Talk:Melbourne/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is also Melbourne, Florida. --80.95.71.0 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody's ever been there --Pete (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Melbourne FL was named after Melbourne, Victoria; 2. was established after Melbourne, Victoria; 3. has a population of 85,000, compared to Melbourne, Victoria's 5,000,000. Hopefully that answers your question. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Further, Melbourne, Florida, is not a major enough city to qualify for single-word treatment under the MOS guidelines for US placenames. That's reserved for major cities like Miami or Chicago. (Even New York (city) requires disambiguation.) So, arguably, this is the main page that would qualify for the Melbourne title, even if Melbourne, Victoria, and Melbourne, Australia, redirect here. —C.Fred (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A panoramic view of the Docklands and city skyline from Waterfront City, looking across Victoria Harbour

This image is 16 years old. Since the skyline has changed quite significantly since this picture was taken, shouldn't we replace it with one from the last year at least? Ideally from the same location as this, or with a similar view at least. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but this is a great photograph, so it should be replaced by a great photograph that is more recent. I can not help. I am not a great photographer! --Bduke (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a great photo. But it's dated. If I lived in Melbourne at the moment I'd give it a go, but I'd to dust off my photography book! Ashton 29 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I walked down to Docklands today and did my best to get a photo from a similar angle. --Canley (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

A 2022 panoramic view of the Docklands and city skyline from Waterfront City, looking across Victoria Harbour

Financial centre quote in trod is wrong - Sydney is 23rd, not Melbourne! Novel-firsts (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The reference for that claim was for GFCI edition 29 dated March 2021, in which Melbourne was indeed 23rd (Sydney was 18th). The latest edition of the GFCI (March 2022) has Melbourne at 32nd and Sydney at 23rd. So it was not a matter of Sydney and Melbourne being mixed up, it was correct at the time the sentence was updated. I have updated it to the latest ranking (which had been updated in the Economy section). --Canley (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The is a bit of an edit war about adding text that starts with "The assignment of Aboriginal names to cities ..". This is probably a good addition to the article, but it needs a source. Until then, it will keep getting deleted. --Bduke (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

And it needs a better back story than an Aboriginal ELDER with only 30 years experience in the culture. That makes no sense at all. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is given as 3AW along with an audio recording. Is 3AW not a reliable source? When did that happen? --Pete (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that I was the one who complained about it being unsourced, as you said in your Edit summary? And what part of Bold, REVERT, Discuss do you not understand? HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Leave out the personal attack please, HiLo. Lets stick to Wikiprocedure. The content is reliably sourced and just because you don't like it doesn't mean that we throw NPOV out the window. 3AW is a reliable source? YES/NO --Pete (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I made no personal attack. I made no comment on the source. I DID comment on you breaching WP:BRD. But since you asked, in my humble opinion, 3AW is not a great source on matters such as this. It consistently takes a conservative position on most issues. I am sure it's telling the truth about what this particular "elder" said, but one can cherry pick one's elders, and the description of an elder having 30 years experience in Aboriginal culture makes no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"It consistently takes a conservative position on most issues." Um, you do understand how WP:NPOV works? Your own opinion is of no particular value here: we work from reliable sources with a variety of views. I thought - to be frank - you'd be all over this outlet. They use the word "Football" to describe Aussie Rules, unlike every national news outlet with a sports section where the word is used to describe Football. --Pete (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That's waaaaaayyy off-topic here. You've breached WP:BRD here. Your edit has been reverted and the page has been protected. Will you please try to discuss the primary point I made here, about an alleged 30 year old elder. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The 30 year elder is dodgy, but even if it was a 60 year old elder or 300 year elder transported in time, it still would be one source. This needs more than one source. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 22:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought the 'aboriginal content dispute' was over :( GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Some are keen to continue it. This was just a rather weird addition to the article, stating that an Aboriginal ELDER has all of 30 years experience as an Aboriginal. He must be a very young elder. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I may ask for protection of this page, in what its status quo was. Whatever that was. GoodDay (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this seems a very weird addition, just the opinion of one person with a highly dubious, barely reliable, source. There should be a more solid basis to this claim with at least one RS, for it to pass WP:NPOV. In any case, it is not specific to Melbourne so looks very out of place here and should simply be left out, unless a consensus can be reached to include something similar after further discussion and investigation. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Melbourne is large, with many sources. I don't see a point in adding an opinion if there is only one source covering the opinion. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've requested protection for this page, until a consensus can be reached on the proposed inclusion of said-new material. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I recommend inclusion of the new material because:

1) It complies with WP rules and regulations

2) There is a high level of interest in this topic

3) There is strong support on WP TALK for indigenous perspectives. Simulaun (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of the source to say that some dispute the use of the name. There is contention within any community. I've seen this Elder referenced before, they are pretty active in Melbourbe. You may find a better source on the ABC. What you shouldn't do however is use one person's POV to erase other well sourced work. Poketama (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen this guy active in many sources - behind the Herald-Sun paywall on the same topic, for example - and despite HiLo's concern about sources that he doesn't like because they don't match his politics, I think NPOV applies here.

And yes, I agree, he's an addition, not a replacement. The topic of Indigenous names is hardly something that's cut and dried. If there is valid criticism - or valid support, for that matter - then we should include it. I'm all in favour of getting as much good and useful information on this topic in the article as possible. My beef isn't with Indigenous names, it's with WP:UNDUE prominence for things that aren't really notable in themselves. --Pete (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

One day Pete/Skyring will stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion per WP:WEIGHT and Notability. Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't publish the opinions of non-notable people, especially in its disputed form where the opinion of one non-notable individual is just left there, almost hanging. Secondly, too much weight has been given on the opinion of an unknown person, creating a false equivalence to the coverage that recognises these Indigenous names. Those wishing to include this individual's comments should make an article for this person if his opinion is so valid. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Two points. This guy is not unknown; a Google search shows he is a prolific commentator on Indigenous issues and one wonders why various media sources would give him space if he were worthless. Second, do you really want to dismiss an Indigenous voice on an Indigenous matter? This is kind of like saying that women are not worth hearing from on feminist - or feminine - subjects.--Pete (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Given your knowledge of him, can you explain the claim that he is an ELDER with (only) 30 years experience in Aboriginal culture? That has been the major question for me since this discussion began. I know some Wurundjeri elders, in the Yarra Ranges area. All are at least in their 50s and older, obviously giving them more than 50 years such experience. It's hard to imagine a 30 year old "elder". HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FFS, HiLo. We have access to an online encyclopaedia devoted to all sorts of stuff. Take it up with the people who wrote Australian Aboriginal elder not me. Geez.

An Elder (usually capitalised) of an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander community has been defined as "someone who has gained recognition as a custodian of knowledge and lore, and who has permission to disclose knowledge and beliefs". They may be male or female, and of any age, but must be trusted and respected by their community for their wisdom, cultural knowledge and community service. Elders provide support for their communities in the form of guidance, counselling and knowledge, which help tackle problems of health, education, unemployment and racism, particularly for younger people.

Many communities have "elders" who are wise beyond their years and manage the group maintenance tasks associated with any community. When I first encountered a LDS elder who looked to be in his teens I treated him with respect, bowing and making the "wai" gesture and watching as he fled promptly discovered a previous engagement next door. With the two guys and the rainbow flag. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

My question was completely polite. Your use of "FFS" is not. I asked about this particular person, who you claim to have heard a lot about. Your answer was extremely general, abusive, irrelevant (Mormonism?), and hence quite unhelpful. And please stop talking about ME! HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your participation in this discussion about something you care enough to have edit-warred over is based on your erroneous assumption of what "elder" means within the Indigenous community. You repeated your grossly insensitive claim several times. I'm sorry if you think it's all about you. Realistically it's all about me, because I take particular relish in pointing out where someone has gone right off the rails. It is my moral failing not yours. Please forgive my onion sauce. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you not understand the point being made? Edit-warring is disruptive but you did it based on a mistake you refuse to admit. As per our very own article on this precise topic, Aboriginal Elders may be any age. An Elder having 30 years of experience doesn't mean he is 30 years old, and even if he was, his title is based on service to his community as a recognised source of wisdom, lore, and fellowship. Are you sure you are here to improve the article? Don't answer this question. Just give it a rest, please. --Pete (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I made no mistake. I pointed out that you breached WP:BRD. An elder is someone born Aboriginal. That means their experience begins at birth. 30 years is not credible. Now, please stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skyring: if he's so known, as you make him out to be — how about you create an article for him? everyone's a prolific commentator on Google, but this is Wikipedia and not everyone is notable by our standards. You're dismissing the Indigenous voices of many more people by providing a false equivalence to their views with the view of this one non-notable individual. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't give a false equivalence to diverse sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. Nor is everyone with a BLP article here a good source. We have many articles on football players, for example, but very few of them are used as sources. This guy is making public comments on his recognised special knowledge, being quoted in reliable sources, and if you want to attack his contributions, why not use some sort of Wikipolicy to do so? It's not as if we haven't debated and discussed and codified reliable sources since Wikipedia Day One. Make WP:RSN your friend. --Pete (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You should make WP:ONUS your friend, given you're not doing a stellar job of convincing people to include this disputed content. It is a false equivalence, or WP:FALSEBALANCE (yep, just click onto WP:NPOV policy you've suggested and scroll down to "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" and read it); the disputed content is regarding a claim and a quote by one person (as opposed to a plethora of coverage, already provided). I'm not attacking his contributions, so perhaps read what I'm saying properly: I have simply said that this person is not notable by Wikipedia standards (where's his article?), so I don't think his views should be added in to said article as if they're Gospel. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to at least delete the indigenous names from the infobox heading? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Might be time for a straw poll. --Pete (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• There are many problems, interpretations, conflicts of sources, and controversies in Aboriginal names for current Australian cities. As the discussions in several articles have shown, Aboriginal names have been removed from the article's intro and infobox, for example: in Perth and now, in Sydney. Except for problems like: interpretations and conflicts of sources and other, as the example of Sydney has shown, areas of vast Australian cities were inhabited by various Aboriginal clans, so using one or two names of one/two clans of many for whole city violates NPOV rule. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears as though this debate will be repeated, on all the Australian place pages, one-by-one :( GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

not necessarily, I guess the disputes will be only about major Australian cities because:

1. aboriginal names are assumed to be questionable as there are no historical Aboriginal names for modern Australian cities. Their names are the names of geographical places, e.g. bays, lowlands, etc. The fact that many geographic areas have become part of the Australian metropolis does not mean that the city is to use these names simultaneously as name of city.
2. conflict of sources - there are other sources for that name (Narrm or Naarm), depicting as city center, the area of today's CBD, the bay, so selecting only those sources that describe the entire city is forbidden and violates the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability
3. vast areas of modern large cities were inhabited by different clans using different names. Choosing only one name from one clan, and ignoring other clans, is against the Wikipedia:NPOV.

Therefore, as long as there are a few users who put questionable names into articles at all costs, we have a problem in Wikipedia and there will be many pages of discussion on this topic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The intro

Isn't seven sources-in-a-row, overdoing it? GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, far too much exaggeration. Especially that the number of sources is not the problem here. If there are other sources for that name (Narrm or Naarm), depicting as city center, the area of today's CBD, the bay, etc., sources in ontro do not matter because there is a conflict of sources. Disputed Aborriginal names should be removed from the first sentence of article, as was the case with Perth and Sydney. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man Melbourne is a different case from Sydney or Perth. Naarm is widely acknowledged and citable as a name in modern-usage for the metropolitan area, which was not easily done for Sydney or Perth. I've explained to you many times a name can apply to more than one thing.

eg. Port_Phillip_(disambiguation)

Besides this, you have been suggesting this for a long time, if you have actionable steps feel free to present them. What defines contested? If there are 100 articles that say X is true and 1 article that says X is false what do we do? What about 10-1? 5-1? Why only remove from the first sentence of the article?

@GoodDay I agree 7 sources is a lot, but at the moment the citation of a large amount of evidence is where we've landed to hold off reverts. Poketama (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Cut it down to 'three' sources, if it's kept in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Multiref might be easiest to implement at the moment. Poketama (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If I knew how, I would. At the moment, the sourcing looks overdone & creates the appearance of insecurity, about the sentence-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

September edit warring

@Simulaun: is adding content that has been disputed in this talk page, skipping the part about gaining consensus. I've undone their edits and returned the article to its status-quo. Feel free to explain your edits here. Also, a side note, your content made use of content from here -- almost word for word. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The content in question has been discussed and there appears to be ample support on WP:Talk for its inclusion in the article. Furthermore, before reposting, I addressed the concerns raised by providing a broader perspective (from 'Lonelyplanet.com') and additional documentation of Ian Hunter's track record of involvement in Aboriginal culture (see below for more detail). So I am not sure why this information is being censored. Please specify/clarify what concerns remain unaddressed.

Previous concerns aired on WP:Talk:

Concern 1: The initial edit was considered on WP:Talk to 'probably be a good addition to the article, but it needs a source'. As stated in WP:Talk, the source is 3AW. Additional sources pertaining to the issue more generally, and the quoted individual, have now also been provided.

Concern 2: By quoting someone, it was alleged on WP:Talk that the initial entry amounted to a single point of view. As pointed out on WP:Talk, this is not a particularly valid criticism. Moreover, this has now been addressed by presenting the topic more broadly ("The introduction of indigenous names...", as stated in reference by lonelyplanet.com)

Concern 3; It was claimed that the quoted individual (Ian Hunter) is non-notable. Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals), this concern has now been addressed by the addition of four additional references documenting significant exposure of this individual's views and activities on public news outlets.

Concern 4: It was claimed that the quoted individual cannot have been an 'elder' for 30 years. Although this criticism also appear to lack validity or relevance (e.g., there can be a degree of variation in how one interprets 'being an elder for 30 years'), this concern has also been addressed as the four additional references attest to broad-based recognition of the quoted individual's involvement in Aboriginal culture and their apparent credentials as an Aboriginal 'elder'

Simulaun (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern 1: an editor made that observation, we're all editors of equal standing. I'm just one editor who disagrees.

Concern 2: it's still quoting one person's view (3AW article), you've just conflated it (see original research) to be about every city, even though this Wikipedia article is about one city - Melbourne. The lonelyplanet source is discussing Sydney -- not Melbourne. In fact, the source even clarifies that a name change "doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint". "Doesn't always" = suggests that not all cities encounter this issue, and Melbourne could be one of them, but we don't know that seeing as the source does not reference Melbourne. Also, your copy-and-paste of content from the loneyplanet source, without proper attribution, is a copyright violation.

Concern 3: "Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals)" - your opinion is not policy. Wikipedia policy can speak for itself, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. I've brought up weight issues (specifically giving a false balance) that still stand (ie. if this person is so notable, why doesn't he have an article on Wikipedia?). Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to insignificant views; perhaps in passing, but a viewpoint and a quote? I don't think so.

Concern 4: I don't disagree nor agree. I would reiterate that if this person's decades of knowledge are notable, then perhaps it's time he had an article on Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Melbourne density.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I was referencing the following page (see link below) about Populating Wikipedia Infoboxes for Australian places, and it says here, UCL's are chosen to reflect the population of the cities. However, the current figure still shows the GCCSA. Should it not be changed ?

Populating Wikipedia: New tool integrating Australian Census data - Wikimedia Australia Sdinesh2222 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be, UCL or significant urban area are better ways to measure capital cities, particularly when it comes to area. The GCCSA is completely misleading about the size of the capital cities and is borderline misinformation in my opinion when it's used to calculate density, as it is include huge swaths of farmland, which is not usually standard practice internationally. The convention is to use GCCSA for capital cities, but I think this should be changed. Ideally the template would be able to display both, with UCL as the main metric, with appropriate labelling, GCCSA is essentially the equivalent of regional population.

Frankly the entire infobox for capital cities needs to be rethought. Look at all the info conveyed in the London infobox, multiple measures of area and population, rapid transit, gross city product, airports, etc. Much more useful than showing the distance to other cities, which takes up the bulk of the current template. That makes sense for regional cities but not the capitals, we should probably switch to using the settlement infobox. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. We should stick with Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA). It is the standard used by the ABS in all its statistical releases. It will allow data for the capital cities to be easily cross classified with other data (such as place of birth, ancestry, Indigenous status etc) on a consistent basis within the article and across articles dealing with Australian capital cities. The ABS also updates its population estimates for GCCSAs on a regular basis, so we won't have to wait 5 years for the next capital city population estimates. More importantly, just about every other major source will use the ABS definition of Greater Capital Cities when they quote population trends etc. If Wikipedia uses its own definition, giving a significantly lower population figure, readers will just assume wikipedia is wrong and try to edit the figure to that given by other sources. I'm not even sure if the UCL/significant urban area data is adjusted by the ABS for the Census undercount. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that GCCSA should still be there as it is important, but is there not an argument for using both? In other countries when there's multiple measurements they tend to all get included (city, urban, metro etc.), and while GCCSA is the main statistical figure, UCL is the more accurate measurement of the city itself, particularly of the urban area? Gracchus250 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with that. UCL would be more useful for population density, but even then any comparison with overseas cities are fraught with definitional issues. I assume you've seen this report.^[1] They make a valiant effort, but combine Bisbane-Gold Coast as one urban area (but not New York-New Jersey!). I also wish they provided more detail in their technical appendix. I would suggest we use GCCSA for most population and demographic data, but UCL for population density, urban sprawl etc. I would also be wary of using the London info box as a model for Australian cities because we have a very different concept of cities and don't always have the same statistical data. For example, calculating Gross City Product for Australian cities would be nothing but guesswork. The ABS even struggles with reliable estimates of Gross State Product. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne's urban boundary has expanded tocinclude Melton, making it Australia's biggest city. I have noticed the edits have been changed back and forth. It seems strange that it would not be listed as the biggest city only due to the fact that the most recent census data says that it isn't. Are we supposed to have incorrect information for another 3 years until there is a new census? 122.199.29.145 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

All the data is based on the 2021 Census, with estimates of growth thereafter. The issue is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses several definitions of the city population. Some time ago we agreed all all the Australian capital cities would be based on the Greater Capital City Regions. These still show Sydney has a higher population. The issue is that we can't have people in dfferent cities cite whatever statistic suits their purpose. Melbourne will overtake Sydney on all definitions sometime in the next 10 years.[1] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem we have is that the statement from the ABS that Melbourne now has the largest population has, not surprisingly, gained massive publicity, and not just in Australia. {The BBC has picked it up.) It's nice for us to try to be consistent in our definitions over time, but we simply cannot ignore what the ABS has said and what the world has heard. We must acknowledge the ABS statement in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand.. so is Melton within Melbourne's boundary now or not?

What's the difference between greater Melbourne (which is still the second most populous) and the definition that says Melbourne is the most populous. I think there is a lot of confusion on this from the people who are changing it. 122.199.29.145 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Significant Urban Area (SUA) defines cities based on their conjoined urban (built-up) area. So the recent Melbourne SUA change has taken into account that Melton has essentially sprawled into Melbourne proper along the Western Freeway. The Greater Capital City Region is similar but also takes into account drivable/commutable regional areas around the SUA, hence why places like Sydney include some relatively rural parts of the Central and South Coasts of NSW. My opinion is that SUAs are more aligned with how your average person on the street conceives of a "city", and where available are much better measures for Wikipedia articles to use in introductory text and Infoboxes etc. Jimmythemini2 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this above, I think it's time that we add SUA or UCL alongside GCCSA in the infobox of Melbourne and the other capitals. Just as other cities list urban and metro, which roughly correspond to these definitions (GCCSA could also be described as the regional population). UCL or SUA is also much more accurate for calculating density, the current use of GCCSA for this is borderline misinformation.

This provides a good impetus to make the change. Does anyone know if this can be easily done with the existing Australian place template? Otherwise we should switch to the settlement infobox for capital cities, which is a better template for major cities anyway.

GCCSA should remain the main metric by which articles rank which cities are the largest, though. But having the mutliple metrics on display would help clear up the confusion when news like this happens. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree we should use SUA to calculate population densities. However, having both GCCSA and SUA in the info box for population might only confuse people more. Perhaps we could have GCCSA in the info box with a footnote giving the SUA? Could you mock up a new info box and put it here for discussion? The real problem is the lead, which most people read and are likely to change. Perhaps we could change it to: "Melbourne is the capital of the Australian state of Victoria, and is the second most populous city in Australia (although the most populous in urban area)." (I would drop the reference to Oceania which I have always found a bizarre claim to notability.) If people are happy with this I can suggest the same change to the Sydney article. It would take less time than constantly reverting edits from around around the world. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine if it was something like "Metro (GCCSA):" and "Urban (SUA):" with notes explaining what the definitions mean. I've seen cities with three metrics used before and I think it's legible if it's explained properly. I'm not an expert in editing templates but I will give it a go and see if I can create it.

I agree with removing Oceania, it's always been weird. I'm ambivalent about changing the lede wording, I actually think leaving it as second is the right thing/more accurate thing to do. But if the common public perception becomes that Melbourne has overtaken Sydney and people keep changing it, then you're right we will have to do something. (There has been a lot of international reporting i.e. in the BBC on this.) I'd suggest you take some wording to the Sydney page and see what editors there say, because whatever happens will have to happen on both pages. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I just made the change because I had to revert three more edits in the meantime! I've asked for temporary protection for the Sydney and Melbourne pages till this cools down,. But both requests were declined. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The standard has been, both on here and at the ABS, to ultimately measure cities based on their metropolitan area population. Sydney's metro area population remains larger than Melbourne and both pages should reflect that. Emerald3333 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a precise, unarguable definition for "metropolitan area"? HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? Emerald3333 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

100% agree this needs to be updated to reflect the facts that Melbourne is the largest city in Australia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65261720.amp

Wiki should be nimble and we should not wait 3 years.

I feel it needs to be adjusted to reflect facts!! With appropriate disclaimers as needed if that makes the Sydneysiders feel better. Aussie1978 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

By the measurement we've always used, Sydney is still the largest city in Australia. Emerald3333 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the ABS Census geography glossary, definition of a Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA):

Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSAs) represent the Capital City regions of each state and territory in Australia.

They are designed to represent the functional area of each of the eight state and territory capital cities. This includes populations who regularly socialise, shop or work within the city, but may live either in the city or in the small towns and rural areas surrounding the city.

This definition therefore includes outlying suburbs and towns where people may live, but regularly commute to the CBD. I'm not so familiar with either city (I last passed through Sydney 39 years ago, and Melbourne 18 years ago - and even then didn't get out of the airport terminal!) I presume that the reason that Melbourne's suburbs are more contiguous is because of its flatter topography, compared with the more rugged topography including national parks, that exist within the Sydney GCCSA. Also, that the ABS drew up the GCCSA boundaries on the functional definition above - after all, regular questions in the Census focus on "journey to work". Also, that the ABS doesn't exist in a vacuum, and that it designs its methodology and data products in a way that is at least roughly comparable with other international statistical standards. Although I left the ABS some 30 years ago, before the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) was first used in 2011, introducing the "Significant Urban Areas" (SUA) concept, I have the impression that SUAs have a more specific use in urban planning. I note that this ref has the disclaimer:

All classifications of urban areas created by the ABS are for the purpose of statistical analysis and do not match official legal or administrative boundaries.

People who have moved to peri-urban areas for lifestyle reasons, but still commute to the CBD for work, may not consider themselves as living in a metro area - but for planning purposes, they may still be so regarded. Re adding SUA data to the infobox, IMHO that would be confusing for the average reader, unless it was accompanied by lengthy footnotes, or explanatory text within the article. Bahudhara (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just reverted another series of edits, which included a new ref to a CNN article which has basically made the same mistake by referencing a Channel 9 story, which presumably is based in turn on the SMH article. The CNN article includes additional commentary by an academic demographer:

“... the more commonly used, and stable, standard geographic classification of greater capital city shows Sydney is still Australia’s most populous capital. At the current rate of population change, Melbourne will overtake Sydney to take out the top spot in the coming decade.”

“Australia loves a competition and the added beef to the Sydney versus Melbourne rivalry has excited many, but it’s all a bit of a storm in a tea cup.”

Hopefully this furore will die down soon. Bahudhara (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Melbourne has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to update some information Michael Reinolds (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2023 (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. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The word Narrm is not the native name of Melbourne and is not mentioned anywhere on the City of Melbourne. This Woiwurrung word is used to refer to 'the scrubland' of the now CBD area and not Melbourne as the whole City. Many people regard it as the native name of the Melbourne and it’s just wrong. Maybe we can instead put the name in the suburbs that it belongs? seems better that way right? Michael Reinolds (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

There is scant information regarding the meaning, origin, and use of the name Narrm. WP:Melbourne would be improved by defining the geographical area/boundaries of Narrm (instead of merely stating that it overlaps with the present-day CBD). It would also be useful to provide more tangible information regarding its past and present use. There is information (e.g., from Tourism Australia and (purported) Aboriginal Elder Ian Stuart that it is a newly introduced name for Melbourne. Either way, the current presentation of Narrm in WP:Melbourne appears to be lacking at several levels. I recommend major alterations of the present text aimed at providing relevant and appropriately sourced information in this regard. Simulaun (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What information would you like to see? A definition, history, related terms and clarification of usage are all provided. Genuinely asking here. Also could you provide the Tourism Australia reference here, as I could find nothing when I googled about it. PS. It is not a requirement that Wikipedia give equal weight to every opinion. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. JTdale 🗩 09:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The present definition, history, and clarification of usage are severely lacking. For example, "the area on which the Melbourne city centre is built' provides no indication of the geographic area or size of Narrm. Also, the sentence 'The name Narrm is commonly used by the broader Aboriginal community...' appears to be opinion rather than factual or sourced information. Futhermore, the purported clarifaction of usage appears indicate that Narrm refers to (the) scrub that grew in the bay before it was flooded (so Narrm actually refers to Port Philip Bay?).

In light of these significant shortcomings, WP:Melbourne would be improved by:

(1) straightforward information regarding the geographic location of or the area represented by 'Narrm'

(2) clear information regarding how and when 'Narrm' became used as an Aboriginal name for Melbourne (as opposed to scrub in general and in various locations).

I have not been able to find any information regarding (1). Regarding (2), the following inclusion in WP:Melbourne seems appropriate and informative: Assigning an Aboriginal name to a city that did not exist prior to British colonization can mean that a name has to be chosen that doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint.https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/australia-adopts-dual-names-for-cities-to-celebrate-aboriginal-heritage The Boonwurrung name ‘Narrm', which comprises (information for item (1), if/when available), is used for Melbourne. This could be complemented by information from 3AW/Ian Hunter that use of the name Narrm for Melbourne is a relatively recent phenomenon.https://www.3aw.com.au/the-problem-a-wurundjeri-elder-sees-with-plan-to-give-melbourne-suburbs-dual-names Simulaun (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No, read WP:SYNTH. Recycling the same comment over and over again is merely bludgeoning the process. I will open another discussion at ANI regarding your disruptive editing, should you persist. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have a valid objection to the proposed information regarding 'Narrm'? If so, speak now or for ever hold your peace. Simulaun (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Simulaun: You already have two, above, and about 5 or so more (per this discussion). Make the change, it will be reverted per SYNTH, and I'll take this to ANI again. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CCC, which says consensus can change which is true as societies change especially in areas such as geographical names. For example look at how Ayers Rock -> Uluru, Kiev -> Kyiv and the like. Gusfriend (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the objection is that it does not refer to the city of Melbourne, despite the attempts at shoehorning. Emerald3333 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

yes i do also, it’s wrong and needs to be removed Michael Reinolds (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove Narrm from native name. it’s wrong and unofficial Velorus (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The word Narrm is not the native name of Melbourne and is not mentioned anywhere on the City of Melbourne. This Woiwurrung word is used to refer to 'the scrubland' of the now CBD area and not Melbourne as the whole City. Many people regard it as the native name of the Melbourne and it’s just wrong Michael Reinolds (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released a new census, according to which the population of Melbourne is 5,031,195 as of June 30, 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-population/2021-22 AntonBasenko (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The word Narrm is not the native name of Melbourne and is not mentioned anywhere on the City of Melbourne. This Woiwurrung word is used to refer to 'the scrubland' of the now CBD area and not Melbourne as the whole City. Many people regard it as the native name of the Melbourne and it’s just wrong. We can instead include it as the native name in the specific suburbs that the name belongs to. Michael Reinolds (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not really clear why usage by the City of Melbourne (local government council) is being suggested as the arbiter of correctness or otherwise here, but they do use it: here is one example where City of Melbourne clearly say "Narrm is the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung word for the Melbourne region." (my emphasis). Additionally the City of Melbourne's narrm ngarrgu / Melbourne Knowledge Week festival is officially dual named narrm ngarrgu / Melbourne Knowledge Week. Happy to discuss (although this topic has been discussed at length above and in the talk page archive), but you would do well to provide some references for your assertions rather than just stating them (three times) and saying that "many people" are wrong. --Canley (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Melbourne" was originally the name of only a very small area around where the CBD is now. This doesn't stop us from today using it as a name for the entire metropolitan area. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This guy just went through and deleted every Indigenous name they could find, pretty common to run into someone like that. Poketama (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The onus is not on him to disprove anything. 'Melbourne' is the sole name of the city. Emerald3333 (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Extreme statements like that are never helpful. I know of some Aboriginal people in Melbourne who today use Narrm as their name for the city. They may be doing it deliberately pointedly, but it negates your claim. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Slang =/= An official name Emerald3333 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's NOT slang. It's an alternative name. Calling it slang could possibly be considered racist. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources provided disagree with you. Guess which we go with? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Emerald3333: per WP:CONSENSUS, the onus is on whoever wishes to change the status-quo revision (which currently is what's written - Melbourne and Naarm) to their proposed revision; in this case, Michael Reinolds needs to convince those who disagree (and thus support the status-quo) of the merits behind their proposed changes. Please don't get that confused. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 23:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)