Talk:North Rocks, New South Wales

	Australia portal North Rocks, New South Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Merge from Westfield North Rocks

Please merge any relevant content from Westfield North Rocks per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield North Rocks. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:35Z

History section

Has to be the longest ever I've seen for a suburb entry. Seems a huge cut and paste that noone would read. I'm going to cut it down severely. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed the entire section for now, and invite anyone to re-add pertinent information for which there is a verifiable source. If you wish to copy/paste sections of the material I removed, you can do so by viewing the diff here. I don't think the article needs a complete history of everything that has happened in the area around this suburb since the nineteenth century. A concise, well-sourced summary is what's required. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a suburb does have a lot of history, that doesn't mean its a bad thing. If you have no interest in reading it then don't read it. It is all relevent to North Rocks so I've re-instated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjmcgrath (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't a bad thing. However, it needs to be a referenced thing. The summary is absolutely huge compared to the rest of the article, and it reads like an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Further, nobody can make any efforts to shorten it or improve the language, because there haven't been any third party sources provided. If you have any sources, please post them here and we can reach some consensus on what to re-add to the article. It certainly seems like the area has a rich history and it would be a shame to neglect this. However the information should be presented in a format that is both useful to a reader and independently verifiable, and the current story is neither of those things. I would like to remove the section again until we can put the 'best foot forward' of a well-written, concise and accurate description of the area's history. Any objections? Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns but I'd rather see it remain until a better History section is written. I have some reference material and can put something together but it's not my top priority right now. Put in some tags requesting references and if they are not provided, we can do a rewrite. J Bar (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were already there, and indeed have been there for some time, with no references forthcoming. The information certainly seems too detailed to have just been remembered by someone wanting to contribute, so I suspect there is indeed a reference for most of this. We just need to find it. If we removed the history section we could maintain a link to that diff here on the talk page, so that anyone who wished to re-add portions of the removed text could easily copy-and-paste it from the previous version. I am actively looking to remove this content because it is a significant portion of the article which is completely unsourced, and because it is in drastic need of a re-write. If it were either of those reasons on their own I'd agree it should stay, but right now it is doing a disservice to the article by making it unreadable to the casual Wikipedia user, and by discouraging more constructive edits since there are no sources to work with in trying to improve what is already there. Unless there are any policy-related objections to this reasoning, I will remove the history section within the next day or so, and post a link to the diff here. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Per the copyright violation policy and my discovery of this link, it is clear that the "European settlement" section is a derived work and as such I have removed the infringing content, as Wikipedia has no right to rebroadcast this work. The source does meet our reliable sources guideline in as far as it goes, so editors are free to use and incorporate some elements of the source and cite it as a reference. Orderinchaos 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the source. I always thought it was a huge cut and paste. And in any case even if it was all true it is far too verbose for a history of a suburb section. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location within Sydney

I've updated the location info in the lead, since North Rocks is only partially within the Hills District by most definitions (mostly south of the M2, and partially topographically south of the uplift). It's mildly interesting that the original rocks would have been part of that clear topographical boundary between the higher Hills district and the lower Cumberland plain. As such it's better to state that it lies across these two broad districts. 61.69.197.121 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]