Jump to content

Talk:Canterbury-Bankstown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it a region?

[edit]

Canterbury-Bankstown is not a recognised region of Sydney. It may be used as a description for the two local areas but is not an official region of Sydney. I agree that the term is used to describe this area and most probably as an extension of the area covered by the local football team. But where does it stop? If we include this area as a region then we will probably have to include other descriptions such as Manly-Warringah and Liverpool-Fairfield. J Bar (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a recognised region of Sydney, not just a joining of two councils. In real estate sites: Domain, Real Estate, the pink pages, the Australian Government website, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, by charities: Wesley Mission and LawLink NSW.
Note also how Liverpool-Fairfield are all recognised as regions as well in all those links and how Manly-Warringah is not. Therefore, why shouldn't they be recognised as regions by themselves? Also, where does it stop? Where other, generally dependable organisations stop it, e.g. LawLink NSW currently lists 14 regions of Sydney, whereas Wikipedia lists 15, potentially 16, regions. So really, it's possibly that Wikipedia is the one that is out of step, not the other organisations that have a more consistent list than Wikipedia. Fictionaut (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue here is that regions are general terms and not specifically or officially defined. You asked a good question here. Where does it stop? That's exactly my point. People could create an endless number of Sydney regions based on usage by one guide or another. Where do we limit it? So maybe the region you have created here should be included as a separate region. However, many people also include the suburbs in this area in South-western Sydney, so you will be opening a big can of worms if you start changing all the suburb articles to your selected region. We've had edit wars between various wikipedia editors who argue whether a suburb should be included in the Hills District or Northern Suburbs regions. Since we already have a standard intro for all the Sydney suburbs in the Canterbury-Bankstown area pointing to South-western Sydney, can I suggest you don't change that? If you want to include another region in the intro, then you can tack it on the end. This is what has been done with suburbs of Southern Sydney that also fall into the St George District. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bankstown Bunker

[edit]

How is this relevant to the Canterbury-Bankstown region? Not at all I would say, apart from being located in one of the suburbs there. Do we need this information repeated in so many similar articles. I think a mention and a link would be enough. This information already appears in tha articles for Bankstown, Condell Park, City of Bankstown, Portal:City of Bankstown. Isn't this overkill for a landmark that isn't really that significant to the general population? 203.102.44.225 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Bar why are you logging out for these editsAdam (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I have suggested that this article be deleted because it is not really a recognised region of Sydney. I haven't had any other support on that front, so my contributions have simply been to ensure that this region complies with other Sydney region articles. The above contributor makes a good point. How is the Bankstown Bunker relevant to the Canterbury Bankstown region and therefore important enough to be included in this article also? J Bar (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that the IP adress and J Bar are the same editorAdam (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be relevant otherwise the information would not have been in the pictorial history of Canterbury Bankstown. That is where I got most of the information from. The Bunker is in Bankstown near Condell park on Black Charlies Hill which puts it in this region. If there is a section on the CB history during wwii then the Bankstown Bunker is a part of this history. I have rewritten this into the history section. Now that there is a history section with history about wwi in it then the picture of the bunker during wwii is relevant to the text and should be added. If anyone can find another photo of the region during this period that is relevant then it should be replaced. Adam (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not relevant Adam, but how important is it to the region? Are you trying to say that a bunker in Bankstown is one of the most important features of the whole Canterbury-Bankstown region? How many times do you think that we need to have the same information and the same photo across wikipedia articles? Aren't the links to other articles enough? J Bar (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not an article about Australia's defence during WW2. That's my point. There's a lot of other information about the region that is not covered but there is more than enough emphasis on war, defence, bunkers, batteries etc... in these articles. Anyway, you've addressed my concerns in this case on the Bankstown Bunker and there is slightly less emphasis in this article which is an improvement. J Bar (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, when I am finished with this article it will be three to six times the size of what it is now and that means more room for panoramas. I also plan on covering historical pubs in the area. The sugar works factory and much more and there is a whole heap of WWII history coming as well. Stuff that you never though existedAdam (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to hear. The article needs more information about other landmarks and features. By the way, some of your panaromas are great but try to keep in mind that the photos have to relate to the articles. You've done some brilliant work with some streetscapes around Sydney, especially some of those capturing the character of the commercial areas. However, just keep in mind that one road looks pretty much like another or one residential area looks pretty much like another, so some of those may not be adding much value to an article on a particular suburb. I'm just concerne dthat if we just add all these similar photos of roads and residential areas, then all the articles will start looking the same. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canterbury-Bankstown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canterbury-Bankstown&oldid=1200605915"