Talk:Melbourne/Archive 2

message: Where did these dates come from?  I have been taught that that Batman purchased land from the local aboriginals, after sailing up the Yarra and finding a spot to settle.  Pascoe-Fawkner had also wanted to explore North to alleviate the stock grazing pressure on Tasmania and sent out a party, but became ill at the last minute so didn't go.  The party went on anyway, also went up the Yarra and ended up erecting the first official settlement/camp/buildings (Batman had headed back to Tassie to report his findings and gather settlement supplies himself).  Batman returned and the argy-bargy began.  Not sure of dates, will try to find some.
Well found the City of Melbourne website and it's pretty much as above.  It has the 8th June as Batman swindling the aboriginals, and 29 August as the Pascoe-Fawkner party settling.  Take your pick as to which one was the official founding of Melbourne, but they are both later than May and Batman and Pascoe-Fawkner certainly didn't settle the new settlement together.
Settlement - foundation and surveying
And another recount of the story:
Melbourne Central City, Victoria
Citizen D 00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Part of the article which now appears as History of Melbourne was written by me to clear up the question of who founded Melbourne. My view is that it was founded by John Lancey's party on 30 August 1835. This expedition was organised by Fawkner, but he was detained in Launceston. Batman did not arrive until 2 September, but his was a separate expedition. Thus Fawkner had a better claim than Batman, although for reasons I set out in the article Batman usually gets credit. The Melbourne article should not go into details but lead readers to the History of Melbourne article. Adam 04:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The History of Melbourne article is excellent and the first sentence in the History section here is much more concise.  There's so many links to read, I'm slowly making my way through it all :) Citizen D 06:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date question

message: The article is now 44Kb, and issuing a size warning when edited.  Any objection to shoving Landmarks and tourist information over to it's own article? Josh Parris # 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea--as it stands,the text, unfortunately, has all the appearence of a 'tourist brochure' Eric A. Warbuton 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the landmarks section and scattered some of the key points through the relevant parts of the article in a more enclopedic manner.  --Biatch 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size warning 

message: I'm not particulary fond of the current city info box for Melbourne, so i decided to experiment with another one, based off the Paris infobox. Any suggestions about what else to add, before even considering changing the current one?
Melbourne/Infobox
-- Swarve 11:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it a lot. :) Ambi 12:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's massive. I think there is scope to improve on the existing infobox, which is a watered-down version of those used in Indian cities (see Mumbai). I'd like to keep the one format for all Australian cities.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well most of the information is there from the previous infobox, which could be fitted into this new infobox. I've removed 3 lines which makes it smaller. It may be massive, but it has details which are just not covered in the other aesthetically displeasing infobox. Swarve 08:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's why precisely why the other Infobox avoided these complications altogether. It was kept basic to avoid ambiguity.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops; OK I wasn't paying much attention. TPK 11:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Large cities such as Paris, Tokyo, NYC, Chicago, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Singapore. -- Swarve 08:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox 

message: This page was getting far too long, so I've moved most of it to Talk:Melbourne/Archive 1, leaving behind active discussions from the last month or so. If there are any problems, feel free to move sections back that may have still been active. TPK 06:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: This isn't strictly related to the Melbourne article at all per se, but I just took some photos from the same vantage point in 2003 and 2005 (today) and decided to put the two images side by side for comparison. I just found it interesting what has changed and what hasn't. Unfortunately the second photo was taken at dusk so the lighting is quite different, but that makes it interesting on another level, I suppose.
Here is a lower res comparison  and here is the highest resolution comparison . Hope it is of interesting to you guys. Not sure how it could be used in the article. Sorry. ;) For the record, these panoramas were taken from the highest point of the boulevard off Chandler Highway, in Kew. Diliff 12:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! They're great images Diliff. I think you should add them somewhere in the article, possibly the history section. -- Swarve 22:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad the links don't seem to work anymore. Stevage 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that. I still don't know how relevent it is or where it could slide into an article, but feel free to use it however you'd like on wiki! Here it is again . Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Of course the only real differences I see are the Eureka tower and a smaller building (apartents in the docklands?) to the right of the Telstra building.  Still, it's something to make me homesick :) Stevage 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few others but you're right, there isn't a huge difference. Where are you currently? I'll be in the same boat soon actually - I'm in the US currently but on my way to the UK by January (working holiday - 2 years). It'll be interesting to revisit that same vantage point 2 years from now to see what else has happened in my absence! Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 03:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne and two years ago.. A panoramic comparison

message: The current infobox for this article is quite impressive - much better than the standard Australian cities infobox. I would suggest the addition of two more fields however - an Establishment date which would link to the History of Melbourne, and an area code of 03 to complement the country codes in the national infoboxes. What are your opinions? Brisvegas 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree (again). The City of Melbourne has it's own article, and this article is about the whole of Greater Melbourne, so the LGA info should not be in this infobox. The flag, etc would be good on a Brisbane infobox, but not a Melbourne or Sydney one. The history link sounds good, but I am unsure about the area code. The international calling codes are generally allocated to countries (ignoring North America), so it is appropriate to have them on a country page. The Australian STD codes are now much larger than cities, so is it really appropriate to have them on city boxes? JPD (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info in infobox? 

message: I see we have a third "Melbourne by night" panorama in this article. Is this really necessary? It would be much better to have a "melbourne by day", particularly the stereotypical view looking up the Yarra towards the Arts Centre spire. Anyone have a free image of this type? Stevage 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: Can someone move this news section back into the article? (if it indeed warrants mentioning at all) Ambi 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent events

message: A more accurate translation would be "It gathers strength by going." 3rd singular, not 1st plural. --Fulminouscherub 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a more accurate place for it to be on Wikipedia is City of Melbourne. JPD (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vires acquirit eundo 

message: Although Melburnians are (and should be) proud of their two titles as "World's most liveable city", I'm not entirely sure that such a detailed year-by-year Economist poll results service belongs in the introduction to such an important city's article.  For my taste, the introduction is verging on maximum length, and much important information is missing, including Melbourne's location; its economic role in Victoria and Australia; its cultural and sporting significance; and its rivalry with Sydney. Bastin8 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Surely that information could be retained in the article, but introductions to articles on cities are generally structured as follows: name, population, location, brief historical overview, and relative importance (what makes the city notable). See Canberra, Mumbai, Ann Arbor or even Adelaide.--cj | talk 10:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the articles for CBA and NAB.  NAB is easily much bigger than the CBA.  Agree though that the city is not home to most, but many of the ASX listed companies --Biatch 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The article currently reads that "Melbourne has twice ranked first in a survey by The Economist of The World's Most Livable Cities".  It hasn't placed first, it has tied for first, and in fact, it tied with both Vienna and Vancouver in 2004.  I edited it accordingly, but the edits were reverted by Xtra who stated: "Tied for first is exactly the same as ranked first."  I disagree. If this survey merits a prominent place in the article (which itself is open to debate), then we should strive for accuracy, not civic boosterism.  I have come here to canvass the thoughts of others. Skeezix1000 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you relocate to Melbourne immediately. JackofOz 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to take a pretty huge pay cut and only earn Australian Dollars.  Not thanks.Factoid Killer 13:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was up there last year and I saw large signs saying "Brisbane, the world's most liveable city", which was odd as I knew Melbourne had the title (not alone as I now discover) and I'd never heard anything about Brisbane getting a similar award.  JackofOz 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it funny how so many Melbournites leave the world's most livable city permanently every week and choose to live in Queensland.Factoid Killer 13:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not realy any more. I think melbourne has a higher growth rate now (I think) Xtra 13:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the case in 2005 according to the ABS. Factoid Killer 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that many RETIRE in Queensland due to the lower costs and better weather to spend outside/active. That doesn't mean it is more livable because livable includes income, public transport, etc, which is arguably inferior in Brisbane. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ranked first" vs. "Tied for first"

message: List of notable Melburnians shouldn't be merged into the main article.  It makes it unwieldy.  Can I suggest removing the redirection of "Melburnian" and using this as a page to describe the people of the city, including a list of notable Melburnians ? Biatch 23 February 2006
:Melburnian now redirects to List of notable Melburnians, which seems more logical. Good suggestion! --bainer (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melburnians 

message: Shouldn't all the recently added sports details - both teams and venues be moved to a seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.19.252.190 (talk • contribs) 
:I think it would better at Sport in Melbourne, or as part of Sport in Victoria. JPD (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the teams and venues sections really detract from the general flow of the article. Remy B 04:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport 

message: I removed this, as even if there are well defined limits of the metropolitan areas of Australian cities, the area of the city is not usually that relevant when talking about the "largest city in ...". JPD (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thought Brisbane was the largest in Australia. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is really interesting (in a nerdy facts for facts sake way). It all comes down to terminology and what is commonly understood. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you find it interesting =).  FYI the city of Melbourne occupies an area of 35 km².  The people living in this area are the only ppl who get to elect the 'lord mayor' of Melbourne.  Sydney is a similar story.  By comparison, all of the ppl living in Brisbane's 1360 km² get to vote for the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and in turn the BCC is responsible for this entire area.
Of course this is all meaningless.  If cities were judged by the amount of area they occupy there's nothing stopping the WA gov. extending the boarders of Perth to cover the entire state and claim Pert to be the largest city on earth. Factoid Killer 11:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "largest city geographically" 

message: The current version of the article comes in at 48k - and while there's not really a lot to trim, I do think that it's time the sport section was trimmed back to a briefer introduction, while the majority of its content moves to a separate article (probably titled Sport in Melbourne, in line with the history, culture, etc, articles).  What say you?  Lokicarbis 14:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While i tentatively agree, sport is such an important part of the social fabric in melbourne (compared to other cities), and i think still it deserves a sizable section in the article.Suicup 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When this comment was made, the sport section also included several large tables which were moved to Sport in Victoria. While the section could still be trimmed a bit, it's nowhere near as bad as it was. JPD (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete. Snottygobble 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective deletion

message: The quote: "Melbourne is the southernmost city in the world with a population over one million people" is false. This title probably belongs to the Tasmanian capital of Hobart, south of Melbourne. Also the reference to a population of over one million people seems inappropriate given the more correct in the preceding sentence of 3.7 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.22.79 (talk • contribs) .
:The point of the sentence is that Melbourne is the most southerly city which has a population over one million, not that it is the most southerly city and has a population over one million. JPD (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne as southernmost city 

message: I tempted to fail this as a good article, although it does have a lot to offer. I'd like to note my objections and see if editors here can fix up the problems first. The references are out of sync, try the <ref> method, it's easier, see Ireland for an example of how it's used. Also, the population section is a bit messy, could that be tidied up a bit. Lastly I personally would like to see the external links as inline references and a few more inline references to boot. However the last point shouldn't stop it from being a Good Article at the minute, but this will be the standard in the future. Regards to the editors, it's coming on well. Cheers SeanMack 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Review 

message: Recreational cycling is mentioned in the Sport section, however sport is competitive so non-competitive cycling does not seem to belong here.  The "Cycling is a very popular sport" paragraph seems poorly written to me, but there are a few different directions it could go in terms of being rewritten, or simply edited out entirely.  I am also a bit biased as a self-confessed recreational cyclist!  What do others think? --ozzmosis 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreational cycling 

message: Why has this section been tagged as unencyclopedic? To me it seems to be a fairly well writen section, with an ideal mix of useful and interesting facts. It also seems to be a good summary for the main article. So - why the tag? --Evan C (Talk) 09:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport section 

message: User Thylacoleo insists "Melburnian" is the correct spelling. Do you have some sort of cite for that? Google gets more hits with "Melbournian" than the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatoclass (talk • contribs) 
: I refer Gatoclass to the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (my volume is the fourth edition, published 2004), which defines "Melburnian" (so spelt, no indication of a permissible variant spelt "Melbournian") as "a native of Melbourne; of or relating to Melbourne, the capital of the State of Victoria."  Counting Google hits is a far more reliable indicator of the extent poor spelling infests the Web than of determining what the correct spelling actually is.  All the best, Thylacoleo 02:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the Google results for "Melbournian" seem to be unreliable at best - largely forum postings, etc. --Evan C (Talk) 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on, Thylacoleo! JackofOz 10:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbournian/Melburnian

message: Typing Melbourne only brings up the one in Australia and this mask the fact there is also a Melbourne in England (which the one in Australia is named after).
I suggest the article title should be changet to Melbourne, Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdav69 (talk • contribs) 
:There is a disambiguation link at the top that has other uses for the name. -- Barrylb 14:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need, as this Melbourne is the only major city, and hence the most likely one people would be looking for when searching. As has been said, there is a disambig link if its not what you're looking forSuicup 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  No need.  The disambiguation statement is more than sufficient.  We don't rename Paris to "Paris, France", just because there happens to be a small town in Canada named Paris, Ontario.  --Skeezix1000 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree emphatically. Oh, and Melbourne was named after the British prime minister at the time of its founding, not the village in Derbyshire. Thylacoleo 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with keeping as is. I would have thought confusion with Melbourne, Florida would be more likely. Stevage 08:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree with keeping. This very conversation is ludicrous. Emcee N 14:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also definately agree, and i can verify what Thylacoleo said about Melbourne being named after the British PM of the time (William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne). --glennnnn 05:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be listed as Melbourne, Australia to avoid confusion with Melbourne, Derbyshire 

message: The map entitled 'Map of greater Melbourne' under the Geography section is incorrect and should be replaced. If you are to use the scale provided on the map then the distance between Melbourne CBD and Melbourne airport is 50km? Which is very incorrect, every Melburnian knows that Tullamarine is around 20km out of the CBD. Another incorrect example using the map's scale is if your to measure the distance between Geelong and Melbourne its about 150km? Its much more like 80km. My computering skills aren't flash so I can't replace it but someone who has the knowledge of how to do it should please. Cheers! User:You_Are_Here! 15 July 2006
:Sorry about that.  I drew the original map based on another map I found on the web.  I think I copied the scale directly from that.  Now that you point it out, it does seem odd but interesting that it has taken this long for someone to notice it.  I think I still have to original Adobe Illustrator file so I will have a look at correcting this. --CloudSurfer 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could not find the original map artwork so I have "Photoshopped" the hires map. The scale was more than twice what it should be! Despite purging my caches and files, it is still displaying on my system as the old map.  I will leave it for now and hope that it corrects itself in time. If you are seeing a scale of 20 km and 10 mi, you have the new map. --CloudSurfer 04:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Map 

message: Too many photos of shiney skyscrapers - one will do.  We need photos of old terraced buildings like Canning St, Carlton, gardens & parks, the nearby forests, old arcades, etc & someone taking a a classic screamer over a pile of footballers.  Cheers
:I've been playing around with image arrangement on this article for the last week.  Aside from there having been too many to begin with, people seem to see fit to bung something in simply because it's sexy, is a shot of a Melbourne location and is Featured.  
:I love the fact that Wikipedia has quality photographic coverage of our city, and good on those photographers, but come on: this isn't Myspace.  This is Wikipedia.  Images should be removed or retained based primarily on their informative value. As such, I've taken out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melbourne_yarra_twilight.jpg as it clutters Geography and isn't too useful there anyhow. Hide&Reason 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: In the Geography section, the "Climate Table" ais partially obscured by the image of Melbourne's climate information. It appears to be a problem with the table rather than the images themselves. If no-one else has noticed it, it's probably because of my browser (it happens with both Netscape and Safari). I don't myself know how to fix it, but I thought you good people should know about it. --Byron Vickers 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the table a little less wide.  Does this help? Stumps 12:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It probably still causes problems at lower resolutions. Apart from that, the climate graphs don't form a particularly good illustration anyway. JPD (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscured Table 

message: The following comment was posted on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Melbourne page by 138.217.37.69 . I have copied it here, which is the more appropriate page for discussion:
:Apologies if this is not the correct way to suggest a change but the current Melbourne entry includes: Melbourne-born satirist Barry Humphries created his main character Dame Edna Everage as a comedic version of a suburban homemaker. Through her he has performed cutting odes to Melbourne mores and the middle class suburbs of Moonee Ponds and Highett, among others. My understanding was that Highett was a housing commission area or at least partly and the whole Dame Edna joke was about her moving up in the world from Highett to Moonee Ponds. I'm not sure if the description of Highett as middle class is accurate in the context. - 138.217.37.69
- Cuddy Wifter 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barry Humphries query

message: I changed the description of Melbourne's weather from "unusual weather conditions" to "changeable weather conditions" because that more accurately reflects what occurs - Melbourne's weather very rarely reaches any extremes by global standards, it just varies a lot within a day.
Secondly, the stuff about snow was added as an additional piece of information to explain things to Northern Hemisphere readers, for many whom winter implies freezing temperatures and snowfalls.  --Robert Merkel 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whoops didn't see that extra sentence about the snow. Apologies for deleting it. My main concern was 'unusual' to 'changeable'. Surely the fact that it varies a lot within a day is unusual? Unusual doesn't mean reach extreme temperatures, so i don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm changing that word (not the snow stuff) back, because a) i think it is an apt description and b) because it sounds better than anyway. 'Changeable' is slightly awkward. Cheers Suicup 08:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to have to disagree.  What is slightly out of the ordinary about Melbourne's weather is that is can vary a lot within a day, and "changeable" expresses that a lot more precisely than "unusual" in my view.  "Unusual", in my view, can imply that it reaches extreme values, where by global standards Melbourne's weather is incredibly benign.  Maybe others could weigh in on this, please?   --Robert Merkel 08:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Suicup that the changeable weather could be considered unusual, but I also agree with Robert that there are many other sorts of weather that would be described as unusual, so it is more informative to say changeable. JPD (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The next sentence goes on to mention '4 seasons in a day', ie the 'changeable' weather conditions. Thus the unusual sets it up and the next sentence clarifies it. Just a question, are there any other cities in Australia (or worldwide) who experience similar 'unusual' weather conditions such as rapidly changing temperatures/conditions etc? Suicup 12:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may add my $0.02, I think the statement should be more specific than "unusual" (unusual compared to what - everywhere has weather that's different in some way). But I'm not entirely sure that "changeable" is correct grammar - at any rate, it doesn't read as being correct to me. Perhaps "variable" is more appropriate? --Evan C (Talk) 12:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changeable is ok, I think. Variable would also be appropriate, but doesn't seem to imply quite the same thing. As for other places where this happens, I suggest London. JPD (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to agree with the use of "changeable". Evan brings up a good point in showing that "unusual" must be referenced to something or else everything can be unusual. Using "variable" to me implies that it is constantly changing, but that is just me. My vote is for changeable. Raider2044 Bio • Talk • Contribs 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, i prefer 'variable' to 'changeable'. Suicup 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with any of the words thrown up to be honest. Raider2044 Bio • Talk • Contribs 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be useful is some information on what makes the weather so unpredictable.  Are there any established theories ?  The article mentions topography of the city but does not cite any references.  --Biatch 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather 

message: In what context is the Hoddle Grid famous? - Diceman 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is meant by "in what context", but it is well known.  I learnt about it in school and have seen numerous references to it since.  Googling "hoddle grid" (with quotes) returned about 505 hits. Philip J. Rayment 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The famous Hoddle Grid 

message: Hi guys, no idea on editing the main page so some tidbits for anyone else who cares too, the new rectangular stadium is not yet under construction (will commence early '07) and its estimated cost is actually AUD $ 190 million.
Source: "Goal - pg 28-29, The Sunday Age, Aug 20, 2006"
:Done.  Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the new rectangular stadium 

message: surely someone has a newer picture of the mcg and a better picture of an afl game in victoria. the current afl photo is awful.
:I've had the perfect shot of it for ages now, but I dunno about the copyright:
:http://www.studor.net/images/reference/MCG%20aerial.jpg
:Hide&Reason 05:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good point, I have some photos from the 2006 AFL Grand Final which I'll see if I can upload.  --Biatch 23:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  football/mcg 

message: Can anyone substantiate this ?  Has someone counted all of the Victorian buildings in each city ? --Biatch 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Home to largest number of surviving Victorian era buildings of any city in the world after London.   

message: Can anyone substantiate this ?  Does this mean large in population or large in physical size ? --Biatch 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   During the 1880s, Melbourne was the second largest city in the British Empire.