Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 13 June 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sydney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:VA

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: New South Wales / Sydney Top‑importance Sydney is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Olympics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WP1.0

	Sydney was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 3, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 16, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sydney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Not largest

By calling it the largest and most populous city in Australia it means that it is the largest by area. Even if you determine it's area from the metro area or statistical division (whatever the difference is), there are many other cities that are larger. He'll, I'd go as far as to say that aside from the capital cities nearly all the other cities are larger in area, especially ones in western Australia. I think it should simply read most populous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.242 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, it is the largest Statistical division by land area. Many of the local government area's may be larger, but I don't think their statistical divisions (or districts) have a larger area than Sydney. Saying it's the most populous is based on its statistical division, so its area should be too. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Sydney statistical division extends over a ridiculously large area, covering places that aren't actually part of Sydney and probably never will be (for example, Glen Alice, which is 128km as the crow flies and 223km by road from the Sydney CBD), so that artificially boosts all the Sydney figures to a point where they just don't represent reality. if you look at File:Sydney councils.png, which shows all of the LGAs that are part of Sydney, the actual area of Sydney is a lot less than the the statistical division which is, after all, only a statistical area used by the ABS, not an actual representation of the city itself. There are several internet sites, such as citymayors.com that say Melbourne's area is greater than that of Sydney. Sydney is definitely the most populous city but it's only the largest by area according to those who use the ABS statistical divisions, which are somewhat WP:CRYSTAL as they cater for future expansion (I can't really see Glen Alice being part of Sydney in any future though - it's still about 82km as the crow flies from the nearest Sydney LGA) that may or may not occur. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems ridiculous to use the statistical division, when it clearly covers a much larger area than what would usually be understood by the term "Sydney" or even "Greater Sydney". Using this area makes a nonsense of the density claim (if we use the stated population and area, then the density ought to be about 377 rather than 2,058). In fact, 377 is the density given by the same ABS document that gives the area as 12,144 km2. (see here). We need a clear and accurate set of criteria for giving these numbers and I while I think using the ABS statistical division of Sydney gives clarity, it is not an accurate picture of what most people mean by "Sydney".EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not convinced that the citymayors.com site is very reliable. It lists the population of Shanghai as 10,000,000 (when Wiki pegs it as just over 23m). Likewise, according to that source, Sydney's population is only 3,502,000. Elsewhere on their site, they mention that their sources are often ten to twenty years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthicsEdinburgh (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Largest Harbour?

"Sydney Harbour, is one such ria and is the largest natural harbour in the world."

Is this true? A quick look on Google Maps shows that even the Hawkesbury to the north is larger. And San Francisco Bay would be hundreds of times larger . . . not sure where this stat comes from??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.9.39 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Port Stephens is also larger, although not as deep. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the source does source does support the claim, but I think we all know it's rubbish. I've deleted the claim. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

'Unconstructive' image changes

I think that the image looks far better and clearer of the size that I changed it too, and it illustrates the section in a lot more of an aesthetically pleasing matter. The thing this article lacks is decent images that assist the article's content, and I think that the image itself looks a lot more appealing in a larger, more enhanced size. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

May look ok on a 4:3 screen but on a 16:9 it doesn't as you have useless white space on both sides of the photograph, also making it larger add no vaule to the article. It is fine as it is. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IMGSIZE says that image sizes should not be forced unless appropriate, and when it is appropriate they should generally not be wider than 500px. This image is of such a shape that it is best displayed as a thumbnail, not as a centred panorama. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And again...

A new image was added to the article today. I reverted the change because it was a much darker image than the previous image but it was restored with the edit summary "It's not dark, increase your brightness or click the full size image. The current one is disgusting, it's pixelated and blurry". The side by side comparison to the right clearly shows that the first image is brighter overall than the second. Contrast between the dark foreground and light background exacerbates the problem. This is evident on the three LCD TVs, 7 LCD computer monitors using the eleven computers I have here (I use KVM switches), so it's not a brightness issue on one computer. As for being pixelated and blurry, that's obviously rubbish, unless you're looking at it on a 50 inch TV, which most people are not. The second image is much higher resolution and you can look down the cleavage of the girls in the foreground on a 50 inch TV, but that's not what we're looking for when we add images to articles like this. An image showing the actual Botanic Gardens is required, not one showing a dark stand of trees in the distance. The older image is far better for what we require, as is File:Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney 11 lottatori di canova.JPG, which replaced File:Sídney-Australia16.JPG. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some better alternatives in the article Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney as well. ***Adam*** (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Montage image of Sydney in infobox

Today I added this montage image of Sydney in its infobox. A montage image can wonderfully summarize pictorial information of Sydney. This montage is not so big to cause any distraction, yet it was reverted.

Some editors don't appreciate the placement of a montage image of Sydney in infobox and among them one editor has impolitely ridiculed me calling it a 'travel brochure'. Another editor has informed me today that there is a consensus of not using a montage image of Sydney in the infobox. A consensus is not unchangeable. The reason of this consensus sounds feeble and it is time to reassess it. I strongly argue for an addition of a montage image in the infobox. For instance, a compact five-frame montage portraying five various parts of Sydney is not only a quick way to visually summarize the Sydney just like the summarized text information in the infobox, but also reveals its physical appearance to the readers to some extent. It also improves the visual information of the page. I also urge all those editors against the montage image to visit the Misplaced Pages pages of all major cities like London, Berlin, Rome, New York City, Tokyo, Athens etc. Those pages do contain multi-frame montage images in their respective infoboxes. Some of them are large in size too. If using a montage image is so irrelevant to the article page of a city, then why did other editors include a montage image in the pages of all those major cities? All major city pages in Misplaced Pages have montage images, which suggests an implicit 'global' consensus of using montage image in a major city like Sydney too. And this implicit 'global' consensus, in my opinion, is more meaningful than having a separate 'local' consensus of not using a montage for particularly Sydney page. This particular consensus for Sydney is evidently a discriminatory policy against the standard practices found in other Misplaced Pages major city pages. The opposition by the editors of using a montage image in Sydney page looks shamefully biased when they revert an addition of a montage image in Sydney page, although other major city pages contain montage image in infobox. Therefore, I again convene the wise editors to turn down this illogical and biased consensus of not using a montage image in infobox of Sydney page. Jonah rajxei (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A few comments...

• This is an article (i.e., words) not a flickr page, and certainly not tourist brochure. Images are there to support the text - there should be direct links to the text and image at the place that the topic is discussed. A multi-image info box is a WP:N problem - they all seek to show the city in its best light (hence my tourist brochure reference). There is no way that 1 (or 12) images are going to properly represent a city, particularly if you choose glossy shots of tourist landmarks, etc. Stick to one iconic image.
• Large info boxes are a problem. They push themselves down into the rest of the article which causes text and image placement issues for the rest of the article.
• WP:PRECEDENCE is not a policy on wikipedia. I don't believe the multi image info boxes on the other city pages are any good either, however, i don't have to change consensus on those pages in order to promote a single image box here. I'd be happier to not have the multi images on those pages, but I don't have time to have multiple (and possible fruitless) discussion across a number of pages. I need to choose my battles carefully.
• Accusations of bias go against the policy of WP:AGF, one of wikipedia's most important. You are basically saying to others, "you're not a good editor". Do you really think accusing people of bias will make them agree with you? I can tell you, you will only piss them off and possibly make them feel more strongly about their position. (and in my case at least, given that I've lived in Sydney for decades, bias accusations don't make any sense).

regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Merbabu summed it all up pretty well. But from someone who actually likes and supports the montages, I have to say this one isn't that good. Three out of 5 pictures just show part of the CBD skyline. I know they're meant to be focusing on one part of it, but it seems like a waste. That and the Opera house appears in two of the pics as well. I support a montage, but not this one. What we have is fine anyway. Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article looks untidy. Some paragraphs are too short, especially the last. 26 words does not constitute as a separate paragraph, it looks poorly structured. The last paragraph should become an add on to the fourth paragraph and same for first and second. 101.103.130.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the lede was disjointed, thanks to this edit, that slotted the "Alpha+ World City" content in as the second sentence, pushing basic and more important information about the city's location down the lede. I've edited the lede to move it down to related content, although it doesn't actually belong in the lede as it isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. The lede is now only slightly different to what it was before the IP's edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rankings section

do we really need it? They are highly subjective, and in the real world (ie, not amongst Wikipedians) no one really pays any attention. It's just a repository for trivia. Further to date, it's only rankings that highlight the positives (albeit very subjectively assessed). --Merbabu (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no. It's a lot of waffle that really means little and the rankings are POV at best. It certainly does not belong in the lede. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend & Bidgee's Trust (monopoly)

I knew, I knew. Again, again, again. AussieLegend or Bidgee, Bidgee or AussieLegend etc... OK, I remember this and his description of the changes "You were reverted, it is opposed. Take it to the article's talk page and discuss it there". It works both ways. Soon I make changes to the article, you can not go back without discussion. Otherwise, alert on Misplaced Pages:Administrators and later - investigation on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee to permanently account's block. Already, a dozen people ready to testify in this case. Sorry. For a long time, you (Bidgee) and you (AussieLegend) create a monopoly in the articles about Sydney and rest of Australia. Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from you (Bidgee) and/or you (AussieLegend), while you (and your accomplice) do what you want, without the consent of the other users. This is unacceptable and contrary to the principles and the idea of ​​Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is 💕 - anyone can change it. Therefore it is necessary to alert administrators. This is an official warning, so as you did not say "that you know nothing about this". Maybe it funny for you, but not for others users. If you want a dictatorship you please create your own encyclopedia. This is last warning. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• B-Class New South Wales articles
• Top-importance New South Wales articles
• WikiProject New South Wales articles
• B-Class Sydney articles
• Top-importance Sydney articles
• WikiProject Sydney articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• B-Class Olympics articles
• Unknown-importance Olympics articles
• WikiProject Olympics articles
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Australian English