Talk:Sydney/Archive 3

message: I think it's about time we had another peer review so we can get this article on the way to Featured Article status. The link is above. (JROBBO 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I have edited the latest addition for style and accuracy, but it still needs a source, particularly for the "first nine months" part. The yearly figures seem consistent with various BOM news releases, however the four years could only be the hottest four years on record, not the four hottest years on record, which isn't immediately clear from the text. Apart from all of that, I am still unsure whether this sort of info (recent rises in temperature) really belongs in this article, at least to this level of detail. What do others think? JPD (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the editing although i am inclined to agree that the detail and relevance is questionable and lack of sources also detracts from the section's worth. Hard to say. --Merbabu 11:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warmest years 

message: I am not convinced that we need this sort of map, but the concept may have merit. However, if we are going to include a linked map like this, we need to
*think about where it will go/which images it will replace,
*not have too many links on it, and 
*use a better map as the base. At the very least, this map is no good because half of the northern suburbs is missing. JPD (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link map 

message: It is my understanding that the City of Sydney has 122,211, as in the local government district named The City of Sydney.  It states at the intro however, that Sydney is a City with approx 4,254,900.  I have no great understanding of Australian government stucture and City definition, but it is apparent that you class a CITY as being the wider Metropolitan area that encompasses other Towns and settlements, rather than the district with official city status.  Am I correct in making this assumption and could someone please clarify this.  Being English, Cities are general based within the Local government area as it is caled in Australia (Local Authority or District in UK) with a metropolitan area being based aroun that core City including other towns and even other Cities.  For example, Birmingham, classed as the UK's 2nd city, has an urban pop. of around 2,240,000 (or there abouts) but in UK govenment this is not classed as a CITY as only the portion which is situated within the official city district called 'The City of Birmingham Metroploitan Borough' is what is recognised as being a City so reducing the population to 1.1 million within its limits.  In my personal opinion however I do believe a large Urbanised area of substantial size be classed as a CITY, given it is some distnace form other large urban entities so that they do not become an even larger 'CITY' and thus a never ending expanse or Urbanisation.  I understand that different countries have different definitions of City but I am just curious to the structure of those within Australia. dj_paul84 1:13 18th November 2006 (UTC)
: That one qualifies as a FAQ!  See this, this and this. John Dalton 02:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City & Metro area 

message: I was a little disappointed to see no real mention of Sydney's standing within Australia in the history section. The way the article simply states that Sydney is Australia's biggest, oldest and most important city etc, would leave an uninformed reader with no idea that Sydney was Australia's second city for more than 100 years. Has this been omitted on purpose? I think it's pretty important to put the city's recent emergence onto the world stage into context with some mention of its recent dominance in Australia and its historic rivalry with Melbourne. 128.250.6.246 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that either article really needs much mention of the the other city, or focus too much on which city was dominant when, but it would be silly to completely avoid mentioning Melbourne in a historical context. JPD (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm certainly not suggesting adding a new paragraph dealing with Melbourne, or mentioning it in a prominent position in the article. But I think the three pieces of history I mentioned in my post yesterday are important, interesting and relevant enough to the story of Sydney that they should all be included somewhere in the article, so that somebody who read the article from top to bottom would pick up this knowledge somewhere along the way. The article might not absolutely 'need' to mention Melbourne anywhere (and it is true that the Sydney article could get away with not mentioning the other city more easily than the Melbourne one could, because saying that something is second begs the question of who is first). But I think that including these pieces of information (with proper references of course) would enrich the article, and push it further in the direction of higher quality. 128.250.6.246 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with the rest of Australia 

message: I hope this is the right place where to ask: is it possible to add a gallery of Sydney, or even just a link to an other web page ? I've seen like cities like Taipei, they all have an Image Gallery.
I spent the last 8 months in Sydney and I took a lot of nice photos, now, other than just publish them on my website, I would like to be helpful and add them to the best encyclopedia on line. Please let me know if is possible and how.
I would also like to know if there are restrictions to the size of the images, and what's the best resolution, because my images are freaking big.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegotrazzi (talk • contribs) 
:Diego's images are here if anyone is interested in checking them out. Sarah  08:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used on here: Deutsche Bank PlaceMerbabu 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a straight image gallery why not use the commons, after all it is specially set up for media such as images?  At the moment the Sydney page is the default category listing that appears for an empty page.  It can be formatted differently though, as this simple example shows.John Dalton 02:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Gallery of Sydney ? 

message: Should the section on the Media mention The Australian newspaper? Although its circulation isn't that large, its still significant. Also, MX, while a free newspaper, has quite a large circulation (see their website), indeed comparable to the Herald. Should there be some mention of these papers, perhaps also in the main article about media in Sydney?
Recurring dreams 12:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Re citation: for the selective schools, there is a list here, but it doesn't actually say that 25 schools are in Sydney: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/schoolfind/types/shs_ahs_details.php
There's also information about the school districts here, although the information is not explicit, and has to be worked by going through each district in Sydney: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/schoolfind/locator/?section=showRegion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Recurring dreams (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: I fail to see how this article can possibly be regarded as meeting the A rating criterion. Especially "A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. ". Not that I regard that as a realistic goal for a 40000 byte article on a large city, but that is the rules. Greglocock 11:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than making a drive-by sweeping statement, how about providing a few objective areas where you feel an encyclopaedic article on Sydney is wanting? --Steve  (Slf67)  talk  23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rating 

message: I think this page needs to be locked to prevent vandalism. Mindys12345 13:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is really enough vandalism at the moment to make protection worthwhile. Either way, please don't add templates saying that the article is protected unless it is actually protected.  is not a way to request protection - that can be done at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or here, as you have done. JPD (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Still seems pretty normal to me. JPD (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lock page 

message: :This page has been reverted about 50 time or so but why didn't anyone pick this mistake when trying to fix the article  Mindys12345 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major format error un-noticed 

message: this guy has been warned but continues to vandalize this article , can someone put a block on this guy or something. AdamCassar 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeat offender 

message: I think this article needs consistancy checking. For example, one place which I fixed (Weather) says the rainfall yearly is 1201mm, yet at the BOM table, it said 1207mm. The hub 08:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figures are constantly being updated from other sources and it is our job as members of Wikipedia to update the figures as they appear on Wikipedia. But a 6mm difference in rainfall as quoted on the Bureau of Meteorology does not constitute a crisis (unless you can provide more examples).--Just James 09:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency Checking 

message: Seems to be more POV criticising the city's density as an opinion, rather than treating it as fact. I encountered a similar problem weeks ago on the Auckland page. Also please give date of when public transport was implemented. Michellecrisp 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density section 

message: I think should be included as it's a very notable event, that would be covered considerably in the media of the 20 odd participating countries. Very few cities have hosted so many important leaders in one place where the actual leader rather than delegated Minister attends, I could only think of a G8 meeting having more importance. Michellecrisp 06:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a reference to it in the lead, along with other events that Sydney has hosted. It is true that few cities have hosted so many important leaders, but even fewer cities have encyclopedia articles that bother to mention every meeting like this that they have hosted, and even fewer mention it in the lead. When reading about Seattle, is the fact that it hosted an APEC meeting in 1993 really that important? JPD (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  APEC meeting 

message: I established a gallery of National Estate buildings but was soon donged on the head by Sarah, who reckoned that 12-46 images is far too much. I have now reduced the number of images on the gallery.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject of how many images are appropriate?
Sardaka 09:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that the number has been roughly halved, it's still "too many". What's the total you're looking for? - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, 27 is clearly too many also. Four or five might have been not so clearly too many, but as has already been said, this is an article, not a picture gallery. There shouldn't be a section composed of just pictures at all. It is hard to see why there would be a whole section on National Estate buildings, even if the pictures were complementing the text. A more specific article would have room for more text on the subject, and as a result more pictures. Here, the images are simply inappropriate. JPD (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JPD sums it up nicely - "an article, not gallery" and that images should directly complement info in the articles. The article has enough pics - any additional pics would have to be exceptional (and directly) relevant. Anyway, what is the "National Estate" and how does it relate to Sydney? --Merbabu 08:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Estate gallery 

message: The national estate is a listing of buildings and other sites that are preserved because of historic or other significance. Sydney has many buildings on the NE. I thought a gallery on the NE in Sydney would be an appropriate addition, but obviously no-one agrees.  Probably the article on Sydney buildings and architecture would be a better place. 
I find it a bit disappointing that someone who works on the Sydney article has never heard of the NE. A useful link would be www.ahc.gov.au.
Sardaka 09:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Estate 

message: Anyone know the Aboriginal name of Sydney? Would be nice to have it in the article Supposed 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I recall one name being Werrong - needs a ref though. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For many reasons, I fail to see why such a thing as "the Aboriginal name of Sydney" should exist at all. Werrong was the local name for Sydney Cove. JPD (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aboriginal name of Sydney 

message: The Melbourne article is by far closer to featured article standard, Sydney has had its GA status removed!
This was a bad decition by whomever made it and whomever endorsed it.
It would be better if more residents of Sydney contributed to the article about their home town.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.11 (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ACOTF is not an award for the best articles, it's a sign that the article needs a lot of work. The Melbourne article has also just lost its GA status and could probably use an ACOTF effort in the near future to improve it. Easel3 04:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian collaboration of the week??? 

message: Is this the current population of sydney, isnt it closer to 4.5 million according to ABS? please check
anon124.168.115.172 12:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope i checked it through the link and it is 4.1mn. Maybe you are counting areas outside the Sydney region like the Central Coast, Blue Mountains Roadrunnerz45 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. ABS has the Sydney Statistical Division as having a population at 4.1m (in the 2006 Census 'Quickstats'). I think the quoted population of 4.28m is the 2008 estimate (I haven't donwloaded the Year Book that's referenced to confirm). Note that the statistical division actually extends as far north as Wyong, west to take in all of Blue Mountains, and south to Campbelltown.  There seems to be a lot of discrepancy in the article about what constitutes 'Sydney' - in some places it references Cumberland County, and other times (eg. for population) seems to reference Sydney Statistical division'. Might be useful to settle on what 'Sydney' means, then review all aspects of the article to ensure it aligns to the agreed definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichInSydney (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population sydney 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of 
December 7, 
2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. 
*Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
Regards, Epbr123 18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that you have followed points 2, 3, or 4 of the WP:GAR procedure. --Merbabu 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA delisted 

message: where are the citations for certain migrant groups being associated with certain suburbs. I disagree with some of them. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are missing and as such that section should be wiped clean.  It's one of the most heavily edited sections with constant addition and removal of various ethnicity/suburb combinations. Feel free to clean it up and add some references. --Stephen 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it completely! It would be good to replace it with some sourced info of the demographics in different areas of Sydney, eventually, but at the moment it is a blight on the whole article. JPD (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I removed it and copied it below if anyone wishes to start to source specific examples. --Stephen 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migrants 

message: From reading this page and the Sydney article, it seems like Sydneysiders and Melburnians are 'fighting' for some reason. No town is better, they are the same, full of Australians and that's what we all are..Australian.
--58.107.166.154 (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: full of australians? haha, full of international people as well you know. ;)(Goodcapcay (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Fighting Guys 

message: I personally think this article has too many pictures of the CBD. There's eight pictures, plus two panoramas! I think people sort of "get the point" after one or two pictures, if you know what I mean. While the pictures are nice and all, they would belong better in a gallery of some sort, linked at the bottom of the page, as opposed to the article itself.
What I have against this is that I feel as if this doesn't give people a very good image about the entirety of Sydney. There's not a single picture of a scene from any of the suburbs. Wouldn't it be good if people from all over the world could get an idea about what Sydney's suburbia is like - not just the CBD? Even if it's just two pictures.
For example, if you don't know too much about Sydney are are doing a bit of research, I'm sure you'd like to have some suburban photos presented to you as well. Or maybe if you're looking to move to Sydney, some pictures of the suburbs would be nice too. Unless, of course, you're some multi-millionaire snob who'll be going straight to a residency in the CBD itself... :|
Anyway, just what I think. Sydney isn't just a big CBD - there's other stuff too! :)
203.122.108.171 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at commons:Sydney for any suitable pictures and be as bold as you wish.  Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many CBD Pictures 

message: Hi there,
I would liek to get your opinion about external links for Sydney.
I recently added a link to a video site which shows recent videos of Sydney harbour bridge and opera house
in very good quality, and is updated several times a day.
Have a look at yourself:
http://www.earthtv.com/en/location/sydney
I considered this as an interesting resource for someone who is interested in Sydney.
The website is free to use, has no advertisment on it, so I consider it' OK  by the guidelines
of Wikipedia concerning external linking.
However, this link has been removed by one of the editors, and I don't understand why.
I would like to get your opinion on this - thanks!
Contribute te (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one of the first things the guidelines say is that "Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful." The fact that a site has good quality videos might make it a nice site, but it doesn't really make it particularly relevant and helpful. In fact, it looks like the link is only being added in order to promote the site, something the guidelines instruct us to avoid. The site may not be promoting any other product, but it is still generally considered spam to use Wikipedia to promote a website. JPD (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, a few other links in there should be pruned for the same reason. Contribute te, thanks for taking the time to bring it up here instead of edit warring, but in general, external links should come with a rationale stronger than "they're interesting". Obviously, we couldn't include all such sites. Ben (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to Sydney videos not allowed? 

message: Additionally, nineteenth season of MTV's reality show, The Real World, was filmed in Sydney in 2007. is this really worthy of inclusion? Michellecrisp (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: nope. --Merbabu (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, I took the initiative of deleting that whole paragraph, because it was written terribly and didn't match the style, content or tone of the rest of the article. Sorry if I've stepped out of line here! - Aucitypops (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree.  cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  statement on MTV 

message: There seems to be some desire to remove text about this topic. It is not about pride or a show of 'peacock' feathers - since being a Global City is a double-edged sword in many ways and not necessarily something to be proud of. HOwever, the link is useful for those wishing to understand a city like Sydney in its broader economic-geogprahical context, which is surely the point of an encyclopedia article? Eyedubya (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the only sourced info that has been given about Sydney's global status was already mentioned in the inrtoduction. The material which you added was vague and unsourced, and so  was duplicating what we already had in a less helpful manner. (By the way, while I did not use the term myself, WP:PEACOCK refers to simply stating something's importance without more helpful details.) JPD (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad that's sorted then. Thanks for explaining peacock. Eyedubya (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney and [[Global City|Global Cities]] 

message: "The main airport serving Sydney, Kingsford Smith International Airport, is the busiest airport in Oceania" is subjective. Kingsford Smith is the busiest airport in Australia in terms of passenger movements but Bankstown is busier in terms of aircraft movements. "The main airport serving Sydney, Kingsford Smith International Airport, is one of the busiest airports in Oceania" is less controversial and more objective. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Busiest" airport 

message: I don't know which one is wrong, so if someone could check the facts and correct this. 
Perhaps Sydney has a 300 something people/km2 or it has a smaller area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.241.73 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The density figure looks correct for Sydney's urban area and the area figure looks correct for the statisitical division so they're both correct, the problem is they represent two different things. It would be best to have the area and population density of both, but if only one set of figures is used they should be for the same statistical concept. - Aucitypops (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a discussion at the 'national' level here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia#Capital City Population Density. --AtD (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population by area does not match population density 

message: The map supposedly locating Sydney within Australia does not show any indication useful to colour-blind people. I assume it used red-on-green. Maybe someone will fix it to use blue or bright yellow for the city. I hope.  Polvadera (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Where are the sister cities? Lady Galaxy 06:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See City of Sydney - maybe you've highlighted that this needs to be better linked. --Merbabu (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister cities 

message: Whoever deletes the links to commons galleries, please stop doing it. They are all relevant to this article and are more informative than most galleries. The commons-cat link presently provided doesn't cover a fraction of the galleries on Sydney subjects. One reason for having commons galleries is so that they can be linked to relevant articles like this one.  So stop deleting them. Do I have to take this to mediation?
Sardaka (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How come does the Commons Sydney Architecture link has all of your images and no one else? I can see an WP:OWN issue both here and on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sardaka, have you tried to discuss this with anyone yet? It looks like this is your first post on this page. Before getting upset or going to dispute resolution, try working out a consensus with other editors here. There's probably a reason the category is getting removed, and it's probable someone is misunderstanding the other's position. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so making demands isn't going to get anyone very far. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sardaka wrote a fuming post on my talk page regarding this. As far as I can see, I changed the four galleries Sydney Architecture, Glebe, Woollahra and Campbelltown Heritage to the general Sydney commons cat. This happened once as far as I can see so I think suggesting mediation is a bit of an overreaction on Sardaka's part. For the last three, I cannot see any reason for them being there. They belong in their respective articles. Looking into it further than what I wrote on my talk page, I feel that Sydney Architecture belongs in Buildings and architecture of Sydney as the Sydney commons cat that is currently linked breaks off into other subcategories which cover these more specific things. If we link to Sydney Architecture (and forget about Sarkura's WP:OWN issue) then we should link to Hospitals in Sydney, Parks in Sydney, Transport in Sydney, Sydney Harbour, etc. There's literally dozens of categories we could link to but we don't. Mvjs (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to commons 

message: What about putting crime level of sydney? (Goodcapcay (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure one would be able to find a reliable source that provides information on crime rates which would be informative to readers (i.e. one could state a rate which sounds high or low which can't easily be compared by readers to other cities or locations). Orderinchaos 04:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: Why is not there a Sydney city proper population figure in this article and the included infobox? They are present in the articles about major cities of most other developed countries, so why not here? It would provide extra detail and is a standard sort of measure with respect to cities.
All articles about the major Australian cities (i.e. state capitals and Canberra) should have this breakdown of city proper population and metropolitan area population. Why don't we get a move on? {note: I have also raised this issue here: Template talk:Infobox Australian Place#City proper/metropolitan area population breakdown for cities} —NobleTripTrip (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "city proper" population is listed on the City of Sydney article and that is the case for Melbourne as well. I don't think it is necessary to list the "city proper" population in the infobox. The article refers to the entire greater/metropolitan area and so should the infobox. MvjsTalking 05:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: How would one define the "city proper"? It's easy in places like NYC where there are no suburbs in the city as such. In Perth we can't even agree on what constitutes the "city centre", there are 4 or 5 competing definitions. Orderinchaos 06:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good place to start is the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which uses statistical areas and various sub-divisions.  "Urban Centre / Localities" are based on contiguous densities could be used, but do not relate to city limits.  Kransky (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney city proper population 

message: The image :File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved - image was removed from . Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png 

message: In the climate section of the article, the text says, "For the first nine months of 2006 the mean temperature was 18.41 °C (65.1 °F); the warmest year previously was 2004 with 18.51 °C (65.32 °F)." This doesn't really make sense, since 2004 was apparently warmer than 2006. Is the meaning that the figure for the first 9 months of 2006 was 18.41°C whereas the figure for the whole of 2004 was 18.51°C, which would almost certainly make 2004 warmer than 2006? If so, then the text ought to be updated. Or are the figures wrong? Ondewelle (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mild conundrum in the climate section 

message: I am a MASSIVE fan of both Sydney and Wikipedia and i was wondering why the Wikipedia article about Sydney doesn't have a collage of its famous landmarks like the CBD, the opera house, the Centrepoint tower, the QVB and st Mary's Cathedral.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPITALIST88 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add a collage of pictures like every wikipedia article about cities 

message: I have found a reference to be placed in the 'lead', just after the quote about 'sydneysiders'. I cant put it there because if I edit the whole page (rather than a section which is what I always do), it will be to much for my computer and it will probally crash or muck-up my internet and then I will not be able to do any more editing for a while. The URL is: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/language/g/sydneysider.htm and it should be called Sydneysider. De Mattia (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for the 'lead' 

message: This is an expanded section. It really should be its own heading as it is not really a sub-component of geography. Welcome any comments. ROxBo (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: The article currently contains the following statement in the Economics section:
A report published by the OECD in November 2005, shows that Australia has the Western World's highest housing prices when measured against rental yields.[57]
I have removed this statement, as it is a general reference statement about house prices in Australia, rather than being specifically about Sydney, and therefore is not relevant directly to this article. Additionally, the reference link is a broken link and should be removed as well. It was a link to a Herald Sun online newspaper article that has clearly since been archived.
Comments? If there are strenuous/logical reasons then it can be put back, perhaps with more relevant workding, along with a non broken reference link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brednog (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy: General statement/facts about Australia rather than Sydney plus broken reference link 

message: If you stick with Sydney instead of Sydney, Australia you'll need Sydney (disambiguation) because there exist also Sydney, Nova Scotia  and Sidney, British Columbia . Peter Horn User talk 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney (disambiguation)