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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I presume that North Sydney was not included in this list originally because it is so close to the CBD, however it does deserve some mention in the urban structure section. Should the list be changed to 6 other business districts, or should we use some other wording? JPD ( talk) 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As many of you editors on Sydney know, Jackp has been a highly disruptive editor for some months now and I think it is high time to put a stop to it. His activity includes: inserting POV statements into articles, attempting to create sections again and again which have been reverted and discussed, removing sections he does not like and outright punctuation vandalism. His edits seek to promote Sydney and Australia whilst demeaning other cities and countries. He has added the same statement to the Sydney article no less than 8 times (and I only searched for a small sample): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] He frequently removes sections he does not like from other city articles, the section removed is usually the same section he tries to insert into Sydney: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Here ( [17]) he simply blanks a part of Tokyo out of frustration. He also commits sneaky vandalism through delevelling of headers: [18] [19] Here ( [20]) he questions the need for Tokyo having a tourism section (because Sydney's tourism section keeps getting removed. Here ( [21]) he says that NYC is not a good size (so he's going to make it a good size). He also attempts to insert the tourism section in Sydney again and again: [22] [23] [24]Very few of his edits have not been reverted. His talk page is full of people complaining about his edits but he seems to take no notice of them. What I have uncovered is only a tiny fraction of his total disruption: his edit count is over 1000. I just wanted to ask for people's opinions on his edits and whether we should take further action because we simply cannot let his disruption continue. Skinnyweed 13:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That's right, I'm very committed in getting Sydney's page into shape. And what where you saying about a POV statement? I'd be happy to post it here. Jackp 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine, if someone would just make an improvment, there is a lot on Sydney that could be added in, but know one seems willing, that just bugs me. Jackp 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, no sections need to be added, ok then fine, I've got a few:
MAYBE IF SOMEONE CARED, THEN NO TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN WASTED!!! Jackp 11:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No one ever said why it shouldn't be there, they said they didn't like what I wrote (as always). No one even made an attempt to fix it. Why can't something I write be edited instead of taken out, I've added in a new version of the architecture, if you don't like it then why don't you just fix it, and this would end Jackp 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've had enough of this! Can we all just move on? It is time we focus on more important things. Jackp 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I guess it just doesn't matter anymore, I'm done on trying to get it through, so I think we shall all move on from this issue now Jackp 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Jackp obviously wants headings in the arts section. The way he has done it doesn't actually make sense. For example, The Push gets labelled as Theatre, and both Theatre and Plays appear in different sections. So, what shoudl we do? As I see it, there are three options:
Please add your opinions. JPD ( talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is better to make it bold, because it is easier to read, when it isn't in bold text, it gets all jumbled. Just like Paris's "entertainment" section, it stands out so the reader knows what section they are reading! Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not complicating it, I'm making it eaiser to read, besides it looks better. Jackp 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Separating paragraphs is not a reason to use subheadings. All the features cities I can think of have 2 or 3 sections within culture. The Paris sections look really terrible.-- Peta 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd have to agree. It does look pretty tacky. Jackp 08:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
To me it seems that this subsection would be better in Geography than Culture, either as a subsection, or part of the urban structure subsection. Any other opinions? JPD ( talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think instead of getting rid of all that information on Parks and Gardens (I think it is very well written), we should add it as a sub-section under "Geography" since there are so many parks and gardens in Sydney. Instead of removing it all together. Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It was much more ditinctive with as a sub-section. Maybe be it should go as a sub-section under Geography. Jackp 05:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added much more info to Parks and Gardens in Sydney, and it's a little to big for it to be included under arts and entertainment, so it's gone back to having it's own sub-section. Jackp 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why "Parks and Gardens" needs to be added under arts and entertianment (which has absoloutly nothing to do with parks and gardens)...It should still have it's own subsection. Jackp 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The question is where do we put it? The only reasonable option was giving it a sub-section under cutlure, because it can't go under geography, and there isn't anywhere else for it to go. So if it doesn't have a subsection...then where does it go? Also, why is the "further reading" section constantly removed? Jackp 07:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds ok, or maybe just remove some of the parts that don't reall deserve a mention. Jackp 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone above suggested that the list of LGAs in the body of the article was ugly and unnecessary, as they are listed in the template at the bottom. Does anyone agree? Alternatives that I can see include linking to a list of LGAs in Sydney, or possibly even moving the sydney regions template to that part of the article. JPD ( talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A while ago I added this into the first part of the Sydney article:
"Sydney is the Australia's focal center of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture."
Well, isn't most of that true?? I want to no what is before I add the sentence in, because I feel it should be mentioned somewhere, and the top is the most venerable for people to see (there really isn't any other places). Jackp 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What about if the peacock terms are removed, eg "Sydney has Australia's largest concentration of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture, or something along those lines? Jackp 08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Finance is already in the article, but for the rest, apart from tons of books and documentaries, this is where it can be proven:
1. link title 2. link title
Jackp 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove education and politics when I re-add it. Also, if Sydney isn't, then what is Australia's education capital? Jackp 06:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not about verifying claims - it's the NATURE of the claims (whether they are true or not) that is the issue. They belong in a tourist brochure, this is an encyclopedia. I don't care if jack's hyperbole is true (it probably is) or that it is conclusively verifiable (it probably isn't), the fact is it doesn't belong here, end of F^&%*#)%* story. I cannot believe we have now spend weeks debating something that so clearly conflicts with central tennants of wikipedia. -- Merbabu 06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Merbabu, no offence but, why do you always have a bone to pick with everyone? We are just trying to discuss something here, is that illegal on Wikipedia. Everone is just answering the question about Australia's education capital. PLEASE LAY OFF. Jackp 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like this section. If information about any of these rankings is important enough, then it can go in the lead or somewhere else appropriate. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in the article. There is no need to have a separate section for it. JPD ( talk) 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If no further comments are made, I will remove the section. The Beta world city info is not a ranking, but a description of what sort of city it is, so can go in the lead. The other ranking could possibly go in the lead, but perhaps doesn't need to be there at all. JPD ( talk) 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In light of today's reversions from Jackp, re-adding material which it has been explained to him time and time again is inappropriate, I have blocked him for a week. I have asked him to take the time to think about and try to understand why his editing has been inappropriate, and informed him that I will block him indefinitely if he continues editing in this way after the conclusion of his block. Rebecca 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone ( 203.208.120.247), presumably Jackp himself, is now doing the same things all over again. Is another block justified? JPD ( talk) 10:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've just written a section on architecture in Sydney. I posted it on Merbabu's user talk page, because he gave me an idea for the architecture section. So after I read his ideas, I got cracking on the section. Anways, Merbabu gave it a quick read, and thought it was a good start, although he though it may beed to be re-sized, as it's a little too long. He also said that many of you mighten be pleased (he has a copy and says he'll work on it), so to be sure he said post it on the Sydney talk page, so give it a read and see what you think:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 July 2006
This is indeed a better section, and could form the start of an architecture in Sydney article. However, that doesn't mean that it should be a section in this article. JPD ( talk) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I should also have said that even if the section does stay (and at the moment, I'd rather it didn't), the information about Centrepoint being open to the public and a tourist attraction doesn't belong there, because it doesn't have anything to do with architecture. JPD ( talk) 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if we just left the architecture section on the Sydney page small, and have a "main article" at the top directing the reader to the new article. And about the skyscrapers in sydney, well myabe, we could merge it into the architecture page-if we create one. Jackp 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"In the years following the 2000 Olympics, CityRail's performance declined significantly."
Is that true? I don't think it is, I haven't ever herd any information about it. And also, the trnasport section is missing a few sub-sections such as "Buses" (buses are used a lot in Sydney), and the whole section looks messy without a heading (i.e. airports, trains and rails), so I think they should be subsections under "transport", although the infrastructure will look all messy and out of shape, so I think the Transport section should have it's own section. Jackp 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What is a featured city? Jackp 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
So is New York City a featured city, what other cities are besides Canberra, Detroit and Ann Arbor? Jackp 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This section does not belong and does not fit into the format of a featured city article.
Keep:
Remove:
Comments:
The other point is, would a good architecture section have a place in a top level city article? Unless the architecture of a city is pretty remarkable (eg Rome and Paris for historic reasons) - its not something I would expect to see, nor do I think it is very relvant to the reader who wants to know general stuff about Sydney. Also the bulk of Sydney, is not the CBD, it's the suburbs, all the talk so far, just focuses on the CBD.-- Peta 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Sydney’s skyline is not characterised by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a long period of time."
Gotta laugh at that one! 218 years is brief on the scale of city timelines. Rome, London, Bejing,... have building histories measured in millenia. One can hardly say that Sydney has "accumulated its buildings over a long period of time." Mako's suggestion of a rewrite seems a good one. I suggest that any rewrite should have *every* statement directly referenced to a reputable source. No source, no appearance in the article, no matter how obvious it seems.
John Dalton
It doesn't completly need to be re-written, just a little more detailed and extensive. The section doesn't really mention much about housing because there wasn't much info on it. A little more detail, and more about buidlings and the article should go along just fine. Jackp 07:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I see a lot of sensible comments about what an article on Architecture in Sydney (and hence a summary Architecture section in this article) should cover, but we still haven't really addressed the issue of whether an architecture section, no matter how well written, really needs to be in this sort of article. I tend to think that it doesn't, and that any material that should be included belongs as brief mentions in geography and/or history. JPD ( talk) 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m very willing to create a portal on Sydney. All I need to know is whenever I go to create it, it redirects to the Australian portal, how do I change this. I've read throughly the rules on portals, the guidlines, how to make a good portal and so on, because I don't want to make the same mistake that I have on the Sydney page in the past. Jackp 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, in actually fact, there is tons of pages related to Sydney on Wikipedia. I'm terribly sick of you Michael, you always have something to disagree with about me and the things I tried to do. And as I said, I've learnt my leason Michael, I know what is accepted on Wikipedia and what isn't. Jackp 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Since there are several comments here about Jackp's disruptive edits, I though I would let you all know that he seems to be making a POINT on New York City – see the talk page. – Joke 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Enough disruption. I have blocked Jackp indefinitely. Rebecca 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously? What does being a global city have to do with economy?
From, Movie-lover93 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sydney has a coat of arms and a flag, and these are the right one: FLAG: http://www.freehomepages.com/goebel/sydney_flag.jpg
COAT OF ARMS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hs_chos_sotc_coat_of_arms_new.gif
Wanna consider adding them?
From, Movie-lover93 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I never new that, sorry. Movie-lover93 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Is new editor Movie-lover93 Jackp in disguise? Their contributions to this article and others ( [25] [26] ) are very similar - too similar for coincidence? Jackp often edited movies including Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Is Sydney or the City of Sydney the capital of New South Wales? — Insta ntnood 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an entirely silly debate. Sydney is the undisputed capital of New South Wales. The City of Sydney is a local government area existing for the purposes of serving inner Sydney. Rebecca 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought until I started searching for sources. Could you please provide a source for your point of view Rebecca? I provided an authorative source for my edits (the Department of Finance and Administration). Do you know better than them? Saying "that's silly" or "it is obvious" is an academic cop out and would get you laughed out of any scholastic forum. It is a misconception to say that the metropolitan area of Sydney is the capital city of NSW. It (the subject of this article) isn't even a city. From the sources I have read, the facts are that the City of Sydney is the capital. The metropolitan area of Sydney encompasses multiple cities (Sydney, Parramatta, Liverpool,...). Thus this metro area contains the capital, but it is not the capital. All because the cities have grown to the point where there is no bush between them doesn't mean they have lost their identities. I ask you to either a) undo your reversion or b) provide a source more authorative than the one I provided to back up your reversion. Be careful that you are not overreacting to changes to the article since Jackp was on the scene. I await your response. John Dalton 05:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a fun game with a serious message about the need for sources. Please feel free to add to these lists or move items around! :-) John Dalton 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've been converted. The Geographic Names Board of NSW GNB of NSW is hard to beat. According to them: "It is the capital of New South Wales. The inner city area is located on the southern shores of Port Jackson, but the city extends to the north, south and west for many km." The question remains, just how far is "many km"? To answer this, look at the topgraphic map reference given for "Sydney": Parramatta River. This is smack in the middle of the metro area of Sydney and doesn't include the "City of Sydney". Conclusion: The capital of NSW is some fuzzy blob called "Sydney" which is centred on Parramatta.
I withdraw the above arguments. The capital (note, not capital city) of NSW is not the City od Sydney. It is "Sydney". I do not withdraw my comments about the need for sources for every bit of information in the article (even the 'obvious stuff'). John Dalton 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the cities (LGUs) of Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Melbourne then? Are they the actual state capitals? — Insta ntnood 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Cue evil laugh... I lost that battle, but I will fight again... (though wikipedia as a whole won in that we got a good source out of it)
Moving onto the next 'obvious statement': "The city is Australia's oldest city...". I challenge someone provide a source for this. To take the contrary position...
What is meant by "first city" Does the article really mean to say "first permanent settlement"? City is generally defined by "size, population density, importance, or legal status" (to quote wikipedia). On which of these is Sydney claiming to be Australia's "first city" in 1788? (1788 is mentioned in the next breath implying that in 1788 Sydney was Australia's first city.)
If "first permanent settlement", there are other contenders for Australia's "first city". It is possible that permanent aboriginal settlements exceeded the scope of the original Sydney "city". For example, there was a permanant aboriginal settlement at Lake Condah in Victoria [29] [30] [31]. Was this Australia's "first city"? To quote the DEH website: "it contains the remains of a complex system of natural and artificially created wetlands, channels, the stone bases of weirs and stone fish traps that were used by Gunditj Mara people to grow and harvest eels and fish (Builth 2002, 2003). The remains of the channels, weirs and fishtraps are hundreds and probably thousands of years old."... "stone huts clustered into villages of between two and sixteen huts". This sounds more major than Sydney 1788. Water catchments, farms, buildings,...perhaps even qualifying as a "city" (as used in the statement from the article)?
I suggest that "The city is Australia's oldest city..." becomes "The city is Australia's first European settlement...". Of course whoever makes this change must provide a reference to back up this 'obvious' fact. (Just in case it is as obvious as the fact that Sydney was Australia's first city.) John Dalton 09:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of
Wikipedia:Verifiability is not to provide an inline citation for every statement. It makes the text difficult to read and doesn't add much if the sources are not reliable anyway. Further there is not dispute that Australia was settled by Europeans in 1788 and on that site the first city or whatever you want to call it was established, chanage the text to reflect that if you think it is currently misleading.--
Peta
12:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind this blitzkrieg, but hopefully I'm raising valid points.
Back to the Geographic Names Board for this one.
Port Jackson and Sydney Harbour are different things and the terms cannot be interchanged as the article says: "Built around Port Jackson (more commonly known as Sydney Harbour)". Port Jackson is all the water inside North Head and South Head. It has three arms: North Harbour, Middle Harbour and Sydney Harbour[1]. Sydney Harbour is the southern part of Port jackson. It excludes Middle Harbour, North Harbour and the Parramatta River[2]. It is incorrect to say that Port Jackson can be called Sydney Harbour. I've provided references ready to go below. The explanation of exactly which water is covered by each name is at the bottom of each page. I suggest that "(more commonly known as Sydney Harbour)" be deleted, or the difference explained if the article must keep a reference to "Sydney Harbour". John Dalton 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[1] Geographical Name Register Extract for Port Jackson, Geographic Names Board of New South Wales (accessed 31st July 2006)
[2] Geographical Name Register Extract for Sydney Harbour, Geographic Names Board of New South Wales (accessed 31st July 2006)
I am looking for a consensus with regard to these two categories: Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales & Category:Shopping centres in Sydney.(see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney#scope for previous entries). I have looked through this it seems to be an old chestnut. Does the PROJECT have a consensus on what is in Sydney for the purpose of Wikipedia? PROPOSAL: For the purpose of articles related on Wikipedia, if the suburb is included on List of Sydney suburbs then it is IN SYDNEY for the purposes of classifying articles.
Strong Agree -- Ga rr ie 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that opening paragraph still needs work. When was Sydney actually founded as a city? Ie, it wasn't Sydney that was proclaimed in 1788 but NSW. When did the name "Sydney" come into use, both colloquially and officially? In the meantime, i suggest "Sydney was established" rather than "Sydney was founded" - sounds less official. -- Merbabu 12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted a major edit to Parks in Sydney by Jfpearce that was a blatant copy from some of Jackp's favourite sources. Can someone else keep an eye on this user's activity. -- Steve 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The intro paragraph states a population of over four million, but a recent edit has the urban area with a population of 3,455,110 at the 2001 census. I assume the intro is wrong? -- Steve 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Statistical Division (SD) The SD is a general purpose spatial unit and is the largest and most stable spatial unit within each S/T in the Main Structure. SDs consist of one or more SSDs. In aggregate, they cover Australia (as defined in Chapter 1, p. 4) without gaps or overlaps. SDs aggregate to form S/Ts (see diagram 3, Chapter 1, p. 3). In this edition of the ASGC, there are 66 SDs in Australia including one SD for the three Territories of Jervis Bay, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Delimitation of SDs The current basis for delimiting SDs was determined by the 31st and 33rd Conferences of Statisticians of Australia in 1969 and 1973. The delimitation criteria are as follows: * SDs should ideally be delimited on the basis of socioeconomic criteria and should, where possible, embrace contiguous whole local government areas. * SD boundaries so delimited should be changed only at infrequent intervals, for example, at periods of 15–20 years. * SD boundaries should be determined in time for use in the next Population Census if practicable. * A Capital City SD (currently one in each capital city) should be defined, after consultation with planners, to contain the anticipated development of the city for a period of at least 20 years. This fixed SD boundary — as distinct from the moving urban centre boundary — delimits an area which is stable for general statistical purposes. It represents the city in a wider sense. This delimitation procedure cannot be applied to the separate urban centres within a Capital City SD. * SDs outside a capital city should be defined as a relatively homogeneous region characterised by identifiable social and economic links between the inhabitants and between the economic units within the region, under the unifying influence of one or more major towns or cities. More specifically, the SDs within the individual S/T have been delimited as follows: * In New South Wales, SDs correspond to proclaimed Government Regions with the exception that North Coast Region consists of the SDs of Richmond-Tweed and Mid-North Coast. These Regions were delimited to maximize the degree of socioeconomic interactions within each Region. Information on transport patterns, telephone traffic between major cities and towns, retail shopping, fresh goods marketing, provincial newspaper circulation areas and coverage of principal radio stations were all used in delimiting these boundaries. * In Victoria, the SDs prior to 1995 generally corresponded to State Planning Regions adopted by the Victorian Government in October 1981. However, following the restructuring of local government in that State during 1994 and 1995, the SDs were redefined to accord with the general considerations and criteria outlined above. * In Queensland, formal State Planning Regions have been abolished. SDs are used on an informal basis for State Government planning purposes where relevant. SD delimitation follows the general criteria outlined above. * In South Australia, State Planning Regions, as proposed by the Committee on Uniform Regional Boundaries for Government Departments (CURB), were adopted by the South Australia Government in 1976. CURB Regions were based on such factors as: population density and distribution, socioeconomic characteristics, political boundaries, government service areas, newspaper circulation, retail trading patterns, etc. Prior to 1998, South Australian SDs did not always correspond to CURB Regions but they always aggregated to these Regions. However, following the restructuring of local government in South Australia in 1996 and 1997, the SDs were redefined to accord with the general considerations and criteria outlined above. * In Western Australia, State Planning Regions, as proposed by the State Statistical Coordination Committee, were adopted by the Western Australia Government in January 1976. SDs in Western Australia correspond to these Regions. The Perth Metropolitan Region is delimited to be consistent with the overall concepts and planning of Perth and to take into account LGA and CD boundaries. Rural Regions on the other hand are delimited based on the socioeconomic interest of the community; the character of natural resource; the distribution of population and industries; town size; road and railway systems; and production and marketing practices. * In Tasmania, SD delimitation follows the general considerations and criteria outlined above. They are considered satisfactory for the purpose of State Government planning. * In the Northern Territory, SDs are based on Territory Government Administrative Regions, and are consistent with the general considerations and criteria for their delimitation described above. * In the Australian Capital Territory, SD delimitation follows the general considerations and criteria outlined above. * In the Other Territories, the SD has been delimited to represent the aggregated area of the Territories of Jervis Bay, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Infobox Australian City about which figures (Statistical District or Urban Centre) are more appropriate for the infoboxes. Hopefully some more people will see it there. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Here we go. Quoth the ABS: " Metropolitan is a term often used by different people to mean different things. It was defined in the Rural Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA) Classification (See Rural Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA)) as being the Statistical Subdivisions containing Major Urban Centres. While the ABS has not defined the term "Metropolitan" in its own geography it is often interpreted as the Capital City Statistical Division in each State/Territory with Ex-metropolitan being the remainder of the State/Territory." There you go. So a Metropolitan area is either an SSD containing a major urban centre (those with pops of 100,000 or more), or a capital city Statistical Division. Jeez, even THEY can't make up their f**king minds. I think this is an indication we can use the more pedestrian-friendly term 'Metropolitan Area' in this article though. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee, no wonder I was confused which shopping centres are in Sydney and which ones are in New South Wales... Ga rr ie 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it look better if the picture of the Sydney skyline and Opera House from Sydney Harbour if it was in the infobox above or under the map with a caption below it. I think it would look pretty good in there!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill-bill-93 ( talk • contribs) aka Jackp
Why isn't the article title Sydney, New South Wales? The article for every other city/town in Australia except for some of the state capitals includes the state name, and those few shoudl be changed as well. Ohwell32 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, everyone including the georaphically challanged knows Sydney is in Australia. It is world famous, and there is no need for it to be moved to Sydney, NSW. Does Toronto have one, does London, Tokyo, Paris, NYC, Milan...NO, because everyone knows where they are. Plus, if Sydney wasn't the article the person was looking for there is a disambiguation link at the top.
So many cities have one now, and I was wondering whether Sydney will ever get the portal treatment on Wikipedia? Someone before claimed that it wouldn’t be sufficient enough because there are hardly any articles that have something to do with the city on Wikipedia, but that is just bias. There are a total of 58 articles about places in the city, and 43 about regions in the city. Toronto has a portal and there are only 57 related to Toronto…so what is this garbage about not enough pages related to the city?? So far will the Sydney articles be improved any time soon, when they are will someone begin to work on one??
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I presume that North Sydney was not included in this list originally because it is so close to the CBD, however it does deserve some mention in the urban structure section. Should the list be changed to 6 other business districts, or should we use some other wording? JPD ( talk) 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As many of you editors on Sydney know, Jackp has been a highly disruptive editor for some months now and I think it is high time to put a stop to it. His activity includes: inserting POV statements into articles, attempting to create sections again and again which have been reverted and discussed, removing sections he does not like and outright punctuation vandalism. His edits seek to promote Sydney and Australia whilst demeaning other cities and countries. He has added the same statement to the Sydney article no less than 8 times (and I only searched for a small sample): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] He frequently removes sections he does not like from other city articles, the section removed is usually the same section he tries to insert into Sydney: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Here ( [17]) he simply blanks a part of Tokyo out of frustration. He also commits sneaky vandalism through delevelling of headers: [18] [19] Here ( [20]) he questions the need for Tokyo having a tourism section (because Sydney's tourism section keeps getting removed. Here ( [21]) he says that NYC is not a good size (so he's going to make it a good size). He also attempts to insert the tourism section in Sydney again and again: [22] [23] [24]Very few of his edits have not been reverted. His talk page is full of people complaining about his edits but he seems to take no notice of them. What I have uncovered is only a tiny fraction of his total disruption: his edit count is over 1000. I just wanted to ask for people's opinions on his edits and whether we should take further action because we simply cannot let his disruption continue. Skinnyweed 13:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That's right, I'm very committed in getting Sydney's page into shape. And what where you saying about a POV statement? I'd be happy to post it here. Jackp 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine, if someone would just make an improvment, there is a lot on Sydney that could be added in, but know one seems willing, that just bugs me. Jackp 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, no sections need to be added, ok then fine, I've got a few:
MAYBE IF SOMEONE CARED, THEN NO TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN WASTED!!! Jackp 11:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No one ever said why it shouldn't be there, they said they didn't like what I wrote (as always). No one even made an attempt to fix it. Why can't something I write be edited instead of taken out, I've added in a new version of the architecture, if you don't like it then why don't you just fix it, and this would end Jackp 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've had enough of this! Can we all just move on? It is time we focus on more important things. Jackp 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I guess it just doesn't matter anymore, I'm done on trying to get it through, so I think we shall all move on from this issue now Jackp 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Jackp obviously wants headings in the arts section. The way he has done it doesn't actually make sense. For example, The Push gets labelled as Theatre, and both Theatre and Plays appear in different sections. So, what shoudl we do? As I see it, there are three options:
Please add your opinions. JPD ( talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is better to make it bold, because it is easier to read, when it isn't in bold text, it gets all jumbled. Just like Paris's "entertainment" section, it stands out so the reader knows what section they are reading! Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not complicating it, I'm making it eaiser to read, besides it looks better. Jackp 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Separating paragraphs is not a reason to use subheadings. All the features cities I can think of have 2 or 3 sections within culture. The Paris sections look really terrible.-- Peta 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd have to agree. It does look pretty tacky. Jackp 08:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
To me it seems that this subsection would be better in Geography than Culture, either as a subsection, or part of the urban structure subsection. Any other opinions? JPD ( talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think instead of getting rid of all that information on Parks and Gardens (I think it is very well written), we should add it as a sub-section under "Geography" since there are so many parks and gardens in Sydney. Instead of removing it all together. Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It was much more ditinctive with as a sub-section. Maybe be it should go as a sub-section under Geography. Jackp 05:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added much more info to Parks and Gardens in Sydney, and it's a little to big for it to be included under arts and entertainment, so it's gone back to having it's own sub-section. Jackp 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why "Parks and Gardens" needs to be added under arts and entertianment (which has absoloutly nothing to do with parks and gardens)...It should still have it's own subsection. Jackp 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The question is where do we put it? The only reasonable option was giving it a sub-section under cutlure, because it can't go under geography, and there isn't anywhere else for it to go. So if it doesn't have a subsection...then where does it go? Also, why is the "further reading" section constantly removed? Jackp 07:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds ok, or maybe just remove some of the parts that don't reall deserve a mention. Jackp 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone above suggested that the list of LGAs in the body of the article was ugly and unnecessary, as they are listed in the template at the bottom. Does anyone agree? Alternatives that I can see include linking to a list of LGAs in Sydney, or possibly even moving the sydney regions template to that part of the article. JPD ( talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A while ago I added this into the first part of the Sydney article:
"Sydney is the Australia's focal center of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture."
Well, isn't most of that true?? I want to no what is before I add the sentence in, because I feel it should be mentioned somewhere, and the top is the most venerable for people to see (there really isn't any other places). Jackp 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What about if the peacock terms are removed, eg "Sydney has Australia's largest concentration of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture, or something along those lines? Jackp 08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Finance is already in the article, but for the rest, apart from tons of books and documentaries, this is where it can be proven:
1. link title 2. link title
Jackp 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove education and politics when I re-add it. Also, if Sydney isn't, then what is Australia's education capital? Jackp 06:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not about verifying claims - it's the NATURE of the claims (whether they are true or not) that is the issue. They belong in a tourist brochure, this is an encyclopedia. I don't care if jack's hyperbole is true (it probably is) or that it is conclusively verifiable (it probably isn't), the fact is it doesn't belong here, end of F^&%*#)%* story. I cannot believe we have now spend weeks debating something that so clearly conflicts with central tennants of wikipedia. -- Merbabu 06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Merbabu, no offence but, why do you always have a bone to pick with everyone? We are just trying to discuss something here, is that illegal on Wikipedia. Everone is just answering the question about Australia's education capital. PLEASE LAY OFF. Jackp 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like this section. If information about any of these rankings is important enough, then it can go in the lead or somewhere else appropriate. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in the article. There is no need to have a separate section for it. JPD ( talk) 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If no further comments are made, I will remove the section. The Beta world city info is not a ranking, but a description of what sort of city it is, so can go in the lead. The other ranking could possibly go in the lead, but perhaps doesn't need to be there at all. JPD ( talk) 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In light of today's reversions from Jackp, re-adding material which it has been explained to him time and time again is inappropriate, I have blocked him for a week. I have asked him to take the time to think about and try to understand why his editing has been inappropriate, and informed him that I will block him indefinitely if he continues editing in this way after the conclusion of his block. Rebecca 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone ( 203.208.120.247), presumably Jackp himself, is now doing the same things all over again. Is another block justified? JPD ( talk) 10:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've just written a section on architecture in Sydney. I posted it on Merbabu's user talk page, because he gave me an idea for the architecture section. So after I read his ideas, I got cracking on the section. Anways, Merbabu gave it a quick read, and thought it was a good start, although he though it may beed to be re-sized, as it's a little too long. He also said that many of you mighten be pleased (he has a copy and says he'll work on it), so to be sure he said post it on the Sydney talk page, so give it a read and see what you think:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 July 2006
This is indeed a better section, and could form the start of an architecture in Sydney article. However, that doesn't mean that it should be a section in this article. JPD ( talk) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I should also have said that even if the section does stay (and at the moment, I'd rather it didn't), the information about Centrepoint being open to the public and a tourist attraction doesn't belong there, because it doesn't have anything to do with architecture. JPD ( talk) 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if we just left the architecture section on the Sydney page small, and have a "main article" at the top directing the reader to the new article. And about the skyscrapers in sydney, well myabe, we could merge it into the architecture page-if we create one. Jackp 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"In the years following the 2000 Olympics, CityRail's performance declined significantly."
Is that true? I don't think it is, I haven't ever herd any information about it. And also, the trnasport section is missing a few sub-sections such as "Buses" (buses are used a lot in Sydney), and the whole section looks messy without a heading (i.e. airports, trains and rails), so I think they should be subsections under "transport", although the infrastructure will look all messy and out of shape, so I think the Transport section should have it's own section. Jackp 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What is a featured city? Jackp 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
So is New York City a featured city, what other cities are besides Canberra, Detroit and Ann Arbor? Jackp 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This section does not belong and does not fit into the format of a featured city article.
Keep:
Remove:
Comments:
The other point is, would a good architecture section have a place in a top level city article? Unless the architecture of a city is pretty remarkable (eg Rome and Paris for historic reasons) - its not something I would expect to see, nor do I think it is very relvant to the reader who wants to know general stuff about Sydney. Also the bulk of Sydney, is not the CBD, it's the suburbs, all the talk so far, just focuses on the CBD.-- Peta 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Sydney’s skyline is not characterised by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a long period of time."
Gotta laugh at that one! 218 years is brief on the scale of city timelines. Rome, London, Bejing,... have building histories measured in millenia. One can hardly say that Sydney has "accumulated its buildings over a long period of time." Mako's suggestion of a rewrite seems a good one. I suggest that any rewrite should have *every* statement directly referenced to a reputable source. No source, no appearance in the article, no matter how obvious it seems.
John Dalton
It doesn't completly need to be re-written, just a little more detailed and extensive. The section doesn't really mention much about housing because there wasn't much info on it. A little more detail, and more about buidlings and the article should go along just fine. Jackp 07:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I see a lot of sensible comments about what an article on Architecture in Sydney (and hence a summary Architecture section in this article) should cover, but we still haven't really addressed the issue of whether an architecture section, no matter how well written, really needs to be in this sort of article. I tend to think that it doesn't, and that any material that should be included belongs as brief mentions in geography and/or history. JPD ( talk) 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m very willing to create a portal on Sydney. All I need to know is whenever I go to create it, it redirects to the Australian portal, how do I change this. I've read throughly the rules on portals, the guidlines, how to make a good portal and so on, because I don't want to make the same mistake that I have on the Sydney page in the past. Jackp 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, in actually fact, there is tons of pages related to Sydney on Wikipedia. I'm terribly sick of you Michael, you always have something to disagree with about me and the things I tried to do. And as I said, I've learnt my leason Michael, I know what is accepted on Wikipedia and what isn't. Jackp 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Since there are several comments here about Jackp's disruptive edits, I though I would let you all know that he seems to be making a POINT on New York City – see the talk page. – Joke 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Enough disruption. I have blocked Jackp indefinitely. Rebecca 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously? What does being a global city have to do with economy?
From, Movie-lover93 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sydney has a coat of arms and a flag, and these are the right one: FLAG: http://www.freehomepages.com/goebel/sydney_flag.jpg
COAT OF ARMS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hs_chos_sotc_coat_of_arms_new.gif
Wanna consider adding them?
From, Movie-lover93 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I never new that, sorry. Movie-lover93 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Is new editor Movie-lover93 Jackp in disguise? Their contributions to this article and others ( [25] [26] ) are very similar - too similar for coincidence? Jackp often edited movies including Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Is Sydney or the City of Sydney the capital of New South Wales? — Insta ntnood 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an entirely silly debate. Sydney is the undisputed capital of New South Wales. The City of Sydney is a local government area existing for the purposes of serving inner Sydney. Rebecca 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought until I started searching for sources. Could you please provide a source for your point of view Rebecca? I provided an authorative source for my edits (the Department of Finance and Administration). Do you know better than them? Saying "that's silly" or "it is obvious" is an academic cop out and would get you laughed out of any scholastic forum. It is a misconception to say that the metropolitan area of Sydney is the capital city of NSW. It (the subject of this article) isn't even a city. From the sources I have read, the facts are that the City of Sydney is the capital. The metropolitan area of Sydney encompasses multiple cities (Sydney, Parramatta, Liverpool,...). Thus this metro area contains the capital, but it is not the capital. All because the cities have grown to the point where there is no bush between them doesn't mean they have lost their identities. I ask you to either a) undo your reversion or b) provide a source more authorative than the one I provided to back up your reversion. Be careful that you are not overreacting to changes to the article since Jackp was on the scene. I await your response. John Dalton 05:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a fun game with a serious message about the need for sources. Please feel free to add to these lists or move items around! :-) John Dalton 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've been converted. The Geographic Names Board of NSW GNB of NSW is hard to beat. According to them: "It is the capital of New South Wales. The inner city area is located on the southern shores of Port Jackson, but the city extends to the north, south and west for many km." The question remains, just how far is "many km"? To answer this, look at the topgraphic map reference given for "Sydney": Parramatta River. This is smack in the middle of the metro area of Sydney and doesn't include the "City of Sydney". Conclusion: The capital of NSW is some fuzzy blob called "Sydney" which is centred on Parramatta.
I withdraw the above arguments. The capital (note, not capital city) of NSW is not the City od Sydney. It is "Sydney". I do not withdraw my comments about the need for sources for every bit of information in the article (even the 'obvious stuff'). John Dalton 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the cities (LGUs) of Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Melbourne then? Are they the actual state capitals? — Insta ntnood 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Cue evil laugh... I lost that battle, but I will fight again... (though wikipedia as a whole won in that we got a good source out of it)
Moving onto the next 'obvious statement': "The city is Australia's oldest city...". I challenge someone provide a source for this. To take the contrary position...
What is meant by "first city" Does the article really mean to say "first permanent settlement"? City is generally defined by "size, population density, importance, or legal status" (to quote wikipedia). On which of these is Sydney claiming to be Australia's "first city" in 1788? (1788 is mentioned in the next breath implying that in 1788 Sydney was Australia's first city.)
If "first permanent settlement", there are other contenders for Australia's "first city". It is possible that permanent aboriginal settlements exceeded the scope of the original Sydney "city". For example, there was a permanant aboriginal settlement at Lake Condah in Victoria [29] [30] [31]. Was this Australia's "first city"? To quote the DEH website: "it contains the remains of a complex system of natural and artificially created wetlands, channels, the stone bases of weirs and stone fish traps that were used by Gunditj Mara people to grow and harvest eels and fish (Builth 2002, 2003). The remains of the channels, weirs and fishtraps are hundreds and probably thousands of years old."... "stone huts clustered into villages of between two and sixteen huts". This sounds more major than Sydney 1788. Water catchments, farms, buildings,...perhaps even qualifying as a "city" (as used in the statement from the article)?
I suggest that "The city is Australia's oldest city..." becomes "The city is Australia's first European settlement...". Of course whoever makes this change must provide a reference to back up this 'obvious' fact. (Just in case it is as obvious as the fact that Sydney was Australia's first city.) John Dalton 09:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of
Wikipedia:Verifiability is not to provide an inline citation for every statement. It makes the text difficult to read and doesn't add much if the sources are not reliable anyway. Further there is not dispute that Australia was settled by Europeans in 1788 and on that site the first city or whatever you want to call it was established, chanage the text to reflect that if you think it is currently misleading.--
Peta
12:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind this blitzkrieg, but hopefully I'm raising valid points.
Back to the Geographic Names Board for this one.
Port Jackson and Sydney Harbour are different things and the terms cannot be interchanged as the article says: "Built around Port Jackson (more commonly known as Sydney Harbour)". Port Jackson is all the water inside North Head and South Head. It has three arms: North Harbour, Middle Harbour and Sydney Harbour[1]. Sydney Harbour is the southern part of Port jackson. It excludes Middle Harbour, North Harbour and the Parramatta River[2]. It is incorrect to say that Port Jackson can be called Sydney Harbour. I've provided references ready to go below. The explanation of exactly which water is covered by each name is at the bottom of each page. I suggest that "(more commonly known as Sydney Harbour)" be deleted, or the difference explained if the article must keep a reference to "Sydney Harbour". John Dalton 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[1] Geographical Name Register Extract for Port Jackson, Geographic Names Board of New South Wales (accessed 31st July 2006)
[2] Geographical Name Register Extract for Sydney Harbour, Geographic Names Board of New South Wales (accessed 31st July 2006)
I am looking for a consensus with regard to these two categories: Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales & Category:Shopping centres in Sydney.(see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney#scope for previous entries). I have looked through this it seems to be an old chestnut. Does the PROJECT have a consensus on what is in Sydney for the purpose of Wikipedia? PROPOSAL: For the purpose of articles related on Wikipedia, if the suburb is included on List of Sydney suburbs then it is IN SYDNEY for the purposes of classifying articles.
Strong Agree -- Ga rr ie 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that opening paragraph still needs work. When was Sydney actually founded as a city? Ie, it wasn't Sydney that was proclaimed in 1788 but NSW. When did the name "Sydney" come into use, both colloquially and officially? In the meantime, i suggest "Sydney was established" rather than "Sydney was founded" - sounds less official. -- Merbabu 12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted a major edit to Parks in Sydney by Jfpearce that was a blatant copy from some of Jackp's favourite sources. Can someone else keep an eye on this user's activity. -- Steve 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The intro paragraph states a population of over four million, but a recent edit has the urban area with a population of 3,455,110 at the 2001 census. I assume the intro is wrong? -- Steve 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Statistical Division (SD) The SD is a general purpose spatial unit and is the largest and most stable spatial unit within each S/T in the Main Structure. SDs consist of one or more SSDs. In aggregate, they cover Australia (as defined in Chapter 1, p. 4) without gaps or overlaps. SDs aggregate to form S/Ts (see diagram 3, Chapter 1, p. 3). In this edition of the ASGC, there are 66 SDs in Australia including one SD for the three Territories of Jervis Bay, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Delimitation of SDs The current basis for delimiting SDs was determined by the 31st and 33rd Conferences of Statisticians of Australia in 1969 and 1973. The delimitation criteria are as follows: * SDs should ideally be delimited on the basis of socioeconomic criteria and should, where possible, embrace contiguous whole local government areas. * SD boundaries so delimited should be changed only at infrequent intervals, for example, at periods of 15–20 years. * SD boundaries should be determined in time for use in the next Population Census if practicable. * A Capital City SD (currently one in each capital city) should be defined, after consultation with planners, to contain the anticipated development of the city for a period of at least 20 years. This fixed SD boundary — as distinct from the moving urban centre boundary — delimits an area which is stable for general statistical purposes. It represents the city in a wider sense. This delimitation procedure cannot be applied to the separate urban centres within a Capital City SD. * SDs outside a capital city should be defined as a relatively homogeneous region characterised by identifiable social and economic links between the inhabitants and between the economic units within the region, under the unifying influence of one or more major towns or cities. More specifically, the SDs within the individual S/T have been delimited as follows: * In New South Wales, SDs correspond to proclaimed Government Regions with the exception that North Coast Region consists of the SDs of Richmond-Tweed and Mid-North Coast. These Regions were delimited to maximize the degree of socioeconomic interactions within each Region. Information on transport patterns, telephone traffic between major cities and towns, retail shopping, fresh goods marketing, provincial newspaper circulation areas and coverage of principal radio stations were all used in delimiting these boundaries. * In Victoria, the SDs prior to 1995 generally corresponded to State Planning Regions adopted by the Victorian Government in October 1981. However, following the restructuring of local government in that State during 1994 and 1995, the SDs were redefined to accord with the general considerations and criteria outlined above. * In Queensland, formal State Planning Regions have been abolished. SDs are used on an informal basis for State Government planning purposes where relevant. SD delimitation follows the general criteria outlined above. * In South Australia, State Planning Regions, as proposed by the Committee on Uniform Regional Boundaries for Government Departments (CURB), were adopted by the South Australia Government in 1976. CURB Regions were based on such factors as: population density and distribution, socioeconomic characteristics, political boundaries, government service areas, newspaper circulation, retail trading patterns, etc. Prior to 1998, South Australian SDs did not always correspond to CURB Regions but they always aggregated to these Regions. However, following the restructuring of local government in South Australia in 1996 and 1997, the SDs were redefined to accord with the general considerations and criteria outlined above. * In Western Australia, State Planning Regions, as proposed by the State Statistical Coordination Committee, were adopted by the Western Australia Government in January 1976. SDs in Western Australia correspond to these Regions. The Perth Metropolitan Region is delimited to be consistent with the overall concepts and planning of Perth and to take into account LGA and CD boundaries. Rural Regions on the other hand are delimited based on the socioeconomic interest of the community; the character of natural resource; the distribution of population and industries; town size; road and railway systems; and production and marketing practices. * In Tasmania, SD delimitation follows the general considerations and criteria outlined above. They are considered satisfactory for the purpose of State Government planning. * In the Northern Territory, SDs are based on Territory Government Administrative Regions, and are consistent with the general considerations and criteria for their delimitation described above. * In the Australian Capital Territory, SD delimitation follows the general considerations and criteria outlined above. * In the Other Territories, the SD has been delimited to represent the aggregated area of the Territories of Jervis Bay, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Infobox Australian City about which figures (Statistical District or Urban Centre) are more appropriate for the infoboxes. Hopefully some more people will see it there. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Here we go. Quoth the ABS: " Metropolitan is a term often used by different people to mean different things. It was defined in the Rural Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA) Classification (See Rural Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA)) as being the Statistical Subdivisions containing Major Urban Centres. While the ABS has not defined the term "Metropolitan" in its own geography it is often interpreted as the Capital City Statistical Division in each State/Territory with Ex-metropolitan being the remainder of the State/Territory." There you go. So a Metropolitan area is either an SSD containing a major urban centre (those with pops of 100,000 or more), or a capital city Statistical Division. Jeez, even THEY can't make up their f**king minds. I think this is an indication we can use the more pedestrian-friendly term 'Metropolitan Area' in this article though. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee, no wonder I was confused which shopping centres are in Sydney and which ones are in New South Wales... Ga rr ie 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it look better if the picture of the Sydney skyline and Opera House from Sydney Harbour if it was in the infobox above or under the map with a caption below it. I think it would look pretty good in there!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill-bill-93 ( talk • contribs) aka Jackp
Why isn't the article title Sydney, New South Wales? The article for every other city/town in Australia except for some of the state capitals includes the state name, and those few shoudl be changed as well. Ohwell32 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, everyone including the georaphically challanged knows Sydney is in Australia. It is world famous, and there is no need for it to be moved to Sydney, NSW. Does Toronto have one, does London, Tokyo, Paris, NYC, Milan...NO, because everyone knows where they are. Plus, if Sydney wasn't the article the person was looking for there is a disambiguation link at the top.
So many cities have one now, and I was wondering whether Sydney will ever get the portal treatment on Wikipedia? Someone before claimed that it wouldn’t be sufficient enough because there are hardly any articles that have something to do with the city on Wikipedia, but that is just bias. There are a total of 58 articles about places in the city, and 43 about regions in the city. Toronto has a portal and there are only 57 related to Toronto…so what is this garbage about not enough pages related to the city?? So far will the Sydney articles be improved any time soon, when they are will someone begin to work on one??