Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 28 November 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sydney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:VA

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: New South Wales / Sydney Top‑importance Sydney is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Olympics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WP1.0

	Sydney was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 3, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 16, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

Archives

Archive 1 - 2001 to July 22, 2006 Archive 2 - July 22, 2006 to October 11, 2006 Archive 3 - October 3, 2006, to ––– Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sydney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

New Main Picture?

It just looks like recently a few people have tried to change the picture at the start of the article (Well, 1 today at least). For the most part I don't mind the picture, though I'm not a big fan of how the Opera house looks in it. Not really a major problem, as the article should be about content and not pictures, but to give someone an idea about how Sydney looks is important, and I do think there are better pictures out there. Two that I've found on Misplaced Pages that I thought could be used are:

My favourite, but also used on Kirribilli page, and arguably only suited for that page (due to Kirribilli being prominent in the image). It does, however, give a good view of Sydney harbour, as well as the Opera house and Harbour bridge, which are the biggest landmarks in Sydney.

Though maybe the Opera house is too dominant in this one?

Anyway, I don't think there's any need to change the picture in a rush, but what are your thoughts? Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody attempted to change the infobox image today. Somebody added File:2007 0806klklk0054.JPG to the climate section but, while it might be okay for Cronulla sand dunes, Kurnell Peninsula, or even Dune, there's far too much sand dune and too little of a hazy Sydney hidden behind power lines for this article. In fact there hasn't been any real attempt in recent history that I can see to change the infobox image, which has been in this article since 8 January 2009 when it replaced the second of the images you've identified. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I recall a few times people trying to put the large montage image in the infobox a few times (including me), but they've always been reverted. Still, I think so long as the picture is not put in at too large a size, a better picture could be used. I think there's a bias from me though due to my dislike of the Opera house in the current photo, but I seem to be the only one, so it doesn't really matter. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I made this in about 10 minutes. No need for it to become the infobox image for now, but it does fit without pushing anything further down. Just thought I'd show that it's here in case anyone wants it to be used at some point in the future. Like I said, I'm probably the only one who isn't a fan of the picture that's there, so I'm not going to just edit it in by myself. If it ever is put in though, the picture of Bondi already on this page would be a repeat, so that would be changed (There are other pictures of Bondi on wikipedia). But I'm just showing this, it's not like this article is in desperate need of a new picture. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What about this?

I used it as the main image.Dolphin Jedi (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My very first edit was to put a montage on this page, so I can appreciate the want. Hell, I've even uploaded a large number of montages just recently. That being said, and despite my comments above, for now I think the image we have is perfectly fine. While it only represents a small portion of Sydney, and is not my favourite picture, I think it does its job just fine. Information about all of Sydney can be found by looking through the article, and going to the related pages, and some of the pictures present in your montage appear in the article currently. Not necessarily a bad thing though, if you gain consensus for the change, the one's in the article could be replaced.

There is one main problem with your montage, and that is that it is kind of repetitive. 2 skyline images, and 2 others featuring the skyline. I also have to wonder why Manly beach would be more appropriate than Bondi Beach? And also why Taronga zoo would be all that notable. And if it is, would it not be better to have a picture of the entrance, and not a picture of a giraffe? The Opera house also appears 3 times throughout it.

I don't mean to sound too critical, but those are my opinions of the montage. In all honesty, the one's I have made aren't all that much better (if they are even better). But if you want to put this montage on here, try and gain consensus first. Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's use the other montage, then, if you prefer it. Dolphin Jedi (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The montage I originally added was added again just recently. Actually, yours is about the third montage added within a short period come to think of it.

I don't actually think the other one is any better in all honesty looking at it now. And besides, it's not just up to you and me anyway, if you want to make a significant change like this, you will have to get consensus from the various editors. I've only been here a short time, so in all honesty am not 100% certain on what aspects should gain consensus first, and what you should just be bold about, but this is definitely a discuss first change. Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding the montage temporarily until a new one has been made.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As per the comment immediately above yours, this needs to be discussed first. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dolphin Jedi has asked me what I think about a montage for Sydney. I personally really like montages and I've been proposing montages for many cities across Canada. I think that, considering Sydney is a major city and has many landmarks to "show off", a montage would look fantastic. Out of the two above I like the the second one better, but only by a small margin. They both look great and to be honest any montage would do. So, there's my opinion on this discussion. The rest is up to everyone else. Nations United (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking an opinion is one thing but this sems to be blatant canvassing. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just throw out my point again Nations United. I don't actually like the first one (which I did do) to be honest, and the second one looks much better. It is, however, repetitive, and I don't think really is all that inclusive of Sydney as a whole. For example, here is one I made:

Now, I would say it is too large, and the cbd and bondi pictures aren't high quality (Not because of the images used, because of how I put them in the montage), but it is a bit more inclusive of Sydney as a whole. granted, the relevence of something such as the cronulla sand dunes outside of Sutherland is debatable, and people will have their own opinions about the pictures used, but what I'm trying to show is a montage that shows a bit more than just the area around the city. That's all I'm saying really, it should be a bit more inclusive of all Sydney. But only on things that are relevant to Sydney though, not just a small local landmark of one area (which the sand dunes arguably are). Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your montage looks nice. Can we put it up as the amin image, at least temporarily to see how it looks?--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You can use the "Show preview" option to see what it looks like within the article. There doesn't seem to be a big want for a montage, but good luck discussing it/trying to get one on. Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I support a montage. I didn't want to fill up the talk page so put pics that would be good on the two users talk page as suggestions if they wanted to make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altormainstream (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Royal National Park actually part of Sydney? I thought it was but its wikipedia page says the nearest city is Sydney, but that's probably refering to the CBD. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It was under Sydney landmarks. The only one I suggested that wasn't in the landmarks box is the sand dunes one which I took from yours. May i make one criticism about this montage issue. the one's who revert them say to use the talk page in their edit description (been looking through history), but they never come here to discuss they just ignore it. could they at least give their reasons why they don't like montages? I can respect a different viewpoint but don't just say discuss it but never actually come to discuss it yourself. signing Altormainstream (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

no ones even come to tell me I'm wrong. Altormainstream (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a few montages, I've uploaded 2. There's only a difference of one photo, and the others are the same in that way (it's the same bottom left image that changes in each montage). The others have darling harbour and Hyde Park barracks. I don't intend to be making any more, but if they're is a small change you want I might make it. If you want to try an infobox montage with one of these by all means good luck, or if you want me to upload the others I will (they contain this, this, this and this photo). I tried to be inclusive, but I don't know. I think they're good, but maybe you'll hate them. Anyway, see what you think.

And one request. If you do put a montage in the infobox, when saying what the pictures are can you go "left to right from top" instead of "clockwise". Maybe it's just me, but my eyes don't move that way, I look at it left to right from the top. If I'm in the minority do it clockwise though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I vote yes for the montage, second one I like. Hopefully people will respond this time. Altormainstream (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

I am supporting the montage. I'm going to add it in if we get support/don't hear opposition. Altormainstream (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Intention to add

There has been no one coming here to oppose the montage, so unless someone comes to oppose it, I will add the montage in two days. Altormainstream (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Montage's are common, but they are not superior. Single pic is more impressive, and a montage smacks of tourism brochure. --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that single images are more impressive, but that's a personal dislike of the current image. Anyway, Even though I kind of started this, and have made about 50 montages in my spare time (I have a lot of time to kill), effort is best spent on other parts of the article. Like expanding certain parts of the article which seem way to short. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a new montage as suggested to me by Altormainstream.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu, Misplaced Pages is not Travel Wiki nor is it a brochure for tourism. I've not seen one encyclopaedia (excuding Misplaced Pages) use montages. Single images are encyclopaedic and montages are not. Bidgee (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think the support vote is for the montage, which means that it sghould be 2/2, not 3/1. Of course, if you add my vote (I agree with Merbabu and Bidgee) it's 2/3. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's:

Support: 2

Oppose: 3

Altormainstream (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I support, so altered your poll thing. I just don't think we should worry too much. Are we worried someone will see this page and go "No montage, let's not bother reading about it then!"? Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just made a new montage following Altor's comments on my own talk page.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I like montages, so I appreciate the effort, but I'm a bit confused as to where you're getting the idea that there is consensus for one. I've noticed you are also doing the same thing on the Paris article, stating that there is consensus on the talk page, when in reality there appears to be nothing there but you supporting it and everyone else against.

I'm also not a big fan of the images you chose. Looking back at the one's I made, my image choice is bad (Too many pictures that are pretty but don't show much) so I don't have an authority on picture choice though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

There are quite a few images in this article now, with more being added. While galleries are discouraged, perhaps we could consider grouping some related images with {{multiple image}}, as I did here.

Just a thought. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea. It doesn't clog up the text with images, but allows people who want to insert more images to do so. Because, that really is all the montage is for right? So that more images can be shown off where there would normally only be one? I guess the question is what would stop people from just continuously trying to add?

Man, reading my comments here, altormainstream was right when he said it was hard to see what side I was on.

L.A. has something like this in its article, but I think that is using the gallery feature. Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding drought info

I've added drought info but they said the source was unreliable. Yet Sydney page has some unreliable sources. I think the drought info should be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.144.158 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the drought is certainly worth a mention. Now that you have reliable sources, your addition is fine. (Although I may make minor refinements to the wording, just for quality - the broader information is fine.) You probably don't need three sources. In fact the last one isn't really about Sydney climate anyway. But keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaced images in article that are also in infobox

Not entirely sure if it is a welcome change, but it didn't seem right to keep images in the article that were now in the infobox. I was trying to put in images that were relevant to the sections they were in, and may not be the best choices, so by all means change them if you're not happy with them. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears the whole thing has been reverted. Well, if the editor who chnaged the infobox image to the montage wants to discuss putting it back in, there's here. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we need two satellite images?

Topography and Urban structure have, in essence, the same picture of Sydney from a satellite. The only difference is the second one is click able and has the names of different areas. I'm thinking that it's repetitive to have it there twice, and that the one under topography could be removed or replaced with a different image. Anyone agree? Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe reinstate the harbour bridge image and remove the kings cross one?

I think there should be a Harbour bridge image, seeing as it is a landmark of Sydney. And it is a tourist attraction. The Kings Cross image seems more like just an excuse for another image. So maybe put the harbour bridge back in and remove the kings cross billboard?

I kind of liked the panorama, but apart from that I think the cutting down on images is pretty good (Because I have never put many unnecessary images into articles...). Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - i was going to remove the kingscross pic. And, there is a pic of the Harbour Bridge with the fireworks. Also, just a general note that we need to remember this is an article about the Sydney metro area. It's not about the City of Sydney, the CBD, and it's certainly not about the skyline. --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I guess the problem is that most of the landmarks are in the city, and if we only include a small number nof images, the most famous one's would make sense to put in. I wouldn't have cut out as many as you did, but good job either way.

And maybe now is the time to bring it up. Is the image of Giraffes in Taronga zoo particularly relevant? I think it was chosen because there is the skyline in the background, but if anything the entrance to the zoo in my eyes would be more appropriate, if it was to be used at all. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head - why are we so obsessed about putting in the landmarks? We need to be a bit more strategic about the pics. A pic of a beach, a few maps/charts, the Sculptures by the Sea was a great addition whoever that was. I put in the the northern beaches aerial to show the layout of the city. Taronga Zoo is apparently Sydney's most popular (paid?) attraction - and it's not in the CBD and is visited by people from all over the metro area. The new entrance will be finished early next year, but in the meantime, there are pics on wikipedia of the un-renovated entrance. --Merbabu (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that shows my ignorance, I wasn't aware Taronga zoo was the most popular attraction. I agree that if we have more images, they shouldn't be too focused on the CBD, so from that perspective the tarongo zoo pic is probably suitable. I think if efforts are too be focused on anything though, it should be on the article itself, making sure it's accurate and informative. I think the architecture section was a good idea which I would never have thought of, and there were a few smaller additions that have helped, but the major changes always seem to be adding images.

Of course, I can't criticise people for that, I'm a huge culprit of putting too many images into articles. This article needed someone like you to give it a massive pruning (so, allow your ego to be boosted with that praise). Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the Kings cross photo shows a major landmark it is basically a free advertisement for Coca Cola, maybe the bridge photo should be reinstated. ***Adam*** 04:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that logic, as one could argue any of the buildings in the economy section are an advertisement for the company they house, but it may not be the best image to use. If we're going to try and be more inclusive of the whole of Sydney, maybe an image from one of the non City of Sydney night spots mentioned could replace it, like Manly, Bondi, or Cronulla? I'd personally be doing a bit more replacing as opposed to flat out removing. Maybe a pic of sydney airport could be used in place of where the monorail image used to be?Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a line into the media section about internet radio, but was annoyed to see that it was deleted, even though there was several worthy sources in support of the line I added.

It was deleted within five minutes of me adding the line, thus thinking it was vandalism. I can't really see how deleting and destroying someone elses work is being in good faith, in fact I found the deletion rather obnoxious and rude. I could only suspect that bidgee has interest in an opposing media group? I don't know. :(

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• B-Class New South Wales articles
• Top-importance New South Wales articles
• WikiProject New South Wales articles
• B-Class Sydney articles
• Top-importance Sydney articles
• WikiProject Sydney articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• B-Class Olympics articles
• Unknown-importance Olympics articles
• WikiProject Olympics articles
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Australian English