This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

CAN SOMEONE ADD A PROPER PICTURE OF THE MELBOURNE SKYLINE. THOSE IMAGES DO NOT REPRESENT HOW THIS CITY LOOKS WHATSOEVER! THEY ARE A HANDFUL OF BUILDINGS SHOWN FROM TERRIBLE ANGLES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.220.57 ( talk) 09:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it, shows the main features of Melbourne, the Yarra, Flinders St, Fed Sq and the MCG. All icons you couldn't show in one skyline pic.

Davo499 ( talk) 10:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's terrible, it has the best skyline of all australian cities and it looks like some country town from those pics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.241.130 ( talk) 06:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In "It has been recognised as a gamma world city by the Loughborough University group's 1999 inventory", the reader is directed to Global City, giving the reader an expectation that the term "gamma world city" will be defined there. However, that article no longer has "gamma" in its text (see the talk page there), so there is a potential for confusion. Jim ( talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a footnote saying "The variant spelling 'Melbournian' is sometimes found but is considered grammatically incorrect. The term 'Melbournite' is also sometimes used." Unfortunately this note is an orphan. What is the correct demonym, and why isn't it in the infobox?  Randall Bart   Talk  15:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

AFIAK, the demonym is "Melburnian". If this is "correct", I do not know. I don't think there is an official or legal term, but that seems to be the one used the most. See this search. Not sure what would be an appropriate reference, does it require the OED? The reason it is not in the infobox is because {{ Infobox Australian Place}} does not have a field for the demonym. -- 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just deleted the former basketball teams, South Dragons and Melbourne Tigers as basketball teams from Melbourne playing in the NBL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwu8991 ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe these flags should be added to the pages imagery. Here is a link to the flag of Greater Melbourne [1] This link shows the official flag of the City of Melbourne. [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.131.183 ( talk) 08:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning the image because I've lived here for nearly a decade and I've never seen this stele. It is really important enough to go in this article ? Should it have replaced the earlier Chinatown images ?

I thought the Chinatown image in this section was more appropriate. The Chinese have had a permanent settlement in Melbourne for over 150 years - since the city was declared (and possibly the second most historic Chinatown in the world), whereas the Greeks have been here for only around half a century. Thessaloniki is not a well known world city, whereas China is a country with nearly half the world's populaation.

Also Chinatown is a much more recognisable cultural landmark than the Thessaloniki sister cities stele.

Surely Chinatown is a more important symbol for this section. -- Biatch ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Melbourne is currently listed as being in the County of Bourke, however technically Greater Melbourne extends eastward to the County of Evelyn southward to the County of Mornington and also westward to the County of Grant.

Perhaps these counties should be added to the infobox.

-- Biatch ( talk) 07:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The equating of the CBD with the old Hoddle street grid under "Urban Structure" is hopelessly out of date. This is recognised in the Melbourne City Centre article which counts Southbank and Docklands as part of the CBD. I entered (in this article) that Southbank and Docklands have much office development - this was removed. So, as a stir, I put in an edit that the Eureka tower (the tallest building) is in fact outside the (old) CBD, which means the Rialto is still the tallest building in the CBD (as defined by this article). In defining the CBD it is long overdue that the defacto reality of its extension into Southbank and Docklands be recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.94.223 ( talk) 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to include an image that shows trams in it in the infobox montage. The National Trust lists the tram network as one of Melbourne's greatest landmarks and they help greatly to define the character of the city. -- Biatch ( talk) 05:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A replacement shot of Flinders Street Station that includes a tram like this (but ideally not covering the clocks) could be one way of doing it. Melburnian ( talk) 08:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone thinking about nominating for GAN in the coming weeks, as the article has been drastically improved lately. Aaroncrick ( talk) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are London and Vancouver sister cities? They are not listed in the reference this page gives for that section. Format ( talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.98.116 ( talk) 09:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A new Melbourne Meetup is being organised for Sunday 9 August, 2009. The chief programs officer for the Wikimedia Foundation, Jennifer Riggs will be in town and is looking forward to meeting some of the local wikipedians. So, please check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 14 and sign up if you can make it. Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 07:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reference" #3 about a supposed local pronunciation of Melbourne is not a credible external reference, it is another wikipedia page. Another WP page is not a credible external reference. BTW that page or its references say nothing about Melbourne, they test and discuss only the Victorian country town of Wangaratta, Victoria - nowhere near Melbourne. (BTW: according to Wikipedia, Wangaratta itself has two different pronunciations.) Format ( talk) 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference#3 I mention above (that was actually not a reference but a link to another wikipedia page) so subsequent to my deletion Reference #3 is now something else. Format ( talk) 06:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The above chg just got reverted, I think as part of the changes being discussed below? I have reinstated an earlier version which at least had external references for the two pronunciations listed. I don't care in which sequence they appear, but any pronun listed needs an external reference. Format ( talk) 06:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The first reference is for the international pronunciation as used by North American, North English and Irish accents, and uses the general transcription from the reliable source of dictionary.com, as published by Random House. Please use the correct IPA for transcriptions representing accents. The first uses the general transcription as found on Wikipedia:IPA for English and the second, is a narrow Australian transcription from Australian English phonology. The reference user Bidgee gave for the Australian pronunciation was published in 2003, whilst the reference I used was published in 2005, so I think it's better to use the latest publication. – Marco 79 04:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Melbourne is an Australian city, so how Australians pronounce it is correct. How Americans pronounce Melbourne, Florida, of course is relevant there, but not here. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 04:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why it's is mentioned second. It's not just how Americans pronounce this city, but others as I said from Ireland, Northern England, etc. But the major point is that Wikipedia uses a general pronunciation first and then the local pronunciation second. The key for the general transcription can be found at Wikipedia:IPA for English. And a key for the Australian transcription can be found at Australian English phonology#Relationship to other varieties. Please see these for more information.– Marco 79 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So why do the Irish and Americans take precedence? What about South Africans or Londoners? And in any case I can't understand why you would want to include incorrect pronunciations anyway. But if so they should come second after the local pronunciation. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 05:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats my thoughts as well. Reminds me the rubbish that all Australian articles had to use UTC time when really it's local time/dates before UTC. Really this is becoming an Americanised encyclopaedia! Bidgee ( talk) 05:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that it's consensus that a general transcription is used first and then the local is used second. I'm not saying that Irish, Americans should take precedence, it's just a standard that has been accepted with consensus in Wikipedia pertaining to all articles with a general English and local pronunciations. But if you like I guess we could compromise and place it second? – Marco 79 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Show me the consensus. I've seen people say there is a consensus when there was none or wasn't really an unbiased consensus. So far I've found no policy stating general then local. Bidgee ( talk) 05:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a guideline Wikipedia:Pronunciation#Distinction between British, American and Australian pronunciation. – Marco 79 05:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That guideline only says that it may be useful to have both, not which should go first. How helpful is it to anybody to have the non-local pronunciation first? Definitely unhelpful, I would have thought. Most people with any cultural sensitivity at least try to pronounce things like the locals do. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 06:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but it is useful to have both, no matter which is first, it's just that on many other articles, that is the order used. that's all, so I will restore the general transcription, but place it second. – Marco 79 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to pronounce it "Malburn" unless you have the celery-salary merger. The international and Australian forms are identical except for accent. For anyone who has an Australian accent, the international form will be the Australian form. For non-Australians, though, getting the correct "local" pronunciation will only mean pronouncing it "Melburn" rather than "Melborn". They will of course almost all keep their own accent. kwami ( talk) 06:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No the Australian pronunciation is quite different to that of NA, NE and Ireland and would be correctly pronounced "MEL-bn" not "MEL-burn", which to an Australian's ear would be wrong. – Marco 79 07:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was recently watching a TV program here in Australian and it had an American pronouncing Melbourne (Australian city) as /mɛlbən/, without the "er" sound as he would have with Melbourne /mɛlbɚn/ (city in the US). – Marco 79 06:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's common enough to pick up the local accent when visiting a town. But that doesn't mean that non-visiters have picked it up.

With the "burn", I was assuming accommodation for a non-stressed syllable. That's one of the problems of sound-alikes. kwami ( talk)

The third pronunciation is not referenced. That just links to another wikipedia page. And that page shows only that one group of Wangaratta schoolgirls in 2003 had a celery/salary merger. Doesn't say anything about pronunciations in Melbourne - that study never tested Melbourne speakers. Format ( talk) 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a different matter, and would warrant deleted it. I thought we had some Melbournians here last time this was discussed. Is there any here now from Melbourne? kwami ( talk) 07:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a Melburnian but if I declared I say Melburn not Malburn it would only be original research anyway. Format ( talk) 07:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Melburnian — born and bred — too, and I have the merger, where the name "Mal" and the beginning of "Melbourne" sound the same, or even the names "Elle" and "Al" also sound the same. But that too would be OR. So I would pronounce "Melbourne" as [mælbən]. – Marco 79 07:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I pronounce "Mel" or "Mal" the same as a result of the celery/salary merger, and the second syllable with little trace of a vowel sound, almost "bn". Melburnian ( talk) 07:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The point with sourcing is whether anyone would be likely to challenge it. If editors from Melbourne are satisfied that [mælbən] is correct, where's the challenge? From people who don't know the difference? We give lots of local pronunciations on Wikipedia on the say-so of resident editors. That's been good enough, except in cases where we suspect that a single editor doesn't know what s/he's talking about. kwami ( talk) 16:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a source that says that the celery-salary merger does indeed take place in Melbourne, and also New Zealand and Brisbane. However, it doesn't take place in Sydney, Hobart, Adelaide, or Perth. Thegryseone ( talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Melburnian here. My totally non-technical description of the local pronunciation of Melbourne is that the first syllable is said exactly like Mel Gibson's first name, and the second syllable has no vowel sound at all; it's simply "bn". Roblowe48 ( talk) 10:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't tell us anything though. Thegryseone ( talk) 16:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled accross this article about laneways in melbourne from the age, written in 2008. i thought it might be a help for anyone trying to expand that part of the article. http://business.theage.com.au/business/life-thrives-in-the-laneways-20080527-2iqd.html?page=1 Chumchum14 ( talk) 12:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I took this image in Melbourne but don't know the name of the street or mall. Does anyone here know so I can give the image a proper description. Cheers . Adam ( talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could be Bourke Street? Not 100% however. Bidgee ( talk) 11:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, somebody else may be able to help . Adam ( talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thats Bourke Street. Farsouth ( talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure is. Aaroncrick ( talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The photo is the Bourke Street Mall pointing east. You can see Naru Building in the background and Myers to the left. throttler 03:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two images in this article that I strongly suggest be taken out. The .gif that shows the population growth is not useful at all, since it only shows 1830, 1880, 2006, and 2030. It is also not at all clear what sources were used to develop it. Furthermore, it is not exactly professional looking. Also, the picture of "autumn in Canterbury" is very blurry and seems clearly to have been taken with some kind of color saturation filter to make it look "redder." Would anyone rather these two images stay?

Plus, I see from an archived talk page that there is a featured image that shows a good shot of the downtown area that was inexplicably removed from the article a long time ago. I would also recommend putting it back in and replacing one of the many images already here that show the CBD, none of which are at the same level of quality. Dmz5 *Edits* *Talk* 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE put a proper picture of the city skyline up, all the ones shown have been absolutley terrible and do not depict this city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.39.39 ( talk) 06:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

hi melbournr has such a great attrection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.104.56 ( talk) 10:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Australian place infobox is ineffective for articles on Australian greater metropolitan areas and/or Australia's capital and "global" cities. As a standard, I've noticed the settlement infobox is used for articles on cities of the World (see almost any city article: New York City, Warsaw, Santiago, etc. Also, Loughborough-ranked GaWC Beta World Cities+ like Melbourne, eg: Los Angeles, New Delhi, Dubai, etc. And, The Economist-ranked World's Most Livable Cities like Melbourne, eg: Vancouver, Vienna, Geneva, etc.

While the the IAP may be effective for 6,000 articles on smaller Australian towns and cities. The settlement infobox is used for pretty much every other article on every other city in the World. I think the IAP is a good infobox for aforementioned articles on smaller Australian towns and cities, but for major cities like Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, etc., it is ineffective, and we should use the settlement infobox for those articles. Or at least create an effective IAP-styled infobox. Thoughts? - NouvelleAuteur ( talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

IAP is the standard for all Australian articles. In addition to the over 6,600 articles on suburbs, towns, cities and regions, it's also used on all Australian capital city articles. It is not correct that Infobox settlement "is used for pretty much every other article on every other city in the World". There is certainly a group of editors that would like that to be the case. They've been nominating a lot of templates for deletion so that IS can be pushed into articles and have failed a few times, primarily where a larger number of editors have been involved with the template that they've tried to have deleted. IAP was one of them. [3] We've decided to use IAP on all articles including this one and I don't see that changing. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 16:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As said above, I have no major qualms with IAP. I think it to be mostly an effective infobox. My problem with it is that I don't believe it to be fully effective for Australian capital/global cities, and/or capital cities' metropolitan/greater areas. I'm not going to get into IAP vs. IS. I chose to undo the edit, reverting back to IS, because of my aforementioned beliefs on IAP. Basically, I saw a greater standard on Wikipedia (aka: IS) and went with it. My care factor on the fight between editors on which infobox is better is nil.

However, I stand by the need for a more effective IAP box when it comes to Australia's capital/global cities. IAP is too "insular" to Australia, ie: seems to work more to suburbs as cities and LGA "cities", as opposed to capitals and their metropolitan areas as an encompassed city, eg: Greater Melbourne being "Melbourne", Melbourne city centre being part of "Greater Melbourne", City of Melbourne encompassing the Melbourne city centre, etc. Hence why I believe there needs to be an IAP box created to eliminate this problem. I think the IS box was editable enough to accommodate this. It's got nothing to do with some silly infobox war between editors, but what is best for the conveyance of information within article. - NouvelleAuteur ( talk) 16:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How about you state your specific problem with IAP in these articles. You state that it is "ineffective", why? What does IS do that is lacking in IAP that causes you concern in this article? Vague claims of "ineffective" and appeals to use in other articles are pretty hard to debate rationally. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The IAP in it's current form seems to be designed more to accommodate suburbs/towns/LGAs. In the case of a greater metropolitan city, it fails because of the amount of independent "municipal cities", etc that make up the city. This is the case, as I mentioned before, for capital cities like Melbourne, etc - which are generally Australia's largest cities and global cities, and made up of 30+ municipalities over a wide area. It causes problems with area, density, population, etc (as also mentioned by Felix below) and general definition of what is actually Melbourne - ie: Greater Melbourne, the Melbourne city centre, the City of Melbourne, etc (which I also mentioned above).

I think there needs to be an IAP to deal with this. Something that defines the metropolitan area and what are each of the LGA "municipal cities" are (like the IS does), what the "capital area" is (ie: the City of Melbourne) and its leader, what is actually "the city" (ie: the Melbourne city centre), etc. Then, from this, you can define the area and population of the metropolitan area, then separately the area and population of "the city", and finally the total area and population of Melbourne. This at least eases some problems with definition, etc. over what is Melbourne; and it's population, area, government system and leaders, etc. Basically, the current IAP seems to deal with one town/suburb/LGA as opposed to a city made up of many. - NouvelleAuteur ( talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a range of articles— Melbourne, City of Melbourne, Melbourne city centre—that deal with the issue of the differing definitions of Melbourne and trying to cram these various definitions into one infobox seems to be to be overkill. The infobox for Melbourne should be for the definition of Melbourne that used in the article (i.e. the greater Melbourne area) and so on for City of Melbourne and Melbourne city centre. Mixing and matching these various definitions in the infobox seems to me to be promoting confusion, not lessening it. For example adding the Mayor of the City of Melbourne to an infobox in this article would be profoundly misleading as he is not in any position of authority for the vast majority of the population and area of the urban area discussed in this article. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Melbourne city centre is found mostly in the City of Melbourne municipality, which is part of Melbourne. I don't see how hard it would be to connect these articles in an infobox, or how it would make it more confusing. Eg: 1. City of Melbourne --> 2. Melbourne city centre --> 3. Melbourne; and 1. Other LGA --> 2. Metropolitan area --> 3. Melbourne. By separating the city centre and the metro area within the Melbourne article, and referring to the City of Melbourne as also the "capital area" and the rest of Melbourne's LGAs as also part of the "metro area", it alleviates the confusing elements I mentioned earlier. Also, it would explain why the expansive Greater Melbourne is not administered by the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, etc. As for the infobox being crammed and overkill: it all seemed to work into the IS quite easily. - NouvelleAuteur ( talk) 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I support maintaining the status quo for the reasons that User:Mattinbgn has outlined above. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

The pop/area/density statistics in the infobox are a little confused and highly confusing.

• The population figure is for the Melbourne statistical division, which extends from Melton in the west to Warburton in the east, and from Whittlesea in the north to Little River in the south west and the whole of the Mornington Pensula in the south east. This is an estimate from 2008 (or 2009, or foo) and is a little confusing because most other population figures are for the 2006 census, and I would suggest both are appropriate as is done in the Australia page).
• The area figure is for the sum of the 31 metropolitan LGAs; this includes the balance (a little shy of half) of the Yarra Ranges Shire, covering a handful of places you've never heard of and almost no-one—about 600 people but growing v e r y   s l o w l y—who are counted as Gippslanders. (Yarra Ranges is the only LGA split between the Melbourne SD and another SD.)
• The population density figure however, is for the Melbourne Urban Area/Locality. This therefore represents the vast majority of the population of the Melbourne SD (3 371 889 people in 2006 for the UA/L, versus 3 592 591 for the SD), but only about a quarter of the land (2152.8 km² according to the header on the download from [4].)

Normally I would probably just "be bold" (I would prefer to count the Melbourne UA/L; I doubt people in Warbuton identify themselves as Melburnian, but rather say they come from a town outside Melbourne—but I'm not from Warburton and don't know anyone who is, so this is mere speculation) but here:

• The Melbourne UA/L is never mentioned in the article, but "urban area" is used informally.
• The Melbourne SD is mentioned a few times, but (AIUI) it's a poor comparison for cities in other countries, who only count either the urban area or what we would call the inner suburbs (plus maybe the middle suburbs).
• Changing the area to refer to the Melbourne UA/L will make other articles very confusing, because a lot of articles assume frex. that Yarra Ranges is "in" Melbourne, or that "Melbourne" is the sum of the 31 LGAs, even though there's no subset relationship between Melbourne and local government areas, in spite of the fact that both are described as "cities".
• I also presume some people might object for some other reason, but I won't try bringing up and countering these arguments for fear of straw men.

Still, would it be possible to build consensus that "Melbourne" in general refers to the area/population of the Melbourne UA/L, and that the statistics should refer to Melbourne UA/L? — Felix the Cassowary 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The population figure used is a consensus developed at List of cities in Australia by population. I tend to agree with you that UA/L could be better but think it is unwise to change Melbourne unilaterally. There should be consistency within Aust. itself as a priority. As for towns like Warburton being part of Melb. I can say that places like Sunbury, Melton (where I grew up), Cranbourne, Cragieburn etc. certainly see themselves as part of Melbourne. Arguing about who consider themselves Melburnian, Warburtonians or otherwise, does not seem a fruitful exercise and verges on OR. I am unsure what you mean by "inner" and "middle suburbs" but excluding places like Caroline Springs, Tarneit, etc. from Melbourne as "outer suburbs" seems a little strange.

Most Australian capital cities (with Brisbane a notable exception) consist of a tiny LGA "city" in the core surrounded by a range of other "cities". This is unlike the experience in most other places where there is a large area covered by the core city LGA, surrounded by "suburbs" that are located in other LGAs, contiguous with the built up area or otherwise. Attempting to force Australian cities (again other than Brisbane, although their article is even more confused than here in terms of pop.) into this "world" model will be hard to make work. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I tend to view Sunbury, Melton, Cranbourne, Craigieburn etc as part of Melbourne—but not Warburton. Maybe it's the fact that there's no train going there that's why I view it differently, or because it's well outside the Melbourne urban growth boundary (unlike the places you list) but it's completely irrelevant to my main point, which is that either the sum of the 31 LGAs or the Melbourne SD are excessive for definitions of the city, as opposed to the region.

In addition, the thing about inner or middle suburbs, you're completely right and I wholly agree with you; and the problem is because of a miscommunication. What I meant is that other country's cities' definition of the area/population of the city would invariably be either one that approximates to the Urban Area/Locality (i.e. "urban area") definition, or (as a separate option, not a restatement of that) one that has the inner and maybe middle suburbs united into one LGA which is then listed as the population of the "city". Of course this second idea doesn't work, and I wasn't suggesting we attempt to man-handle this article into that structure! (I am, however, confused about why you're confused about inner/middle suburbs: is it just because it seems a little irrelevant to a discussion of the population of Melbourne—which I could understand—or that you genuinely wouldn't recognise what someone meant if they said "I live in one of the inner suburbs of Melbourne"? Because "inner", "middle" and "outer" are IME well used and understood, and in use by government bodies like the ABS (like the Northern Middle Melbourne Statistical Subdivision). Maybe the "middle" classifacition is more relevant if you grew up in the middle suburbs, like I did, but they're very clearly different from the outer suburbs...)

Anyway, considering the Wikipedia-wide standard for the size of Australian cities, and the very true statement on the List you link to that says "the population of the SD is the most-often quoted figure for that city's population", I'm not sure how to continue. I still think it's unacceptable that there's implicitly three different definitions of "Melbourne" being used in the one infobox without any clarification. I would, indeed, be happy with any consistent definition. I suppose wikiproject Australia would be a better venue for this discussion than here, because as you say any conclusion drawn here would be best applied to all cities in Australia. I will try taking it up there.

— Felix the Cassowary 14:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just undid the image vandalism on this article (the good pictures where changed to unrelated images (such as the top right picture changes to a birthday cake for Susan). 70.81.82.151 ( talk) 00:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's going on here; the last bit relates to the wrong hyphens in the table of temperatures in this article on Melbourne, now changed to minus signs per MoS. Tony (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at the sydney talk page has absolutely no relevance to this article. Please remain on-topic. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some information about why the word "Melburnian" was decided upon as the term for a resident of Melbourne. I presume it's from the presumed Latin version of Melbourne. But who first used it, and how did it come to be generally accepted? -- JackofOz ( talk) 08:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would the normal word come from Latin? In the olden days (when people learnt Latin in school) were they taught the Latin name for Melbourne? I've always assumed it's just that when the English suffix -ian was added to "Melbourne" (and necessarily moved the stress, as is normal for that suffix), the unstressed vowel /ə/ was interpreted as a reduced form of /ɜː/, and the word was respelt accordingly. It's possible both are aspects in how it came about. The fact that "Melburnian" seems to be viewed as informal by some people would seem to argue against the Latin origin. — Felix the Cassowary 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right about it not being Latin. That was just an assumption on my part. A person who has never heard the word "Melburnian" would probably assume the adjective is "Melbournian". Is there any earlier precedent for a -bourne name producing a -burnian adjective? -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary has the spelling "Melbournian" as an 'Also' variant under the headword "Melburnian". Should this spelling also be included? -- 203.220.171.83 ( talk) 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only ever seen "Melbournian" in dictionaries. As a resident of Melbourne, the only form I see in regular use is "Melburnian". My impression is the explanation given above by Felix the Cassowary is the correct one. MarcusCole12 ( talk) 09:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This ADB entry suggests to me that E. E. Morris had the Latin form in mind when he came up with the title of the school magazine, Melburnian, in 1876. He later produced Liber Melburniensis. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some content that appears to have been lifted word-for-word, without permission, from the online source that it was citing. The content had no identification whether permission for its use was ever sought from the owners of that content. I have therefore reverted to a previous version of the citation, that does not include that content. ^[5] -- 203.220.171.83 ( talk) 04:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a little hard to piece together from the diff, but was any of the copyright text used in the article itself? If it's explicitly quoted in a footnote, with the attribution given directly, that's perfectly acceptable IMO. In fact it's desirable for pay sites like the Macquarie Dictionary, so we can all see what part of the work is being relied on. So long as the text is quoted and directly attributed (and doesn't constitute a "substantial taking"), it should be fine, especially if it's in a footnote. This seems like dry recitation of facts to me, so maybe you would consider restoring the text? Of course, I could be reading the diff all wrong... Franamax ( talk) 05:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was only used in the footnote, but I was reading the online site's copyright information, which stated that no part of its content (including text) may be used without prior written permission from the publishers. I would consider the content taken as substantial, as it was copied word-for-word and uses the whole entry. I don't see any harm in just the use of the reference attributes. I would like to err on the side of caution though. -- 203.220.171.83 ( talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Could the IPA edit warriors please bring it to the talk page? Josh Parris 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Australian editors have agreed to use Australian pronunciations in Australian articles. Like we use Australian spellings in Australian articles. -- 203.220.171.199 ( talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we use generic English unless otherwise stated, and Australian editors don't have a walled garden around Australian articles. Our readers have no way of knowing which conventions we've decided to follow unless we make them explicit. The key you are linking to assumes generic English, and "Melbourne" is certainly a name that is well known in all English dialects. If you want to use Australian English, fine, but you should state that it's Australian English, just as we do for US or UK pronunciations.

Orthography is different: it makes no practical difference whether we use Australian, British, or US spelling. By using Australian pronunciation and implying it's not Australian, however, you potentially mislead our readers. (In some place names, ars are silent even in rhotic dialects. "Melbourne" is not one of them.) kwami ( talk) 11:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are "we"? What do you mean by "walled garden"? What I'm saying is that, if we used Australian spelling, grammar and punctuation for Australian articles then Wikipedia should use Australian non-rhotic pronunciation in those articles too, not a generic one that looks to be influenced by Americans. Similarly Wikipedia should use American pronunciations for specific American articles. Generic pronunciations should be used for non-region specific articles. Hence Melbourne doesn't fit into this, so the Australian pronunciation should be used. Can you show me how it is done for "US or UK pronunciations"?

What do you mean "it makes no practical difference whether we use Australian, British, or US spelling"? I think many editors would disagree with this statement.

What do you mean "By using Australian pronunciation and implying it's not Australian," this isn't clear? And how am I and other editors misleading readers, we are just informing them with the local pronunciation in Australia. Isn't this what an encyclopaedia is supposed to do?.

Any rhotic speaker — unfamiliar with Australian pronunciations — who come across the /ˈmelbən/ pronunciation will automatically insert an /r/ and will have no trouble with it, and those who are familiar with Australian pronunciations will leave the /r/ out.

To many, if not most, Australians, it does make a difference, because the /r/ changes the second syllable sound in Melbourne completely. You are implying the second syllable rhymes with "burn", which in Australian English it doesn't, it's more like a sound between "bun" or "bin" or maybe "bn" and sounds nothing like "burn". -- 203.220.171.199 ( talk) 12:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the American pronunciation of "Melbourne" sounds funny/wrong (esp. when they say "mel-BORN"), it is not the place of Wikipedia to be prescriptive. The best option is to describe the pronunciation using the Wikipedia standard from which local pronunciations can be derived (to be informative), as well as specifying the exact local pronunciation (to be documentary): " pronounced /mɛlbərn/, locally [mælbən, -bn̩]". I think this is already a standard agreed upon; at least, it can be seen in many other articles on Victorian placenames (e.g. Horsham, Victoria). — Felix the Cassowary 15:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [NB: I got the transcriptions wrong first time round. That's neither here nor there and wasn't intended to suggest that anything was wrong. Plus, the Macquarie dictionary uses a really bad IPA transcription that should not be used to imply actual pronunciation, but is merely intended as a respelling scheme helpful for Australians. It definitely has no place in informing international people how Australians actually pronounce words.]— Felix the Cassowary 15:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WRT the Macquarie Dictionary, I agree that it uses a respelling scheme and doesn't use correct IPA for the Australian accent, but its respelling scheme is suitable not only for Australians, but also for all other non-rhotic accents from places such as England, New Zealand, etc. But I think a rhotic speaker who come across a non-rhotic pronunciation would instinctively cope and naturally insert an "r", if they think one exists, such as in "Melbourne". -- 203.220.170.131 ( talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon, every single thing you said is factually incorrect. I can go thru it point by point if you like. But the main point is that if you use an IPA key for generic English, you're implying that your transcription is generic English. It's not. Therefore you are misleading our readers. That is not appropriate. I have no problem with AusE, but I oppose using AusE and then claiming it's s.t. else. What we have already is the general consensus: transcribe a name as generic English and then, if there's reason to do it, add the local pronunciation. The first transcription tells me how "I" should pronounce it; the second tells me what I'd hear if I were to go there. Both are useful information. kwami ( talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. I think I understand your POV.
BTW, the pronunciation /mɛlbən/ is not strictly AusE, but a generic non-rhotic pronunciation, as would be used by someone from England, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. An AusE pronunciation for Melbourne would use the IPA for AusE and would be rendered something like [melbən, -bn̩] or [mælbən, -bn̩]. -- 203.220.170.131 ( talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it actually works pretty well as generic English. The question is in which direction the adjustment is more accessible. Rhotic to non-rhotic is easy: you just drop ars in certain positions. Non-rhotic to rhotic is not so easy. That's why our generic English vowels are rhotic but otherwise based on RP rather than any rhotic dialect: RP makes for the easiest transition to the reader's dialect no matter what it is (except Scottish English and a couple others). kwami ( talk) 06:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather use the rhotic schwa /ɚ/ rather than the schwa & "r" /ər/ so Melbourne pronunciation would be rendered /mɛlbɚn/. -- 203.220.170.131 ( talk) 07:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. In fact, it seems to have been a stable approach in several English place names. Unfortunately, it only works when the rhotic vowel is a schwa. kwami ( talk) 07:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How "I" should pronounce it? Surely "we" should pronounce it like the locals pronounce it. Imagine telling a New Yorker their pronunciation is wrong? Or anybody else, for that matter. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat feel the same that it should be pronounced the way a local pronounces it. My point is that "I" know how to pronounce it in my own accent, but not necessarily how the locals pronounce it. I personally try to pronounce a name by how the locals pronounce it, because that shows respect to those locals. -- 203.220.170.131 ( talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course we won't pronounce it like a local. First of all, since other cities than Melbourne have names, that would mean mastering every accent of every dialect of the English language, an impossible task. Secondly, people would mock you for being pretentious, the way they will if you pronounce Paris and Moscow "puh-REE" and "MAWSK-vuh". I doubt there are many Melburnians who pronounce "New York" the way a New Yorker would, and I doubt there are any New Yorkers who would expect them to: They'd pronounce it with a Melburnian accent, just as a New Yorker would pronounce "Melbourne" with a New Yorker accent. And for people who want to do just that, but don't know the pronunciation of a city, we have a generic English IPA transcription that you can use even if you haven't mastered the local accent. kwami ( talk) 00:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pretentious", I don't think so. I think it shows respect for the locals if, I, as an outsider attempted to pronounce it as they do. And if someone doesn't know the local pronunciation, Wikipedia can be a good source to help someone to do so. Isn't that a good thing? -- 203.220.170.131 ( talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're there, of course. But that's why we include the local pronunciation. But if you're sitting in an office in Manhattan, it doesn't show anyone any respect to speak like a Melbournian. If you're a non-Melbournian speaking to other non-Melbournians, most people would want to speak in their own dialect. That's why we include the generic pronunciation. kwami ( talk) 06:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. It seems like a good system to use both a generic pronunciation for an informative purpose and a local pronunciation for a documentary purpose. -- 203.220.170.131 ( talk) 07:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet the article on New York only includes the local pronunciation. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it only includes the generic pronunciation. New York is non-rhotic. The only concession is in the "New", which I figured wasn't worth fighting over. kwami ( talk) 02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean New York is "rhotic" don't you? Why concede just for New York, why not concede elsewhere too. You can't have one rule for one pronunciation and another for all other pronunciations. -- 203.220.170.131 ( talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The concession wasn't for the "York", just for the "New", and it's not just for New York, but for several other "New X" place names. Since the word "new" is so basic, I personally didn't think it worth the effort. However, if you wish to bring that up and fight the edit wars, I wouldn't object.

(I think the main problem with the /nju:/ is not that it's not the local pronunciation, but that it has a /j/ in it, which throws Americans, since they're generally not used to the IPA. You get objections like "What the *&%$#* is this?! There's no jay sound in 'new'!!". So it's the ignorance of the readership that's the problem, not local sensitivities.) kwami ( talk) 06:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

kwami, what is 'generic english'. Going from what has been put in this article, it seems 'generic English' is the American accent which is patently false. The correct pronunciation of the city of Melbourne, Australia, is the so called 'local' pronunciation. To use your Moscow example, IMO it would be preferable for non russians to say Moskva, however if we are going to use english pronunciations, is the 'generic english' Mos-cow as in moo cow as americans would say, or is it Mos-coe as Commonwealth speakers would say? In Moscow, both are given, there is no so-called 'generic English' option. Or to use another example, St. Louis, Missouri is pronounced, Loui-S in america, and this is given as the pronunciation. However technically, 'Louis' is pronounced Lou-ee in other english jurisdictions. So the question is, when non americans say St LouiS, are they using a so-called generic english pronunciation, or the american pronunciation. Mitsuhirato ( talk) 01:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Moscow" has differing pronunciations listed for the US and UK because you can't get from one to the other: they differ the way "veyss" and "vahz" for vase differ. "Melbourne", on the other hand, is just pronounced "Melbourne". There's little need to adding a local vs. generic distinction, because it's automatic with one's accent. But anyway, we now have the generic + local, so I'm not messing with anything. kwami ( talk) 12:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have lived here in Melbourne all my 50 years, and have never heard it pronounced /mælbən/. When I go to look at reference 3, there is nothing there except an assertion that some residents of New Zealand origin pronounce it that way. Even if true (and I don't think it is), that would be original research and contrary to Wikipedia policy. That pronunciation and bogus reference should be removed. 118.209.122.85 ( talk) 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have previously tried to have this removed too, but was overruled. Follow the link: that article features no references at all that state that is the pronunciation in Melbourne. Format ( talk) 03:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we have Melbournians vouch for that pronunciation? If not, we probably should have it removed. kwami ( talk) 06:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't my vote count? I am a Melburnian. (And it is "Melburnian".) But having locals vouch for a pronunciation seems like original research, especially since a couple of us have disputed the claim. Format ( talk) 06:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not from Melbourne but I have been lived in and visited the place. If my understanding of the IPA pronunciation is correct (I always have trouble with IPA because I speak English) I'd have to agree that the pronunciation is wrong. The reference is more than dubious, it's clearly invalid. As already indicated, it talks about New Zealand, which is certainly not local. The reference to Wangaratta, 230km from Melbourne, is not indicative that any significant portion of the local population of Melbourne uses that pronunciation. It doesn't even prove that it's used by the population of Wangaratta. The study tested 13 fifteen year-old girls from the same school so it's far too limited in its scope to justify the claim. Where it really fails though is that it doesn't mention Melbourne at all. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 08:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying it's pronounced Malbn? kwami ( talk) 08:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's Melben (or Melbn for the lazy bastards). As I said, "if my understanding of the IPA pronunciation is correct", then ˈ"mælbən" = "Malben" because the "æ" is pronounced as the "a" in "cat". This is clearly wrong. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct: "æ" is the "a" in "cat". But that was listed as the only pronunciation, when you're saying that it's not used at all. kwami ( talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I paid particular attention to tonight's 7pm ABC television news broadcast from the their Melbourne studio. Every pronunciation was /melbən/. This included those from the lead presenter, Ian Henderson, who has a Melbourne accent, and packages from several journalists, some who didn't. This pronunciation is usual all over Australia and is certainly considered the correct one by Australians. It doesn't do as a Wikipedia reference, but you can convince yourself of that by listening to the ABC's Newsradio at www.abc.net.au/newsradio and waiting for the weather/traffic to roll around every 15 minutes (daytime weekdays UTC+11). Edit to clarify - the ABC is the national broadcaster. 118.209.122.85 ( talk) 11:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear, isn't it. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Melburnians say "Mel-burn" (Australian English is non-rhotic so not too much emphasis on the r.) No one says "Mal-burn" / "Mæl-burn". Heck, in Melbourne, even Malvern is prononunced "Mol-vern", while Malden, "Maul-den". Sometimes you can pick non locals when they say "Malvern" as "Mælvern" when really locals say "Molvern". A "mall" is usually pronounced "maul". Format ( talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Melbourne myself, and me, my family and friends, who are all from either Melbourne or country Victoria, pronounce it /mælbən/. When I listen to them say "Melbourne" they clearly pronounce it /mælbən/, as the first syllable rhymes with the first syllable in "Malfunction" (which is rendered /mælˈfʌŋkʃən/ in the MD) or "Mall" (/mæl/ as pronounced by some). I do admit though, Ian Henderson does say it differently from myself, which he pronounces more like /melbən/, but journalists are trained to speak this way, particularly ABC journalists; I've also notice many journalist also pronounce Australia /ɔˈstræɪljə/ rather than how most ordinary Australians pronounce it, which is /əˈstræɪljə/. So I don't think we can trust how a newsreader or journalist pronounces a word as assuming it is the same pronunciation as used by the locals. The usual pronunciation of "Mall" is /moːl/, but I've also heard the pronunciation /mæl/, which is the same pronunciation as used in the first syllable of "Melbourne".

I think you'll find there are two pronunciations for Melbourne /melbən, mælbən/, depending on where a person comes from in Melbourne, socio-economic background and how they were educated.

I think it was a bit hasty to remove it before the discussion has finished. Three agrees in a day does not make a consensus. With an issue like this, isn't it policy to wait a week or so, so a proper consensus is established? -- 203.220.170.220 ( talk) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I've heard before. This IP is located in Flowerdale, just outside Melbourne proper. Often with the pronunciations of place names we're content to take locals' word for it, because they can be difficult to document otherwise.

BTW, I don't think we should be using newscasters as evidence. They tend to use the national standard, whereas the [æ] pronunciation would be distinctly local. Is there any reason we should not accept the testimony of this IP, and the similar one the last time this came up for discussion? Yes, I realize it would be OR, but so are numerous place-name pronunciations, and it is OR that is easily verified or falsified by other local WP editors. kwami ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I once had to work with some Italian engineers for a long period and we had various discusssions about the language. There were some enlightening conversations about simple Australian terms like "G'day". The Italians didn't hear "G'day", they heard "G'tie". It's like a person listening to their recorded voice for the first time. They're always surprised to find that they sound a lot different to how they thought they did. I live in Raymond Terrace and when I say "Raymond Terrace" it sounds to me like I'm saying "Raymond Terrace" but people from outside the area swear that people from here say "Raymon Terrace", dropping the "d". The point I'm trying to make is that while the local might think they're saying "Malben", what no-locals here is "Melben". How did you come up with Flowerdale as the IP's location? A WHOIS shows the IP registered to Comindico in Sydney. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 23:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I used http://www.ip-adress.com/.

There's a big difference between a foreigner hearing English through his own language, and the judgements of a native speaker. If a native speaker says the vowels of two words are the same in his own dialect, I'm tempted to think they are. kwami ( talk) 01:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ip-address.com is rather unreliable! It say my IP is in Toronto, Canada which is hugely incorrect as I edit from an IP in Australia nor do I use any proxies.

Odd then that s.o. claiming to be from Melbourne was traced back to Melbourne. Probably none of these things are very reliable, but I doubt this was just coincidence. kwami ( talk)

Given the demonstrated inaccuracy (apparently I'm in Sydney, 160km away from here) I'd say the results can't be relied upon. "All of the other results are wrong but this one must be right!" is not a convincing argument. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this dispute isn't going to end any time soon but why can't we have international and local pronunciation? MOS already states we should have local (Country) spelling and dating. Bidgee ( talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We can. In fact, until a couple days ago, we did. It was Chameleon who insisted that we didn't. Also, once the "malburn" pronunciation was removed, there was no significant difference between the local and international forms, so listing it twice was redundant. However, if people want it restored, I have no problem with that. My only concern would be stating that only "melburn" is the local pronunciation when we apparently have locals claiming that "malburn" is also used. kwami ( talk)

Infact {{ Australian English}} states that Australian dialect should be used, clearly Kwamikagami is using an American dialect which is against the MOS. Bidgee ( talk) 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It says nothing of the kind. Generally Australian articles are written in Australian English. Nothing is said about phonetic transcription. If you were to read the MOS, you would see that it states that English pronunciations should be in generic English, so that readers from all backgrounds can understand them, though we are welcome to add local pronunciations as well, if we feel they are needed. (Chameleon was opposed to the "as well".)

*Sigh* (and no, that doesn't mean that I'm accusing you of acting in bad faith, only that I wish you'd read up on what you're talking about before you make pronouncements) that is not "American" English. In fact, it's much closer to RP. (The only thing "American" about it is that it's rhotic, but that's hardly confined to the US, being found in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada. The vowels are definitely not American.) The IPA links you to a key that explains what the IPA is, and how it's used on Wikipedia. Please read it.

BTW, I'm the one who created the Australian-English phonetic template for use for Australian place names, until the Australian Wikiproject decided it was counterproductive and decided to join all other English-speaking countries in using generic English pronunciations, with of course the option of adding local pronunciations as well, and it was deleted to a general lack of complaint. I have nothing against Australian English being used here or anywhere else. kwami ( talk) 05:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Flowerdale is a rural area well outside Melbourne. Mere distances are misleading, because the city is so asymmetric in its development. To the north, you've come to paddocks at Craigieburn, a mere 26km from the "centre"; to the south it goes all the way to the heads of Port Phillip, 95km direct and more by land. With respect to the ABC requiring a specific pronunication from broadcasters, indeed they do: it is mandated by something called SCOSE ("Standing Commitee on Spoken English") which distributes newsletters and provides a software tool. Unfortunately, although I easily found out it exists, neither hardcopy nor the tool appear to be available outside the organisation. This was why I did not suggest it as a reference in my earlier post. I did look in my paper Oxford dictionary (no pronunciation given) and Websters (the rhotic /melbərn/, as expected). I don't have a Macquarie - their listing of "youse" as an undisputed plural of "you" puts them beyond the pale for me and I suspect most middle-class Melburnians. I looked in the Commonwealth Government style guide and it, too, was silent on pronunciation. So, while it would be nice to be able to find a better authority than the national broadcaster, I can't think of one. There are, I think, Australian versions of the Collins and Oxford which might contain pronunciation. If someone has access to the big Oxford, that I think would give the UK pronunciation which is /melbən/ or /melbərn/ depending on regional accent. That, together with the Websters, ought to clinch what the non-Australian-English pronunciation is. 118.209.122.85 ( talk) 09:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not from Flowerdale, but from the northern suburbs of Melbourne, and was raised in an area just outside Melbourne's northern urban fringe. To Anon 118... dictionaries describe the language, not prescribe it, much like Wikipedia does for encyclopaedic content. The Australian Oxford English Dictionary gives the pronunciation /melbən/, whilst the Macquarie Dictionary gives the pronunciation /mɛlbən/, and I don't have a Collins containing place names. Neither the MD or AOED includes the pronunciation /mælbən/, but this does not mean it doesn't exist or isn't used by many residents in Melbourne. -- 203.220.170.31 ( talk) 05:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There would be a multitude of accents and varying pronunciations that are in fact routinely used by Melbourne "locals" every day, given the multicultural makeup of the place. However, it is unrealistic to list them all here. What I see it that "Malburn" has been disputed by some, which means that we do not have consensus. There are no references here or in the Salary celery merger article to corroborate the "Malburn" pronunciation either, or even that it is used in Melbourne at all. If people really do say "Malburn", why aren't there any references to the fact? I am not sure why people are intent of having something that is unreferenced and disputed by some locals in the article? Format ( talk) 08:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many native locals who do say "Malbn" (including me), but not "Malburn", but as I said before both pronunciations (melbən and mælbən) can be found in Melbourne depending on where an individual is from. Because this is controversial, may be it is better to leave it out or comment it out until a suitable reference is found or more locals can confirm this. -- 203.220.170.31 ( talk) 05:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we only have anonymous IPs pushing for it. I forget who was pushing for it last time: could've been the same. If some of you are native Melburnians and can attest that the "mal" pronunciation is not normal among natives, since we don't have anyone hanging around to dispute you, I don't see what we're debating here. It's not in the article currently, and there's no convincing reason to add it. kwami ( talk) 10:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant a non-rhotic Melburn, close to/essentially the same as Melb-n. I was only questioning the first syllable, not the last. Format ( talk) 20:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Melburnian, and I've heard both. I think the dispute is all to do with the differences between Broad Australian and General Australian accents - which you can read about on Australian English. My impression is speakers of General Australian (including me) say /'mɛlbən/ "Melbən", speakers of Broad Australian from Victoria say /'mælbən/ "Malbən", and speakers of Cultivated Australian say /'mɛlbə:n/ "Melburn". (No-one pronounces the "r".) I think the dispute is all because of the social stigma attached to Broad Australian - at least in Melbourne and Adelaide. MarcusCole12 ( talk) 09:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A Melburnian, someone we can track down if this is disputed, and someone who obviously knows enough about linguistics to be able to tell the difference between a and e. Good enough for me—though a ref would be preferable if we can find one. kwami ( talk) 10:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The salary-celery reference still fails badly, for the same reasons that I pointed out previously. [6] -- AussieLegend ( talk) 12:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is still being discussed (and has been returned to the article!) It has been disputed by many commenters here, demonstrating that we do not have consensus, and there is no reference! It seems pretty cut and dried to me: usually in WP things unreferenced are removed, and they stay out. Why is this article exempt from that usual standard? Format ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the salary-celery reference fails. People do say it, and un my judgement it's a characteristic of the Victorian variety of Broad Australian, which is prevalent both in the countryside and in part of the Melbourne population. I remember as a kid becoming consciously aware there was a difference between "salary" and "celery", and adjusting my pronunciation accordingly. I've had friends from Adelaide commenting on the way many of the locals pronounce the first syllable of Eltham as if it were "Al". All that is anecdotal, but there was a reason for conducting the study which found a difference in the pronunciation of "celery" between Wangaratta and NSW. I think /æ/ for /ɛ/ sounds ugly, but that’s not linguistically relevant, and I can't deny it happens. MarcusCole12 ( talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I could have been any more clear as to why it fails:

1. It talks about New Zealand, which is certainly not local.
2. It's based on a "study" in Wangaratta, 230km from Melbourne, which is also not local.
3. The "study" was limited to 13 fifteen year-old girls from a single school in Wangaratta so it's far too limited in its scope to justify the claim, even for Wangaratta.
4. It doesn't mention Melbourne at all.

A particular pronunciation in one area cannot prove that the pronunciation is used in another area 230 or 2.100km away. And don't get me started about using other Wikipedia articles as sources. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 06:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To my ear the vowel shift in Broad Australian (at least that heard in Victoria) tends to the other direction: /æ/ to /e/. This has been famously parodied by Barry Humphries with Edna Everage ("average") and more recently in the line from Kath & Kim "We deserve to be effluent". I have been wondering all along whether those claiming to pronounce it as /mælbən/ are really pronouncing it as /melbən/ but bending the vowel in the /æ/ version of "mall" towards/ɪ/, which I've heard from "Broad Australian" speakers. (I rhyme it with "maul".) 118.209.122.85 ( talk) 07:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, I think it's safe to say that Marcus knows the difference between [æ] and [e]. kwami ( talk) 08:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Been thinking about this and listening to the radio in Melbourne a bit over the Easter break. It seems to me that if you asked locals to pronounce Malbn or Melbn, it would sound exactly the same as the way they pronounce Melbourne. I've no skills with IPA, so I don't know how to write that in the clever way some of you can, but my conclusion are....

• Melburnians make no aural distinction between the a sound and the e sound when it's not modified by anything else around it.
• That sound rhymes with the vowel sound in shall, Mal (short for Malcolm), Hal, Gal, pal, shell, well, tell and smell. (In fact, part of the history of the city includes the pre-sewerage system time when even the locals called it Smellbourne, with the obvious understanding that it was a close rhyme.)
• The second syllable sound is effectively non-existent. It certainly doesn't rhyme with fork, as the Americans seem to think. Maybe it rhymes with the second syllable in London. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"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."

There are only 193 countries in the world; and 116 religious faiths is very hyperbolic, especially when 99% of those belong to the four or five major faiths. Colipon+( Talk) 18:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That whole section is problematical. In the very same paragraph it says "Melbourne has the second largest Asian population in Australia (16.2%), which includes the largest Indian and Sri Lankan communities..." Melburnians do not use the word Asian to describe people from India and Sri Lanka, so I have no idea what that claim really means. The next section on Religion is also misleading. It's written in quite formal language but quite seriously mangles the statistics it is reflecting. I would like to see a major rewrite of this part of the article, HiLo48 ( talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Though the city is known as a melting pot of various cultures, there has been a recent wave of attacks against people of Indian origin"

The claim that there has been a 'recent wave' of attacks on Indians is unsubstantiated. The article in The Age reports an isolated incident on one individual, which is not indicative of a greater trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanmilton ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC) -- Rohanmilton ( talk) 09:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The attacks may be notable (Indian students & taxi drivers were undisputably disproportionately victims, and international media attention was also probably notably disproportionate) but a 'wave' of attacks is probably not the best description, and this info doesnt really belong in demographics. The attacks and drop in enrollments are probably worth mentioning in the article somewhere (as is the change in visa access which probably also affected enrollments) Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 09:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of greater Melbourne.PNG was nominated for deletion on Commons a long time ago. Do we have any verification for who created/used this? It was mentioned here recently at Talk:Melbourne/Archive_7#Flags_of_Melbourne -- John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. Should be mentioned in history as it is historically important, but is no longer relevant. There was no official title for the settlement before its naming. All that is important to the opening paragraph is the origin of the current name. -- Biatch ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This article focuses on greater Melbourne rather than the Melbourne CBD and therefore the claim that Melbourne is within the county of Bourke is wrong. Much of greater Melbourne is within Bourke, but the city has expanded beyond it into at least the County of Mornington also. 110.32.129.40 ( talk) 12:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A very good point, I have updated the infobox. Parts of western Melbourne have expanded into the County of Grant also. -- Biatch ( talk) 04:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to make a choice. Either one gives ALL the stats (population of urban area AND metropolitan area, the same thing for the size of the area), or one makes a choice between urban or metropolitan area. At this moment the population of the metropolitan area is given, yet the size of the urban area. So could someone please change that? If no one changes it, I'll do some research, and change it myself. Robster1983 ( talk) 09:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, Template:Infobox Australian place won't support multiple population values and if you try changing this to Template:Infobox settlement people will eat your head off. The values I currently have are here. I used to have the urban area size, but I've lost it. The urban area density source in the article links to nowhere.

For the sake of terminological convenience, I'm going to use the ABS terminology. This is different than has been used before (and I wrote the article and used different terminology). So an explanation:

Metropolitan area

the sum of the 31 LGAs; used by the State Government and adopted by the ABS as an irregular term; the value for "area" is currently this one.

Statistical division

the ABS-designated statistical division, which excludes a part of Yarra Ranges Shire. Melbourne's population is almost always given as this value. The excluded part of the Yarra Ranges is over 1,000 km², but only has 612 people living there. This is the definition that is always used when discussing the population of Melbourne, to the exclusion of all others. If you used any other definition, you would confuse people immensely.

Urban Centre/Locality

The ABS-designated contiguous developed area of Melbourne. It excludes Melton etc. as they are discontinuous but includes the development along Mortington Pensinsula along Port Phillip and across to Hastings. This is the figure used for density, because it is the only reasonable figure to use for density. I used to have access to its area (it was included in the xls spreadsheet of data the ABS gave for Melbourne UC/L), but I've lost it. The link here to the relevant page is also broken; it goes to population information for the UC/L, but not density information.

So, the values that I know:

Melbourne population, size and density

	Population	Size	Density	Sp	Ss	Sd
Metropolitan area	4.00 million + 612	8806 km²	454 p/km²	SD + [7]	wp article	calculation
Statistical division	4.00 million	7692 km²	520 p/km²	[8]	see comment	[9]
Urban Centre/Locality	3,371,886	2153 km²	1566 p/km²	2006 census	calculation	WP article

Concerning the area of the statistical division of Melbourne, I calculated that on my own from a KML map of the statistical division and online tool. I think the value is very probably wrong as there was a considerable disparity between its calculations and known good values. So I derived a simple correction and applied it to get the value of 7692 km². It is worth noting that the population density figures match (i.e. both are 520 p/km²), so the error isn't significant, and vice-versa, if you calculate the area from the population and density you get the figure of 7692 km². My simple correction might've been more accurate than I thought...

Please don't directly copy values from this table into the article, because the UC/L figures are a few years older than the MMA/SD figures. Please find more recent ones.

Other definitions of Melbourne include the City of Melbourne and Melbourne the bounded locality (which redirects to the appallingly named "Melbourne City Centre" article, which implies the CBD and is a different entity, not really called "Melbourne"—of course, the article conflates the two because some people refused to accept that "suburb" could mean something different in Australia and the US). These also have populations and well-defined areas, and they could in principle be included here, but I word advise against it; it would be jarring. I won't bother discussing things like the state and federal electoral divisions which despite being called "Melbourne" don't really correspond to the same sort of concept.

I have half a mind to go off and change infobox Australian place, but I've never really tackled such a challenge so I don't know if I can.

— Felix the Cassowary 17:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The intro says 30 with a citation but the infobox says 31 ... which is it officially ?? -- Biatch ( talk) 01:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the intro is trying to say 1+30, 31 is the correct number according to this source Melburnian ( talk) 02:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's 140kb, significantly longer than many other articles that also contain these tags. Altormainstream ( talk) 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article McKillop Street, Melbourne has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Streets generally don't meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday ( talk) 00:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I know Australian cities are kind of confusing in how they're defined, but I'm a bit lost here, I'm just not sure reading this article, what parts of "Greater Melbourne" consider themselves to be Melbourne. In Sydney, there's about 43 Local Government areas which make up the population and area figures normally given to them, 38 of which (listed in the Sydney article) would generally consider themselves to be part of Sydney (i.e. nearly everyone born in one of them would say they're born in Sydney), whereas the other 5 would generally just be part of the statistical division (I even wonder if there are people who live there who don't know there population figures go to Sydney). Is it similar in Melbourne? Are there some LGA's that wouldn't consider themselves part of Melbourne outside of area and population figures? Or are all 31 LGA's considered part? Or even, is it only the city of Melbourne that is actually considered Melbourne?

And on that note, is it appropriate to list "Sister cities" for the City of Melbourne when this article isn't solely about the city of Melbourne?

Sorry if I don't make any sense, I'll clarify anything that needs to be if you ask. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 02:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You make a lot of sense. The municipal boundaries don't. I live on the outskirts, about 35km from the city centre. From my perspective, there is one large city called Melbourne which contains a large number of suburbs, with a total population of around 4 million. In people's daily lives, that's what matters, not which LGA they belong to. When I'm away from Melbourne and people ask me where I'm from, I just say Melbourne. If they ask for more detail, I give the suburb name. The LGA only becomes important when we have to pay council rates and when the the garbage doesn't get collected. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK. That's about how I'd define Sydney (Except for the mentioned parts that may not consider themselves Sydney). If that's the case, then should the list of sister cities to the City of Melbourne be included? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 02:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say people consider themselves part of Melbourne as far out as Frankston and Pakenham in the southeast. Really goes with the train network. South of Frankston, and in the Dandenongs past Lilydale and Belgrave, I don't think people do consider themselves part of Melbourne. I know most of the mornington peninsula is included in Melbourne statistics, but I'm not too sure about the dandenongs. I'm also not too familiar with the north or the west. Davo499 ( talk) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The housing section contains several un-sourced statements and the number is growing . Shouldn't these be removed? (Although a link to Housing_in_Victoria,_Australia is included, but the article has similar issues too.) wcrosbie ( talk), Melbourne, Australia 03:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, though there are at least some sources in the main article which could possibly be used in this section. I'm sure sources could be found, nothing seems to be too unbelievable. If not, then perhaps it should be removed, the article is tagged for length, so maybe just put the "housing in Victoria" link in under the Urban structure heading? Whatever other editors think, I guess. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 04:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always had an issue with the line in this paragraph about Melbourne enjoying extended periods of settled and sunny weather in spring. Has this guy ever lived here? Does he know that spring is statistically Melbourne's wettest and windiest time of year? Has he ever experienced a crappy week in October? Chodaboy57 ( talk) 00:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's certainly not a sourced statement. Could have come from a marketing brochure. I'd be happy to see that sentence deleted. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gone! Also removed the bit about Melbourne have the same/similar average as Sydney during January and February, which is only two months in the year and I'm sure you could have a huge list of cities which have the same/similar average, so it is rather pointless. Cited sources are needed for the heatspells and the Australian capital city record. Bidgee ( talk) 06:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I've found what looks like a credible source that actually contradicts the highest capital city temperature claim, here. It says "The capital city with the highest temperature is actually Adelaide with 47.6ºC (117.7ºF) on 12th January 1939", obviously higher than Melbourne's 46.4°C. I think I'll moderate that claim. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What I thought. I knew that Perth, Adelaide or Sydney would challenge Melbourne's claim. Bidgee ( talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just a tourist guide. The Bureau of Meteorology's official climate records say that it only got to 46.1 degrees on that day. Graham 87 10:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone add something about experiencing all the four seasons in one day in Melbourne? Nameisnotimportant ( talk) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Where in the world did this person get the stat of annual sunshine hours over 2700 per year. Thats up there with the Gold coast. From every source I find this is at least 600 hours over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.121.79 ( talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As so often in city articles, there are too many pics, and they were squashy in places and disorganised in relation to the text (left-side problem). Best to jam the syntax of the images all up at the top of each section: that way, it optimises the placement for all window widths (try it and see). I left the gaudy night pic of the bridge, but surely there's better architectual photography ...? I removed some of the ... very boring, ordinary pics, I'm afraid. The reservoir, the airport (yawn), etc. Some pics remaining are too dark: can they be brightened and re-uploaded? I can't believe there aren't better pics in a few cases, on Commons. Tony (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

PS more candidates for the bin are the litter-trap that catches floating rubbish :-) and the laneway pic (search for better one, or go out with your cameras?). And the red-leaf street scene is not competitive nowadays ... not well focused, too dark, bit boring/pretty.

Oh, and why is a rhotic pronunciation given first???? Melborrrrrrrne, as an American might say it without knowing. Tony (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For me, many of the images no longer sit next to the appropriate text, and this is what the media section looks like. HappyWaldo ( talk) 23:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You use your entire 27" monitor width: hectares of white space are going to be part of your landscape on WP articles, I think. Is there anything in your settings that is making this worse? There are too many pics there, anyway. Please balance this issue against the problem many readers experience when a left-side pic sandwiches the text against right-side pics, which is what we had before. Are there any other places like this, for you? Tony (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree about the need for a thorough visual cleanup. Concur regarding the red-leaf street and floating rubbish images. Also the Pinoak Court image is very poor quality and does not illustrate much. The Melbourne-C2-class-tram-Mulhouse is not the most characteristic type and is not great quality either, but I haven't found a replacement yet. For laneways this is slightly better I think, and for the parliament I believe mine is better. The infobox is also too long. Do we have to have all those images there? If yes, couldn't the captions be collapsed (i.e. "From top left to bottom right: .....")? And do we need in the infobox the distances to all those cities? -- Elekhh ( talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Elekhh, if no one objects within, say, a day, why don't you make these substitutions? I removed the litter trap, and the school chapel didn't fit and is unsuitable unless rather large, given its width. (Also, it mixes religion and education, where religion already gets its own section.) Tony (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Scots College Chapel—of both religious and elite private school themes—is back again. On most windows, including mine (I use less than half my 27-inch monitor's width), the text is now sandwiched between the Ormand College and the religious pic, one or two words per line. The Scots College pic is too small to be effective (it's very wide in dimension). Tony (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed it again, as I agree with your arguments above and in the edit summary. -- Elekhh ( talk) 05:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is melbourne's climate not characterized as subtropical? It's average temprature fits the criteria of a subtropical climate and it is below the 40th parallel and subtropical regions can go beyond the 40th parallel (for example barcelona spain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.196.246 ( talk • contribs) 18 August 2011

I guess you don't live in Melbourne. There's a lot more to climate than averages. One must look at extremes (which ARE pretty extreme for Melbourne) and rainfall patterns. Melbourne's climate is far more influenced by systems from the west than by standard sub-tropical patterns. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No classification system categorises Melbourne's climate as subtropical. See File:Klimagürtel-der-erde-subtropen.png, File:Subtropics.png, File:Australia-climate-map MJC01.png. -- Elekhh ( talk) 01:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but if this page uses "Melbourne" in the statistical sense of the area (the metropolitan definition), then the density definition should match. It's confusing and inconsistent to list the area and population for the statistical area, but then have the density figure be for the urban area. What I'd propose is that the primary density figure given should be the metropolitan density figure, and then you can add the urban area density figure in the infobox, too, but to mix and match definitions doesn't seem consistent with how other metropolitan area pages on wiki are composed. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Culture section makes a big deal associating the Eureka Stockade film with Melbourne, but it doesn't really explain why. Given that the event was in a different city, how is this relevant (ie Ballarat) specifically to Melbourne. Firstly, it does not state which Eureka Stockade film it is referring to - there are several, some of which were filmed overseas. Secondly, the article it links to mentions nothing of it being filmed in Melbourne, only that many of the scenes were filmed in Ballarat. Unless this claim is properly referenced, I really think it should be deleted from the article. -- Marrickvilleman ( talk) 02:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikilink Eureka Stockade references the 1907 film made in Melbourne (and elsewhere) and premiered in Melbourne. It's totally relevant to that section of the article. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in this multiple RM that I have initiated. My preamble:

These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles.

Your vote ("Support" or "Oppose") would be welcome, along with your reasons.

Noetica ^Tea? 12:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ericardo1979 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps replacing File:Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg, a high res featured (picutre) panorama taken in 2008, with File:Melbourne Skyline 2012.jpg, a low res taken in 2012. In this case Melbourne's skyline hasn't changed too much so quality of the image is much more important then being a 2012 photograph. Bidgee ( talk) 12:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer the '08 image. It would be helpful if Ericardo1979 could explain why he feels the 2012 image is superior. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He did. He said the skyline has changed. However, I agree with Bidgee. The 08 photo is best. The skyline has not changed that much. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I took the image for this article and I really liked it! It shows the skyline in a very dramatic way. I understand you don't want any current photos removed, that is fair, however can't I find room in this article for my image? The quality was a lot stronger before I uploaded it to Wikipedia. Ericardo1979 ( talk)

which makes the case that you have strong WP:OWN issues. No more photos can be added since we have enough photos as it is, the only way to have a chance in getting a photo in the article is to upload your own high res photograph and get it featured. Also find it odd that while a person under the same username uploaded a photo on flickr as All Rights Reserved (copyrighted) and was uploaded on Commons at the same size as the flickr photo, do we have the copyright owner here or just someone using the name and hoping it goes unnoticed (only seen today it was tagged as copyvio on Commons). Bidgee ( talk) 07:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I will upload the original photo onto Wikipedia when I am on a faster computer. I thought the flickr size was the standard Wikipedia size and would be good enough for the Wikipedia article. Ericardo1979 ( talk) 11:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• You might say I have a conflict of interest as I took the panorama from 2008, but I can't see how the proposed replacement is better, even a new version with higher resolution. The boats in the foreground are cut off, the colours are a bit dull, and you don't get a sense of the CBD's grid system because the skyline is so compressed. The view from Williamstown has some potential but I think you'd have to reshoot it with more attention to detail and better lighting. IMO anyway. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• As for Wikipedia's 'standard size', there is no such thing really. The higher resolution, the better. Images are not used just as thumbnails. Viewers can view the image on the image page or download the highest resolution image possible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)