Jump to content

Talk:Melbourne/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Population

I've included the reference from the ABS, hope you don't need anything more. Sween64 09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arts and entertainment subsection

The Society and culture section is getting quite long, and the Arts and entertainment subsection has been split up into more subsections as a result. I would suggest that the whole section is really too long and that it is time to move it to a separate article and give a summary in other articles. This is in line with what has been done for other cities, leaving the main city page in summary style. JPD (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me: be bold. :) Rebecca 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I would/will try if/when I had/have time, but even then, I'm terrible at writing about those sorts of subjects, so it'd be good if someone else got in first. JPD (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne Chinatown

He also removed the claim that Melbourne's Chinatown is amongst the oldest in the world, with the note, "Is not, multiple US chinatowns older". Yet Chinatowns in North America indicates otherwise, with most Chinatowns with dates of origin being newer than Melbourne's, and the comment that "Dating back to the late 19th century, the main centre of the older Chinatown is Pender and Main Streets in downtown Vancouver, which is also, along with Victoria's [British Columbia], one of the oldest surviving Chinatowns in North America". By comparison, Melbourne's dates to the mid-1850s. So I have reverted that edit. If Prester John wants to offer counter-evidence, he is welcome, but it needs to be evidence, not just a claim.

I also "reverted" a bit about car use, although the claim is now slightly different to the one he removed.
Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's correct on Chinatown: Melbourne's is the oldest outside Asia. The one in San Francisco claims to be older but doesn't have a clear founding date, the Melbourne one dates to the gold rush and the date is usually given as 1854. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately this guy appears to have a cultural cringe problem. Many of his edits try to prove that that cities in the US are more significant. Nevertheless, the quote about Chinatown is correct, I will see if I can reference it. Assuming Chinatown, San Francisco, California is older and can be dated to before 1854 (which it is many believe it did), Melbourne's is still the oldest continuing Chinatown because San Francisco's was destroyed in 1908 and was not rebuilt until a few years later, in fact at the time the planners pushed to relocate the community completely. Bendigo's Chinatown on Bridge Street was also established in 1854, but survives only in the form of a museum. --Biatch 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree, but it would be good if we had an reference to cite in support. Do you know of such a source? Philip J. Rayment 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article didn't claim Melbourne's was the oldest; just that it was among the oldest. So even if San Francisco's is older, it doesn't invalidate the claim in the Melbourne article. Philip J. Rayment 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg

Hide&Reason has removed the image from the article citing "This image is irrelevant to the section, creates section overlap/clutter and doesn't serve the article, and frankly I'm sick of seeing it put back in". I disagree with most of this, although admittedly the section it was placed in is probably not the ideal section (Government). The Flinders Street/Yarra River/Southbank area is a very important district of Melbourne and it would be a mistake to not represent it visually. Whether it creates section overlap/clutter depends on how you view the page - you cannot design it so everyone views it exactly the same. It displayed just fine on my PC with a resolution of 1024x768 and I would imagine it does the same for most people. Finally, Hide&Reason's self righteous comment makes them sound like they believe themselves to be the surpreme arbiter of this article. It is one thing to remove content but another to do so like that. I would suggest that a better location be found for the image, but I reject the idea that it is not a useful image in the article. There are poorer quality images of far less significant locations in this article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If the concern is that it doesn't fit the section that it's in, then it ought to be moved somewhere else in the article. But it shouldn't be removed entirely, since it's an excellent image, indeed it's a featured picture.
While we're on the topic of images, I think some of the others could do with replacement, starting with Image:Ici house melbourne.jpg, which I don't think is really important enough for this article. The historical images are useful, but the map of greater Melbourne is not great. Image:Beacon cove beach port melbourne.jpg is not particularly distinctive and could probably be replaced. Something from St Kilda Beach or would that be too cliched? --bainer (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree on ICI House - it is extremely important in explaining the history of the city and its built form. Look at any book about Melbourne's history and built form and you'll find the same. It was not only Australia's tallest at the time, but it broke the strict hight limits of the city and changed the face of the skyline forever, paving the way for the introduction of plot ratio planning. It was built around the time of the Olympics and not much significant had been built in the CBD for 3 decades previously. It was also one of the world's earliest curtain walled skyscrapers in the mould of the United Nations headquarters, and an important part of the transition of the International style (architecture) into Modern architecture. The Beacon Cove Beach image could possibly be replaced with something like Image:Kitesurfing on st kilda beaches.jpg which more clearly demonstrates recreational use. --Biatch 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I remember reading about that building now that you mention it, I had forgotten. Perhaps the caption could be tweaked to mention that this was the first of the tall buildings? I do still think that the image is not great, it doesn't really put the building in context, nor does it give a sense of scale. Something more like this perhaps, although maybe with some more focus on its neighbours? --bainer (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Or better still, maybe you'd like to go out and take a photo of it yourself. I am sick of these people that complain that there are no photos, then when you go to the effort to add one, they complain about it not being "Steve Parish" tourist brochure BS. The image is fine, it illustrates the subject matter adequately until a better free one is available. --Biatch 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the photo of the Yarra in twilight is beautiful. I am a 13 year old girl doing photography at school and think this photo depicts just how gorgeous our city is, and should definitely stay. Melbournegirl3 06:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image issues

Diliff, reinserting your own photography (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Melbourne_yarra_twilight.jpg) into articles and simply waiting for them to be properly incorporated isn't good editorial policy. Something being a Featured picture does not entitle it to automatic inclusion in an article. It also doesn't help your case that you admit Government isn't the best section for it, yet throw it back in there anyway.

Secondly, the question of image sizing itself: do any other editors think some of Melbourne's pictures could be scaled down slightly? I think they take up a bit too much viewing space at the moment. Hide&Reason 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I only reverted because I didn't have time to find a better place for it. I invited others to find a more suitable position. However, it is going to be easily 'lost' if it isn't reinserted so I left it there in the short-term. I don't think the pictures need to be scaled down. 200-250px is a pretty normal size for images in articles, and some panoramic shots are often scaled up to 500-600px. I don't think it restricts the article too much, but perhaps being a photographer I'm more visually oriented. Evidently, you are not. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You could try putting it in the Yarra River article where it belongs. --Biatch 06:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There is already a similar image (also taken by myself) in that article. It belongs in both articles really, as it does not just illustrate the Yarra River, it also illustrates the south-east side of the city and Southbank, all valid and important parts of Melbourne. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps it belongs in the Southbank, Victoria article. Any inner suburb could lay claim to being important to Melbourne. --Biatch 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps it belongs in both, as I mentioned. An image does not have to exist exclusively in one article. Also, the image illustrates the context of three things in relation to each other - The CBD, the Yarra River and Southbank. If it only illustrated Southbank, I would concede your point, but you seem to be missing mine. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I altered the caption so it at least seems to fit for the time being. --Biatch 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I think there are some photos that are irrelevant on the page and should be taken off. Like the picture of that random building. I think there are many more photos that could show nicer parts of the city. For example, maybe a photo could be put on of the big fire things lighting up at night? They really do look magnificent and I'm sure you could find a photo of this on google or somewhere on the Net.Melbournegirl3 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Also, I think the picture of Flinders Street Station in the olden days looks great, but maybe it would be a good idea to put a current photo of Flinders St underneath it to compare the changes? Just a thought.Melbournegirl3 06:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

awww theres gotta be a better one than that!

ill go searching...

--Viva43 11:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2006-2007 Bushfire season

I have reverted the change made by user 58.107.175.127. The caption didn't say it was 2007. It said it was 'during the 2006-2007 bushfire season'. As the bushfire season runs all through summer it ergo runs through 2006-2007, and that is what I am describing here. Even though we are not yet quite into 2007 I can, regretably, predict with great certainty that all bushfires will not stop on the stroke of midnight 2006. If you like, you could add the exact date the photo was taken which was 9/12/06. Morgan Leigh 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The bushfires are relevant to the Victoria, Australia article. Last I checked, no bushfires were directly threatening metropolitan Melbourne. --Biatch 22:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The smoke does affect Melbourne. --Evan C (Talk) 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The air quality was apparently the worst since the Ash Wednesday fires, although I don't have a source for that at hand (if there are pictures from those fires available, they would probably be a better image choice, since those fires are more iconic and the effects were much more dramatic by all accounts). In terms of images of the fires in general (not necessarily for this page) there is this material from NASA that was featured on the front of The Age last week.

--bainer (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I would like to put the smoke image back because the smoke had a major effect in Melbourne. People with respiratory problems etc were badly affected. There were actually fires within the bounds of metropolitan Melbourne on the day that photo was taken. Apart from this, if you have a bushfire that is so massive that even though the actual fire front does not threaten the city but the whole city is filled with smoke, I say it is relevant to that city's article. I don't think photos of actual fires are relevant to the Melbourne page unless they are fires that were actually burning in Melbourne's metropolitan area. They might be more iconic but if they didn't actually happen in Melbourne imho they are more suited for pages relevant to where they were burning. If no one objects withint 24 hrs I am going to put the image back. btw [1] is a good place to check the location of fires.
Morgan Leigh 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
People, an event of a single day is not that significant in the history of the article and probably deserves only brief mention in the weather section - and not an image. It is not a regular occurence, and it has happened several times before, for example Ash Wednesday fires. Otherwise I suppose that we should start uploading images of the dust storm 8 February, 1983 and associated info because the incident also affected Melbourne [2] or the Melbourne Flood of 1972 [3] .... --Biatch 05:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on this matter, I hope to hear what others think. In reply, I suggest that the events you mention could well be added as info on the page. It is information that informs as to what it is like to live in Melbourne. As you say, this kind of thing has happened before and will surely happen again. I feel it is important to include this kind of image as well as the standard picture postcard images that tend to grace these types of pages. Otherwise one could get the impression that Melbourne is allways sunny and bright and, as all Melbournians know, this is certainly not the case.
Oh and btw Biatch, please take care not to post your post in the middle of someone else's post in future.
Morgan Leigh 11:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm inclined to agree with Biatch on this one. Looking back on this article in, say, five years' time, is that photograph going to have any real relevance? It is not a regular event (nor a unique one), and is not something special about Melbourne. I don't see the need to have the picture. Philip J. Rayment 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Melbourne'

The pronunciation of the name 'Melbourne' in the first line seems a bit wrong to me... it is saying that there are two ways to pronounce the name, with a reference stating that some people in Victoria pronounce the 'e' sound differently. Isn't this original research, and is it really important enough to deserve such a prominent place in the article? Also, it seems to indicate that Melbourne is pronounced without an 'r'. I think we do pronounce it with an 'r', it's just that the 'r' doesn't really have a sound when spoken with an Australian accent. It's important to show that we say 'Melburn' not 'Melborn', but the pronunciation still ought to be accent-independent. I don't see the article on Wellington instructing people to say 'Willington'... you see what I'm getting at. Anyway, could someone with more knowledge of the phonetic alphabet check this out? Thanks 128.250.6.246 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you and I have removed this bit.
Morgan Leigh 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're acting a bit hastily. I don't understand some of the finer points of pronunciation, so don't really have an opinion on this, but this has been discussed before, and it was kept in. Philip J. Rayment 14:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've always considered the local pronunciation to be 'Melb-n'. Just my two cents. :) --ozzmosis 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also a similar discussion here: [4]. As a Melburnian, I believe it to always by said as Melb-n by all Australians. If locals really do say it one way, but all other Australians have a different pronunication, don't you think someone would have actually noticed this and written about it (giving a source we can reference for the claim?) After all, it would be very noticeable if it were true. I personally suspect that someone heard about the celery-salary merger that has occured in the speech of some (but not all) Victorian speakers, and conflated the idea to apply to all words. Asa01 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the reference for this: Cox, F. M. and Palethorpe, S. (2003). "The border effect: Vowel differences across the NSW–Victorian Border" (PDF). Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society: 1–14.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (Unfortunately the link is broken), but it comes from here. Marco 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The /ˈmæl.bən/ pronunciation definitely shouldn't be there, as the point of the celery/salary merger theory is simply that to some people /æl/ and /el/ are the same. (The merger idea is applies to all words where an /l/ follows one of those vowels, the "salary-celery" is just a name for it.) The phonemic description of the pronunciation should indeed be independent of this merger, although the pronunciation isn't. I don't know exactly how easily this approach could carry over to American "r"s, but I'm also not sure it is relevant in this case, as the "r" only seems to be inserted when the stress is wrong anyway. The fact that there are usually other pronunciations in other parts of the world could be an argument against including any pronunciations, but that hasn't stopped their inclusion in all sorts of other articles. JPD (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the way it should be written then is something along the lines of "/ˈmel.bən/ (due to the so-called "salary-celery" merger, some locals pronounce Melbourne as /ˈmæl.bən/)". Something like that anyway. --Evan C (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well if someone can find a reliable external reference that confirms that there is a Malb-n pronunciation in use in Melbourne, then I guess we can include it. I personally don't believe any Melburnian says Malb-n. Even the actual piece on the salary-celery merger is a bit vague about how prevalent it is, with which speakers it has occured, and it does not definitively state that all eligible xelxx words have undergone the merge. Asa01 06:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think if there is any evidence for the alternate pronunciation is would have to be included as a phonetic, rather than phonemic, transcription. I don't know anything about the existence/prevalence of the salary-celery merger, but the Wikipedia entry does quite clearly say it affects /æ/ and /e/ (as in bet) when they occur before /l/. The whole idea of calling it a phonemic merger, rather than a change of pronunciation in a few words, is that it is purported to alway happens in those conditions. JPD (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have re-inserted the pronunciation, as its removal was too hasty — there are other ways of handling this through commenting out to inserting the [[fact]] tag, rather than complete removal, which should be the last alternative and not done until a discussion is over. The link associated with this goes to the page that explains this merger which is referenced to Cox & Palethorpe, Australian Linguists. I have read this paper and it is referenced in the English-language vowel changes before historic l article.
I am one of those individuals who cannot make a distinction between the pronunciation of "Mal" and "Mel" or "Al" and "Elle", which for me makes it real. I think there are two pronunciations to accomdate those from Melbourne/Victoria and those other from other parts of Australian (particularly from interstate who do distiguish between the two phenomes). I would prefer just to have one pronunciation, ie, /mælbən/. Evan's proposal sounds reasonable, but I would say most Melburnians would pronounce the name with the merger. Marco 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
As another native Victorian who has this particular vowel merger, I would like to back up Marco here. This is a matter of a neutralisation of contrast of two English vowel phonemes (/e/ & /æ/) in a certain environment (before /l/). In my experience, phonetically this usually results in [æl] occurring where other speakers would say [el], and so a word in general Australian which can be represented phonemically as /melbən/ and (outside Victoria) pronounced [melbən], would usually be pronounced (within Victoria) as [mælbən]. As a phonemic representation then, there actually isn't anything wrong with /melbən/, as it can be interpreted phonetically by those on either side of the merger divide correctly. In contrast, a phonemic representation as /mælbən/ will indeed be incorrect for those speakers who don't have the merger (whence perhaps has come the controversy on this talk page about the matter). So, to get to the point, I too would back up Evan C's proposal, but with JPD's amendment that the local pronunciation should be given in phonetic brackets ([mælbən]), rather than phonemic slashes. Thylacoleo 05:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little out of my depth with the accent discussion, but leaving that aside for a moment, I think the issue of whether there should be multiple pronunciations listed is more clear-cut - it looks like a classic case of original research to me, as the reference does not say anything specifically about there being two ways to pronounce 'Melbourne'. There are probably dozens if not hundreds of distinct accents being spoken across the city, but it would be bit of a stretch to claim that there are multiple versions of the name (without first finding a published source that actually says so). 128.250.6.246 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm also another native Victorian who cannot make this distinction between the vowels of /e/ and /æ/ before /l/. If we are to use local pronunciation — as most articles on places do — then we should use /mælbən/, because this is how most, if not all, native Melburnians and Victorians pronounce the state capital's name. To most Victorians, /e/ and /æ/ before /l/ are allophones and results in the pronunciation of [æl], therefore the article should probably use the /mælbən/ pronunciation only. On the other hand I somewhat agree with Thylacoleo's suggestion of using Evan C's proposal with JPD's ammendments, but replace 'some' with 'most'. Unfortunately this solution makes the intro too bulky — an undesirable solution — I think a better solution is to turn all the slashes into square brackets, hence making both pronunciations phonetic, not phonemic (eg, [ˈmel.bən] or [ˈmæl.bən]), which keeps the intro short and more correct than what the article has currently. I've had a quick look at various articles and most of them use phonetic transcriptions.
To 128.250.6.246 it may seem to be "original research", but there is a reference to a paper on this topic mentioned, and I read somewhere that there is research currently underway on it. "Original research" means there are no published references, but in this case there is! Since the link is broken, I'm not sure how you're supposed to get the paper to read it. Of coarse there are many accents spoken in the city, its an international city with many people from all over the world living here, but we are talking about those people who have grown up here learning the accent from native Melburnians. --John 11:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as original research goes, the article mentioned has been cashed by Google. It mentions a vowel merger which would affect the word Melbourne, and even says that for speakers with this merger, /el/ and /æl/ are pronounced [æl]. However, it doesn't talk about the merger's presence in Melbourne at all, so comments about "some/"most" Melbournians using that pronunciation may strictly be original research. Without these facts, we only have the /ˈmel.bən/ (as given in the Macquarie Dictionary). With these facts, I would be happy with Evan C's suggestion amended to a phonetic transcription as a footnote, or with "[ˈmel.bən] or [ˈmæl.bən]" (possibly in the other order), but I don't think /ˈmæl.bən/ is really appropriate. JPD (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good points being made in the discussions. More to add from me... The The border effect article being used as a reference, was based on a study of small groups of regional speakers, consisting of:
13 fifteen year-old girls from a Catholic girl’s school in Wangaratta Victoria and 20 fifteen year-old girls from co-educational state schools in three regional centres in NSW; Temora (n=7), Junee (n=7), Wagga (n=6) served as speakers
No speakers from Melbourne itself were tested, and apparently just one group from Victoria (Wangaratta) were included. I don't therefore think it is especially relevant to a discussion relating to Melbourne as no Melbourne residents were tested. In any event, only females were tested, they were all school students, and they were all from the same school. Another section of the article suggests to me that this Victorian vowel merge has at times been popularly depicted in a joking or caricatured way, suggesting that Victorian speakers randomly switch as and es around in all sorts of places:
There is no evidence in this data of raised /æ/before /l/ as in “Elbert” for“Albert”, a phenomenon that has been popularly suggested for Victorians. Instead our results suggest that Victorian girls are more likely to produce “shall” for both “shell” and "shall".
This to me suggests that the authors observe that some non-Victorian people harbour some popular misconceptions about the merger. I also think place names sometimes have peculiar pronunciations that defy the standard accent used in that area. Look at the pronunciation of Victorian places like Malden ("Maulden"), Prahran ("P-ran"), Malvern ("Molvern"). No matter what the normal accent is, there seems to be accepted fixed pronunciations of place names separate from their precise spelling. Asa01 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There are popular misconceptions about most accents, and the spelling isn't really relevant at all. JPD (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that pronunciations included in articles about places shows to readers how the name is pronounced by locals, which is an important feature for an encyclopaedia, because there are many places that have a pronunciation, which is not reflected in spelling, eg, Worcester, Gloucester, etc.
OK, so what do we want to do? Only use the phonemic pronunciation (/ˈmel.bən/) and forget about the other pronunciation ([ˈmæl.bən]); or only use the phonetic pronunciations ([ˈmel.bən] or [ˈmæl.bən]); or use Evan C's proposal with a few alterations (such as not using 'some/most' Melburnians in the footnote), eg, something like this:
Melbourne (pronounced /ˈmel.bən/[1]) is the second most …
References
  1. ^ Due to the so-called 'salary-celery' merger, locals may pronounce Melbourne as [ˈmæl.bən]. This so-called merger occurs in varieties of English where the phoneme /e/ is realised phonetically as /æ/ before /l/ and is a feature of English spoken in Victoria, as compared with the other places in Australia.
    2. --John 07:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    If we got with that footnote, it should be "... realised phonetically as [æ] before...". It would still be good to have a reference for this phenomenon actually being present in Melbourne itself. JPD (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    As long as the article does not begin with something like "Melbourne (pronounced either xxxxx or yyyyy) is the" then it will have been improved. My point about original research is about the 'synthesis of published material' part of the rule. By saying "either x or y" you are basically telling the world that there are two distinct versions of the name 'Melbourne'. Having a rock-solid source about people's accents is not enough to make a claim that big; you would need to find a source that specifically says this about the name 'Melbourne' (and I'm sure you won't find one because as far as I know, the idea of two "Melbourne"s seems to have been invented here on Wikipedia). So I would suggest putting something like "Melbourne (pronounced xxxxx) is the" with xxxxx being the main pronunciation as decided by a consensus here. What is written in the footnote (if there is one) is probably not as important, but I don't think there is really much point in mentioning the salary-celery difference at all, because in my view, differences in accent are a separate issue from actual variations in the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.250.6.247 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
    It isn't "strictly" original research, but honest to goodness, pure original research. We are applying the findings of a single study that tested just one group made up of 13, fifteen year old girls from the same school in Wangaratta (nowhere near Melbourne), and applying these findings to the entire population, male and female, no matter what age, across the entire state! The article being used as a reference does not state definitively that all eligible words have undergone the merge, and obviously it cannot make the claim that it is universal across age groups, sexes, or the state. A fundamental guideline of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, and no amount of discussions and the recounting of personal anecdotes alters any of that one iota. I don't require any replies that respond only to one of my points while ignoring all the others: editors would be better off trying to find references for the claims they want to retain. Asa01 08:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Applying that single study to the whole state isn't original research, it's either pure stupidity or overstating the conclusions of the study. The original research is paying attention to the people saying "I am Melburnian and I speak this way" or "most Melburnians I have heard say [ˈmæl.bən]", etc. (However, I don't think a single person has actually suggested that all Victorians have the merger). If you think the reference does not state that "all eligible words have undergone the merge", you haven't understood the article. It quite clearly concludes that the phonemes have undergone a conditiional merger. Mergers are about phonemes, not individual words. You or I may question or dispute the authors' ability to reach that conclusion based on their study (although I doubt we have the knowledge to do so), but that would be as much original research as applying it to Melburnians. I would think there should be other material out there on the merger, and it would be good to find them for the article about the merger. Having said all that, I would prefer that this article has the simple "/ˈmel.bən/" phonemic representation, which covers pronunciation in Australian English with or without the merger, and is what the Macquarie Dictionary gives. JPD (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Even though there are those who do believe that this pronunciation occurs (which includes me) and those who don't, without more references it is just going on personal anecdotes, which I must admit is not good for an encyclopaedia. Unless more references can be given on this merger (and I'm sure that they're out there), which can confirm that it occurs, the [ˈmæl.bən] pronunciation should be kept and not seen, but not removed entirely.
    So, I have changed the intro to "Melbourne (pronounced /ˈmel.bən/) …", as everyone agrees with this pronounciation, but not with the other one. The other pronunciation has been put into the footnote as per John's suggestion with JPD's amendment, but has been commented out pending more references on this pronunciation. I think this is the best solution for now. Marco 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed - I think the argument is actually a difference between classes rather than places - some people in the upper and lower classes in society may have different pronunciation of some words to the bulk of Australian English speakers. 'mel.bən is the only way I've heard it pronounced in Melbourne, although some people raise the "e" slightly towards an "ee". Orderinchaos78 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    The Americans pronouce it Mel-born. Us Melburnians say Melb-n or Melben. Melbournegirl3 06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

    And not only the Americans, it seems. I've just been watching an old British movie The Bad Lord Byron (1948), in which Byron, played by the impeccably polished Dennis Price, referred to Lord Melbourne's mother Lady Melbourne as "Lady Mel-born", and when he met her that's how he also said her name. He did this a number of times and it was quite distinct. I was distracted and never got to hear how he referred to Lord Melbourne himself; but I can't imagine it being different. It got me wondering why we Aussies have made it Melb-n, and why we assume that anyone who says "Mel-born" (a la "Briz-bane") must be a Yank. The British aristocracy had first claim on this pronunciation; although I can't say I've ever heard a living Brit from the lower classes that I inhabit say "Mel-born". Maybe they borrowed "Melb-n" back off us. And maybe, since we've named the city after Lord "Mel-born", we should all now start pronouncing it that way. (Fat chance). -- JackofOz 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Largest Metro

    I know Australia doesn't have as many metros or subways as the ones found overseas, but I've herd Melbourne have the largest in Australia, is this true? 203.57.68.13 13:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    On most measurements (route km/passengers/etc.) Sydney's suburban rail system is larger than Melbourne's. Philip J. Rayment 15:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    I think what s/he is talking about is underground railway - in that case, Sydney's is probably still bigger. Although Melbourne's is the furthest south underground railway in the world! JohnnoShadbolt 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then I agree that Sydney's would have to be bigger, given not just its underground loop, but the Bondi line also. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps the user is referring to the tram network. According to the article it is both the most extensive, and the third most extensive in the world (transport section and intro paragraph respectively). Does somebody have the stats to clear up this inconsistency? -- Adz|talk 10:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    With three different thoughts about what the original poster meant, perhaps they should clarify it themselves!
    There is no inconsistency. The transport section says that it is "one of the world's most extensive" systems (my emphasis), which is not at all inconsistent with the intro saying that it is the third most extensive.
    Philip J. Rayment 14:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    My apologies. It would help if I read things correctly. Out of curiosity - does anybody know what the two larger tram networks are? Cheers. -- Adz|talk 16:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    There's a partial answer to that here. Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    I know I'm late to this discussion but I believe that St Petersberg has the largest and Vienna is number 2. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Melbourne has more train lines then Sydney which is 11 compared to 16 in Melbourne, prehaps this is what you are talking about

    Quality Scale

    Is this article still at B level? Wouldn't it's approval as a good article warrant it GA level? Shumway 11:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    Was thinking the same. Can we verify (i.e. was there a page where it was assessed) the date and process by which it was assessed as a good article? If so, it should be linked to this talk page and the status changed to GA. Orderinchaos78 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    Found it. Talk:Melbourne/Archive_3#GA_passed by User:Indon on 9 November. Upgrading status now. Orderinchaos78 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    New Projects

    Please note that following projects are waiting your help and involvement!

    SatuSuro 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    Section switch

    Shouldn't Music industry come under Economy instead of Society and culture? Hide&Reason 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

    It's really not about about the economics of it though - if anything it could be just renamed 'Music'. Easel3 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    Transport Section

    This section is ridiculously political and inappropriate, not to mention incorrect. You should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.159.18 (talk • contribs)

    If you want your concerns taken seriously, you should quit whinging, edit the article and sign your posts.Morgan Leigh 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    Jesus Christ!

    This article never misses an opportunity to say that Melbourne has something more than, has something older than or is better than Sydney. In every single section someone has added some meaningless statistic or minor fact as a dig at how Melbourne is supposedly better than the rest of Australia. Funny how much reference this article makes to Sydney with its statistics (I love especially the population section which claims Melbourne has a faster growing population than Sydney if you skew the statistics in a particular way) and psuedo-facts when Sydney's wiki page makes virtually no reference to Melbourne.Short man syndrome?

    If not, then you certainly act like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosma (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 February 2007

    nah its Constantly-overshadowed-by-highly-gay,-not-as-cool-sydney syndrome Viva43 06:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    Firstly, I fail to see what 'Jesus Christ' has to do with this Wikipedia entry? Secondly, I also fail to see what Sydney (apart from being another Australian city) has to do with this Wikipedia entry? Perhaps Kosma you have that threatened-by-not-being-in-the-limelight-for-more-than-five-seconds syndrome, even if it's Tocumwal and for the betterment of your own city, concentrate on your own page.

    Maybe s/he doesn't know that multiple editors created this page? Format 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    What an encyclopaedic attitude you have, Kosma! The fact that the statistics presented demonstrate Melbourne is a national leader in various areas should not be ignored simply because, by your logic, it makes the other cities look bad. I think it's obvious that while Sydney is the most superficially loved city, Melbourne is Australia's most brilliant. Indja 14:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    Disapperance of reference 46

    I believe this was a reference to comment made by the Prime Minister about Melbourne being Australia's sporting capital. Ricky.Sm 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    Fixed. Josh Parris 03:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    Pictures of Melbourne Street Art

    Hello, I'm Dfrg.msc and I've been doing a lot of work on theses Melbourne Street Artists:

    However, I only have two pictures, found on the internet. If you have the means, I would highly appreciate your help in getting images to better illustrate the articles. If you have a digital camera and you can upload an image(s) of street art/stencil art/graffiti by any of these people (or if you don't know who it's by, upload it anyway and I can tell you), it would help me and the article it effects. Regards, Dfrg.msc 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

    Demographic Data Added from 2001 Census

    I added comprehensive data — from the 2001 census — relating to birthplace, ancestry, home language and religion. I am planning to add this data to each capital city and suburb in Australia as I get round to it. Unfortunately, I cannot work out how to add references. The data I quoted for Melbourne derived from [[5]] and I would be grateful if anyone more proficient than myself could add this reference to the appropriate parts of the article. Thanks. 193.61.177.92 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    So, could you explain this then?

    "Today Melbourne is a diverse and multicultural city. Almost a quarter of Victoria's population was born overseas, and the city is home to residents from 233 countries, who speak over 180 languages and dialects and follow 116 religious faiths."

    233 countries. Wow. I didn't even know there were that many. 180 languages. I doubt it, unless you mean that one person can speak it, but can't find anyone else to talk to. 116 religions? I guess you are counting the 5000 types of Christianity as different religions, and the huge number of types of Islam. I'm sure you get my point. Facts such as these need backing up people. AFA (Fuck you!) 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    De facto capital 1901-27

    This is true, but I'm sure it would have been the de jure capital as well. I have no idea what has to happen to deem any place the capital city of Australia, but I assume there would have been some official government decree or other - maybe a proclamation by the Governor-General Lord Hopetoun. Does anyone know? JackofOz 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    On reflection, I'm removing the "de facto", as it could give the false impression that Melbourne was somehow not legitimately the capital city during that period. It's for others to prove that this is the case, since millions of Australians, and the Australian government, are in absolutely no doubt about this. JackofOz 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Melbourne was the capital, nothing de facto about it. The term generally used is "temporary" but even that seems extreme for something that was in place for 26 years. --Michael Johnson 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Temporary or "de facto" is required - temporary being the better option. Apart from questions about the definition of "capital" - official documents from the time speak only of the "seat of government, Melbourne cannot possibly be called the de jure capital, given the fact that the constitution stated that the seat of Government should be in land acquired from New South Wales. It said "The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the seat of Government.", clearly indicating that Melbourne was not considered the seat of Government and that the arrangement was temporary, however long it turned out to last. So, all in all, it's probably best to avoid the undefined notion of "capital", and say Melbourne was the temporary seat of government. JPD (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that was the reason I originally worded it the way I did. [6] - here is the relevant chapter of the constitution, which states where the seat of government is. When I chose the wording 'de facto' I was thinking along the lines of London, which is sometimes described as the de facto capital of the UK, as its status as capital is not written into the constitution but only exists by convention.
    I don't think the word 'temporary' is very useful as a replacement though, since the reader can see that it was temporary simply by the fact that there is a start and end date listed, but still won't know whether it was temporarily the 'official' seat of government as stated in the constitution. LTruno82 10:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    Hope my edit covers the above points by removing reference to a capital city. The problem I have with de facto is that there is an argument that Melbourne remained the de facto capital until well after WW2, as many government departments remained in the city for many years. WW2 was fought from Melbourne not Canberra, for instance. --Michael Johnson 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    Your edit is a factually correct statement, Michael. However, it avoids the issue of whether or not it was the capital. I think it's best resolved by simply saying it was the capital city of Australia between 1901 and 1927, and make no mention of "de facto", "interim", "temporary" or any other qualifier. There are thousands of references that we could cite that say it was the capital (however one understands that term) during that time. Our readers are not generally interested in the constitutional niceties that distinguish between seats of government and capital cities, but want simple factual information. Nor is it our job to argue such niceties, which amount to original research. Melbourne was the capital 1901-27. JackofOz 12:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Looking at Capital I'd have to agree with you. However there is the problem of the wording of the Constitution. A contemporary reference describing Melbourne as the capital would help. --Michael Johnson 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    You're right, Michael. It is now received wisdom that Melbourne was the capital, but whether it was so considered or regarded back in 1901 is a different question. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, but I'll withhold judgment till we can dig up a contemporary reference. In the meantime, maybe we can say "Melbourne served as the capital". That is certainly true, whether or not it had any official status as such. JackofOz 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Saying that Melbourne served as the capital may be good enough, but simply saying that it was the capital would be most misleading. One of the conditions which allowed the colonies to agree on federation was that neither Melbourne nor Sydney would be the seat of government, and it is fairly clear that at the time the practical arrangements in Melbourne were seen as a temporary arrangement. JPD (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I think "served as the capital" should probably suffice for the introduction then. We could leave the qualifications for a later section of the article. I'd also suggest that we just write the years 1901 and 1927 in the introduction rather than cluttering it with the exact dates. LTruno82 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    Since nobody else has done it yet or objected to it, I've just made the edit myself. LTruno82 14:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, LTruno82. I may have been the one to put the exact dates in, because otherwise it might have suggested the changeover to Canberra occurred on 31 December 1927. And I think that sort of detail is exactly what Wikipedia is for. If it could correctly be described as clutter, then 80% of Wikipedia is clutter. But for now I'll leave it as it is and maybe revisit it down the track. JackofOz 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    It might belong on Wikipedia, and even in this article, but not the intro, in my opinion. JPD (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    Images

    Most of the images on this page are dull and uninspiring. The aerial view of Melbourne is both dull and unattractive, not only does it not show the city to its best in the foreground are ugly boring houses. is this a lame copycat of sydney's aerial view? I believe that is there should be an aerial view of Melbourne is should be from the south-east, possibly from Brighton? Also the old picture of the MCG doesn't serve too well either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20:30, 18 April 2007 (ACST).

    Arts and Culture

    thinking of creating a separate article for this. partly to reduce the very long length of the Melbourne article. Michellecrisp 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    That definitely needs to be done, leaving only a summary here. I would have done so already, except for the fact that I wouldnt' really have any idea what I'm writing about. JPD (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    References 61 and 63 contradict each other

    regarding public transport. Michellecrisp 11:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    Southern most city in the world with a population over 1 million

    There is much debate as to what constitutes a city, but what do people think of the idea of adding something about Melbourne being the "southern most city in the world with a population over 1 million" into one of the opening paragraphs? At the moment, the title of the world's southern most city is fought over between 2 towns: One in Argentina with a population ~100,000 and the other in Chile with a population ~65,000.--Just James 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    I disagree with this. Internationally, different standards constitute a city. In Australia, we consider Hobart to be the southernmost city, so it denegrades Australia itself by placing this in the article. Another point is to isolate "over 1mil" as the criteria (which isn't the recognised criteria in Australia) makes for a shaky argument, because then we just get listcruft of cities above a million... then above 100,000 etc etc. Too eroneous. --lincalinca 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough then.--Just James 03:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how such an addition would add to the article, but I don't understand the objection, either. Noone has said anything about recgonised criteria in Australia, or whether there are any cities further south in Australia. Saying Melbourne is the southernmost city with a pop over 1 million is not erroneous at all. It has nothing to do with a list, so it's not listcruft. The only question is whether the criterion "city with a pop over 1 million" is too arbitrary for inclusion. JPD (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    It reminds me of when I was young everything was biggest, first, best, whatever, "in the Southern Hemisphere". I think it is too arbitrary. It is not that Melbourne is actually nudging the Antarctic Circle. Let's concentrate in showing what a fascinatingly diverse, beautiful and interesting city it is, rather than creating artificial "mosts". BTW Melbourne used to have "the most southerly tram line", until Christchurch reopened a tourist line! --Michael Johnson 11:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think it's erroneous in that the figure 1,000,000 can be a yardstick for a city whereas, internationally, 250,000 is what defines a city, but here in Australia it's 50,000. And there's about 8 cities that come to mind readily that have more than 250,000 people that are further south. The reason it's listcruft is that you start having arbitrarily defined measurements of what "Melbourne is the biggest of" because that means that essentially you're welcoming such a list to be generated to consolidate this information... or even a category to the effect, and I just think it's unencyclopedic to do that. (Don't take offence to this James, I'm just stating my case. Nothing personal.) --lincalinca 13:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    No offence was taken. I'm starting to wish I hadn't said anything now. I didn't want to cause an argument =) .--Just James 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Lincalinca, my point is that noone is trying to say anything about what defines a city. You are misunderstanding something if you think they are. Even within Australian, there is no fixed population-based definition of a city, but that is not relevant. "Melbourne is the southernmost city with a pop over 1 million" doesn't mean "Melbourne is the southernmost city (where a city is a settlement with pop over 1 million)", it means "Of all the cities which have a population over 1 million, Melbourne is the furthest south". That is a true statement, whether it is worthy of inclusion in the article or not. JPD (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I prefer to use the terminology global city in this context, however someone keeps erasing these edits without comment. I am perplexed as to why, as the term is used in this context on the pages for Sydney and Toronto. To be honest, I am getting sick and tired of "moderators" who think they own Wikipedia yet seldom contribute anything constructive themselves. --Biatch 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    That would be a valid point, as Global City has already been pre-defined, and Melbourne is indeed the most southerly city listed on that page. --Michael Johnson 00:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    That list is the POV of the group that did that particular study, and does not necessarily reflect all criterion used for determining global cities. If it is to be used to justify the term "global city" in this article, the article should make it clear that Melbourne is a global city according to GaWC. This is what is done in the Sydney article, for example. JPD (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Quite agree. But that is the point, the definition is a quotable authority, not a criteria we (Wikipedia editors) made up. That would be our POV, in this case a POV that cities over 1 mil population are in some way notable enough for the fact that Melbourne is the most southerly of them to be mentioned. But if Melbourne is the most southerly city of a notable group (in this case global cities as defined by GaWC) then perhaps consideration to including it could be given. However the question is if this is a notable enough criteria to make the mention worthwhile. I can think of some other criteria that might be included (although I wouldn't), for instance the most southerly Olympic city or the most southerly city to act as a national capital to name two. --Michael Johnson 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You make some good points about criteria, but I still think that global city is the only one which factors in Melbourne's significant population size and economic clout. St Louis and Antwerp are two cities which hosted the Olympics, but are - based on the criteria we are talking about at least - not significant as Melbourne. Likewise, Canberra has only 300,000 people. If it was not the national capital, people would barely either mention or visit it. Ottawa and Washington DC are nice cities, but hardly as significant as Toronto or New York from a global perspective. --Biatch 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough, because in fact I agree with you. Global city is the only one that is notable enough to be included in this context. --Michael Johnson 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I also think that the GaWC notion of "global city" may be worth including, but it needs to be described as classified as a global city by the GaWC, not simply "a global city", as though there is only one set of objective criteria for such a label. JPD (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    The wording I have put in the article is not brilliant, but something is needed, as even the most recent work from the GaWC group doesn't include Melbourne in the "global cities" category, but in a slightly different one. All these categorisations are sometimes controversial opinions of particular researchers, not something that can be simply stated as fact. JPD (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    The wording is fine, although I have moved the sentence to the Economy section as it was becoming a bit unwieldy. Plus I think it weakens a city's article when pov-based 'titles' like "global city" and "most livable" are relied on to assert notability in the intro section. Easel3 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    I see what you're saying, but surely they were asserting extra notability, rather than being relied on to assert notability? The first sentence is a more than sufficient assertion of notability! Also, mentioning something like global cities to give some idea of the global signficance, if any, of the city, should be fine - it's just that this can't be done without choosing a particular report with specific criterion. JPD (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    JPD, the Global city article lists Melbourne as a Gamma world city. This is still a world city. Furthermore, if you look at the articles for other Gamma world cities, they use it as an assertion of notability in their opening section. I think anyone removing it from the opening section is either insecure or just being really petty. --Biatch 06:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    Biatch, can you read? The global city article lists Melbourne as a "Gamma world city" according to the 1999 inventory, but this is not relevant to my comment, which referred to "the most recent work from the GaWC group". It lists it as a "cultural subnet articulator city", according to the 2004 report, a subset of "world cities" which are distinguished from "global cities" in its terminology. My main point was nothing to do with whether something about Melbourne's global status should be mentioned in the lead, but simply pointing out that there is no single criterion to base such a statement on. Different reports use the terminology in different ways. Any statement must make clear which report labelled the city with the label being used. Actually most of the Gamma world cities do not mention it in the lead - apart from the big four, it is mainly only insecure cities in the US and Australia that bother mentioning the GaWC reports in the lead, and I suspect the fact that they all use the 1999 inventory (which focuses on multinational companies, rather than any other cutlural, political or even economic factors) rather than the 2004 report is more a sign of Wikipedia fads and the relative simplicity of its categorisation than a reflection on its academic standing.
    Apart from that, the world city label should never be needed to assert notability. A world city has more than enough to assert notability without resorting to such labels, whose meaning is not immediately clear. The label may be helpful for describing a city's global position in the lead, but this is a completley different issue from asserting notability, and really only makes sense when combined with more descriptive content. JPD (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    The GC note is fine, but for Christ's sake bung it somewhere else OTHER than the lead. That a thing may be tenihcally correct doesn't mean it isn't pure bignoting. Seriously, put it under Economy or something; that's all it's based on, isn't it? Hide&Reason 06:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melbourne/Archive_5&oldid=1142770043"