Talk:Sydney/Archive 1

message: links should not generally appear in headings of narrative articles (sometimes it's OK in "list of"-style articles) see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headings, also WikiProject Countries and other templates (see my comment above), as well other articles use the Main article: convention.  clarkk 12:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: links in headings

message: I added a list of local government areas...IMHO these are more important then most of the listed suburbs...only notable suburbs that aren't also LGAs should be listed, e.g. Bondi Junction, Chatswood, Cronulla. But the list is pretty long. Too long? I don't know how to format it into two columns. Maybe it's better to have a separate article, 'list of Sydney local government areas'.--Randwicked 10:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Local Government Areas of New South Wales. I really don't think the LGA list needs be here, maybe not even the suburbs, unless super-special. All those lists should be kept seperate. T.P.K. 16:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A soulution may be to add the Sydney_regions template instead. Might look a little neater, and it lists all the LGAs AND 'regions'. -Randwicked 10:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to list LGAs? 

message: I'm trying to develop the Australian section of the article on Chinatown, so no country will feel they're excluded from the list.  Does Sydney also follow the old touristy urban Sydney Chinatown vs. the new surburban Chinatown pattern?  If you have any local perspective, please add them to the article.
By the way, correct anything you feel is erroneous.
* So people are very quick to delete the link to the main Chinatown article (I added it because it could use some more information on Sydney's Chinatown), but yet they're not so quick in adding much-needed new information to it.  Sad.
::I've added some info to the Chinatown, Sydney article, but I don't think a link to an article on generic Chinatowns is appropriate in a list of Sydney tourist attractions. The Sydney Aquarium listing doesn't need a link to Aquarium.--Randwicked 15:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinatown of Sydney 

message: I find no reference for this claim outside wikipedia mirrors. Its metro area is nowhere as big as LA's or New York's, and 'suburban' is a dodgy term. I changed it to 'one of the world's largest urban areas for its population', which is definitely true as the density is low. Randwicked 04:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Encarta :Sydney gives an area for the city and suburbs of about 12,400 sq km. This paper discusses the population and sizes of various cities. It is mainly interested in the top twenty by population. The listed cities and their size in sq kms are: New York  (17884), Moscow  (14925), Chicago  (12028), London  (11391), Buenos Aires  (10888), Los Angeles  (10780), Sao Paulo  (8479), Tokyo  (8014), Mexico City  (7346), Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (6930), Beijing  (6562), Shanghai  (5177), Jakarta  (5100), Seoul  (5076), Delhi-New Delhi (3182), Hong Kong-Shenzhen (3051), Manila  (2521), Mumbai (Bombay) (2350), Kolkata (Calcutta) (1785), Cairo  (1600), Karachi  (1100). If the Encarta area is correct, the Sydney article should not claim it is the biggest city by area. It can claim it is bigger than most of the cities in the list. --CloudSurfer 10:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Los Angeles is listed on several sites as 1,215 sq km so Sydney is bigger than LA - just. --CloudSurfer 08:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Sydney is not the largest (in area) city in Australia, let alone the world. See Mt Isa.
It is true that Sydney is not the largest city in the world by area. This is not relevant. The claim being disputed is whether Greater Sydney has the largest suburban area in the world. I did not originate this claim and was curious about its veracity when I first came across it in this article. As it is, I found two references for it fairly quickly:  and . Although one of them comes from a university website, I can excuse someone for not thinking that these are authoritative. But the assumption has hardly been pulled out of the air either. I have no inclination to want to argue the point, however. I am content that the claim has been withdrawn due to lack of evidence. --Susurrus 08:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, here's some pretty definitive evidence that the claim is wrong. , someone has illustrated all the world's major cities to scale. These are actual built up areas. Sydney pretty pales in comparison to even mid-range American cities, though it's quite large compared to most in Europe. I think that this claim about Sydney is just one of those things that is repeated so many times people take it as fact. I've heard that Aucklanders say the same about their city. - Randwicked 12:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I'm actually delighted to see bad facts getting so robustly vetted out of a Wikipedia article by peer review. I've done it myself for a few articles, but it always felt like I was nearly alone in the process. You want to feel like there's a real group out there available for checks and balances. --Susurrus 03:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest suburban area 

message: Is there an article on this somewhere? If not there should be. The interesting thing I find about it is that the rivalry seems more prominent in Sydney than in Melbourne. People in Sydney have a dislike of Melbourne whereas people in Melbourne generally like Sydney but dislike its egocentricity, or at least that is my experience. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Melbourne was for many years after the gold rush larger and more influential than Sydney. It was chosen as the first capital of Australia. Many federal government institutions were set up there and have gradually left for Canberra or sometimes Sydney. It had all the embassies and all of these factors were reasons for many companies setting up there. With the move of the capital to Canberra, Sydney was then much closer and this has been a factor in Sydney's rise, not to mention the weather and the harbour views. Interestingly, most people in Sydney are unaware that Melbourne was ever the capital of Australia. I suspect they have forgotten why they don't like Melbourne. I am sure there must be heaps of documentation from the time of Federation and both before and after. I am not a historian but surely this is an interesting topic for someone. --CloudSurfer 23:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought about an article before, but couldn't find any real information online, though I didn't search all too hard, and there's bound to be something offline too. As a Melburnian, I can say that the rivalry still exists here, and we do from time to time get 'Opera House envy' if you can call it that - things like trying to develop a landmark building in the Docklands, but not knowing exactly what it should be. I've always laughed at this rivalry though; where else has the government said "If you can't play fair with it, neither of you get it!" Frankly, it would have been better here :P T.P.K. 06:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found some interesting stats that I have put on the Talk:Melbourne page. In 1901 Melbourne was just larger than Sydney with NSW having a larger population by some degree but in 1881 the population of Vic was much larger than NSW. Federation didn't just happen in 1901 there was a long lead time. Another reason for Canberra was to be inland for strategic reasons. That way an army would have more problem attacking the capital.  Mind you it didn't stop the British when they trashed Washington DC in the War of 1812. --CloudSurfer 08:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yes it did - they needed to sail up the Ptomac. Canberra is up in the mountains - it's impregnable. The point should be that taking Canberra or not would have little or no strategic significance, since it's only Canberra.--XmarkX 08:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Cloudsurfer, I've found the opposite...people in Membourne have a HUUUGE chip on their shoulders about their second-class status and are always going out of their way to prove they're as good or better than us. Whereas Sydney people are too busy toning our perfect abs and talking property prices to care about Melbourne either way. :p - Randwicked 14:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a resident of neither city, but I did see a quote once from a Sydneysider: "Melbourne think they are winning a race that we didn't even know we were in" Paul 08:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: i don't hear an awful lot on this rivalry here in melbourne, we love our city, and couldn't care less what syneyers think about it . melbourne has great features, as i'm sure sydney does too.
As a Sydney resident for nearly 50 years, can I ask that the prominent reference to Sydney–Melbourne rivalry be removed? It's a parochial way to start an important text, and is ... kind of childish.
Tony 13:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Sydney Melbourne rivalry 

message: FYI, there's another NASA satellite photo of Sydney here - much higher res (maybe too high?). Can be used under the PD-USGov-NASA image tag. - Nickj 03:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative satellite photo

message: I really disagree with the list of regions of sydney, though I like the concept. Rather than Western Sydney, we should be talking about the Outer West and the South West. I also feel that the Sutherland Shire is a distinct (socio)geographical entity to Southern Sydney. Thought I'd sound people out before makign alterations.--XmarkX 08:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Southern Sydney's really two distinct regions, The Shire and St George. Ditto the others can be broken up into sub regions. If you know what the current breakdown is, go ahead and change it. - Randwicked 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds fine with me.  clarkk 09:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you might be going a bit far with this, but then from my City Centre perspective, it's difficult to say. I've separated off the Shire and the South-West. My feeling is that the latter can be used to cover everything from Liverpool/Cabramatta to Campbelltown. Canterbury-Bannkstown is a bit tough though. BTW, I've heard Hills District residents (unsurprisingly if you think about it) describe the Hills as the Upper North Shore.--XmarkX 06:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well as a former North Shore resident I can tell you that the Hills would NEVER be accepted as part of the Upper North. :) -Randwicked 10:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: you edit the template: template:Sydney regions.   every  is expanded in a template:Foo bar.  see wikipedia:template.  clarkk 06:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions 

message: I am interested why North Sydney is not mentioned as a major CBD area outside of the true Sydney CBD?  In reviewing the North Sydney entry it is stated as the second largest CBD area in NSW.  Any thoughts? --Michael 07:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBD Areas? 

message: The latest figures on the page are misleading. The Sydney Statistical Division as defined by the ABS is about 12,000 sq km. What isn't obvious from this figure though is that it includes vast swathes of national park. The whole of the Central Coast, Hawkesbury, Blue Mountains and Wollondilly Shire are part of the SSD. It's nonsensical to compare this massive area to the 835 sq km of New York City, a figure which encompasses only the five boroughs, and not its massive metro area which sprawls across three states. The value for Beijing is as large only because that's the figure for the whole (defacto) province. I'm removing this section, but I'll try to get some comparable figures from some learned people. - Randwicked 23:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I obtained the actual urban area figure from the ABS -- 1687.4 sq km. Same size as Greater London. There you go. - Randwicked 00:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  City size comparison flawed 

message: Re the last editing comment on what to call Sydneyites:  Let's not get too carried away with the term 'neutral'.  In some cases it is important to point out what is correct usage, and so pointing out is still NPOV.  Lots of terms are "used" but it is sometimes important to point out what is and is not correct usage.  A  schoolkid needs to know that it is not correct to write 'New Yorican' or 'Noo Yawker' in a essay, e.g.; both are 'used'.  Quill 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - but use of terms such as "Sydneysider" and "Sydneyite" aren't really "correct" or even "incorrect" in any sort of meaningful sense. They are not words mandated by any law or technical specification, they are  really words that people use informally from time to time. --Wm 22:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, educate me here.  (Not being funny.)  There has got to be *some* accepted formal term used in speech and writing.  I would suggested that very few of our words are mandated, even technical terms are eventually resolved by usage 'typewriter' and 'mouse' spring to mind.  A New Yorker is now a New Yorker, not a New Yorkean, New Yorkonian or New Yorkite.  My dictionaries give "Sydneyite" as the term for a resident of Sydney.  (We all have to use something as a reference; I use dictionaries.)  However, Syndey TV reporters invariably say "Sydneysider".  Is there no formal useage?  Quill 20:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really accept that there has to "some accepted formal term". Perhaps it comes back to whether you regard dictionaries as "descriptive" or "prescriptive". As our Wikipedia article says "Most modern dictionaries of English are descriptive" - they are reporting common or accepted usage, not prescribing it as "correct". In a formal document you are more likely to use "residents of Sydney" --Wm 22:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I realise that this argument/discussion is over but anyway I agree with this - Sydneysider is the term that is widely accepted and used.  I have never heard the term Sydneyite either, and never seen it in print (except for right here in this talk page!). Cursive 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correctness and NPOV 

message: An anon inserts links to http://www.oceania.com/australia/photos/cities/sydney/ and similar to Australia and NZ related articles. If this is spam, keep removing. Zocky 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential spam

message: If we're going to add the coat of arms then we at least should add the current version (see the
City of Sydney website). Cursive 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat Of Arms

message: There are a few problems with the current opening:
Sydney is the capital city of the Australian state of New South Wales and Australia's largest and oldest city (founded in 1788). With a metropolitan area population of 4.3 million and a population of approximately 146,297 people in the city proper (known as the "City of Sydney"), the Sydney metropolis is the larger of the two main financial, transport, trade and cultural centres of Australia (the other being Melbourne).
It would be preferable not to cite the population count of the city proper to the very last person—such a level of accuracy belies the instability of the measure. Brisbane, Perth, etc, might be miffed at being classified as not being financial, transport, trade and cultural centres. Do we need to tip our hats to that silly Sydney-Melbourne rivalry? What's a transport centre? I'll fix these matters if no one objects. Tony 22:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Melbourne needs be mentioned; it was probably tacked on the end by some Melburnian clutching to an illusion of "Marvellous Melbourne" ;-). (And as an Adelaidean, I reject the idea that Adelaide is not regarded as a "financial or cultural centre" - I'm ambivalent on trade and transport; indeed, "transport centre" is exceedingly ambiguous. GaWC does identify Adelaide as being of "world city formation" equal to Perth, Bris Vegas and Auckland). So, no objections from me.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine transport centre is regarded in terms of "how many people have travel through there to get somewhere else". That is, what's the volume of international or domestic traffic.  So Brisbane and Sydney would be important in that regard, and perhaps also Perth. Melbourne and Adelaide not so much.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening: I removed ', from where the language derives its name, but' as redundant. Removed last sentence about universities—is this an overstatement? 

message: I have a problem with the time zones in the infobox. Sydney standard time +10 should not be given the same name as summer time +11. Australian Eastern Daylight (saving) Time (AEDT) is a different time to Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST). Of course, it is confusing because sometimes the names Australian Eastern Time (AET) and Australian Eastern Summer Time (AEST) are used instead, so that AEST is ambiguous without knowing what system is being used, but we definitely shouldn't use it for both of them.
It is also a bit strange to me that the summer time name should link to UTC+10, although it is understandable if it is exlained there as a variation of AEST. However, I noticed that British Summer Time is listed separately at UTC1 and (North American) Eastern Daylight Time is listed as distinct from Eastern Standard Time at UTC-4, so perhaps AEDT, ACDT should be added to UTC11 and UTC10:30? JPD 10:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Zones 

message: Shouldn't "City of Sydney" get merged into here? City articles more or less usually cover the city proper. WhisperToMe 02:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The City of Sydney is one of the 38 Local Government Areas in the Sydney metropolitan area. This LGA includes the Sydney central business district. Others have raised this issue in the past and I hope this has explained the difference. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But with American cities the article (e.g. New York City) is about the city proper, NOT the metropolitan area. EDIT: I just realized that it doesn't work that way in Australia. WhisperToMe 00:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the article 

message: I think there should be a section, maybe within the existing Culture section listing the universities and TAFE that are based in Sydney. At the very least there should be links to them in the "See Also" but they deserve to be talked about in the text. Sydney does have 5 universities (of which 2 are in the top 20 worldwide) and several TAFE institutes. These are significant assets to the city (both culturally and financially) and bring in tens of thousands of international students each year. 
What do you think? Witty lama 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universities in Sydney 

message: Sydney should adopt a Melbourne style infobox user:Vox latina
:No, it shouldn't. There is a separate page for the City of Sydney, and the LGA info should remain there. The same goes for Melbourne, actually. JPD (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: have you people ever been to London, Paris or Milan?
Sorry but Sydney does not have what would be considered an 'Underground', 'metro' or 'subway' and nor does Melbourne.  If you class what Sydney and Melbourne have to be 'Underground rail systems, then Brisbane also has one.  I've been there too.  I starts at bowen hills and continues to central station.
: i don't get you. sydney's subway is a fraction of the size of cities overseas, but a "subway", "metro", or "underground" just means railway which is underground. If you want a higher standard, then a substantial section of railway, including stations, which are located underground. So Sydney's subway may consist only of 6 stations, but it is subway nonetheless. If it isn't a subway, what do you call it? --Sumple 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sumple, the distinction of other cities such as London, Paris, Madrid, et al which do have genuine underground/metro/subway infrastructures, is that these function as a separate entity from the suburban rail networks which also service the city and environs (i.e., the trains on one do not run on the other, and vice versa). Sydney just happens to have a suburban rail system which for part of the way operates underground, but mostly does not. By contrast, the Underground systems of London or Madrid (which are mostly but not exclusively running underground) form a completely different network (with different trains, governance, etc) to the above-ground suburban rail system.--cjllw | TALK 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you are saying the distinction is that the CityRail network runs to the suburbs? But the London Underground also runs outside of the CBD and emerges onto the surface. By your argument, the fact that the railways in the city centre are connected with railway lines in the subrubs, together with the fact that the railway lines emerge onto the surface, would disqualify the London Underground from being an underground/subway/metro?
Actually I don't know enough about the London Underground to comment. So cheers.
--Sumple 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney Underground? 

message: I came here looking for almanac information about Sydney's climate, and unfortunately didn't find any (just that it was "nice"). -- Beland 03:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome; this request has been filled! -- Beland 02:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion request: Climate info 

message: Would be great if the historical population of sydney was sourced. Just a thought because I noticed all the figures have been revised lately. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 01:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Population stats

message: I have converted the references for the transport section to footnotes, as a test of this citation method (used in the Australia article among others). Please let me know your thoughts on whether this system is appropriate for this article. - Randwicked 13:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section 

message: I suggest that this section be deleted, or at least moved to a separate article. It doesn't work without a decent definition of "famous", and would get very very long. JPD (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone has replied in 12 days, so I have removed it. If anyone wants to put it in again, I suggest they put it in a separate article, with a link here. JPD (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous people 

message: I would say it is a feat of engineering instead.
the harbour bridge is almost identical to several bridges overseas, such as in Newcastle, UK, and in New York (i think)--Sumple 11:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney HArbour Bridge - architectural triumph? 

message: Who or what is the reference for the nomenclature 'Emerald City' referred to in the first sentence of the page? I have lived in Sydney more than 20 years and have never heard it described as 'Emerald City'. Harbour City yes, but never Emerald.
Mercurius 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I've always wondered about that... I know Ireland is the Emerald Isle. Never heard of Sydney as the Emerald City. But I thought that might be a quaint vaucluse expression or something... Has anyone here actually heard Sydney referred to as the emerald city?? --Sumple 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed "emerald city" - did a google search and most references were to Seattle. It is also a name of a gay bar in California, and a sci-fi club. --Sumple 23:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Emerald City" is a play by David Williamson (major Australian playwright), written about Sydney.  It has also been made into a movie.  I suspect this play was an influence on Sydney gaining the "sin city" tag.  By my understanding "Emerald City" is a reference to the shimmering water harbour and the green of the trees on the foreshore on a summer day (in the context of the play emerald probably stands for envy as well).  Something which has been destroyed by the development of the harbour foreshores (seen Breakfast Point, Rhodes, Meadowbank, ... lately?).  Sadly the "Emerald City" may be no more, killed off by the greed and corruption portrayed in the play.John Dalton 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerald city? Huh? 

message: BTW, Melbourne is not the sister city of Sydney, as a previous edit stated. The website of the City of Sydney Municipal Council lists six cities which have 'sister city' relationships with Sydney, and Melbourne ain't one of them....see: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Business/ProgramsAndInitiatives/SisterCityProgram.asp Mercurius 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the original author intended "sister city" to mean the sense that Sydney has some kind of dual relationship with Melbourne, being the two largest cities in Australia. This is not accurate, of course, because sister cities have another, official, meaning. --Sumple 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brother city? :) Just kidding. ozzmosis 06:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Melbourne requested the two cities become sister cities and Sydney rejected the offer and were quite rude about it.  Quite funny actually.  I'd be offended if I were Victorian =). Factoid Killer 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sibling rivalry might be the term you are after? :-) John Dalton 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister city? Huh? 

message: The bit about it meaning little village or whatever in Danish has been edited out. But I'm' pretty sure that's not true. Sydney is named after Sir Whatshisname Sydney, the Colonial Secretary at the time.
Sydney is an English name, and while it may have come from Danish, I'm pretty sure the city name doesn't directly derive from that. --Sumple 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name 

message: The landmarks section is a little jumbled... I'm thinking perhaps the landmarks mentioned there should be categorised?
Also many of the landmarks are also tourist attractions, while some of the tourist attractions are major landmarks but not mentioned in the landmarks seciton.
The Universities are not so much landmarks as cultural sites (as in, should probly belong under culture?) --Sumple 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmarks section vs tourist attractions 

message: I guess it could be appropriate to describe some of the main shopping centres/areas/markets, but phrases like "the most popular X would be" aren't particularly verifiable. JPD (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not Lonely Planet. Most of this section could be scrubbed. - Randwicked Alex B 06:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  support Randwicked --Sumple 09:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shopping

message: Since Sydney is the biggest and best known Australian city, I think its time to get it in shape to be a featured article. These are the areas that I think need improving and will be working on, statistical data needs to be sourced and the ABS is the best source, help is appreciated --nixie 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea but don't forget references are inportant as content. A lot of good local knowledge has gone into this article, but we're going to have to find reputable sources. I converted a few inline urls to footnote-style refs a while ago, if people are happy with this system then we should try to find as many sources as we can. - Randwicked Alex B 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting Sydney into shape

message: I'm not quite comfortable with the paragraph on water shortages being included in the climate section. Water levels are affected by climate, but there are other factors, and it's really a broader topic. JPD (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree. also involves politics, people's fear about drinking recycled sewage, and building damn great desalination plants for no apparent reason. --Sumple 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water shortages 

message: Who agrees with Petaholmes' reversions on the basis of there being "too many pics"?? I don't. I think having lots of pictures is good. (And no, they weren't my additions being reverted) --Russell E 06:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pictures are good, but looking like a gallery with a bit of text is bad. While on the topic, the picture of the monorail is a really good picture, but it might be nice if someone could get some photos that are a bit more representative of Sydney transport as a whole. JPD (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: e.g. late trains and phantom busses :p --Sumple 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles should not be overloaded with images. Peta is putting in a lot of work to move Sydney up to featured article status, she is a very good judge on what should and shouldn't be in an article to get passed FAC. Any extra images should be placed on commons or on the sub-pages of the main article. --Martyman-(talk) 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pics?? 

message: The geographical coordinates in the infobox appear to be corrupted, but I don't know how to fix this. --Shantavira 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates

message: I've just added up all of the area and population in Sydney's LGA,  With exception to Hawksbury.
The area's add up to 3,971,851  
and population add up to a surprising 4,906,618
with a density of about 1,235km²
Why do these numbers vary so much to the stats given in the info box?  How big is Hawksbury city council area?  cheers.
203.109.166.220 09:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your area figures seem way off. Assuming that that is km², your area is more than half of Australia. As for the pop figures - it depends on your source, and which LGAs you used. Note that Sydney can't really be defined simply in terms of LGAs. I wouldn't say that all of Hawkesbury is in Sydney. JPD (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say you left out the national parks. --Sumple (Talk) 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget Gosford and Wyong. - Randwicked Alex B 13:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have thought the national parks would be included already. Since when did Gosford and Wyong count as part of Sydney? JPD (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the ABS, which decides these things from on high, decided to include them. That's where the 12k figure comes from. - Randwicked Alex B 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often noticed the the ABS statistical divisions don't often make much sense in more general contexts. Apart from the statistics, the article as it stands doesn't include them. That fits my understanding of Sydney (and that of various NSW govt depts), but then what do we do with the statistics? JPD (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Stick with ABS figures I say. They're more authoritative than anyone else --Sumple (Talk) 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously they are the most authoritative figures, but it's a bit ridiculous to give figures for the "Sydney Statistical Division" and then talk about a smaller area throughout the article. I don't think the ABS claims that the "Sydney Statistical Division" necessarily corresponds to any normal definition of Sydney. JPD (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: I have repeatedly removed lists of "sister cities". A verifiable list of sister cities of the City of Sydney is already in that article, and doesn't belong here. It seems to me that this confusion might be more easily avoided a link to City of Sydney occured near the start of the article, either in the text or the disambiguation line/. Any ideas on the most natural way to mention it? JPD (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article refers to the metropolitan area. For the local government area, see City of Sydney? --Sumple (Talk) 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about the metropolitan area in Australia. For the local government area, see City of Sydney. For other uses see Sydney (disambiguation).
at the top - any comments? JPD (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[City of Sydney]] 

message: Im not sure, but perhaps the lead photo could be changed to a daytime shot? the wide night-time photo is a beautiful image but doesnt seem right for the initial photo - a standard sized daytime shot might be better like :Image:PortJackson_2004_SeanMcClean.jpg, :Image:Sydney_opera_house_and_skyline.jpg or even  :Image:Sydney_harbour_bridge_nye2004.jpg -- Astrokey44|talk 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead photo 

message: Someone has added some extra LGAs to the list. Some of them (Gosford, Wyong) have already been mentioned as being in the Sydney statistical division used by the ABS, and so are relevant to the stats in the article. I don't know whether the others (Blue Mountains, Wollondilly) are in the SSD or not, and I'm not going to check right now, but none of them are part of what it usually referred to as "Sydney", including by the NSW government. In any case, I think we should decide and make clear what area is covered by the article, and change whatever is necessary to make sure that all the stats and prose refer to the same area. JPD (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What area is covered in the article? 

message: Where is the coat of arms and flag for Sydney, every other city has one....well why not Sydney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????? Everytime I add one it dissapears!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackp (talk • contribs) .
:No, not every other city has one. This article is about the whole metropolitan area of Sydney. This area does not have a coat of arms (neither does the area discussed at Melbourne or Adelaide), and so there should not be one in this article. The flag at  may be appropriate for this article, but it is not an official flag. JPD (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms???????????????? 

message: Shouldn't the infobox be placed above the image? It looks like it has been thrown in as an afterthought where it is now /shrug. Also, I thought the panorama shot at the bottom of the page would probably look good in place of a square image. It would fill out some of the white space created by TOC. Just a couple of thoughts. --darkliight[πalk] 09:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the infobox should be at the top. I used to agree about the panorama shot, but it doesn't work that well at some resolutions. JPD (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh good point, I didn't think about how the pic would look at different resolutions. --darkliight[πalk] 05:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Placement

message: I was interested in creating a portal (as I stated in the a previous comment)...but I'm not sure how to, anyone willing to help Jackp 04:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Portal. However, you might want to note that last time you tried to create a Sydney portal, someone said somewhere that Wikipedia doesn't have enough coverage of Sydney-related topics to make a portal worthwhile. JPD (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there isn't. Anything to do with Australia comes under Portal:Australia: cities individually are too sparce in coverage to create a useful portal. You can still propose the portal at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals if you are adamant enough.--cj | talk 09:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must acknowledge that there is one separate Australia-related portal: Portal:Australian rules football. And it isn't quality.--cj | talk 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I create a portal? 

message: When I ever I try to the edit never appears??? Why is this 202.6.138.33 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you edit an info box??? 

message: An anon added this link *Sydney Travel Blogs and Travel Reviews. Is it spam, do you think? Skittle 19:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam?

message: I took my time and researched that information about fashion in Sydney, and then all of a suddent the article is romoved *ROLLSEYES*, it makes editeting articles on Wikipedia seem pointless, if it isn't replaced, then I'll do so myself, because I'm not going to go out of my way and then suddenly find my work removed!!!!!!!!!!
Was it sourced?  I vaguely recall making changes to the fashion section as it had been hijacked by melbournites. But that was a while ago. Factoid Killer 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell happend to the fashion section?? 

message: I have reverted the addition of an extra 4 rows of data to the climate table, it is far more information than is necessary or useful in an article of this type.--Peta 12:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear and cloudy

message: Recently I had language such as hot, warm, cool and mild removed from the London article providing the argument that use of such language to describe weather conditions is both vague and Non-NPOV.  Londoners believe they have 'Mild' winters.... so do Brisbane people even though Brisbane's winters are like London's summers which were described as warm.  Sydney's winters in this article are described as 'cool'.  
I received very little argument from London article editors and my edits still stand.  I believe use of such language is un-encyclopedic because it is open to wild differences in interpretation.  I wanted to offer some discussion on the topic before I go changing the climate section any further.  Does anyone have any comments? 
Factoid Killer 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the angle you are coming from, but the fact is that meteorologists do use these terms in a NPOV way when classifying climates. The fact that people often use them in other ways doesn't mean that was have to get rid of them in our articles. All we need to do is make sure that the wording is inline with standard usage - really, a proper source should be cited - and make sure that actual temperatures are given as well to avoid confusion. JPD (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a defined standard and the articles stick to it then I have no problem with that.  Currently articles aren't sticking to any particular standard. Factoid Killer 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a problem. Here, every figure or descriptive word in the paragraph is taken from one of the sources given, though. JPD (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so where's the link to the standard meteorological definition of 'cool' and 'warm' in this article.  I think the two terms should be defined somewhere and wikified in the article. Factoid Killer 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you will find a globally agreed apon definition for these terms. The definitions that meteorologists use are always going to be fuzzy and relative to the local climate. Perhaps instead of completely removing the terms cool, warm, mild, etc, you could leave them but qualify them with facts.. such as "London experiences relatively mild winters with an average January maximum temperature of 8 degrees celcius." That way you're associating the term with an objective fact. Just a thought. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  If that is the case then what's the value in using these terms at all?  Why not just say "London experiences winters with an average January maximum temperature of 8 degrees celcius."?  That also shortens the paragraph while providing exactly the same information without alienating anyone.  I don't see why we have to provide a point of view that that temperature is mild. Factoid Killer 13:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the terms are slightly fuzzy, as there isn't a single standard definition, but I haven't seen them depending on the local climate too much. London's winters and weather in general are often described as "mild", not in meteoroligcal descriptions, but in publications for tourists/visitors. (Of course, if there is a clear context such as the UK, it would be fine to say that London's winters are relatively mild.) Leaving descriptive words, explained with facts is exactly what I suggested. In this case, I think using descriptive words provides a good summary before any numbers are given and encourages the reader to think in a global context. I think "mild" is probably the most deceptive of the possible words, so I personally woudl avoid it. JPD (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes mild is definitely the worst offender but I think there could also be disagreement over cool and warm.  From what i've read so far in various articles there would appear to be some kind of concensus on cold and hot but anecdotally I know the people of Dublin like to throw around the word 'hot' when the mercury rises to 15.  Re: using descriptive words, I still think it's a violation of WP:NPOV Factoid Killer 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think whether we are following proper sources is a better question than whether there is some sort of rough consensus. I also see your point, and won't object too much if the terms are removed, but I don't think it's necessary. People shouldn't come to an encyclopedia section on climate and expect to see words like "hot" used the same way they are in general conversation on the streets of Dublin (or anywhere else) anymore than words like "weight" and "momentum" would be in articles with a physics context. We should allow readers to get used to this usage, not get rid of it. JPD (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a fair comparison since a physicist in London doesn't follow a different definition for the terms 'weight' and 'momentum' to a physicist in Sydney or anywhere else.  And I bet any article talking about momentum in that way would link to the definition Factoid Killer 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was that a climatologist in London does use a similar definition for "cool", "hot", etc to that use by a climatologist in Sydney, and so the fact that the everyday use of the words is not NPOV is irrelevant. I have no objection to links, if you can find an appropriate place to link to, but I think the link to the climate type given and the actual numbers given afterwards are more useful in providing context. (Impulse doesn't link to momentum, but probably should.) JPD (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am aware of the BOM's use of the terms in the context of weather forecasts. However, we are now talking about their use in the context of describing climate, where my experience suggests the BOM and everyone else use the words in a similar way, even if we can't find a definition anywhere. At the page Köppen climate classification there is a "universal thermal scale" which roughly fits, but I am not convinced that the exact definitions given there are widely use. JPD (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV in climate articles 

message: The fashion section on Sydney, I was told "violates the neutral point of view", so does anyone want to consider writing a new article on the fashion in Sydney?? Since Sydney is the fashion capital of Australia, and is home to some important lables, I think Sydney deserves at least a good article on the fashion in Sydney, so I'd like to see an article about it, anyone agree???Jackp 10:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fashion section 

message: I'm always trying to make this article on Sydney a little more detailed and contribute more, but it get's removed! However, I have said over and over again (and no one seems to listen) that this article needs more info, it's totally ridiculous that cities such as New York City, London, Los Angeles, Toronto ect get pages with sections going over or up to 14 or 15!! And  wikipedia's pages about Sydney, Paris and Tokyo are reduced to a tiny 11 or 12, either add more sections and IMPROVE this page or make them all equal!!! Jackp 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More on the economy would be good if it were well written, with tourism as part of that. I am not sure what you mean by "info on Sydney's global influence".  A list of notable Sydneysiders does defintiely not belong in this article, although it could be created as a separate article. On the whole, Jack, I wish you would listen. If you want to compare this article with something, use Canberra or Mumbai, which have been given featured article status, not New York City, etc, which have a certain amount of junk in them. Improving this page is a good thing and removing junk from pages is also a good thing, but remember that having a lot of sections or being long does not make an article good - the content has to accurate and well written. JPD (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just add that article size has nothing to do with how many sections an article has.  I saw your comment on the Toronto talk page, alleging bias because the Toronto article was longer than the Sydney article, but in fact, the Sydney article is larger (45.1 kB, 6522 words) than the Toronto article (42.4 kB, 5984 words). And as JPD points out above, length and amount of content are by no means signs of a good quality, informative article. --Skeezix1000 16:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, your enthusiasm is great. i must however agree with some of the other comments here. This is an encyclopedia and some of the things you are trying to get in read more like a tourist brochure. Also your point on designer labels being available doesn't really add anything - they are available all round the world.  It is fine to add that it is rated as a beta city as it is verfiable.  But to say that Sydney has global influence adds no further value. I agree with that statement, but don't agree that it belongs here - maybe on the prospectus for a sydney property venture, not an encyclopedia. Also, these guys are correct when they say don't go into too much detail on topics that are in other articles - ie, Sydney transport. Cheers - keep up the good work but don't let your enthusiasm blind you. ;)  cheers.  --Merbabu 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, I do not want to sound harsh and I do not want to dissuade you from editing - but I do ask that you take note of consensus and realise that some of your additions are not meant to be in an encylopedia. If you are asking other wikipedians to listen, it would only be appropriate for you to do the same. michael talk 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those whose efforts keep getting thwarted when they change the page to the way they want it, my advice is to chose a slightly less high-proflie  topic and work on that. You might find that your work is a lot more enduring than it is on this "flagship" page.
Ok, I agree now...but, every time I add that little tibblet-"Sydney Harbour Is Commonly Refferd To As One Of The Most Beautiful Natural Harbour in The World", it gets removed...but it's ture, and even Wikipedia states that it is on the Sydney Harbour page, so I think that should stay, also when I add "Sydney is an important finance centre for Asia-Pacific"...it is removed once again, but that is all true, Sydney is certinly an important place for finance, so that should also stay....I'll also add a link next to the fact to state, now please I don't want to see them removed, either! Jackp 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That type of language is not suited to an encylopedia and is not neutral. This is not a tourist brochure. michael talk 08:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A tourism section does not belong in a city article. For what a city article should contain, please take a look at Canberra and other similar featured articles. michael talk 09:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: jack, regarding the comment on the port Jackson page, i notice you have now embellished it calling it the world's most distinctive and put it in inverted commas as if it is a quote. Hmmmm.  Where's the citation???? 
Yes, I understand!! But I'm still wondering why it's ok to have a section about the tourism in articles on Tokyo and London Jackp 11:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities - which is a bit out of date since the inclusion of notable residents is no longer looked upon as useful (problems with bias and inclusion criteria) or any of the featured cities to see the preferred article layout.--Peta 12:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, it has been pointed out numerous times above that London, Tokyo and Toronto are not good candidates for determing what should be included in Sydney.  They have not acheived featured article status.  Use Canberra and Mumbai as good examples, as they have achieved the right level of information! When Canberra and Mumbai have tourism sections, you can add one to Sydney, OK? ;) Steve 00:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, if a straw vote is held, and if community consensus is against your additions - will you refrain from adding them? michael talk 06:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  where can we cast our votes?? ha ha  --Merbabu 06:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In my view, the reference to Syndney harbour being considered one of the most beautiful in the world could merit inclusion in the article (up here in Canada, I have heard it referred to as such), as long as a reputable, verifiable source (or better yet, given the scope of the claim, sources) was cited.  And by reputable, verifiable source, I do not mean tourism websites or travel magazines.  But if, for example, the International Association of Urban Planners, say, had voted it the most beautiful harbour in the world in 2005, that could be considered by the group for inclusion. Without such sources, however, the claim amounts to nothing more than a bunch of weasel words.  Just my two cents. --Skeezix1000 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: On the related point, "Sydney is an important finance centre for Asia-Pacific" does not merit inclusion.  Who says that it is important?  Where are the facts to back this up?  Just a peacock term.  --Skeezix1000 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, when will someone listen??? 

message: I think we should!!! I mean Sydney's skyline is very recognizable nationally and internationally, especially with the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge in the picture, which are certainly the most prominent. Many of its buildings are unique and there are many gothic style churches ect. So I think it deserves one, if anyone wants to consider on doing this...since I don't think I could. Agree??? Jackp 08:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's certainly an idea with legs but i don't suggest it in this article - at most a link to another page. We already have Skyscrapers_in_Sydney and some others (Art Deco??).  Furthermore, be very careful about the word "unique" - something that is truly unique is rare.  Sydney doesn't have too many truly rare structures. --Merbabu 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we have to be careful with "unique".  Unique actually means one of a kind (i.e. more than just rare).  --Skeezix1000 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All three of those structure's have their own articles. And while the individual articles are warranted they have nothing in common apart from a Sydne location (well, duh!) to warrant a combined article.  Is their a unique but consistent style of Sydney architecture? I don't think so.  Maybe sandstone construction - Hawkesbury Sandstone could be geological/construction topic if it isn't one already --Merbabu 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack (persumably), how exactly don't you agree??? On what basis, exactly?  You can't just say "i don't agree". What is there to discuss in the article that isn't already covered in others???  Ie, most (all???) notable Sydney structures have a page for themselves, and there are plenty of lists floating around wikipedia.  Futhermore, as people have tried to explain to you, there is enough POV material around on the web already. Maybe it would be an idea to specify here exactly what you have in mind for an article. --Merbabu 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Poorly written and reeking of bias. An architecture section does not belong in any city article. michael talk 10:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, have you ever been overseas? What you have written about Sydney architecture could be said about any major city. It adds no value. I think you are not seeing the full picture because you live in SYdney - imagine if you read it about another city - it doesn't tell you anything. Once again, there are many tourist brochures on the web, wiki is unique in that it cuts through all the crap and just gives you facts.--Merbabu 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, you ask for people's advice which was a unaminous "no" for your Sydney architecture article, yet you create it anyway. As suspected, it was of poor quality and simply a cut and paste from other articles (as pointed out, the info is already in other articles). --Merbabu 09:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we have a section about the buildings and architecture in Sydney? 

message: What is the name of the article about the famous sydneysiders?? Jackp 10:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the name of the article?