Talk:Melbourne

	Melbourne Meetup Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/46 - Tuesday 13 August, 2024 (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Image for Culture section

@HappyWaldo and @Ashton 29, I think it would be much better if you discussed which image should go in the culture section here, rather than editing back and forth. GraziePrego (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I noted in the edit summaries (1, 2) that the dome room features in all but one of the top Instagram posts tagged #statelibraryvictoria. Given how these algorithms work, it tells us the dome is the library's most attention-grabbing feature. Ashton 29 dismissed this with his latest revert, yet virtually all write ups on the library are in agreement on the dome:

"While the original building is best described as 'Victorian period academic classical' in its style, it is the magnificent octagonal-shaped dome – added in 1913 – that makes this treasured heritage-listed building such a major jewel in Melbourne’s crown." (Sydney Morning Herald).

"On December 5, the iconic State Library Victoria in Melbourne’s CBD will reopen its doors following the completion of a five-year redevelopment ... The library’s most iconic feature – the domed La Trobe Reading Room – will remain the same, ..." (Broadsheet).

"For many Melburnians, the State Library is defined by the Dome Room — the majestic silent reading room built in 1913. Ms Torney described it as 'probably the most photographed room in Melbourne'." (ABC).

It would be strangely remiss not to show the dome room. Probably on par with the Royal Exhibition Building as a symbol of the cultural life of Melbourne. The facade with its pediment and columns could belong to almost any public building, whereas the dome immediately communicates the function of the building. As an interior space it adds variety to the images, along the lines of those shown in the cultural sections of Sydney, Paris, São Paulo etc. Also the photograph of the dome is simply a higher quality image. Probably deserving of a featured picture nomination. Ashton 29 would surely attest to its quality, given that they swapped it in with this edit of Monkey Grip back in January. After three weeks of reverts, their only argument in favour of the facade has been: "this view is more iconic than the interior". No it's not, lol. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ashton 29, I see you have replaced the reading room with the outside of the library once again. Please come and discuss this here, instead of continuing the edit war. GraziePrego (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo @Ashton 29 is there now going to be an edit war over another image? Please can you both discuss here before history repeats again. GraziePrego (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The reading room interior looks like any reading room. I disagree that the exterior could be anywhere. The forecourt lawn of the library is an iconic view noticeable to many who walk along Swanston Street, where tourists and Melburnians alike bask in the sun's warmth on the green carpet of lush grass prior to entering or after their visit to the fourth most visited public library in the world. I also noticed HappyWaldo has also reverted the edit on the dusk image of St Patrick's Cathedral. Nobody in their right minds would say that the daylight image HappyWaldo prefers is superior to the moody, Gothic looking facade of the building in twilight that I have proposed. I have to ask you, HappyWaldo, why it always has to be your way or the highway as far as editing goes? The exterior of the Melbourne Athenaeum is hardly iconic or recognisable, and while it is a nice example of neo-classical architecture, I doubt anybody outside Melbourne would recognise it. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It was the world's largest reinforced-concrete dome upon completion and a feat of engineering. For these reasons alone it could be said it's unlike any other reading room. That you dismiss it out of hand then wax poetic about grass is pretty funny. My original point that the reading room more effectively communicates the building's function still stands. It says only "library", whereas the facade could easily pass as that of a government building. Last statement on the room: "The dome soars in the centre of State Library Victoria as a confident statement of universal knowledge. When it opened in 1913 it was the largest building of its kind in the world, and its height and scale in a city without skyscrapers was dramatic. Inside, the rising arcades and balconies join in a glazed roof with a golden orb at its centre – like the sun, a source of light and enlightenment." (Wheeler Centre). As for the cathedral, the image you prefer has very obvious HDR processing. Makes it look unrealistic in addition to the distracting keystoning of the spire. The current image is daylight, higher res, looks realistic. More suitable for an encyclopedia. Re theatre image, "I doubt anybody outside Melbourne would recognise [the Athenaeum]" is a ridiculous statement. Try to be more precise in your language and not overgeneralise. While none of Melbourne's theatres seem to be well known abroad, the Melbourne Athenaeum has articles on three non-English Wikis. The Capitol, only English. Not that this counts for much. The Princess is Melbourne's grandest theatre so I would support a return to this image. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Population figures for 2023

Hello all

I have updated the official ABS population estimates for Melbourne in the infobox. The ABS release is here. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Melbourne pronunciation

Hello all

I have added the Australian English pronunciation. See WP:DIAPHONEMIC " "Local pronunciations are of particular interest in the case of place names. If there are both local and national or international standards, it may be beneficial to list both. "

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have tried, but still struggle making sense of IPA. This Melburnian (yes, that is the correct spelling) of nearly 60 years says that you would get the local pronunciation right if you just said "Melbn". There is no vowel sound between the "b" and the "n". (And obviously the "e" is silent.) All attempts to tell people how to pronounce that bit of the word seem to lead to people saying something that just isn't said by the locals. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A. The audio file that’s linked to the first pronunciation guide doesn’t include the R sound, so it more closely matches what is given as the local pronunciation.

B. Shouldn’t the local pronunciation come first? PeterOram (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No. See the policy on this: WP:DIAPHONEMIC Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I read it, and could not understand it. It's not a good explanation for those who are not expert in IPA. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's against WP:DIAPHONEMIC to place the local pronunciation first, as that section only says "it may be beneficial to list both". I find it totally fine to either relegate the diaphonemic transcription to the footnote, or outright remove it. The accompanying audio, however, doesn't sound like [æ] to me so it would be inappropriate to attach it to the allophonic transcription. Nardog (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood what you said when we discussed this on your talk page. I really don't care what order they are in as long as the local pronunciation is in there somewhere. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made a change because I don't have access to the cited source (Longman Pronunciation Dictionary) but neither the local nor the Australian English match my Macquarie, nor what I have heard.

The Macquarie gives ˈmɛlbən/ which accords with the Australian (both Victorian and interstate) pronunciation that I have heard most often by far. Neither the 'r' in the Australian English nor the 'æ' in the local pronunciation is present. 121.200.4.7 (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The current pronunciation part is quite confusing. It starts with "mɛlbərn" with an audio file of an Australian speaker pronouncing it in the local "Melbn" way, a second pronunciation "MEL-bərn" with a note that "/ˈmɛlbɔːrn/ MEL-born is also accepted within British Received Pronunciation and General American English. In Australian English, ⟨our⟩ in the second syllable always stands for the reduced /ər/ as in "labour"" and then a third "local" pronunciation: "mælbən". It's not clear at all what the distinction between the three/four listed pronunciations are. The Wiktionary entry doesn't seem to be tripping over itself in the same way and might be a helpful reference. Cjhard (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Wiktionary does seem to manage this better. I'd love someone to explain to me why the rest of the world has so much trouble accepting the local pronunciation. I and others tell them, and they insist on telling us the pronunciation is something different. It's really weird. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: The person after whom our city was named, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, pronounced his name as "mel-born". That's irrelevant to how Melburnians say it, but it may be a factor in the international confusion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it could well be a factor in some cases, but I don't think it is in most. I have no data apart from my own experiences, but it seems to me that the "mel-born" pronunciation mostly comes from Americans either copying the pronunciation from other Americans, or inventing their own based on their phonetic interpretation of what they see. The arrival of the film character Jason Bourne around 20 years ago probably strengthened that perspective. I recently heard an ABC radio program originally made around 30 years, which contained interviews of American servicemen who did R&R in Melbourne during WWII. All of the men interviewed pronounced it the way we Melburnians do. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's time for a new approach regarding Australia's most populous city.

A regular event with this article (and others that mention its population) is editors updating it with a claim that Melbourne is the most populous city in Australia. This is unsurprising, because bits of media from all over the world are making the claim. The most recent change used a quite reputable source. It's also obviously highly debatable, based on the obvious issue of which figure is the one we use. These frequent changes aren't going to stop, unless we take a new approach.

I suggest a new perspective. What's unusual about Australia is not that one of it's two biggest cities has slightly more people than the other, but that its two biggest cities are almost the same size, and will be for at least the next twenty years. Why not make that the population comment in articles that mention anything like this, rather than emphasising that one is bigger. That emphasis is wrong. This proposal will deliver stability for the next several years. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

All the articles on Australian cities use the official ABS data which is updated annually. This has been thoroughly discussed multiple times. Your assertion that Melbourne and Sydney will be "almost the same size for the next twenty years" is unsourced and not true. ABS projections indicate thgat Melbourne will overtake Sydney sometime in the next 5 to 10 years. When it does the relevant articles will state that Melbourne is the most populous city. Until it does Sydney remains the most populous city. This is a fact and wikipedia records facts. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an unhelpful response. Melbourne overtaking Sydney is not a negation of my prediction at all. We are experiencing a lot of what I know you see as unacceptable changes at present, and will presumably keep doing so. My proposal was aimed at reducing the number of those events. Suggesting that we keep doing what we have always done because we have always done it that way is not helpful. I was not proposing stating anything that isn't factual. You should not have implied that I had. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we continue to use the official ABS data, as we do for every other city in Australia. If people replace it with unofficial data it will be reverted and they can go to the talk page and seek consensus for the use of unofficial population data. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not suggest ignoring the ABS data and replacing it with unofficial data. I suggested an entirely different approach to talking about the populations of our two biggest cities. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reinstated the source for the ABS official data which someone recently removed. I have deleted the ridiculous comparison with Oceania which someone recently added. Australia s is by far the most populous country in Oceania so the second largest city in Australia is most likely to be the second largest city in Oceania. The statement is unhelpful. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with HiLo48. Bduke (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Aemilius. In Australia we pretty much always use the "Greater [city]" statistic to quote the population of our cities, *not* the "significant urban area" statistic. In fact, I believe most people were completely unaware that such a statistic even existed until all the headlines came out screaming loudly - and wrongly - that Melbourne is more populous than Sydney because they merged Melton into the SUA. The facts are: Greater Sydney is more populous than Greater Melbourne, but since 2023, Melbourne's SUA is more populous than Sydney's SUA. Because we use the "Greater [city]" population statistic and always have, Sydney is still the more populous city. Melbourne is number two - it's as simple as that. Граймс (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Граймс - Just like Aemilius, you seem to have completely misunderstood my proposal, and have ended up discussing something I didn't say. Please have another, careful read of my initial post here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Independently of the approach taken to how the population issue is discussed in the article prose, has there been a discussion establishing consensus to use GCCSA over SUA in Australian city articles, or is it simply a case of consensus by status quo? The fact that a large number of RS are using the SUA figures to say something should at the very least give us pause. If this dispute is ongoing and widespread on Australian city articles perhaps an RfC would be useful. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The nearest thing to such a discussion is here: Talk:Australia/Archive 21#"Largest" City in Australia

I think the majority view was that the GCCSA should continue to be used as it is the headline figure usually referred to by the ABS and the media. It is also more regularly updated (I believe every six months) and easier to find without the need to download and manipulate spreadsheets. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

How many other editors have noticed that the source of population data was NOT the reason I began this this discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Distance from Melbourne to Sydney

Hi guys, the distance between Sydney and Melbourne is different on the Melbourne and Sydney Wikipedia pages.

They should be the same.

I've also flagged this in the Sydney Wikipedia Talk Page.

Thanks Fido frog (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)