![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Under this reference material Sydney is considered to be in the Humid subtropical climate zone (Cfa) This is an academic paper and the map is very clear. To say pointing to it is OR because "Sydney isn't marked" is ludicrous. Citing government-generated promotional material is less reliable (not to mention non-academic). Koppenlady ( talk) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
People, I cannot understand this aversion to citing the universally accepted (albeit flawed) Koeppen system. Every square metre of earth falls under one of the categories and Sydney is no exception. Sydney's is Cfa and any schoolbook climate map will attest to that. Why can you not accept a statement to that effect? I agree "facts speak louder than categories" but that statement is a non-sequitor: in this case the category is also a fact. It allows a reader to associate Sydney's climate to other similar zones in a tangible way. By the way, let's stay focussed- my comment about promotional material was really about the "CLIMATE AND THE SYDNEY 2000 OLYMPIC GAMES" citation, not the BoM (Incedently, all three cites go back to the same source- the BoM- so they are quite redundant actually). On another note, the BoM is mostly about weather patterns and historical data, not classifications. There is no reason they should compete or trump each other. Also, to call it trivial is both insulting and demeaning. That is only your opinion. :-P Koppenlady ( talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Dunmore Lang College is a residential college of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia."
FYI Ikip ( talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, please desist from edit warring over the matter and discuss it here. I should also remind everyone of the 3 revert rule; if necessary the article will be semi/fully protected. Edit warring is disruptive and ultimately, it's unproductive to carry out the discussion in edit summaries. Thanks Kbthompson ( talk) 10:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Now, let's not get nasty about this. I've made a number of invisible comments. Legendperson, do not remove them without fixing the issue or discussing it here.
Go have a look at image usage policy again, please. Tony (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Do not post offensive messages such as this on my talk page:
As far as I'm aware there is nothing to preclude using hyphens in filenames. Regardless, you should always check edits as you make them. I most certainly did not introduce errors into the table. I copied and pasted the table that was in the article before you screwed it up. If there were errors in the table, they existed before either of us edited. You should really try just accepting your mistakes when they're pointed out, rather than making baseless allegations about other editors in a vain attempt to try to deflect from those errors.
You reintroduced hyphens for minus temperatures back into the table. You are not welcome on my talk page. Never post there again. Tony (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Gents - this is dragging on, and I really don't hold high hopes for much benefit coming out of it. It's an article talk page. Let's move along. regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 10:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
With 106 citations, I'm not sure that a general tag is that useful, rather wouldn't a cn or fact tag against specific info be more practical and useful? -- Merbabu ( talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Does Sydney have any Sister Cities? Portillo ( talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As long as its mentioned somewhere. Portillo ( talk) 04:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This reference is not translating reality. Melbourne is the undisputed capital of fashion in Australia and is considered one of the major centres for fashion in the world. Nick carson ( talk) 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a relevant deletion discussion here, input would be greatly appreciated. — what a crazy random happenstance 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As some people watching this page may know, there is a project recently launched called the Dictionary of Sydney. It is the official digital encyclopedia of the Sydney region, funded by the Australian Research Council. Now, I used to work there and therefore have a CoI but I nevertheless think that the Dictionary would be a good thing to link to from the external links on this page. I've made a lengthy blogpost setting out the reasons why the two projects can work well together - not the least of which is that most of the articles there are cc-by-sa - http://www.wittylama.com/2009/12/dictionary-of-sydney/ . I would suggest that the Dictionary's frontpage be linked from this article, and the Dictionary's various articles about Sydney's suburbs be linked from WP's respective articles. What do you think? Witty Lama 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I changed the picture. Sorry if I am not supposed to edit that. It was a nice picture but too big and needed something simpler. Bookscale ( talk) 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I also noticed this on Melbourne's page, but in the infobox, the density figures don't match up with the population and area figures. Exactly how are you guys measuring the density, using the statistical metropolitan area or the urbanized area measurement? This needs to be made much more clear, and even then the density number seems high. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 10:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what is going on here?! Using the population and area numbers, the density comes to about 370/km2. And by multiplying the density by the area, you get a population of just under 25 million! Something's amiss... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.33.227.18 ( talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"In 1770, British sea Captain Lieutenant James Cook landed in Botany Bay on the Kurnell Peninsula."
Should this not be "Lieutenant (later Captain) James Cook" given he did not become Captain until 1775? Pádraig Coogan ( talk) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should have discussed it before changing, but to me outside of the history section I don't see why the image shouldn't be contemporary, especially when there are newer one's available.
So, I changed it, and it got reverted back almost instantly. No problem, just curious as to why an older image would be preferred. EDIT: Has been reverted back, unless an edit war starts (unlikely), there's no point continuing this discussion I guess (One of many discussions started by me that never goes anywhere). Anoldtreeok ( talk) 07:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added drought info but they said the source was unreliable. Yet Sydney page has some unreliable sources. I think the drought info should be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.144.158 ( talk) 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely sure if it is a welcome change, but it didn't seem right to keep images in the article that were now in the infobox. I was trying to put in images that were relevant to the sections they were in, and may not be the best choices, so by all means change them if you're not happy with them. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 04:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Appears the whole thing has been reverted. Well, if the editor who chnaged the infobox image to the montage wants to discuss putting it back in, there's here. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 08:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Topography and Urban structure have, in essence, the same picture of Sydney from a satellite. The only difference is the second one is click able and has the names of different areas. I'm thinking that it's repetitive to have it there twice, and that the one under topography could be removed or replaced with a different image. Anyone agree? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 06:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be a Harbour bridge image, seeing as it is a landmark of Sydney. And it is a tourist attraction. The Kings Cross image seems more like just an excuse for another image. So maybe put the harbour bridge back in and remove the kings cross billboard?
I kind of liked the panorama, but apart from that I think the cutting down on images is pretty good (Because I have never put many unnecessary images into articles...). Anoldtreeok ( talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It just looks like recently a few people have tried to change the picture at the start of the article (Well, 1 today at least). For the most part I don't mind the picture, though I'm not a big fan of how the Opera house looks in it. Not really a major problem, as the article should be about content and not pictures, but to give someone an idea about how Sydney looks is important, and I do think there are better pictures out there. Two that I've found on Wikipedia that I thought could be used are:
My favourite, but also used on Kirribilli page, and arguably only suited for that page (due to Kirribilli being prominent in the image). It does, however, give a good view of Sydney harbour, as well as the Opera house and Harbour bridge, which are the biggest landmarks in Sydney.
Though maybe the Opera house is too dominant in this one?
Anyway, I don't think there's any need to change the picture in a rush, but what are your thoughts?
Anoldtreeok (
talk)
08:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I made this in about 10 minutes. No need for it to become the infobox image for now, but it does fit without pushing anything further down. Just thought I'd show that it's here in case anyone wants it to be used at some point in the future. Like I said, I'm probably the only one who isn't a fan of the picture that's there, so I'm not going to just edit it in by myself. If it ever is put in though, the picture of Bondi already on this page would be a repeat, so that would be changed (There are other pictures of Bondi on wikipedia). But I'm just showing this, it's not like this article is in desperate need of a new picture. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What about this?
I used it as the main image. Dolphin Jedi ( talk) 01:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's use the other montage, then, if you prefer it. Dolphin Jedi ( talk) 02:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll just throw out my point again Nations United. I don't actually like the first one (which I did do) to be honest, and the second one looks much better. It is, however, repetitive, and I don't think really is all that inclusive of Sydney as a whole. For example, here is one I made:
Now, I would say it is too large, and the cbd and bondi pictures aren't high quality (Not because of the images used, because of how I put them in the montage), but it is a bit more inclusive of Sydney as a whole. granted, the relevence of something such as the cronulla sand dunes outside of Sutherland is debatable, and people will have their own opinions about the pictures used, but what I'm trying to show is a montage that shows a bit more than just the area around the city. That's all I'm saying really, it should be a bit more inclusive of all Sydney. But only on things that are relevant to Sydney though, not just a small local landmark of one area (which the sand dunes arguably are). Anoldtreeok ( talk) 02:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I support a montage. I didn't want to fill up the talk page so put pics that would be good on the two users talk page as suggestions if they wanted to make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altormainstream ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I made a few montages, I've uploaded 2. There's only a difference of one photo, and the others are the same in that way (it's the same bottom left image that changes in each montage). The others have darling harbour and Hyde Park barracks. I don't intend to be making any more, but if they're is a small change you want I might make it. If you want to try an infobox montage with one of these by all means good luck, or if you want me to upload the others I will (they contain this, this, this and this photo). I tried to be inclusive, but I don't know. I think they're good, but maybe you'll hate them. Anyway, see what you think.
And one request. If you do put a montage in the infobox, when saying what the pictures are can you go "left to right from top" instead of "clockwise". Maybe it's just me, but my eyes don't move that way, I look at it left to right from the top. If I'm in the minority do it clockwise though. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 05:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I am supporting the montage. I'm going to add it in if we get support/don't hear opposition. Altormainstream ( talk) 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been no one coming here to oppose the montage, so unless someone comes to oppose it, I will add the montage in two days. Altormainstream ( talk) 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few images in this article now, with more being added. While galleries are discouraged, perhaps we could consider grouping some related images with {{ multiple image}}, as I did here.
Just a thought. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 12:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I added a line into the media section about internet radio, but was annoyed to see that it was deleted, even though there was several worthy sources in support of the line I added.
It was deleted within five minutes of me adding the line, thus thinking it was vandalism. I can't really see how deleting and destroying someone elses work is being in good faith, in fact I found the deletion rather obnoxious and rude. I could only suspect that bidgee has interest in an opposing media group? I don't know. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.213.53 ( talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I know this does not just relate to Sydney but I was getting no responses on the Australian Cities talk page. In cities there are 2 populations one urban and one metropolitan- shouldnt both populations be listed in the info bar in each cities article ie
Sydney Metro 4.5m Urban 3.5m
they do it for most cities accross the world in wiki but never any aussie ones! Why?-- Luke193 ( talk) 14:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The Sydney population density of 2058 Km2, based on a pop of 4504469 and an area of 12,145km2, doesn't compute, or am I missing something? Should be about 371 km2?
218.185.78.211 (
talk)
00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In a caption for a parramatta pic, I edited it to say that it was the sixth largest commercial district in Australia. This is something I had read, and added it in after finding this source, the only one I could find (after an admittedly lazy search). However, I want to clarify that this is a good source to use, as it is a first party source, and really what I am using it as a reference to is only mentioned briefly in the introduction to this pdf, which is about something totally different. In short, I'm not sure if this is a fair source to use. Altormainstream ( talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the sixth largest commercial district in Australia part. I kept in the second largest in Sydney part, because I don't think that is controversial, but it can be removed as well. Altormainstream ( talk) 03:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article claims Sydney is the sixth most populous city in the southern hemisphere. This seems pretty suspect to me -- at least Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Lima, Kinshasa, and Jakarta are bigger. There's probably a few more I'm missing or that are more debatable. I also could not find this fact in the linked citation. Rdore ( talk) 19:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Showing off my lack of understanding of certain things here, but why do we now have a different area map? I thought the satellite image was fine, and it wasn't as large either. I'm not sure how the file works, so I'm not able to check to see what happened, can someone explain/share their thoughts on this change? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC) EDIT: OK, in the 30 seconds since posting this I figured out where it was. The new image in definitely more complete in terms of area, but I still prefer the original satellite image. So, thoughts? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 14:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Does this edit here, made just before a vandalism spree, in anyway go against consensus? I know there was a lengthy discussion on this, but it didn't ever really conclude, so I'm not sure whether this change goes against a consensus, or is just a perfectly acceptable change. Just thought I'd bring it up. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 13:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The sidebar give the population as 4.575 M. The article text (under the heading 'Demographics') gives it as 4.119 M. The linked article ( Demographics_of_Sydney) gives it as 4.511 M. Which is it, and if different figures prove to be necessary, perhaps an explanation of why would be useful. 203.9.151.254 ( talk) 06:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The statement that reads, "Sydney is the world's largest English speaking city after London and New York City" is deeply misleading. It seems to me that the entire Sydney urban area has only 4 million people. If we're using that measurement (an entire metropolitan region to define a city population), than Los Angeles' population approaches 20 million and Chicago would have almost 10 million people. What is the population of the City of Sydney without its suburbs and outlying cities? Surely it's much less than 4 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.212.179 ( talk) 03:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
wouldnt it be more appropriate to classify Sydney's climate as subtropical or at least warm temperate? All other wiki pages on climate are alot more specific and there are many types of temperate climate. Britain has a temperate climate but of coure Sydney is alot warmer with not even snow so just stating temperate on its own is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 ( talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
there is a category for warm temperate and it called subtropical. And as mentioned before, almost all temperate climates have warm summers so thats not exactly a classification, if you care to look at wikipedias Koppen climate classification page you will see that for yourself — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.2.131.150 (
talk)
10:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course Sydney falls under subtropical, anyone who uses common sense would know that. Sydney has warmer temperatures than most Humid Subtropical climates during the winter period so if places like Atlanta which experience cooler winters are classified as subtropical then naturally Sydney is also Subtropical. Not to mention that sydneys latitude is subtropical as all areas at that latitude north and south of the equator either have a Mediterranean, humid subtropical or arid climate. (At least at sea level). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.166 ( talk) 08:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't really criticise people for adding a large number of images to an article as I've done so myself many times, but do we need two panoramas? Really, do we even need one? And the two Opera house images? I originally wasn't big on Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, but I think that one should stay, it's probably the best image of the Opera House on wikipedia. Perhaps we could move that one down to the tourism section in place of the one that's currently there?
I don't know what anyone else things, but my suggestion would be to remove the second panorama (under the economy section), and replace the tourism image of the opera house with Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg. Either that, or remove both panoramas and also replace one of the architecture images with the opera house image (the Martin Place image really does need to be bigger to see it clearly, but we can't really make it larger with three images there). If we do that, then I'd also suggest replacing the image in tourism with an image of the Harbour bridge, if only because I think this article needs an image of the harbour bridge (which is the reason I don't mind the first panorama and think it actually does add something).
Anyway, just my suggestions. Thoughts? Feel free to tell me what I said made no sense; writing coherently has never been a quality of mine. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a consensus of which images and charts should be included in the article. The amount of images and charts has really made this article look like a mess. Although most are relevant, some are less so than others. Oh btw I really like Anoldtreeok's montage and I'm really wondering why it isn't used as the article's lead image. YuMaNuMa ( talk) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Martin Place panorama - as explained in my edit summary, it's subject is the pavement, its caption refers specifically to the CBD when that is not the scope of this article, and like all panoramas it stuffs up the page layout - a panorama should only be used when there is *no* other way to convey the point (and a dubious point that's not even mentioned in the article). -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
They're all boring and don't really depict/capture Sydney's beauty, and most of them are second-rate. Why can't the article have photos like London, Toronto or Melbourne's pages? Ashton 29 ( talk) 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The following was copied from my talk page. [8]
I notice you changed the figure for historical populations of sydney, the figure you put down was not the correct figure. The figure you used was for the Sydney urban area, not the Sydney statistical division (which is the usual quoted figure, and the figures used for other data in this table). The figure I had put down was NOT an estimate, if you looked at the source, it said it was OBSERVED, not an estimate. In the future try to think about it before canging it: According to the figure you used, Sydney grew by ~50 000 in 6 years from 2000 to 2006, but then by 300 000 in 2 years from 2006 to 2008, this is extremely unlikely. I can assure you that the figure I had used was the appropriate one for this table. Nuiop729 ( talk) 06:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
{{citation needed}}
below "(Gold Rush)" is valid. The gold rush started in 1851 and ended in 1896 (I think), that this was the population at the time of the Gold Rush needs to be verified. If anything, "(Gold Rush)" could be deleted entirely. The ACCC chart is too vague to be of any practical use. I've found an ABS source that provides much better data and actually shows that the 1962 population in this article is incorrect. The pre-1911 populations are harder to source. I'm still working on that. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
10:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)It is as if you did not even read my previous post; you are still criticizing my statement in which I said I would ‘wait one day’. If you had read my previous post, you would realise that this was a misunderstanding, and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat this (your misunderstanding) again; as it is not constructive in this discussion.
"The figure that started this discussion was your change to the 2006 population, nothing else. It’s why you posted to my talk page. I didn’t have problems with your other changes, only that one". The table as a whole is what started this discussion. I changed both figures, to ones from the ABS which had been used in numerous other articles for Australian capital cities. You only reverted one of these changes, creating an inconsistent, unreadable table. You left the table in a condition where I was bound to return to the page, and remake my edits. If you had added the 2001 census data as well, I would not have found fault in the table and would not have reedited it; inadvertently causing an edit war. You ask me to respect the status-quo, yet it was you yourself who left the table in an unsatisfactory condition, whereas my edit, although less accurate, created a consistent, readable table.
"Something can be correct without being 100% accurate. “The sky is blue” is correct, but it is by no means accurate". No, wrong. Being correct implies accuracy; I suggest finding the proper definition of ‘correct’. I think what you meant to say was ‘Something can be precise without being accurate’. Correct is different to precise, correctness does imply accuracy.
"In any case, we weren’t talking about the level of accuracy". Actually you stated that the census is correct, with emphasis on the ‘is’, that is what started (this part of) this discussion.
As for the Brisbane page, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, but my edits were simply to make the table in the demographics section consistent with the Sydney page. I am not an editor of Brisbane, so it is unnecessary to criticize me for failing to address certain problems (which by the way, I am still unable to find what you are referring to).
I realise the mistake on Demographics of Melbourne, I must have missed that after making my changes.
"Generally, the status quo prevails. It’s up to you to convince others that your changes are valid when they have been contested". I have made my case for moving the citations to the left column. Since you have failed to address either directly I will restate my case: 1. Other articles with similar tables, such as Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne, have the citations in the left column, and were like this before I edited them. 2. As the third column has comments as well as citations, the citations are out of place. They appear to be citations for the comments themselves, not the figures. "There was no reason for you do to anything" I have stated my case for moving the citations; you failed to address either.
You mention the citation needed tag below gold rush as necessary. I never said it wasn’t necessary, perhaps it does need its own citation needed tag. My point was that putting the citation needed tag there made it appear that it was for the gold rush, and not for the figure.
From my point of view, the fact that you dodged my arguments, and simply opposed my changes, shows that you are being unnecessarily obstructive and stubborn; I would appreciate it if you were to directly address these issues so I am able to understand your opposition to the changes. I understand that having the citation needed tags makes the table too wide, but once citations are found I see no reason to prevent these changes. You mention you have found ABS data; well maybe you ought to either share the link so I am able to prepare a citation, or add the citation yourself. For pre-1911 data, I am fairly sure I have seen similar figures in books, but this may take time to produce a citation. Nuiop729 ( talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Under this reference material Sydney is considered to be in the Humid subtropical climate zone (Cfa) This is an academic paper and the map is very clear. To say pointing to it is OR because "Sydney isn't marked" is ludicrous. Citing government-generated promotional material is less reliable (not to mention non-academic). Koppenlady ( talk) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
People, I cannot understand this aversion to citing the universally accepted (albeit flawed) Koeppen system. Every square metre of earth falls under one of the categories and Sydney is no exception. Sydney's is Cfa and any schoolbook climate map will attest to that. Why can you not accept a statement to that effect? I agree "facts speak louder than categories" but that statement is a non-sequitor: in this case the category is also a fact. It allows a reader to associate Sydney's climate to other similar zones in a tangible way. By the way, let's stay focussed- my comment about promotional material was really about the "CLIMATE AND THE SYDNEY 2000 OLYMPIC GAMES" citation, not the BoM (Incedently, all three cites go back to the same source- the BoM- so they are quite redundant actually). On another note, the BoM is mostly about weather patterns and historical data, not classifications. There is no reason they should compete or trump each other. Also, to call it trivial is both insulting and demeaning. That is only your opinion. :-P Koppenlady ( talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Dunmore Lang College is a residential college of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia."
FYI Ikip ( talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, please desist from edit warring over the matter and discuss it here. I should also remind everyone of the 3 revert rule; if necessary the article will be semi/fully protected. Edit warring is disruptive and ultimately, it's unproductive to carry out the discussion in edit summaries. Thanks Kbthompson ( talk) 10:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Now, let's not get nasty about this. I've made a number of invisible comments. Legendperson, do not remove them without fixing the issue or discussing it here.
Go have a look at image usage policy again, please. Tony (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Do not post offensive messages such as this on my talk page:
As far as I'm aware there is nothing to preclude using hyphens in filenames. Regardless, you should always check edits as you make them. I most certainly did not introduce errors into the table. I copied and pasted the table that was in the article before you screwed it up. If there were errors in the table, they existed before either of us edited. You should really try just accepting your mistakes when they're pointed out, rather than making baseless allegations about other editors in a vain attempt to try to deflect from those errors.
You reintroduced hyphens for minus temperatures back into the table. You are not welcome on my talk page. Never post there again. Tony (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Gents - this is dragging on, and I really don't hold high hopes for much benefit coming out of it. It's an article talk page. Let's move along. regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 10:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
With 106 citations, I'm not sure that a general tag is that useful, rather wouldn't a cn or fact tag against specific info be more practical and useful? -- Merbabu ( talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Does Sydney have any Sister Cities? Portillo ( talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As long as its mentioned somewhere. Portillo ( talk) 04:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This reference is not translating reality. Melbourne is the undisputed capital of fashion in Australia and is considered one of the major centres for fashion in the world. Nick carson ( talk) 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a relevant deletion discussion here, input would be greatly appreciated. — what a crazy random happenstance 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As some people watching this page may know, there is a project recently launched called the Dictionary of Sydney. It is the official digital encyclopedia of the Sydney region, funded by the Australian Research Council. Now, I used to work there and therefore have a CoI but I nevertheless think that the Dictionary would be a good thing to link to from the external links on this page. I've made a lengthy blogpost setting out the reasons why the two projects can work well together - not the least of which is that most of the articles there are cc-by-sa - http://www.wittylama.com/2009/12/dictionary-of-sydney/ . I would suggest that the Dictionary's frontpage be linked from this article, and the Dictionary's various articles about Sydney's suburbs be linked from WP's respective articles. What do you think? Witty Lama 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I changed the picture. Sorry if I am not supposed to edit that. It was a nice picture but too big and needed something simpler. Bookscale ( talk) 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I also noticed this on Melbourne's page, but in the infobox, the density figures don't match up with the population and area figures. Exactly how are you guys measuring the density, using the statistical metropolitan area or the urbanized area measurement? This needs to be made much more clear, and even then the density number seems high. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 10:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what is going on here?! Using the population and area numbers, the density comes to about 370/km2. And by multiplying the density by the area, you get a population of just under 25 million! Something's amiss... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.33.227.18 ( talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"In 1770, British sea Captain Lieutenant James Cook landed in Botany Bay on the Kurnell Peninsula."
Should this not be "Lieutenant (later Captain) James Cook" given he did not become Captain until 1775? Pádraig Coogan ( talk) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should have discussed it before changing, but to me outside of the history section I don't see why the image shouldn't be contemporary, especially when there are newer one's available.
So, I changed it, and it got reverted back almost instantly. No problem, just curious as to why an older image would be preferred. EDIT: Has been reverted back, unless an edit war starts (unlikely), there's no point continuing this discussion I guess (One of many discussions started by me that never goes anywhere). Anoldtreeok ( talk) 07:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added drought info but they said the source was unreliable. Yet Sydney page has some unreliable sources. I think the drought info should be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.144.158 ( talk) 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely sure if it is a welcome change, but it didn't seem right to keep images in the article that were now in the infobox. I was trying to put in images that were relevant to the sections they were in, and may not be the best choices, so by all means change them if you're not happy with them. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 04:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Appears the whole thing has been reverted. Well, if the editor who chnaged the infobox image to the montage wants to discuss putting it back in, there's here. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 08:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Topography and Urban structure have, in essence, the same picture of Sydney from a satellite. The only difference is the second one is click able and has the names of different areas. I'm thinking that it's repetitive to have it there twice, and that the one under topography could be removed or replaced with a different image. Anyone agree? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 06:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be a Harbour bridge image, seeing as it is a landmark of Sydney. And it is a tourist attraction. The Kings Cross image seems more like just an excuse for another image. So maybe put the harbour bridge back in and remove the kings cross billboard?
I kind of liked the panorama, but apart from that I think the cutting down on images is pretty good (Because I have never put many unnecessary images into articles...). Anoldtreeok ( talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It just looks like recently a few people have tried to change the picture at the start of the article (Well, 1 today at least). For the most part I don't mind the picture, though I'm not a big fan of how the Opera house looks in it. Not really a major problem, as the article should be about content and not pictures, but to give someone an idea about how Sydney looks is important, and I do think there are better pictures out there. Two that I've found on Wikipedia that I thought could be used are:
My favourite, but also used on Kirribilli page, and arguably only suited for that page (due to Kirribilli being prominent in the image). It does, however, give a good view of Sydney harbour, as well as the Opera house and Harbour bridge, which are the biggest landmarks in Sydney.
Though maybe the Opera house is too dominant in this one?
Anyway, I don't think there's any need to change the picture in a rush, but what are your thoughts?
Anoldtreeok (
talk)
08:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I made this in about 10 minutes. No need for it to become the infobox image for now, but it does fit without pushing anything further down. Just thought I'd show that it's here in case anyone wants it to be used at some point in the future. Like I said, I'm probably the only one who isn't a fan of the picture that's there, so I'm not going to just edit it in by myself. If it ever is put in though, the picture of Bondi already on this page would be a repeat, so that would be changed (There are other pictures of Bondi on wikipedia). But I'm just showing this, it's not like this article is in desperate need of a new picture. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What about this?
I used it as the main image. Dolphin Jedi ( talk) 01:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's use the other montage, then, if you prefer it. Dolphin Jedi ( talk) 02:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll just throw out my point again Nations United. I don't actually like the first one (which I did do) to be honest, and the second one looks much better. It is, however, repetitive, and I don't think really is all that inclusive of Sydney as a whole. For example, here is one I made:
Now, I would say it is too large, and the cbd and bondi pictures aren't high quality (Not because of the images used, because of how I put them in the montage), but it is a bit more inclusive of Sydney as a whole. granted, the relevence of something such as the cronulla sand dunes outside of Sutherland is debatable, and people will have their own opinions about the pictures used, but what I'm trying to show is a montage that shows a bit more than just the area around the city. That's all I'm saying really, it should be a bit more inclusive of all Sydney. But only on things that are relevant to Sydney though, not just a small local landmark of one area (which the sand dunes arguably are). Anoldtreeok ( talk) 02:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I support a montage. I didn't want to fill up the talk page so put pics that would be good on the two users talk page as suggestions if they wanted to make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altormainstream ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I made a few montages, I've uploaded 2. There's only a difference of one photo, and the others are the same in that way (it's the same bottom left image that changes in each montage). The others have darling harbour and Hyde Park barracks. I don't intend to be making any more, but if they're is a small change you want I might make it. If you want to try an infobox montage with one of these by all means good luck, or if you want me to upload the others I will (they contain this, this, this and this photo). I tried to be inclusive, but I don't know. I think they're good, but maybe you'll hate them. Anyway, see what you think.
And one request. If you do put a montage in the infobox, when saying what the pictures are can you go "left to right from top" instead of "clockwise". Maybe it's just me, but my eyes don't move that way, I look at it left to right from the top. If I'm in the minority do it clockwise though. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 05:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I am supporting the montage. I'm going to add it in if we get support/don't hear opposition. Altormainstream ( talk) 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been no one coming here to oppose the montage, so unless someone comes to oppose it, I will add the montage in two days. Altormainstream ( talk) 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few images in this article now, with more being added. While galleries are discouraged, perhaps we could consider grouping some related images with {{ multiple image}}, as I did here.
Just a thought. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 12:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I added a line into the media section about internet radio, but was annoyed to see that it was deleted, even though there was several worthy sources in support of the line I added.
It was deleted within five minutes of me adding the line, thus thinking it was vandalism. I can't really see how deleting and destroying someone elses work is being in good faith, in fact I found the deletion rather obnoxious and rude. I could only suspect that bidgee has interest in an opposing media group? I don't know. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.213.53 ( talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I know this does not just relate to Sydney but I was getting no responses on the Australian Cities talk page. In cities there are 2 populations one urban and one metropolitan- shouldnt both populations be listed in the info bar in each cities article ie
Sydney Metro 4.5m Urban 3.5m
they do it for most cities accross the world in wiki but never any aussie ones! Why?-- Luke193 ( talk) 14:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The Sydney population density of 2058 Km2, based on a pop of 4504469 and an area of 12,145km2, doesn't compute, or am I missing something? Should be about 371 km2?
218.185.78.211 (
talk)
00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In a caption for a parramatta pic, I edited it to say that it was the sixth largest commercial district in Australia. This is something I had read, and added it in after finding this source, the only one I could find (after an admittedly lazy search). However, I want to clarify that this is a good source to use, as it is a first party source, and really what I am using it as a reference to is only mentioned briefly in the introduction to this pdf, which is about something totally different. In short, I'm not sure if this is a fair source to use. Altormainstream ( talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the sixth largest commercial district in Australia part. I kept in the second largest in Sydney part, because I don't think that is controversial, but it can be removed as well. Altormainstream ( talk) 03:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article claims Sydney is the sixth most populous city in the southern hemisphere. This seems pretty suspect to me -- at least Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Lima, Kinshasa, and Jakarta are bigger. There's probably a few more I'm missing or that are more debatable. I also could not find this fact in the linked citation. Rdore ( talk) 19:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Showing off my lack of understanding of certain things here, but why do we now have a different area map? I thought the satellite image was fine, and it wasn't as large either. I'm not sure how the file works, so I'm not able to check to see what happened, can someone explain/share their thoughts on this change? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC) EDIT: OK, in the 30 seconds since posting this I figured out where it was. The new image in definitely more complete in terms of area, but I still prefer the original satellite image. So, thoughts? Anoldtreeok ( talk) 14:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Does this edit here, made just before a vandalism spree, in anyway go against consensus? I know there was a lengthy discussion on this, but it didn't ever really conclude, so I'm not sure whether this change goes against a consensus, or is just a perfectly acceptable change. Just thought I'd bring it up. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 13:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The sidebar give the population as 4.575 M. The article text (under the heading 'Demographics') gives it as 4.119 M. The linked article ( Demographics_of_Sydney) gives it as 4.511 M. Which is it, and if different figures prove to be necessary, perhaps an explanation of why would be useful. 203.9.151.254 ( talk) 06:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The statement that reads, "Sydney is the world's largest English speaking city after London and New York City" is deeply misleading. It seems to me that the entire Sydney urban area has only 4 million people. If we're using that measurement (an entire metropolitan region to define a city population), than Los Angeles' population approaches 20 million and Chicago would have almost 10 million people. What is the population of the City of Sydney without its suburbs and outlying cities? Surely it's much less than 4 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.212.179 ( talk) 03:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
wouldnt it be more appropriate to classify Sydney's climate as subtropical or at least warm temperate? All other wiki pages on climate are alot more specific and there are many types of temperate climate. Britain has a temperate climate but of coure Sydney is alot warmer with not even snow so just stating temperate on its own is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 ( talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
there is a category for warm temperate and it called subtropical. And as mentioned before, almost all temperate climates have warm summers so thats not exactly a classification, if you care to look at wikipedias Koppen climate classification page you will see that for yourself — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.2.131.150 (
talk)
10:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course Sydney falls under subtropical, anyone who uses common sense would know that. Sydney has warmer temperatures than most Humid Subtropical climates during the winter period so if places like Atlanta which experience cooler winters are classified as subtropical then naturally Sydney is also Subtropical. Not to mention that sydneys latitude is subtropical as all areas at that latitude north and south of the equator either have a Mediterranean, humid subtropical or arid climate. (At least at sea level). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.166 ( talk) 08:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't really criticise people for adding a large number of images to an article as I've done so myself many times, but do we need two panoramas? Really, do we even need one? And the two Opera house images? I originally wasn't big on Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, but I think that one should stay, it's probably the best image of the Opera House on wikipedia. Perhaps we could move that one down to the tourism section in place of the one that's currently there?
I don't know what anyone else things, but my suggestion would be to remove the second panorama (under the economy section), and replace the tourism image of the opera house with Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg. Either that, or remove both panoramas and also replace one of the architecture images with the opera house image (the Martin Place image really does need to be bigger to see it clearly, but we can't really make it larger with three images there). If we do that, then I'd also suggest replacing the image in tourism with an image of the Harbour bridge, if only because I think this article needs an image of the harbour bridge (which is the reason I don't mind the first panorama and think it actually does add something).
Anyway, just my suggestions. Thoughts? Feel free to tell me what I said made no sense; writing coherently has never been a quality of mine. Anoldtreeok ( talk) 11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a consensus of which images and charts should be included in the article. The amount of images and charts has really made this article look like a mess. Although most are relevant, some are less so than others. Oh btw I really like Anoldtreeok's montage and I'm really wondering why it isn't used as the article's lead image. YuMaNuMa ( talk) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Martin Place panorama - as explained in my edit summary, it's subject is the pavement, its caption refers specifically to the CBD when that is not the scope of this article, and like all panoramas it stuffs up the page layout - a panorama should only be used when there is *no* other way to convey the point (and a dubious point that's not even mentioned in the article). -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
They're all boring and don't really depict/capture Sydney's beauty, and most of them are second-rate. Why can't the article have photos like London, Toronto or Melbourne's pages? Ashton 29 ( talk) 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The following was copied from my talk page. [8]
I notice you changed the figure for historical populations of sydney, the figure you put down was not the correct figure. The figure you used was for the Sydney urban area, not the Sydney statistical division (which is the usual quoted figure, and the figures used for other data in this table). The figure I had put down was NOT an estimate, if you looked at the source, it said it was OBSERVED, not an estimate. In the future try to think about it before canging it: According to the figure you used, Sydney grew by ~50 000 in 6 years from 2000 to 2006, but then by 300 000 in 2 years from 2006 to 2008, this is extremely unlikely. I can assure you that the figure I had used was the appropriate one for this table. Nuiop729 ( talk) 06:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
{{citation needed}}
below "(Gold Rush)" is valid. The gold rush started in 1851 and ended in 1896 (I think), that this was the population at the time of the Gold Rush needs to be verified. If anything, "(Gold Rush)" could be deleted entirely. The ACCC chart is too vague to be of any practical use. I've found an ABS source that provides much better data and actually shows that the 1962 population in this article is incorrect. The pre-1911 populations are harder to source. I'm still working on that. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
10:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)It is as if you did not even read my previous post; you are still criticizing my statement in which I said I would ‘wait one day’. If you had read my previous post, you would realise that this was a misunderstanding, and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat this (your misunderstanding) again; as it is not constructive in this discussion.
"The figure that started this discussion was your change to the 2006 population, nothing else. It’s why you posted to my talk page. I didn’t have problems with your other changes, only that one". The table as a whole is what started this discussion. I changed both figures, to ones from the ABS which had been used in numerous other articles for Australian capital cities. You only reverted one of these changes, creating an inconsistent, unreadable table. You left the table in a condition where I was bound to return to the page, and remake my edits. If you had added the 2001 census data as well, I would not have found fault in the table and would not have reedited it; inadvertently causing an edit war. You ask me to respect the status-quo, yet it was you yourself who left the table in an unsatisfactory condition, whereas my edit, although less accurate, created a consistent, readable table.
"Something can be correct without being 100% accurate. “The sky is blue” is correct, but it is by no means accurate". No, wrong. Being correct implies accuracy; I suggest finding the proper definition of ‘correct’. I think what you meant to say was ‘Something can be precise without being accurate’. Correct is different to precise, correctness does imply accuracy.
"In any case, we weren’t talking about the level of accuracy". Actually you stated that the census is correct, with emphasis on the ‘is’, that is what started (this part of) this discussion.
As for the Brisbane page, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, but my edits were simply to make the table in the demographics section consistent with the Sydney page. I am not an editor of Brisbane, so it is unnecessary to criticize me for failing to address certain problems (which by the way, I am still unable to find what you are referring to).
I realise the mistake on Demographics of Melbourne, I must have missed that after making my changes.
"Generally, the status quo prevails. It’s up to you to convince others that your changes are valid when they have been contested". I have made my case for moving the citations to the left column. Since you have failed to address either directly I will restate my case: 1. Other articles with similar tables, such as Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne, have the citations in the left column, and were like this before I edited them. 2. As the third column has comments as well as citations, the citations are out of place. They appear to be citations for the comments themselves, not the figures. "There was no reason for you do to anything" I have stated my case for moving the citations; you failed to address either.
You mention the citation needed tag below gold rush as necessary. I never said it wasn’t necessary, perhaps it does need its own citation needed tag. My point was that putting the citation needed tag there made it appear that it was for the gold rush, and not for the figure.
From my point of view, the fact that you dodged my arguments, and simply opposed my changes, shows that you are being unnecessarily obstructive and stubborn; I would appreciate it if you were to directly address these issues so I am able to understand your opposition to the changes. I understand that having the citation needed tags makes the table too wide, but once citations are found I see no reason to prevent these changes. You mention you have found ABS data; well maybe you ought to either share the link so I am able to prepare a citation, or add the citation yourself. For pre-1911 data, I am fairly sure I have seen similar figures in books, but this may take time to produce a citation. Nuiop729 ( talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)