Talk:Melbourne

How do the LGA's work in Melbourne and sister cities?

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)

Housing

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)

Cars

The article seems to suggest cars became common in the early years of the twentieth century. It was true that they were about in some numbers before WWII, but it wasn't until the 1950s and 60s that cars really took off as a common mode of transport in Australia's cities. Until then it was trams, trains, buses, bikes or walking for the great majority.

Climate

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. Graham87 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)

Image audit

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)

Subtropical?

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)

Density

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)