Talk:Melbourne/Archive 3

message: As noted in the above discussion, due to the impact that the proposed renaming of Melbourne (suburb) may have on setting naming convention precedent for other capital cities, the discussion should now take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places. I have done my best to summarise this discussion. As for the vote below, I will leave that up to others to comment on.SauliH 06:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to comment that I haven't voted, because in its current state the result will not be acted upon, and discussion is ongoing. -- Chuq 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding retitling [[Melbourne (suburb)]] Moved

message: *Melbourne, Victoria — Philip J. Rayment 15:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'll just point out that (a) if you are talking about Melbourne, Victoria as being the "non-disambiguative" one, that title seems to me to be the one that follows current naming conventions, and (b) there are no "options" specified from which to choose.  However, the vote is effectively on hold pending discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places#Metropolis/LGA/Inner city Suburb - disambiguation article titling discussion that may well make the vote redundant.  Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: Are we putting periods at the end of them or not?  We seem to like alternating thus far. Hide&Reason 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK it depends on whether it's a sentence or not. For example "A screenshot of Wikipedia" would not have a full stop, but "Melbourne has many gardens, including the Flagstaff gardens, shown." would have a full stop. --Evan C (Talk) 06:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption policy

message: I removed the following sentence from the section on transport:
Comparatively little has been invested in Melbourne's public transport system since the 1940s, two exceptions being the major projects of the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop and Regional Fast Rail including a privately-funded upgrade to Southern Cross Station.
It understates the investment that has been made.  Since the 1940s, apart from the underground loop, five new train fleets have been introduced (Harris, Silver, Comeng, X'trapolis, and Siemens), duplications have been provided on the down sides of Ringwood, Dandenong, Heidelberg, Coburg, and much of the Glen Waverley line, triplication and quadruplication has occurred between Richmond and Box Hill, Caulfield and Moorabbin, and North Melbourne and Footscray, electrification has been extended to Werribee, Sydenham, Upfield, Epping, Belgrave, Pakenham, and Cranbourne, a new line was built between Altona and Laverton, most of the manual signalling and safeworking systems have been replaced, train control has been computerised, etc. etc.
On the tram side, there have been several new tram fleets, some duplications, and extensions to Vermont South, Box Hill, and Bundoora, plus some other minor ones.
That's all just off the top of my head, and may not be 100% accurate, but would also not be 100% complete.
About the only thing that has not been done is significant construction of new railway lines.
Also, Regional Fast Rail is not an investment in Melbourne.Philip J. Rayment 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding statements mentioned that the network had been maintained and modernised.  Perhaps it means comparatively little when compared to the amount spent on major freeway works.  Still, this extra info would be great in the Transport in Melbourne article.  It could be argued that Regional Fast Rail and Southern Cross upgrades are an investment in Melbourne, as they pump more country users into the Metropolitan system.  --Biatch 04:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public transport investment 

message: Can anyone substantiate this ?  Has someone counted all of the Victorian buildings in each city ? --Biatch 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just following this one up, since noone has replied.  I am certainly one to appreciate the city's Victorian heritage, however in my search to validate this comment, I found this Australian Government article  which seems to strongly suggest that Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) had more surviving Victorian buildings than Melbourne in 1995.  Has this changed ?  Or is this a factoid ? --Biatch 07:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right to question the assertion. I believe that an article shouldn't make any claim of highest, largest, most etc. without reference to a quantitative study that has produced comparitive figures. IMO the statement should be deleted, or suitably reworded unless/until such a reference can be produced.--Melburnian 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this statement until someone can come up with a suitable reference.  --Biatch 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest number of surviving Victorian era buildings of any city in the world after London ??   

message: I am still trying to find a reference for this, but I think it is a factoid.  Several cities claim this title at one stage or another.  I have found references for Philadelphia, Glasgow and Bombay as being the second largest cities in the British Empire behind London at one stage or another.  Plenty of references clearly state that Melbourne grew the fastest of any city in the British Empire during the 1880s, but not that it was the largest. The best reference I could find for Melbourne was this from the ABC which claims that Melbourne was ranked about 4th during the 1860s and 1870s.  I have found nothing that indicates that it overtook any other city during the 1880s.
Are there any objections to me removing this statement for the sake of accuracy of the article ?  --Biatch 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there has been no objection, I have changed the statement and removed the claim. --Biatch 05:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second largest city in British Empire ??? 

message: The article makes some claims about population loss and possible reasons for it in the 1890s.  Is there anyone who can backs this up ?  Was there population loss and are there any conclusive reasons ?
If this claim can't be backed up, perhaps it belongs in the History of Melbourne article until such time as a citation can be found for it.
--Biatch 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population loss during the 1890s  

message: The material added fairly recently to the climate section really needs to be sourced. Most of it seems ok, but the autumn sentence baffles me. What is meant by saying the autumn is more pronounced? Is Melbourne's autumn more pronounced in any way that autumn in Hobart or Canberra? It seems to imply that it is about trees losing leaves, but even though Sydney's autumn may be less "pronounced", deciduous trees still lose their leaves there. JPD (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the table is being forced to a small width by the images to the right. As for my earlier comment, I really don't see what the autumn sentence is trying to say, so unless someone replaces it with someone mor meaningful (preferably referenced), I think I will remove it. JPD (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know enough about deciduous trees and what cities have more of them, but I think that is what was implied. In any case it sounds like opinion rather than a factual statement. I am ok with removal. Nobody has come up with an argument to keep it.SauliH 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in reference to the types of trees most common in inner Melbourne, which are exotic deciduous variety.  Melbourne has the most significant stand of mature elm trees in the southern hemisphere.  After Dutch Elm Disease almost totally destroyed elm populations in the northern hemisphere, Melbourne also has one of the largest in the world.  This is combined with a much more temperate climate than Sydney's.  Of the capitals, only Canberra and Hobart have more spectacular autumns, but both are far smaller in comparison. --Biatch 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit.SauliH 05:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it obviously depends on your screen resolution and so on, but for me there is definitely an image which is low enough to force the table into a smaller column, even though most of the space to the right of it is not filled (so it still looks slightly strange even now). The 60% parameter does not cause the line wrap unless the width available for the table has already been reduced by the images. Thanks for the rewrite of the snow sentences. JPD (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered variations in screen resolution, and didn't find any problems.  However, with further testing I now find that yes, the previous picture can end up next to the table if you have a high resolution or a narrow font and small text.  On my home computer I had to set IE to use smallest text size (View>Text Size>Smallest) before I could get it to overlap, and even then only with the window as wide as I could make it.  My work computer has a narrower default font for some reason, and it happens more readily there.  However, it still does not appear to actually cause any problems that I can find.  And despite your comment, on my computer the text in the first column was wrapping to several lines when the table width was set to 60%.  Again, that would depend on resolutions, text sizes, etc. — Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we just need to build the climate prose section until there isn't an issue? :) I have looked at building on the drought paragraph as it is significant for Melbourne. Climate variances are significant across the metropolitan area also. SauliH 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: I have undone some of the changes to the lead again. The issues are:
*I don't think what tourists guides say about the city is the sort of thing that belongs in the introduction to an encyclopedia article.
*The fact that Melbourne was founded by free settlers may be important to some extent, but being the largest Australian city founded by free settlers isn't particularly significant. On top of that, the sentence as it stood was not relevant to the rest of the paragraph, and was false, as Melbourne was not the largest free-settler city at the time of its founding.
*Melbourne was the temporary meeting place of the federal parliament. It may be fair to call it the "temporary national capital", but simply "national capital" is taking it a bit too far, especially when Australia had a constitution stating that the situation was temporary and that the seat of government must be somewhere else. JPD (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that last point, I agree that the article should say "temporary".  The recent edit comment "temp is unnecessary, until already implies", is incorrect, as "until" only implies that it is no longer the case; it does not imply that it was always intended to be a short-term situation until a separate national capital was provided.  Philip J. Rayment 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am not convinced of the "enormous impact", the mention of free settlers is still in the article. It was the rather contrived "largest Australian city founded by free settlers" that was removed. Government sources or not, I would rather have sources that weren't so obviously promotional for both the "capital" statements. In my experience, the culture capital claim is more likely to be disputed, but more important is that if it is to be included, it is included well. It sounds very silly to say "Often referred to as the cultural and sporting capital, Melbourne has a rich sporting history." JPD (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptions in lead 

message: I've added Melbourne Wiki several times before and my edit was always reverted giving different reasons. The first time I was told there were not enough users, the second time there were not enough articles and the third time it was just "not notable". This is ridiculous. There are 46 articles plus stubs and some of this information is already helpful. Then link popularity will help the site grow and a link on the Melbourne page of Wikipedia will not only drive people to the site that look for information but also those who are willing and able to contribute. So why not leave the link and give Melbourne Wiki a chance? I don't get it what is wrong with the link even if the project is still young. It is definitely active. --Jsfan 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:External links. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Articles should usually only include links that offer meaningful, relevant content. When your site expands enough to become a notable resource that offers meaningful, relevant content, then the link would be appropriate. --bainer (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne Wiki 

message: There is a politically biased reference to the Liberal party. The article fails to mention that the slump was part of a world wide recession and also that the Liberal party turned the states fortunes around by selling off public assets which the people of Victoria are still paying for.
This section suggests that the fortunes of the state were caused by the actions of the Liberal party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.93.8 (talk • contribs).
:or maybe it just tells the truth? (arguing for arguing sake) -- Viva43 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not need to mention the denomination of the party.  The History of Melbourne and Victoria articles both go into detail on this issue.  The slump may have been part of a world recession, but one cannot argue that Victoria's situation was not the worst in Australia and that it was not caused by mismanagement and the collapse of several of the state's biggest financial institutions.  --Biatch 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political bias