Talk:Melbourne/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The transcriptions

@Mr KEBAB: Is it necessary to use the IPA template rather than IPAc-en template? LoveVanPersie (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It was, but there's no need to include that transcription. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Also, please don't create any more pronunciation threads on talk pages other than my own. It's not the first time the ping template failed to notify me of your message. Use my talk page when you need my help. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit, since the current consensus is to keep the local pronunciation, and that should not be changed without discussion and a change of consensus. Also, it's expecting too much of the reader to "convert that manually to Australian IPA per Australian English phonology". StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Sorry, but that consensus is at odds with WP:PRON. That transcription can be easily derived from our diaphonemic transcription. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, get a new consensus then. I was happy to concede on "mɛlbərn" but WP:PRON says "phonetic transcriptions of English may be useful to represent a specific accent, local or historical pronunciations". StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Consensuses on this page don't override WP:PRON. The bit you've quoted is about pronunciations that are different enough to warrant a separate transcription, e.g. when the local accent distinguishes /ɔː/ from /oʊ/ before /r/. There's zero need for that particular transcription. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. You have just admitted that your edit goes against the current consensus. Now - let's have a discussion so we can form a new consensus. StAnselm (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Did you read what I wrote? Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I did. And WP:PRON is a guideline so of course it can be "overriden". But that wasn't what anyone was suggesting - it's a question of how to apply it to this page. StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: That is false. See WP:CONLEVEL. Nardog (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It's a moot point, since no-one is saying we should go against it - but one could argue that what is helpful to the reader must have precedence. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the form with /-bərn/ more common even in British and American dialects when referring to Melbourne, Australia? If so I see little point in including /-bɔːrn/. Nardog (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: LPD says that /-bɔːrn/ is commonly used in UK and US English, and CEPD lists it as secondary variant. It's worth including, not least to show that it's a correct non-Australian form. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: What do you think? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused about why we would provide more than one diaphonemic variant when there is really one main one: the one used by Australians themselves as well as by many Brits and Americans in-the-know. Even the article "Los Angeles", for example, a name which arguably has a British variant that is the common pronunciation in the UK, only lists the American pronunciation (which seems sensible to me). Wolfdog (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We all know language changes over time. Here is some original research. It seems that every ten years or so in my longish life I have had significant interactions with Americans. I have just had one of those periods, a few weeks spent in the USA. My Australian accent leads to many instances of "Where are you from?" I tell them I'm from Melbourne, Australia. This time, far more than ever before, I found Americans far more likely to pronounce Melbourne the way I do (with only one vowel sound, the "e") in response to my answer. So I think the US pronunciation is changing. (Or at least the willingness to accept the way Australians say it is changing? (Maybe all those actors we send to the US are having an impact.) Now, I have no idea where I would find a reputable source supporting my OR on changing pronunciations. I just wanted to add to this discussion that these pronunciations are never static. Sources become stale. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Funny that you should say this, HiLo48! I was just listening to the podcast of linguist John McWhorter discussing similar evolving pronunciations (see it here), including the one that stunned me the most: guacamole. Today, Americans typically say [gwɑkəˈmoʊli] or (slowly perhaps with a little tip-of-the-hat to the Spanish language) [gwɑkəˈmoʊleɪ], though McWhorter dug up a 1930s sound clip of Americans saying [gwɑkəˈmɑlə]! Wolfdog (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Melbourne isn't a loanword though, at least not a fairly recent one like guacamole. It seems to me that /ˈmɛlbɔːrn/ (actually /ˈmɛlbɔərn/, with the FORCE vowel) is the original pronunciation, it's only later when the final syllable weakened to /ərn/ in Australia. English cities with the same name keep the strong vowel: /ˈmɛlbɔːn ~ ˈmɛlbɔən/, and it seems to me that it's definitely not a wrong pronunciation when it comes to the Australian city, it's just not local. The question is: is it common enough to include it in the article? Because LPD says it is.

We actually do list British pronunciations of Los Angeles. Check the notes below the article. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kbb2: To your last paragraph: True. I should've used Birmingham as my example (Americans fully pronounce the last syllable like the word ham). Anyway, it seems to me that Melbourne variants could be included in notes, just like for Los Angeles. Wolfdog (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Yes. But whatever we decide to do with the /-bɔːrn/ variant, what needs to be removed first is the phonetic transcription. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? StAnselm (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Because it's a duplication of the first transcription, which is diaphonemic. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you be able to explain that some more? I understand that mɛlbərn is diaphonemic, and that it would be duplicated by mɛlbən - but I don't see how it is duplicated by mɛɫbn̩ - the latter is not a necessary implication of Australian English pronunciation. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Diaphoneme, phoneme and allophone cover all I'd have to say.

It doesn't imply AuE specifically and that's why it makes even more sense to remove it. This isn't a course in narrow phonetic transcription nor even an article about phonetics. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm siding with Kbb2 on this one. One can look into Australian English phonology to see, for example, that /l/ can be universally dark, etc. The diaphonemic covers this. There is nothing about the local Australian variant that diverges at the phonemic level from the currently provided pronunciation. Wolfdog (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Demographics Table

The Sydney table of demographics has only a single China entry while Melbourne has China Mainland and Hongkong, this makes comparisons of demographics between States difficult. Is there a reason that this method has been chosen? (Also they have flags) Stuck Internetting (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

New montage for 2019

The montage had been unchanged for a long time so I thought I'd do a refresh. I'm happy to reedit the montage and reupload it if people have preferred images they would like substituted for the ones I've used. Also, I'd like to make it 350 width like Brisbane's page, but I couldn't get it to work - if anyone knows how please go ahead and change it.Gracchus250 (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not bad, but I don't think a refresh is really necessary because the landmarks depicted in the original montage — Flinders Station, Fed Square, Royal Exhibition Building, War Memorial, MCG — have not changed in any significant way, so the images may as well have been taken yesterday. The skyline image in the original montage also covers more of the city than the one you've chosen. Also I don't think a second public transport image (the tram) is necessary either. Flinders is enough. The article is now without a Fed Square image, and you've included an image of the Royal Botanic Garden that already appears in the article body. I'd say go back to the original for now. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to switch out the tram or gardens image for one of Fed Square or the Shrine if you or others have suggestions for good quality photos to use. But in my opinion the skyline and fed square photos in the previous montage were very poor quality, unclear and really needed updating. The skyline photo was 10 years old and no longer reflected Melbourne's skyline. This is much brighter and better. I'm happy to substitute new, recent photos for the ones I've used but I definitely don't think we should revert to such old photos. Hopefully we can get newer photos of Flinders St, for example, that reflects it current facade painting. The photo of the Gardens in the body is an easy fix, and I can add a photo of the Shrine to the body too. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Melbourne's skyline is definitely changing fast. I agree it's probably time for an update there, but with an image that covers more of the city than just one section of the Hoddle Grid. Also you raise a good point about improvements to Flinders Station. If we can find a night shot where it's lit up, that would be great. I still think the original montage had an ideal balance of Melbourne's most notable landmarks, and there's no need to swap things around between it and the article body. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the full skyline, that's why I put the botanic gardens photo in as it has a pretty good view of the whole skyline in the back. A new photo would be great, one from the Shrine itself with the whole skyline in view would probably be perfect, I'll try to take one if I can't find a good licence free one online. I personally don't think Fed Square is more important to include than the Botanic Gardens or other major landmarks, but I understand this is subjective and I'd be curious to hear other editor's thoughts. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

While the modified montage looks nice, I have issue with it showing the same buildings twice (top and bottom skyline shots), and I'd rather the Shrine photo be of, rather than from the building itself. Input from other editors would be appreciated. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I made my own here. I like the latest montage with its new additions, but I think the bottom image of the skyline from the Shrine was underwhelming. It is too cloudy, and so there is not a lot of clarity. It was taken in 2015 and so various buildings had not yet been completed (small gripe, I know). So I added one from 2019. Also, I used a different image of the MCG, an aerial one that shows a game. I hope you like it. Ashton 29 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The aspect ratio of the bottom skyline image is completely out of whack, like it was resized manually in MS Paint. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that aspect ratio is out of whack. It is a better photo though, thanks Ashton. Much better to have a 2019 photo too, great work finding it on CC Flickr. I can add it to the existing montage photo tonight. Personally I prefer the other MCG view to the aerial photo as it presents such a different angle from the other photos - what do other people think? Gracchus250 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I just had a bash. I agree it's nice to have an interior shot (MCG) amongst the exteriors. Also I've added the new skyline shot from the Shrine, while keeping Fed Square. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added a compromise version with the Shrine returned, the new skyline, and retaining a bright lead photo. I don't think we should return federation square unless we can get a better, newer photo than that dark panorama. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fed Square panorama is a night shot but still shows up fine. Can always adjust the brightness. And there's no need for a newer photo because the architecture is practically unchanged. There's also the unresolved issue of having two skyline panoramas, so the same cluster of buildings are given prominence. The article definitely needs a Fed Square image, so I'm going to go ahead and add my montage. If you really prefer the two skyline montage then we can always open an RfC. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not against a fed square photo, but that photo is clearly old and looks poor in my opinion, not a great look for Melbourne or Fed Square. I also see no issue with two skyline photos, as one is clearly of princes bridge (and which shows fed square clearly by the way) and the other is a different skyline shot. I think it's good to have a change and a nicer photo as a clear lead image (as I've said repeatedly I'm happy for different suggestions beside the Princes Bridge photo). I'm disappointed you have chosen to override my photo, as I have been more than generous in seeking a compromise everyone can agree to (e.g. making multiple edits to reintroduce the sites you'd like). I think we definitely need a better look to open the article and I would like to open an RfC if you insist on reverting it. Gracchus250 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Clearly old" in what way? The architecture is more or less intact since the photo was taken, and the quality of the photo is actually equal to or better than other photos in the montage. It's very high res at 16,521 × 3,083 px, and stitched together well. The issue now is Fed Square being erased from the page. You said it shows up clearly in the Princes Bridge photo, yet it is barely discernable at thumbnail level and clearly not the intended subject (hence why you refer to it as the "Princes Bridge photo" ... it's actually not really clear what the main subject of the photo is. Yarra? Bridge? Buildings? It fails in that regard). Fed Square definitely trumps Princes Bridge in notability, and probably any other 21st century building you can name in Melbourne. Rather than represent the same buildings twice, more space should be given over to a landmark such as Fed Square. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

An easy compromise would be to have the full skyline photo as the top photo, and a new Fed Square photo at the bottom, but we would have to find a new photo. The panorama is perfectly fine, but it's from 2007 (so 12 years old, still showing the visitors building) and is a bit dull and unclear and isn't a great photo as a lead image of Melbourne. Compare the night skyline in Brisbane's montage to the Fed Square panorama. It's important we have a clear top photo regardless of which one it is, again I'm happy for this to be the full skyline shot or something different. The two current photos barely show the same buildings anyway, the Eastern cluster are only a tiny portion of the overall skyline so I really don't see the issue. Your privileging of Fed Square over Princes Bridge is fine, but you should recognise that it is subjective and I have been attempting to find a solution. And yes, the Yarra, the Bridge, the city's buildings, the spires of St Paul's and Fed Squares are all perfectly legitimate subjects given it is one of the most famous vantages of the city, certainly more well known that a view of Fed Square. At any rate, I do not believe you are acting in good faith anymore and I request that others weigh in before we move forward. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You describe the current top skyline shot like it's a montage unto itself ("the Yarra, the Bridge, the city's buildings, the spires of St Paul's and Fed Squares"). Then what's the purpose of having a montage? To single out the city's most notable landmarks. The image fails in this regard and should be replaced with something like he night panorama, which is very obviously a representation of Fed Square (the current montage represents Fed Square the same way this is a representation of a helicopter). And dude, Fed Square — perhaps Melbourne's best-known, most architecturally significant contemporary building, drawing millions annually to outdoor events, the NGV, ACMI etc — is more notable than Princes bridge. It's not some subjective opinion. Since no other editors are chiming in, an RfC might be worthwhile. HappyWaldo (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I'd welcome a better Fed Square photo. I agree that Fed Square merits inclusion, if you're just going to rant at me about Fed Square when I'm just trying to make the page better then you're just wasting both our time. I don't know what the problem is with having a recognisable, famous photo of Melbourne with multiple things in it, what is actually so hard to understand about that? It's a famous visage and takes in multiple aspects of the city, great. Huge improvement over the night skyline that was there before. If you're just going to be rude to me then there's no point continuing this discussion. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gracchus250, I'd like to chime in here. HappyWaldo has a long history of thwarting other people's good natured, good faith edits on Wikipedia articles particularly Australian cities. His editing style tends to err on the side of controlling, and he can stoop so low as to bully other people when he does not get his way. Since we are all adults here, I find it very disappointing to see his behaviour persists, even with your constructive and welcomed update to Melbourne's montage. I am not well versed in the art of Photoshop, though I have made a number of attempts at creating my own montages (my most enduring one is still displayed on Adelaide's page). In the past, HappyWaldo has blocked or dismissed my own attempts at introducing a montage to the Sydney page, and I believe he informed his chums in Wikipedia's Boys Club to also critique/revert my attempts at giving Sydney's page a montage. I always notice the one reasonable person introduce their concerns at his editing style; they always seem more receptive to my changes. I'd like to take the discussion further. It is time his authoritarian and monocular views of illustration on Wikipedia are challenged. The only way we can move forward is if we introduce the creative output of other people such as yourself, rather than stagnate here. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)h

Ashton, just because I disliked some of your montages doesn't mean that I'm out for you as an editor. Also just because a few other editors happened to agree with me doesn't mean there's a campaign against you. Most of us focus on Australia-related articles so we're bound to bump into each other and have the occasional disagreement. I don't have the energy anymore to push for this Fed Square montage I made. It's clearly superior (I mean c'mon, look at how well-cropped it is, no space wasted), but Gracchus250 made a decent one too, so I decided to let it go. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

Hello, I want to add something about Skyscrapers in Melbourne. Wzz0330 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Population

While I am pretty sure that Melbourne's population has topped the 5 million mark this year, if you want to update the population figure in the infobox you would need to supply a new reliable source that says this. The current source does not support the 5 million figure and is clearly marked as the population as of 2018. Rounding the 2018 figure would be considered to be WP:SYNTHESIS since this would be a conclusion drawn from but not stated in the source. It should not be hard to find a reliable source for this new figure, and when it is found I will be happy to support updating the infobox. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wcherowi: - I think the 5 million figure was published in local media (seems to be mostly Fairfax/Nine media?), some articles I could find quickly are [1] and [2]. I'm not sure whether it would be best to use these sources or wait for updated ABS data. platy11 user • talk • contribs 22:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The 5 million figure in the media is most likely just based on growth projections for when the milestone would be passed. The latest ABS regional population growth release seems to have been in March for 2017-18. It should remain at the 2018 figure until the ABS puts out new 2019 data, which will probably not be till next year. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that we should wait for new ABS data, as this is the most reliable source and ultimately what the local media base their approximations on. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that seems to be the best option. I've added a comment to the article asking people not to change the population figure unless they have discussed it here. The article is still protected however (due to vandalism), and I'm not sure that it should be because I don't think the 'vandalism' - edits changing the population to 5 million - were bad faith. Although since it's only temporary semi-protection it shouldn't be much of a problem. platy11 user • talk • contribs 02:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

For Australian demographic articles, we only use ABS data for demographic statistics. There are no other reliable sources for demographic data and any such secondary sources are only modelling based on ABS data. Local media articles are notoriously unreliable when it comes to statistics or demographic data and should always be avoided.--StormcrowMithrandir 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

We should be much more accurate on what the population means here as the vague definition of a city's population Australia favours is completely different to how most other countries display their population (where it is very specific and usually based on a single Local Government Authority). It's ok to use the Australian methodology, but we should specify what is included in that figure. In addition to that, the population of 5 million does not match up with the area of 2080km2... see below: In the first paragraph the population is stated at 5million, but it doesn't specify if this is the city, urban area or metropolitan area, but hints at 31 municipalities. In the facts section, it states the population is 4,963,349 within an area of 2080km2 but the corresponding page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_areas_of_Victoria#Greater_Melbourne shows a Greater Melbourne population of approx 4.2million covering 8,836km2 that comprise of the 31 municipalities. These two pages directly conflict. Which is correct? My suspicion is that the 4.2million over 8,836km2 may be the correct figure. This urgently needs to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeondemand (talk • contribs) 13:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

In the articles for some US cities we show a population for their Combined statistical area, or CSA. You can see this in the Infobox for San Francisco. Of course, Combined statistical area is a formal government term there, but is obviously trying to achieve what we want here. I also fret a little when I see Greater Melbourne being defined as including the Shire of Yarra Ranges. This LGA extends almost as far as Woods Point, south of Mansfield, around 115 kilometres from central Melbourne. A little silly methinks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The area is readily ascertainable in black and white. All Australian capital city articles refer to the Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCSSA). This is the official metro area classification used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for all demographic statistics (as cited through the article, including population) for all Australian capital cities. The area for the Melbourne GCSSA is noted on the cover page of the relevant Community Profiles spreadsheet for the Melbourne GCSSA from the 2016 census, found here ( https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/CensusOutput/copsub2016.NSF/All%20docs%20by%20catNo/2016~Community%20Profile~2GMEL/$File/GCP_2GMEL.zip?OpenElement ). It is 9992.5 square kilometres. The smaller figure used was plain wrong.--StormcrowMithrandir 04:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Electoral Districts

I think it needs to be updated, - State, I think that would be 55 districts from 5 Metropolitan regions - Federal, I counted 21 from https://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/files/aec-boundary-map-2016.pdf , but because La Trobe and Casey were classed as Melbourne Surrounds Slightly more pressingly, they link to very old maps. Are there newer maps on Wikipedia (eg taking them from 2019 federal and 2018 state election)? Or would it be acceptable to just add a citation [#] to an electoral commission page?

Ah wait, Victoria got an extra seat federally (38 seats?), which was added to Melbourne... now I need to find an updated map

Iamthinking2202 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it is 55 state electoral districts in the metro regions, I have updated the state map. I will try and do the same for the federal map. --Canley (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Weighting of "crime"

I have some concern that the views and content of "the economist" carry undue weight in this section. Their rankings are conducted based on their own standards which readers are not made aware of and are open to misinterpretation, There is a long page on this topic, and I would like to solicit feedback regarding a better summarization of the articles contents --Willthewanderer (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Busiest Seaport?

There appears to be a discrepancy between the introduction which states the seaport is the nation's busiest and later in the economy section, where instead the article states the port is the second busiest in favor of Botany Bay; but then in the transport section, the article again indicates the port is the busiest. There appears to be an inconsistency that needs resolving within the same article. I am aware that the title "busiest" can depend on the cargo being referenced and then whether measured by weight, volume or discrete amount. In any event, the title of "busiest" is irrelevant if the same article is inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJF13 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The article Port of Melbourne describes it as the largest, not the busiest. That claim is well sourced. Maybe this article should change to "largest" too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pellegrini's

Proposed image

When it comes to the culture of Melbourne, it is pretty hard to get past the significance of Pellegrini's Espresso Bar. It's included in every reputable guide to Melbourne and is mentioned almost every time when discussing the cultural/culinary scene of the city. Its historic significance goes without saying. Yet User:HappyWaldo is committed to removing the image I have selected each and every time I add it–on the grounds that it is not significant enough. I cannot accept that. Pellegrini's is an iconic Melbourne institution and its exterior, the corner shop with the neon sign, is recognisable to anybody who has visited the city or paid even scant attention to its most famous haunts. I believe it unequivocally deserves to be illustrated, not only for its significance as a diner but as a representation of the Melburnian interest in cafe culture/coffee. The image itself is of very high quality/resolution. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed it from the tourist section because a) Vic Market is easily Meb's most popular tourist site, so gets precedence, and b) there's not enough room for multiple images. "Pellegrini's ... is mentioned almost every time when discussing the cultural/culinary scene of the city" no it's not "is recognisable to anybody who has visited the city or paid even scant attention to its most famous haunts" no it's not. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"no it's not" is a pretty weak and ineffectual argument mate. I've seen it listed in just about every tourist guide, online articles about Melbourne from both Australia and abroad, as well as articles that document the cultural/culinary history of the city. Not only that, but it was also inducted into the Good Café Guide Hall of Fame and the National Trust of Australia! Is that not indicative of its importance to you? If it isn't, then perhaps some other prejudice or bias is keeping you from it being included. I am proposing it replace the shot of the laneway. Since you are not one for compromise, I find it highly unlikely you will concede its inclusion however I thought I would ask here before going to a mediator so if it "bothers" anybody else who cannot see its importance, they can say so. Instead of a shot of Causeway Lane, with its non-identifiable cafes, why not a shot of a particular place which epitomises Melbourne's coffee/cafe scene that is included on Australia's peak body for heritage/history? I can't think of a single other cafe in any of that laneway that can claim such significance. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been a Melburnian for over half a century. Never been to Pellegrini's. I've heard of it, but I couldn't tell you what it is and where it is. I am certain I am not alone. Do be careful of mistaking in-group conversation for everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're inflating its notability to that of a global megachain like Starbucks. Thousands of Melbourne properties are listed by the National Trust, doesn't mean much. The laneway image is of Centre Place, not Causeway Lane, and shows coffee drinkers/diners and waiters. So we get Melbourne's laneway and coffee cultures in one image. I've been in Melbourne for almost a decade and can't recall a friend or acquaintance ever mentioning having gone to Pellegrini's. Everyone however recognises Centre Place. It's one of those must-sees, like Hosier Lane down the road. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Both comments are very arbitrary and I'm going to need to hear from more than one other person before I'm satisfied. I could have lived in New York for years and never visited the Empire State, but it doesn't mean it's not the most iconic skyscraper ever constructed. Silly, silly comments. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Pellegrini's gets mentioned frequently, but no more frequently than a couple of dozen or so other places. I think I have been there once in 20 years. --Bduke (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Satellite imagery of Melbourne

HappyWaldo has an issue with this image being in Melbourne's "Geography" section, and I cannot fathom why. It's a high-res picture taken by an International Space Agency and it gives the reader a visual idea or representation of the sheer size (as well as the layout) of the Greater Melbourne region. If a particularly dedicated user could illustrate it with significant suburbs or regions named (e.g. Werribee or Dandenong), then it would be even more valuable. Yet he constantly reverts my inclusion of it. I must note that monopolisation of a Wikipedia article is completely forbidden and yet he persists in reverting my edits basically as soon as they are made (what about a more constructive and less negative use of your time, Waldo?) Does anyone else have any serious misgivings about this image being included? Furthermore I must add that the images used to depict Melbourne in this image are rather staid and dull, which the city is not. It is not uncommon for satellite imagery to be used in a Wikipedia article of a city, see São Paulo for example. Ashton 29 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article already has two maps showing the bay, CBD and surrounding suburbs, and an aerial photograph of the CBD with suburbs stretching beyond. The satellite image is not adding anything that is not already illustrated. The geography section is also small and really only suited for one image, and Melbourne is thankfully one of the few major city articles not suffering from image clutter. If we're going to insist on a second image for this section, then why not a photo of something unique, like one of the geographical features mentioned. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

To defuse your allegations of monopolisation, I'll join in here and agree with HappyWaldo. The image does not give the reader any idea at all of the size of Melbourne, unless they are already familiar with its geography in relation the bay, in which case they would already know its size. So now there's two editors disagreeing with you. Please stop this fight now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

One agreement with HappyWaldo is not substantial nor convicting enough. I'll need to hear from other editors. What about a satellite image that highlights the grid layout? Ashton 29 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The geography section doesn't mention the grid, so no. The geography of Melbourne article also doesn't mention the grid, so I went ahead and removed the grid image you added there. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Odd response since the image in question really has nothing to do with the grid aside from in an incidental way. It depicts the entire Melbourne region at night so it has illustrative value. Too much ownership going on with you and this article, Waldo.Ashton 29 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hi everyone: thank you for your contributions to this great article.
• I'd want to encourage further constructive discussion, but do remember to be positive in the way we talk.
• I can understand and agree with @HappyWaldo:'s point that the Geography section really isn't large enough to accommodate a second image (but it may be in future). HappyWaldo also gives a valid point that if a second image is added in the section, that perhaps something unique is needed. I also understand @Ashton 29:'s point that the photo gives a good understanding of the sheer size and layout of the city around the bay; and feeling that there may be a degree of monopolization. To give credit where it's due, Ashton 29 has offered that if this image isn't good enough, perhaps a different satellite image could be used.

I would personally add the following comments:

• It is a photograph of the entire city metropolitan area, which is lacking in the article.
• The article is about the entire city, yet most of the current photos are of very small areas or single buildings.
• Current photos are mainly of the small area around the city centre (CBD, Shrine, Exhibition Building, Domain etc).
• The photo is rather visually striking.
• I believe it does give valuable information. It gives a very good idea of the distribution of built-up areas. It gives a certain idea of the large size of the city, as even if one didn't know how wide the bay is, one can at least see roads, and bright highly built regions such as Geelong and Dandenong. The suburban 1 mile x 1 mile Hoddle Grid is visible in the eastern suburbs (at least the 1 mile x 0.5 mile CBD Hoddle Grid is mentioned in the Urban Structure section text). The map image in Geography has a scale for comparision. So personally I don't really feel the argument – that the photo doesn't add more information to the maps – is strong enough by itself to warrant its exclusion.
• While it would be great to have a photo of a unique geographic feature, it's harder to define what exactly qualifies as "unique". Arguably, Melbourne doesn't really have a geographic feature that is both well known worldwide and easy to identify visually (as per Uluru, Sydney Harbour, Rio de Janeiro Harbour etc). As far as natural geographic features go, the ones that I can think of as being visually unique to Melbourne are the unique shape of the bay (if shown as a whole) and the Organ Pipes National Park (albeit not a well known feature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Organ_Pipes_Geological_Feature_Melbourne_Australia.JPG is also worth considering for this section!). Perhaps Mt Dandenong (or Mt Macedon or Hanging Rock, if you regard them as Melbourne). To me, the Yarra River would probably only be identifiable by nearby buildings and bridges. As far as man-made structures near geographical features go, there are a few photos of the cityline in relation to geographic features such as the Yarra, Domain and Docklands. But it would usually be the building, not the geographic feature, which would identify them. So there probably aren't many good alternative photos.
• I think it really is a good photo with striking visual qualities, which would fill the need for a photo of the entire city, as that's what the article is about. However, I agree the Geography section isn't big enough for it. My suggestion is to include it, but somewhere else, and there are lots of options. I think it could be done without it becoming image clutter. Perhaps anywhere in the Infobox, Contemporary Melbourne, Urban Structure, or Demographics. My suggestion would be near the top of Urban Structure, and as a large image as per the Docklands Harbour photo (or at least, moderately large), The reason for this is, unlike a photo of a building, the details in the photo are more difficult to grasp without closer inspection.
• I also suggest the accompanying text should mention things such as the diameter of the bay, location of CBD at the northernmost point of the bay (top left of the bay in the photo), Geelong (etc), the Hoddle Grid being visible in the east, and that the camera is looking north-east. Perhaps also that the Nepean and Princes Highways which ring the bay are also visible. --Fh1 (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia:Activist attempts to rename Australian towns and cities

I just removed the following from the initial paragraph in the introduction to this page:

([[Boonwurrung language|Boonwurrung]]: '''''Naarm''''')<ref name="naarm">{{cite web|last=Latimore|first=Jack|title=We must return all our landmarks to their Indigenous names|website=The Guardian|date=18 May 2018|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/we-must-return-all-our-landmarks-to-their-indigenous-names|access-date=6 May 2021}}</ref>

No one calls Melbourne “Naarm” except for an extraordinarily tiny percentage of the population who are doing so disingenuously and purely for reasons of political activism. See Wikipedia:Activist – Wikipedia is no place for political activism to attempt to rename Australian towns and cities. These activists can go and do their activism elsewhere. 122.150.83.215 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The same cultural appropriation is taking place for the city of Perth, which is now being referred to by some groups as "Big Swamp" in Noongar language. Simulaun (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Then that needs to be removed as well. As per Wikipedia:Activist, activists cannot use Wikipedia to lobby for changes to the official status quo by trying to pretend that the changes that they wish to see implemented have already happened. It’s simply a case of trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. 122.150.83.215 (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

122.150.83.215: It's a perfectly reasonable and appropriate piece of information for inclusion in the article and lead section (MOS:ALTNAME). If the "activists" were moving the Melbourne article, or changing references in other articles, to "Naarm", you might have a point, but this is not what is happening here at all. VICNAMES (the official place name database of Victoria) lists many different traditional (Boonwurrung and Woiwurrung) names for Melbourne or parts of it: Meerlieu, Narrm-jaap, Bikjomangy, Narloke, Brejerrenywun, Bikjomangy, Bareberp, and Narrm. Just one is listed here in just two words, and this is the one that is currently the most widely used. The other arguments which crop up on these feverish attempts to remove traditional names (apart from "cultural appropriation") seem to be one of the following:

• Melbourne is a city and there was no city before European settlement, so it can't be called that.
• The name was referring to a small part of where the modern city is, our just outside it, or Port Phillip Bay (places are named after bodies of water, landmarks, geographical features and even plants and animals all the time, even European ones like Apollo Bay).
• WP:COMMONNAME

With so many of these traditional names and the arguments against them, you really have to look at what the Traditional Owners do use. The Koorie Heritage Trust's director says in 12 ways to reflect on World Heritage Day:

"As much as we can, we reference traditional names. We refer to Melbourne as Naarm, to the Yarra River as the Birrarung. By doing this we are acknowledging Country and the heritage of the people whose country we’re on."

Kind of puts paid to the assertions that activists are inaccurately misappropriating the name of a body of water. It's a very concisely presented piece of information that is useful and interesting to readers (so many people ask "what is the Aboriginal name for Melbourne?" on Reddit and the like).

--Canley (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Logic dictates that the name for the city Melbourne is not interchangeable with the name (traditional or not) of the/a geographic location as these are clearly fundamentally distinct physical entities. While some people inadvertently or deliberately make this mistake, Wikipedia is not a site for incorrect or deliberate disinformation. Simulaun (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Concur with Canley, who has explained this exceptionally well: what we refer to Melbourne is referred to by traditional owners as Naarm. I'm not sure how Naarm and Melbourne are not interchangeable; I mean, Melbourne has actually changed considerably in its near 200-year existence, perhaps Naarm has changed with it too?

Regardless, coverage in reliable sources is what we are interested in on Wikipedia and traditional owners refer to "Melbourne" as "Naarm" – this can't be denied. Re "Wikipedia is not a site for incorrect or deliberate disinformation" — You've been editing Wikipedia for about 5 minutes, like please, I think you're going to come across actual disinformation on Wikipedia — and this is not that, by a long shot. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

While we can find traditional names - though as Melbourne wasn't a settlement of any kind before colonisation just what is "Naarm" referring to? - I think giving them undue prominence gilds the lily. The infobox is the better place, rather than the first sentence, surely? --Pete (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I understand your point. However, Naarm refers to the Melbourne conurbation and is commonly used by Aboriginal people in Australia - which is well cited here. The historical name is antiquated in the language, and the modern usage of the language is for the Melbourne conurbation. It's standard practice on other articles to use alternate local language names in this; but yes there should also be a section in the infobox which is also standard. See: Beijing, Saint Petersburg for examples. Poketama (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Going by advanced search results on Twitter, "Naarm" emerged in 2016, and only entered wider usage over the next few years, i.e. at the height of certain culture wars. It's such a new appropriation that etymological research doesn't seem to have caught up. Perhaps it would be inconvenient to look too deeply into it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

——

The activists are back are they? You do NOT get to agitate for name changes / dual naming to cities by this sort of sleight of hand, i.e. by introducing the names you wish to make popular by peppering Wikipedia with them in the hope that they spread. I refer you to Wikipedia:Activism. You must desist. Take your activism elsewhere. 122.150.83.215 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as you're very familiar with the Wikispace, take a look at WP:NPA - particularly the part where it says Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. Secondly, the status quo revision has been identified as the one that contains Naarm, so feel free to gain WP:CONSENSUS for its removal -- but do not remove sourced content without gaining consensus first. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Local, non-rhotic pronunciation of Melbourne

I see that the pronunciation of the word Melbourne is an ongoing debate here. I would hope that we could agree that as the the local pronunciation (as well as a significant proportion of English speakers worldwide) pronounce it with a non-rhotic accent, the non-rhotic pronunciation should be given prominence in the article. At present, that has been removed and is not in the article at all.

Feel free to disagree on the details, but to have an article about Melbourne which *only* includes rhotic (i.e. foreign) pronunciations is absurd.

I'm not fluent in IPA so I'll play safe and leave changes to others. Chriswaterguy talk 13:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Given no disagreement, and a clear cut case, I'll remove the r in the IPA. See Wiktionary: Melbourne#Pronunciation – it gives some different variants, there but the Australian ones have no r sounds: /ˈmelbn̩/, /ˈmælbn̩/ (These are also missing the ə, but that's a more ambiguous issue which I'll leave.)

Also, for the note about the /ˈmɛlbɔːrn/, I de-emphasised the UK relative to the US as it's a rare pronunciation there (I've never heard a Brit use it) rather than the standard (as in the US & I think Canada). --Chriswaterguy talk 12:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on IPA, but I still think that's wrong. There simply is no second vowel sound in the local pronunciation of Melbourne. Locals pronounce it exactly as if the "our" bit wasn't there at all. (And I think we all agree the final "e" is silent.) It could be written "Melbn", and nothing would be lost in the pronunciation. You only have to listen to the spoken version immediately after the IPA version in the article. No second vowel sound at all. I thought I'd look around around for other examples everyone would know. Tried Brisbane. The same silliness seems to exist there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Chriswaterguy - I responded to your comment above a few days ago, but it seems you may not have seen my response. Any thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Following my lack of success in getting any response here, I took this issue to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#IPA thoughts wanted at Melbourne. Even there, it has seemed close to impossible to get people not familiar with the pronunciation of Australian English to understand how it works. It seems that a lot of foreigners simply don't believe the way Australians speak. But there was one suggestion made that seems to fit what I'm looking for. This is to write "locally [ˈmɛlbn̩]". I will add that to the article soon. (And only be a little bit annoyed if anyone objects, given the efforts I have made to seek comment on this.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this and the now archived discussion at the Language Desk. Including the schwa sound (ə) for the extremely brief transition between these consonants seems valid to me, as we can't begin the n sound until the lips are released in the plosive part of the b. But I'll defer to linguists. I'm easy, either way, as long as the misdirected r is gone from the IPA. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that the pronunciation has been altered to once more include /r/. As a native Melburnian, I have only ever encountered foreigners pronouncing it with a rhotic <r>. I would suggest /'mælbən/ or /'mɛlbən/ (see: Salary-celery merger). The first vowel would not be /e/ in Australian English, but it is not uncommon nor unacceptable in other dialects. I would also argue that including the schwa in the second vowel position is mandatory, as in the <e> in the word 'taken' (/ˈteɪkən/). Axentoke (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the linked Language Desk discussion. Valid points, but I still would petition that a local pronunciation is included at the very least for the respelling. As that doesn't require a change to the IPA itself, I will go ahead and add a local pronunciation. Axentoke (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:DIAPHONEMIC /ər/ stands for "either [ə] (including syllabicity of the following consonant) or [ər], depending on the dialect". The phonetic transcription of the Australian English pronunciation isn't needed here. If you think that's confusing, go to Help talk:IPA/English and make your case there. I too am not a very big fan of the Wikipedia's diaphonemic system, but that's what we have and it is what the IPAc-en template links to. Sol505000 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the rhotic pronunciation, which is incorrect in local usage. I have also removed the reference in the footnote to "r" being present in RP pronunciation, as "r" is not pronounced in RP before a consonant. There was an unsigned note in the text requesting not changing pronunciation without discussion and directing to the enquirer to MOS:RHOTICS; but a search failed to bring up the page. However, MOS:PRONUNCIATION makes the following comment: "Local pronunciations are of particular interest in the case of place names." I cannot see any ground for privileging the non-local rhotic pronunciation of an English-language name over the local pronunciation. SRamzy (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm being bold here and editing the IPA representations following repeated efforts by others to address this issue. The non-rhotic pronunciation is heard even from non-AusE speakers who've gone to the trouble to do their research on the pronunciation, and /ˈmɛlbərn/ is merely the most common of two pronunciations in rhotic dialects that are considered correct. (In US English, the city name would most faithfully form a minimal pair with "Melvin".) And as SRamzy points out, local pronunciations are of particular interest in the case of place names per MOS:PRONUNCIATION#Distinction between varieties of English. As such, I'm editing the IPA to give both /ˈmɛlbən/ and /ˈmɛlbərn/ as correct pronunciations - merged in AusE, of course, but distinct in rhotic dialects - following other pages for place-names that also include dual pronunciations. A good parallel is that for Nevada, which includes both pronunciations of the name but gives priority to the local phonetics. Thefamouseccles (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thefamouseccles, thanks for your boldness and taking actions to address this issue. As a local, I appreciate the local pronunciation being placed first. However, I´m not convinced that Note 2 has it right for RP. Since RP is non-rhotic, I think the correct spelling pronunciation in RP is /ˈmɛlbɔːn/. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF0OdnfLxKs SRamzy (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

For Australians, /ər/ is supposed to be interpreted as the same as /ə/ when it occurs before consonants and pauses. Per Help:IPA/English, Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here. And per English orthography, ⟨our⟩ never stands for our diaphonemic /ə/, but it does stand for /ər/ in "labour" (spelled "labor" in the US, of course, though not, I think, in the case of the various Labour Parties from the English-speaking world), and there's a considerable minority of British English speakers who not only spell the word with ⟨our⟩ (just as in Australian English) but also say [ˈleɪbəɹ], [ˈleːbəɹ], etc. with a sounded R. In addition, Irish English, which AFAIK uses British English spelling conventions, is almost invariably rhotic. The correct diaphoneme is clearly /ər/, not /ə/ as it is a weakening of an earlier /ɔːr/ (actually, /oʊr/ before the north-force merger), a (non-local) pronunciation that is used in General American English and Received Pronunciation. So no, /ˈmɛlbərn/ is not a "rhotic pronunciation", just like /pɜːrθ/ isn't. The r's should be ignored if you speak a non-rhotic dialect just as, say, the distinction between /ɛː/ (pronounced like RP air, rather close to Australian bad) and /eː/ (pronounced like Australian air) in German for tens of milions of speakers from Northern Germany and Austria.

The same applies to any diaphonemes ending with /r/. Yes, RP features the THOUGHT-NORTH-FORCE merger, just like Australian English. In RP, "Melbourne" is pronounced exactly the same as the neologisms "Melborn" and "Melbawn" (assuming an unreduced vowel in all three cases). The unreduced vowel is there because -ourne is a very unusual way of spelling a final /ərn/ in English. It's just a spelling pronunciation.

The same goes for any mergers before /l/. They're dialect-specific like the cot-caught merger and so we don't transcribe them explicitly. Sol505000 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sol505000: the comment "For Australians, /ər/ is supposed to be interpreted as the same as /ə/ when it occurs before consonants and pauses" doesn´t hold water. When using ENGLISH orthography, of course the letter "r" is not pronounced before a consonant by a non-rhotic speaker. But that doesn´t work with IPA, since IPA represents the phones or phonemes uttered. When I read [ər] in IPA transcription, I interpret [r] as a phone. If that weren´t the case, I as an Australian speaker would be unable to recognise that [ər] is pronounced differently in General American English or indeed in French or any other rhotic speech variety. Nor do I accept that /r/ is underlying "there" in a phonemic representation. As a speaker of Australian English, there is no difference (other than spelling) between pairs like lore-law or bar-bah. While historically there has been a merger of THOUGHT-NORTH-FORCE which was initially phonetic, it has long since been reanalysed as phonemic, so the /r/ is no longer underlyingly there. And I would still maintain that the local speech variety takes preference over an alien speech variety. SRamzy (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You can take it to Help talk:IPA/English since that's what the transcription links to. Per MOS:PRON (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation#IPA_templates_on_Wikipedia, to be specific), transcriptions linking to IPA guides should adhere to those guides, and it is the guide that needs to be changed first before we start changing transcriptions.

Of course "there", "north" etc. have no /r/ in Australian English. You'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone otherwise. Sol505000 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Uncited claim in culture section

The caption for the image beginning the culture section states the Princess Theatre is Australia's oldest continuously operating theatre, which is a claim also made by the Theatre Royal in Castlemaine. They were both established in 1854 and continue to operate today, so we might need a fine-tooth comb to figure out which one is definitively older — in any case, wouldn't a citation be helpful beside that claim? 49.183.147.132 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article for 2 days due to edit warring. Please discuss the issues here on the talk page, with citations and evidence, rather than in edit summaries. You all know better than that. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I know, sorry, agree this should be discussed before edit warring. In my defence, I had spent a few hours writing a lengthy response to the posts above before you protected the article and posted this as I could see the way it was going. --Canley (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this, and wonder if you could take a look at Sydney, Perth, and other articles as well. There's obviously a coordinated effort taking place between a few new, single-agenda editors to remove indigenous language names from Australian articles. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 09:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is something needing discussion, not edit-warring. Two points need to be made.

1 Just how accurate and authentic are these names? Some of them have been around for a long time. Meanjin for Brisbane, for example. Canberra is of Aboriginal origin but seems to refer to a specific geographical area that just happens to lie within the modern city. I'm dubious about just attaching some ancient geographical name to a modern city, and even more so where the name is a modern construct. We perhaps need some experts on Aboriginal languages here. Just because a newspaper or whatever says a particular name is the one doesn't mean it has any fundamental authenticity.

2 These names are not in general use. Melbourne gets called Melbourne and that's not going to change any time soon. Those pushing for a different name are pushing some political or cultural agenda. NPOV requires we give coverage according to notability or importance and I am not persuaded that Aboriginal names have the same prominence as those in general use. We can say Istanbul used to be Constantinople and we have about a bazillion references stretching back centuries for this. Where are the similar histories for Aboriginal names? We are required to use reliable sources and my guess is that most of these are going to be pretty hard to find sourcing for going back ten years, let alone centuries. I see these as belonging in the infobox rather than in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Are there articles for Naarm and Meanjin that are notable in themselves, or are they just redirects or disambigs? --Pete (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and questions Pete, to your points:

1. The main point here is Naarm/Narrm is widely used by Indigenous Australians and those who would like to show respect to them including federal, state and local governments, the media, companies, universities and many more. The area Melbourne itself refers to is nebulous, why is absolute accuracy required for the traditional equivalent (which I think obviously refers to the the land where the Melbourne CBD sits, not a city, settlement or equivalent entity, or representing the entire Greater Melbourne area)? If I say I live in Melbourne, I doubt you would ask me "Melbourne CBD? City of Melbourne? That weird 3004 part? Greater Melbourne?". As I said above, there are many names for parts of Melbourne in the two local languages, but this is the one that has seem wider use (perhaps because it's the easiest to spell).
2. I don't see the controversy here, or why the strawmen of "those pushing for a different name"/activists/culture warriors are being thrown around. No one is suggesting moving the article, or changing references or links to Melbourne to "Naarm" on Wikipedia, or even an official government renaming. It's just a two-word WP:ALTNAME in an undoubtably local language, perfectly acceptable under the Manual of Style, and a useful piece of information which can be explained further in a later Etymology section. There are references going back a very long time (maybe not centuries), for example:
   • The University of Melbourne has held The Narrm Oration since 2009, which states "Narrm is the Woi Wurrung word for the Melbourne region."
   • A letter to the editor of The Herald in 1933 corrects their reference to "Doutta Galla" as the "Aboriginal name for the tract of land where Melbourne now stands" to "Narr-m".
   • VICNAMES (the official Victorian place names register) references the name "Narrm" to to Robert Brough Smyth in wikisource:The Aborigines of Victoria/Volume 2 in 1878.

Lastly, where in the infobox do you propose including the Boonwurrung name? There doesn't seem to be a field for it in Infobox Australian Place, although maybe there should be. --Canley (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Widely used by some, sure. That doesn't place the name in general usages. Likewise with the references going back a few years - thanks for the research there. They aren't like Constantinople or Leningrad, which were widely used names in general use.

Our article for Naarm goes to Port Phillip Bay, and that's obviously not Melbourne but a body of water surrounded by multiple towns and cities. Melbourne is more than the city of Melbourne as a city council or a postcode. It's the population centre, the state capital, the residence of millions. It was never the land or the area. A city as an entity is not something the original residents ever named because they didn't have cities. Anyway, I'd like to see some experts weighb in on this, or some serious scholarship, because I'm seeing a disconnect between Melbourne and Naarm as each referring to separate things.

As for the template, we can easily modify that. Regardless of historical names and distinct meanings, there is a push in modern Australia to be inclusive and ac=knowledge the previous occupants and regardless of any personal feelings one way or the other - activism or Anglophilia or whatever - NPOV requires inclusion if at all notable, and if that's what some people are calling the city now, then we should take notice. --Pete (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like to reiterate that the way the name is presented is acceptable within the Wikipedia manual of style. It is an alternate language name, which is indisputably used by people of that language group to refer to the overall City of Melbourne. The argument that people are trying to replace 'Melbourne' in general use does not apply here, it is only an alternate language name. No one is editing the article to have Naarm as the sole or even first name. I am in regular contact with the leading researcher on Victorian Aboriginal placenames (not exactly a huge field), but not everyone has time to edit Wikipedia. Poketama (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "The name Naarm is commonly used by the broader Aboriginal community to refer to the city, being the traditional Boon wurrung name for Port Phillip Bay" seems like an appropriate and reasonable way to present this point of view. The presentation of 'Naarm' as an alternative name for Melbourne in the first sentence of the lead strikes me, however, as overreach bordering on disinformation. As it also does not appear to be fully in keeping with Wikipedia rules, it should be deleted in the interest of not detracting from Wikepedia's reputation as a reasonably unbiased source of information. Simulaun (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you disagree with the lead? I'm not understanding why you disagree with the lead when you agree with the the quoted sentence? Poketama (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Although 'Naarm' is used by some when referring to Melbourne, presenting it as the Boonwurrung name for Melbourne suggests that the city 'Naarm' pre-existed 'Melbourne'. Stating 'Boonwurrung: Naarm' is, therefore, potentially misleading and should hence be avoided (the same way the lead for Melbourne should not state 'Chinese: 墨尔本', even though that may technically be an alternative name/used by the broader Chinese community to refer to the city). Simulaun (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any precedent for your argument that it in fact does suggest that? Poketama (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This logic makes sense insofar as you consider Boonwurrung to be an extinct language frozen in time, where words are incapable of taking on new meaning. In fact Boonwurrung/Taungurung (dialects of a Central Victorian Language) are undergoing revitalisation, and are not dead languages. Boonwurrung has native speakers according to the last census. It is possible for the word 'Naarm' to take on new meaning, that being the city built on the area known as Naarm to the Boonwurrung prior to colonisation. As discussed below, 'Naarm' is referred to in historical sources both as the name for Port Philip Bay, and for an area now encompassed by Melbourne's CBD, so I do take issue with the sentence. The use of the word by Aboriginal Australians today is the most convincing argument that 'naarm' now refers also to the built city of Melbourne. Ljgua124 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Simulaun, we're talking about the traditional name for Melbourne, by its traditional owners. It's a misleading comparison on your end to include the Chinese common name, as they aren't the traditional owners. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page is about the city of Melbourne, not the purported traditional name for Melbourne (which, by the way, always was and always will be 'Melbourne'). Wikipedia allows alternative names to be presented (such as 墨尔本, which is used by over a billion people), but not fake names or outright falsehoods. Simulaun (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Simulaun: "but not fake names or outright falsehoods."-- you're right, which is why the name used is referenced to reliable sources, you just don't like it. Also, do you notice how it's been a week since anyone contributed to this thread? I don't think repeating the same points over and over is an effective way of persuading people on Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources that you claim are reliable state "Narrm (sic), the area of metropolitan Melbourne..." (ref #9). In addition to being technically incorrect (Narrm/Naarm is the area of Port Philip), the area of metropolitan Melbourne is clearly a fundamentally different physical entity and concept than the city Melbourne, which is what this Wikipedia page is about (see "This article is about the Australian city" above the lead). Reference #10 is equally at odds with your claim, as it states "...Naarm is the traditional lands of the Kulin Nation". As the city of Melbourne is not a land or a nation ('Kulin' or otherwise), please provide references that don't contradict your claim, or delete the apparent disinformation "Boonwurrung: Naarm" in the lead. Simulaun (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Melbourne city, including its metro. You're speaking of the City of Melbourne which is a completely different article and subject. Hence ref 9 supports the former point that was being made, and you've just managed to do what you've incorrectly accused others of doing - and that's misrepresenting. So no, you repeating the same position over and over is actually not helping your case. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually no, you are wrong. I referred to 'the city Melbourne', which you misconstrued as 'the City of Melbourne'. The preposition 'of' is used to distinguish these two different entities/concepts. Simulaun (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

'Naarm' has been attributed in historical sources to both Port Philip Bay and the area now encompassing Melbourne's CBD. That is where 'Naarm' as a reference for Melbourne comes from. I don't have the time to dig up those sources but they are out there. But to say that 'naarm' doesn't refer to that area is false.

Naarm is in fairly common usage now as a reference to Melbourne, including by Aboriginal Australians. Words change meaning over time - language is fluid. Just because a word once referred to the land on which a city is built, that doesn't mean its meaning does not now extend to that city. And now that 'Naarm' is in common usage in reference to the built city of Melbourne, there is no valid argument for its removal from the article. My view is it should be included in the lede. Ljgua124 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If names change over time, then would we say Naarm is the traditional name for Melbourne when it's a modern application? I doubt that anyone calls the place Naarm in everyday speech - it would be a rare Australian of Aboriginal ancestry who doesn't speak English as their primary birth tongue. We should find some accepted mechanism for working out what names are appropriate and historically accurate rather than edit-warring because someone wants to blanket assign indigenous names to colonial cities and someone else thinks it's a load of hooey and we throw rocks at each other on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The use of 'Naarm' in its modern application is a revived use of the traditional Boonwurrung name for the area by Australians of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal background alike. It would be most accurate to say that 'Naarm' is a Boonwurrung name for the built city of Melbourne, derived from the traditional name of the area now encompassed by the Melbourne CBD. I think inclusion of this context is important. It remains a Boonwurrung name and I would argue has entered the Australian English lexicon as well.

'Naarm' is used in everyday speech by many - that's how these things make their way into news articles and the like. Many artists refer to themselves as 'Naarm based' as opposed to 'Melbourne based', or 'Naarm / Melbourne based'. It's not difficult to find references to this online. Ljgua124 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Or Narrm Football Club. --Canley (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, if names change over time, as Ljgua124 and Naarm is a modern usage, then why should we mention it at all? There would be more Chinese living in Melbourne who refer to the city by a different name and they would do so in everyday conversation. Sure, there's a few references, but is there anything with any weight behind it? Some research, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If anything, the name being a contemporary usage weighs even more so in favour of the name being mentioned - it's more relevant.

Where is the logic in not mentioning the name because it is in contemporary usage? There is no reason why it cannot be mentioned, especially within the context of it being derived from the name for the land on which the built structure of 'Melbourne' sits on, and was known as before the settlement of Melbourne was given its current name?

Which is the reason why references to the Chinese name for Melbourne are irrelevant. And obviously it's irrelevant. The Chinese name is not derived from what the Chinese people called the land on which the city is built, before it was built. There are cultural ties between Boonwurrung people and then land which don't exist between Chinese (or any non-Aboriginal) people and the same land. Ljgua124 (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If only a handful of people call Melbourne by a different name in everyday congtemporary usage, then where precisely, is the notability? Melbourne wasn't called Naarm historically; that's the name for Port Phillip Bay. Do you have any scholarly sources to underscore your opinion? We need reliable sources; we can hardly have a show of hands on what we think Melbourne might be called in some alternate world. --Pete (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not only a handful though, is it? Even Qantas uses the name: [3]. The Australian Electoral Council even refers to 'Naarm' as the Indigenous name for the area covering contemporary Melbourne: [4] Is there no reliability in an Australian Government department resource?

I'll see if I can dig out the historical sources that link 'naarm' to the Melbourne CBD area specifically - a lot are not digitised and so require a trip to the library.

Still, that does not change the fact that the word 'naarm' has taken on a new meaning within the Australian lexicon to refer to the built city of Melbourne, regardless of whether the traditional use of the word was only for Port Phillip Bay, or also for the area where the Melbourne CBD is currently located. The key thing here is use by Aboriginal groups of the term 'naarm' to refer to the city of Melbourne. Ljgua124 (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You miss my point. Only a handful of people would call Melbourne by a different name in everyday contemporary usage. Like, you know, normal conversation in English. This is the English Wikipedia. Can you book a ticket to Naarm? No. I'm troubled by this push to find an indigenous name - any indigenous name - for Australian towns and cities. Most of them never had pre-colonial names, there being no towns or cities before colonisation, so we're looking at landmark or regional names which may or may not map to the area covered by modern cities. Using Naarm meaning Port Phillip Bay to refer to Melbourne alone when there are multiple cities along the shores of a very large body of water strikes me as nonsensical. Claiming instead that the old name for Port Phillip Bay now refers in contemporary usage to Melbourne when it is not in common usage likewise seems confected. It's bizarre, like claiming that there are Indigenous names for Christmas and Anzac Day. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You have made some very reasonable points above and on the noticeboard, but I feel it is a great shame that you've gone down the "Naarm/Narrm = Port Phillip Bay" rabbit hole. As I said above, places, localities, towns and cities have the same name as nearby bodies of water or other geographical features all the time: Apollo Bay, City of Hobsons Bay, the whole of Victoria was named "Port Phillip District" after the bay for heaven's sake! But despite numerous references from the 1800s (R. B. Smyth (1878), Garryowen (1888)) saying Naarm and its spelling variations mean "the place where the city of Melbourne was founded", and groups such as Tourism Australia and Melbourne Football Club consulting with "local Elders and Traditional Owners in confirming the correct name" for the city or a major part of its central region, it is "nonsensical" for a body of water and adjourning land to have the same name. The "multiple cities around Port Phillip Bay argument" is nonsensical: most of these cities are in different nations and language groups (such as the Wathaurong people), so that land is going to have a different name in a different language – you seem to be implying that the appellation of Naarm is a modern affectation derived from the Boonwurrung name of Port Phillip Bay, so that all settlements around the bay must have the same traditional name? – sorry if I've misunderstood but that's how it appears to me. --Canley (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert and yes, that's my thinking. I reject the equivalance of a body of water with a modern city or even a tiny settlement. For the former, they are two different things, for the latter, see above. If Naarm was not the name of Port Phillip Bay, then why does our article say it is? Clearly there is some uncertainty. Perhaps you could take up my invitation to write a brief paragraph giving the sources and some of the quotations? I think that these would add to the value and atmosphere of the article. --Pete (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Although it is reasonable for the article to state (e.g., in a footnote) that some people (including special interest and political groups) have taken to using the Boonwurrung name for Port Phillip Bay when referring to the city of Melbourne, this is not information that warrants being prominently displayed in the lead as, aside form being of peripheral interest and relevance, it is technically incorrect and possibly even deliberate disinformation. Simulaun (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You've not articulated how it's "deliberate disinformation", so perhaps drop the stick on that one because I don't think anyone here is engaging in "deliberate disinformation" -- and aspersions like that, absent evidence, can get you blocked. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If 'Naarm' = Port Philip then referring to Melbourne as 'Naarm' strikes me as incorrect (unless Port Philip = Melbourne). Conscious dissemination of such apparently incorrect information could be considered deliberate disinformation (although it could presumably also simply reflect a level of ignorance). Simulaun (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Well it's been another week and no one is interested in debating this point again with you; in fact, most editors here disagree with you. You can continue saying the same thing over and over and casting aspersions, but that won't really change anything. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not clear from your reply whether or not you concur that Melbourne=Naarm=Port Philip is illogical and/or incorrect. Simulaun (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Naarm is in very common usage if you just walk around Melbourne you'll see the name everywhere. It's also cited in the article. Whether it's a modern creation within the Boonwurrung language or a traditional name, it's still a name that is in use by Aboriginal peoples that live here. That is enough to warrant its inclusion as per the manual of style. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."

Additionally, names can apply to more than one thing, the fact that it refers to Port Phillip does not preclude it referring to Melbourne. In the same way that the City of Port Phillip can exist when Port Phillip Bay exists.

If you have any other arguments or reliable sources that can back up a dispute I'm happy to hear them. Poketama (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons for discounting use of 'Boonwurrung: Naarm' in the lead. These include:

1) It is technically incorrect. The article states that 'Naarm' is the 'traditional Boonwurrung name for Port Philip Bay' (which, incidentally, is clearly distinct from the name 'City of Port Philip'). It is universally accepted that Port Philip Bay is not the geographical area of the Melbourne conurbation.

2) It is conceptually incorrect. It is widely recognized that the traditional Boonwurrung word 'Naarm' refers to a geographical location (a defined and static natural entity) rather that a city (i.e., an evolving entity founded and created by human beings superimposed on one or more geographical locations).

3) It is not the 'name used by the people which (sic) used to inhabit this geographical place', as they are not known to have used a different name ('Naarm' or otherwise) for the Colony/Settlement and/or Melbourne.

4) 'Naarm' is no longer a Boonwurrung word. Rather it has become a modern-day concoction that is said to be used 'everywhere around Melbourne'. The purported current use of 'Naarm' by 'the broader Aboriginal community', as well as by a range of other non-aboriginal groups, means that it has become a non-Boonwurrung/non-aboriginal generic name (somewhat like 'Uluru', albeit used by far less than '10% of sources in the English language'). Simulaun (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above. I'm not seeing any definitive historical sourcing for "Naarm" = "Melbourne", so it's a bit of a stretch to say it's the name the locals used for the city's geographical area before there was any settlement. As a confected name made up to tick that "Indigenous place name" box, sure, but then we're looking at a confected culture made up by people of British ancestry living in suburbs and speaking English. It smacks of political correctness rather than anything along the lines of "Istanbul/Constantinople" or "Leningrad/St Petersburg" "Edo/Tokyo" etc. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please cite sources for your assertions @Simaluan @Skyring. Your assertion that it is a name made up by British people is obviously contentious. Additionally, your point #2 is obviously a point of contention and #4 is an assertion without evidence. The word is still a Boonwurrung word? Poketama (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

When non-aboriginal people name something using an aboriginal word, then the name does not become an aboriginal name (rather, it then becomes a non-aboriginal/generic name). For example, an Australian icebreaker ship has been named the RSV Nuyina (meaning Southern Star) in recognition of the purported long connection that Tasmanian Aboriginal people are said to have with the evocative southern lights. 'Nuyina' is, therefore, the English/Australian name and not the aboriginal name for this ship. Simulaun (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Skyring May I direct you to p 62 of Dictionary of Aboriginal placenames of Melbourne and Central Victoria authored by Ian D. Clark, ISBN 0957936052, citing Smyth, R.B. (1878b) The Aborigines of Victoria; with notes relating to the habits of the natives of other parts of Australia, 2 Volumes, Victorian Government Printer, Melbourne. You will find Narrm listed as a placename for Melbourne - city centre, distinct from Narm-narm, listed on p 76 as the placename for Port Philip Bay. I hope this can finally draw a line under this discussion. Ljgua124 (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not without seeing some linguistic background on this. Sounds pretty pat straight off the cuff like that. --Pete (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Please, read the source. Ljgua124 (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I know how languages work. Right now I have within easy reach dictionaries and grammars for Japanese, Sanskrit, French and German, and I've got texts for Latin and Greek packed up somewhere, with Italian from my university days and Aramaic in my near future. It just seems most unlikely that the word for an arbitrary bit of land - and there's nothing special or significant about the geography of the Melbourne central city area - is essentially the same as the name for a significant body of water. What do the words actually mean? Here and there? Narrow water, wide water? Do we know? --Pete (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of logic. If one claims to be Indigenous through ancestry and culture then it would be a rare Indigenous Australian who was not also European for exactly the same reasons. None of us are our ancestors of centuries ago; we are people of the current times, more at home with Facebook and Uber Eats than clan lineages and koala pie with neeps. Asserting some innate authority through ancestry isn't how Wikipedia works; we still need reliable sources that are not editors. If you have a different opinion, I would be fascinated to hear it. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what you mean now. Yeah that is a lot to get into wow. In Australia, Aboriginal people are considered Aboriginal regardless of how much Aboriginal heritage they have. In the areas that were most significantly affected by colonisation, assimilation polices, disease, and massacres, there is often reduced knowledge of historical culture (as it was intentionally prohibited), and yes many people do have European heritage as well. However, there are many Aboriginal people without European heritage throughout the continent and they are by no means rare. That said, in Aboriginal cultures, like in Victoria, where a lot of culture has been lost - by no means has all of it been lost and there is still a lot known that has been passed down both culturally and academically. Many communities have also put in a huge amount of work both culturally and in collaboration with researchers to reinvigorate their cultures and languages.

For these reasons, the statement "we're looking at a confected culture made up by people of British ancestry living in suburbs" is incredibly charged and I would encourage you to look deeper into this issue. Besides this, I don't think that Indigenous editors should be able to write whatever they want unsourced, but published Indigenous groups are very likely to be some of the best sources for Indigenous knowledge. Poketama (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Image selection

Happy to discuss image selection with User:HappyWaldo and others who are interested, rather than go back and forth in the edits. It is pretty clear the original image of the NGV is blurry, low resolution, crooked and is from way back in 2003. I specifically went out and took this image, which is clearer and higher resolution from the same point of view, to update it and have a high quality photo of the NGV on Wikipedia. Updating older, low quality images with clearer, better composed, high-resolution images is a positive contribution to Wikipedia so I don't think reverting is constructive here.

The second one is more subjective and I welcome thoughts: This image of Flinders St is I think a more interesting photo for the montage. It is good to have a night photo among the montage, you can see the new lighting, and it's a nice active scene showing a vibrant city while still being a high quality photo of the station. Personally I like the moving tram as it is a fun representation of Melbourne and I don't think there is a need for a fully unencumbered representation of Flinders St is strictly necessary in a city montage. The alternative image proposed by HappyWaldo is a good, clear image and would work fine, but I think it is less interesting and also that the overcast sky overwhelms the image. As it is it is also very similar in composition to the Shrine and REB photos in the montage, so some variety is called for. It's probably a better illustrative lead image for the Flinders Street article rather than the current night image there. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Points taken re NGV, although I'm not sure recency is relevant when barely anything has changed since 2003. And I like how the older shot includes the fountain and shows more of the building. The vertical image may disrupt following section depending on screen size. As for Flinders, I'm not strictly against night shots but daytime gets an edge over simply due to visibility at thumbnail level. IMO the night shot might be more suitable for a Lonely Planet travel guide or something. An active scene as you say, but certain features are hard to make out, such as the clock tower. Even the dome kinda blends into the night sky at thumbnail level. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Age is certainly not an issue by itself, but the fact that it is a 19 year old digital image certainly shows in the image quality, without even mentioning the framing or focus. Getting the fountain in shot certainly doesn't overcome these issues. On Flinders St, these are subjective questions but personally I think the value of that particular night photo is that the building, dome and clock tower are quite visible despite being a night scene, and it shows the lighting well. As I said I don't think a clear daylight representation of Flinders St is as important in the montage compared with the article on the station, and to my eye it looks too visually similar to the Shrine and REB. Gracchus250 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The image from 2003 is shockingly low-quality for a Wikipedia article in 2022, especially for an article with high importance. I also don't see an issue with the nighttime image of Flinders Street Station, even as a thumbnail its quite clear what the building is.Ashton 29 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)