![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
By calling it the largest and most populous city in Australia it means that it is the largest by area. Even if you determine it's area from the metro area or statistical division (whatever the difference is), there are many other cities that are larger. He'll, I'd go as far as to say that aside from the capital cities nearly all the other cities are larger in area, especially ones in western Australia. I think it should simply read most populous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.242 ( talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"Sydney Harbour, is one such ria and is the largest natural harbour in the world."
Is this true? A quick look on Google Maps shows that even the Hawkesbury to the north is larger. And San Francisco Bay would be hundreds of times larger . . . not sure where this stat comes from??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.9.39 ( talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the image looks far better and clearer of the size that I changed it too, and it illustrates the section in a lot more of an aesthetically pleasing matter. The thing this article lacks is decent images that assist the article's content, and I think that the image itself looks a lot more appealing in a larger, more enhanced size. Ashton 29 ( talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
A new image was added to the article today. I reverted the change because it was a much darker image than the previous image but it was restored with the edit summary "It's not dark, increase your brightness or click the full size image. The current one is disgusting, it's pixelated and blurry". [2]
The side by side comparison to the right clearly shows that the first image is brighter overall than the second. Contrast between the dark foreground and light background exacerbates the problem. This is evident on the three LCD TVs, 7 LCD computer monitors using the eleven computers I have here (I use KVM switches), so it's not a brightness issue on one computer. As for being pixelated and blurry, that's obviously rubbish, unless you're looking at it on a 50 inch TV, which most people are not. The second image is much higher resolution and you can look down the cleavage of the girls in the foreground on a 50 inch TV, but that's not what we're looking for when we add images to articles like this. An image showing the actual Botanic Gardens is required, not one showing a dark stand of trees in the distance. The older image is far better for what we require, as is File:Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney 11 lottatori di canova.JPG, which replaced File:Sídney-Australia16.JPG. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Today I added this montage image of Sydney in its infobox. A montage image can wonderfully summarize pictorial information of Sydney. This montage is not so big to cause any distraction, yet it was reverted.
Some editors don't appreciate the placement of a montage image of Sydney in infobox and among them one editor has impolitely ridiculed me calling it a 'travel brochure'. Another editor has informed me today that there is a consensus of not using a montage image of Sydney in the infobox. A consensus is not unchangeable. The reason of this consensus sounds feeble and it is time to reassess it. I strongly argue for an addition of a montage image in the infobox. For instance, a compact five-frame montage portraying five various parts of Sydney is not only a quick way to visually summarize the Sydney just like the summarized text information in the infobox, but also reveals its physical appearance to the readers to some extent. It also improves the visual information of the page. I also urge all those editors against the montage image to visit the Wikipedia pages of all major cities like London, Berlin, Rome, New York City, Tokyo, Athens etc. Those pages do contain multi-frame montage images in their respective infoboxes. Some of them are large in size too. If using a montage image is so irrelevant to the article page of a city, then why did other editors include a montage image in the pages of all those major cities? All major city pages in Wikipedia have montage images, which suggests an implicit 'global' consensus of using montage image in a major city like Sydney too. And this implicit 'global' consensus, in my opinion, is more meaningful than having a separate 'local' consensus of not using a montage for particularly Sydney page. This particular consensus for Sydney is evidently a discriminatory policy against the standard practices found in other Wikipedia major city pages. The opposition by the editors of using a montage image in Sydney page looks shamefully biased when they revert an addition of a montage image in Sydney page, although other major city pages contain montage image in infobox. Therefore, I again convene the wise editors to turn down this illogical and biased consensus of not using a montage image in infobox of Sydney page. Jonah rajxei ( talk) 14:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The introduction to this article looks untidy. Some paragraphs are too short, especially the last. 26 words does not constitute as a separate paragraph, it looks poorly structured. The last paragraph should become an add on to the fourth paragraph and same for first and second. 101.103.130.186 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Monopoly by User:Bidgee and User:AussieLegend. Thank you. Subtropical-man ( talk) 00:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
do we really need it? They are highly subjective, and in the real world (ie, not amongst Wikipedians) no one really pays any attention. It's just a repository for trivia. Further to date, it's only rankings that highlight the positives (albeit very subjectively assessed). -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if people here would be in agreement for me to update the sunshine hours format in the climate section to be in line with other Australian cities and cities of the world. When comparing the sunshine hours of different cities, practically all cities use the format of listing the mean monthly sunshine hours with the yearly total at the end. Coming across a format that is presently on the Sydney Wikipedia page is not very useful for comparison. Other Australian pages have already had their hours converted. If there are no objections I will go ahead with it. Thanks.
Air.light ( talk) 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Air.light, function of Mean daily sunshine hours is new, now, small number of articles of cities used it. However, this feature was created to benefit directly from the sources (no conversions). The source for Sydney show the data of "Mean daily sunshine hours" and not "Mean monthly sunshine hours". When a function to develop in other cities, these temporary changes ( [8], [9]) will be undone. Subtropical-man ( talk) 17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
|Feb percentsun=
. That said, using mean daily hours is a better option than using monthly, because it's month independent. The problem with converting figures as has been done was discussed at
Template talk:Weather box#Sunshine hours per day in April 2012. Notable was
this post, which mentions {{
Sydney weatherbox}} specifically, stating "the 200.6 that was given for the month of January is not the 7.1 * 31 as given in the source." The discussion also warns against converting as that can result in errors. The weatherbox was deliberately edited then to reflect the source,
[10] but the recent edits re-introduced the error.
[11] In short, if the source uses daily figures, that's what we should be using. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Well I see that you've gone ahead with it Bidgee. Thank you. Air.light ( talk) 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Bidgee, you make a mistake. If you do not understand my edition, ask for explanation. Not "blind" revert, again. You need to multiply by the number of days in the month (for example: January - 31, March - 31, April - 30....), not number of 28.25. "28.25" is only for February because it has 28 days except in a leap year when it has 29 (= average 28.25). Subtropical-man ( talk) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you guys not want to have the monthly sunshine hours presented on this Wikipedia article? This is the only Wikipedia article I have ever come across that has daily sunshine hours presented (even amongst Australian cities), instead of monthly hours listed. I realize that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology presents the records in this way, but you must understand that they don't record the data in this way. They record it as any other city in the world does and then chose to translate their data into "daily sunshine hours" instead of "monthly sunshine hours" which is fine. It is a simply mathematical translation to convert it the other way.
The deal here is that when one is comparing cities of the world for their sunshine amounts, one gets to Sydney and then doesn't know what to make of the numbers for comparison.
Is it that you guys want to remain special and unique and have this way of displaying the numbers? Is it that you guys have issues with the user Bidgee for whatever reason (valid or invalid) seeing that she was the one who made the edit?
I just think it would be nice to see something on this page that I can make sense of. Please consider agreeing for a common translation of the results here.
Comments? Air.light ( talk) 09:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The given population density multiplied by the given area is six times the given population - this clearly can't be right. Can someone please check the sources of these figures, as it would seem they're not talking about the same things? Magic9mushroom ( talk) 10:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This repeated adding and removing of the Destination NSW link both here and at New South Wales needs to stop. Accordinly I have protected this page for 24 hours. Discuss on the talk page and come to some consensus. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There have been a number of changes to the climate section of the article today first changing "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters" to "Sydney has a subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters", [14] then to "Sydney has a temperate oceanic climate with warm summers and mild winters", [15] "Sydney has a temperate climate, straddling the oceanic climate and humid subtropical climate zones, with warm summers and mild winters", [16] and finally to "Sydney has a humid subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters". [17] None of these changes were sourced, or otherwise justified. The source that is used in the section says "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm, sometimes hot summers, cool winters and mainly reliable rainfall all year. [18] If somebody wants to discuss possible changes (again) then they're free to do so but, as the changes are opposed, I'm reverting to the status quo, as per WP:STATUSQUO while discussion, if any, is in progress. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
So the BoM is an invalid source for weather because you say so but the ODC is a valid source, is that correct? The links I gave were for the world wide Köppen classification not for some specific Australian classification. Australian climatic zones is a map based on an Australian climate perspective and that's why I didn't link to it the first time. Although there are no reliable sources saying that the climate is subtropical I would point out that according to Köppen climate classification#GROUP C: Temperate/mesothermal climates both the Oceanic and Subtropical are listed in that section as temperate. Just because there are other sources saying something different we do not need to present that if the sources are reflecting a minority or fringe view or a just plain unreliable. I would also point out that other than the ODC you haven't given any sources here nor shown any studies that support your view. Saying you are as thick as a brick is a insult and Bidgee shouldn't have said it. On the other hand the other three remarks are not insults. Although "Surely you're acting dumb with you're comments." should be "Surely you're acting dumb with your comments." Thought I would point that out before Jack came and mentioned it. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Just saw File:Australia-climate-map MJC01.png but it's based on the BoM so of course you will say it is usless. I should mention that your comment right before mine is nothing more than conjecture on your part, see WP:Original research. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we have a vote over which image is preferable for the "Parks and Gardens" section?
Rfkzsaok7 ( talk) 07:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps if it was cropped to depict just the garden area? Although I'm not sure on the policy of cropping images on Wikipedia and how it is done. ( talk) 06:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I dont understand why a collage is not present in the article. There is no clear justification as to why one is not present. A collage is found in the vast majority of wikipedia pages about cities. Articles which have been certified "good" contain a montage of images, look at London. Even Melbourne and Perth contain collages. A city can not be depicted in one image. There seems to be a minority of people who edit this wikipedia page who for some reason which has not truly been discussed within the talk page, do not want a collage. I read something on this talk page that says, "Stick with the one image, we dont want it to look like a travel brochure", that is ridiculous. All wikipedia page about cities, were multiple images can be found contain a collage in the infobox, so why does the Sydney one look like a "travel brochure". If a true reason why a collage is not present in this article does not arise, than a collage will be added to the page.
-- Editor2205 ( talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Editor2205
Im changing the main port to Port Botany. I don't have a source, but no source is shown currently to support it being Sydney harbour, which it plainly isnt. Sydney harbour hasn't been a working port in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.138 ( talk) 09:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In the weather section, it says mean daily sunshine hours are a minimum of 5.5 in winter, and a max of 7.8 in summer. Am I an idiot, or is this wrong? I've lived here my entire life, and the sun does not come up at 10am and set at 3:30pm (or whatever combination of times adds up to 5.5hrs) ..... and the longest days are 7.8hrs? So in the peak of summer the sun comes up at 8am and sets at 4pm? Sorry.... what? Either the stats are drastically wrong, or the meaning of 'mean daily sunshine hours' is not properly explained. Im still having trouble figuring out what it could possibly mean. Does it mean when its not cloudy? If so what defines not cloudy. I dont know why this stat disturbs me, but it does. User:Leecharleswalker 16:52, 10 January 2013 (move from article [23])
Yes I realised this soon after posting it. I still think it sounds misleading but it seems to be the accepted terminology so it's my problem not the page's ;D Thanks Leecharleswalker ( talk) 17:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed because it can be viewed as a "bragging" tool by some people. It can also be subjected toward some sort of an editing war by some opposing parties that take stock in this kind of describing cities in general. Rockies77 ( talk) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be removed. Interiorcamping ( talk) 10:00, 06 June (UTC —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I also checked the
discussion archive. What's the problem with editing it? Different classifications classify and name climates differently. There is a
climate classification called
Köppen–Geiger climate classification system which classifies Sydney's climate as
humid subtropical, with the code Cfa
. --
Mahmudmasri (
talk)
11:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I prefer adding in the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system for this city. Almost every city article in Wikipedia use the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system to classify the climate of a city. Yes I think it should be added. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's funny that the "subtropic" supporters never give a reliable verifiable source that states Köppen climate, and have only cited a map that uses low res data and doesn't show the cities (basically pin the tail on the donkey) or they use OR by using the climate history from one site and use the their opinion of Köppen. The burden is on the supporters to find sources stating it and getting a new consensus. Bidgee ( talk) 13:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Why dont we just do it like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland#Climate? Isnt Wikipedia a reliable source? Were not supporters but wikipedia is about representing correct information is it not? It should include the Koppen info like Auckland and all other cities. There is no point getting info from another website when all similar articles use the Koppen System Perisher Blue ( talk) 06:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
How does this sound? Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters, with rainfall spread throughout the year. Under Köppen's climate classification, the city has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa )?
Perisher Blue (
talk)
07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Should we include Sunrise/Sunset times in Sydney? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_Australia_Sun_Times.png Luxure ( talk) 09:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The statistics in this article are inaccurate or incorrect. -- 103.27.224.100 ( talk) 03:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this type of information would be best found in seperate articles eg. World's most livable cities, Global city, Fashion capital. I suggest this section should be removed from the Sydney article. CamV8 ( talk) 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Is Sydney's record low temperature of 2 degrees accurate? Does it comprise the whole Sydney metropolitan area? The reason I ask is because that is pretty mild, even by Australian standards. Most of the capital cities have managed lows below 0. Ashton 29 ( talk) 05:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I have revised the "Housing" sub-section so that it covers the topic more broadly and left the expand template in there, so that it can be developed. It may be more appropriate to merge the content into a section on architecture instead, so I will explore the topic further in the context of the article.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 12:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
How can have CITY area over 12 000 km2 ?? It's larger than Jamaica, it's larger nearly than half of Belgium. IT'S NONSENSE. Metropolitan area of city which includes mountains, forest, fields, villages, other towns? There must be mention CITY AREA - 26,15 km2 and REAL AREA OF SYDNEY, urban area which is around 1 700 km2. And this is probably only the correct area of Sydney. /// 12 000 km2. It's 14 times bigger than New York! -- Pimlico27 ( talk) 16:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I just replaced all the road distances with the real distances.
This was reverted by User talk:AussieLegend.
Is there some WP standard that road distances should be used to give location rather than real distances? If so, I cannot find it. Ordinary Person ( talk) 10:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I really think that Sydney's world ranking should be mentioned in the article. It's such a shame that other articles have it for the cities, but not Sydney's. My recent edit (shown below) is rather 'edited' itself - I already cut out the long draggy bits. It didn't seem too long in contrast to other city articles lede. The admins should have a second look to it and reconsider adding at least one sentence of it. Meganesia ( talk) 8:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Sydney is classified as an Alpha+ World City by the GaWC's 2010 entry. [1] [2] Sydney ranks among the top 10 most liveable cities in the world. [3] [4] In 2013, the EIU placed Sydney as the third most expensive city in the world to live in behind Tokyo and Osaka. [5] Sydney is also considered among the top fashion capitals in the world. [6]
References
Sydney has a temperate climate (Köppen climate classification Cfa) with warm, sometimes hot summers and mild winters.
The standard for Koppen Classifications seems to be on nearly ALL articles relating to cities, whether they be Australian or not. The Uni. of Melbourne considers Sydney to be Cfa and as such is a reliable source.
I also have added the 'warm, sometimes hot' clause into the article, as it was missing in the text, and, as we are quoting the BOM, should include the whole phrase
I shalt await thy response
Luxure ( talk) 00:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A short time ago, a significant edit was made to the article. [26] The edit bloated the article by 32kbyte adding a lot of content that needs review. Unfortunately the editor chose to arbitrarily change the format of every reference in the article contrary to what the MOS says, losing a lot of information in the process. He also added quite a lot of overlinking and repeat links - the increase of 32kb added 595 wikilinks to the article, on top of the existing 737, which turned the article into a sea of blue. I've been attempting some cleanup, [27] and in the process discovered duplication of some information, as well as some content that rightly belongs in other articles, and already is in some cases. While the editor seems to have good intentions, the article was quite a mess because of these issues as well as some strange formatting, introduction of curly quotes and apostrophes etc; these were all problems that didn't exist in the previous version of the article. There also seems to be some information that has been reinserted from earlier versions, the lead no longer properly summarises the article and so on. All in all, it's a reasonable effort for an obviously inexperienced editor but, despite my efforts, it's no longer the stable article that it was. Regrettably I've decided to revert to the stable version but I'd invite the editor to progressively restore some of the edits, taking the above issues into account. That way we can fix things as they're added, keeping the article to a reasonable size as we do so. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sydney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the paragraph beginning "The area around Sydney ...", please change "founded modern Sydney as at first a penal colony." to "founded modern Sydney, at first, as a penal colony." for a natural-sounding expression. M4rk001 ( talk) 08:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done There was no Sydney prior to 1788
Luxure
Σ
11:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
In the Topography section is the statement "The Parramatta River is mostly industrial..." This was true in decades past, when it was often treated as a large drain, but huge efforts have been made to clean it up since then. Is there any objection to rewording this section so that statement is relegated to history where it belongs? -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 10:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There are several issues with the Climate section that Luxure prefers to keep as I have outlined below:
Information about the warmest and coolest months is not grouped in the same paragraph. The record-breaking maximum temperature is mentioned twice. Facts about record-breaking temperatures are separated between two non-adjoining paragraphs. Information on unusual weather events is divided into different paragraphs. The coastal sea temperatures do not warrant a single-sentence paragraph. There are no references for the information on cyclones or bushfires.
I believe that my edit addresses these problems. Please discuss with me if you feel otherwise. Zv92 ( talk) 08:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The location map on most NSW cities such as City of Newcastle is this:
Why isn't this map used on this article and why. WikiImprovment78 ( talk) 20:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering why sydney article doesn't have a section of notable people. most other wikicities do eg. london#Notable people st petersburg#Famous people cairns#Notable residents Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should differentiate between the population of Sydney and the population of greater Sydney. Sydney branches out from Bondi to Penrith and Hornsby to Cronulla. Whereas greater Sydney includes the RNP, everywhere up until Wyong and all the way west to Katoomba. You have listed 4.7 million as the population of Sydney in the article which is misleading as that figure is for GS, which includes areas that do not define themselves as Sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.144 ( talk) 12:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 15:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't distinguish between the suburb of Sydney (which is mostly contiguous with the CBD) and the greater city. The Geographical Names Board of NSW is very clear that Sydney refers to both, and as this is the official authority for determining place names in NSW I think it should be mentioned - see here, http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/placename_search/extract?id=KWwGlMZTMn
The Melbourne article distinguishes between the two well in its opening paragraph: "The name "Melbourne" refers to an urban agglomeration area (and census statistical division) spanning 9,900 km2 (3,800 sq mi) that comprises the greater metropolis – as well as being a common name for its metropolitan hub, the Melbourne City Centre." PeacockAutomatic278 ( talk) 05:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I would love to but as I am new account holder I can't edit the page. Any suggestions on how to get someone with edit permissions to do so? PeacockAutomatic278 ( talk) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Winner 42 ( talk · contribs) 04:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Placing under review will probably get this done in less than 12 24 hours.
Winner 42
Talk to me!
04:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This section was necessary to include because:
Indeed, anyone visiting Sydney needs to know about these laws to stay WITHIN the law and/or to avoid major inconvenience
- a very large reduction in patronage in the traditional entertainment district - a decrease in violence in that area and an increase in surrounding areas - the closure of a number of the iconic venues
I would be willing to say that anyone who wishes to challenge the significance of including this section is almost certainly not a Sydney-sider.
If one wishes to check the importance/significance of the lock-out laws to Sydney, one can simply do a google search - which returns over 250,000 results:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sydney%20lockout%20laws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
the laws have been in place for at least a year and are now part of the LANDSCAPE of the subject of ENTERAINTMENT re Sydney
is about excluding first-hand reports of FLEETING events, not LONG-TERM changes to significant laws and so forth. It says W ""does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE that are currently in the news," (my emphasis)
The section is about the ENTERTAINMENT in Sydney. Nightlife is a MAJOR part of the entertainment in any city. Indeed, one could divide such subject into three phases: DAY, EVENING and NIGHT. The ENTIRE phase of NIGHT in Sydney has been RADICALLY altered by these laws and it is therefore reasonable to include information about that HISTORICAL and CURRENT reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Accurate Nuanced Clear ( talk) 21:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Sydney. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sydney effectively serves alongside Canberra. Even Paul Keating remarked that most federal politicians prefer Sydney to the "bush capital". I'm highly stressed because of my mother's illness, but it would be nice if some acne'd and drewdrops neophyte didn't revert someone whose been here since July 2002 with a snotty edit summary like "no". Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have trimmed this section because based on the GA review and the policies on what Wikipedia is not, it is not a page where all the businesses are listed. As the source stated that around 280 multinational companies have regional offices in Sydney, listing a couple indicates spam and bias so I trimmed it down. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 16:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
As a bit of a drive-by comment, only one of the article's photos (which I just added) depict the areas of Sydney west of about Balmain. Given that most of the city is well away from the main CBD and Harbour, a more representative range of photos would strengthen the article. Nick-D ( talk) 11:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:59, 23 April 2016 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
By calling it the largest and most populous city in Australia it means that it is the largest by area. Even if you determine it's area from the metro area or statistical division (whatever the difference is), there are many other cities that are larger. He'll, I'd go as far as to say that aside from the capital cities nearly all the other cities are larger in area, especially ones in western Australia. I think it should simply read most populous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.242 ( talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"Sydney Harbour, is one such ria and is the largest natural harbour in the world."
Is this true? A quick look on Google Maps shows that even the Hawkesbury to the north is larger. And San Francisco Bay would be hundreds of times larger . . . not sure where this stat comes from??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.9.39 ( talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the image looks far better and clearer of the size that I changed it too, and it illustrates the section in a lot more of an aesthetically pleasing matter. The thing this article lacks is decent images that assist the article's content, and I think that the image itself looks a lot more appealing in a larger, more enhanced size. Ashton 29 ( talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
A new image was added to the article today. I reverted the change because it was a much darker image than the previous image but it was restored with the edit summary "It's not dark, increase your brightness or click the full size image. The current one is disgusting, it's pixelated and blurry". [2]
The side by side comparison to the right clearly shows that the first image is brighter overall than the second. Contrast between the dark foreground and light background exacerbates the problem. This is evident on the three LCD TVs, 7 LCD computer monitors using the eleven computers I have here (I use KVM switches), so it's not a brightness issue on one computer. As for being pixelated and blurry, that's obviously rubbish, unless you're looking at it on a 50 inch TV, which most people are not. The second image is much higher resolution and you can look down the cleavage of the girls in the foreground on a 50 inch TV, but that's not what we're looking for when we add images to articles like this. An image showing the actual Botanic Gardens is required, not one showing a dark stand of trees in the distance. The older image is far better for what we require, as is File:Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney 11 lottatori di canova.JPG, which replaced File:Sídney-Australia16.JPG. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Today I added this montage image of Sydney in its infobox. A montage image can wonderfully summarize pictorial information of Sydney. This montage is not so big to cause any distraction, yet it was reverted.
Some editors don't appreciate the placement of a montage image of Sydney in infobox and among them one editor has impolitely ridiculed me calling it a 'travel brochure'. Another editor has informed me today that there is a consensus of not using a montage image of Sydney in the infobox. A consensus is not unchangeable. The reason of this consensus sounds feeble and it is time to reassess it. I strongly argue for an addition of a montage image in the infobox. For instance, a compact five-frame montage portraying five various parts of Sydney is not only a quick way to visually summarize the Sydney just like the summarized text information in the infobox, but also reveals its physical appearance to the readers to some extent. It also improves the visual information of the page. I also urge all those editors against the montage image to visit the Wikipedia pages of all major cities like London, Berlin, Rome, New York City, Tokyo, Athens etc. Those pages do contain multi-frame montage images in their respective infoboxes. Some of them are large in size too. If using a montage image is so irrelevant to the article page of a city, then why did other editors include a montage image in the pages of all those major cities? All major city pages in Wikipedia have montage images, which suggests an implicit 'global' consensus of using montage image in a major city like Sydney too. And this implicit 'global' consensus, in my opinion, is more meaningful than having a separate 'local' consensus of not using a montage for particularly Sydney page. This particular consensus for Sydney is evidently a discriminatory policy against the standard practices found in other Wikipedia major city pages. The opposition by the editors of using a montage image in Sydney page looks shamefully biased when they revert an addition of a montage image in Sydney page, although other major city pages contain montage image in infobox. Therefore, I again convene the wise editors to turn down this illogical and biased consensus of not using a montage image in infobox of Sydney page. Jonah rajxei ( talk) 14:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The introduction to this article looks untidy. Some paragraphs are too short, especially the last. 26 words does not constitute as a separate paragraph, it looks poorly structured. The last paragraph should become an add on to the fourth paragraph and same for first and second. 101.103.130.186 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Monopoly by User:Bidgee and User:AussieLegend. Thank you. Subtropical-man ( talk) 00:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
do we really need it? They are highly subjective, and in the real world (ie, not amongst Wikipedians) no one really pays any attention. It's just a repository for trivia. Further to date, it's only rankings that highlight the positives (albeit very subjectively assessed). -- Merbabu ( talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if people here would be in agreement for me to update the sunshine hours format in the climate section to be in line with other Australian cities and cities of the world. When comparing the sunshine hours of different cities, practically all cities use the format of listing the mean monthly sunshine hours with the yearly total at the end. Coming across a format that is presently on the Sydney Wikipedia page is not very useful for comparison. Other Australian pages have already had their hours converted. If there are no objections I will go ahead with it. Thanks.
Air.light ( talk) 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Air.light, function of Mean daily sunshine hours is new, now, small number of articles of cities used it. However, this feature was created to benefit directly from the sources (no conversions). The source for Sydney show the data of "Mean daily sunshine hours" and not "Mean monthly sunshine hours". When a function to develop in other cities, these temporary changes ( [8], [9]) will be undone. Subtropical-man ( talk) 17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
|Feb percentsun=
. That said, using mean daily hours is a better option than using monthly, because it's month independent. The problem with converting figures as has been done was discussed at
Template talk:Weather box#Sunshine hours per day in April 2012. Notable was
this post, which mentions {{
Sydney weatherbox}} specifically, stating "the 200.6 that was given for the month of January is not the 7.1 * 31 as given in the source." The discussion also warns against converting as that can result in errors. The weatherbox was deliberately edited then to reflect the source,
[10] but the recent edits re-introduced the error.
[11] In short, if the source uses daily figures, that's what we should be using. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Well I see that you've gone ahead with it Bidgee. Thank you. Air.light ( talk) 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Bidgee, you make a mistake. If you do not understand my edition, ask for explanation. Not "blind" revert, again. You need to multiply by the number of days in the month (for example: January - 31, March - 31, April - 30....), not number of 28.25. "28.25" is only for February because it has 28 days except in a leap year when it has 29 (= average 28.25). Subtropical-man ( talk) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you guys not want to have the monthly sunshine hours presented on this Wikipedia article? This is the only Wikipedia article I have ever come across that has daily sunshine hours presented (even amongst Australian cities), instead of monthly hours listed. I realize that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology presents the records in this way, but you must understand that they don't record the data in this way. They record it as any other city in the world does and then chose to translate their data into "daily sunshine hours" instead of "monthly sunshine hours" which is fine. It is a simply mathematical translation to convert it the other way.
The deal here is that when one is comparing cities of the world for their sunshine amounts, one gets to Sydney and then doesn't know what to make of the numbers for comparison.
Is it that you guys want to remain special and unique and have this way of displaying the numbers? Is it that you guys have issues with the user Bidgee for whatever reason (valid or invalid) seeing that she was the one who made the edit?
I just think it would be nice to see something on this page that I can make sense of. Please consider agreeing for a common translation of the results here.
Comments? Air.light ( talk) 09:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The given population density multiplied by the given area is six times the given population - this clearly can't be right. Can someone please check the sources of these figures, as it would seem they're not talking about the same things? Magic9mushroom ( talk) 10:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This repeated adding and removing of the Destination NSW link both here and at New South Wales needs to stop. Accordinly I have protected this page for 24 hours. Discuss on the talk page and come to some consensus. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There have been a number of changes to the climate section of the article today first changing "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters" to "Sydney has a subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters", [14] then to "Sydney has a temperate oceanic climate with warm summers and mild winters", [15] "Sydney has a temperate climate, straddling the oceanic climate and humid subtropical climate zones, with warm summers and mild winters", [16] and finally to "Sydney has a humid subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters". [17] None of these changes were sourced, or otherwise justified. The source that is used in the section says "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm, sometimes hot summers, cool winters and mainly reliable rainfall all year. [18] If somebody wants to discuss possible changes (again) then they're free to do so but, as the changes are opposed, I'm reverting to the status quo, as per WP:STATUSQUO while discussion, if any, is in progress. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
So the BoM is an invalid source for weather because you say so but the ODC is a valid source, is that correct? The links I gave were for the world wide Köppen classification not for some specific Australian classification. Australian climatic zones is a map based on an Australian climate perspective and that's why I didn't link to it the first time. Although there are no reliable sources saying that the climate is subtropical I would point out that according to Köppen climate classification#GROUP C: Temperate/mesothermal climates both the Oceanic and Subtropical are listed in that section as temperate. Just because there are other sources saying something different we do not need to present that if the sources are reflecting a minority or fringe view or a just plain unreliable. I would also point out that other than the ODC you haven't given any sources here nor shown any studies that support your view. Saying you are as thick as a brick is a insult and Bidgee shouldn't have said it. On the other hand the other three remarks are not insults. Although "Surely you're acting dumb with you're comments." should be "Surely you're acting dumb with your comments." Thought I would point that out before Jack came and mentioned it. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Just saw File:Australia-climate-map MJC01.png but it's based on the BoM so of course you will say it is usless. I should mention that your comment right before mine is nothing more than conjecture on your part, see WP:Original research. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we have a vote over which image is preferable for the "Parks and Gardens" section?
Rfkzsaok7 ( talk) 07:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps if it was cropped to depict just the garden area? Although I'm not sure on the policy of cropping images on Wikipedia and how it is done. ( talk) 06:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I dont understand why a collage is not present in the article. There is no clear justification as to why one is not present. A collage is found in the vast majority of wikipedia pages about cities. Articles which have been certified "good" contain a montage of images, look at London. Even Melbourne and Perth contain collages. A city can not be depicted in one image. There seems to be a minority of people who edit this wikipedia page who for some reason which has not truly been discussed within the talk page, do not want a collage. I read something on this talk page that says, "Stick with the one image, we dont want it to look like a travel brochure", that is ridiculous. All wikipedia page about cities, were multiple images can be found contain a collage in the infobox, so why does the Sydney one look like a "travel brochure". If a true reason why a collage is not present in this article does not arise, than a collage will be added to the page.
-- Editor2205 ( talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Editor2205
Im changing the main port to Port Botany. I don't have a source, but no source is shown currently to support it being Sydney harbour, which it plainly isnt. Sydney harbour hasn't been a working port in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.138 ( talk) 09:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In the weather section, it says mean daily sunshine hours are a minimum of 5.5 in winter, and a max of 7.8 in summer. Am I an idiot, or is this wrong? I've lived here my entire life, and the sun does not come up at 10am and set at 3:30pm (or whatever combination of times adds up to 5.5hrs) ..... and the longest days are 7.8hrs? So in the peak of summer the sun comes up at 8am and sets at 4pm? Sorry.... what? Either the stats are drastically wrong, or the meaning of 'mean daily sunshine hours' is not properly explained. Im still having trouble figuring out what it could possibly mean. Does it mean when its not cloudy? If so what defines not cloudy. I dont know why this stat disturbs me, but it does. User:Leecharleswalker 16:52, 10 January 2013 (move from article [23])
Yes I realised this soon after posting it. I still think it sounds misleading but it seems to be the accepted terminology so it's my problem not the page's ;D Thanks Leecharleswalker ( talk) 17:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed because it can be viewed as a "bragging" tool by some people. It can also be subjected toward some sort of an editing war by some opposing parties that take stock in this kind of describing cities in general. Rockies77 ( talk) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be removed. Interiorcamping ( talk) 10:00, 06 June (UTC —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I also checked the
discussion archive. What's the problem with editing it? Different classifications classify and name climates differently. There is a
climate classification called
Köppen–Geiger climate classification system which classifies Sydney's climate as
humid subtropical, with the code Cfa
. --
Mahmudmasri (
talk)
11:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I prefer adding in the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system for this city. Almost every city article in Wikipedia use the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system to classify the climate of a city. Yes I think it should be added. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's funny that the "subtropic" supporters never give a reliable verifiable source that states Köppen climate, and have only cited a map that uses low res data and doesn't show the cities (basically pin the tail on the donkey) or they use OR by using the climate history from one site and use the their opinion of Köppen. The burden is on the supporters to find sources stating it and getting a new consensus. Bidgee ( talk) 13:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Why dont we just do it like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland#Climate? Isnt Wikipedia a reliable source? Were not supporters but wikipedia is about representing correct information is it not? It should include the Koppen info like Auckland and all other cities. There is no point getting info from another website when all similar articles use the Koppen System Perisher Blue ( talk) 06:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
How does this sound? Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters, with rainfall spread throughout the year. Under Köppen's climate classification, the city has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa )?
Perisher Blue (
talk)
07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Should we include Sunrise/Sunset times in Sydney? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_Australia_Sun_Times.png Luxure ( talk) 09:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The statistics in this article are inaccurate or incorrect. -- 103.27.224.100 ( talk) 03:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this type of information would be best found in seperate articles eg. World's most livable cities, Global city, Fashion capital. I suggest this section should be removed from the Sydney article. CamV8 ( talk) 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Is Sydney's record low temperature of 2 degrees accurate? Does it comprise the whole Sydney metropolitan area? The reason I ask is because that is pretty mild, even by Australian standards. Most of the capital cities have managed lows below 0. Ashton 29 ( talk) 05:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I have revised the "Housing" sub-section so that it covers the topic more broadly and left the expand template in there, so that it can be developed. It may be more appropriate to merge the content into a section on architecture instead, so I will explore the topic further in the context of the article.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 12:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
How can have CITY area over 12 000 km2 ?? It's larger than Jamaica, it's larger nearly than half of Belgium. IT'S NONSENSE. Metropolitan area of city which includes mountains, forest, fields, villages, other towns? There must be mention CITY AREA - 26,15 km2 and REAL AREA OF SYDNEY, urban area which is around 1 700 km2. And this is probably only the correct area of Sydney. /// 12 000 km2. It's 14 times bigger than New York! -- Pimlico27 ( talk) 16:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I just replaced all the road distances with the real distances.
This was reverted by User talk:AussieLegend.
Is there some WP standard that road distances should be used to give location rather than real distances? If so, I cannot find it. Ordinary Person ( talk) 10:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I really think that Sydney's world ranking should be mentioned in the article. It's such a shame that other articles have it for the cities, but not Sydney's. My recent edit (shown below) is rather 'edited' itself - I already cut out the long draggy bits. It didn't seem too long in contrast to other city articles lede. The admins should have a second look to it and reconsider adding at least one sentence of it. Meganesia ( talk) 8:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Sydney is classified as an Alpha+ World City by the GaWC's 2010 entry. [1] [2] Sydney ranks among the top 10 most liveable cities in the world. [3] [4] In 2013, the EIU placed Sydney as the third most expensive city in the world to live in behind Tokyo and Osaka. [5] Sydney is also considered among the top fashion capitals in the world. [6]
References
Sydney has a temperate climate (Köppen climate classification Cfa) with warm, sometimes hot summers and mild winters.
The standard for Koppen Classifications seems to be on nearly ALL articles relating to cities, whether they be Australian or not. The Uni. of Melbourne considers Sydney to be Cfa and as such is a reliable source.
I also have added the 'warm, sometimes hot' clause into the article, as it was missing in the text, and, as we are quoting the BOM, should include the whole phrase
I shalt await thy response
Luxure ( talk) 00:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A short time ago, a significant edit was made to the article. [26] The edit bloated the article by 32kbyte adding a lot of content that needs review. Unfortunately the editor chose to arbitrarily change the format of every reference in the article contrary to what the MOS says, losing a lot of information in the process. He also added quite a lot of overlinking and repeat links - the increase of 32kb added 595 wikilinks to the article, on top of the existing 737, which turned the article into a sea of blue. I've been attempting some cleanup, [27] and in the process discovered duplication of some information, as well as some content that rightly belongs in other articles, and already is in some cases. While the editor seems to have good intentions, the article was quite a mess because of these issues as well as some strange formatting, introduction of curly quotes and apostrophes etc; these were all problems that didn't exist in the previous version of the article. There also seems to be some information that has been reinserted from earlier versions, the lead no longer properly summarises the article and so on. All in all, it's a reasonable effort for an obviously inexperienced editor but, despite my efforts, it's no longer the stable article that it was. Regrettably I've decided to revert to the stable version but I'd invite the editor to progressively restore some of the edits, taking the above issues into account. That way we can fix things as they're added, keeping the article to a reasonable size as we do so. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sydney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the paragraph beginning "The area around Sydney ...", please change "founded modern Sydney as at first a penal colony." to "founded modern Sydney, at first, as a penal colony." for a natural-sounding expression. M4rk001 ( talk) 08:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done There was no Sydney prior to 1788
Luxure
Σ
11:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
In the Topography section is the statement "The Parramatta River is mostly industrial..." This was true in decades past, when it was often treated as a large drain, but huge efforts have been made to clean it up since then. Is there any objection to rewording this section so that statement is relegated to history where it belongs? -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 10:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There are several issues with the Climate section that Luxure prefers to keep as I have outlined below:
Information about the warmest and coolest months is not grouped in the same paragraph. The record-breaking maximum temperature is mentioned twice. Facts about record-breaking temperatures are separated between two non-adjoining paragraphs. Information on unusual weather events is divided into different paragraphs. The coastal sea temperatures do not warrant a single-sentence paragraph. There are no references for the information on cyclones or bushfires.
I believe that my edit addresses these problems. Please discuss with me if you feel otherwise. Zv92 ( talk) 08:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The location map on most NSW cities such as City of Newcastle is this:
Why isn't this map used on this article and why. WikiImprovment78 ( talk) 20:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering why sydney article doesn't have a section of notable people. most other wikicities do eg. london#Notable people st petersburg#Famous people cairns#Notable residents Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should differentiate between the population of Sydney and the population of greater Sydney. Sydney branches out from Bondi to Penrith and Hornsby to Cronulla. Whereas greater Sydney includes the RNP, everywhere up until Wyong and all the way west to Katoomba. You have listed 4.7 million as the population of Sydney in the article which is misleading as that figure is for GS, which includes areas that do not define themselves as Sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.144 ( talk) 12:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 15:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't distinguish between the suburb of Sydney (which is mostly contiguous with the CBD) and the greater city. The Geographical Names Board of NSW is very clear that Sydney refers to both, and as this is the official authority for determining place names in NSW I think it should be mentioned - see here, http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/placename_search/extract?id=KWwGlMZTMn
The Melbourne article distinguishes between the two well in its opening paragraph: "The name "Melbourne" refers to an urban agglomeration area (and census statistical division) spanning 9,900 km2 (3,800 sq mi) that comprises the greater metropolis – as well as being a common name for its metropolitan hub, the Melbourne City Centre." PeacockAutomatic278 ( talk) 05:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I would love to but as I am new account holder I can't edit the page. Any suggestions on how to get someone with edit permissions to do so? PeacockAutomatic278 ( talk) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Winner 42 ( talk · contribs) 04:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Placing under review will probably get this done in less than 12 24 hours.
Winner 42
Talk to me!
04:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This section was necessary to include because:
Indeed, anyone visiting Sydney needs to know about these laws to stay WITHIN the law and/or to avoid major inconvenience
- a very large reduction in patronage in the traditional entertainment district - a decrease in violence in that area and an increase in surrounding areas - the closure of a number of the iconic venues
I would be willing to say that anyone who wishes to challenge the significance of including this section is almost certainly not a Sydney-sider.
If one wishes to check the importance/significance of the lock-out laws to Sydney, one can simply do a google search - which returns over 250,000 results:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sydney%20lockout%20laws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
the laws have been in place for at least a year and are now part of the LANDSCAPE of the subject of ENTERAINTMENT re Sydney
is about excluding first-hand reports of FLEETING events, not LONG-TERM changes to significant laws and so forth. It says W ""does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE that are currently in the news," (my emphasis)
The section is about the ENTERTAINMENT in Sydney. Nightlife is a MAJOR part of the entertainment in any city. Indeed, one could divide such subject into three phases: DAY, EVENING and NIGHT. The ENTIRE phase of NIGHT in Sydney has been RADICALLY altered by these laws and it is therefore reasonable to include information about that HISTORICAL and CURRENT reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Accurate Nuanced Clear ( talk) 21:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Sydney. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sydney effectively serves alongside Canberra. Even Paul Keating remarked that most federal politicians prefer Sydney to the "bush capital". I'm highly stressed because of my mother's illness, but it would be nice if some acne'd and drewdrops neophyte didn't revert someone whose been here since July 2002 with a snotty edit summary like "no". Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have trimmed this section because based on the GA review and the policies on what Wikipedia is not, it is not a page where all the businesses are listed. As the source stated that around 280 multinational companies have regional offices in Sydney, listing a couple indicates spam and bias so I trimmed it down. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 16:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
As a bit of a drive-by comment, only one of the article's photos (which I just added) depict the areas of Sydney west of about Balmain. Given that most of the city is well away from the main CBD and Harbour, a more representative range of photos would strengthen the article. Nick-D ( talk) 11:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)