Talk:Melbourne

Template:V0.5

	Melbourne Meetup Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/45 - Friday 8 December, 2023 (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

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.

Consensus

Anyone opposed to this image of the famous 'Cypress Terrace' block replacing the current Terrace Housing image under "Housing"? 101.103.70.92 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes it more notable than Tasma Terrace, Canterbury, Clarendon Terrace, Burlington Terrace, Dorset Terrace, Nepean Terrace and Annerly Terrace, Blanche Terrace, Cobden Terrace, Holyrood Terrace, Rochester Terrace and the St Vincent Gardens precinct, Royal Terrace, Holcombe Terrace, Denver Terrace, Dalmeny House & Cramond House, and Benvenuta, Marion Terrace and Finn Barr, also heritage listed? In terms of image quality, I think the current image is much better. --ELEKHH^T 09:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:121.220.222.63 I am wondering why the image you have edited in has any more relevance than the image it replaced? FlatOut 06:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What makes the current image irreplaceable? It's an overly bright image, the grass looks dead and the terrace itself resembles just about any other odd terrace in Australia/Victoria. The image I was replacing it with was of one of Victoria's oldest remaining apartment buildings - surely that is more notable than some run of the mill Victorian terrace. I understand your trying to depict a recurring trend in Melbourne's housing styles but surely it's not that crucial. Speak now (oppose or support), or forever hold your peace. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

While the current image is obviously not irreplaceable, it is of a much higher quality than the image you're attempting to replace it with. I personally don't find it to be to bright, however if that's the case, you can simply rework it in post production. Yours on the other hand was poorly composed and framed; rather than standing a few metres back, you decided to take the picture from a weird angle, resulting in the corners of the building being cut off. While the following aspects of the image can be edited in post production, there are far too many issues that need to be dealt with. Saturation is oddly low given that you took the image on a cloudy day, one explanation for this would be that your white balance was off. Additionally, the image is overly dark, causing many of the building's more subtle features to be hidden. I can go on, my point is it's subpar compared to the current image. In regards to Wikipedia guidelines/normalities, the image clearly doesn't represent the typical Melburnian home and thus shouldn't be presented in such a manner.Perhaps if it were of a higher quality, it could be somehow included in the history section. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose change. Current image and caption are far more edifying re character of the city. Brycehughes (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose change. This article is big enough without cluttering it with images of atypical housing styles - this one belongs in Architecture of Melbourne if its technical problems could be sorted out. John beta (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aren't there any other better photos of terraces in Melbourne on Wikipedia? I find the one you people are supporting unsatisfactory... or perhaps someone who is decent at taking photographs could go out and take one? Ashton 29 (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2013

Melbourne Sport needs to be updated. There are up to 9 games per week of AFL played not 5. 203.208.65.83 (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be extremely unlikely that 9 AFL games would be played in Melbourne in any single round. In fact, I'm trying to work out if it's even possible mathematically. Yes, there are 9 AFL games played each round, but there's always some played in other states, and often in Geelong too. (Whatever you do, don't try to tell Geelong people that their city is part of Melbourne!) The main issue is probably availability of grounds. With only the MCG and Docklands available, squeezing in 9 games would require 5 games at one venue and 4 at the other. Not likely. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.168 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne pronunciation, again

The anonymous IP 125.253.96.133, edited the pronunciation to /ˈmɛwbənˈ/. He claimed that it's how Melburnians pronounce the word, but after I did some research, I couldn't find proof for the w pronunciation. I only found that the first vowel is pronounced [æ] and the second consonant is [ɫ], not [w]. Fairly reliable sources [1][2] don't say anything about the [w] pronunciation, even in Australian English article. So Melburnians should pronounce the word [ˈmæɫbən], but refer to the previous edits, you'll notice that other editors disliked providing the exact Melburnian pronunciation. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite some effort on my part, I'm still incapable of using IPA, but this video contains the Melbourne pronunciation of Melbourne. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Melburnian, I can live with 'melbern' or 'melben,' though i believe the former is accurate FlatOut 09:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks HiLo48 for the video. It was pronounced [ˈmeɫbən], but even though that video looks kind of formal and may not had elaborated the casual pronunciation. Thanks also to FlatOut. If both of you are familiar with the North American pronunciation, it would be easier to explain the pronunciations, because this is the most I'm familiar with. In IPA, [e] is like the first part of the diphthong /eɪ/ in the words way, hey, May in the North American pronunciation (remember that Australians pronounce the sound differently, which would sound to the America ear closer to why, high, my). [æ] has the same value for the vowel in cat, hat, fat, sad in the North American pronunciation but the vowel is pronounced long, especially in moderate speed speech. Finally, the [ɫ] is what is known as the dark-L, which is the only pronunciation for the letter L for North Americans and Australians, however that also exists at the end of words and syllables in British pronunciation, otherwise in British, it's clear-L [l] as in Spanish, German, Italian, Greek, Israeli Hebrew, and probably other European languages you might have heard of. So, now I understand that Melbourne is pronounced by Melburnians as [ˈmeɫbən] or [ˈmæɫbən]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the references to the pronunciations. I wonder why would someone remove them? Does he intend to degrade the quality of the article? That edit approaches trolling. It was very clear I wrote in a note, away from the lead, the narrow transcription of the sourced local pronunciation of Melburnians for those who are not familiar with it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You're gonna get far by accusing others of trolling. The pronunciation of Melbourne is in nearly every dictionary out there. We don't absolutely need to cite it. — Lfdder (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going any far. There is no rational reason why not to add the local pronunciations. How would it hurt to add them in a note, away from the lead? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

1) it's not standard practice; 2) narrow transcription get no key so the reader's got to know IPA pretty well; 3) the 'local' pronunciation (all Australian English) only differs in that the /e/ is a bit higher....frankly, who cares? — Lfdder (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the first part of /eɪ/ is actually somewhat mid in most varieties (incl. RP and GA). — Lfdder (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thinking as I write here... In English Wikipedia we don't include the local pronunciations of Paris, and Rome (or Roma), presumably because those pronunciations are by speakers of other languages. We include only the Anglicised pronunciations. But Australia is an English speaking country. It's obvious that the local pronunciation, as used by English speakers in that place, MUST be included. I cannot think of a rational reason to exclude it. Whether pronunciations used by English speakers elsewhere should be included is the only question that should matter. Some Americans obviously want their pronunciation of Melbourne in the article, but we don't go to the trouble of including the Australian pronunciation of New York in the article on that city. So where does the borderline lie? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The local pronunciation is included: /ˈmɛlbən/. — Lfdder (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for now, but there are obviously some who feel that it shouldn't be. And there was more to my post than just that issue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you make an assumption that no one would care for transcription precision? Aren't encyclopedias supposed to be precise? Answering you, yes, I'm of the ones who care. It's not standard practice if the narrow transcription were written for Melburnian pronunciation in the lead. I didn't do that. I wrote it in a note. When did I specifically refer to the General American pronunciation? I was referring to North American English in general. The west of North American English pronunciation fits exactly the [e] (and the English of Wales as an example outside of the area) while the Midwest American fits the [e̞]. The latter is still closer to the Melburnian vowel I referred to. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a comment on this discussion (I don't even understand half of it), but who, precisely, is "you". It really isn't obvious, and maybe you need to calm down just a little so that you contribution becomes comprehensible to ALL readers of this page. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think they meant me. I said "who cares" above. — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are meant to be precise ergo we've got to have narrow transcriptions. Fantastic. — Lfdder (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over infobox image

Since nobody else seems to have done so, I'll start a section here to discuss this. My 2 cents is that the existing montage is a far better representation for the infobox than this single image of a distant skyline. Opinions may, of course, differ. Begoon ^talk 07:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the montage is far superior than that distant shot of the skyline. Most of the single shot is the bay, whereas the montage gives you a much better idea of what the city actually looks like. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer the montage, along with the images that are currently inline throughout the article. Flat Out Let's discuss it 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To bring this up again, I think the montage image is of extremely poor quality. I'd pefer a skyline image, but a better quality one then the previous image proposed --Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think a panaroma done well is perhaps more representative than a photomontage/collage comprising specific buildings or areas of Melbourne. That having been said, were I to buy a postcard and send it to people, I'd rather send them one with the latter.

If, however, there were aerial photos or other options, that might be better yet; but, between the two choices of a skyline photo and a collage, I'd have to go with the collage to better convey the sights and soul of the city. Currently, the quality of the collage seems reasonable enough and it contains an image of the skyline, if but of a low quality. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Population density

The population density looks incorrect. With 4.2m people and an area of 9990km2 the population density (by my calculation) is 425 people/km2 not the 1567 listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.222.20 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)