Talk:Melbourne/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Melbourne Greek Population

"Throughout the world, only Athens and Salonika now have larger Greek populations."

I removed this contentious statement. The claim of Melbourne as the largest Greek city outside Greece seems to have attained fact status by virtue of repetition. Other cities such as Chicago 1 and Toronto 2 claim to have larger Greek populations. This page 3 supports Melbourne's claim. However, it claims Melbourne has a Greek population of 600,000 or one in six. This is wildly out of kilter with personal observations and is not supported by census data.

According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics, based on the 2001 census:

• 375,700 people in Australia identify as having Greek ancestry. 4
• 263,700 people in Australia speak Greek at home. 5
• 151,785 people in the Melbourne Statistical Division (total pop. 3,366,542) identify as having Greek ancestry. 6
• 118,394 people in the Melbourne statistical division speak Greek at home. 6

All of this is less than the 300,000 claimed for Chicago 3. However, the US census data for Illinois 7 suggests that only 106,632 persons identified as having Greek ancestry. Finally, New York state is listed as having 172,338 people who identify as having Greek ancestry 8. Other cities which claim to have large Greek populations include Paris, Toronto, Dusseldorf, London and Marioupolis (Ukraine).

I think more research needs to be done before any city can claim to have the "largest Greek population outside Greece". 211.28.152.172 08:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Some really good research there. Perhaps the claim is that Melbourne has the highest Greek population *per capita* than any other city outide of Greece. I would assume that Chicago has a great overall population than Melbourne, but the percentage of residents of Greek origin may be higher in Melbourne. Just a thought. Neolux 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I note that you use figures for Illinois to refer to a Chicago population. The Chicago metropolitan area, or Chicagoland as it is known actually extends into Wisconsin and Indiana, and for trivia's sake apparently it's not hard to see a total four states from the Sears Tower. I think you'll also find that there is a difference between Greek populations around the world in terms of how well acquainted they are with Greek culture and Greece, and another factor is the number of generations since migration. On a more basic level that means there are people who identify that they are of Greek ancestry, however they have limited association with Greece and Greek things, and their identification is an American (or Australian) Passport.

Interestingly, by coincidence I happened upon this article, which very explicitly cites Melbourne as "the third-largest Greek-populated city in the world". Eno1 05:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that, in the 1950s through to the early 80s, Melbourne was able to support this claim. It was adopted by popular culture in the city, and hence enthusiasm more than anything is probably the reason for the claim. Unfortunately times change, and the migration of Greeks has since slowed and other cities have most likely grown in population. Still a significant ethnic population worth mentioning in the demographics section however.Biatch 23 February 2006

History

Where did these dates come from? I have been taught that that Batman purchased land from the local aboriginals, after sailing up the Yarra and finding a spot to settle. Pascoe-Fawkner had also wanted to explore North to alleviate the stock grazing pressure on Tasmania and sent out a party, but became ill at the last minute so didn't go. The party went on anyway, also went up the Yarra and ended up erecting the first official settlement/camp/buildings (Batman had headed back to Tassie to report his findings and gather settlement supplies himself). Batman returned and the argy-bargy began. Not sure of dates, will try to find some.

Well found the City of Melbourne website and it's pretty much as above. It has the 8th June as Batman swindling the aboriginals, and 29 August as the Pascoe-Fawkner party settling. Take your pick as to which one was the official founding of Melbourne, but they are both later than May and Batman and Pascoe-Fawkner certainly didn't settle the new settlement together.

Settlement - foundation and surveying

And another recount of the story:

Melbourne Central City, Victoria

Citizen D 00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks 'D' for MCC page links. I accept the MCC dates--there appears to an accumulation of error. And certainly JB and JPF were independent of each other. Eric A. Warbuton 03:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Date question

Part of the article which now appears as History of Melbourne was written by me to clear up the question of who founded Melbourne. My view is that it was founded by John Lancey's party on 30 August 1835. This expedition was organised by Fawkner, but he was detained in Launceston. Batman did not arrive until 2 September, but his was a separate expedition. Thus Fawkner had a better claim than Batman, although for reasons I set out in the article Batman usually gets credit. The Melbourne article should not go into details but lead readers to the History of Melbourne article. Adam 04:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The History of Melbourne article is excellent and the first sentence in the History section here is much more concise. There's so many links to read, I'm slowly making my way through it all :) Citizen D 06:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Size warning

The article is now 44Kb, and issuing a size warning when edited. Any objection to shoving Landmarks and tourist information over to it's own article? Josh Parris # 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea--as it stands,the text, unfortunately, has all the appearence of a 'tourist brochure' Eric A. Warbuton 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, having moved that and Media (fairly tangental to the Melbourne article) out, I'm now eyeing Transport and also People. Josh Parris # 06:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I can only encourage you. And save the page from glossy trivia. Eric A. Warbuton 06:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the landmarks section and scattered some of the key points through the relevant parts of the article in a more enclopedic manner. --Biatch 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New Infobox

I'm not particulary fond of the current city info box for Melbourne, so i decided to experiment with another one, based off the Paris infobox. Any suggestions about what else to add, before even considering changing the current one?

Melbourne/Infobox

-- Swarve 11:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it a lot. :) Ambi 12:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's massive. I think there is scope to improve on the existing infobox, which is a watered-down version of those used in Indian cities (see Mumbai). I'd like to keep the one format for all Australian cities.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well most of the information is there from the previous infobox, which could be fitted into this new infobox. I've removed 3 lines which makes it smaller. It may be massive, but it has details which are just not covered in the other aesthetically displeasing infobox. Swarve 08:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What to do about the fact that the flag, coat of arms, and Lord Mayor listed in the infobox are those of the City of Melbourne, and not Greater Melbourne? Greater Melbourne (which this article is about) has no flag, coat of arms, or Mayor or Lord Mayor, but a collection of dozens of each, none of which represent the city as a whole. Should we just take the City of Melbourne to represent All of Melbourne and leave it at that? Maybe it's not a major problem, but it's not really correct either. TPK 05:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why precisely why the other Infobox avoided these complications altogether. It was kept basic to avoid ambiguity.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The latest version clearly states that the flag and arms are those of the City of Melbourne.

Oops; OK I wasn't paying much attention. TPK 11:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is awkward and far too big. The coat of arms and flag should get a mention in the article, but not the infobox which is supposed to be the vital stats at a glance (not a page scroll!). Keeping it standardised with the other states is also a good idea. Citizen D 22:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Many other cities in other parts of the world have similar infoboxes User:Vox latina

Large cities such as Paris, Tokyo, NYC, Chicago, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Singapore. -- Swarve 08:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think they should say "2nd in Australia"? - just saying "Ranked 2nd" is a little ambiguous. Astrokey44 04:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The City of Melbourne info (flag, coat of arms, lord mayor, etc) should be on an infobox at that page, not here. The article is mostly about Greater Melbourne, so the best solution is to move that, the mention of the motto in the lead paragraph, and the sister cities section, to the separate page for the LGA. JPD (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice that Canberra is a featured article with only a basic infobox. However, I really like the idea of a photo in the box, like in the infobox of Boston. It does seem a little bland without photographic images. Any ideas? • Leon 01:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the code used for Melbourne infobox and that used for Detroit's, I think we need an overhaul. Hide&Reason 05:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This page was getting far too long, so I've moved most of it to Talk:Melbourne/Archive 1, leaving behind active discussions from the last month or so. If there are any problems, feel free to move sections back that may have still been active. TPK 06:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne and two years ago.. A panoramic comparison

This isn't strictly related to the Melbourne article at all per se, but I just took some photos from the same vantage point in 2003 and 2005 (today) and decided to put the two images side by side for comparison. I just found it interesting what has changed and what hasn't. Unfortunately the second photo was taken at dusk so the lighting is quite different, but that makes it interesting on another level, I suppose.

Here is a lower res comparison [1] and here is the highest resolution comparison [2]. Hope it is of interesting to you guys. Not sure how it could be used in the article. Sorry. ;) For the record, these panoramas were taken from the highest point of the boulevard off Chandler Highway, in Kew. Diliff 12:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow! They're great images Diliff. I think you should add them somewhere in the article, possibly the history section. -- Swarve 22:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Too bad the links don't seem to work anymore. Stevage 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I still don't know how relevent it is or where it could slide into an article, but feel free to use it however you'd like on wiki! Here it is again [3]. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! Of course the only real differences I see are the Eureka tower and a smaller building (apartents in the docklands?) to the right of the Telstra building. Still, it's something to make me homesick :) Stevage 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few others but you're right, there isn't a huge difference. Where are you currently? I'll be in the same boat soon actually - I'm in the US currently but on my way to the UK by January (working holiday - 2 years). It'll be interesting to revisit that same vantage point 2 years from now to see what else has happened in my absence! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

More info in infobox?

The current infobox for this article is quite impressive - much better than the standard Australian cities infobox. I would suggest the addition of two more fields however - an Establishment date which would link to the History of Melbourne, and an area code of 03 to complement the country codes in the national infoboxes. What are your opinions? Brisvegas 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree (again). The City of Melbourne has it's own article, and this article is about the whole of Greater Melbourne, so the LGA info should not be in this infobox. The flag, etc would be good on a Brisbane infobox, but not a Melbourne or Sydney one. The history link sounds good, but I am unsure about the area code. The international calling codes are generally allocated to countries (ignoring North America), so it is appropriate to have them on a country page. The Australian STD codes are now much larger than cities, so is it really appropriate to have them on city boxes? JPD (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne had a considerably better infobox - why has it been removed? 211.27.235.53 06:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I note as an ex-phonetics student the two pronunciations given, and wonder who uses the second one, which would be pronounced "malb'n" (mal as in mal gibson). Is this just a bad joke? Sure, some australians blur the two vowels together (just ask my friend Ellen who frequently gets mistaken as an Alan!), but no one who maintains the two distinct vowels would opt for the /æ/ vowel, surely! Stevage 00:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I know nothing about phonics, but I'm a local and I pronounce it Melbin, as does just about everyone I know. Josh Parris#: 04:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard any Australian pronounce it other than as MEL-b'n. This is the pronounciation given in the article in its current form (I can't work out how to make the phonetic symbols, and copying/pasting it here didn't seem to "take" properly, but the symbols in the article are correct). Metamagician3000 07:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also never heard any australian pronounce it any way other than Melb'n. FYI the americans like to pronounce it Mel-born and the Irish pronounce it Mel-burn. Factoid Killer 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting in my 2c, I reckon just about all Australians pronounce "Ellen" and "Allan" more or less the same, and prounounce Melbourne the same way. While anyone who distinguishes between the two sounds in their general sppeech woud be likely to use the "e" sound for Melbourne, most Australians pronounce it the way a PR English speaker would pronounce "Allan" rather then "Ellen". But maybe that's just my ear.

Speaking as a Melburnian who lived elsewhere in Australia prior to 2002, I've often heard locals saying "Malb'n" down here. Sometimes it takes an outsider to notice things locals are not aware of. But Australian speech patterns are changing quite rapidly these days. Pretty soon we're all going to be pronouncing "phone" like "fine", and "know" like "noi", so it will hardly matter any more. JackofOz 14:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Growing up in West Gippsland (quite near to Melbourne), I was long puzzled by the way the English language spelt words with "el" or "al", and yet everyone pronounced them identically (as "al" - I would often practise using the /e/ vowel before an /l/, but it sounded quite unnatural to me). It was only later when I started studying linguistics that I discovered that this particular vowel merger (only occurring before /l/) was mostly restricted to Victoria in Australia and that the vast majority of other English speakers readily distinguish the two. To this day I still have difficulty hearing and producing the difference, and get laughed at by non-Victorians (at least those who also have a background in linguistics) when I say "al" instead of "el" or vice versa (giving me some idea of what it must be like to be a New Zealander living in Australia!). Wikipedia already has a good discussion of the phenomenon, where it is called the salary-celery merger, if you're interested in learning more. Swithun B 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

New image

I see we have a third "Melbourne by night" panorama in this article. Is this really necessary? It would be much better to have a "melbourne by day", particularly the stereotypical view looking up the Yarra towards the Arts Centre spire. Anyone have a free image of this type? Stevage 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent events

Can someone move this news section back into the article? (if it indeed warrants mentioning at all) Ambi 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

vires acquirit eundo

A more accurate translation would be "It gathers strength by going." 3rd singular, not 1st plural. --Fulminouscherub 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And a more accurate place for it to be on Wikipedia is City of Melbourne. JPD (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Although Melburnians are (and should be) proud of their two titles as "World's most liveable city", I'm not entirely sure that such a detailed year-by-year Economist poll results service belongs in the introduction to such an important city's article. For my taste, the introduction is verging on maximum length, and much important information is missing, including Melbourne's location; its economic role in Victoria and Australia; its cultural and sporting significance; and its rivalry with Sydney. Bastin8 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Surely that information could be retained in the article, but introductions to articles on cities are generally structured as follows: name, population, location, brief historical overview, and relative importance (what makes the city notable). See Canberra, Mumbai, Ann Arbor or even Adelaide.--cj | talk 10:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It really is too long and full of unimportant details as is the whole article - e.g. the list of sport franchises and famous Melbournians

I've moved the rankings. I don't know if there should be as many/any specifics in the intro like "...Telstra, BHP Billiton and the National Australia Bank. It is also home to the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the majority of companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange."• Leon 05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Telstra is not one of the top 3 public companies in Australia as claimed. CBA is now a larger bank than NAB. A majority of companies listed on ASX is simply untrue

The Intro seems to me to be far too unfocused with too many specifics. I'd like to rewrite it in terms of the location, name, founding and a brief summary of sections following, like Boston. Any objections?? • Leon 07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the articles for CBA and NAB. NAB is easily much bigger than the CBA. Agree though that the city is not home to most, but many of the ASX listed companies --Biatch 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sister Cities: Los Angeles and Melbourne

Hi everyone! I wasn't aware up to now that Los Angeles and Melbourne were sister cities. Could someone please explain? It seems to be a recent addition to the article. --EuropracBHIT 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Also news to me, but these articles seem to vaguely confirm it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles#Sister_cities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities

On the other hand, http://www.accci.com.au/sister.htm#australia lists Boston, MA as a sister city to Melbourne. One wonders whether listing such information is worthwhile if it can't be reliably verified. --ozzmosis 12:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few unverified sister city relationships floating around on Wikipedia. As well as the verifiability issue, it's arguable that this list should actually be at City of Melbourne, not this article, as the relationships are all formally between the local governments. I haven't already moved it, as the first few google references to some of the relationships seem to indicate that some sister-city activities extend beyond the council area. JPD (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

According to City Of Melbourne - International relations - Sister Cities, the City Of Melbourne has six sister cities, being (in order of date relationship established): Osaka, Tianjin, Thessaloniki, Boston, St Petersburg and Milan. It does appear however, that the Los Angeles page is incorrect. It states twenty two sister cities to Los Angeles, and then lists twenty three. On checking the stated reference, Sister Cities International, twenty one cities are listed as sisters of Los Angeles, and Melbourne is not one of them. --60.230.88.64 06:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed from this article until someone can source information to the contrary. --Biatch 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ranked first" vs. "Tied for first"

The article currently reads that "Melbourne has twice ranked first in a survey by The Economist of The World's Most Livable Cities". It hasn't placed first, it has tied for first, and in fact, it tied with both Vienna and Vancouver in 2004. I edited it accordingly, but the edits were reverted by Xtra who stated: "Tied for first is exactly the same as ranked first." I disagree. If this survey merits a prominent place in the article (which itself is open to debate), then we should strive for accuracy, not civic boosterism. I have come here to canvass the thoughts of others. Skeezix1000 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Full disclosure is always best. Harro5 03:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• I second that. Ranked first implies that Melbourne beat every other country. This is clearly untrue. Factoid Killer 13:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Like I said in the other thread, I agree. Be accurate, or leave it out. One or the other. - Randwicked Alex B 13:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree. It is accurate to say it ranked first, because it did rank first, whether or not it shared that ranking with any other city. Xtra 13:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Xtra is right, but the fact that so many people don't seem to read it that possibly means that we should avoid it. JPD (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a Melburnian who trusted what was reported in the media, ie. that Melbourne was "ranked first". I always interpreted we were the clear winner, with no sharing of the ranking with any other city. I'm surprised to learn that this was not the case. Saying "ranked first" is not inaccurate in itself, but it fails to tell the whole story, and is clearly misleading. JackofOz 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Another Melburnian here ... I also didn't know it was tied for first. Two horses tied for first in the Melbourne Cup would surely be noteworthy. I think it's valid information and omitting it carries an air of ulterior motives such as, as mentioned, boosterism. Grusl 00:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• first conveys less information than shared first so the latter confirms first position as well as confirming that one or more other cities also came first. I've amended the article accordingly. Reverting the edit would suggest you disagree that the ranking was shared... Garglebutt / (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning this in the article at all? These types of surveys don't really tend to mean anything at all. They're really based on opinion. Another similar survey rated Dublin as the best city on earth to live in 2005. Based on someone elses opinion. They also sighted weather as being one of the reasons... I guess the weather is great here and in melbourne... compared to siberia! I found that one funny because I live in Dublin and at the time the survey was announced it was taking me 1.5 hours to make the 6km journey to work due to traffic! The public transport left me standing in the below 0 conditions as I was pounded with soft hail, sleet, rain and snow just about every day.

I suggest you relocate to Melbourne immediately. JackofOz 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to take a pretty huge pay cut and only earn Australian Dollars. Not thanks.Factoid Killer 13:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane have been listed in first place at least once as far as I recall but nobody has bothered to mention it in that article. I guess this was based on the opinion of someone who appreciates warm weather. Factoid Killer 12:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was up there last year and I saw large signs saying "Brisbane, the world's most liveable city", which was odd as I knew Melbourne had the title (not alone as I now discover) and I'd never heard anything about Brisbane getting a similar award. JackofOz 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how so many Melbournites leave the world's most livable city permanently every week and choose to live in Queensland.Factoid Killer 13:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not realy any more. I think melbourne has a higher growth rate now (I think) Xtra 13:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It was the case in 2005 according to the ABS. Factoid Killer 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that many RETIRE in Queensland due to the lower costs and better weather to spend outside/active. That doesn't mean it is more livable because livable includes income, public transport, etc, which is arguably inferior in Brisbane. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it seem a little excessive to devote a whole paragraph of the introduction to rankings? See the Cornell University and Melbourne University articles for what I think would be way more reasonable.• Leon 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Melburnians

List of notable Melburnians shouldn't be merged into the main article. It makes it unwieldy. Can I suggest removing the redirection of "Melburnian" and using this as a page to describe the people of the city, including a list of notable Melburnians ? Biatch 23 February 2006

Melburnian now redirects to List of notable Melburnians, which seems more logical. Good suggestion! --bainer (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sport

Shouldn't all the recently added sports details - both teams and venues be moved to a seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.19.252.190 (talk • contribs)

I think it would better at Sport in Melbourne, or as part of Sport in Victoria. JPD (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the teams and venues sections really detract from the general flow of the article. Remy B 04:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"largest city geographically"

I removed this, as even if there are well defined limits of the metropolitan areas of Australian cities, the area of the city is not usually that relevant when talking about the "largest city in ...". JPD (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It may also be false. I always thought Oslo was the geographically largest city. --Bduke 09:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And I thought Brisbane was the largest in Australia. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane is the largest city in Australia in terms of population. That is, when you take into account only the area governed by the city council. When we talk about capital city populations we really shouldn't use the word city because that becomes confusing. Really what you're talking about when you say Melbourne's population is 3.6 mill (or whatever it is now) you're talking about a metropolis (not a city). City of Melbourne is tiny. Geographically the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder (in WA) is the largest city on earth. List of cities by surface area. in any case, Melbourne doesn't come close to being anything even remotely close to the largest city in Australia in terms of the area it occupies. Factoid Killer 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Olso is only 454 km² compared to Brisbane's 1360 km² and Kalgoorlie-Boulder's 96000 km². The figure for area shown in the Melbourne page is considerably smaller than that shown on the Sydney article but both are for the entire metropolis (includes the combined areas of multiple cities). Factoid Killer 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is really interesting (in a nerdy facts for facts sake way). It all comes down to terminology and what is commonly understood. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad you find it interesting =). FYI the city of Melbourne occupies an area of 35 km². The people living in this area are the only ppl who get to elect the 'lord mayor' of Melbourne. Sydney is a similar story. By comparison, all of the ppl living in Brisbane's 1360 km² get to vote for the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and in turn the BCC is responsible for this entire area.

Of course this is all meaningless. If cities were judged by the amount of area they occupy there's nothing stopping the WA gov. extending the boarders of Perth to cover the entire state and claim Pert to be the largest city on earth. Factoid Killer 11:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Education: List of "prestigious" schools

Is there actually any means by which the schools listed are selected, other than personal opinion? People seem to be randomly adding schools they believe to be prestigious.

I'm thinking it might be better to list (for example) the four most enrolled gov't schools and the four most enrolled priv. schools, rather than the (possibly PoV) lists we have now.

Just a thought. --Evan C (Talk) 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. Seems very Non-NPOV. Factoid Killer 11:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the need to list any secondary schools in this article, regardless of prestige or size of enrolment. A mention of how many schools are in Melbourne (unfortunately not figures I have to hand), along with a link to the List of schools in Victoria article would seem sufficient. It's not that people adding their own schools is POV (although that's probably an issue), it's that the additions are made on an ad hoc basis, resulting in an inconsistent and unrepresentative list. And I may be wrong, but isn't Geelong Grammar situated in Geelong? Thylacoleo 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed - every city has schools, really - not worth noting any specifics in the main article. --Evan C (Talk) 06:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I began listing the schools after reading the education section in the San Franciso Article. I believe we should list it by VCE 2005 results.--Celendin 10:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering some schools have been known to "stack" VCE results be "encouraging" lower-performing students to drop out of VCE, I'm not sure that's a good way about it. I think Thylacoleo's idea is good (just IMHO). --Evan C (Talk) 11:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood what value lists of schools add to articles about cities. I think lists look out of place in an article comprised of prose and would be happy if theywere moved to List of Schools in Melbourne for example. The article can contain a paragraph or two with some notable facts about schools in the city. For example: Melbourne contains ### Primary and ###Secondary Schools. Most schools are operated by the State Department of Education with the remainder being independent schools - many operated by the catholic Church. Melbourne's oldest school is ****. State law requires childern to attend school until the age of ##.

Of course, that isn't exactly what you would write, but something along those lines. I agree that listing prestigious schools is very not-NPOV -- Adz|talk 12:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Schools are institutions of the city, they represent part of the fabric and culture of the city. Why do we list the MCG, the National Gallery of Victoria, the Shrine of Remembrance, King's Domain and the Sidney Myer Music Bowl, the Arts Centre, and Victoria Barracks, the Crown Casino in the same article? The best schools qualify because they are institutions too. Whilst, some schools are known to kick out low achieving students, the amount of students they kick out still represent a small proportion of the student body and don't really alter their VCE standing to a great deal. The best VCE students are normally from the best schools. --Celendin 09:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're to accurately represent the "fabric and culture" of the city by listing schools (in a NPOV way), shouldn't we also then list the lowest performing schools - indeed, the schools smack-bang in the middle of the statistics? So far I think Thylacoleo and Adz's suggestions seem best

What would be the correct procedure to get a general vote on this (perhaps from people not associated with Melbourne - so it's based on Wikipedia principle alone). --Evan C (Talk) 12:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes them the best schools? Suggesting these schools are the best or prestigious is just as much non-NPOV as if would be to refer to them as a 'List of Pretentious Schools'. Factoid Killer 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that Celendin started the list of "prestigious schools" with the best of intentions, and I agree that the older "establishment" private schools in Melbourne have had an important impact on the city's culture (most notably through the old boys' networks), and that mention could well be made of this role in this section. It's just that having a list of such schools seems counter-productive to the article as a whole, and impractical to implement to everyone's satisfaction. There seem to be as many different ways to "rank" high schools as there are high schools themselves, and none (especially VCE results from any particular year) is without an amount of controversy. The main problem as I see it however is a practical one - having a list such as this one is an open invitation to users (ignorant of discussions such as this one and the rationale of the list) to add their own favourite school to it and enlarge it to disproportionate size. A quick look through the history of the article shows that many additions are indeed from anonymous users and that the schools being added seem to be increasingly obscure (at least to my mind, as someone who was educated in country Victoria and not steeped in Melbourne private school culture). With the recent spinning off of the lists of sporting venues and teams into a separate article, this is the only list left in the article (with the exception of the sister cities at the very end), and from a stylistic viewpoint I feel that prose should be favoured here as well. Adz's framework given above, suitably integrated into the existing text, is a fair starting point for this. Thylacoleo 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

At least until something further is sorted out, I've moved this bit here as it's severely lacking evidence (the other lists are, at least, justified)

Other established secondary schools are:

• Ivanhoe Grammar School
• Marcellin College
• Carey Baptist Grammar School
• Caulfield Grammar School
• Camberwell Grammar School
• Our Lady of Mercy College

--Evan C (Talk) 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is just getting silly. Editing no different to running around like headless chooks, it seems! Editing on this section needs to be halted and a consensus reached. I've asked for input at WP:VPA. --Evan C (Talk) 04:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe just mention the big two associations (Associated Public Schools of Victoria and Associated Grammar Schools of Victoria) and possibly the big selective govt. schools: Melbourne High School, Mac.Robertson Girls' High School and University High School. Harro5 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed there have been recent edits to a section listing schools again. Reading this it doesn't look like concensus was ever reached. Am i right? Factoid Killer 12:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Harro5's proposal looks reasonable, though Uni High is no longer selective. --Robert Merkel 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the list and written a more general paragraph about schools in Melbourne. Listing specific schools is unnecessary unless there is a distinct reason to do so. Disclaimer: i attended an APS school, however i do not believe that the paragraph i wrote is biased.Suicup 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks go to Suicup for taking the time to research and rewrite this section into continuous, referenced prose. While consensus hadn't technically been reached regarding this section, I think most (with the exception of Celendin, who apparently started the list off, and improved it slightly in answer to the criticisms by giving it a rationale) agreed something needed to be done, we were just too hesitant to proceed. So, kudos to Suicup for being bold; hopefully with the albatross of the list of schools gone, this section can now evolve naturally. Thylacoleo 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed some instances of the word "elite" and replaced them with "prestigious". • Leon 09:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article size

The current version of the article comes in at 48k - and while there's not really a lot to trim, I do think that it's time the sport section was trimmed back to a briefer introduction, while the majority of its content moves to a separate article (probably titled Sport in Melbourne, in line with the history, culture, etc, articles). What say you? Lokicarbis 14:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While i tentatively agree, sport is such an important part of the social fabric in melbourne (compared to other cities), and i think still it deserves a sizable section in the article.Suicup 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When this comment was made, the sport section also included several large tables which were moved to Sport in Victoria. While the section could still be trimmed a bit, it's nowhere near as bad as it was. JPD (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete. Snottygobble 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne as southernmost city

The quote: "Melbourne is the southernmost city in the world with a population over one million people" is false. This title probably belongs to the Tasmanian capital of Hobart, south of Melbourne. Also the reference to a population of over one million people seems inappropriate given the more correct in the preceding sentence of 3.7 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.22.79 (talk • contribs) .

The point of the sentence is that Melbourne is the most southerly city which has a population over one million, not that it is the most southerly city and has a population over one million. JPD (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I have reinstated this sentence in light of my reading it the wrong way. Perhaps that sentence though could be a little clearer (or even removed as it seems to me to be an unnecessarily trivial statement). I will leave it up to the regulars here to make a decision on this if required.

Good Article Review

I tempted to fail this as a good article, although it does have a lot to offer. I'd like to note my objections and see if editors here can fix up the problems first. The references are out of sync, try the <ref> method, it's easier, see Ireland for an example of how it's used. Also, the population section is a bit messy, could that be tidied up a bit. Lastly I personally would like to see the external links as inline references and a few more inline references to boot. However the last point shouldn't stop it from being a Good Article at the minute, but this will be the standard in the future. Regards to the editors, it's coming on well. Cheers SeanMack 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently failing it, just too few refernces, 3 links is not enough, sorry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Recreational cycling

Recreational cycling is mentioned in the Sport section, however sport is competitive so non-competitive cycling does not seem to belong here. The "Cycling is a very popular sport" paragraph seems poorly written to me, but there are a few different directions it could go in terms of being rewritten, or simply edited out entirely. I am also a bit biased as a self-confessed recreational cyclist! What do others think? --ozzmosis 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Urban Area Population

I have edited the Melbourne page main stats to use the urban area population rather then the metro area. This represents a more accurate version of statistics of what actually constitutes the Melbourne area. I find the localities a good basis for populations of various places throughout Victoria and Australia.

Perhaps a seperate page should be considered for the metro area as a whole, with various links to localities outside of Melbourne itself (eg. Melton, Pakenham, Healesville). Many locals would agree that there is little reason to consider those places part of Melbourne itself.

Why is my change considered a test and removed to re-instate the incorrect figures?

Probably because, as far as I can tell, you just made the changes without explaining them anywhere. That kind of change really needs to be explained on the talk page. Preferably, as that is a sort of "policy" question, it's probably the kind of thing you'd discuss first before making the change. --Robert Merkel 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given a brief explanation of why I made the changes above. It also is more in line with the statistics of other countries throughout wikipedia where the population of the locality or city council is stated. It can be with good reason said that in fact the metro area figure has been put there without explanation. A possible compromise would be to put both the metro and urban figures there if there is no seperate article for the metro area as is done with several other major city articles. In case you are unaware, the statistical metro area includes many regional/rural areas which could not be associated with Melbourne in most cases.

Yes, but at the time you hadn't, hence the reversion. Perhaps the person was a little hasty; but, then, we're getting more and more attempts at "subtle" vandalism and people are less tolerant of unexplained changes.

As to your point about urban/metro area populations, I am aware of this issue in regards to Melbourne; it has come up when people have written articles about places like Healesville describing them as "suburbs" of Melbourne. However, I don't think you should make this change, which is a major one despite the small amount of text that changes until you've given time to some of the regulars to respond. For instance, if all of the Australian capitals use metro area, it would be anomalous to just change Melbourne's to urban area. --Robert Merkel 02:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well to say the least, revising the figures for the capital cities and in the longer term several other regional centres/towns is worth considering. As a Melburnian it was only natural that I'd take most consideration in getting Melbourne's figures correct. The locality figures are quite accessible on the Census website (through doing a text search).

Thats not to mention that mentioning both urban and metro populations is also worth considering, as of course the metro area is relevant to the main article, however so is more importantly the urban statistics.

The only problem with listing the population of the city centre (as defined by local government) would be that brisbane would become much much larger (in population) to both sydney and melbourne, anyone looking at Australia would make the assumption that brisbane is our largest city, which is innacurate. We have always, in Australia, listed our populations by metropolitan area, and there's nothing confusing about that so long as you state that. 136.186.1.198 03:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:136..., the earlier anon wasn't referring to the local government area population (which you are quite right would give extremely misleading figures when applied to Australian capital cities), but to the urban area (i.e. continuous built-up area) population. I actually tend to agree that the urban area figure would be more indicative than the metropolitan area one, mostly because I think the ABS defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Australia are a bit too inclusive. Thylacoleo 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Transport section

Why has this section been tagged as unencyclopedic? To me it seems to be a fairly well writen section, with an ideal mix of useful and interesting facts. It also seems to be a good summary for the main article. So - why the tag? --Evan C (Talk) 09:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted this as vandalism. An IP adds this tag with their first contribution, no explanation, and I think that's a pretty safe assumption. Harro5 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Melbournian/Melburnian

User Thylacoleo insists "Melburnian" is the correct spelling. Do you have some sort of cite for that? Google gets more hits with "Melbournian" than the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatoclass (talk • contribs)

I refer Gatoclass to the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (my volume is the fourth edition, published 2004), which defines "Melburnian" (so spelt, no indication of a permissible variant spelt "Melbournian") as "a native of Melbourne; of or relating to Melbourne, the capital of the State of Victoria." Counting Google hits is a far more reliable indicator of the extent poor spelling infests the Web than of determining what the correct spelling actually is. All the best, Thylacoleo 02:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Google results for "Melbournian" seem to be unreliable at best - largely forum postings, etc. --Evan C (Talk) 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Spot on, Thylacoleo! JackofOz 10:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be listed as Melbourne, Australia to avoid confusion with Melbourne, Derbyshire

Typing Melbourne only brings up the one in Australia and this mask the fact there is also a Melbourne in England (which the one in Australia is named after).

I suggest the article title should be changet to Melbourne, Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdav69 (talk • contribs)

There is a disambiguation link at the top that has other uses for the name. -- Barrylb 14:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need, as this Melbourne is the only major city, and hence the most likely one people would be looking for when searching. As has been said, there is a disambig link if its not what you're looking forSuicup 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No need. The disambiguation statement is more than sufficient. We don't rename Paris to "Paris, France", just because there happens to be a small town in Canada named Paris, Ontario. --Skeezix1000 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree emphatically. Oh, and Melbourne was named after the British prime minister at the time of its founding, not the village in Derbyshire. Thylacoleo 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with keeping as is. I would have thought confusion with Melbourne, Florida would be more likely. Stevage 08:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with keeping. This very conversation is ludicrous. Emcee N 14:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I also definately agree, and i can verify what Thylacoleo said about Melbourne being named after the British PM of the time (William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne). --glennnnn 05:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Melburnian vs Melbournian

Hi! I'm from Melbourne, and I've always described myself as being a "Melbournian" as opposed to a "Melburnian" with the 'o' dropped.

Am I just against the general concensus here? Where's the source for spelling it like it is now? If it's a question of popular usage, I've got 55,700 sites on Google with "Melbournian" and 45,200 for "Melburnian." Ackatsis 14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See above discussion. It's best to refer to one of the various Australian English dictionaries out there, such as the Macquarie Dictionary (widely accepted as the definitive Australian English dictionary) or the Oxford Dictionary of Australian English. I don't have my copies on hand, but last time I checked, they all give "Melburnian" as the correct spelling (although some also give "Melbournian" as an alternative spelling). --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if some give "Melbournian" as an alternative spelling, shouldn't that be represented in the article? Gatoclass 04:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's that big a deal, pronunciation's the same anyway. For the interested, "Melburnian" (no o) is allegedly derived from the Latin Melburnia for Melbourne, as used in the Latin title of the Archbishop of Melbourne. (However, it's worth noting that the Latin Wikipedia article is at "Melbournum".) Perhaps you could add "although in popular usage it is often spelt 'Melbournian' with an 'o'" if you feel it necessary. Emcee N 11:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what I'll do before making any changes is check out the status of "Melbournian" on a couple of heavyweight dictionaries for myself. I don't think I should change the article until I'm sure the alternative spelling is valid. Thanks for the suggestion tho :) Gatoclass 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should add that, though an alternative is often spelt 'Melbournian,' it is considered gramatically incorrect. That would, at least, reduce continued debate on the matter. Ackatsis 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

i find more people are calling themselves melbournians too, as well as pronouncing the "ourn" when the say melbourne.... is this phenomenon just localised to my experiences?

The only people I've heard call Melburnians "Melbournians" (with the "ourn" pronounced as "orn") are people from interstate (particularly Sydneysiders) and overseas. Newspapers such as The Age and the Herald Sun are still using "Melburnian", so if there is an official spelling, it hasn't changed. --Evan C (Talk) 12:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It Melburnian. Melbournian is I guess a mistake, then others copy and replicate that mistake. Pleny of websites will have mispelled words. Format 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Evan C, you've really heard people pronounce "Melburnian" with an "orn" sound? I know some foreigners who don't know better might mispronounce "Melbourne" (and hence "Melbournian" [sic]) that way, but surely not Australians. It's not surprising that interstaters might be unfamiliar with the term "Melburnian" though, and substitute some other form, like "Melbournite" based on local preference (for example the most recent citation in the OED for this word is from a Brisbane newspaper in the 80s). I've recently heard a couple of native Melburnians repeatedly and naturally refer to "Canberrians" instead of (the correct) "Canberrans". At any rate the anon poster above may be right when he says they pronounce it "ourn", if by that he actually means (the less ambiguous) "urn". (Actually, I've always been confused myself with the pronunciation of Cranbourne...) Thylacoleo 07:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up a couple of sections. This discussion seems to be duplicated. Format 07:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Map

The map entitled 'Map of greater Melbourne' under the Geography section is incorrect and should be replaced. If you are to use the scale provided on the map then the distance between Melbourne CBD and Melbourne airport is 50km? Which is very incorrect, every Melburnian knows that Tullamarine is around 20km out of the CBD. Another incorrect example using the map's scale is if your to measure the distance between Geelong and Melbourne its about 150km? Its much more like 80km. My computering skills aren't flash so I can't replace it but someone who has the knowledge of how to do it should please. Cheers! User:You_Are_Here! 15 July 2006

Sorry about that. I drew the original map based on another map I found on the web. I think I copied the scale directly from that. Now that you point it out, it does seem odd but interesting that it has taken this long for someone to notice it. I think I still have to original Adobe Illustrator file so I will have a look at correcting this. --CloudSurfer 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could not find the original map artwork so I have "Photoshopped" the hires map. The scale was more than twice what it should be! Despite purging my caches and files, it is still displaying on my system as the old map. I will leave it for now and hope that it corrects itself in time. If you are seeing a scale of 20 km and 10 mi, you have the new map. --CloudSurfer 04:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Too many photos of shiney skyscrapers - one will do. We need photos of old terraced buildings like Canning St, Carlton, gardens & parks, the nearby forests, old arcades, etc & someone taking a a classic screamer over a pile of footballers. Cheers

I've been playing around with image arrangement on this article for the last week. Aside from there having been too many to begin with, people seem to see fit to bung something in simply because it's sexy, is a shot of a Melbourne location and is Featured.

I love the fact that Wikipedia has quality photographic coverage of our city, and good on those photographers, but come on: this isn't Myspace. This is Wikipedia. Images should be removed or retained based primarily on their informative value. As such, I've taken out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melbourne_yarra_twilight.jpg as it clutters Geography and isn't too useful there anyhow. Hide&Reason 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Obscured Table

In the Geography section, the "Climate Table" ais partially obscured by the image of Melbourne's climate information. It appears to be a problem with the table rather than the images themselves. If no-one else has noticed it, it's probably because of my browser (it happens with both Netscape and Safari). I don't myself know how to fix it, but I thought you good people should know about it. --Byron Vickers 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made the table a little less wide. Does this help? Stumps 12:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It does in Netscape, but not in Safari. However, I doubt that there are all that many users out there with Safari, so it's at least a lot better. Probably something that should be further looked into eventually, though. Incidentally, both Netscape and Safari have the same problem with Hobart. Hope I've been of some help. Cheers. --Byron Vickers 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It probably still causes problems at lower resolutions. Apart from that, the climate graphs don't form a particularly good illustration anyway. JPD (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it again, it's still covered up in Netscape when the window isn't huge. Safari has the problem whatever window size I have. If I may say so, I also agree with JPD that the graph which is covering the table doesn't provide paricularly essential or easy to understand information, either (assuming that's what you meant, JPD). Not that I have anything to do with your page, but I think that it would look better without that particular image. --Byron Vickers 11:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Barry Humphries query

The following comment was posted on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Melbourne page by 138.217.37.69 . I have copied it here, which is the more appropriate page for discussion:

Apologies if this is not the correct way to suggest a change but the current Melbourne entry includes: Melbourne-born satirist Barry Humphries created his main character Dame Edna Everage as a comedic version of a suburban homemaker. Through her he has performed cutting odes to Melbourne mores and the middle class suburbs of Moonee Ponds and Highett, among others. My understanding was that Highett was a housing commission area or at least partly and the whole Dame Edna joke was about her moving up in the world from Highett to Moonee Ponds. I'm not sure if the description of Highett as middle class is accurate in the context. - 138.217.37.69

- Cuddy Wifter 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Weather

I changed the description of Melbourne's weather from "unusual weather conditions" to "changeable weather conditions" because that more accurately reflects what occurs - Melbourne's weather very rarely reaches any extremes by global standards, it just varies a lot within a day.

Secondly, the stuff about snow was added as an additional piece of information to explain things to Northern Hemisphere readers, for many whom winter implies freezing temperatures and snowfalls. --Robert Merkel 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

whoops didn't see that extra sentence about the snow. Apologies for deleting it. My main concern was 'unusual' to 'changeable'. Surely the fact that it varies a lot within a day is unusual? Unusual doesn't mean reach extreme temperatures, so i don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm changing that word (not the snow stuff) back, because a) i think it is an apt description and b) because it sounds better than anyway. 'Changeable' is slightly awkward. Cheers Suicup 08:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to have to disagree. What is slightly out of the ordinary about Melbourne's weather is that is can vary a lot within a day, and "changeable" expresses that a lot more precisely than "unusual" in my view. "Unusual", in my view, can imply that it reaches extreme values, where by global standards Melbourne's weather is incredibly benign. Maybe others could weigh in on this, please? --Robert Merkel 08:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Suicup that the changeable weather could be considered unusual, but I also agree with Robert that there are many other sorts of weather that would be described as unusual, so it is more informative to say changeable. JPD (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The next sentence goes on to mention '4 seasons in a day', ie the 'changeable' weather conditions. Thus the unusual sets it up and the next sentence clarifies it. Just a question, are there any other cities in Australia (or worldwide) who experience similar 'unusual' weather conditions such as rapidly changing temperatures/conditions etc? Suicup 12:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may add my $0.02, I think the statement should be more specific than "unusual" (unusual compared to what - everywhere has weather that's different in some way). But I'm not entirely sure that "changeable" is correct grammar - at any rate, it doesn't read as being correct to me. Perhaps "variable" is more appropriate? --Evan C (Talk) 12:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Changeable is ok, I think. Variable would also be appropriate, but doesn't seem to imply quite the same thing. As for other places where this happens, I suggest London. JPD (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to agree with the use of "changeable". Evan brings up a good point in showing that "unusual" must be referenced to something or else everything can be unusual. Using "variable" to me implies that it is constantly changing, but that is just me. My vote is for changeable. Raider2044 ^{Bio • Talk • Contribs} 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i prefer 'variable' to 'changeable'. Suicup 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem with any of the words thrown up to be honest. Raider2044 ^{Bio • Talk • Contribs} 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What would be useful is some information on what makes the weather so unpredictable. Are there any established theories ? The article mentions topography of the city but does not cite any references. --Biatch 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The famous Hoddle Grid

In what context is the Hoddle Grid famous? - Diceman 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I don't believe it is famous, so I will remove the comment until someone can substantiate it. --Biatch 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "in what context", but it is well known. I learnt about it in school and have seen numerous references to it since. Googling "hoddle grid" (with quotes) returned about 505 hits. Philip J. Rayment 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

the new rectangular stadium

Hi guys, no idea on editing the main page so some tidbits for anyone else who cares too, the new rectangular stadium is not yet under construction (will commence early '07) and its estimated cost is actually AUD $ 190 million. Source: "Goal - pg 28-29, The Sunday Age, Aug 20, 2006"

Done. Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

football/mcg

surely someone has a newer picture of the mcg and a better picture of an afl game in victoria. the current afl photo is awful.

I've had the perfect shot of it for ages now, but I dunno about the copyright:

http://www.studor.net/images/reference/MCG%20aerial.jpg

Hide&Reason 05:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

good point, I have some photos from the 2006 AFL Grand Final which I'll see if I can upload. --Biatch 23:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Home to largest number of surviving Victorian era buildings of any city in the world after London.

Can anyone substantiate this ? Has someone counted all of the Victorian buildings in each city ? --Biatch 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

During the 1880s, Melbourne was the second largest city in the British Empire.

Can anyone substantiate this ? Does this mean large in population or large in physical size ? --Biatch 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)