Talk:Melbourne/Archive 4

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

message: I'm glad that someone has moved the culture section to a separate article, however it would be helpful if there was at least a brief summary of the section rather than just a link to separate page.61.68.149.210 11:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture section

message: Could somebody from Oz put something in the History section to explain how and why the local elected officials were twice replaced for a while by appointed commissioners? The city's own page  is damned coy about how and why the State did this. --Orange Mike 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about these particular cases, but surely that information belongs at City of Melbourne, with at most a brief reference here. JPD (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. --Orange Mike 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local government history 

message: When you look at Location it says that the distance to Sydney is 876km. When you then click on Sydney the distance to Melbourne is 697km. There is a difference of almost 200km!!!
Haven't checked distances with other cities.
:A quick google search came up with neither of these figures. However the shorter distance is close to a figure for "as the crow flies" while the longer distance is close to the road distance. --Michael Johnson 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Distance 

message: I have reverted to the offical Estimated Resident Population (ERP) figures. Both the estimates and the raw figure are based on the 2006 census. The difference is that the raw figure gives the number of people in Australia on 8 August 2006 who were listed on a census form as usually living in the Melbourne Statistical Division, while the ERP estimates the number of people usually resident in Melbourne on 30 June 2006, allowing for census undercount and residents temporarily overseas (as well as births/deaths/migration between 30 June and 8 August). I think the ERP is the more appropriate figure in this case, but if anyone does reinstate the raw figure, make sure you use the correct title for the reference - don't just change the link. JPD (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population figures 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there is a lack of references. These statements require inline citations:
*"2006 was among the driest years on record with virtually no rainfall in September and October, despite October being on average the wettest month of the year. Higher than average temperatures were recorded. In a very rare occurrence, it actually snowed in more elevated parts of the metropolitan area on 25 December 2006, in the early stages of the Southern Hemisphere summer."
*"It was officially announced on May 15, 2007 that the previous 12 months had seen a record low rainfall. The official results of 316mm from May 16 2006 to May 15 2007 show the lowest amount of rainfall since records began in 1855. The normal average rainfall is 653.2mm. Because of this record low rainfall, Melbourne has experienced ever increasing levels of water restrictions for over 9 months."
*"Many multinational corporations (approximately one-third of the 100 largest multinationals operating in Australia as of 2002) also have their main Australian office in Melbourne."
*"The tallest office tower, the Rialto Towers (251m above street level) is also the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere."
*"The project involved rebuilding the northern half of the stadium and laying a temporary athletics track at a cost of $434 million."
*"Construction began in February 2006 of a $1 billion 5000-seat international convention centre, Hilton Hotel and commercial precinct"
*" In recent years, the number of international students at Melbourne's universities has risen rapidly, a result of an increasing number of places being made available to full fee paying students."
*"In June 2007, the Bracks Government announced a $4.9 billion water plan to secure the future of water supplies in Melbourne, including the construction of a $3.1 billion desalination plant on Victoria's south-east coast, capable of treating 150 billion litres of water per year."
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: Recent rev:
"sporting and cultural capital" versus "fashion capital"
Which one? I would have to say sporting. Wongm 08:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one's simple - the one that the reference says. If anythign else belongs there, it needs a different reference. JPD (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was the one who referenced it in the first place, and still didn't see it - [smack head on desk] Wongm 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital of... 

message: Seeking views about whether the "Melbourne viewed from Mt Dandenong" panorama image (see User:Peter_Campbell#Panoromas) is worthy of inclusion in the article.  One view expressed against is that it is a "poor quality panorama from mt dandenong - not very encyclopaedic as you can barely see any part of melbourne other than a couple of the outer suburbs).  In favour is that the image depicts a view and sunset over Melbourne with features such as the Eastern Suburbs (outer an inner), downtown and Port Phillip Bay visible.  I am working on resolving the stitching/exposure variation.  Please indicate below whether you "support" or "oppose" the inclusion of this image.  Peter Campbell 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. You cannot see the CBD. Also, the sun is overexposed in the middle. Suicup 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Although you can just barely make out the CBD in the full-size photograph, for anyone seeing the smaller version in the article page, it's basically a photo of Bayswater and Kilsyth industrial areas and it misrepresents the size of Melbourne. If your camera could take a large zoomed-in shot of just the CBD from there then that would be great, as we don't seem to have any pictures of the entire CBD. But as it is, when you have fixed the stitching/exposure issue I think this panorama would be better suited to other pages such as Mount Dandenong and perhaps some of the suburbs visible in the foreground. Easel3 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for including images which do not feature the CBD, but in this particular image, it is there but not easily visibile, especially at the size it appears in the article. JPD (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  The panorama is not representitive of Melbourne, and not particularly identifiable.  It is also not a very good photo (sorry). --ozzmosis 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I was the one that originally removed it from the article and I still stand by that decision. Peter, its hard to be impartial about your own images sometimes, but I do feel it just isn't worthy of inclusion in the article, regardless of whether the stitching/blending issues are resolved, although it would certainly be an improvement if they were. This panorama is best taken mid-morning or around sunrise so that the sun is directly behind the camera. Too low to the horizon and it may have the same effect of creating a haze though. I will be back in Melbourne in December/January so I may have a go at taking a similar shot if I have the time. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. I actually don't mind this one - you can clearly see the CBD in its entirety and surrounding suburbs. Suicup 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that you can see the CBD in its entirety clearly. Sure, you can see a few skyscrapers poking out of the ground, but there is no detail. Other than being able to point out the CBD and perhaps Port Philip Bay, can you actually identify a single other feature or object of note in the entire image? I certainly can't look at it and say "Oh, theres Richmond and theres Carlton, and theres the Yarra river." There are a few lighter, reflective blobs in the photo and I simply cannot figure out what they are. In that sense, it is a pretty useless photo that adds little to the article. It simply needs to be more encyclopaedic and useful in my opinion. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few? You can see the whole CBD. Suicup 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being facetious about the 'few' skyscrapers. :-) But the point is, all you can see is the basic shape of the skyscrapers, and very little actual detail OF them. Theres no significant detail of anything outside of the CBD either. You ignored my entire point and focused on the fact that I jokingly dismissed it as a few skyscrapers. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On any shot of Melbourne at that scale, I doubt you'd be able to make out individual suburbs. Viewed from afar, most cities look pretty homogenous. The lighter 'blobs' are obviously water, the one on the left being Port Phillip bay, and the others being Yarra/tributaries. That said, if a better photo came along, I would have no problem switching it, however for now, this photo is better than nothing, and better than the old one IMO. Suicup 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this sort of shot results in such photos, but that isn't a good reason to use it in the article if it adds very little to the understanding of the city. As for the lighter blobs, I think you're only right about Port Phillip Bay. The other lighter blobs are definitely not the Yarra and tributaries. They're in the wrong place geographically and the wrong size/shape. They're something else thats reflective. Possibly tin roofs or something. The point is, its so indistinguishable as to be pretty useless. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mt Dandenong panorama 

message: An almost useless but interesting piece of trivia: According to some maps (eg. Google Earth and Bureau of Met's rain radar map) you can actually see that the centre of Melbourne is closer to the Murray River than it is to the most southerly point of the mainland. Using the centre of the Bourke St. Mall as a reference on Google Earth it is about 4 Km closer to the Murray near Echuca than to the southern most tip of Wilson's Prom.
Anyone think this is worth mentioning in the main article? It might surprise a few peple who think Melbourne is "way down south with not much below it". But it might rank amongst those things such as "Southern most city with more than a million people". - Rick69p 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne closer to Murray than Wilsons Prom? 

message: Fix it !  And stop trying to fill the article with superfluous images --Biatch 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the images, the article looks crap !