Talk:Melbourne

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABS boundaries favour Sydney as it includes central coast...if thats the case we can include Geelong and Ballarat for Melbourne. Really what needs to happen is ABS update metro boundaries 2405:6E00:655:5202:4129:4F7A:5EFB:1787 (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bit late but saying "Close enough" isn't exactly accurate. Even if one has one more person it is still larger. Stilllthinking (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this needs a source. I have lived in Melbourne for quite a while and do not think I have ever heard it called Melbs. Bduke (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I might have heard it two or three time in my longish life, but never as a serious name. Never seen it written. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Melbourne has overtaken Sydney in total population. The ABS stats are wrong for Sydney as it includes gosford etc. A bit Biased towards Sydney. Time to get it factually correct 2405:6E00:655:5202:4129:4F7A:5EFB:1787 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You will need to take this up with the ABS. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The lead takes great pains to make clear that this article does not cover the City of Melbourne LGA but instead the Melbourne metropolitan area, yet all the places pictured in the infobox are contained in the City of Melbourne. Any suggestions for alternatives? 49.183.93.101 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The lead should probably be adjusted given that City of Melbourne LGA is part of Melbourne metropolitian area. TarnishedPath^talk 22:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. The article covers the City of Melbourne LGA, as it is part of the Melbourne metropolitan area, but the scope of the article is a broader area. The selection of images do not make that clear. 128.250.0.174 (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should add photos from the Mornington Peninsula and the Dandenong Ranges AuspolScribe (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

IMO, the existing collage is fine, and should be left as it is. Great care has been taken in selecting the current photos, and curating a series of images that accurately reflects the city and highlights some of its most important landmarks. Additionally, there is no requirement that the infobox feature images from outside the City of Melbourne LGA. If you look at the pages of other capital cities, you’ll find that most, if not all of the lead images are from near or within the historical city centre. That’s just how our cities are organised. StellaAquila (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The CBD abbreviation is used 7 times before being defined in the text (as Central Business District ) ? maybe it would be more user friendly to define it the first time ? ClausVind (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

in the Infobox, it has the distances between Melbourne and other cities as the great circle distance but the Infobox says to do road distance AuspolScribe (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the Infobox says to do road distance"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In visual editing mode when you go onto the Infobox and go to the distances fields it says "Distance from this location to location # via road" or something like that AuspolScribe (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

That's good. I'm an old-timer happy to not use Visual editor, so I don' see that. Feel free to correct the distances. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)