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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
So I have justified by edits repeatedly, and fortunately I have one user, User:Meganesia, who thanked me for my edit to the infobox montage. But there's a rigidity that persists, and it's done to some very inconsequential details. User:HappyWaldo does not agree that Fort Denison makes for a notable enough inclusion, despite the fact that it represents Sydney's beginning as a penal colony, and in 1978 the former fortress was listed on the Register of the National Estate. Not only is it historically significant, but it is also a national park, nature reserve, tourist facility, and as a function space. Just because it doesn't have more than 5 articles on international Wiki's doesn't lessen its importance. There are many Australian subjects neglected on international Wikipedia's. User:AussieLegend and I agreed that it was significant for inclusion. I have sought consensus. My proposal for replacement to appease HappyWaldo was the Sydney Heads, an important natural landmark, apart of the Sydney Harbour National Park. But this did not reflect AussieLegend's desire for Fort Denison. St Andrew's is Australia's oldest cathedral, and thus is the oldest in Sydney, mentioned twice in the article's text, which is a legitimate argument for it being featured in the lead. It's important Neo-Gothic architecture, which serves as an introduction to the architectural variations found in Sydney (SOH, modernist and SAC, gothic) and a counterpart for the Opera House image.
Perhaps the biggest argument against the current montage is that it's repetitious, we already have a photo of the University of Sydney in the article body. It does not need to be repeated twice. The image of Darling Harbour isn't emblematic of Sydney, it's a cluster of 80s high rises that could be anywhere. My proposal for the montage is a small group of images that adequately, and clearly, summarise Sydney's most important (not most recognised...because ability of recognition is going to differ) natural and man-made landmarks. If the montage can indicate what is illustrating clearly, and the corresponding caption can take users to the appropriate page for further information if desired. These are the two montages I have proposed. Perhaps if you feel they need something, you could suggest a landmark, and I'll do my best to include it. But I think we need to agree on choosing one of these, because like I said, there are multiple issues with the one at present. Ashton 29 ( talk) 00:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The image of Darling Harbour isn't emblematic of Sydney, it's a cluster of 80s high rises that could be anywhere.(emphasis added) - "Could be anywhere" is an issue that I've raised elsewhere. To represent the subject, you really need something that is unique to Sydney. The church, cliffs, Darling Harbour and even Bondi are things that "could be anywhere". Bondi is just a beach after all. On the other hand, the Sydney skyline, Opera House and bridge are uniquely Sydney. For that matter, so is Fort Denison. As I pointed out on my talk page, it's shown in a lot more photos and videos of the city than the church, possibly because it's in the harbour, but regardless, it is more identifiable. However, we could leave it out easily. Why do we need 6 photos in the infobox? Why not 8, 10, or just 3? The skyline, Opera House and bridge are really all that we need. I don't see why there seems to be a push to jam more images into the article. WP:NOTIMAGE is clear, Wikipedia is not a repository of images or media files. The article already has 39 images, so why do we need to make that effectively 45? WP:MONTAGE even says "If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred", so there is obviously some preference against montages. The infobox, like most infoboxes, was built originally for just one image, as was Module:InfoboxImage. I added a second image field only so that LGA articles using a map of the LGA could still have a general image of the LGA. In non-LGA articles we can have two images, but 6? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Sydney's Victorian
- That alone is a reason for not including it. "Sydney" and "Victoria" should never be seen together. ;) I don't really think that
File:Montage of Sydney1.jpg is very good at representing the city. The Opera House and brdge are great, and the skyline is one that I recognise, but a reader not familiar with the city wouldn't.
File:Sydney skyline at dusk - Dec 2008.jpg is a better skyline view, although moving the camera east a bit so it captured Sydney Tower and the bridge would be better. Luna Park is not so representative of the city today, but it is acceptable. The other four images though... They just don't serve the purpose that
MOS:IMAGELEAD says they are supposed to serve. And I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we need so many images. Everyone seems to be conveniently avoiding that. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
07:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Twice now, YITYNR has removed "" from the article, claiming it is "opinion". [1] [2] Prior to the second removal, YITYNR posted the following on my talk page: [3] Hello AussieLegend,
The reason I removed the content "warm summers, mild winters" from the article Sydney is that that statement is based on opinion. I realise that you copied that from the source, but all that phrase says is that the author of the source considers Sydney's climate to be like that. There is no objective classification for those terms, and they are based solely on personal comfort levels. Personally, for example, I would say Sydney has coolish winters and coolish summers, which is not the same as what was there. According to Wikipedia's own neutrality rules, opinions and personal synthesis are to be left out of articles.
If it had said, "According to XYZ climate classification system, Sydney has warm summers and mild winters", it would have been different since here it is clearly stated as the opinion of XYZ. However, this was not the case, hence why I removed it from the article.
Thank you,
YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 15:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page, if something can be reasonably disagreed with on a subjective basis, it is an opinion- That's not what you said.
I would certainly not consider Sydney's summers to be "warm". They're mild, lukewarm at best, except during the odd heat wave.- That's the subjective opinion of a Wikipedia editor. As I've already explained, Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. On the other hand, the ABS is a reliable source.
without a disclosure of that this is the BOM's opinion, it appears to be breaking WP:NPOV- No, that's not the case at all. The statement is followed by a reference, which provides the attribution necessary. Adding content that states it is the "opinion" of the BOM is unnecessary because it is referenced. It's only necessary to state that it is an opinion when it's the opinion of an individual.
The argument you made on my talk page about how oh, you have 90,779 edits and I have only 536- I made no such claim. I told you about WP:BRD and then said
While the matter is under discussion, you should not edit the disputed text (which includes removing it again) and, while discussion is underway, the status quo reigns. I note you only have 536 edits under your belt, so you may not have been aware of this. It's fairly clear I meant that you may not have been aware of the requirements of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.
If I were to nitpick, I could say you're a nonconstructive editor- Please comment on content, not on contributors, and please be civil in your communications with other editors. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an international encyclopedia. As such, we should be describing climates by world standards, such as Koppen. Sydney has hot summers and mild winters. Describing the winters as cool is ridiculous - they're frost-free. London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Milan, Seattle and Vancouver have cool winters. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2016&p_c=-872834611&p_stn_num=066062 and http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=123&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2016&p_c=-872834807&p_stn_num=066062 disprove the temperature figures in the
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record high °C (°F) | 45.8 (114.4) |
42.1 (107.8) |
39.8 (103.6) |
35.4 (95.7) |
30.0 (86.0) |
26.9 (80.4) |
26.5 (79.7) |
31.3 (88.3) |
34.6 (94.3) |
38.2 (100.8) |
41.8 (107.2) |
42.2 (108.0) |
45.8 (114.4) |
Mean maximum °C (°F) | 36.8 (98.2) |
34.1 (93.4) |
32.2 (90.0) |
29.7 (85.5) |
26.2 (79.2) |
22.3 (72.1) |
22.9 (73.2) |
25.4 (77.7) |
29.9 (85.8) |
33.6 (92.5) |
34.1 (93.4) |
34.4 (93.9) |
38.8 (101.8) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 27.0 (80.6) |
26.8 (80.2) |
25.7 (78.3) |
23.6 (74.5) |
20.9 (69.6) |
18.3 (64.9) |
17.9 (64.2) |
19.3 (66.7) |
21.6 (70.9) |
23.2 (73.8) |
24.2 (75.6) |
25.7 (78.3) |
22.8 (73.0) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 23.5 (74.3) |
23.4 (74.1) |
22.1 (71.8) |
19.5 (67.1) |
16.6 (61.9) |
14.2 (57.6) |
13.4 (56.1) |
14.5 (58.1) |
17.0 (62.6) |
18.9 (66.0) |
20.4 (68.7) |
22.1 (71.8) |
18.8 (65.8) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | 20.0 (68.0) |
19.9 (67.8) |
18.4 (65.1) |
15.3 (59.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
10.0 (50.0) |
8.9 (48.0) |
9.7 (49.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
14.6 (58.3) |
16.6 (61.9) |
18.4 (65.1) |
14.7 (58.5) |
Mean minimum °C (°F) | 16.1 (61.0) |
16.1 (61.0) |
14.2 (57.6) |
11.0 (51.8) |
8.3 (46.9) |
6.5 (43.7) |
5.7 (42.3) |
6.1 (43.0) |
8.0 (46.4) |
9.8 (49.6) |
12.0 (53.6) |
13.9 (57.0) |
5.3 (41.5) |
Record low °C (°F) | 10.6 (51.1) |
9.6 (49.3) |
9.3 (48.7) |
7.0 (44.6) |
4.4 (39.9) |
2.1 (35.8) |
2.2 (36.0) |
2.7 (36.9) |
4.9 (40.8) |
5.7 (42.3) |
7.7 (45.9) |
9.1 (48.4) |
2.1 (35.8) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 91.1 (3.59) |
131.5 (5.18) |
117.5 (4.63) |
114.1 (4.49) |
100.8 (3.97) |
142.0 (5.59) |
80.3 (3.16) |
75.1 (2.96) |
63.4 (2.50) |
67.7 (2.67) |
90.6 (3.57) |
73.0 (2.87) |
1,149.7 (45.26) |
Average rainy days (≥ 1 mm) | 8.2 | 9.0 | 10.1 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 9.3 | 7.2 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 7.6 | 8.7 | 7.9 | 95.2 |
Average afternoon relative humidity (%) | 60 | 62 | 59 | 58 | 58 | 56 | 52 | 47 | 49 | 53 | 57 | 58 | 56 |
Average dew point °C (°F) | 16.5 (61.7) |
17.2 (63.0) |
15.4 (59.7) |
12.7 (54.9) |
10.3 (50.5) |
7.8 (46.0) |
6.1 (43.0) |
5.4 (41.7) |
7.8 (46.0) |
10.2 (50.4) |
12.6 (54.7) |
14.6 (58.3) |
11.4 (52.5) |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 232.5 | 205.9 | 210.8 | 213.0 | 204.6 | 171.0 | 207.7 | 248.0 | 243.0 | 244.9 | 222.0 | 235.6 | 2,639 |
Percent possible sunshine | 53 | 54 | 55 | 63 | 63 | 57 | 66 | 72 | 67 | 61 | 55 | 55 | 60 |
Source 1: Bureau of Meteorology [1] [2] [3] [4] | |||||||||||||
Source 2: Bureau of Meteorology, Sydney Airport (sunshine hours) [5] |
. I don't know how to fix the
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record high °C (°F) | 45.8 (114.4) |
42.1 (107.8) |
39.8 (103.6) |
35.4 (95.7) |
30.0 (86.0) |
26.9 (80.4) |
26.5 (79.7) |
31.3 (88.3) |
34.6 (94.3) |
38.2 (100.8) |
41.8 (107.2) |
42.2 (108.0) |
45.8 (114.4) |
Mean maximum °C (°F) | 36.8 (98.2) |
34.1 (93.4) |
32.2 (90.0) |
29.7 (85.5) |
26.2 (79.2) |
22.3 (72.1) |
22.9 (73.2) |
25.4 (77.7) |
29.9 (85.8) |
33.6 (92.5) |
34.1 (93.4) |
34.4 (93.9) |
38.8 (101.8) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 27.0 (80.6) |
26.8 (80.2) |
25.7 (78.3) |
23.6 (74.5) |
20.9 (69.6) |
18.3 (64.9) |
17.9 (64.2) |
19.3 (66.7) |
21.6 (70.9) |
23.2 (73.8) |
24.2 (75.6) |
25.7 (78.3) |
22.8 (73.0) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 23.5 (74.3) |
23.4 (74.1) |
22.1 (71.8) |
19.5 (67.1) |
16.6 (61.9) |
14.2 (57.6) |
13.4 (56.1) |
14.5 (58.1) |
17.0 (62.6) |
18.9 (66.0) |
20.4 (68.7) |
22.1 (71.8) |
18.8 (65.8) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | 20.0 (68.0) |
19.9 (67.8) |
18.4 (65.1) |
15.3 (59.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
10.0 (50.0) |
8.9 (48.0) |
9.7 (49.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
14.6 (58.3) |
16.6 (61.9) |
18.4 (65.1) |
14.7 (58.5) |
Mean minimum °C (°F) | 16.1 (61.0) |
16.1 (61.0) |
14.2 (57.6) |
11.0 (51.8) |
8.3 (46.9) |
6.5 (43.7) |
5.7 (42.3) |
6.1 (43.0) |
8.0 (46.4) |
9.8 (49.6) |
12.0 (53.6) |
13.9 (57.0) |
5.3 (41.5) |
Record low °C (°F) | 10.6 (51.1) |
9.6 (49.3) |
9.3 (48.7) |
7.0 (44.6) |
4.4 (39.9) |
2.1 (35.8) |
2.2 (36.0) |
2.7 (36.9) |
4.9 (40.8) |
5.7 (42.3) |
7.7 (45.9) |
9.1 (48.4) |
2.1 (35.8) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 91.1 (3.59) |
131.5 (5.18) |
117.5 (4.63) |
114.1 (4.49) |
100.8 (3.97) |
142.0 (5.59) |
80.3 (3.16) |
75.1 (2.96) |
63.4 (2.50) |
67.7 (2.67) |
90.6 (3.57) |
73.0 (2.87) |
1,149.7 (45.26) |
Average rainy days (≥ 1 mm) | 8.2 | 9.0 | 10.1 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 9.3 | 7.2 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 7.6 | 8.7 | 7.9 | 95.2 |
Average afternoon relative humidity (%) | 60 | 62 | 59 | 58 | 58 | 56 | 52 | 47 | 49 | 53 | 57 | 58 | 56 |
Average dew point °C (°F) | 16.5 (61.7) |
17.2 (63.0) |
15.4 (59.7) |
12.7 (54.9) |
10.3 (50.5) |
7.8 (46.0) |
6.1 (43.0) |
5.4 (41.7) |
7.8 (46.0) |
10.2 (50.4) |
12.6 (54.7) |
14.6 (58.3) |
11.4 (52.5) |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 232.5 | 205.9 | 210.8 | 213.0 | 204.6 | 171.0 | 207.7 | 248.0 | 243.0 | 244.9 | 222.0 | 235.6 | 2,639 |
Percent possible sunshine | 53 | 54 | 55 | 63 | 63 | 57 | 66 | 72 | 67 | 61 | 55 | 55 | 60 |
Source 1: Bureau of Meteorology [1] [6] [7] [8] | |||||||||||||
Source 2: Bureau of Meteorology, Sydney Airport (sunshine hours) [9] |
.
Hymnodist.2004 ( talk) 10:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
References
I read on the page "Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world", which includes a footnote " Dennis, Anthony (2013). ""Too expensive" Sydney slips from top 10 tourism list". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2016. In this year's World's Best Awards, announced in New York this week, Sydney came in as the world's number 12 ranked best city." and a link to http://www.traveller.com.au/too-expensive-sydney-slips-from-top-10-tourism-list-2pdh4 On that page however, cities are not ranked on most-visited, but on some kind of popularity in a survey. Is the original statement true that Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world? If so, is there a (better) source for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwinrossen ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:INFOBOX, information within the infobox should be detailed in the body of the article. This article makes no mention of county. Counties are not meaningful in the Australian context in the way that they are, for example, in the UK and this entry is, I believe misleading if left as is. - Nick Thorne talk 01:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the Sydney entry page is a bit drab. It would probably look better if it followed the example of London or Tokyo, or other great cities pages, with its great sites and buildings in a kind of collage: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/London_Montage_L.jpg/413px-London_Montage_L.jpg ; /info/en/?search=Tokyo#/media/File:Tokyo_Montage_2015.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.146.99 ( talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-septerankings/2016{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@nrp.nsf/Latestproducts/10565Population/People12006-2010?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=10565&issue=2006-2010{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.city2surf.com.au/timeline/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at articles of other large cities (e.g. Melbourne, Adelaide, NYC, etc.), they all tend to have montages as the top image, showing points of interest in the related city. One example is this image from the article about the city of Brisbane. Would someone be able to create one for this article? These are my suggestions of images from Wikimedia Commons and landmarks to include:
Thanks, trainsandtech ( talk) 00:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
What is Sydney? I know that the Sydney metropolis includes the Sydney agglomeration or metropolitan area and there are governmental sources for the number of over 5 million inhabitants. Also, I know that " City of Sydney" (small main part of metropolis) is local government area. But, what is Sydney (metropolis) in terms of politics and administration? is this region? administrative unit? statistical unit? district? Sydney (metropolis) have a managing person like mayor or president or council? Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I've created a montage here to illustrate the city. It is available here. It is a large city, of 5 million people, and Australia's most historically important, yet it does not have a montage. The reasons people use to oppose the montage are usually arbitrary and perfunctory ("looks like a travel brochure", problems with what landmark merits an illustration), and nobody ever reaches an agreement. I am not prepared to let this one slide, I think we need to make an agreement. Comments welcome. Ashton 29 ( talk) 11:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo48, "That underground station reminds me of dozens of other stations I've been in around the world". Ashton 29, I support montage but not large. Your proposition is too large (long). I support montage to 5/6 pictures (max 3 rows) like Barcelona or Madrid, for example: skyline and below two x two/three pictures. So, if there is consensus for skyline of Sydney ( Sydney central business district), Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge, there are two-three spaces remain in third row - to discuss. My proposition: Bondi Beach [5], Royal Botanic Garden [6], Queen Victoria Building or St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney or Australian Museum. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 14:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I imagine people had no objections to ... Dr Chau Chak Wing, ... and St Andrew's.Have you not been following the conversation? Both of those have been opposed for reasons already stated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this collage? For me is good. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 23:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Try to imagine being a complete outsider to Sydney, and trying to make sense of what they see in a montage. We've addressed the issue of churches already and the same arguments apply to this one. As for changing the montage every year, that's really unnecessary. This is an encyclopaedia, not a book of pretty pictures. Images should be relevant to the prose, not merely be decorations. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the current image isn’t representative of the city on the whole; an image that can illustrate the architecture overall of the city would be good for any reader, especially those who haven’t been to Sydney. It’s hard to explain what the city looks like with words. In relation to the “there’s a lot of images” argument, we can possibly use some of them for the montage. It is a general accepted standard for major cities worldwide to have a montage and very few do not. No, it’s not a requirement of course but like I said, a small dark image of the harbour is not adequate. IWI ( chat) 18:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This has been gone on and on about for years. I do not understand why Sydney should different to any number of global cities. Having a montage showing some of the cities major sights is a Wikipedia standard. The current picture, and the map (who's idea was that? Its awful.) looks drab and lame.
Whatever collage is chosen, it should include the Opera House, the bridge, the Circular Quay skyline, maybe the new War Memorial, the heads, one of our beaches, etc. That there can't be agreement on this is just bizarre.....what is going on with the obsessives of this page? If its an issue with Bondi, fine pick Manly. If its an issue with the skyline, fine post Government House in Parramatta. Sydney is more than just the Bridge and the Opera House, or at least we should be making an attempt to showcase more of the city on this page than just those two landmarks.
I've gone back through the archives to 2016, and really this endless Sydney exceptionalism on display is nauseating. Whatever happens, that basic as anything Melways style map has gotta go. Its very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CashythedogNovember ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
the one that suggests its dated and tired, are you talking about the image or the map? If the image, I'm sorry but that's what the city looks like and there is very little we can do about that. Use of a montage is not a standard, it's just something that editors do. There is no policy or guideline that favours a montage. Reasons for not using a montage have been explained at length. If the map, again, there is nothing we can really do about that. A map is a map. It conveys information and again, nothing you've said justifies why why we shouldn't be using that one. It is accurate, only missing a border and other than that I don't see how it could be improved. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
the Sydney entry first page could be improved- How, other than adding a montage as you seem keen to do.
Whether this is Wikipedia policy is neither here nor there.- Actually, policy is very important.
You've yet to explain why its ok for London, NYC, Paris, Tokyo, Melbourne, Los Angeles, Toronto, Auckland, etc etc, to have the montage format but not Sydney.- I suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles do it doesn't mean we have to do it here and, if you actually read the discussions you'll see that the opposition has actually been to the choice of images in the montage, not the montage itself. That is very clearly explained above.
The map is dated looking, and it is barely legible.- What exactly is "dated" when it comes to a map? I am on a PC too and I find it quite legible. At full resolution (2,412 × 2,310 pixels) details are easy to read. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This has gone on for years because AussieLegend has decided so, and that's apparently consensus: many people say "we need a monatage", but a couple including AussieLegend say "no we don't", and somehow, that's consensus. Absurd. IWI ( chat) 12:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
For a large city like Sydney, Infobox settlement may be more appropriate. The current infobox works well for smaller cities in Australia, but we could take the British approach with Infobox UK place, using Infobox settlement for larger cities. The current infobox misses Metro or Urban populations, among other things. IWI ( chat) 12:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
all (not most, all) of the world's major cities use this infobox— Did you mean to say "All of the world's true major cities use this infobox? Is Sydney a major city or not? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I shall demonstrate in a minute when I add it here.- Please don't do it here. Do it on test page somewhere. There is no consensus to use a different infobox in the article. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I will do so, it should also apply to Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane etc. IMO. IWI ( chat) 15:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand having an infobox for one country’s cities. In particular, it does not include demonym, the word to describe a person who lives there. I Chicago, a Chicagoan; in New York, a New Yorker, in Paris, a Parisian. Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, what is the term? I appreciate the commonality of infoboxes in Wikipedia. — Prairieplant ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend:, I remember when my father (born 1941) told me to put "'tothersider" in the relevant Wikipedia article as an Eastern Australian nickname for Western Australians, he was reverted by someone much younger (and therefore would not know the facts) who claimed 'tothersider was rarely used. My father was a University academic who was around in the 50s and 60s. He knew who what he was talking about. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 07:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if more detail should be added to the 19th century section of Sydney, under History. Specifically about the building of large, ornate coffee palaces that were designed to encourage a temperance or absintance from alcohol, which at the time had become a bit of an issue in the colonies of Australia, manifesting in disorderly or boisterous public/private behaviour. I have added a rather incredible image of Sydney's Grand Central Coffee Palace (later known as Hotel Arcadia), which was located on Clarence and Pitt Street until its demolition in the 1950s, which does give a little detail about the temperance coffee palace but doesn't go into detail. Ashton 29 ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I read on the page "Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world", which includes a footnote " Dennis, Anthony (2013). ""Too expensive" Sydney slips from top 10 tourism list". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2016. In this year's World's Best Awards, announced in New York this week, Sydney came in as the world's number 12 ranked best city." and a link to http://www.traveller.com.au/too-expensive-sydney-slips-from-top-10-tourism-list-2pdh4 On that page however, cities are not ranked on most-visited, but on some kind of popularity in a survey. Is the original statement true that Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world? If so, is there a (better) source for it? I posted this question also 1.5 years ago, but it got removed from Talk without any action. Erwin ( talk) 07:36, 16 May 2019 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
So I have justified by edits repeatedly, and fortunately I have one user, User:Meganesia, who thanked me for my edit to the infobox montage. But there's a rigidity that persists, and it's done to some very inconsequential details. User:HappyWaldo does not agree that Fort Denison makes for a notable enough inclusion, despite the fact that it represents Sydney's beginning as a penal colony, and in 1978 the former fortress was listed on the Register of the National Estate. Not only is it historically significant, but it is also a national park, nature reserve, tourist facility, and as a function space. Just because it doesn't have more than 5 articles on international Wiki's doesn't lessen its importance. There are many Australian subjects neglected on international Wikipedia's. User:AussieLegend and I agreed that it was significant for inclusion. I have sought consensus. My proposal for replacement to appease HappyWaldo was the Sydney Heads, an important natural landmark, apart of the Sydney Harbour National Park. But this did not reflect AussieLegend's desire for Fort Denison. St Andrew's is Australia's oldest cathedral, and thus is the oldest in Sydney, mentioned twice in the article's text, which is a legitimate argument for it being featured in the lead. It's important Neo-Gothic architecture, which serves as an introduction to the architectural variations found in Sydney (SOH, modernist and SAC, gothic) and a counterpart for the Opera House image.
Perhaps the biggest argument against the current montage is that it's repetitious, we already have a photo of the University of Sydney in the article body. It does not need to be repeated twice. The image of Darling Harbour isn't emblematic of Sydney, it's a cluster of 80s high rises that could be anywhere. My proposal for the montage is a small group of images that adequately, and clearly, summarise Sydney's most important (not most recognised...because ability of recognition is going to differ) natural and man-made landmarks. If the montage can indicate what is illustrating clearly, and the corresponding caption can take users to the appropriate page for further information if desired. These are the two montages I have proposed. Perhaps if you feel they need something, you could suggest a landmark, and I'll do my best to include it. But I think we need to agree on choosing one of these, because like I said, there are multiple issues with the one at present. Ashton 29 ( talk) 00:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The image of Darling Harbour isn't emblematic of Sydney, it's a cluster of 80s high rises that could be anywhere.(emphasis added) - "Could be anywhere" is an issue that I've raised elsewhere. To represent the subject, you really need something that is unique to Sydney. The church, cliffs, Darling Harbour and even Bondi are things that "could be anywhere". Bondi is just a beach after all. On the other hand, the Sydney skyline, Opera House and bridge are uniquely Sydney. For that matter, so is Fort Denison. As I pointed out on my talk page, it's shown in a lot more photos and videos of the city than the church, possibly because it's in the harbour, but regardless, it is more identifiable. However, we could leave it out easily. Why do we need 6 photos in the infobox? Why not 8, 10, or just 3? The skyline, Opera House and bridge are really all that we need. I don't see why there seems to be a push to jam more images into the article. WP:NOTIMAGE is clear, Wikipedia is not a repository of images or media files. The article already has 39 images, so why do we need to make that effectively 45? WP:MONTAGE even says "If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred", so there is obviously some preference against montages. The infobox, like most infoboxes, was built originally for just one image, as was Module:InfoboxImage. I added a second image field only so that LGA articles using a map of the LGA could still have a general image of the LGA. In non-LGA articles we can have two images, but 6? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Sydney's Victorian
- That alone is a reason for not including it. "Sydney" and "Victoria" should never be seen together. ;) I don't really think that
File:Montage of Sydney1.jpg is very good at representing the city. The Opera House and brdge are great, and the skyline is one that I recognise, but a reader not familiar with the city wouldn't.
File:Sydney skyline at dusk - Dec 2008.jpg is a better skyline view, although moving the camera east a bit so it captured Sydney Tower and the bridge would be better. Luna Park is not so representative of the city today, but it is acceptable. The other four images though... They just don't serve the purpose that
MOS:IMAGELEAD says they are supposed to serve. And I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we need so many images. Everyone seems to be conveniently avoiding that. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
07:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Twice now, YITYNR has removed "" from the article, claiming it is "opinion". [1] [2] Prior to the second removal, YITYNR posted the following on my talk page: [3] Hello AussieLegend,
The reason I removed the content "warm summers, mild winters" from the article Sydney is that that statement is based on opinion. I realise that you copied that from the source, but all that phrase says is that the author of the source considers Sydney's climate to be like that. There is no objective classification for those terms, and they are based solely on personal comfort levels. Personally, for example, I would say Sydney has coolish winters and coolish summers, which is not the same as what was there. According to Wikipedia's own neutrality rules, opinions and personal synthesis are to be left out of articles.
If it had said, "According to XYZ climate classification system, Sydney has warm summers and mild winters", it would have been different since here it is clearly stated as the opinion of XYZ. However, this was not the case, hence why I removed it from the article.
Thank you,
YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 15:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page, if something can be reasonably disagreed with on a subjective basis, it is an opinion- That's not what you said.
I would certainly not consider Sydney's summers to be "warm". They're mild, lukewarm at best, except during the odd heat wave.- That's the subjective opinion of a Wikipedia editor. As I've already explained, Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. On the other hand, the ABS is a reliable source.
without a disclosure of that this is the BOM's opinion, it appears to be breaking WP:NPOV- No, that's not the case at all. The statement is followed by a reference, which provides the attribution necessary. Adding content that states it is the "opinion" of the BOM is unnecessary because it is referenced. It's only necessary to state that it is an opinion when it's the opinion of an individual.
The argument you made on my talk page about how oh, you have 90,779 edits and I have only 536- I made no such claim. I told you about WP:BRD and then said
While the matter is under discussion, you should not edit the disputed text (which includes removing it again) and, while discussion is underway, the status quo reigns. I note you only have 536 edits under your belt, so you may not have been aware of this. It's fairly clear I meant that you may not have been aware of the requirements of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.
If I were to nitpick, I could say you're a nonconstructive editor- Please comment on content, not on contributors, and please be civil in your communications with other editors. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an international encyclopedia. As such, we should be describing climates by world standards, such as Koppen. Sydney has hot summers and mild winters. Describing the winters as cool is ridiculous - they're frost-free. London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Milan, Seattle and Vancouver have cool winters. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2016&p_c=-872834611&p_stn_num=066062 and http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=123&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2016&p_c=-872834807&p_stn_num=066062 disprove the temperature figures in the
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record high °C (°F) | 45.8 (114.4) |
42.1 (107.8) |
39.8 (103.6) |
35.4 (95.7) |
30.0 (86.0) |
26.9 (80.4) |
26.5 (79.7) |
31.3 (88.3) |
34.6 (94.3) |
38.2 (100.8) |
41.8 (107.2) |
42.2 (108.0) |
45.8 (114.4) |
Mean maximum °C (°F) | 36.8 (98.2) |
34.1 (93.4) |
32.2 (90.0) |
29.7 (85.5) |
26.2 (79.2) |
22.3 (72.1) |
22.9 (73.2) |
25.4 (77.7) |
29.9 (85.8) |
33.6 (92.5) |
34.1 (93.4) |
34.4 (93.9) |
38.8 (101.8) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 27.0 (80.6) |
26.8 (80.2) |
25.7 (78.3) |
23.6 (74.5) |
20.9 (69.6) |
18.3 (64.9) |
17.9 (64.2) |
19.3 (66.7) |
21.6 (70.9) |
23.2 (73.8) |
24.2 (75.6) |
25.7 (78.3) |
22.8 (73.0) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 23.5 (74.3) |
23.4 (74.1) |
22.1 (71.8) |
19.5 (67.1) |
16.6 (61.9) |
14.2 (57.6) |
13.4 (56.1) |
14.5 (58.1) |
17.0 (62.6) |
18.9 (66.0) |
20.4 (68.7) |
22.1 (71.8) |
18.8 (65.8) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | 20.0 (68.0) |
19.9 (67.8) |
18.4 (65.1) |
15.3 (59.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
10.0 (50.0) |
8.9 (48.0) |
9.7 (49.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
14.6 (58.3) |
16.6 (61.9) |
18.4 (65.1) |
14.7 (58.5) |
Mean minimum °C (°F) | 16.1 (61.0) |
16.1 (61.0) |
14.2 (57.6) |
11.0 (51.8) |
8.3 (46.9) |
6.5 (43.7) |
5.7 (42.3) |
6.1 (43.0) |
8.0 (46.4) |
9.8 (49.6) |
12.0 (53.6) |
13.9 (57.0) |
5.3 (41.5) |
Record low °C (°F) | 10.6 (51.1) |
9.6 (49.3) |
9.3 (48.7) |
7.0 (44.6) |
4.4 (39.9) |
2.1 (35.8) |
2.2 (36.0) |
2.7 (36.9) |
4.9 (40.8) |
5.7 (42.3) |
7.7 (45.9) |
9.1 (48.4) |
2.1 (35.8) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 91.1 (3.59) |
131.5 (5.18) |
117.5 (4.63) |
114.1 (4.49) |
100.8 (3.97) |
142.0 (5.59) |
80.3 (3.16) |
75.1 (2.96) |
63.4 (2.50) |
67.7 (2.67) |
90.6 (3.57) |
73.0 (2.87) |
1,149.7 (45.26) |
Average rainy days (≥ 1 mm) | 8.2 | 9.0 | 10.1 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 9.3 | 7.2 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 7.6 | 8.7 | 7.9 | 95.2 |
Average afternoon relative humidity (%) | 60 | 62 | 59 | 58 | 58 | 56 | 52 | 47 | 49 | 53 | 57 | 58 | 56 |
Average dew point °C (°F) | 16.5 (61.7) |
17.2 (63.0) |
15.4 (59.7) |
12.7 (54.9) |
10.3 (50.5) |
7.8 (46.0) |
6.1 (43.0) |
5.4 (41.7) |
7.8 (46.0) |
10.2 (50.4) |
12.6 (54.7) |
14.6 (58.3) |
11.4 (52.5) |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 232.5 | 205.9 | 210.8 | 213.0 | 204.6 | 171.0 | 207.7 | 248.0 | 243.0 | 244.9 | 222.0 | 235.6 | 2,639 |
Percent possible sunshine | 53 | 54 | 55 | 63 | 63 | 57 | 66 | 72 | 67 | 61 | 55 | 55 | 60 |
Source 1: Bureau of Meteorology [1] [2] [3] [4] | |||||||||||||
Source 2: Bureau of Meteorology, Sydney Airport (sunshine hours) [5] |
. I don't know how to fix the
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record high °C (°F) | 45.8 (114.4) |
42.1 (107.8) |
39.8 (103.6) |
35.4 (95.7) |
30.0 (86.0) |
26.9 (80.4) |
26.5 (79.7) |
31.3 (88.3) |
34.6 (94.3) |
38.2 (100.8) |
41.8 (107.2) |
42.2 (108.0) |
45.8 (114.4) |
Mean maximum °C (°F) | 36.8 (98.2) |
34.1 (93.4) |
32.2 (90.0) |
29.7 (85.5) |
26.2 (79.2) |
22.3 (72.1) |
22.9 (73.2) |
25.4 (77.7) |
29.9 (85.8) |
33.6 (92.5) |
34.1 (93.4) |
34.4 (93.9) |
38.8 (101.8) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 27.0 (80.6) |
26.8 (80.2) |
25.7 (78.3) |
23.6 (74.5) |
20.9 (69.6) |
18.3 (64.9) |
17.9 (64.2) |
19.3 (66.7) |
21.6 (70.9) |
23.2 (73.8) |
24.2 (75.6) |
25.7 (78.3) |
22.8 (73.0) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 23.5 (74.3) |
23.4 (74.1) |
22.1 (71.8) |
19.5 (67.1) |
16.6 (61.9) |
14.2 (57.6) |
13.4 (56.1) |
14.5 (58.1) |
17.0 (62.6) |
18.9 (66.0) |
20.4 (68.7) |
22.1 (71.8) |
18.8 (65.8) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | 20.0 (68.0) |
19.9 (67.8) |
18.4 (65.1) |
15.3 (59.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
10.0 (50.0) |
8.9 (48.0) |
9.7 (49.5) |
12.3 (54.1) |
14.6 (58.3) |
16.6 (61.9) |
18.4 (65.1) |
14.7 (58.5) |
Mean minimum °C (°F) | 16.1 (61.0) |
16.1 (61.0) |
14.2 (57.6) |
11.0 (51.8) |
8.3 (46.9) |
6.5 (43.7) |
5.7 (42.3) |
6.1 (43.0) |
8.0 (46.4) |
9.8 (49.6) |
12.0 (53.6) |
13.9 (57.0) |
5.3 (41.5) |
Record low °C (°F) | 10.6 (51.1) |
9.6 (49.3) |
9.3 (48.7) |
7.0 (44.6) |
4.4 (39.9) |
2.1 (35.8) |
2.2 (36.0) |
2.7 (36.9) |
4.9 (40.8) |
5.7 (42.3) |
7.7 (45.9) |
9.1 (48.4) |
2.1 (35.8) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 91.1 (3.59) |
131.5 (5.18) |
117.5 (4.63) |
114.1 (4.49) |
100.8 (3.97) |
142.0 (5.59) |
80.3 (3.16) |
75.1 (2.96) |
63.4 (2.50) |
67.7 (2.67) |
90.6 (3.57) |
73.0 (2.87) |
1,149.7 (45.26) |
Average rainy days (≥ 1 mm) | 8.2 | 9.0 | 10.1 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 9.3 | 7.2 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 7.6 | 8.7 | 7.9 | 95.2 |
Average afternoon relative humidity (%) | 60 | 62 | 59 | 58 | 58 | 56 | 52 | 47 | 49 | 53 | 57 | 58 | 56 |
Average dew point °C (°F) | 16.5 (61.7) |
17.2 (63.0) |
15.4 (59.7) |
12.7 (54.9) |
10.3 (50.5) |
7.8 (46.0) |
6.1 (43.0) |
5.4 (41.7) |
7.8 (46.0) |
10.2 (50.4) |
12.6 (54.7) |
14.6 (58.3) |
11.4 (52.5) |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 232.5 | 205.9 | 210.8 | 213.0 | 204.6 | 171.0 | 207.7 | 248.0 | 243.0 | 244.9 | 222.0 | 235.6 | 2,639 |
Percent possible sunshine | 53 | 54 | 55 | 63 | 63 | 57 | 66 | 72 | 67 | 61 | 55 | 55 | 60 |
Source 1: Bureau of Meteorology [1] [6] [7] [8] | |||||||||||||
Source 2: Bureau of Meteorology, Sydney Airport (sunshine hours) [9] |
.
Hymnodist.2004 ( talk) 10:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
References
I read on the page "Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world", which includes a footnote " Dennis, Anthony (2013). ""Too expensive" Sydney slips from top 10 tourism list". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2016. In this year's World's Best Awards, announced in New York this week, Sydney came in as the world's number 12 ranked best city." and a link to http://www.traveller.com.au/too-expensive-sydney-slips-from-top-10-tourism-list-2pdh4 On that page however, cities are not ranked on most-visited, but on some kind of popularity in a survey. Is the original statement true that Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world? If so, is there a (better) source for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwinrossen ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:INFOBOX, information within the infobox should be detailed in the body of the article. This article makes no mention of county. Counties are not meaningful in the Australian context in the way that they are, for example, in the UK and this entry is, I believe misleading if left as is. - Nick Thorne talk 01:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the Sydney entry page is a bit drab. It would probably look better if it followed the example of London or Tokyo, or other great cities pages, with its great sites and buildings in a kind of collage: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/London_Montage_L.jpg/413px-London_Montage_L.jpg ; /info/en/?search=Tokyo#/media/File:Tokyo_Montage_2015.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.146.99 ( talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-septerankings/2016{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@nrp.nsf/Latestproducts/10565Population/People12006-2010?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=10565&issue=2006-2010{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.city2surf.com.au/timeline/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at articles of other large cities (e.g. Melbourne, Adelaide, NYC, etc.), they all tend to have montages as the top image, showing points of interest in the related city. One example is this image from the article about the city of Brisbane. Would someone be able to create one for this article? These are my suggestions of images from Wikimedia Commons and landmarks to include:
Thanks, trainsandtech ( talk) 00:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
What is Sydney? I know that the Sydney metropolis includes the Sydney agglomeration or metropolitan area and there are governmental sources for the number of over 5 million inhabitants. Also, I know that " City of Sydney" (small main part of metropolis) is local government area. But, what is Sydney (metropolis) in terms of politics and administration? is this region? administrative unit? statistical unit? district? Sydney (metropolis) have a managing person like mayor or president or council? Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I've created a montage here to illustrate the city. It is available here. It is a large city, of 5 million people, and Australia's most historically important, yet it does not have a montage. The reasons people use to oppose the montage are usually arbitrary and perfunctory ("looks like a travel brochure", problems with what landmark merits an illustration), and nobody ever reaches an agreement. I am not prepared to let this one slide, I think we need to make an agreement. Comments welcome. Ashton 29 ( talk) 11:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo48, "That underground station reminds me of dozens of other stations I've been in around the world". Ashton 29, I support montage but not large. Your proposition is too large (long). I support montage to 5/6 pictures (max 3 rows) like Barcelona or Madrid, for example: skyline and below two x two/three pictures. So, if there is consensus for skyline of Sydney ( Sydney central business district), Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge, there are two-three spaces remain in third row - to discuss. My proposition: Bondi Beach [5], Royal Botanic Garden [6], Queen Victoria Building or St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney or Australian Museum. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 14:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I imagine people had no objections to ... Dr Chau Chak Wing, ... and St Andrew's.Have you not been following the conversation? Both of those have been opposed for reasons already stated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this collage? For me is good. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 23:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Try to imagine being a complete outsider to Sydney, and trying to make sense of what they see in a montage. We've addressed the issue of churches already and the same arguments apply to this one. As for changing the montage every year, that's really unnecessary. This is an encyclopaedia, not a book of pretty pictures. Images should be relevant to the prose, not merely be decorations. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the current image isn’t representative of the city on the whole; an image that can illustrate the architecture overall of the city would be good for any reader, especially those who haven’t been to Sydney. It’s hard to explain what the city looks like with words. In relation to the “there’s a lot of images” argument, we can possibly use some of them for the montage. It is a general accepted standard for major cities worldwide to have a montage and very few do not. No, it’s not a requirement of course but like I said, a small dark image of the harbour is not adequate. IWI ( chat) 18:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This has been gone on and on about for years. I do not understand why Sydney should different to any number of global cities. Having a montage showing some of the cities major sights is a Wikipedia standard. The current picture, and the map (who's idea was that? Its awful.) looks drab and lame.
Whatever collage is chosen, it should include the Opera House, the bridge, the Circular Quay skyline, maybe the new War Memorial, the heads, one of our beaches, etc. That there can't be agreement on this is just bizarre.....what is going on with the obsessives of this page? If its an issue with Bondi, fine pick Manly. If its an issue with the skyline, fine post Government House in Parramatta. Sydney is more than just the Bridge and the Opera House, or at least we should be making an attempt to showcase more of the city on this page than just those two landmarks.
I've gone back through the archives to 2016, and really this endless Sydney exceptionalism on display is nauseating. Whatever happens, that basic as anything Melways style map has gotta go. Its very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CashythedogNovember ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
the one that suggests its dated and tired, are you talking about the image or the map? If the image, I'm sorry but that's what the city looks like and there is very little we can do about that. Use of a montage is not a standard, it's just something that editors do. There is no policy or guideline that favours a montage. Reasons for not using a montage have been explained at length. If the map, again, there is nothing we can really do about that. A map is a map. It conveys information and again, nothing you've said justifies why why we shouldn't be using that one. It is accurate, only missing a border and other than that I don't see how it could be improved. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
the Sydney entry first page could be improved- How, other than adding a montage as you seem keen to do.
Whether this is Wikipedia policy is neither here nor there.- Actually, policy is very important.
You've yet to explain why its ok for London, NYC, Paris, Tokyo, Melbourne, Los Angeles, Toronto, Auckland, etc etc, to have the montage format but not Sydney.- I suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles do it doesn't mean we have to do it here and, if you actually read the discussions you'll see that the opposition has actually been to the choice of images in the montage, not the montage itself. That is very clearly explained above.
The map is dated looking, and it is barely legible.- What exactly is "dated" when it comes to a map? I am on a PC too and I find it quite legible. At full resolution (2,412 × 2,310 pixels) details are easy to read. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This has gone on for years because AussieLegend has decided so, and that's apparently consensus: many people say "we need a monatage", but a couple including AussieLegend say "no we don't", and somehow, that's consensus. Absurd. IWI ( chat) 12:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
For a large city like Sydney, Infobox settlement may be more appropriate. The current infobox works well for smaller cities in Australia, but we could take the British approach with Infobox UK place, using Infobox settlement for larger cities. The current infobox misses Metro or Urban populations, among other things. IWI ( chat) 12:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
all (not most, all) of the world's major cities use this infobox— Did you mean to say "All of the world's true major cities use this infobox? Is Sydney a major city or not? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I shall demonstrate in a minute when I add it here.- Please don't do it here. Do it on test page somewhere. There is no consensus to use a different infobox in the article. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I will do so, it should also apply to Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane etc. IMO. IWI ( chat) 15:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand having an infobox for one country’s cities. In particular, it does not include demonym, the word to describe a person who lives there. I Chicago, a Chicagoan; in New York, a New Yorker, in Paris, a Parisian. Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, what is the term? I appreciate the commonality of infoboxes in Wikipedia. — Prairieplant ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend:, I remember when my father (born 1941) told me to put "'tothersider" in the relevant Wikipedia article as an Eastern Australian nickname for Western Australians, he was reverted by someone much younger (and therefore would not know the facts) who claimed 'tothersider was rarely used. My father was a University academic who was around in the 50s and 60s. He knew who what he was talking about. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 07:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if more detail should be added to the 19th century section of Sydney, under History. Specifically about the building of large, ornate coffee palaces that were designed to encourage a temperance or absintance from alcohol, which at the time had become a bit of an issue in the colonies of Australia, manifesting in disorderly or boisterous public/private behaviour. I have added a rather incredible image of Sydney's Grand Central Coffee Palace (later known as Hotel Arcadia), which was located on Clarence and Pitt Street until its demolition in the 1950s, which does give a little detail about the temperance coffee palace but doesn't go into detail. Ashton 29 ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I read on the page "Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world", which includes a footnote " Dennis, Anthony (2013). ""Too expensive" Sydney slips from top 10 tourism list". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2016. In this year's World's Best Awards, announced in New York this week, Sydney came in as the world's number 12 ranked best city." and a link to http://www.traveller.com.au/too-expensive-sydney-slips-from-top-10-tourism-list-2pdh4 On that page however, cities are not ranked on most-visited, but on some kind of popularity in a survey. Is the original statement true that Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world? If so, is there a (better) source for it? I posted this question also 1.5 years ago, but it got removed from Talk without any action. Erwin ( talk) 07:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)