:Not sure this meets the criteria set out at [[Wikipedia:External links]]. It's a relatively new wiki, with very little activity. Only 5 registered users... -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:Not sure this meets the criteria set out at [[Wikipedia:External links]]. It's a relatively new wiki, with very little activity. Only 5 registered users... -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
==Images in the article of Melbourne==
Hi Wikipedia Administrator
I am honored that couple of my contributed images to the [[commons:Main Page|'''Wikimedia Commons''']] about [[Melbourne]] have been selected by the [[en:Main Page|''' Wikipedia''']] administrator and other Wikipedians. Also I added and changed some images by myself to improve the photo quality and better to reflect the features of [[Melbourne]] (my thought only), one of the most livable cities in the world.
I noticed some changes I made were removed over the Easter weekend (I did not login my user’s name during the editing). e.g. I inserted the following images [[:Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg|thumb|50px]], [[:Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg|thumb|50px]] and [[:Image:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg|thumb|50px]], which was accepted at this stage. All these three images won the [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures]]. They are deserved to be included in the Wikipedia article – Melbourne (my thought only and I inserted [[Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg]] and [[Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg]] under a sub-section [[Cityscape]] I created in the article of Melbourne). The photo maker [[User:Diliff|David Iliff]] is a well-recognized professional photographer and these two images fully reflect Melbourne’s natural beauty and economical perspectives as the article of Melbourne described. For example, both Yarra Southbank and Docklands have been developed only in the past decade and now are the most attractive places and icons in Melbourne.
Furthermore, I changed [[:Image:Melb cbd.jpg]] to [[:Image:MelbCBD.jpg]], which I thought that it gives a broader view of [[:Melbourne city centre|Melbourne CBD]] and [[Hoddle Grid]], but this change was reversed and not accepted.
In the meantime I have just edited them back again into the article of Melbourne to enhance the article project of Melbourne. I am the only one of the millions of Wikipedia contributor and supporter. Therefore, any comments (both criticism and support) on this message are welcome.
Please note: [[:Image:MelbCBD.jpg]] was [[Image stitching|stitched]] from two photos took by this discussion author from [[Rialto Tower]] observation deck.
Melbourne is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
Melbourne was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
I'm glad that someone has moved the culture section to a separate article, however it would be helpful if there was at least a brief summary of the section rather than just a link to separate page.61.68.149.210 11:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local government history
Could somebody from Oz put something in the History section to explain how and why the local elected officials were twice replaced for a while by appointed commissioners? The city's own page [1] is damned coy about how and why the State did this. --Orange Mike 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about these particular cases, but surely that information belongs at City of Melbourne, with at most a brief reference here. JPD (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you look at Location it says that the distance to Sydney is 876km. When you then click on Sydney the distance to Melbourne is 697km. There is a difference of almost 200km!!!
Haven't checked distances with other cities.
A quick google search came up with neither of these figures. However the shorter distance is close to a figure for "as the crow flies" while the longer distance is close to the road distance. --Michael Johnson 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, you are pretty well on the money. A sign in Sydney Road, Brunswick, near the corner of Barkly Street, said "Sydney 857" as at 13 Sep 2007. That makes it about 861 by road. About 25 years ago a nearby sign said "Sydney 880". Walkingmelways 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Population figures
I have reverted to the offical Estimated Resident Population (ERP) figures. Both the estimates and the raw figure are based on the 2006 census. The difference is that the raw figure gives the number of people in Australia on 8 August 2006 who were listed on a census form as usually living in the Melbourne Statistical Division, while the ERP estimates the number of people usually resident in Melbourne on 30 June 2006, allowing for census undercount and residents temporarily overseas (as well as births/deaths/migration between 30 June and 8 August). I think the ERP is the more appropriate figure in this case, but if anyone does reinstate the raw figure, make sure you use the correct title for the reference - don't just change the link. JPD (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"2006 was among the driest years on record with virtually no rainfall in September and October, despite October being on average the wettest month of the year. Higher than average temperatures were recorded. In a very rare occurrence, it actually snowed in more elevated parts of the metropolitan area on 25 December 2006, in the early stages of the Southern Hemisphere summer."
"It was officially announced on May 15, 2007 that the previous 12 months had seen a record low rainfall. The official results of 316mm from May 16 2006 to May 15 2007 show the lowest amount of rainfall since records began in 1855. The normal average rainfall is 653.2mm. Because of this record low rainfall, Melbourne has experienced ever increasing levels of water restrictions for over 9 months."
"Many multinational corporations (approximately one-third of the 100 largest multinationals operating in Australia as of 2002) also have their main Australian office in Melbourne."
"The tallest office tower, the Rialto Towers (251m above street level) is also the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere."
"The project involved rebuilding the northern half of the stadium and laying a temporary athletics track at a cost of $434 million."
"Construction began in February 2006 of a $1 billion 5000-seat international convention centre, Hilton Hotel and commercial precinct"
" In recent years, the number of international students at Melbourne's universities has risen rapidly, a result of an increasing number of places being made available to full fee paying students."
"In June 2007, the Bracks Government announced a $4.9 billion water plan to secure the future of water supplies in Melbourne, including the construction of a $3.1 billion desalination plant on Victoria's south-east coast, capable of treating 150 billion litres of water per year."
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As little improvement has been made in the past two weeks, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finished off the last few. What else is needed? Hide&Reason (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"sporting and cultural capital" versus "fashion capital"
Which one? I would have to say sporting. Wongm 08:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one's simple - the one that the reference says. If anythign else belongs there, it needs a different reference. JPD (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the one who referenced it in the first place, and still didn't see it - [smack head on desk] Wongm 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mt Dandenong panorama
Seeking views about whether the "Melbourne viewed from Mt Dandenong" panorama image (see User:Peter_Campbell#Panoromas) is worthy of inclusion in the article. One view expressed against is that it is a "poor quality panorama from mt dandenong - not very encyclopaedic as you can barely see any part of melbourne other than a couple of the outer suburbs). In favour is that the image depicts a view and sunset over Melbourne with features such as the Eastern Suburbs (outer an inner), downtown and Port Phillip Bay visible. I am working on resolving the stitching/exposure variation. Please indicate below whether you "support" or "oppose" the inclusion of this image. Peter Campbell 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You cannot see the CBD. Also, the sun is overexposed in the middle. Suicup 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although you can just barely make out the CBD in the full-size photograph, for anyone seeing the smaller version in the article page, it's basically a photo of Bayswater and Kilsyth industrial areas and it misrepresents the size of Melbourne. If your camera could take a large zoomed-in shot of just the CBD from there then that would be great, as we don't seem to have any pictures of the entire CBD. But as it is, when you have fixed the stitching/exposure issue I think this panorama would be better suited to other pages such as Mount Dandenong and perhaps some of the suburbs visible in the foreground. Easel3 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for including images which do not feature the CBD, but in this particular image, it is there but not easily visibile, especially at the size it appears in the article. JPD (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The panorama is not representitive of Melbourne, and not particularly identifiable. It is also not a very good photo (sorry). --ozzmosis 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was the one that originally removed it from the article and I still stand by that decision. Peter, its hard to be impartial about your own images sometimes, but I do feel it just isn't worthy of inclusion in the article, regardless of whether the stitching/blending issues are resolved, although it would certainly be an improvement if they were. This panorama is best taken mid-morning or around sunrise so that the sun is directly behind the camera. Too low to the horizon and it may have the same effect of creating a haze though. I will be back in Melbourne in December/January so I may have a go at taking a similar shot if I have the time. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking onboard the feedback on the quality of the panorama, here is an alternative shot that more clearly shows the CBD and the inner eastern suburbs. Peter Campbell 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose both of these. The first for all the reasons already listed. The second for some of the same reasons: unclear shot, doesn't show Melbourne much at all, hard to see that it adds much to the article. --RdR2007 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I actually don't mind this one - you can clearly see the CBD in its entirety and surrounding suburbs. Suicup 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that you can see the CBD in its entirety clearly. Sure, you can see a few skyscrapers poking out of the ground, but there is no detail. Other than being able to point out the CBD and perhaps Port Philip Bay, can you actually identify a single other feature or object of note in the entire image? I certainly can't look at it and say "Oh, theres Richmond and theres Carlton, and theres the Yarra river." There are a few lighter, reflective blobs in the photo and I simply cannot figure out what they are. In that sense, it is a pretty useless photo that adds little to the article. It simply needs to be more encyclopaedic and useful in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few? You can see the whole CBD. Suicup 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was being facetious about the 'few' skyscrapers. :-) But the point is, all you can see is the basic shape of the skyscrapers, and very little actual detail OF them. Theres no significant detail of anything outside of the CBD either. You ignored my entire point and focused on the fact that I jokingly dismissed it as a few skyscrapers. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On any shot of Melbourne at that scale, I doubt you'd be able to make out individual suburbs. Viewed from afar, most cities look pretty homogenous. The lighter 'blobs' are obviously water, the one on the left being Port Phillip bay, and the others being Yarra/tributaries. That said, if a better photo came along, I would have no problem switching it, however for now, this photo is better than nothing, and better than the old one IMO. Suicup 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this sort of shot results in such photos, but that isn't a good reason to use it in the article if it adds very little to the understanding of the city. As for the lighter blobs, I think you're only right about Port Phillip Bay. The other lighter blobs are definitely not the Yarra and tributaries. They're in the wrong place geographically and the wrong size/shape. They're something else thats reflective. Possibly tin roofs or something. The point is, its so indistinguishable as to be pretty useless. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another though on this - if you go up on a clear morning you should be able to get a photo that will show everything clearly, rather than clouds and everything backlit. Wongm (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Melbourne closer to Murray than Wilsons Prom?
An almost useless but interesting piece of trivia: According to some maps (eg. Google Earth and Bureau of Met's rain radar map) you can actually see that the centre of Melbourne is closer to the Murray River than it is to the most southerly point of the mainland. Using the centre of the Bourke St. Mall as a reference on Google Earth it is about 4 Km closer to the Murray near Echuca than to the southern most tip of Wilson's Prom.
Anyone think this is worth mentioning in the main article? It might surprise a few peple who think Melbourne is "way down south with not much below it". But it might rank amongst those things such as "Southern most city with more than a million people". - Rick69p 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the images, the article looks crap !
Fix it ! And stop trying to fill the article with superfluous images --Biatch 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all... Loking at the Melbourne page, there are some issues with the images and their order. May I suggest that maybe we create a pictures table towards the bottom of the page so that people are able to add more photos in there? I have a few photos laying around that I think could add to representing Melbourne's 'culture'; the Formula One Grand Prix, AFL Footy, A-league etc. I think that, for a city the size that it is, it doesn't seem to be represented very well visually. What are your thoughts on this? Pyroslim 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix what? What are you referring to? I don't think you should removing images without discussion or appropriate edit summaries as you did here. diffPeter Campbell 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should have to discuss every single image removal Peter. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done. Discussion should usually only be occur when it is a particularly controversial change or a change of an established image. If the image has lasted years in the article and is still just as relevent today as it was then, then maybe it should be discussed before removal. I do agree with you that an edit summary is essential to justify removing images (or making any change to an article, really). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit rich coming from you Biatch. ;-) You were the one that filled many articles with superfluous architectural images in galleries. That said, I agree with you, there are too many images in the article and the formatting is becoming quite messy. Images such as the old spencer street power station demolition are quite unworthy of an extra big portrait format placement in the article. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, Peter. After a while people will get tired of the old images and substitute others. I haven't yet seen iconic images here ;-) Words might only be worth 1/1000th a picture, but they seem to last longer. RdR2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.134.185 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The present images are a mish mash - someone puts in a decent photo, then a dozen others say 'I have a photo of that too' and throw their version into the page. We need to draw up a list of 'representative' things of Melbourne we need images of, then chase up the best possible example of each. Any suggestions? Wongm 07:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A short list for starters:
City skyline from Williamstown, over the Bay. (I think shows Melbourne to its best advantage)
A park (either Domain, Fitzroy gardens etc.)
MCG, Tennis centre and precinct
Yarra River, Southbank, Casino precinct
Melbourne laneway with coffee shop, laneway dining
Flinders St station, Y&Js, or Fed Square
W class tram
The cheeststick on CityLink?
Just my thoughts, any others. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd replace the W class tram with a more modern class of tram. W class trams don't really represent Melbourne's tram fleet since they are isolated to a small number of routes. As for a laneway picture, I've got this, but the umbrella might be a bit annoying. But send photo requests for anything in the CBD my way, I'm quite willing to go and take a few photos. I'll also release the photos here and elsewhere in that forum under a free licence, just let me know and I'll post a higher res version. invincible 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More images have been added. I have taken the opportunity to be bold and removed some. How many shots of the CBD and skyline do we need? Feel free to add or substitute images as you see fit, but I think the article has just about reached its limit in terms of images. If others have images of Melbourne, they can upload them at Commons and add them to the commons:Melbourne gallery. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have poked though the categories on Commons, and I hope it looks a bit better and representative now. And only one of my photos is in there. ;-) Wongm (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better; good work and well done on being bold. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You people are after a representative snapshot of the city yet haven't thought of photographing the average suburban home/street/primary school/shopping strip... 124.188.58.88 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An image like this one of the Geelong suburbs might be the go: Wongm (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example photos of suburbs
Sport?
Why isn't there anything on sport in Melbourne? Its known as the sporting capital of the world. There needs to be a Sport section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.250.114 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there does need to be a sport section here. The article did have a section on sport until recently, which was part of the Culture section. However, the culture section became too long and was moved into its own article, Culture of Melbourne. Unfortunately the short summary that has replaced this section of the article is much too short and lacks anything on sport. I would write something myself but don't have the time right now to do it any justice. Feel free to have a go at it yourself, if you like, and welcome to Wikipedia :) Easel3 12:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counties and L.G.A.s
Melbourne is described as being in the county of Bourke, yet the list of L.G.A.s of Melbourne includes those beyond Bourke.
Yes, this does need to be rectified, I would suggest including Grant, Evelyn and Mornington counties to the list. Missjaye (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't think long-obsolete county names belong in the infobox at all. Placing them among the most basic details of the city creates a false impression to readers outside Australia that they are somehow relevant. Bourke County should instead be mentioned somewhere in the text of the history section, as it had some relevance during Melbourne's early years, but the surrounding counties did not, so I would leave those out. Easel3 (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More images
I have reverted the addition of new images from the article as the layout squashed the text between images and cluttered the article considerably. Once again, I would suggest that anyone planning to add new images think about what images they would remove first. As always, if consensus is to add these images back, I have no objections. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at many of the better articles on cities you will find that the images tend to alternate on both sides of the page. In this article, the images and tables of statistics instead form a solid column down the right, sometimes clashing with section dividers. In my opinion this looks quite ugly and needs an overhaul; the purpose of my edit which you reverted was to try this new layout for the History section. I may have added one more picture than the current length of the section can comfortably fit, but you could have commented out one of them for now, for example the Tullamareena one, without reverting the other changes. Using images on both the left and right is common practice in many good articles and only really clutters the screen if your resolution is 800x600 or smaller, which is rare these days. It is one of the things that needs to change in this article to improve the situation with images, but it is of course not the only one. 128.250.6.247 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever been a fan of images on both the left and the right. I'm not sure what the overall consensus is on it though. Anyway, some of those historical images that were removed might be better suited in one of the history / timeline articles anyway. Wongm (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Map please
The infobox gives an area of over 3,400 square miles, which is massive (over 5 times the area of Greater London) so it obviously extends well out into the surrounding satellite towns. It would be helpful to have a map showing just which areas are included. Amirada (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is this one here that is included in the article. Is that what you are looking for? -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article which may be useful
Found this while looking for something else. Also gives a book list at the end, which the library-inclined might be interested in :) Orderinchaos 13:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Macedonia
The Republic of Macedonia is known under that name on Wikipedia, as per WP:MOSMAC. Having a slightly smaller column width is hardly a good reason for using a name seen as derogatory by the citizens of that country. JdeJ (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSMAC doesn't say anything about "FYR Macedonia" being discouraged and it certainly doesn't say that it is considered derogatory. Furthermore, a cursory check of Australian Government websites shows that Australia refers to the country as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and uses the abbreviation "FYR Macedonia". [3][4]
In case you didn't notice, the country has only been mentioned in that table since I expanded it on Thursday. I have no position whatsoever on the country in question and have no intention to cause any offence; I was born overseas myself but not in any of the countries listed. I have tried to choose a neutral yet compact name for each country, and I think it is appropriate that the shortest acceptable name for each country be used, since we are dealing with a table here, not prose.
What I don't particularly want to see here is the table being ruined by a flurry of unnecessary "Republics of" and other official titles, of which your edit is the first. Easel3 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I understand your positions and I don't suspect you of any hidden intentions: I'm sure your motives are good and honest. The position of Wikipedia is that the name Republic of Macedonia is used in all articles, regardless of whether they concern countries in which the country is called by that name or not, so the position of the Australian government doesn't influence this particular topic. The reason for this is to avoid creating disambiguation. FYR Macedonia is indeed derogatory and WP:MOSMAC makes it very clear that the Republic of Macedonia is the form to use. If your concern is the width of the column, and I fully believe you when you say it is, one suggestion could be to write just Macedonia and direct it to the page of the Republic of Macedonia. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty common knowledge that people of most parts of Macedonia dislike very much the reference to Yugoslavia, being why the country's name is now considered to be the Republic of Macedonia. FYR Macedonia is an old terminology that is now not what we're supposed to use (I know some do, but that doesn't mean it's correct. we're putting together an encyclopaedia, not writing a blog here). The full terminology is the appropriate one. --rm 'w avu 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from Macedonia naming dispute that there is still no name for the Republic of Macedonia that isn't disliked by either its own population or that of neighbouring Greece. While I have no particular objection to JdeJ's suggestion of using "Macedonia" (with the piped link to Republic of Macedonia), my original inclusion of the letters "FYR" was a pragmatic attempt to acknowledge the dispute over the use of the unqualified name "Macedonia" by using an abbreviated title that had some semblance of 'officialness' through its use by neutral bodies such as the UN and Eurovision, while still prominently displaying the name "Macedonia", unlike the more stark "FYROM". I hoped to reduce the likelihood of future edit wars over the name, keeping in mind that Melbourne has far more Greeks than it does Republic of Macedonians. This is why I made this edit after JdeJ's first edit, which I thought was a reasonable compromise, after consulting WP:MOSMAC (which unfortunately only refers indirectly to the use of "FYR Macedonia" and gives no guidance on this type of case, in which a list of countries in a table are all referred to by short common names).
Either way, I have a strong preference for using a short name, with a piped link to Republic of Macedonia, rather than writing Republic of Macedonia out in full. The current name is inconsistent with the level of formality used in the other country names, and its length spoils what was quite a decent-looking table. Easel3 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely right, any name is met with objection from some party. The solution on Wikipedia is to use the name prefered by the people in the country; this is the result of long and very detailed discussions and it is to be applied on all Wikipedia-pages (WP:MOSMAC). If a short name is to be used, Macedonia would be an option. I still prefer the official name, Republic of Macedonia. While I respect your wish for a neat table, I would give higher priority to using the proper name as per Wikipedia policies. I'm sure we'll be able to reach some sort of solution. JdeJ (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, how about using Rep. Macedonia, with the link pointing to Republic of Macedonia? It is about the same size as what was originally there, and it will clearly appear as a shortened form of the country's name for itself, while heading off the criticism that could come from using Macedonia alone. Easel3 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion! I'm with you 100% JdeJ (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, I'll make the change then. If only all Wikipedia disputes could be resolved so cleanly! :) Easel3 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree 100% :) Keep up the good work! JdeJ (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Melbourne Urban Area vs Statistical Division
Of course the SD for Melbourne hasn't changed, but has the ABS released the latest Urban area figures ? I mean contiguous urban built up area size. It must have increased in the 2006 Census, but by how much compared to overall population growth ? --Biatch (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"known today as the central business district or CBD"
As in "I can see the city from here" or "I'm going into the city" or "Which way is the city"? I agree that the term "CBD" is often used in print, but in conversation 'city' is still used normally, or even exclusively. 218.214.18.240 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flags representing people country of origin
The flags representing foreign-born people don't serve any purpose and might even be insulting for some of the people the flags are supposed to represent. First of all, they no longer live there, and they might have left that country precisely because they disagree with the government represented by that flag. Secondly, they might have left the country before the government represented by that flag came into being. DHN (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I run the site Melpedia. Once the site is a little bit more polished would it be ok if I added it to the external links section? 59.167.189.48 (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this meets the criteria set out at Wikipedia:External links. It's a relatively new wiki, with very little activity. Only 5 registered users... -- Longhair\talk 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images in the article of Melbourne
Hi Wikipedia Administrator
I am honored that couple of my contributed images to the Wikimedia Commons about Melbourne have been selected by the Wikipedia administrator and other Wikipedians. Also I added and changed some images by myself to improve the photo quality and better to reflect the features of Melbourne (my thought only), one of the most livable cities in the world.
I noticed some changes I made were removed over the Easter weekend (I did not login my user’s name during the editing). e.g. I inserted the following images thumb|50px, thumb|50px and thumb|50px, which was accepted at this stage. All these three images won the Wikipedia:Featured pictures. They are deserved to be included in the Wikipedia article – Melbourne (my thought only and I inserted and under a sub-section Cityscape I created in the article of Melbourne). The photo maker David Iliff is a well-recognized professional photographer and these two images fully reflect Melbourne’s natural beauty and economical perspectives as the article of Melbourne described. For example, both Yarra Southbank and Docklands have been developed only in the past decade and now are the most attractive places and icons in Melbourne.
In the meantime I have just edited them back again into the article of Melbourne to enhance the article project of Melbourne. I am the only one of the millions of Wikipedia contributor and supporter. Therefore, any comments (both criticism and support) on this message are welcome.
.svg){kind=logo}
and 
under a sub-section Cityscape I created in the article of Melbourne). The photo maker David Iliff is a well-recognized professional photographer and these two images fully reflect Melbourne’s natural beauty and economical perspectives as the article of Melbourne described. For example, both Yarra Southbank and Docklands have been developed only in the past decade and now are the most attractive places and icons in Melbourne.
