names are specific-- writing "Melbourne Vixens" would give a user the page of melbourne vixens, not the City itself What happens when you type "Melbourne City FC"? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend. Allowing Melbourne City FC would open the floodgates. Should we have a hatnote for Melbourne as well? It's minus the "City" part, brining it even closer to the article title. Keep things simple and leave it as is.- HappyWaldo (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

good point. Shtalic (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 23 external links on Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091006053021/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/c02.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/c02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Port Phillip Bay

There should be a picture of the bay in this article. It's kinda important. And probably something about the Mornington Peninsular, since it is within the boundaries of the greater urban area. 203.97.184.160 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, eg a picture of the Melbourne skyline from the Bay. 09:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Stuart Onyeche (talk)

Video

Mid 1950s Melbourne showing period automobile, fashion, trams and the facade of The Australian Hotel with Pilsener Beer advertisement.

Hi there, I have added this video twice but it has been removed. Why? It is a short, very broad scope video snippet which I think shows a huge amount of 1950s Melbourne. It is ideal, unique, Wikipedia only content. Why not keep it? prat (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Local pronunciation

@Wolfdog and Mr KEBAB: As a local of Australia and knowing of relatives in Melbourne (I reside in Sydney), I am aware that the pronunciation of this amazing city's name is more like [ˈmæɫbn̩] over there instead of [ˈmɛɫbn̩]. I want to see whether it's safe to change the pronunciation accordingly. I reckon it very much coincides with the salary–celery merger. — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 05:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: I have no preference. If you're sure that the correct vowel is [æ], then write it [æ]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: I feel like a source confirming that would be great. If we use your transcription, though, we'll have to remove the audio. Wolfdog (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I'm not sure about that. That [ɛ] (though it's probably slightly lower than cardinal [ɛ]) is a perfectly Australian realization of /æ/ (especially in the case of older and/or broad speakers), it's just that more and more speakers are lowering it to a sound that is as open as [a]. I think the celery-salary merger is dependent on /e/ being very close (about close-mid [e]), then /e/ is lowered to [ɛ] because of the following lateral, which then merges with the main allophone of /æ/ to reduce the number of non-contrastive phones.

A recent change in Australian English is that /e, æ/ are lowered to [ɛ, a], which is probably a British/American influence. It's safe to expect this merger to disappear within the next 50 years or so. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: How do you feel sure that it's "safe to expect this merger to disappear"? Doesn't this go against Garde's Principle that mergers are irreversible by linguistic means (with some notable exceptions)? Wolfdog (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Well, if the merged vowel becomes [a] instead of the contemporary [æ] (and it's possible, as it seems to me that AuE aims at having as few vowel allophones as possible, so when a speaker realizes the TRAP vowel as [a], they'll probably also use it before /l/), it could become so stigmatized that speakers from other regions of Australia will mock the merger out of existence, if you know what I mean. It's a complicated reasoning, but it's not very far-fetched. But I shouldn't have used the phrase "it's safe to expect", which is too definitive. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Question: Where does the listed pronunciation "ˈmɛlbərn" come from? It's referenced to the Macquarie and the Oxford, but the latter actually has "ˈmɛlbən". St Anselm (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I see that virtually every page of the archives has a section on pronunciation - e.g. Talk:Melbourne/Archive 8#Pronunciation yet again. This means the explanatory comment needs to be changed. St Anselm (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Fixed. St Anselm (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I'm going to copy and paste an exact explanation I wrote on the talk page of user R.marrisen78: Regarding dictionaries,

Yes, the dictionary sources do say that. But those are referring only to narrow UK/Australian pronunciations. Wikipedia's IPA standard is a broad IPA transcription that is meant to "accommodate General American (GenAm), Received Pronunciation (RP), Canadian English, South African, Australian, and New Zealand pronunciations" (the six most widely used forms of English around the whole world); see Help:IPA for English, which advises editors to "note that several of these symbols are used in ways that are specific to Wikipedia and differ from those used by dictionaries." It also notes that "If the words illustrating two symbols sound the same to you [for instance, the historically separate phonemes /ər/ and /ə/, which have merged in Australia, UK, etc...] you can ignore the difference between those symbols." You can feel free to add back in an additional, local Australian pronunciation (which is something I myself did a few months ago, but has since been removed)."

In our case, the local pronunciation has at the time of this writing been reincluded anyway. Wolfdog (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You've restored the "dispute" tag, but what's the dispute exactly? Wolfdog (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) You still need a reliable source for the /ˈmɛlbərn/ pronunciation. And I'd be interested to know what policy you are following here. Is it just Help:IPA/English (which isn't actually a policy)? St Anselm (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see the source with your pronunciation - now the issue is that we have reliable sources which disagree. St Anselm (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be forward, but are you actually still confused? American/Canadian/Scottish/Irish accents pronounce the "r" and English/Australian/South African/New Zealand accents do not. Dictionaries published in these countries will include /r/ or not based on their respective accents. On Wikipedia, to accommodate this lack of a global standard, we include /r/ with the knowledge that those who don't pronounce postvocalic /r/ don't have to; we're using the "Help:IPA/English" template and symbols, so that's the guideline we follow. What more of a dispute is there? Wolfdog (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused - I just disagree with you. Help:IPA/English is not even a guideline, and it does not dictate what is in this article. The issue here is that pronouncing the name of the city with an "r" is incorrect (or is seen to be incorrect). So yes, I disagree with the idea that "place names are not generally exempted from being transcribed in this abstracted system". St Anselm (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I don't see how you can both not be confused and feel that literally millions of English speakers, including educated ones (some of who have even lived or been to Melbourne), are "incorrect" in their pronunciation of a place/name. You can't be both of those at the same time. Do you understand my point about different accents? How about this: Consider that the British norm of pronouncing Los Angeles is /lɒs ˈændʒəliːz/, while the American norm is /lɑs ˈændʒələs/. Should Americans insist that Brits, who are quite consistent in their pronunciation, are all just "incorrect"? Should I tag the British pronunciation on WP with a "dispute" tag? This would be misleading and misguided. There's no dispute at all; it's well-documented that Americans say this city's name one way and Brits another, and all we can do is try to accommodate both. The exact same statement can be made about Melbourne. Do you see how you appear to be deliberately intransigent from my perspective?

As for Help:IPA/English, it's an "information page," which is "intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms." What were using here isn't largely "in dispute" whatsoever, but is, rather, a communal norm. That being said, if you have a problem with the symbols, representation, etc. you can certainly work towards changing it by discussing it up on the talk page of Help:IPA/English. That's the appropriate place to voice grievances about IPA representations that you feel are misleading.

Let me end this response this way: What exact type of source or comment could I provide that would make you change your mind? Wolfdog (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your Los Angeles analogy at all - there is only one (English) pronunciation listed in that article, and it is the American one. St Anselm (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the OED is certainly to be preferred over dictionary.com, especially since the latter is the general pronunciation of all the uses of the word, including Melbourne, Florida, which is certainly pronounced /ˈmɛlbərn/. St Anselm (talk) 2.0:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't talking about the WP article on Los Angeles (though I see that it does indeed list as many as three pronunciations, with two as footnotes); I was talking about the general topic of worldwide pronunciations of Los Angeles. Regardless of you not understanding my analogy, you still haven't responded to the reality that different accents use different phonemes. (Are you familiar with phonology at all?) In fact, I'll give you an analogy that does directly apply to Wikipedia, since you are claiming ignorance and I sincerely am hoping to clarify for you: /ˈbɒstən/ as given on the page Boston. That pronunciation happens to accommodate accents, like British ones, that use the /ɒ/ phoneme, even though most Americans don't use that phoneme and their pronunciation of Boston would be better transcribed phonemically as /ˈbɑstən/ or /ˈbɔstən/. Again, though, I wouldn't complain about the transcription of /ˈbɒstən/ because it is following Wikipedia's norm for an IPA transcription that accommodates English accents worldwide, not just American ones (we are assuming that WP has a worldwide readership, right?). In the same vein, we want to accommodate English accents worldwide, not just Australian ones. In the case of Boston, the WP article happens to be highlighting a feature that most Americans, Canadians, Scots, and many Irish have merged into another phoneme (and so that phoneme doesn't exist for them). Why then are we highlighting this phoneme? ...because this phoneme is still alive and well in other standard English accents globally, including those of England, South Africa, Wales, etc.

Second of all, you've still ignored my question about how I could possibly change your mind. Instead, you come across as unmovably set in your belief that there is some "dispute." I hope the following source I found finally convinces you: Oxford University Press, who publishes your preferred OED, also publishes a U.S. version of their dictionary online, and, sure enough, the pronunciation /ˈmelbərn/ is the standard American one given. If the heart of your contention is really that there are no reputable sources supporting the rhotic pronunciation of Melbourne, we can now put that argument to rest. Wolfdog (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are privileging the North American English OED over the British and World English - especially since the former has both Melbournes, whereas the latter has only one. That sounds a lot like cherry-picking to match your preferred pronunciation. St Anselm (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

StAnselm: Nothing is being "privileged"; this representation (with rhotic /r/) is the Wikipedia NORM. You seem to be ignoring my arguments, ignoring my analogies (in which Boston, e.g. can just as well be mistakenly perceived as being "privileged" towards British standards), and asking for sources and then, when I present you with exactly what you ask, changing what you ask for. Then you get to feel entitled to claim that I'm cherry-picking. This is very frustrating. I also sense you actually have a larger problem: a problem with the Wikipedia norm of using Help:IPA/English, in which case you need to take your battle to that page, not with me on Talk:Melbourne, whose pronunciation has no reason to change until the WP pronunciation guidelines change. I'll ask a final time (as I have now twice), and, if nothing will change your mind, then I suppose the conversation is over: What exact type of source or comment could I provide that would make you change your mind? Wolfdog (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Help:IPA/English says it "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." So what would make me change my mind is seeing this in a policy or guideline. And as it turns out, we do - in MOS:RHOTIC, which uses Oxford has a definitive example. I have just found this myself - in hindsight, it would have been better for you to refer to it right away. I have removing the dispute tag now. St Anselm (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)