Talk:Sydney/Archive 2

message: I presume that North Sydney was not included in this list originally because it is so close to the CBD, however it does deserve some mention in the urban structure section. Should the list be changed to 6 other business districts, or should we use some other wording? JPD (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outer Business Districts 

message: As many of you editors on Sydney know, Jackp has been a highly disruptive editor for some months now and I think it is high time to put a stop to it. His activity includes: inserting POV statements into articles, attempting to create sections again and again which have been reverted and discussed, removing sections he does not like and outright punctuation vandalism. His edits seek to promote Sydney and Australia whilst demeaning other cities and countries. He has added the same statement to the Sydney article no less than 8 times (and I only searched for a small sample):         He frequently removes sections he does not like from other city articles, the section removed is usually the same section he tries to insert into Sydney:          Here () he simply blanks a part of Tokyo out of frustration. He also commits sneaky vandalism through delevelling of headers:   Here () he questions the need for Tokyo having a tourism section (because Sydney's tourism section keeps getting removed. Here () he says that NYC is not a good size (so he's going to make it a good size). He also attempts to insert the tourism section in Sydney again and again:    Very few of his edits have not been reverted. His talk page is full of people complaining about his edits but he seems to take no notice of them. What I have uncovered is only a tiny fraction of his total disruption: his edit count is over 1000. I just wanted to ask for people's opinions on his edits and whether we should take further action because we simply cannot let his disruption continue. Skinnyweed 13:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is beyond a joke that it hasn't seriously been attended to. Warnings have been issued plenty of times on his talk page; a stronger line has to be taken. michael talk 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it was so nice for 24hours when he was blocked and there was no jack to edit. It is very frustrating. the block seemed to have no real effect. he was back to his old ways straight away.  I don't actually think he is an intentional vandal, rather he just doesn't get it. --Merbabu 14:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merbabu is right, he's not trying to be disruptive but appears to genuinely believe he's helping. This, I assume, is why he's not been consistently blocked. If he'd only written his POV statements once and then justified them in discussion here, we wouldn't be at this point and some of his info might have stayed. It's a pity really since he's clearly very committed. Witty lama 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jackp, the general consensus is that the sydney page is in good shape. You are the only one who seems to disagree. People have noted that your edits sound more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedia. Do you know what "peacock" terms are? FOr example "economic engine". THat means nothing. If anything at the moment Sydney's economy is the least healthy in all of australia particularly after the property boom, melbourne is only a little better - if we want to use the "economic engine" term, then it must be WA & QLD as they are raking it in due to the resources boom. --Merbabu 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ALso, have you used the history tab? You can see the reasons people give for changing your work. try it and maybe you will understand.--Merbabu 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article is in reasonable shape. There is plenty of room for improvement, but most of Jack's edits make it worse. For a while after his block, I thought he was trying to be more reasonably, but I see he has gone back to repeatedly adding his versions without discussion. Jack, it would help if you at the very least actually bothered to understand why people disagree with you before continuing to edit the article. JPD (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The sections that are already there need improving. We don't need any new sections. If everyone wasn't so busy trying to deal with Jack's inappropriate additions, they might have time to make improvements. JPD (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, are you for real? Sometimes i think you are just joking - although i don't want to suggest you are a troll. You have raised each of these points before and people have responded to each. You say Sydney's shopping stands out. How? I've been to many big cities around the world and it is not that different. What do you suggest? Architecture - we've been through that. see above. Do you know what classical architecture is??? Sydney being a tourist centre is mentioned right at the start. It has been suggested that the economic importance of tourism be expanded in this article but no-one (yourself included) has down this so far - we are tired of removing your tourism promotion material. --Merbabu 12:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)If shopping were important to tourism ("tourists always engage in it"????), there would be sources to back this up, and it could be included in economy. I don't see how shopping makes Sydney stand out, but it definitely doesn't need its own section. Architecture has been discussed before, and you still haven't listened. Same for tourism, which doesn't need a section when its importance can be described in the economy section. The main thing you don't seem to have understood yet is that this article is not about tourists! Saying noone cares is a bit ridiculous. Your sensible suggestions, like adding information on the film industry, have been acted on. Other suggestions, which most people feel would make the article worse, have been reverted, with reasons given in the edit summaries, on your talk page, and on this page. The least you could do is try to understand these reasons. JPD (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is riduclous - people have stated over and over WHY they don't like some (most?) of your changes. The reason the architecture section got removed was because it was mostly POV peacock statments, and the rest of the section was so thin that it didn't deserve a whole section. --Merbabu 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Does that mean you will stop your "disruptive edits"? --Merbabu 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: well, not all of your edits were over-ruled. Some were accepted. The problem was when you reinstate some edits numerous times despite a large number of people disagreeing. Just remember POV and no peacock terms. Cheers--Merbabu 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Jackp's disruption is intentional and nothing else; he has been told many, many times but he does not ceast. Skinnyweed 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jackp]]'s disruptive edits 

message: ===Headings in Arts and Entertainment===
Jackp obviously wants headings in the arts section. The way he has done it doesn't actually make sense. For example, The Push gets labelled as Theatre, and both Theatre and Plays appear in different sections. So, what shoudl we do? As I see it, there are three options:
#Leave it as it is (ie no headings), possibly with some reordering for better flow. I currently prefer this option.
#Reorganise it into separate subsections of culture. 
#Use 
;headings 
:(;headings) as Jackp suggests, but with better organisation of material.
Please add your opinions. JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to split, IMHO. Nowhere else does it, and for good reason - it's just unnecessary. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's assume those who read the article aren't either blind or retarded. Most people aren't so stupid as to fail to differentiate between the paragraphs' subjects. Don't complicate the article. michael talk 06:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say a paragraph under geography would suffice. It's a rather small topic with regard to the city as a whole. 
I think instead of getting rid of all that information on Parks and Gardens (I think it is very well written), we should add it as a sub-section under "Geography" since there are so many parks and gardens in Sydney. Instead of removing it all together. Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It could easily be worked into the text - without being a seperate subsection - in Canberra info about parks is in the arts and entertianment section, which inclues all the sites of interest to locals and tourists.--Peta 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it works, although to me it doesn't quite match the heading. Some of the parks are already mentioned in the urban structure section, and I think some more would fit well there. While on the topic, is it only me that finds the "centrepiece of Sydney's wida array" sentence a bit ridiculous? JPD (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The section has Nothing to do with gepography--Peta 07:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the need for this much info in a summary article. We definitely don't need to describe parks such as the Chinese Gardens or RNP to that extent, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to single out Botany Bay National Park. I am still not sure how the Botanic Gardens are the "centrepiece", either. JPD (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see an argument for not having it under arts and entertainment, but not for having its own subsection. JPD (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The best way of going about this would be that we don't put it, at least not in this form. The current section has way too much information about a relatively minor subject for a summary article such as this. It could perhaps do with a paragraph somewhere (I don't particularly care where), but it's hardly a necessity to have it at all. Rebecca 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind them as they are - I think they're formatted nicely and helpful. I wouldn't object if they were removed though. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point JPD. I agree that the table of 40 LGAs is a bit ugly, and disrupts the flow of the article. I think it was better with them at the bottom (they were there a few days ago, but aren't now) and a link to a list of LGAs in the Governance section Mako 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that the template is the best way to do it as the information should be easy to find when the idea is first encountered. Mabye a seperate article on the governance of sydney linked , which would have the obvious list information it could discuss changing boundaries and so on. It also needs to be made abundandtly clear that this article isn't only about the area governed by SCC.--Peta 10:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only starting dicussion on an issue raised by someone else. I personally don't mind the list, although a link to a Governance of Sydney would be a decent alternative. JPD (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure suggestions 

message: Jackp obviously wants headings in the arts section. The way he has done it doesn't actually make sense. For example, The Push gets labelled as Theatre, and both Theatre and Plays appear in different sections. So, what shoudl we do? As I see it, there are three options:
#Leave it as it is (ie no headings), possibly with some reordering for better flow. I currently prefer this option.
#Reorganise it into separate subsections of culture. 
#Use 
;headings 
:(;headings) as Jackp suggests, but with better organisation of material.
Please add your opinions. JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to split, IMHO. Nowhere else does it, and for good reason - it's just unnecessary. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's assume those who read the article aren't either blind or retarded. Most people aren't so stupid as to fail to differentiate between the paragraphs' subjects. Don't complicate the article. michael talk 06:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings in Arts and Entertainment

message: To me it seems that this subsection would be better in Geography than Culture, either as a subsection, or part of the urban structure subsection. Any other opinions? JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say a paragraph under geography would suffice. It's a rather small topic with regard to the city as a whole. 
I think instead of getting rid of all that information on Parks and Gardens (I think it is very well written), we should add it as a sub-section under "Geography" since there are so many parks and gardens in Sydney. Instead of removing it all together. Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It could easily be worked into the text - without being a seperate subsection - in Canberra info about parks is in the arts and entertianment section, which inclues all the sites of interest to locals and tourists.--Peta 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it works, although to me it doesn't quite match the heading. Some of the parks are already mentioned in the urban structure section, and I think some more would fit well there. While on the topic, is it only me that finds the "centrepiece of Sydney's wida array" sentence a bit ridiculous? JPD (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The section has Nothing to do with gepography--Peta 07:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the need for this much info in a summary article. We definitely don't need to describe parks such as the Chinese Gardens or RNP to that extent, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to single out Botany Bay National Park. I am still not sure how the Botanic Gardens are the "centrepiece", either. JPD (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see an argument for not having it under arts and entertainment, but not for having its own subsection. JPD (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The best way of going about this would be that we don't put it, at least not in this form. The current section has way too much information about a relatively minor subject for a summary article such as this. It could perhaps do with a paragraph somewhere (I don't particularly care where), but it's hardly a necessity to have it at all. Rebecca 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parks and gardens

message: Someone above suggested that the list of LGAs in the body of the article was ugly and unnecessary, as they are listed in the template at the bottom. Does anyone agree? Alternatives that I can see include linking to a list of LGAs in Sydney, or possibly even moving the sydney regions template to that part of the article. JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind them as they are - I think they're formatted nicely and helpful. I wouldn't object if they were removed though. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point JPD. I agree that the table of 40 LGAs is a bit ugly, and disrupts the flow of the article. I think it was better with them at the bottom (they were there a few days ago, but aren't now) and a link to a list of LGAs in the Governance section Mako 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that the template is the best way to do it as the information should be easy to find when the idea is first encountered. Mabye a seperate article on the governance of sydney linked , which would have the obvious list information it could discuss changing boundaries and so on. It also needs to be made abundandtly clear that this article isn't only about the area governed by SCC.--Peta 10:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only starting dicussion on an issue raised by someone else. I personally don't mind the list, although a link to a Governance of Sydney would be a decent alternative. JPD (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LGAs

message: A while ago I added this into the first part of the Sydney article:
"Sydney is the Australia's focal center of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture."
Well, isn't most of that true?? I want to no what is before I add the sentence in, because I feel it should be mentioned somewhere, and the top is the most venerable for people to see (there really isn't any other places).Jackp 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peacock terms, Jack, peacock terms. The reason why that sort of sentence is not appropriate is set out in great detail up above.  Please take the time to read and understand the comments people have made to your suggestions.  Thanks.  --Skeezix1000 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, we've already addressed it many times. Stop asking again and again. Do you actually read what people write let alone consider it? --Merbabu 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And how would you actually prove any of these things? Rebecca 09:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Rebecca, i think Jack was saying there that he would remove it. But i guess the proof is what he does in the article. --Merbabu 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Guys, some of that stuff is verifiable. Centre of finance, or centre of culture, those can be verifiable via public perception. Centre of education? Hardly. Centre of politics? Umm Canberra is the capital for a reason... --Sumple (Talk) 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, if you really beleive that those two links are reputable sources and not just websites to generate clickthrough revenue then you truly are a lost cause! --Steve 06:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you talk about high schools, then yes the NSW selective system produces the most out of all states - see Maths Olympiad and Science Olympiads to see that NSW is a a dominant contributor to Australian representative teams. However per capita it would be ACT. With the ANU, the tertiary level is probably the same, the ANU is usually ranked higher and per capita Canberra would also be higher rated in terms of ed qualification.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What is an 'education capital'?  There term is meaningless --Steve 06:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, there is no proper definition, but I had to rebut anyway.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if every school or uni in australia was located in Sydney i wouldn't say "education capital" - rather just say that every school and uni is in Sydney. let the facts speak for themselves. dont fill this up with tourist brochure garbage. --Merbabu 06:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The three top unis in Australia (according to the THES) are Melbourne, ANU and Monash. So the "education capital" (if, as Steve asked, that means anything) is probably Melbourne. (I'm a UNSW graduate, so aren't blowing Melbourne's trumpet). You'd better remove culture too, unless you can find a good source backing up that claim.Mako 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i can't believe we are even giving it a discussion. There is no place for such a term even if all the superior institutions were actually in sydney. --Merbabu 06:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, Merbabu was not picking a bone with a person but with the topic at hand - YOU are the one who made the Ad hominem attack, not him. Don't try to pass the buck. Furthermore, whenever someone says "no offence" they generally DO mean offence! Witty lama 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What education capital?  There isn't one.  Universities are scattered everywhere.  Many regional cities are university cities.  Does every single thing in Australia have to have a focal point or a capital at one particular city?  You don't just live in Sydney, Jack, you live in AUSTRALIA.  Things don't magically change once you pass Gosford or Campbelltown. -- Chuq 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack has already stated somewhere that he doesn't live in Sydney. Some of the completely wrong statements he make back that up. Together with the fact that he uses American spelling, I wouldn't even be sure that he lives in Australia. That might be an excuse for not understanding that there is no "education capital" of Australia, but it's not an excuse for thinking that that sort of language is acceptable in an encyclopedia. JPD (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Merbabu is right. We shouldn't have to be discussing this sort of thing again and again, when the language proposed is something that should not be in an encyclopedia full stop. Rebecca 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack "no offence" to you either, but your last comment says quite a bit about the way you use words. Ie, you use them loosely with very little thought to how they are going to be read by others. I am not picking a bone with "everyone", as you put it. Rather i am contributing to a discussion to which I am in agreement with a lot of people, whereas you appear to be in agreement with no-one. As per usual, my advice to you is to read closely what people are actually saying, and cleary there is also a need for you to think carefully about the words you use in the article.  Although, to your credit, you do seem to be heeding of the advice on earlier topics (ie, the introduction).--Merbabu 09:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia's Capital? 

message: I really don't like this section. If information about any of these rankings is important enough, then it can go in the lead or somewhere else appropriate. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in the article. There is no need to have a separate section for it. JPD (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International rankings 

message: In light of today's reversions from Jackp, re-adding material which it has been explained to him time and time again is inappropriate, I have blocked him for a week. I have asked him to take the time to think about and try to understand why his editing has been inappropriate, and informed him that I will block him indefinitely if he continues editing in this way after the conclusion of his block. Rebecca 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying really really hard to control myself, so i will say this with some control - that is BRILLIANT news. He has completely failed to learn the not-so-difficult art of compromise and consensus. Yet, often he has claimed he has, is quiet for a couple of days, and then comes back with a vengeance. He asked me about creating a page on architecture in Sydney and showed his (typical jack) writings. I decided to treat his intentions as good and gave him a long answer - the general jist was this needs RESEARCH and i gave him a list of topics. But there was no reply which i think is telling.--Merbabu 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support per nom :P Cheers, --darkliight[πalk] 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That IP address is assigned to Neighbourhood Cable, an ISP that covers regional Victoria.  Verify with APNIC whois search. John Dalton 11:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough is enough

message: Hello, I've just written a section on architecture in Sydney. I posted it on Merbabu's user talk page, because he gave me an idea for the architecture section. So after I read his ideas, I got cracking on the section. Anways, Merbabu gave it a quick read, and thought it was a good start, although he though it may beed to be re-sized, as it's a little too long. He also said that many of you mighten be pleased (he has a copy and says he'll work on it), so to be sure he said post it on the Sydney talk page, so give it a read and see what you think:
:Sydney’s skyline is not characterized by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a long period of time.
:Many prominent architects that are responsible for a large amount of iconic Sydney structures, such as the iconic colonial architect Francis Greenway  Between 1816 and 1818, whilst still a convict, Greenway was responsible for the design and construction of the Macquarie Lighthouse on the South Head at the entrance to Sydney Harbour. His most famous works include the Hyde Park Barracks, St. James Church and the new Govermant building. Danish architect, Jorn Utzon, responsible for quite possibly the most famous Sydney structure, the contemprary Sydney Opera House which has since it’s opening in 1973 by the Queen Elizabeth, has become one of the most recognizable buildings in the world and makes Sydney’s skyline differ from many other cities due to it’s shape, which are suppose to resemble sails.
:The late 1980s and early to mid 1990s resulted in a skyscraper boom in Sydney, but height restrictions limited future buildings to the height of 235 meters, to provide better views from certain buildings. The skyline is dominated by the highest, which is the Centrepoint Tower (or less more commonly the Sydney Tower) at The tower stands 305 metres above the central business district, it is located at 120 Market Street, between Pitt and Castlereagh Streets, accessible from the Pitt Street Mall, and sits upon Centrepoint (to which the tower is often referred as), an office building and shopping centre. The tower is open to the public, and is one of the most prominent tourist attractions in the city, being visible from a number of vantage points throughout town and from adjoining suburbs. The second largest at 244m is the Chifley Tower, which was completed in 1992 and is located at 2 Chifley Sqaure. Among the others are Citigroup Centre and the latter consisting predominantly of residential apartments. Sydney skyline is by far the most recognizable in Australia and is home to some of Australia's tallest skyscrapers, with 134, it has the largest skyline in Australia. http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html The spectacular backdrop of Sydney Harbour means its real estate is amongst the most expensive in the world.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 July 2006
This is indeed a better section, and could form the start of an architecture in Sydney article. However, that doesn't mean that it should be a section in this article. JPD (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tourist stuff from Centrepoint. It's only claim to fame architectureally is that it is the tallest. Perhaps eventaully this should be its own page if it is good - Jack has come a long way but still a lot more work to be done. What about some other topics like federation architecture (although arguably not uniquely Sydney), suburban development (different periods, economic conditions - ie, look at the different styles from 18th century, then booming pre-WW1 federation, then post war, and now McMansions and urban fringe). Clearly this needs some research. Also, the significance of Macquarie using Francis Greenway to implement his vision of a small ordered city rather than a bedraggled prison colony for Sydney. --Merbabu 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merbabu mentions exactly the sort of things I would like to see at Architecture in Sydney or something like that. The question is whether a summary of this material should be in this article as its own section. JPD (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm - this is getting confusing.  What is best? Alshtough i think a seperate article might have legs, I don't think this would ever be a big article unless someone could come up with some major topics and link them all together. Also, there is this page Australian architectural styles - jackp won't be happy with this, but much of what could go into a sydney-specific article would be found here.  It is difficult because some speific topics are already covered in specific articles - ie, Utzon controversy, Harry Seidler's impact on architecture (not just skyscrapers but he doggedly - but no single-handedly pushed us out of out conservatism and pushed modernism onto us). --Merbabu 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On a minor point - that Architecture in Sydney page redirects to a list of sydney skyscrapers. Should that be kept as seperate list or part of an architecture page??? --Merbabu 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture in Sydney 

message: "In the years following the 2000 Olympics, CityRail's performance declined significantly."
Is that true? I don't think it is, I haven't ever herd any information about it. And also, the trnasport section is missing a few sub-sections such as "Buses" (buses are used a lot in Sydney), and the whole section looks messy without a heading (i.e. airports, trains and rails), so I think they should be subsections under "transport", although the infrastructure will look all messy and out of shape, so I think the Transport section should have it's own section. Jackp 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please familiarise yourself with the MoS, in particlaur this. And to avoid us repeating ourselves again, look st some other featured cities, like Detroit or Canberra for a guide to good layout and sections that should appear in a city article.--Peta 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A featured article on a city. You've been pointed to those articles many times before. Rebecca 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Featured articles. Rebecca 07:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport 

message: I’m very willing to create a portal on Sydney. All I need to know is whenever I go to create it, it redirects to the Australian portal, how do I change this. I've read throughly the rules on portals, the guidlines, how to make a good portal and so on, because I don't want to make the same mistake that I have on the Sydney page in the past. Jackp 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. The Sydney article has been degraded significantly because of your edits. Why should this continue onto a portal? michael talk 09:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There isn't enough quality Sydney-related content to sustain a portal of any substance, hence the redirect.--cj | talk 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, here is a list of your contributions. Have you really "learnt your lesson"? --Merbabu 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, it's not solely a question of quantity, but of quality. Portals are supposed to showcase quality content. At present, there is only one Sydney-related featured article and about 2 Sydney-related good articles. This is insufficient. The redirect to Portal:Australia was instituted because it can reasonably serve those users interested in Sydney alongside those interested in other Australia-related subjects. In any event, if there were to be subportals of Portal:Australia, the states should be first in line. With regards to the general tone of discussion here and on other talk pages, I'd advise users to avoid acrimony. --cj | talk 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Sydney 

message: Since there are several comments here about Jackp's disruptive edits, I though I would let you all know that he seems to be making a POINT on New York City – see the talk page. –Joke 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ha, ha - we have taught him well. What he is arguing on the NYC page is exactly what we spent 3-months and 100 reverts drumming into him. Perhaps jack could now remove the sub-headings from the Culture section of the NYC article (see Sydney history page over last 3months if you don't get it).   --Merbabu 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's doing the same thing at Toronto and Montreal.  --Skeezix1000 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Does that include his IP, 203.208.120.247? --Steve 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A trace on that IP would suggest his ISP is http://www.ncable.net.au , who use dynamic IPs. Mako 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackp 

message: Seriously? What does being a global city have to do with economy? 
From,
Movie-lover93 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the statement really were about the broad meaning of "global city", I would agree that it would be better in the lead, but looking carefully reveals that the study quoted did indeed cover only economic aspects. JPD (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  global city and economy... 

message: Sydney has a coat of arms and a flag, and these are the right one:
FLAG:
http://www.freehomepages.com/goebel/sydney_flag.jpg
COAT OF ARMS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hs_chos_sotc_coat_of_arms_new.gif
Wanna consider adding them?
From,
Movie-lover93 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This article discusses metropolitan Sydney, not the City of Sydney.--cj | talk 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coat of arms and flag 

message: Is new editor Movie-lover93 Jackp in disguise?  Their contributions to this article and others (  ) are very similar - too similar for coincidence? Jackp often edited movies including Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
:That is a Jackp sock. He previously mentioned having created User:Movie-lover, which I promptly banned as a sock at the time. Jack, please find something else to do with your time. Rebecca 07:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie-lover93 

message: Here's a fun game with a serious message about the need for sources.  Please feel free to add to these lists or move items around!  :-) John Dalton 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a complete sidetrack - the above sources are not "ambiguous", they are simply using the normal use of the idea of a city. We have separate articles for the adminstrative division the "City of Sydney", and for the city Sydney according to normal understanding. The idea of a capital city applies to the normal notion of a city, not administrative divisions. Otherwise, you would be arguing not only that the capital of the UK is Westminster, but also that the capital of Australia is not Canberra, but the ACT. A capital city is a city which is a capital, so the distinction is meaningless. JPD (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took them to be ambiguous in that they didn't establish which Sydney, the LGA (aka city) or the metro area (aka city), was the capital.  They were not ambiguous about establishing that a city called "Sydney" is the capital. I do not dispute that Sydney is the capital, I just wanted to be sure which use of the word city applied to the capital.  Both uses are "normal".John Dalton 11:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources in order of reliability

message: * australia.gov.au
* DFAT
* Australian Bureau of Meterology web site
* Australian Electoral Commission web site
Okay I've been converted.  The Geographic Names Board of NSW GNB of NSW is hard to beat.  According to them:  "It is the capital of New South Wales. The inner city area is located on the southern shores of Port Jackson, but the city extends to the north, south and west for many km."  The question remains, just how far is "many km"?  To answer this, look at the topgraphic map reference given for "Sydney": Parramatta River.  This is smack in the middle of the metro area of Sydney and doesn't include the "City of Sydney".  Conclusion: The capital of NSW is some fuzzy blob called "Sydney" which is centred on Parramatta.
I withdraw the above arguments.  The capital (note, not capital city) of NSW is not the City od Sydney.  It is "Sydney".  I do not withdraw my comments about the need for sources for every bit of information in the article (even the 'obvious stuff').John Dalton 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a complete sidetrack - the above sources are not "ambiguous", they are simply using the normal use of the idea of a city. We have separate articles for the adminstrative division the "City of Sydney", and for the city Sydney according to normal understanding. The idea of a capital city applies to the normal notion of a city, not administrative divisions. Otherwise, you would be arguing not only that the capital of the UK is Westminster, but also that the capital of Australia is not Canberra, but the ACT. A capital city is a city which is a capital, so the distinction is meaningless. JPD (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took them to be ambiguous in that they didn't establish which Sydney, the LGA (aka city) or the metro area (aka city), was the capital.  They were not ambiguous about establishing that a city called "Sydney" is the capital. I do not dispute that Sydney is the capital, I just wanted to be sure which use of the word city applied to the capital.  Both uses are "normal".John Dalton 11:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous

message: What about the cities (LGUs) of Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Melbourne then? Are they the actual state capitals? — Instantnood 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno.  You'll have to ask them. John Dalton 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other state capitals

message: I am looking for a consensus with regard to these two categories:
:Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales & :Category:Shopping centres in Sydney.(see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney#scope for previous entries). I have looked through this it seems to be an old chestnut. Does the PROJECT have a consensus on what is in Sydney for the purpose of Wikipedia? 
PROPOSAL: For the purpose of articles related on Wikipedia, if the suburb is included on 
List of Sydney suburbs then it is IN SYDNEY for the purposes of classifying articles.
Strong Agree --Garrie 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposal, which seems to belong at the Wikiproject talk page. The way in which it directly affects this article is that although most of the article's context clearly uses this sort of definition of Sydney, the stats are for the "Sydney Statistical Division", which is much bigger, including Gosford/Wyong and the Blue Mountains. I don't think the "Sydney Statistical Division" was ever intended to match a normal notion of Sydney, and think we should find more specific stats, but noone seems to agree/care. JPD (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stas are the problem, the ABS has all the big metro areas as statistical divisions - and they are the data that is quoted everywhere. The approach on most Australian city articles has been to go with the metro area due in part to the usefulness of the stats. The differnce could be explained in the geography seciton of the article.--Peta 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent of '''Sydney''' 

message: I think that opening paragraph still needs work. When was Sydney actually founded as a city? Ie, it wasn't Sydney that was proclaimed in 1788 but NSW. When did the name "Sydney" come into use, both colloquially and officially? In the meantime, i suggest "Sydney was established" rather than "Sydney was founded" - sounds less official. --Merbabu 12:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my look through the NAA last night, Sydney doesn't seem to have gotten letters patent etc that towns founded later got. Someone at the state library of NSW might be able to confirm or deny this. However I think it is totally accurate to say Sydney was founded in 1788 - but established is ok too.--Peta 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Founded as a settlement, and I think that's good enough. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 04:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem seems to be that the article is about "Sydney", but it is never precisely defined what Sydney is.  As a result everyone is reading the words and (correctly) getting a different meaning out of them.  Sydney is vaguely defined to be a "city", but what's that?  Is Sydney the city a body of people, a geographic area, a legal entity, a mix of these, something else?  I suspect each person in thsi discussion would pick a different thing from the list just given (or a new thing altogether).John Dalton 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A city is an urban area of some sort. The people are obviously a significant part of this, and there may be a legal entity in there somewhere, but I think it is clear that there is not in this case. I think the issue here is not with the word "city", but how we understand "established" and "founded". I am fine with either one. JPD (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points, JPD. For me "founded" seems more official - like someone proclaimed it at a ceremony and laid a stone or legislated. "Established" seems to be a more haphazard process which is my understanding of Sydney's very early history. My understanding is also that the colony of NSW was proclaimed officially, but not Sydney  - or not until much later anyway, not in 1788. But i am happy to be corrected on each of these if someone provides a convincing arguement. --Merbabu 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney was founded in 1788??? 

message: I've reverted a major edit to Parks in Sydney by Jfpearce that was a blatant copy from some of Jackp's favourite sources.  Can someone else keep an eye on this user's activity.  --Steve 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw his contrbutions - same sort pages that jackp used to edit. --Merbabu 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sydney Parks

message: Wouldn't it look better if the picture of the Sydney skyline and Opera House from Sydney Harbour if it was in the infobox above or under the map with a caption below it. I think it would look pretty good in there!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill-bill-93 (talk • contribs)  aka Jackp
: Hit the road Jackp Merbabu 11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A picture in the infobox? 

message: Why isn't the article title Sydney, New South Wales? The article for every other city/town in Australia except for some of the state capitals includes the state name, and those few shoudl be changed as well. Ohwell32 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no need for the disambiguation. Sydney is a major city in the world and there are no other "Sydney" articles that rank up against Sydney the city. Towns hve the "New South Wales" part for the disambiguation reason. --mdmanser 10:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to what mdmanser said, there is an article naming convention for cities which does not require the use of the city, state format for Asutralian capitals (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Australia).  The lack of disambiguation for the Sydney article is in keeping with the convention.  Just to add -- the convention does not require disambiguation in article names for most cities in the world, unless there is a conflict with a city of the same name (and one city cannot claim to be the most significant place sharing the name).  The U.S. is the major exception, where the city, state format is required for all cities (except NYC and Chicago).  Skeezix1000 11:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The only six cities excepted are Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide. Perth and Darwin lead to disambiguation pages (Perth, Scotland and Charles Darwin) Harryboyles 07:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move page? 

message: So many cities have one now, and I was wondering whether Sydney will ever get the portal treatment on Wikipedia? Someone before claimed that it wouldn’t be sufficient enough because there are hardly any articles that have something to do with the city on Wikipedia, but that is just bias. There are a total of 58 articles about places in the city, and 43 about regions in the city. Toronto has a portal and there are only 57 related to Toronto…so what is this garbage about not enough pages related to the city?? So far will the Sydney articles be improved any time soon, when they are will someone begin to work on one??
: Hit the road Jackp --Merbabu 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal, Sydney needs one