Talk:Sydney

Archive 1 - 2001 to July 22, 2006 Archive 2 - July 22, 2006 to October 11, 2006 Archive 3 - October 3, 2006, to August 28, 2007

Australian collaboration of the week???

The Melbourne article is by far closer to featured article standard, Sydney has had its GA status removed! This was a bad decition by whomever made it and whomever endorsed it. It would be better if more residents of Sydney contributed to the article about their home town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.11 (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The ACOTF is not an award for the best articles, it's a sign that the article needs a lot of work. The Melbourne article has also just lost its GA status and could probably use an ACOTF effort in the near future to improve it. Easel3 04:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Population sydney

Is this the current population of sydney, isnt it closer to 4.5 million according to ABS? please check anon124.168.115.172 12:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope i checked it through the link and it is 4.1mn. Maybe you are counting areas outside the Sydney region like the Central Coast, Blue Mountains Roadrunnerz45 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. ABS has the Sydney Statistical Division as having a population at 4.1m (in the 2006 Census 'Quickstats'). I think the quoted population of 4.28m is the 2008 estimate (I haven't donwloaded the Year Book that's referenced to confirm). Note that the statistical division actually extends as far north as Wyong, west to take in all of Blue Mountains, and south to Campbelltown. There seems to be a lot of discrepancy in the article about what constitutes 'Sydney' - in some places it references Cumberland County, and other times (eg. for population) seems to reference Sydney Statistical division'. Might be useful to settle on what 'Sydney' means, then review all aspects of the article to ensure it aligns to the agreed definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichInSydney (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Locations Distances

Does anyone know who originally put the location distances to Melbourne, Brisbane etc. in the info box. As far as i know the distances should be by road instead of by flying. I mean why would you want to check the distance 'as the crow flies.' I asked this in wikipedia help and they agree road distance is the way to go. If someone cant give me a reason, i'll change it within a week. Anyway the road distance is used in most other towns. Roadrunnerz45 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to refer to straight line distance, there are too many variations with roads and stuff. And when referring to the locations distance from each other in a geographical sense you usually use straight line distance, Wikipedia is not a map book. 58.165.193.202 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How come it doesn't have the distance from Hobart? Shadoom 21:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As Roadrunnerz45 has said, the convention is to use road distances. It's also easier for most people to determine road distances than it is to determine direct distances, especially if you use travelmate.com.au which is accurate and is one of the sites recommended by Template:Infobox Australian Place.

There is no distance to Hobart because the template only supports distances to 5 locations and so I chose 5 mainland capital cities since Hobart is not easy to drive to. --AussieLegend 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

GA delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of December 7,

2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.

Regards, Epbr123 18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that you have followed points 2, 3, or 4 of the WP:GAR procedure. --Merbabu 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Migrants

where are the citations for certain migrant groups being associated with certain suburbs. I disagree with some of them. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They are missing and as such that section should be wiped clean. It's one of the most heavily edited sections with constant addition and removal of various ethnicity/suburb combinations. Feel free to clean it up and add some references. --Stephen 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove it completely! It would be good to replace it with some sourced info of the demographics in different areas of Sydney, eventually, but at the moment it is a blight on the whole article. JPD (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Some ethnic groups are associated with the suburbs where they first settled: the Italians with Leichhardt, Haberfield, Five Dock; Indonesians in Tempe, Kingsford and Marrickville; Greeks with Earlwood, Marrickville and Brighton-Le-Sands; Portuguese with Petersham; Lebanese with Lakemba and Bankstown; Koreans with Campsie and Strathfield and Eastwood; ethnic Macedonians with Rockdale; Irish and New Zealanders with Bondi; Jews with Bondi, Waverley, St Ives and Rose Bay; Indians with Westmead and, Parramatta, Homebush and North Strathfield; Chinese with Hurstville, Chatswood, Ashfield, Eastwood, Bankstown, Burwood and Haymarket (location of Sydney's Chinatown); Armenians with Ryde and Willoughby, and Chatswood; Serbs, Indians and Italians with Liverpool; Turks with Auburn; Filipinos with Blacktown, Merrylands, New South Wales and Mount Druitt; Vietnamese with Cabramatta; Assyrians with Fairfield, and Croatians with Edensor Park. Most often, ethnic groups are attracted by a common establishment, most often a place of worship or a local club, such as the mosques in Tempe and Lakemba.

No Fighting Guys

From reading this page and the Sydney article, it seems like Sydneysiders and Melburnians are 'fighting' for some reason. No town is better, they are the same, full of Australians and that's what we all are..Australian. --58.107.166.154 (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

full of australians? haha, full of international people as well you know. ;)(Goodcapcay (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Too Many CBD Pictures

I personally think this article has too many pictures of the CBD. There's eight pictures, plus two panoramas! I think people sort of "get the point" after one or two pictures, if you know what I mean. While the pictures are nice and all, they would belong better in a gallery of some sort, linked at the bottom of the page, as opposed to the article itself.

What I have against this is that I feel as if this doesn't give people a very good image about the entirety of Sydney. There's not a single picture of a scene from any of the suburbs. Wouldn't it be good if people from all over the world could get an idea about what Sydney's suburbia is like - not just the CBD? Even if it's just two pictures.

For example, if you don't know too much about Sydney are are doing a bit of research, I'm sure you'd like to have some suburban photos presented to you as well. Or maybe if you're looking to move to Sydney, some pictures of the suburbs would be nice too. Unless, of course, you're some multi-millionaire snob who'll be going straight to a residency in the CBD itself... :|

Anyway, just what I think. Sydney isn't just a big CBD - there's other stuff too! :)

203.122.108.171 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear Hear! JPD (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly looking for condolences! :P Anyway, maybe I'll have to do the work myself one day... :|

203.122.108.171 (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at commons:Sydney for any suitable pictures and be as bold as you wish. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

link to Sydney videos not allowed?

Hi there,

I would liek to get your opinion about external links for Sydney.

I recently added a link to a video site which shows recent videos of Sydney harbour bridge and opera house in very good quality, and is updated several times a day.

Have a look at yourself:

http://www.earthtv.com/en/location/sydney

I considered this as an interesting resource for someone who is interested in Sydney.

The website is free to use, has no advertisment on it, so I consider it' OK by the guidelines of Wikipedia concerning external linking.

However, this link has been removed by one of the editors, and I don't understand why.

I would like to get your opinion on this - thanks!

Contribute te (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the first things the guidelines say is that "Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful." The fact that a site has good quality videos might make it a nice site, but it doesn't really make it particularly relevant and helpful. In fact, it looks like the link is only being added in order to promote the site, something the guidelines instruct us to avoid. The site may not be promoting any other product, but it is still generally considered spam to use Wikipedia to promote a website. JPD (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a few other links in there should be pruned for the same reason. Contribute te, thanks for taking the time to bring it up here instead of edit warring, but in general, external links should come with a rationale stronger than "they're interesting". Obviously, we couldn't include all such sites. Ben (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Flags representing people country of origin

The flags representing foreign-born people don't serve any purpose and might even be insulting for some of the people the flags are supposed to represent. First of all, they no longer live there, and they might have left that country precisely because they disagree with the government represented by that flag. Secondly, they might have left the country before the government represented by that flag came into being. DHN (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I say get rid of them. They don't add value and are just annoying even aside from the insult/political issues you mention. See WP:FLAGCRUFT. How are they useful, rather than just decorative and to some "cute"?--Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Flags identify countries, not the people from them. In this and the Melbourne article they are used to visually identify the country of birth of the residents. Whether or not the display of a particular flag is insulting to anyone should not be an issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and maintains a neutral point of view. To delete flag icons because they may offend someone is not NPOV because it gives undue weight to one opinion and is therefore not appropriate. Similarly, the fact that somebody may have left a particular country before the flag changed is also not an issue. The flag is used to represent the country and the official flag should be used. WP:FLAGCRUFT quite clearly states

Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once.

Since the flags do exactly what the quote says, there seems to be a quite valid justification for using them in this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Although personally I don't see any major POV issues, how exactly are these of value? As your quoted section says: may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand. Well, in diascussing Sydney, I don't think citizenship is intimately linked at all - aren't we saying they are Australian. Again, what benefit do they provide? --Merbabu (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship isn't the issue. The nationality of origin is what is relevant and it is most definitely intimately tied to to that section. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of the people from Vietnam actually had their citizenship rescinded for political reasons. Secondly, the people were mostly not born under that flag. Same goes for the Serb and Croatian flag. Most of them were born under the Yugoslavia flag. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended either btw. Each time I watch the news or a documentary and I see what I regard as a despot spouting nonsense or propaganda I just shake my head and laugh. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, whether or not they were born under that flag is not relevant. They were born in Vietnam and the official flag of Vietnam is the red flag with the yellow star. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You would have a point except that Vietnam was two countries when they were born. Vice versa, a lot of the people tagged as Croatian or Serbian were born under Yugoslavia and not the separate states. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I still have a point and you don't know when these people were born. The source for the data provided in the tables provides country of origin and year of arrival information. It doesn't say what part of the country they were born in or when they were born. It just says taht they came from Vietnam. Serbia, Croatia and Yugolsavia aren't relevant to this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I always think of Sohn Kee-chung when these issues arise. Secondly, just because the flags can be justified, doesn't mean they need to be used. Personally, I think the flags add little and given they are likely to offend, creating more heat than light, I am for removing them. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from one dissenter, the consensus seems to be "remove". The way I see it, the one reason offered for inclusion is that they aren't POV/offensive which is debated, while no actual benefit for inclusion has been included. --Merbabu (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's presumptuous to assert consensus given some of the rather weak reasons used to justify removal:

• The flags are of no value - WP:FLAGCRUFT states that Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists. There's the value right there in black and white.
• The flags represent people - No, they represent countries.
• They might offend people - That's not WP:NPOV.
• The people represented by the flag might have left the country before the flag was changed - The flags represent countries, not people. Assuming that people left before the flag changed is WP:OR. The source data simply says that they originated from Vietnam. We have to work with that and not introduce personal assumptions, most notably because of WP:V and WP:OR. And, since the official flag of Vietnam is the red flag with yellow star we're forced to use that.
• Use is FLAGCRUFT - No, WP:FLAGCRUFT specifically justifies a reason for using the flags that is valid within the scope of this article.
• Citizenship isn't intimately linked to the article - Citizenship is irrelevant. The reasons at WP:FLAGCRUFT include nationality and that is intimately tied to the article.
• Some people from Vietnam had their citizenship rescinded for political reasons - Not relevant and to take this into account is not NPOV.
• Most of the people weren't born under the Vietnamese flag - WP:OR The source data says nothing about birth date.
• Vietnam was two countries when the people were born - WP:OR The source data says nothing about birth date.

Remember, consensus is not a case of "majority rules" and one of the outcomes of a discussion such as this is that we need to maintain a neutral point of view. Given the recent edit history[1][2][3], the fact that a number of the arguments used here specifically relate to the use of the official Vietnamese flag instead of the old South Vietnamese flag and that there has been no mention of any other country in the table, I strongly suspect that the main reason for the removal of these flags in toto is to ensure the official Vietnamese flag is not used to represent Vietnam and that is certainly not NPOV. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus is not majority rule" and "the status quo should thus remain" in my experience is quickly brought out by one, at most two, individuals who digging there heals in on an issue. POV and the Vietnam case are all red herrings and irrelevant. Quoting "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists" still doesn't tell explain how it helps.

:I suggest they be removed but will will wait for more opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Adherence to WP:NPOV isn't a red herring or irrelevant. It's an important Wikipedia policy. The flags were added to the article on 22 October 2007 and many editors have edited the article since then. It seems more than a coincidence that there have been no issues with the flags until now and it was only after two failed attempts to replace the Vietnamese flag with the South Vietnamese flag that a decision to remove all of the flags occurred. I think the Vietnamese issue is very relevant, especially since it keeps coming up in the arguments supporting removal. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say Adherence to WP:NPOV isn't a red herring or irrelevant.? - putting words in people's mouths is a serious failure in ability to collaborate and achieve consensus. Please cease.

You still haven't (despite 1/2 dozen requests) explained how they help this article that they are so important. --Merbabu (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You said "POV and the Vietnam case are all red herrings and irrelevant." Since POV and NPOV are intimately linked, how is that putting words in your mouth? Regarding the reason for retaining the flags, I have already addressed that, both above and below. You earlier asked how the flags were of value and in the same post questioned how citizenship was relevant. In response to both I pointed out that citizenship wasn't the issue, nationality was. That was 3 days ago. Perhaps you can identify the other 5 times I was asked because I can't see them. I did elaborate on my reasons in my response to Mattinbgn earlier today. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with your proposal is that it confuses two distinct concepts, ethnicity and nationality. Many of the Vietnamese in Australia are certainly of Vietnamese ethnicity but not now or ever citizens of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and it seems strange to me that their flag should be used to represent them. Another case that may make the difference clearer. I met a person the other week who had an interesting background. He was born in what was Yugoslavia and was part of a reasonably large Hungarian minority in the northern part of Serbia. What flag would represent him. He spoke Hungarian, took part in Hungarian cultural activities and self-identified as Hungarian-Australian. What flag would represent him, the Yugoslavian flag he was born under, the Serbian flag, the successor state of his birthplace or the Hungarian flag, a country he was not born in or ever a citizen of? Flags represent nations, the statistics in the article represent ethnicities and the two are not the same. It seems a strange view of WP:NPOV to say that flags, that are totally unnecessary, borderline WP:FLAGCRUFT and not appropriate must be included, especially when the communities in question do not recognise those flags. Lastly, you should assume good faith rather than characterising opporsition as "I strongly suspect that the main reason for the removal of these flags in toto is to ensure the official Vietnamese flag is not used to represent Vietnam". I am not Vietnamese and my main reason for getting rid of the flags is that they are inappropriate flagcruft. I could ask why you are so determined to keep them. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out more than once, the flags represent countries, not people. In this case they represent the country of origin of immigrants living in Sydney. The source data identifies the origin as Vietnam so it's entirely appropriate to use the current official flag of Vietnam, just as we use the current Australian flag to represent a number of Australians even if some of that number lived in Australia before Federation. As for assuming good faith, I have done that but the majority of arguments supporting removal of flags specifically relate to Vietnam vs South Vietnam so there seems to be a very strong case for my suspicions. My reason for retaining the flags is that I think they do add to the article. Face it, articles are full of things that make them visually appealing. If they didn't, very few people would take time to read them. I believe the flags enhance the article by improving readability, just like all the photos and maps do. I will not deny, however, that my concern that the removal of the flags is a way of getting around WP:NPOV is also a factor. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see several arguments for removing the flags as flagcruft:

• The article is about an Australian city, so flags of other countries are not intimately related to the article topic.
• The section under discussion is about foreign-born Australians in relation to their current residence in Sydney. That is, it's about people of Sydney who happen to be born abroad, not foreigners who happen to reside in Sydney.
• Not for use in locations of birth and death: flags should not be overused to indicate birth locations, since it might imply citizenship to the casual reader.

DHN (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• The section in question is about the origin of people living in Sydney so other countries and their flags are intimately linked to the section which is a sub-topic of the article and thereferore they are intimately linked to the topic.
• The section does not restrict itself to foreign-born Australians. It is about residents of Sydney, which may include non-citizens. The source data does not restrict itself either.
• Not for use in locations of birth and death specifically refers to "the use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox". This is not a biographical article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  The defining characteristics of these people (in the context of this article) are that they live in Sydney, not that they were born abroad. DHN (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why even mention ancestry at all? That would eliminate 47.5% of the prose, an image and a table, all of which adds up to well over half of that section. Where they live now and where they were born are equally important. They are both the defining characteristics of the people referred to in the section. (in the context of this article) --AussieLegend (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion the flags don't add anything, and are going to be a constant source of friction, as per the Vietnam example. Let's face it, to be useful they would have to be more recognisable than the English name for the countries concerned, which is very unlikely. Otherwise they are just a piece of decoration. Keep them out. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

statement on MTV

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

nope. --Merbabu (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Agree. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sydney and Global Cities

There seems to be some desire to remove text about this topic. It is not about pride or a show of 'peacock' feathers - since being a Global City is a double-edged sword in many ways and not necessarily something to be proud of. HOwever, the link is useful for those wishing to understand a city like Sydney in its broader economic-geogprahical context, which is surely the point of an encyclopedia article? Eyedubya (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only sourced info that has been given about Sydney's global status was already mentioned in the inrtoduction. The material which you added was vague and unsourced, and so was duplicating what we already had in a less helpful manner. (By the way, while I did not use the term myself, WP:PEACOCK refers to simply stating something's importance without more helpful details.) JPD (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad that's sorted then. Thanks for explaining peacock. Eyedubya (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Busiest" airport

"The main airport serving Sydney, Kingsford Smith International Airport, is the busiest airport in Oceania" is subjective. Kingsford Smith is the busiest airport in Australia in terms of passenger movements but Bankstown is busier in terms of aircraft movements.[4] "The main airport serving Sydney, Kingsford Smith International Airport, is one of the busiest airports in Oceania" is less controversial and more objective. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally embarrassing

I read this article on Sydney straight after reading the one on Toronto, Canada, and I have to say I am embarrassed. The Sydney article reads like something you would find in a project done on cardboard from a kid in sixth class. So the opera company are the 'busiest'? Does that mean they perform a lot or just keep themselves occupied knitting? This is one example of strange and ambiguous statements littered throughout this article. It also has a defensive tone which seems to want to point out that Sydney is the 'biggest' of everything in Australia. I live in Sydney, by the way, so this isn't a Sydney/Melbourne thing. It's quite the opposite. Surely the city deserves a better Wiki entry than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.64.177 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Mattinbgn\^talk 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve tried to address some of these issues over the last 2 years, but if one is not vigilant – and even if one is vigilant - the problem with these “local articles” is that the fan boys always creap back in with their crud. “biggest”, “major centre of”, “famous for”, blah, blah.

As for the quality of similar overseas articles, I cannot explain it definitively. I do feel though that 18mths to 2 years ago this (and the Australia article) was being watched over by a much larger group of serious encyclopedia articles. Now there largely seems to be band of tourist magazine and fan boy editors.

There are some good editors still hanging around - maybe they or myself can give it a good copy edit over the coming weekend. --Merbabu (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been my experience that Australian geographical articles suffer from ownership problems, which has put me off having much to do with them editing-wise. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Population by area does not match population density

I don't know which one is wrong, so if someone could check the facts and correct this. Perhaps Sydney has a 300 something people/km2 or it has a smaller area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.241.73 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The density figure looks correct for Sydney's urban area and the area figure looks correct for the statisitical division so they're both correct, the problem is they represent two different things. It would be best to have the area and population density of both, but if only one set of figures is used they should be for the same statistical concept. - Aucitypops (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the 'national' level here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia#Capital City Population Density. --AtD (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

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

Sister cities

Where are the sister cities? Lady Galaxy 06:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See City of Sydney - maybe you've highlighted that this needs to be better linked. --Merbabu (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Climate

One editor keeps insisting that Sydney has a subtropical climate and seems to have added two citations. The BOM Australian climate citation seems to be broken which indicated that Sydney has a temperate climate. My understanding is that Sydney continues to be officially classified as temperate however as the tropical zones expand, the climate continues to lean more toward subtropical. How should we handle this? Mvjs (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was always taught at school that Sydney had a subtropical climate. Certainly Sydney has climatic features one does not find in temperate cities such as Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Orderinchaos 03:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sydney is definitely humid subtropical. It is Köppen Cfa as seen on this map http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pdf/kottek_et_al_2006_A1.pdf . So, why don't we change it to say humid subtropical? I have been trying to do it, but it seems I an in disagreement with another editor who insists that it is oceanic. As of now, we have just settled on saying temperate climate, but I think that in order to be more specific, we should say humid subtropical. Any thoughts?? sbrown146 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1, that map is low resolution (even if it's in a PDF file and is the only source to support you), 2, at least 3 of the 4 sources supports that Sydney is temperate including 2 sources from the Federal Government. There is also another Bureau of Meteorology source which I can't use (since I can't find it ATM) stating that the Subtropics ends about Mid-North Coast and the Hunter. Bidgee (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where the Oceanic part slipped in but it's fine now since that's has been removed. I would tend to trust the Bureau of Meteorology more than some Austrian organisation. While there seems to be some ambiguity surrounding this, we should most definitely go with the most reliable source on this matter, the Bureau of Meteorology. MvjsTalking 05:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I need to explain something about the Köppen Climate Classification. A humid subtropical climate is a TYPE OF temperate climate. If you take a look at the article on the Koppen system, you will understand this. So, just labeling Sydney's climate as just "temperate" is both insufficient and is an understatement. Temperate is far too broad to use to label a city's climate. That's the advantage of the Köppen system. It subdivides temperate climates by degree of summer heat and seasonability of precipitation. Furthermore, the Köppen system is virtually the only system used on wikipedia for classifying climates of cities. By using the definitions of humid subtropical and the weather averages displayed on the Koppen article, you can see that Sydney fits the criteria for Cfa, which is in fact humid subtropical. In addition, the PDF map that I'm using is from an extremely reliable source and the resolution is the best you'll ever find for such a map (0.5 degree lat/lon). For these reasons, I believe we should further classify Sydney's temperate climate as humid subtropical. sbrown146 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So? I've found reliable sources and used them. Maybe it is too broad but it's not up to us to add what our feelings of the climate are it's up to us to reliably source information and the Bureau of Meteorology and Australian Bureau of Statistics are very reliable. The PDF is not reliable as it's low res and doesn't even have what it's information is sourced from. Bidgee (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my source is no less reliable than yours. sbrown146 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's even less reliable now. Australian climate zones - major classification groups (based on the Köppen classification) - Bureau of Meteorology. Bidgee (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The PDF is of excellent resolution. 0.5 degree lat/lon is a great resolution. And I have additional source info on hand that I can add to the ref. And that map you just showed is based on a modified version of the Koppen system, not the actual Koppen system itself. That map contradicts itself anyway, because again, subtropical is a type of temperate climate, yet your map shows them as two separate zones. That doesn't make sense. sbrown146 (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Take the issue up with the Bureau of Meteorology. Bidgee (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You take the issue up with the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna sbrown146 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your POV. Bureau of Meteorology is more reliable for Australia's weather and climate data then the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna. Again if you feel that the BoM has it wrong contact them. Bidgee (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not my POV. I'm just giving the facts. I said that ACCORDING TO THE KOPPEN SYSTEM, not according to me, that Sydney is humid subtropical. And that's a fact. So, let's say that according to the Koppen system, Sydney is humid subtropical, and we can also mention that the Australian BoM classifies it as simply temperate. This situation is not really a contradiction of refs, but rather two alternate ways of classifying the climate. Perhaps we should mention both in the article. sbrown146 (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No POV? neither one of your sources says oceanic climate, my source actually supports my claim :-P not POV pushing? Adding two classification would be a contradiction. Also were is this other source that you were talking about? Bidgee (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pushing POV anymore than you are. And no, it would not be a contradiction to mention both temperate and humid subtropical, because they are obviously two separate methods of classifying Sydney's climate. It wouldn't be fair to use only temperate to classify Sydney's climate. Let's compromise and mention both in the article. sbrown146 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no way pushing a POV on a low res PDF map nor any other POV. I have and as have the BOM seen the low res PDF map but don't use it as it's unreliable. The sourced info in the article and the new source very reliable. Bidgee (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to judge the PDF as unreliable? For the last time, it's not low res, and it is perfectly accurate...it came from a university and was obviously made by people who knew what they were doing. Again, it would only be fair to mention both classifications in the article. sbrown146 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1, look at the map and note the pixalization which the BoM's maps and File:World Koppen Map.jpg don't have. 2, Australian Government sources are more reliable then an oversea's org (other then WMO) and 3, The Uni is a Veterinary University. Bidgee (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1, the PDF's pixelization still allows it to be accurate enough to classify Sydney as Cfa. And thanks for adding another ref for me to use to support the fact that Sydney is classified as Cfa, because the File:World Koppen Map.jpg shows that Sydney is Cfa. 2, And no, AUS gov't sources are not neccessarily more reliable, and 3, so what if it's a Veterinary Univ, that doesn't make it any less accurate....sbrown146 (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:World Koppen Map.jpg shows that Sydney is Cfb (only just however). Also there has been discussion about that map on the talk page of Köppen Climate Classification. Bidgee (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it shows Sydney as Cfa. I'm not sure that you're looking in the right place. And yeah, I know that that map has been under some discussion, which was why I was counting more on the PDF map. sbrown146 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, calling a temperate climate subtropical is misrepresenting the facts. If the Government-run and endorsed Bureau of Meteorology deems and calls the climate temperate, we should represent that in the article. MvjsTalking 09:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, calling a temperate climate subtropical is helpful. I don't know what climate system that the BoM uses, but they obviously do not use the Köppen system, which is what is used on nearly all Wikipedia geography pages. It would only be consistent to address the Köppen Classification of Sydney as well. I am okay with mentioning both on the page, so please compromise and don't be so closed-minded. I have two very accurate maps that show Sydney as humid subtropical. So, let's mention that the Köppen system labels the climate as humid subtropical, and also that the BoM labels it as temperate. sbrown146 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you leave the article in the consensus state until a new consensus can be achieved. I can not find one reliable source that specifically states that Sydney, Australia has a humid subtropical climate. The Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Bureau of Statistics and the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change specifically state that Sydney has a temperate climate. [5][6][7] Infact, every source I've found states that Sydney has a temperate climate. [8][9] Why should we go against this on the basis of a flimsy map from some Austrian organisation? If one can find a reliable source that specifically states that according to the Koppen system, Sydney has a humid subtropical climate, I could perhaps see that being mentioned after the official classification by the Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Bureau of Statistics and the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change. MvjsTalking 05:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support calling Sydney's climate as temperate. The BOM are staffed by people who know meterology better than anybody here. I would be certain that they would have considered using the Kloppen system, if they judged it worthwhile. Kransky (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that the Australian BoM is a reliable source, but I think that the universities that created the two maps that I used [10] [11] are also extremely reliable sources. However, I did manage to find several reliable sources that do say humid subtropical: [12][13] [14] [15]. So there are obviously some out there who would classify the climate as humid subtropical. I strongly support calling Sydney's climate both temperate and humid subtropical, since it is apparently a source of debate even among professionals. sbrown146 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the prospect of stating that Sydney has both a "temperate" climate and a "humid subtropical" climate, I think it going to cause more confusion than it alleviates. If there is a "debate among professionals" as Sbrown says there is, we shouldn't participate or exacerbate it. The two most credible and reliable organisations in Sydney's climate have spoken and we should listen wholeheartedly. MvjsTalking 23:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What I'm recommending is stating in the climate section that two separate sources classify Sydney's climate differently. For example, "organisation x classifies Sydney as humid subtropical and organisation y classifies it as temperate." I don't think that would be any more confusing, because it clearly shows that there is a debate among professionals, and would allow the reader to understand it better. And anyway, I did reliable sources that say humid subtropical, and you still insist that your sources are "more reliable". This is unfair, please, for the last time, just make a compromise and mention both. sbrown146 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't allow the reader to better understand it at all. Most people couldn't see how a climate can be both temperate and humid subtropical. Here's an analogy. Let's say the Australian Government had a page stating Australia's socioeconomic structure as capitalist. This is what was put in the Wikipedia article. However, one Austrian website had a PDF that stated that Australia was communist and one editor insisted that we should say in the article; "Australia is a capitalist society according to the Australian Government but under the Austrian socioecnomic system, Australia is communist" See my point? MvjsTalking 21:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your analogy, but it doesn't neccesarily apply here, because capitalism and communism are total opposites, while humid subtropical and temperate are very similar terms. sbrown146 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

One and two are similar terms but they're very different. MvjsTalking 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If we put that "Sydney has a temperate climate, specifically humid subtropical." and put your refs after the word climate and my refs after the word subtropical, that would allow readers to easily see that humid subtropical is a type of temperate climate. sbrown146 (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly see why that is necessary, especially if there's no source that draws the connection between the two. If it suffices for the Australian and New South Wales government's to call Sydney's climate temperate, I think it suffices for this article. As I've said before, this is going to cause more ambiguity than it alleviates. MvjsTalking 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well go to the Köppen Climate Classification page and it shows that the C group climates are temperate. It further subdivides it into humid subtropical climates (Cfa and Cwa). That shows that there is a connection between temperate and humid subtropical. I can cite the same source cited next to humid subtropical on wikipedia's Koppen article. sbrown146 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me towards that. I'm still concerned that this is going to create more ambiguity than it resolves. For example. take a look at the image on that page you pointed me to, File:Australia-climate-map MJC01.png. It clearly has Sydney in the blue temperate zone. The subtropical light green zone covers Brisbane and Perth. If they're in the clear subtropical zone and Sydney is not, how can Sydney be subtropical? There's so much ambiguity surrounding this - but there's one tried, true and tested definition of Sydney's climate that is accepted by all: temperate. Let's not create any more ambiguity on this issue. MvjsTalking 03:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right...It is very unclear as to whether Sydney is in the humid subtropical or maritime temperate. It appears to be borderline between the two. And I even checked its monthly averages and Sydney just barely fits the criteria for humid subtropical and is close to being maritime temperate. So yeah, I guess temperate is the best way to describe it for now. sbrown146 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to commons

Whoever deletes the links to commons galleries, please stop doing it. They are all relevant to this article and are more informative than most galleries. The commons-cat link presently provided doesn't cover a fraction of the galleries on Sydney subjects. One reason for having commons galleries is so that they can be linked to relevant articles like this one. So stop deleting them. Do I have to take this to mediation?

Sardaka (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How come does the Commons Sydney Architecture link has all of your images and no one else? I can see an WP:OWN issue both here and on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sardaka, have you tried to discuss this with anyone yet? It looks like this is your first post on this page. Before getting upset or going to dispute resolution, try working out a consensus with other editors here. There's probably a reason the category is getting removed, and it's probable someone is misunderstanding the other's position. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so making demands isn't going to get anyone very far. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sardaka wrote a fuming post on my talk page regarding this. As far as I can see, I changed the four galleries Sydney Architecture, Glebe, Woollahra and Campbelltown Heritage to the general Sydney commons cat. This happened once as far as I can see so I think suggesting mediation is a bit of an overreaction on Sardaka's part. For the last three, I cannot see any reason for them being there. They belong in their respective articles. Looking into it further than what I wrote on my talk page, I feel that Sydney Architecture belongs in Buildings and architecture of Sydney as the Sydney commons cat that is currently linked breaks off into other subcategories which cover these more specific things. If we link to Sydney Architecture (and forget about Sarkura's WP:OWN issue) then we should link to Hospitals in Sydney, Parks in Sydney, Transport in Sydney, Sydney Harbour, etc. There's literally dozens of categories we could link to but we don't. Mvjs (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Crime

What about putting crime level of sydney? (Goodcapcay (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

I am not sure one would be able to find a reliable source that provides information on crime rates which would be informative to readers (i.e. one could state a rate which sounds high or low which can't easily be compared by readers to other cities or locations). Orderinchaos 04:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sydney city proper population

Why is not there a Sydney city proper population figure in this article and the included infobox? They are present in the articles about major cities of most other developed countries, so why not here? It would provide extra detail and is a standard sort of measure with respect to cities.

All articles about the major Australian cities (i.e. state capitals and Canberra) should have this breakdown of city proper population and metropolitan area population. Why don't we get a move on? {note: I have also raised this issue here: Template talk:Infobox Australian Place#City proper/metropolitan area population breakdown for cities} —NobleTripTrip (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The "city proper" population is listed on the City of Sydney article and that is the case for Melbourne as well. I don't think it is necessary to list the "city proper" population in the infobox. The article refers to the entire greater/metropolitan area and so should the infobox. MvjsTalking 05:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How would one define the "city proper"? It's easy in places like NYC where there are no suburbs in the city as such. In Perth we can't even agree on what constitutes the "city centre", there are 4 or 5 competing definitions. Orderinchaos 06:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A good place to start is the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which uses statistical areas and various sub-divisions. "Urban Centre / Localities" are based on contiguous densities could be used, but do not relate to city limits. Kransky (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox pic is clumsily photoshopped

Hey guys, look between the Opera House's sails, do you see where something has been painted out using a shade mismatched to the sky? The originator probably thought a building there ruined the line of the sails, unfortunately the photoshopping stands out like a sore thumb once you notice it, even in thumbnail. I think this image should be replaced, seeing it's technically not a faithful illustration of the city skyline. Since I noticed it I can't look at the infobox without cringing. - Aucitypops (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)