Talk:Melbourne/Archive 5

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me: be bold. :) Rebecca 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arts and entertainment subsection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Melbourne Chinatown

message: Diliff, reinserting your own photography (http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
replies: text: You could try putting it in the Yarra River article where it belongs.  --Biatch 06:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I altered the caption so it at least seems to fit for the time being.  --Biatch 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Image issues

message: awww theres gotta be a better one than that!
ill go searching...
--Viva43 11:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Found it. Talk:Melbourne/Archive_3#GA_passed by User:Indon on 9 November. Upgrading status now. Orderinchaos78 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality Scale 

message: Please note that following projects are waiting your help and involvement!
*WikiProject Tasmania
*WikiProject Victoria
SatuSuro 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Projects

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transport Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe s/he doesn't know that multiple editors created this page? Format 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Christ! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Josh Parris 03:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disapperance of reference 46 

message: Hello, I'm Dfrg.msc and I've been doing a lot of work on theses Melbourne Street Artists: 
*Rone
*Civilian (street artist)
*Dlux (street artist) 
*Meek (street artist)
*Pslam (street artist) 
*Sixten (street artist) 
*Prism (street artist)
*Sync (street artist) 
*Optic (street artist)
*Phibs (street artist) 
*Ha-Ha (street artist) 
*Vexta (street artist)
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 </sup>    23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Melbourne Street Art 

message: 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 [] 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)
thread_title: Demographic Data Added from 2001 Census

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arts and Culture

message: regarding public transport. Michellecrisp 11:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References 61 and 63 contradict each other