Template talk:Sydney regions

message: i'd Like to see the North shore as one distinct area with subcategories within the article describing the lower and upper regions, that would follow wikipedia's guidelines much better for one thing and clean up the map, since the two regions are still very similar and often both recalled as the north shore, atleast by everyone of my mates who live ther, and i went to a north shore private school, so yeh. 121.216.41.132 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: North Shore

message: drummoyne and concord are now part of canada bay.  hawkesbury and wolondilly are outside the metro area: 
please consult the NSW department of local government for the latest official list before adding new lga's:
http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_regions.asp
clarkk 09:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some notes:

message: Should Sydney CBD be included on the list of Sydney regions? To me it is a region of Sydney. It took a few clicks to find the article. — Донама 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sydney CBD not here?

message: :I added the CBD, as well as Upper North Shore, as requested by User:J Bar. I am not sure whether we need subregions such as Upper North Shore, but we should either have both Upper and Lower North Shore or neither. JPD (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The North Shore and the Northern Beaches are different places. Lower and Upper North Shore are parts of the North Shore. At first I did not like including them, but I can see an argument for it, and it is definitely wrong to include one and not the other. JPD (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: On top of the fact that you describe yourself as a Queenslander, I find it very unlikely that a Sydneysider would call the North Shore and the Northern Beaches "the same place". At any rate, it is fairly obvious  that a lot of people have heard of and talk of the upper north shore, so what you have heard of is fairly irrelevant. The only question is whether it and the lower north shore really need to be listed separately on this template. JPD (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think having links to both St George and Southern Sydney would be too much clutter, but it might be a good idea to replace Southern Sydney with St George. JPD (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For the second time, the Upper North Shore and the Lower North Shore are two different parts of the North Shore. If you're still confused, try reading the intro to the North Shore article. JPD (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is, of course, one valid way of doing things, but it is not obvious that it is a good idea. Should St George also be merged into Southern Sydney? Using that sort of logic, we should merge them all into Sydney. Having separate articles for two regions that are reasonably often looked at separately is probably ok - the question here is whether they need to be listed separately on this template. JPD (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree, as I have already said. However, there is an argument for the other way, especially considering the St George/Southern Sydney case. I will mention the question at WikiProject Sydney, to get some more opinions. The other interesting factor is that the (disputed) definition currently at Lower North Shore (Sydney) includes Ryde, which is not usually counted as part of the North Shore, or any of the other regions in the template. JPD (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That area of Sydney (Ryde Council) is always left out of the regions of Sydney as it doesn't really fit into any part of Sydney - they don't like being called North Shore, and they're not Western Sydney either. The suburbs like Eastwood and Epping can be regarded as Hills District, but suburbs like West Ryde, Ryde, Meadowbank, Gladesville, etc. are not included there. There is a quasi-region called "Northern Districts" which encompasses this area - maybe we should include that? (JROBBO 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think repeating your proposal will change anything. Do you wish to say anything that hasn't already been said? JPD (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying there is no point is assuming a lot. Is there also no point having St George on the template? I don't think so.  The template obviously does not provide a breakdown of Sydney into regions, so what criteria are you using? JPD (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm.... no. Getting rid of St George would be a very strange thing to do, as it has quite a strong regional identity, probably more so than the larger "southern sydney". So it's clear that the regions listed can have overlap. I still tend to agree that the lower and upper north shore don't need to be there, but it's definitely not as straightforward as that. JPD (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is hardly a debate. I changed the template because I thought all would at the very least agree that it is better than the old version. If you think it is worse, then say so - you can even change it back. If we come up with something better, we can change it then. I don't see what sort of bias would cause me to change Western Sydney. I changed it to use the more common name, and to fit in the template better. The article was originally Western Sydney, and now seems to have changed to describe a different area; this needs to be sorted out at Talk:Greater Western Sydney. I would have thought you would be in favour of the change, as "Greater Western Sydney" includes "South-western Sydney", as well as areas not considered part of Sydney in the LGAs section. JPD (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you talking about my actions, or trying to discuss what would make the template better? I changed it because I thought everyone, including you, would find it better that way. You haven't disagreed yet. As for the "all regions without duplications" suggestion, it is not clear to me what that means. I said "no", and explained why it didn't seem to make much sense. Please explain exactly what you mean if you feel I have not addressed it properly. JPD (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You finally seem to be understanding the point. There is no definitive way of dividing Sydney into regions. If we were trying to do that, it would be close to original research. What this template is actually intended to do is be a navigational box providing links to all the Wikipedia articles about regions of Sydney. Since these are not defined in any consistent way, there will be overlaps. The only question is whether each region is significant enough to be worth providing a link to it. "The regions of Sydney" doesn't exist, and this template shouldn't pretend that it does. JPD (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously the articles should have references, which shouldn't be that hard to find, as the terms are widely used in many contexts. We don't need to call this any sort of "list of the regions of Sydney", since it is nothing more than a navigational box. We are not claiming to list "the regions of Sydney" in any sense - simply saying that the areas listed are significant regions in Sydney. You are the only person who is trying to turn it into some sort of coherent system. JPD (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how we could work from something for another city. I assume you are implying that we shouldn't have this unless something similar exists already somewhere else, which is debatable. Before looking for somethign similar, though, may I repeat that an unofficial list of the regions of Sydney isn't what this is. It isn't even List of unofficial regions of Sydney - it is simply a navigation box giving links to relevant articles. What exactly do you think is wrong with it? JPD (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not claiming it is exempt from the guidelines. I am asking what is wrong with it. That is, which guideline is it breaking? The fact that each region exists as a region is verifiable, and references should go in the articles. To have a template giving links to all these articles, without claiming that it is a definitive list, does not require any extra sources. JPD (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It "claims" to be a group of links to articles, of which each is about a region of Sydney. I don't see how this is a claim to be authoritative. JPD (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You have just reverted a change that was made 10 days ago, without continuing any discussion here. That is not very helpful. I have several questions. Do you actually think that this edit didn't make the template better? What exactly do we need to reach a consensus on? What would the template look like if you had your way? If you answer these questions, we might be able to head towards consensus. (Also, please do not make obviously wrong edit summaries such as "rv to last version by JPD" when reverting one of my edits.) JPD (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that it is not clear what you mean by "all regions of Sydney without duplications". How do you define a "region of Sydney"? There are no formal areas called regions. At the moment, the standard for inclusion in this template is that the region has an article. What is a duplication? By my understanding of the word, there are no duplications at the moment - there are overlaps and inclusions. There aren't 5 different names for the same region, there are several named regions in which one place may be located. Why shouldn't a suburb be in the Lower North Shore, which is part of the North Shore, which is part of the Northern Suburbs? (I think you are a bit confused about the Northern Beaches, and the N Shore/Suburbs difference needs to be cleared up a bit more in the article.) The only question is which articles should be linked from this template. I would say all of them that deserve articles. I can see an argument for leaving out Upper/Lower North Shore, for the reason that they are in some sense obviously included in the North Shore. I can't agree with leaving out a region simply because it is included in an already mentioned region, because that would mean we couldn't have both St George and Southern Sydney, or both GW and SW Sydney, which would seem to defeat the purpose of the template. It is not possible to include all regions without overlap and inclusion, because the regional distinctions do not arise from a coherent system. As a result, I can't see a problem having Upper and Lower NS included. Given that they are there, it might be better to save space and present them as obviously part of the North Shore, hence my edit. I still do not understand whether you actually think this was not an improvement, or simply feel that no changes at all should be made yet. JPD (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe instead of making arbitrary concessions, you could listen to what I am saying. The articles should definitely be referenced. That is not the issue here. The issue here is what the template is. You think the template should have some sort of "all regions without duplication" which you have not explained, but sounds like you mean something impossible. I, and from the looks of things others who contributed to the template, think the template is simply there to facilitate navigation to existing articles about regions in Sydney. If the template is as you see it, it would need references. If it is simply a navigational aid, of course the existence of the article is all that is necessary. We should indeed find references for the articles, but in the meantime as far as this template is concerned, could you please answer my basic questions: What is the problem with the North Shores that needs dealing with? Did my edit that you reverted make the template better or worse? JPD (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but what I've said above does address the issue. References are needed for the articles, not this template. Deal with it at those pages. JPD (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummm.... I don't think so. The fact that some of these Statistical Subdivisions use names that are commonly used in other contexts gives us a reference for those articles about what sort of area is described by that term. It doesn't follow that every statistical subdivision is a region important enough to be on this template. (By the way, St George-Sutherland is Southern Sydney, not St George, New South Wales, the Inner Sydney SSD is much bigger than the CBD, etc., etc.) JPD (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We have already discussed why there is no reliable reference for "the Sydney regions", as there is no such thing as "the Sydney regions". You are righ that it is good to have reliable sources, and that I found these references. I used them as I thought appropriate. I don't think what you are suggesting is actually an appropriate use of the references. The subdivisions are not "the official Government subdivision of the regions", they are areas used for specific purposes by the ABS. As long as we present them like this, it is good. If we present them as anything more than this, it is a misuse of the reference. JPD (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That reference does not tell us anything other than what areas the ABS uses for statistics at the level below the Sydney Statistical Division. To say it is a reference for a list of "the Sydney regions" is misusing it. If I had another reference for "the Sydney regions", I wouldn't be saying that there is not such thing as "the Sydney regions". I will at some point keep looking for references for different Sydney regions, but we need to be careful how we use them. JPD (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper North Shore? 

message: The problem with this template seems fairly obvious to me. The majority of these articles describe these terms as informal descriptions of the regions. Everything we do here must be backed up by references. The fact is I don't believe there is a reference for "The regions of Sydney". The best I have found is this  and this . Maybe someone can find something that matches our list.
My fear is that our template has become the reference. If this is the case then that makes it origional research. Quite a serious matter. Grounds for deletion.
This has to be based on at least one reference that lists the regions of Sydney. --WikiCats 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You finally seem to be understanding the point. There is no definitive way of dividing Sydney into regions. If we were trying to do that, it would be close to original research. What this template is actually intended to do is be a navigational box providing links to all the Wikipedia articles about regions of Sydney. Since these are not defined in any consistent way, there will be overlaps. The only question is whether each region is significant enough to be worth providing a link to it. "The regions of Sydney" doesn't exist, and this template shouldn't pretend that it does. JPD (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously the articles should have references, which shouldn't be that hard to find, as the terms are widely used in many contexts. We don't need to call this any sort of "list of the regions of Sydney", since it is nothing more than a navigational box. We are not claiming to list "the regions of Sydney" in any sense - simply saying that the areas listed are significant regions in Sydney. You are the only person who is trying to turn it into some sort of coherent system. JPD (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how we could work from something for another city. I assume you are implying that we shouldn't have this unless something similar exists already somewhere else, which is debatable. Before looking for somethign similar, though, may I repeat that an unofficial list of the regions of Sydney isn't what this is. It isn't even List of unofficial regions of Sydney - it is simply a navigation box giving links to relevant articles. What exactly do you think is wrong with it? JPD (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not claiming it is exempt from the guidelines. I am asking what is wrong with it. That is, which guideline is it breaking? The fact that each region exists as a region is verifiable, and references should go in the articles. To have a template giving links to all these articles, without claiming that it is a definitive list, does not require any extra sources. JPD (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It "claims" to be a group of links to articles, of which each is about a region of Sydney. I don't see how this is a claim to be authoritative. JPD (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You have just reverted a change that was made 10 days ago, without continuing any discussion here. That is not very helpful. I have several questions. Do you actually think that this edit didn't make the template better? What exactly do we need to reach a consensus on? What would the template look like if you had your way? If you answer these questions, we might be able to head towards consensus. (Also, please do not make obviously wrong edit summaries such as "rv to last version by JPD" when reverting one of my edits.) JPD (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that it is not clear what you mean by "all regions of Sydney without duplications". How do you define a "region of Sydney"? There are no formal areas called regions. At the moment, the standard for inclusion in this template is that the region has an article. What is a duplication? By my understanding of the word, there are no duplications at the moment - there are overlaps and inclusions. There aren't 5 different names for the same region, there are several named regions in which one place may be located. Why shouldn't a suburb be in the Lower North Shore, which is part of the North Shore, which is part of the Northern Suburbs? (I think you are a bit confused about the Northern Beaches, and the N Shore/Suburbs difference needs to be cleared up a bit more in the article.) The only question is which articles should be linked from this template. I would say all of them that deserve articles. I can see an argument for leaving out Upper/Lower North Shore, for the reason that they are in some sense obviously included in the North Shore. I can't agree with leaving out a region simply because it is included in an already mentioned region, because that would mean we couldn't have both St George and Southern Sydney, or both GW and SW Sydney, which would seem to defeat the purpose of the template. It is not possible to include all regions without overlap and inclusion, because the regional distinctions do not arise from a coherent system. As a result, I can't see a problem having Upper and Lower NS included. Given that they are there, it might be better to save space and present them as obviously part of the North Shore, hence my edit. I still do not understand whether you actually think this was not an improvement, or simply feel that no changes at all should be made yet. JPD (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe instead of making arbitrary concessions, you could listen to what I am saying. The articles should definitely be referenced. That is not the issue here. The issue here is what the template is. You think the template should have some sort of "all regions without duplication" which you have not explained, but sounds like you mean something impossible. I, and from the looks of things others who contributed to the template, think the template is simply there to facilitate navigation to existing articles about regions in Sydney. If the template is as you see it, it would need references. If it is simply a navigational aid, of course the existence of the article is all that is necessary. We should indeed find references for the articles, but in the meantime as far as this template is concerned, could you please answer my basic questions: What is the problem with the North Shores that needs dealing with? Did my edit that you reverted make the template better or worse? JPD (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but what I've said above does address the issue. References are needed for the articles, not this template. Deal with it at those pages. JPD (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References for the template

message: This: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Sydney Statistical Subdivisions looks like the only notable reference for template.
So we could base the template on it. --WikiCats 12:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm.... I don't think so. The fact that some of these Statistical Subdivisions use names that are commonly used in other contexts gives us a reference for those articles about what sort of area is described by that term. It doesn't follow that every statistical subdivision is a region important enough to be on this template. (By the way, St George-Sutherland is Southern Sydney, not St George, New South Wales, the Inner Sydney SSD is much bigger than the CBD, etc., etc.) JPD (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We have already discussed why there is no reliable reference for "the Sydney regions", as there is no such thing as "the Sydney regions". You are righ that it is good to have reliable sources, and that I found these references. I used them as I thought appropriate. I don't think what you are suggesting is actually an appropriate use of the references. The subdivisions are not "the official Government subdivision of the regions", they are areas used for specific purposes by the ABS. As long as we present them like this, it is good. If we present them as anything more than this, it is a misuse of the reference. JPD (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That reference does not tell us anything other than what areas the ABS uses for statistics at the level below the Sydney Statistical Division. To say it is a reference for a list of "the Sydney regions" is misusing it. If I had another reference for "the Sydney regions", I wouldn't be saying that there is not such thing as "the Sydney regions". I will at some point keep looking for references for different Sydney regions, but we need to be careful how we use them. JPD (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reference for the template 

message: I don't think this template should contain the Wollondilly Shire. If it does, then we should add the Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury, Gosford and Wyong. I think the template should stick to the 38 councils listed in the Sydney article as commonly refereed to as Sydney. But if Wollondilly is added, it only makes sense to add the other one's that make up the Statistical division. Otherwise, is there anything that makes Wollondilly stand out? Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wollondilly Shire