Talk:Sydney/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

socceroos

Its a big deal that the soccer team is going to the world cup and its an historic event that happened in sydney, why was it removed?

Misc

the sydeny team that is going for its most famouse cup is the LBW

In the transport or history section it might be worth noting that Sydney was once well-served by a tram system, before that system was gradually but determinedly dismantled, to be replaced by noisy, slow, polluting, infrequent, overcrowded buses. My reasoning behind this proposed entry is not that I am a tram nutter but that I have noticed that the presence or absence of trams in a city is a major indicator of the quality of life afforded its citizens. A recommended source for Sydney history pictures (of trams, the harbourside and other landmarks) is the work of photographer Max Dupain. 

--MJL

If the Melbourne entry is going to mention that city's distance from Sydney . . . Oh, and you might mention the city's namesake.

---

As an inhabitant of Sydney, I honestly can't see why its subway is considered interesting - some details please, or else excise the reference -- MB

Probably just a remnant of the Underground nomenclature wars :-) --Anders Törlind

Manning: You don't find Sydney's subway system interesting? You've obviously never gone on a tour of the disused tunnels off St. James station :) -- Simon J Kissane

Sydney's subway is really just the urban section of the suburban rail network. The most interesting feature as far as I'm concerned is that double-decker trains run underground in the city centre. >>>>Lee M 01:15, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Double-decked trains are the only type of trains on the CityRail network, and such that fact really isn't that interesting :) Dysprosia 01:19, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sydney is still the only city I know that has double-decker trains running underground in the city centre. If I choose to be interested by that then it's interesting. :P Lee M 13:13, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I know of another city, Paris, that has a far more extensive double-decker underground system, which is part of its RER network. This is not its underground system though, the famous metro. On the other hand, in many underground train systems, all the lines do not run underground all the time - underground trains typically run above ground on occassion. Sydney has a kind of underground in the form of the City Circle line, which is the remainder of a plan to produce a real underground system. --XmarkX 02:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Again, some discussion of Sin City's criminal past is worthwhile, but the article as it stands gives the misleading impression that the crime rate is extremely high in world terms, which is just not true. Not even Alan Jones can make it so.---Robert Merkel 07:31 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

I agree - the crime section seems very out of place - wm

I've bitten the bullet and yanked it and whacked a great big disclaimer on top. If somebody wants to fix it, well and good, otherwise it can stay well out of the way. --Robert Merkel 04:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That'sinteresting - it was part of a seprate article in the first place! ( See history of this page) Arno 07:35 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I just had a look at the Toronto city page and it seems to have more "stuff" and I think Toronto is good comparison city for Sydney. I might attempt to write some more stuff on Culture (isn't that with a K??) Film Festivals, Theatre (STC, Belvoir) Mardi Gras, Sydney Festival, SSO/ACO/Musica Viva etc etc any other thoughts?? Scotth1 08:33, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

feel free to expand the culture of Sydney article, it's good to add a summary of whatever you add there in the main article, but don't add all the content in the main article. the toronto article is rather long, and should probably have sections such as history, hived off into separate articles when they get very long, with prominent Main article links to them, similar to the way the country articles are laid out (see New York City as an example of how this is done). unfortunately many of the city articles aren't following the WikiProject Cities template (even though it says it's for US cities, it can be used for non-US cities). Clarkk 09:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

links in headings

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)

How can Sydeny be the largest cityin the southern hemisphere? Isn't Rio and Sao Paulo located in the southern hemisphere also?

How to list LGAs?

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)

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)

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)

Chinatown of Sydney

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)

Rugby League

The ARL is a unique sport mainly played in Sydney. Someone wanna write something about that if they're interested?

   I made a start in the Sports section. Needs a lot of work though.

Largest suburban area

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)

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)

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)

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: [1] and [2]. 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)

Hmm, here's some pretty definitive evidence that the claim is wrong. [3], 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)

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)

What, you trust that piece of junk called Microsoft Encarta? The info is SO out of date it should have been used for school kids in 1900, not 2005. Take a look at Google Earth, and compare Sydney with New York and LA - it's just a tad smaller, doddipols. And I'm not being biased - I live in Johannesburg...

Two of the three largest cities on earth are in Australia. The first being the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder which is in excess of 96, 000sq Kms and the second Mt Isa (which is 3rd in the world) at around half the size of KB. Sydney doesn't even come close.

However, I do recall reading on the ABS site a while back that Sydney has one of the largest CBDs in the world. Larger than London in fact. This relates to the specific area where all of the highrise buildings are which excludes what would be considered 'the suburbs' but extends past what is specifically the area governed by the Sydney City Council (which is a very small area).

History of Sydney Melbourne rivalry

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cloudsurfer had better come down from the clouds. This silly rivalry is far stronger in Melbourne than it is in Sydney.(IMO).Some Melburnians seem a little envious that Sydney is better known. And I don't think Sydney people dislike Melbourne at all - they just dislike Melbourne's boasting about being the capital of just about everything.

Alternative satellite photo

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)

Regions

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)

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)

sounds fine with me. clarkk 09:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I had to divide the city up into relatively cohesive and comparable regions I'd do it so:

• Inner City
• Eastern Suburbs
• Inner West
• Lower North Shore
• Upper North Shore (Hornsby-Ku-ring-gai)
• Northern Beaches
• Ryde
• Hills District
• St. George
• the Shire (Sutherland)
• Inner South West (Canterbury-Bankstown area)
• West (Parramatta-Auburn area)
• Outer South West(Liverpool area)
• Outer West (Blacktown-Penrith area)
• Macarthur (Campbelltown-Camden area)

Now I don't know if some other areas have regional names like St. George and Macarthur. Some sub-regions of these regions have names, like Wentworth is a part of the Eastern Suburbs. But is there a local name for the Inner South West? Non-pejorative I mean? - Randwicked 15:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hey, I have no idea how to change the inset that appears on all the Sydney pages listing the regions, suburbs etc. to match what I've done on this page. Would really appreciate knowing how.--XmarkX 06:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

CBD Areas?

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)

City size comparison flawed

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)

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)

Correctness and NPOV

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just a note: I've lived in Sydney for 20+ years. From personal experience, I have never heard the term 'Sydneyite' *ever*. Sydneysider is quite common, you will see it in newspapers and hear it on the street/TV. I can't think of a formal way of saying a 'resident of sydney'. Novacatz 01:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

Potential spam

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)

Coat Of Arms

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)

opening: I removed ', from where the language derives its name, but' as redundant. Removed last sentence about universities—is this an overstatement?

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)

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)

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)

Time Zones

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)

Regarding the article

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)

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)

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)

Universities in Sydney

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)

cityrail

removed "crippling" and "The CityRail service has been named one of the worst in the Western world." - POV without source, you could hardly say its the consensus especially as the last editor says that "Sydney is said to have the best commuter rail network in the world" Astrokey44 09:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The last contributor actually said:

When, the Rail Clearways project is completed in 2010 and the new trains arrive, 
with a new timetable in 2011 and station upgrades Sydney is said to have the best 
commuter rail network in the world, with new confortable state of the art trains...

which apart from not making sense, seems to be mainly a prediction of what the changes are meant to achieve. It is definitely not talking about the present. I agree that the worst in the Western world comments shouldn't stay without a source, but I don't find it hard to believe that someone has said that. JPD (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

*everyone* knows cityrail sux. it is certainly the worst operated metropolitan railway network that i've ever been on. i don't even get trains from 9 until 3 ever since the "reforms" of 2005. --Sumple 12:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Sydney Underground?

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)

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)

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)

Put it this way. The closest thing you have to a london underground system in Sydney is the monorail. So take your monorail and make a whole network of monorrails running on... say 10 or 12 different lines and then put them underground. The underground carriages are not trains, they're much smaller than trains.

This is the london underground map... http://www.oxfordtube.com/assets/london/underground_map.jpg Looks much like a normal train network map but the difference is that the distance between each stop is quite small. They vary but generally speaking you could get off and walk from one stop to another in about 5-10 mins.

London also has a suburban train netowrk that goes underground when it reaches the city. If you were to catch the train from say Luton to London, the train takes you right into the heart of the city. You can get off at kings cross thameslink (train station) and you're already there. But maybe you want to walk along the river thames. You could walk there which would take about 30 mins or you can climb onto the tube and be there in 10 mins. So you'd get off the train, walk down a buch of stairs onto the tube at st Pancras. Jump on the mordon tube and get off at London Bridge station.

Does this make any more sense? Factoid Killer 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and there's a tube carriage every 2 to 5 mins Factoid Killer 14:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Expansion request: Climate info

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)

• A quick link for anyone writing a summary. Though knowing the Köppen climate classification would also be interesting. -- Beland 04:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome; this request has been filled! -- Beland 02:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Population stats

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)

Reference section

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)

Famous people

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)

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)

Sydney HArbour Bridge - architectural triumph?

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)

Agree. The 'Hell's Gate' bridge in the USA was built about 20 years before the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Sydney's bridge is an engineering feat all right, but it's hardly unique architecture. Mercurius 05:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Emerald city? Huh?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sister city? Huh?

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)

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)

Brother city? :) Just kidding. ozzmosis 06:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sibling rivalry might be the term you are after? :-) John Dalton 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of name

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)

I'm pretty sure that the name "Sydney" was intended to refer only to the Sydney Cove itself, with the city around it intended to be named something else which never cought up with people. I'll try to find the source (I think it's Bill Bryson's "Down Under" but will have to verify).

Penedo 06:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

About the origin of the name (for whatever it was intended to be refered to) I found the following link, which seems to me to be pretty authoritative: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/elect/eldivnam.htm. It says:

Sydney (New South Wales)
Locality name - city named after Viscount Sydney, Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1787.

Landmarks section vs tourist attractions

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)

Shopping

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)

Wikipedia is not Lonely Planet. Most of this section could be scrubbed. - Randwicked Alex B 06:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

support Randwicked --Sumple 09:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting Sydney into shape

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)

• History - could be longer, and the timeline should be worked into prose where relevant
• Geography, ideas are a bit jumbled
  • Climate, needs to describe the actual climate of Sydney
• Governance, should mention policing and courts
• Economy - missing section - employment, gross wages, principal industries, major money making events, see Canberra for ideas
• Demographics - missing section - population, origin, languages, religion, crime
• Education - missing section - major tertiary institutions, schools
• Culture, need to work landmards and toursit attactaion information into the text or branch off into a daughter article (or both). Some of the detail in landmards could go to ecomony and education sections.
  • Sport, convert list to nice table or prose
• Infrastructure
  • Health - missing section - how many hospitals, aged care facilites etc.
  • Utilites - missing section - where does Sydney get water, electricity, major companies providing these services.

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)

Water shortages

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)

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)

I was planning on shifting and rewriting that bit when I get a section about the city's utilities started.--nixie 22:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many pics??

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)

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)

e.g. late trains and phantom busses :p --Sumple 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ideally images complement and enhance the text, the images that keep getting added do neither, they are simply cosmetic, they increase the loading time and break up the flow of the text. If someone has images that demonstrate something about Sydney other than the harbour and skyline by all means add them, images showing what the suburbs and other parts of Sydney look like would be good additions too.--nixie 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Stats

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)

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)

Sorry I had a major stuff up, The numbers I collected was 3,971.851 not the info I gave, I interpreted it wrong.

But back to the topic, even with Hawksbury the Area is only 5,771km² far off the 12,145 km² in the article, Where did I leave out? I used every LGA listed in the article plus the city of Sydney.

203.109.166.220 23:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you left out the national parks. --Sumple (Talk) 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Gosford and Wyong. - Randwicked Alex B 13:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the national parks be included in Hawksbury, Ku-ring-gai and Sutherland total areas?

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)

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)

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)

Stick with ABS figures I say. They're more authoritative than anyone else --Sumple (Talk) 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

City of Sydney

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)

This article refers to the metropolitan area. For the local government area, see City of Sydney? --Sumple (Talk) 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are other uses as well. I was going to put

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)

Sounds good to me. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead photo

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)

What area is covered in the article?

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)

Coat of Arms????????????????

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 [4] may be appropriate for this article, but it is not an official flag. JPD (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal!

I'm about to create a portal on Sydney-AGAIN!!! As the other time I did it it was removed..this time if there is something wrong please don't remove the page, just edit it!!!!!!!!

Well-of I go and creat the portal:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp (talk • contribs)

The Sydney page needs to be updated (i.e. newer pictures and more info)

I fell that the Sydney article needs to be updated....the page needs to be extended and more pictures need to be added, and because Sydney is an important city it needs more info (like I've said). Anyone agree??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp (talk • contribs)

Hi Jack! I agree that the article needs some work, yes, but it certainly doesn't need any more pictures. If you feel a particular picture would be better suited in place of another, then by all means (although it might be best to discuss your reasons on this page first). As for adding information, could you please, especially when adding opinions like "Sydney is believed to have the most beautiful harbour..", cite where you found this information or opinion? If you're unsure how to do this, feel free to add where you found the information to this page and myself or someone else will add the reference for you as soon as possible. If you're unsure what should be cited, this page should be helpful. It explains why, how, where etc.

Also, can you please sign any comments on this page just by typing ~~~~ so we know who we're talking to? Thanks! :) --darkliight^talk 10:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen many websites that have called "Sydney Harbour one of the finnest natural harbours in the world" and I've also read it in tons of books, and of course, it would be impossible for me to list all the websites next to the comment...so next time I see the comment on a website I'll be sure to add it to the page, and also I'll start adding more info to improve the page :)!!!

-Jackp :)

Cool, then you need to cite one of those websites or books and add it as a reference. Until then, please leave those sorts of comments out so the article stays as NPOV as possible. As I said, if you're not sure about how to do this then just list the reference here and someone will fix it up for you.

Also, when you're browsing the article you'll notice a history button up the top next to edit. If you click on that you can see why people revert or make changes. If you notice one of your changes missing, first check and see why someone removed it and then if you disagree, please come back to this page and discuss the issue instead of simply adding the same comments over and over. You've added the list of other beta cities into the intro again after Randwicked removed them for this reason: "revert, the article doesn't need to mention other global cities in the heading", which you can see by viewing the pages history. I agree with the reason given, since anyone interested in what a beta city is or what the other cities are need only click on the given wikilink to find out. I'll leave the other city names in there for now, but is there any particular reason to take the focus off Sydney by listing the other city names?

Finally, remember you can just sign your name by typing ~~~~. Wikipedia will replace this with your name and a date automatically for you. Give it a try next time :) --darkliight^talk 13:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is why I keep removing the other city names. 1. they clutter up the lead paragraph with peripheral links, and 2. they suggest that Sydney can only be a global city by comparing itself to 'better' cities like San Francisco. If Sydney is a global city it is in the same class as the other cities and doesn't need to compare itself so visibly to them. And significantly, none of the listed cities reciprocally mention Sydney anymore. I'm tempted to just remove them again, but I'll wait to hear why Jackp feels they should be kept first. - Randwicked Alex B 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll second the list of cities being removed from the Sydney article. There is a wikilink to the "Global cities" article, which contains the list of cites. It is redundant having the list reproduced in the Sydney article. If the reader really wants to know what a "global city" is, the answer is only a mouse click away. John Dalton 06:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the list of cities is unhelpful. I also have some questions about other recent additions: Is the tourism section really necessary? Wikipedia is not a tourist guide and most of the attractions are mentioned somewhere else in the article. It would be good to have a referenced mention of how many tourists visit Sydney somewhere, though. The Sydney in film section also seems a bit irrelevant - at the very least it should be moved to the end of the article or the culture section (it's not about the culture of Sydney, is it?). Lastly, is a Sydney tourism site really a good source for claims about the harbour? By the way, Jackp, if you're looking for an example of what the Wikipedia community has agreed is the best sort of article about a city, look at Canberra, rather than San Francisco or London. JPD (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think tourism could probably stay, provided it doesn't play the part of a tourist guide. The section should give an overview of the tourism industry in Sydney as it's a fairly major deal, not list tourist spots mentioned elswhere in the article and things common to all cities (cafes etc). The section is a mess atm and is impossible to read. I agree that the Sydney in film bit could probably go, I mean, it lists 3 red links, Finding Nemo (a cartoon!) and Independance Day (all 2 seconds of footage) as examples of Sydney in film. The Fox studio is briefly mentioned in the economy section and could probably do with a few more words on its contribution, if anything. Also, yeah, that the beautiful harbour quote needs a better reference (although it looks like a copy and paste from that sydney.com.au site and probably should just be removed) and I noticed the emerald city name has crept back in too. --darkliight^[πalk] 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ!! I tried to add more info to this article on Sydney and get flamed for it!! I just can't believe some people on this website...I mean it's ludicrous that cities like New York City, London and LA get pages with over 100000 sections and other cities get reduced to the minimum of bloody 13 or 12!! I think every article should be at the same length, just because London is a great place doesn't mean it needs like 18 sections of articles (some of which aren't even relevant)….if this isn’t stopped, I’ll do something about it myself, and Darklight what is so bad about adding Independence Day to the list of Sydney films…DID IT HARM ANYONE-NO….and I’m sorry, but I didn’t know that the Emerald City is no longer a name for Sydney, why don’t you take away my right and arrest me for adding back in Jackp 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)!

I'm sorry that you feel you are being flamed, Jack. I think most of us are actually only trying to discuss what sort of information actually improves the article. You are right that some other city articles are too long, but that's not a reason to make this one too long. If you have strong feelings about particular sections that have been removed, please tell us the reasons you think the sections are important, so we can reach some sort of consensus. JPD (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Sydney in film list, but it was reverted. I just wanted to see what a few more people here thought. --darkliight^[πalk] 05:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems way out of place to me. There's no mention of the recent importance of film-making to Sydney's economy, only an incomplete list of films (mostly from the last decade only) that featured Sydney in some way. (Where the hell is The Girl in the Yellow Pyjamas, for instance?) Lists like this aren't encyclopedic. You could make a case for a film industry section though, if it actually featured some prose. - Randwicked Alex B 05:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Placement

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)

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)

Ahh good point, I didn't think about how the pic would look at different resolutions. --darkliight^[πalk] 05:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How do I create a portal?

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)

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)

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)

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)

How do you edit an info box???

When I ever I try to the edit never appears??? Why is this 202.6.138.33 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam?

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

What the hell happend to the fashion section??

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)

While high-profile cities such as London, Milan, Paris, and New York are traditionally regarded as the fashion centres of the world, these days Australia's unique style and creativity mean Sydney is also mentioned as a 'must-visit' centre on the international fashion circuit. When it came to fashion, Sydney used to be seen as isolated and out-of-touch. That notion is now out-of-touch itself, as designs from Australians such as Wayne Cooper, Collette Dinnigan, Akira Isogawa, Lisa Ho, and Easton Pearson are seen all around the globe. In fact, around 60 Australian labels are currently exporting their designs to boutiques and department stores in Asia, Europe and the United States.

Sydney hosts Spring/Summer Mercedes Australian Fashion Week (MAFW) held annually (April/May) in Circular Quay. The event involves over 100 designers from Australia and Asia Pacific that present their collections to some of the world's most significant buyers. Some designers that parcicipated in MAFW: Jayson Brunsdon · Jeenenun · Jimmy D · Josh Goot · Joshua Granath · Joveeba · Jozette · Jtah · Juliannne · Kate Sylvester · Leona Edmiston · Lisa Ho · Lorena Laing · Lover · Mad Cortes · Marnie Skillings · Melissa Polynkova · Milich & Morton · Milk & Honey · Mimco · Miok Kang · Mjolk · NA by Nicole and Aaron · Natasha Gan · Nicola Finetti · Nookie. Other fashion events are also hold bi-annualy by David Jones and Myer.

Looks like a whole lot of unsourced Point of View and original research to me. Factoid Killer 11:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

External links to photo galleries - verboten?

I noticed these have vanished (again). I was going to add a few links to QTVR projects (ahem - not by me). So... what's the policy / consensus? Other Wiki city entries have a few links to city-related photo webpages, why not Sydney?... --Andrew N - Monday , May 15, 2006 at 03:17:13 (UTC)

If they are commerical websites, then there is no reason to include links on this page. See Wikipedia:External links for guidelines on what kind of links to include on article pages.--Peta 03:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Three of the links were definitely non-commercial though:

• Sydney City Council Online Image Archives

• Andrew Stark Street Photography

• My own Sydney Unposed project (online since 1998)

All of these feature candid photographs of Sydneysiders. Surely these and others like them can be added under a separate "Picture Galleries" heading? After all, a city is more than just a collection of buildings  :?) --Andrew N - 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is nothing to rule out having these links if they are not commercial, but then again, Wikipedia is not meant to be a web directory or collection of links. JPD (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see your images on Wikipedia, why not release some under a compatible licence, some of them would make good additions to exisiting articles. Your site does have adds, so it does count as a commercial link. The council link is probably ok, better for the history article. I'm ambivalent about the other artists gallery - seems like promotion.--Peta 09:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All I was suggesting was providing a sub-head with links to a few photo galleries of what Sydneysiders look like. Similar to the links provided by other Wiki cities, eg. New_York or Rome. Oh well, not worth dying in a ditch for :?)

BTW, not linking to any site with advertising is a overly restrictive misreading of the Wiki External Links guidelines. The actual language used is "objectionable amounts of advertising" --Andrew N - 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Clear and cloudy

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)

At the very least cloudy days are crucial for a reader to ascertain and compare the weather of various cities. It gives a much better indication than total rain days. If something has to go i'd agree to rain days and clear days. Factoid Killer 12:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the table should extend indefintely, temperature is the only really useful thig, clear and cloudy are probably more useful than average rainfall. What do other people think?--Peta 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Avg rainfall tells you very little and people from temperate cities such as London and Melbourne use this to imply their cities have better weather than subtropical and tropical cities. I think the number of cloudy days is really what people are looking for when they look at rainfall and rain day figures which are both deceiving. Factoid Killer 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Clear and cloudy days probably do help in arguments about who has the "better" weather, but in the climate section in an encyclopedia I would expect to see the standard temperature and total rainfall. I don't see a need for rain days. JPD (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • When I view the climate section of an article I do so because I want to be able to get some indication of what the climate is like in that city. Avg rainfall doesn't provide that and nor does temperature alone. In my wikipedian experience so far, climate sections of articles tend to be the worst offenders for holding POV statements, factoids and cop outs. It's going to be a massive job to clean them all up and it's made more difficult when the data provided is incomplete or pointless. Factoid Killer 13:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I completely agree that climate is a topic which easily slips into POV. One of the reasons for this is because people try to use it to say "our weather is better than yours" using things like rain days and cloudy days. I think it is better to leave them out, stick to the traditional indicators and think of climate in more general terms. Average rainfall for each month might not tell you whether you need an umbrella when you go on holiday, but it does tell someone who knows what to look for quite a bit about the climate. I don't see the need to dumb down to give tourist information. At any rate, the table should be simple and simply complement the text, which is the important bit. JPD (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Firstly, with regards to your "our weather is better than yours" argument, you're the only one who has suggested that that's what this is about. If anything, providing more information stops people from being able to do that. What it also does is provide people with a yard stick that they can use to guage the weather conditions of another city against their own experiences.
      • Secondly, with regards to "dumbing it down". How on earth is providing more information dumbing anything down? I'd say providing less information is dumbing it down. Also, how can that be classified as 'tourist information'? Are you suggesting that we should be catering only to meteorologists? Factoid Killer 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "people from ... London and Melbourne use [avg rainfall] to imply their cities have better weather..." - Factoid Killer. What I am saying is that the fact that some people are looking for that sort of thing when they see these figures doesn't mean that we should get rid of them and focus on that sort of argument. I don't see how using the sorts of indicators that are used in high school geography books is catering only to meteorologists. Clear/cloudy days aren't really that much more helpful anwyawy - do you really think an average cloudy day in Sydney is like an average cloudy day in London? Statistics aren't ever going to tell the whole story, and I don't see how the problem of people reading too much into them will be solved by providing more. We obviously can't have a huge table - we have a link to the statistics anyway - so we have to choose which indicators to include, and I think the ones that have traditionally been used would be the best choice. JPD (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The quote you provided shows my intention to stop others from providing such non-npov remarks not the reverse. In any case, in the interests of sticking to an established standard i'm going to concede that such stats shouldn't go into the main article. However, if we were to add it to an article all about sydney climate, it shouldn't be an issue right? It's still usefull and interesting information. London has a detailed climate article separate from the main article. In that article the climate table was removed altogether to reduce the size of that section. Factoid Killer 13:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not mean to imply anything about your intentions. More details would definitely be appropriate in a separate article on the climate of Sydney. As for the climate table in this article, I didnt' put it there myslef, but I don't think it makes the section too long. It might be worth considering a graph instead. JPD (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-NPOV in climate articles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK. My first attmempt at searching for a definition has lead me to the American Meteorological glossary here. They don't include the terms hot, cold, cool, warm or anything similar. Dictionary.com has various definitions but there is no specific meteorological definition. American national weather service climate glossary has nothing on any of these terms here. Australian Bureau of Meteorology climage glossary has none of these terms here. The closest i've been able to find is this here which uses the terms hot, warm and cold within other definitions but stops short of actually defining hot, warm and cold. Factoid Killer 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I know of a forum where I could put this question to an experienced Australian meteorologist. I'm going to post a question there and see where that leads me. Factoid Killer 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha! - Bureau of Meteorology in Australia says there is NO international standard for use of these terms. They define the terms in the context of their own use. Because these terms mean different things based on the point of view of the reader, use of these terms qualifies as non-Neutral Point of View and therefore should not be used...

BOM - Australia site

Also in notes - down the page a bit;

..No international definitions have been laid down for the terms hot, warm, etc. The above table has therefore been developed in the Bureau to serve as a general guide only.

Factoid Killer 14:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Fashion section

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)

Again, when will someone listen???

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)

A few things that could be added:

• List of Notable Sydneysiders
• More info on Sydney's global influence
• Attractions
• Tourisim
• More on the economy ���The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackp (talk • contribs) .

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)

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)

Well, maybe these things can be created on a seperate page? Jackp 07:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, but how come that the info regarding Sydney Harbour is suitable on that page, but not on the page of Sydney? Oh, and about the tourism thing (which also keeps getting removed) how come it is ok for there to be info on the tourism in London, Tokyo, New York City and Melbourne ect. But not in Sydney’s article. I mean, if the tourism section I wrote isn't good enough, does anyone want to consider re-writing it, to meet Wikipedia's standards (which would be the best idea), the same goes for everything else that keeps getting removed??? Jackp 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

oh, I'm sure that will happen!! AND KNOW ONE HAS SAID WHY THIS CAN'T STAY-"Sydney Harbour Is Commonly Refferd To As One Of The Most Beautiful Natural Harbour in The World" and "Sydney is an important finance centre for Asia-Pacific", and they are both %100 true!!!! So until, someone can prove there not, they will stay!! Jackp 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

where can we cast our votes?? ha ha --Merbabu 06:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack, time to give up with the games. You've been overruled so many times. The difference between an encyclopedia and brochure should be clear. The beauty of wiki is that it cuts through all the self-promotion s**t of the rest of the web. In this way it is unique but your edits seem determined to reduce wiki to the garbage level of most of the rest of the web. Seriously, what is so hard about this??? And stop REMOVING this stuff from pages like London 1 min after adding it to Sydney. What a stupid game. --Merbabu 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Should we have a section about the buildings and architecture in Sydney?

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)

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)

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)

Well, I would certainly consider the Sydney Opera House unique, maybe not so much the Sydney Harbour Bridge...but they certainly are famous structures, oh and the Queen Victoria Mall, is a rare Victorian building...so I think that we should consider writing an article about the architecture Jackp 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm sorry but I don't agree with that, the sydney article deserves one on it's architecture hands down!

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)

I don't think the article needs a separate architecture section. If there are any well referenced things to say about Sydney architecture, then they could be added to the urban structure section. As Merbabu says, many individual notable structures have articles of their own, and are already mentioned in the article. JPD (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is so wrong with this?:

Sydney’s skyline is widely recognizable. Sydney also possesses a wide array of diversity of architectural style. They range from the simple Francis Greenways Georgian buildings, to Jorn Utzon’s expressionist, the Sydney Opera House. Sydney also has a large amount of Victorian buildings, such as the Sydney Town Hall and the Queen Victoria Building. The most architecturally significant would be the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, among many others. Skyscrapers in Sydney are also large and modern such as the Sydney Tower, which dominates the Sydney skyline.

It keeps getting removed, I don't really see what's so bad about it! Jackp 10:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written and reeking of bias. An architecture section does not belong in any city article. michael ^talk 10:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The area of Sydney was wrong. (Area x density = population)...

What is the name of the article?

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

What is wrong with this?

Is this ok to put into the Sydney article? "Sydney is home to some of the Australia's most prominent universities, theaters, and museums.", I really don't see what's so wrong with it, so why does it keep getting removed from the article !Jackp 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, if you can't see what's wrong with that sentance after all that has been said to you, you really oughtn't remain on Wikipedia. Your behaviour is now borderline disruption. Please make the effort to take heed of the advice impressed upon you.--cj | talk 06:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I concurr. Jack, why don't you check out the sydney page on wikitravel instead. here. In fact, pretty much everything you write/are interested in would go very well there. Please, have a look at their editorial policy and see what you think. Witty lama 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's been explained many times before. Encyclopedia does not equal tourist brochure, nor is it a prospectus for property fund investments. What happens if someone just "doesn't get it"? It's beyond nuiscance now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merbabu (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. --Skeezix1000 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Has WP:3RR been breached regarding the intro section? Surely there is just cause for brining an admin in to use the block? Witty lama 06:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes sure! It's positively fine if the article on London (just using that as an example) states "London is a leader in international finance, politics, education, culture, entertainment, fashion and the arts and has considerable influence worldwide." Well, I'm sorry but all of your actions are a little strange, and ridiculous, because you state it isn't alright to say that "Sydney is home to some of the Australia's most prominent universities, theaters, and museums."...what can't the article on Sydney have that??? Or are all of you against the article and believe it shouldn't have that kind of info on it, none of you have managed to state why London or any other city can have it and Sydney can't...so either you don't have a good enough reason or your all just plain stupid!!! Jackp 09:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, can you explain why you remove these references from London, Paris, New York, Tokyo and yet insist, on putting them into Sydney?? Why the double standard? --Merbabu 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certinly wouldn't if it was left in this article! Jackp 09:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, then you admit they are double standards?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Merbabu (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 June 2006

Jack, you have already been instructed that articles such as London and New York City are not worth aspiring to. Instead, use as a template already featured articles like Canberra and Ann Arbor. You are again reminded of the three-revert rule also.--cj | talk 11:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are they not worth inspiring, what is Sydney not as big and internationally influential, I think not!! Sydney' article should be equal to London's or Sydney's, not cities that are only known in there nations, because Sydney is a globally influential city, it's article shouldn't be reduced to a size as small as cities which you mentioned (I.E. Ann Arbor and Canberra)!!!!!!!!!! Jackp 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack's "double standards" are clearly a result of alternating between trying to apply the standard he sees enfored at Sydney to London, etc, and apply what he sees as the standard used at London to Sydney. While this is to some extent understandable, the way he is doing it does look a bit like trying to make a WP:POINT. Jack, I'm sure there are aspects of the London article that need to be cleaned up, but that needs to be done carefully and sensibly with discussion, not simply as a series of tit-for-tat deletions of sections. JPD (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And while we're on the topic of your latest attempted additions, Jack, your reverted section on shopping was copied verbatim from http://www.discoversydney.com.au/sydney/shopping.html which is in violation of copyright. Steve 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. But, if there is soemthing wrong with my edits, I really don't understand why anyone doesn't take time to fix them up...instead of just removing them? Jackp 12:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't people "fix" them instead of reverting? Well, probably due the nature of the information. Sometimes i do "fix" them, but often that involves deleting a lot of information (your tourism in sydney page, and your beaches in sydney page} but others just need total removal especially after you have made the same edits over and over. I even left some of your sydney opera house organ info, but it turns out you just copied that from another article. Jack, your enthusiasm is obvious and that is good, but just take some time to read through the discussions on this page about your edits. all you need to know is there. You just have to keep it factual and non point of view. also relevant (ie, discussion of expensive handbags availbale in sydney doesn't belong here.). And NPOV means not saying stuff like "shopping in sydney is better than haggling in south east asian". can't you see that? cheers --Merbabu 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I see now, I just wish that people would make them better instead of deleting them all together, it is just really annoying. Also, I'm a little puzzled on why everytime I put culture and finance into the sentence "notable for its climate, beaches, and architectural landmarks like the Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge" it is constantly removed, I mean Sydney is Australia's cultural capital, so it's feasible for that to stay and since Sydney is an important place for trading and finance in the Asia-Pacific...then that can also stay!! Jackp 07:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it is mentioned that Sydney is a finance centre. Why twice in the same section? As for "cultural capital", what is your evidence? That's a lot more subjective point. Cultural capital is not! (although that doesn't mean that another city is). This is about verifiable facts. --Merbabu 09:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You said it was "Australia's main financial centre"...not an important centre for finance in the Asia-Pacific.Oh, and yes I do have a verifiable fact, from the website "About Australia" it states that Sydney and Melbourne share the status of "Australia's Culture Capital-[5] Jackp 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Jack, be serious. The link you've given is firstly, hardly a reliable source and is only giving one person's opinion; secondly, not saying that Sydney and Melbourne share the status of "Australia's Culture Capital", but that they share the status of "Australia's financial centre" and that Melbourne is often regarded the cultural capital. Even if Sydney were indisputably Australia's culture capital, that wouldn't make it "notable for its culture". JPD (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I have seen on countless websites, books ect. that Sydney is renowned for it's culture, it even states on Culture of Sydney that it's diverse and multi-cultural!! I'll try to find a better source in the meantime, though. Oh, and why was the Asia Pacific thing removed, it had a reliable and appropriate source. Jackp 12:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously Jack, what is your motivation? It seems to be more promotion of sydney than providing information. Wiki is trying to do someting different to the "countless websites" - ie, dispense with the promotion, hyperbole and POV. So what if sydney is multicultural. it can be mentioned (in the appropriate place), but most cities are multicultural. --Merbabu 13:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Asia Pacific fact was not completely bad, although it would probably be better left in the economy section. I have removed the links Jack added because Mayor of Sydney is not relevant to the city as a whole, University of Sydney is one of the many universities already mentioned in the article and it is not appropriate to have links to the Wikipedia: namespace. JPD (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the article said something a little more high-brow about the finance in Sydney. Not just "Sydney is Australia's man financial centre"...because that is obvious when it is the countries largest city, it needs to state something more important!! Jackp 11:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have added a section about Film and Fashion (an improved version) in the "Culture" section, I don't think there is anything wrong with it...but if there is, I'd really appreciate if you could just improve it, instead of removing it all together! Jackp 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article could do with a mention of the film industry, although it seems a bit strange for it to have it's own subsection while other "arts" are lumped in together. The fashion subsection didn't seem to say much at all, apart from a lot of peacock words. JPD (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because, there is a lot to say about film in sydney, and what I wrote would be too long to be merged into the "arts" section...so there is nothing wrong with it where it was. So can it stay? Also, why couldn't you easily fix the fashion section like I said? And, I think it would be relevant if this article had a section about Tourism in Sydney, since it's a vital part of the sydney economy. Jackp 09:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, JPD has already addressed your "fashion" edits in his post above. I agree with his sentiments. Haven't we been over the tourism thing? You've even created your own (weak) article on it!!! --Merbabu 09:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it is so bad, then would you care to explain what is so bad about it. But I think the tourism section is fine there, and I've already said why! Jackp 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you or do you not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a tourist brochure? They are written in completetly different styles. --Merbabu 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(SORRY, CAPS KEY BROKEN, ONE KEY DOESN'T WORK) PERHAPS JACKP COULD ADD STUFF ABOUT FOX STUDIOS. IT IS NPOV AND NOTEWORTHY. JACK, THIS IS HOW YOU NEED TO DO IT. ADD LINKS TO FOX STUDIOS AUSTRALIA, http://www.foxstudiosaustralia.com/, AND LINK TO 2 THINGS SHOT THERE, BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY IT IN ONE SENTENCE. 129.94.6.28 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (PS GUESS WHICH LETTER KEY IS BROKEN) (XZJQ)

I still think the tourism section belongs in the article, it doesn't need to be cutting edge or a long section, we only need a couple of sentences to direct the reader to the main article, cause the link to the tourism article isn't bold enough in the "see also" section. So it deserves a section on it's own since it's a vital part of the sydney economy. Jackp 06:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A concern though Jackp is that most of the tourism section's information is presented elsewhere in the article. Hence the tourism section is mostly redundant. But you have a good point about drawing attention to the tourism article - prehaps tourism should be a (short) sub-section under economy, in the same way that sport is a sub-section under culture? Mako 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The mention of tourism in the economy section should focus on demonstrating how tourism is important to the economy, not listing tourist attractions, which as Mako says, are mentioned elsewhere in the article. It could possibly end up having its own subsection, but not unless it is longer than a couple of sentences. It definitely does not need its own section, and is only as deserving of a subsection as other similarly important parts of the economy. JPD (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about a sub-section in the tourist section...otherwise, it's gonna need to stay as its own article...because most of the economy is related to tourism, or does someone want to cosnider writting a long section about tourism, maybe similar to the one on New York City's page, either way we need a tourism section. Jackp 11:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a subsection in the tourist section, Jack. We don't need a tourism section. We mention several tourist attractions, but not necessarily in a tourism section. We should also describe the importance of tourism to the economy, but I don't believe that "most" of the economy actually is related to tourism - you'd definitely need to find a reference for that claim! The thing we really need to do as far as tourism is concerned is find a references for the claim already in the article and any further information that might be added. JPD (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Above I was 129.94.... sorry, really was at a bad key board. Anyway, though someone else seems to have written in the point that I wanted JackP to write, I still think you could try my solution. Have JackP write something into the article which is wanted, and maybe he can learn about how to be constructive that way. The only thing I can see atm is getting rid of the list of local government areas, because that's already included in the template at the bottom; please, nobody do it just yet. A J Hay 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to visitnsw.com.au tourism is worth $20B per year to NSW. NSW's GDP is about $300B so while tourism is significant, it's a long way short of being "most" of the economy. As for the 21 million number ... there are various statistics here [6]. I picked the only Sydney specific ones I could find and put them in the article. Note that Sydney also had about 14 million daytrips, most of which would have been Sydneysiders travelling within Sydney. Mako 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it is only Sydneysiders? And A J Hay, what is wanted in the article, the only think I think we should do is to have an article on tourism, it doesn't have to be about the toruism and how it helps the enconomy, it could be just about what the main tourist attractions are and remove the other sections that alreay state what they are...something similar to London's: Tourism in London, but make it a little shorter. Jackp 09:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone said it is only Sydneysiders. It is good that we now have some decent figures in the article. Jack, it is hard to know whether you are talking about articles or sections, or what. As for a tourism section, why does an encyclopedia article need a section like a tourist brochure? Why should tourist attractions be mentioned in a tourism section, instead of sections about what the attractions actually are? It is true that the New York article does that to some extent, and it works reasonably well, but I don't think it is a better way of doing it. JPD (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it works quit well. I'm not saying we should totally rip it off, but co-operate and make a version of it, that would go well and work on the Sydney page. I've written a new version of the tourist section, if it doesn't work, please feel free to fix it or extend it (I don't really care if that involves removing most of my content)...as long as it is there and it works well, Here it is:

• Sydney is a popular international and national tourist destination, with 7.8 million domestic visitors and 2.5 million international visitors in 2004. Sydney has many tourist attractions. It would indeed take weeks to visit all the major ones, but with the Sydney transport system it is easy to visit most of these attractions. Many of the popular tourist destinations are structured on the harbour, suchOpera House and the Harbour Bridge. Major public beaches are also hugely popular with visitors, such as Bondi and Manly Beach. The cultural highlights of Sydney include museums, concert halls, and theaters, among many others.

Jackp 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, I don't think you have understood me. I said that the New York "tourism and recreation" subsection works reasonably well, but I still think that it is better to not have a tourism section. Even if we did go down that route, note that New York has it as a subsection of Culture, not a section in its own right, but the real questions are: Why do you say we need one? How would a tourism section make this a better encyclopedia article? I just don't see any value added to the article by including your paragraph above, or any equivalent. JPD (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article needs a tourism section because it will make Sydney's even with all the other articles on cities that have tourism sections (i.e. Melbourne, Cape Town, New York City ect.), also it will give readers an insight on what the tourism is like in the city, and what are the most notable. It also directs the reader to Tourism in Sydney. If you still don't agree, then why don't we have it in a sub-section under culture or economy? Jackp 03:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, What is so wrong with saying "Sydney is the nation's centre for fashion, education, mass media and buisness"? Because Sydney is cleary is that. And the sport section isn't really culture, it is more a leisure activity, so that should stay in it's on section. And I have made the sub-sections under "Arts and Entertainment" bold, so they can be easily read. Jackp 11:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, I think you're missing a verb and a noun somewhere. You said "...it will make Sydney's even with all the other articles..." I'm not sure what you're saying as there appears to be missing words. Please clarify.

Furthermore I disagree with your suggestion that sport is not culture. It definately is leisure but it is even more culturally based. Sport also has political elements to it but that does not mean it should be in a politics section. Leave it in Culture. Witty lama 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for telling me in a calm way! Also, I mean "even" as in it will be divisible by the two, like Sydney's article will be on an equal level to Melbourne's ect.Jackp 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And, if you want to know why I keep adding culture, then I'll awnser that! When people think of culture in Australia, they think of Sydney. Everyone knows that Sydney is more than the Wild West of the Southern Hemisphere- it is a cosmopolitan, modern center of fashion, commerce and culture. I've added links next to my added sentence...but it is always removed! Jackp 03:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, we are not trying to "make Sydney's [article] even with all the other articles". We are trying to make it a brilliant article. This might mean making it like featured articles like Canberra, Chennai, Seattle, Washington, etc, but not like New York and so on. This article is about Sydney, not about visiting Sydney. Giving some insight on what tourism is like in Sydney could be done when tourism is mentioned in the economy section, as long as you have proper references and it is in proportion with the importance tourism actually has to the economy. The paragraph you suggested doesn't really give any insight at all. As for tourist attractions, most of these are tourist attractions because they are notable for what they are, not jsut notable as tourist attractions. It is far better describe what they are, than list them as tourist attractions. JPD (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Sydney's article is brilliant yet, I mean we still need a section about Sydney's architecture. Why on earth doesn't take that into their hands (since mine wasn't good enough), it isn't going to harm anyone, or make this article bad, it will give people an insight on architecture in Sydney, which will make it better! Jackp 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)