Talk:Sydney/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Climate (again)

Under this reference material Sydney is considered to be in the Humid subtropical climate zone (Cfa) This is an academic paper and the map is very clear. To say pointing to it is OR because "Sydney isn't marked" is ludicrous. Citing government-generated promotional material is less reliable (not to mention non-academic). Koppenlady (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To call BoM releases "government-generated promotional material" is a little over-the-top don't you think? For better or worse the BoM has the most comprehensive coverage of weather and climate in Australia. I see no reason to cast aspersions on their professionalism or integrity. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

agree with matt here. I also suggest it's a little trivial. Facts speak louder than categories or labels. --Merbabu (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

People, I cannot understand this aversion to citing the universally accepted (albeit flawed) Koeppen system. Every square metre of earth falls under one of the categories and Sydney is no exception. Sydney's is Cfa and any schoolbook climate map will attest to that. Why can you not accept a statement to that effect? I agree "facts speak louder than categories" but that statement is a non-sequitor: in this case the category is also a fact. It allows a reader to associate Sydney's climate to other similar zones in a tangible way. By the way, let's stay focussed- my comment about promotional material was really about the "CLIMATE AND THE SYDNEY 2000 OLYMPIC GAMES" citation, not the BoM (Incedently, all three cites go back to the same source- the BoM- so they are quite redundant actually). On another note, the BoM is mostly about weather patterns and historical data, not classifications. There is no reason they should compete or trump each other. Also, to call it trivial is both insulting and demeaning. That is only your opinion. :-P Koppenlady (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunmore_Lang_College

"Dunmore Lang College is a residential college of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia."

FYI Ikip (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over importance of 'fashion', etc

Hi folks, please desist from edit warring over the matter and discuss it here. I should also remind everyone of the 3 revert rule; if necessary the article will be semi/fully protected. Edit warring is disruptive and ultimately, it's unproductive to carry out the discussion in edit summaries. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know (as you no doubt have too), that an anon blank edit summary reverter is not really the type to engage in a civil and collaborative talk page discussion. Rather, the onus seems to be on us "respectable" long time registered users to toe the line. If this is as I suspect User:Jackp who was banned for his "incessant cluelessness" then I'm wasting my time discussing, as I am trying to explain to a new user. I guess you can understand the frustration. But thanks for the temporary block. :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

Now, let's not get nasty about this. I've made a number of invisible comments. Legendperson, do not remove them without fixing the issue or discussing it here.

Go have a look at image usage policy again, please. Tony (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment that I deleted indicated only that you hadn't heard the term "Metroad". It didn't offer or request anything beyond that. As such it's a rather pointless thing to include in the article, which is why I deleted it. If you're ignorant of a common term, placing a comment in an article is not the way to announce it. Ask on the talk page. As for image policies, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size says, "As a rule images should not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides this default), but see the Manual of Style for exceptions." After reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images I didn't see any reason for overriding the default. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie legends comments about the images and about metroad. But I am glad that Tony has skimmed thru the article and made the other changes. It needs a lot more. The article has degenerated (death by a 1000 minor edits?) from a once high quality. It rambles on with trivia, it is dominated by pics from people more interested in showcasing their images than providing relevant and agreeable pics (although I had a go at partially rectifying that last night), it's full off "Sydney is the biggest, best, world centre of, blah, blah..." and the level of overal coherency is low. It was once both officially and realistically a "good article". Apart from pic sizes (he he) I hope Tony can have another go and be bold in fixing up - even if it is limited to fluff removal and adding cite tags. --Merbabu (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Other than the image sizes and that single comment, the edits made by Tony were definite improvements. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've now called me "ignorant" twice. If you do it again, EVER, I will file an ANI complaint. Tony (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, since you last comment doesn't actually deal with the article, I've put my response to it on your talk page. Would be nice to see you doing further work on the article. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What I said above: it's a promise. Tony (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Merbabu made the point so eloquently on your talk page[1] I see no point adding anything other than to point out that I did not call you ignorant. I said you were ignorant of a term. That is not abuse and I'd ask you to be more civil and not make threats. It's hard to collaborate if you're going to do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• You know very well you were insulting me. I'm not falling for that. Tony (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know that. I was simply deleting a pointless comment. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And taking the opportunity to label me as "ignorant" in your edit summary, and here. Tony (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And no, it wasn't a "pointless comment"—yet another slight against me. I google "Sydney + metlink", and I get things like: "I have made a map of the CityRail network in the 'Metlink' style, used in Melbourne."Tony (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the definition of ignorant. You clearly have a misunderstanding of what it means. Saying that someone is "ignorant of something" is not an insult. It just means that they are "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact". In this case, you are lacking knowledge of the use of "Metroad" and had you googled "Sydney + metroad" instead of "Sydney + metlink you would have seen a far different result.[2][3][4] It helps when you use the correct terms. "Metlink" is not even referred to in the article. And yes, the comment was pointless. As I've indicated previously, it offered no alternative or suggestion. It just stated that you'd never heard of the term. It certainly didn't say that it needed fixing. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not post offensive messages such as this on my talk page:

As far as I'm aware there is nothing to preclude using hyphens in filenames. Regardless, you should always check edits as you make them. I most certainly did not introduce errors into the table. I copied and pasted the table that was in the article before you screwed it up. If there were errors in the table, they existed before either of us edited. You should really try just accepting your mistakes when they're pointed out, rather than making baseless allegations about other editors in a vain attempt to try to deflect from those errors.

You reintroduced hyphens for minus temperatures back into the table. You are not welcome on my talk page. Never post there again. Tony (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gents - this is dragging on, and I really don't hold high hopes for much benefit coming out of it. It's an article talk page. Let's move along. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What I wrote on Tony's talk page about the Melbourne article has absolutely no relevance here. Can we please stick to what is relevant to this article? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref improve tag

With 106 citations, I'm not sure that a general tag is that useful, rather wouldn't a cn or fact tag against specific info be more practical and useful? --Merbabu (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Does Sydney have any Sister Cities? Portillo (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does.[5] --AussieLegend (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial question/issue with this article. Please note: this article Sydney is about the greater Sydney metro area. There is another article about the much smaller local government area at the centre of the Sydney Metro area – ie, City of Sydney. The sister city relationships are formally with the City of Sydney, and not Sydney. Thus, on wikipedia they are mentioned in the City of Sydney article, and not this Sydney article. Perhaps they *should* be mentioned here, but with the clear note that the relationship is actually with the City of Sydney. What do you think? --Merbabu (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As long as its mentioned somewhere. Portillo (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fashion capital?

This reference is not translating reality. Melbourne is the undisputed capital of fashion in Australia and is considered one of the major centres for fashion in the world. Nick carson (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There's a relevant deletion discussion here, input would be greatly appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary of Sydney

As some people watching this page may know, there is a project recently launched called the Dictionary of Sydney. It is the official digital encyclopedia of the Sydney region, funded by the Australian Research Council. Now, I used to work there and therefore have a CoI but I nevertheless think that the Dictionary would be a good thing to link to from the external links on this page. I've made a lengthy blogpost setting out the reasons why the two projects can work well together - not the least of which is that most of the articles there are cc-by-sa - http://www.wittylama.com/2009/12/dictionary-of-sydney/ . I would suggest that the Dictionary's frontpage be linked from this article, and the Dictionary's various articles about Sydney's suburbs be linked from WP's respective articles. What do you think? Witty Lama 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture changes

I changed the picture. Sorry if I am not supposed to edit that. It was a nice picture but too big and needed something simpler. Bookscale (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Density

I also noticed this on Melbourne's page, but in the infobox, the density figures don't match up with the population and area figures. Exactly how are you guys measuring the density, using the statistical metropolitan area or the urbanized area measurement? This needs to be made much more clear, and even then the density number seems high. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what is going on here?! Using the population and area numbers, the density comes to about 370/km2. And by multiplying the density by the area, you get a population of just under 25 million! Something's amiss... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.33.227.18 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

James Cook

"In 1770, British sea Captain Lieutenant James Cook landed in Botany Bay on the Kurnell Peninsula."

Should this not be "Lieutenant (later Captain) James Cook" given he did not become Captain until 1775? Pádraig Coogan (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have a historical town hall image?

Maybe I should have discussed it before changing, but to me outside of the history section I don't see why the image shouldn't be contemporary, especially when there are newer one's available.

So, I changed it, and it got reverted back almost instantly. No problem, just curious as to why an older image would be preferred. EDIT: Has been reverted back, unless an edit war starts (unlikely), there's no point continuing this discussion I guess (One of many discussions started by me that never goes anywhere). Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:47, 26 August 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)

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 Wikipedia 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.[6] --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, Wikipedia is not Travel Wiki nor is it a brochure for tourism. I've not seen one encyclopaedia (excuding Wikipedia) 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.

An example using free images

Wirrawee Cinema

Turner Bros Holden

Wirrawee Bakery

Shearers Hotel

Central Motel & Cafe

Bendigo Bank

Wirrawee main street sets in King Street, Raymond Terrace

Examples of some of the sea life that inhabits Port Stephens

Pineapplefish

Passion Flower feather star

Saw-tooth Moray Eel

White's Seahorse

Crested Horn Shark

Eastern Fiddler Ray

Media related to Port Stephens Flora and Fauna at Wikimedia Commons

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)

Media

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. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.213.53 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The content seems non-notable. Perhaps that's why he deleted it. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So both media types have newspaper articles that support their notability, why does FM and AM radio seem to get a free unchallenged ride, as the issue of internet radio seems to face the speedy deletion brick wall. I would state that newspapers like The Age and St George Leader would be publications of well established standing, both of which have noted several articles on 2PR FM. I'm quite sure if I dug further, I could find material on NetFM, but rather then someone checking out these sources it seems the lazy way to go is to just delete? Again, it seems that someone from an opposing media group has got sour grapes? So in this issue, where is the neutral standing of wikipedia? This is not trying to be smart, but genuine questions about wikipedia itself, and some rather stroppy deletionists that want to assert their authority. 122.104.213.53 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you assume good faith! Fact is I do not work for any media outlet or organisation, I'm any anti against any media outlet or organisation, I treat all media outlet or organisation in the same way. Also it is up to you (who is adding the content) find and cite sources and established why it is notable. Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to establish notability. It's not hard to get newspaper article coverage, significant coverage is a different issue. AM/FM radio stations are real radio stations; anyone can start an internet radio station. It's really no different to setting up a webcam. We don't call people using webcams TV stations. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I find the parallels you draw between an internet radio station and anyone starting a webcam as an incorrect and ignorant generalisation. By your statement above, you insinuate that all web-radio stations are simple easy operations that require no effort. Like any operationk there are the amatuers and the professionals. You are partially right to note that many internet stations are operated by anyone, however to generalise all internet stations as being amateur is wrong, just rather straight to the point repulsive. May I suggest before you come out with such outlandish remarks in relation to webcams and stations, that you do your research. Your trying to draw parallels between an ebay store seller, and FishPond (australian equivalent to amazon). It just comes out sounding strange. This brings me back to my original question. The two stations in question are real stations that have been around for ten years, why is the notability of the sources in question, even though they are from notable publications, over the free ride that AM FM stations have? 122.104.213.53 (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can start a internet radio station, AM/FM radio is a different matter. Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee is quite correct. Starting an internet "radio" station is something that takes no effort at all. Been there, done that. As a matter of fact I've been doing it on actual radio frequencies since about 1981. I've even transmitted television, but I was never a TV station. I've bounced signals off the moon, but I'm not NASA either. And, for that matter, I've probably had more news coverage locally, nationally and internationally than the radio station you're talking about. None of this passes WP:GNG though, despite also being mentioned in Wikipedia articles, and I'm happy with that. The point is, there is a lot more to establishing a real radio station than an internet one. Technically, "radio" can't be used when referring to the internet, since the source is not radio. Neither of the stations you refer to seem to pass WP:GNG which requires "significant" coverage. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

May I request for this discussion to be please deleted, this discussion is going nowhere. Obviously they are two very strong opposing views in this discussion with no solution being sorted, There seems to be no good faith here, just total rock hard resistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.213.53 (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what assuming good faith is. To assume good faith means to assume that your reverted edits were done with the best intentions. It doesn't mean an editor should go "Well, someone wants to add it, let's just let them". Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Population

I know this does not just relate to Sydney but I was getting no responses on the Australian Cities talk page. In cities there are 2 populations one urban and one metropolitan- shouldnt both populations be listed in the info bar in each cities article ie

Sydney Metro 4.5m Urban 3.5m

they do it for most cities accross the world in wiki but never any aussie ones! Why?--Luke193 (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It would need an in-place definition. I certainly don't know the difference between "Metro" and "Urban". HiLo48 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

From the article on metroplitan area: "A metropolitan area is a region consisting of a populous urban core with a high density of employment plus surrounding territory that is socio-economically linked to the urban core by commuting".

The Urban Area article didn't have what I'd consider a clear explanation, but I think it is the continuous built up area of a city (which may refer to s small part of the city, or extend beyond its borders).

I don't think if included the definition would have to be stated, no other article with them explains the difference. Anoldtreeok (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Population information used in Australian articles is sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics so the ABS definition is what is relevant, not Wikipedia's definition. Unfortunately the ABS doesn't define metropolitan areas,[7] so that information isn't available. We use the populations of Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts, areas that are defined, for cities. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why dont we include the LGA population then or statistical div population, just about every other city in the world has them included but for some reason never aussie ones--Luke193 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've indicated, we do used the Statistical Division populations. LGA populations are, not surprisingly, in the LGA articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

SO im confused, are you agreeing with me? Check that Australian Cities article, whatever that second population is, it should be put alongside the metro or urban (whatever is there) population just like the rest of the world :) --Luke193 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A reason the Australian city articles are different to most others is because Australia defines cities differently (or doesn't at all maybe). In most other countries, Sydney wouldn't be considered a city, and would be considered multiple cities in one metropolitan area. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay that's pretty stupid then but thanks--Luke193 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not stupid, it's just different to what you are apparently used to. Agree that it's not comparable here. --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Sydney population density of 2058 Km2, based on a pop of 4504469 and an area of 12,145km2, doesn't compute, or am I missing something? Should be about 371 km2?218.185.78.211 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't add up for me either (but then again I'm no good at Maths), but the density shown here is sourced, and so will probably remain to be used. Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The area and population refer to the Sydney Statistical Division, which is an area about 3-4 times the size of the actual city of Sydney. I suspect the population density refers to the population density of Sydney itself, or possibly the Sydney UC/L. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The density is still smaller than 2058 per square kms for the 38 councils, even if you use the 4.5 million population. So if it's one of those it would be the second. The problem is there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition for cities in Australia, so a lot of information will always be disputable. I'm not fussed though what happens with the density, but I guess if we can find out what it refers to it would be good to put that in here. Or we could work it out ourselves, or does doing maths constitute as original research? Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The definition of a city varies from state to state but in New South Wales city limits are defined by LGA boundaries. This is why we have the odd silly situation like the city of Cessnock. It was Cessnock, New South Wales that was proclaimed a city but the entire LGA is now deemed to be part of the city even though most of the LGA is rural and not at all city like. The Local Government Act 1993 provides that only LGAs can be declared cities, although the City of Lake Macquarie LGA was proclaimed as a city in 1984 so the practice occurred before the 1993 Act was passed. Sydney is unique in that it is a city containing multiple LGAs so it should be possible to determine the Sydney boundaries. The problem is that the exact LGA list isn't written down anywhere. However, it seems to include the LGAs listed in the article, plus or minus Camden as discussed in Government. While it's a bit ORish, using these to determine the population density of Sydney should be appropriate, since it's never an accurate figure anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had a bit of time on my hands so I worked some things out:

The density for the whole Statistical division should be 370.9 (to 1 decimal place) as said at the start.

The 38 LGA's listed in the government section have an area of 3701.161km squared, and a population of 3,990,764. The density is therefore (assuming I've done the maths right and added it all together correctly) 1078.246528589272 per km squared.

I'm assuming the density here is about the Urban area. Anyway, that's what I've come up with, any comments? I am fine leaving it the way it is, but it should explain what the population density refers to specifically. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

update: Based on the Geography of Sydney article, I'm assuming the density is from the Urban area, in which case I'd argue it is inaccurate as the article isn't about the Urban area. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

In a caption for a parramatta pic, I edited it to say that it was the sixth largest commercial district in Australia. This is something I had read, and added it in after finding this source, the only one I could find (after an admittedly lazy search). However, I want to clarify that this is a good source to use, as it is a first party source, and really what I am using it as a reference to is only mentioned briefly in the introduction to this pdf, which is about something totally different. In short, I'm not sure if this is a fair source to use. Altormainstream (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I find the claim a bit strange. I'd be interested to see a comparison with the capital cities, Gold Coast, Newcastle etc. It is a primary source and needs to be treated carefully. An independent source would have more credibility. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a bit more searching, and outside of primary sources, all I can find are other things that mention it briefly, such as this real estate site and another real estate site, probably just repeating what the councils website says. The statement is sourced on Parramatta's article, though it is also a primary source. I guess if this is all I can find, the statement should be removed, or have one of those 'dubious' tags I see around here every so often. Altormainstream (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's one of those claims that cries out for a precise meaning while we all know that one doesn't exist. If we're going to compare them, exactly what is a commercial district? And how does one measure size? Area? No. of businesses? Etc..... Dangerous peacock style words. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume either number of businesses or how much money is generated. But I guess if I can't find a reasonable source that explains it it's not a good source. Altormainstream (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What HiLo48 has said is exactly what I was thinking. Newcastle defines its CBD as just two streets, covering an area of about 0.6 km² but the city's undefined central commercial district is well over 2.5 km². The city centre, of which the commercial district is only a part, is much larger than that. Parramatta's entire city centre comes in at 2.7 km² according to my topo maps, and a large portion of that (1 ²) is Parramatta Park. Darwin's central commercial district is about 1.2-1.5 km², around the same size as Parramatta. I don't see how Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide, Perth, Newcastle and possibly even Hobart and Wollongong aren't larger than Parramatta. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sixth largest commercial district in Australia part. I kept in the second largest in Sydney part, because I don't think that is controversial, but it can be removed as well. Altormainstream (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sixth Largest in Southern Hemisphere?

The article claims Sydney is the sixth most populous city in the southern hemisphere. This seems pretty suspect to me -- at least Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Lima, Kinshasa, and Jakarta are bigger. There's probably a few more I'm missing or that are more debatable. I also could not find this fact in the linked citation. Rdore (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is uncited and debatable, feel free to remove it. I find the whole "X in the Southern Hemisphere" stuff in Australian articles rather pointless myself. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mattinbgn competely. The biggest in Sthn Hemi stuff is like saying "the biggest with the exception of almost everything else" (and I'm from Sydney born and bred). --Merbabu (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Agreed, it is more a POV then fact IMHO. Bidgee (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It was added a few weeks ago and must have gotten missed until now. I personally don't see exactly how it's POV, but I don't have a problem with it being removed. I do have a problem with the fact that where it was placed gives the impression it's sourced though. I doubt there is a source though, most lists of largest cities only take into account the city of Sydney's population, and there's be many many cities with a larger population than that. Anoldtreeok (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying it is the sixth largest is a POV especially when it is unsourced. I've been bold and removed "With an approximate population of 4.5 million in the Sydney metropolitan area the city is the largest in Oceania. Sydney is also the sixth largest city in the Southern Hemisphere" with the "cited ABS source" which didn't support anything, not even the fact that Sydney is the largest in Oceania nor did it belong there as unsourced fact. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job. Well reasoned. --Merbabu (talk)

So, what's up with the new areas map?

Showing off my lack of understanding of certain things here, but why do we now have a different area map? I thought the satellite image was fine, and it wasn't as large either. I'm not sure how the file works, so I'm not able to check to see what happened, can someone explain/share their thoughts on this change? Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC) EDIT: OK, in the 30 seconds since posting this I figured out where it was. The new image in definitely more complete in terms of area, but I still prefer the original satellite image. So, thoughts? Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the sat image too, and 400px was far too large, especially for lower resolution monitors. I've reduced it back to 350px. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to consensus missed due to vandalism?

Does this edit here, made just before a vandalism spree, in anyway go against consensus? I know there was a lengthy discussion on this, but it didn't ever really conclude, so I'm not sure whether this change goes against a consensus, or is just a perfectly acceptable change. Just thought I'd bring it up. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was to refer to the game by its common name, soccer, so the edit seems reasonable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Population contradictions

The sidebar give the population as 4.575 M. The article text (under the heading 'Demographics') gives it as 4.119 M. The linked article (Demographics_of_Sydney) gives it as 4.511 M. Which is it, and if different figures prove to be necessary, perhaps an explanation of why would be useful. 203.9.151.254 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The population in the infobox is the officially estimated population as of 30 June 2010, as indicated by the citation. As indicated in the demographics section, both in the prose and by the attached citation, the population of 4,119,190 was the actual count at the 2006 census. Demographics of Sydney obviously hasn't been updated (I've now fixed this) as it said "The population as of 2009 is 4,511,000". The answer to your question, "Which is it", is all of them as they from three different times. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement that reads, "Sydney is the world's largest English speaking city after London and New York City" is deeply misleading. It seems to me that the entire Sydney urban area has only 4 million people. If we're using that measurement (an entire metropolitan region to define a city population), than Los Angeles' population approaches 20 million and Chicago would have almost 10 million people. What is the population of the City of Sydney without its suburbs and outlying cities? Surely it's much less than 4 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.212.179 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement you quote is blatantly wrong and for exactly the reasons you cite. There are numerous cities in North America much larger than Sydney on any measure. The statement should be removed immediately. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto (which is about 1m bigger than Sydney) all come to mind, and with metro areas considered, there's a few others in the US. We won't even get into the topic of whether Indian or Philippine or South African cities count and just consider the entire thing to be a poorly considered and justified proposition based on a Yahoo Answers type site to begin with :P Orderinchaos 21:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Climate

See also: Talk:Sydney/Archive 3 § Climate, and Talk:Sydney/Archive 4 § Climate (again)

wouldnt it be more appropriate to classify Sydney's climate as subtropical or at least warm temperate? All other wiki pages on climate are alot more specific and there are many types of temperate climate. Britain has a temperate climate but of coure Sydney is alot warmer with not even snow so just stating temperate on its own is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

the change to warm temperate is already implied by the use of warm summers immediately following the edit that you did. This seems like duplication. Nasnema  Chat  09:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Many continental climates have warm summers too, what is the harm of mentioning warm temperate? after all as i said before all other wiki pages are alot more specific — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's already implied by the statement of warm summers and there is no category of warm temperate. Why duplicate? Nasnema  Chat  09:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

there is a category for warm temperate and it called subtropical. And as mentioned before, almost all temperate climates have warm summers so thats not exactly a classification, if you care to look at wikipedias Koppen climate classification page you will see that for yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Sydney falls under subtropical. "Warm temperate" is non-factual original research. Orderinchaos 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sydney just misses out on being subtropical, BoM classes Sydney as temperate. Bidgee (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course Sydney falls under subtropical, anyone who uses common sense would know that. Sydney has warmer temperatures than most Humid Subtropical climates during the winter period so if places like Atlanta which experience cooler winters are classified as subtropical then naturally Sydney is also Subtropical. Not to mention that sydneys latitude is subtropical as all areas at that latitude north and south of the equator either have a Mediterranean, humid subtropical or arid climate. (At least at sea level). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.166 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the article need two panoramas and two Opera house images?

I can't really criticise people for adding a large number of images to an article as I've done so myself many times, but do we need two panoramas? Really, do we even need one? And the two Opera house images? I originally wasn't big on Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, but I think that one should stay, it's probably the best image of the Opera House on wikipedia. Perhaps we could move that one down to the tourism section in place of the one that's currently there?

I don't know what anyone else things, but my suggestion would be to remove the second panorama (under the economy section), and replace the tourism image of the opera house with Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg. Either that, or remove both panoramas and also replace one of the architecture images with the opera house image (the Martin Place image really does need to be bigger to see it clearly, but we can't really make it larger with three images there). If we do that, then I'd also suggest replacing the image in tourism with an image of the Harbour bridge, if only because I think this article needs an image of the harbour bridge (which is the reason I don't mind the first panorama and think it actually does add something).

Anyway, just my suggestions. Thoughts? Feel free to tell me what I said made no sense; writing coherently has never been a quality of mine. Anoldtreeok (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked myself the same questions when I looked at the article earlier. I think that File:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg really catches Sydney, but because the image was taken at night, is a bit too short and the bridge overwhelms the image (compared to the tiny Opera House) it's not really suitable for the infobox. Since the two images are so similar, I think we can lose the huge panoramic image. The other panorama is, at least in my opinion' the better one of the panoramas to keep, if we are to keep one. However, it's not essential as there is a link at the bottom of the article to the images at commons. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a consensus of which images and charts should be included in the article. The amount of images and charts has really made this article look like a mess. Although most are relevant, some are less so than others. Oh btw I really like Anoldtreeok's montage and I'm really wondering why it isn't used as the article's lead image.YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to start the debate up again, but the consensus was a single image does the job better. The main argument I think was a montage looked more like an advertisement/tourist brochure.

Semi back on-topic, does aligning the images to the right in the history section really improve the layout on some screens? On my screen it looked perfectly fine when two of them were on the right, but now they push down into the geography section, and it just looks bad. Of course, that's just my screen, perhaps the other way looked worse to some screens.

I also think there's at least one too many pictures under the infrastructure heading, to finish this on topic. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed two infrastructure images, and moved the panorama that was under the economy heading to Urban structure. Put the image that used to be in "economy" back. If anyone what's the put more detail into the panorama's caption it would be appreciated (I can make out Botany Bay and the airport at the far right, and bits and pieces of the Northern suburbs). Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Martin Place panorama - as explained in my edit summary, it's subject is the pavement, its caption refers specifically to the CBD when that is not the scope of this article, and like all panoramas it stuffs up the page layout - a panorama should only be used when there is *no* other way to convey the point (and a dubious point that's not even mentioned in the article). --Merbabu (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. Can't say I agree with the removal of the Opera house (it may not be representative, but it's very notable), but I don't intend to reinstate it. I don't see what would represent the whole of Sydney architecture, though, so I would have thought notable buildings would have been fine. Either way, I'm, happy to leave it as it is. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed notable - that's why it's in the lead pic. But it's not representative of Sydney architecture. --Merbabu (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are the images in this article rubbish?

They're all boring and don't really depict/capture Sydney's beauty, and most of them are second-rate. Why can't the article have photos like London, Toronto or Melbourne's pages? Ashton 29 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a sock of User:Jackp who is banned, largely because of his edits to this Sydney page. --Merbabu (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical population

The following was copied from my talk page.[8]

I notice you changed the figure for historical populations of sydney, the figure you put down was not the correct figure. The figure you used was for the Sydney urban area, not the Sydney statistical division (which is the usual quoted figure, and the figures used for other data in this table). The figure I had put down was NOT an estimate, if you looked at the source, it said it was OBSERVED, not an estimate. In the future try to think about it before canging it: According to the figure you used, Sydney grew by ~50 000 in 6 years from 2000 to 2006, but then by 300 000 in 2 years from 2006 to 2008, this is extremely unlikely. I can assure you that the figure I had used was the appropriate one for this table. Nuiop729 (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you check the reference that I added when I restored the 2006 population figure, you will see that it is not the urban area population at all. It is the actual count for the statistical division from the 2006 census,[9] which I mentioned in my edit summary.[10] The urban population at that time was 3,641,422,[11] not 4,119,190. A check of your earlier edit "correcting" the figure[12] shows that 4,280,190 was an estimate from June 2006.[13] Even though it is listed as "observed" in the document, it is still only an estimate, as actual counts are only conducted in census years (2001, 2006 and 2011). Where they are available, we use actual counts in all articles, since they are more accurate, which is why the 2006 census count is used and why a 2001 figure (another census year) was used instead of a 2000 figure. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok yes it is the Statistical Division, but I still think the figure of 4 280 000 is more appropriate. Yes, the census figure is likely more accurate, but either way, a difference of over 150 000 clearly means that these figures are for different definitions of Sydney (the larger likely including more outer regions). If this is considered, the larger figure is far more appropriate for this table, as it fits in with the other data (2000, 2008, 2010 are ESTIMATES of the same region, and the projections come from the same source, so are most certainly based off this definition of Sydney). Again, please use your brain, with the figure you provided, Sydney grew at 18 times the rate from 2006-8 compared to 2000-6 (not likely at all, it must be said). In addition, note 2005 estimates for Sydney population from ABS give a value larger than the census figures. I agree that census figures should be used, but an error of 161 000 clearly means an alternative defintion of Sydney was used, and the larger value fits in with the other data provided, so is more appropriate for this table. If you wish, you may find the values from other censuses (2001 and previous), and then remove all estimates (except the most recent one, but leave a note mentioning the fact that it is an estimate) and projections. Until this is done however, the value should remain at 4 280 000, as it is the most appropriate value for the table. Please DO NOT alter this value again unless you wish to remove all estimates and projections, and replace them with census data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuiop729 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The census counts are based on the Sydney statistical division, which is what this article covers. Therefore they are the most appropriate figures for this article because they are directly applicable to the article's subject and because they are actual counts and not just estimates. If the larger figures include more outer regions as you've suggested, which is speculative, they don't apply to this article and therefore can't be used. If the actual count differs from the estimated count, we have to use the actual count, as it is more accurate, and the reason that there are differences between them is because one is an actual count while the other is only an estimate. It's fine to use estimates in the article provided they are noted to be estimates and sources. We don't need to mark accurate figures are being accurate. You've got that the wrong way around. And please don't continue to edit-war. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be speculative, but I am sure that the numbers are based off different definitions of Sydney, if you find the estimated data for Sydney in 2000, this gives a higher figure than the census figure for 2001, now the census is most likely correct, however the estimates for 2002 etc. (after the census) revert to the original higher figure, meaning that the estimates were not revised following the census, indicating that the two are inconsistent. It would therefore be inappropriate to include both the census figures and the estimated figures in the same table. The census is most likely a better figure, however there are only 2 data points for this (2001 and 2006 - there is no census data for Sydney SD for 1996 or before), whereas the estimates have continuous yearly data from 1989 to 2010, this would create a table which is actually able to show something. I personally thought it was better to use the estimates, but the census figures would be fine too. I wont try to change the figures back for a few days, but please, it should be either:

The two census figures plus the most recent estimate, OR

The estimates in five-year intervals, plus the most recent estimate, WITHOUT the census figures.

If you insist on having only two data points then I suppose that is ok, but the other estimtes should definitely be removed (2008 for example)

In addition, in a few days I will remove the projections, as they are projections, not predictions, as stated in the source. As for the pre-1990 data, I have no idea where that came from, but if anyone had any sources that would be useful.

And as an additional point, the original table I encountered several months ago was not accurate at all (or sourced), so I changed the figures to ones from the ABS. Someone (maybe AussieLegend, but I never checked) then changed the data to inconsistent and unsourced data, which I perceived as vandalism, and so reverted it, so I reject your claim that I am starting and edit war, it was only recently that you proved your data had any credibility.

In summary, in a few days (so as to give you time to respond), I will make the following changes: 1. Remove the projection data, 2. Remove the census data you provided, 3. Replace this with ABS estimated populations for 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010, 4. Leave the pre-1990 data as is, as I have nothing credible to replace it with. Please respond in the next few days if you object to any of these changes, and please, this time, state your case for any changes you make, as it is not a sufficient argument to claim that estimated values do not apply, and yet leave some of these values (as well as the projections) in the table Nuiop729 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation. Speculation is classed as original research and is not permitted. Secondly, stating in a discussion that you're going to do something unless somebody makes a case is not the way we do things. We decide what to do based on consensus.

The census figure is not "most likely correct", it is correct, since it is an actual count of the population, conducted across the whole of Australia on the same night, every five years. Because it is an actual count, census data is used in preference to estimates. We even have specific templates for linking to census data, {{Census 2001 AUS}} and {{Census 2006 AUS}}, which are currently transcluded more than 4,400 times across WP:AUSTRALIA projects. Between each census we use ABS official estimates only because we don't have a census each year. Ideally we use data from one source for consistency throughout a table, such as in List of cities in Australia by population, but that isn't always possible so we often have to include credible, verifiable data from different sources, as is the case here. However, actual counts are always used when available and it makes no sense replacing actual, verified counts with estimates that were never anything more than estimates, especially when those estimates has since been proven to be significantly different to what an actual count determined. I do agree with removing the 2008 figure as we don't need figures for every year. The 2010 figure is the latest official estimate from the ABS and that will suffice until the 2011 census data is released, when the 2010 estimate should be replaced by the 2011 actual count. Regarding your proposed changes:

1. The projection data gives the reader an indication of the projected growth of the city and therefore serves an encyclopaedic purpose. It is an official projection and is sourced, so I don't see any reason to remove it. However, I don't think that we need both 2026 and 2056 projections. 2056 is probably enough but it shouldn't be as precise as it is now, as the table in the source shows three different figures ranging from 6.56-7.65 million. The source's prose uses "7.0 million" so that is probably more appropriate.
2. The census data is accurate and should be used in lieu of mere estimates.
3. Estimates should only be used where accurate counts are not available. Since we have accurate counts for 2001, 2006 and soon 2011, they should be used post 1996. Obviously, until the next census data is available, an estimate will have to be used, but this should only be for the most recent non-census year. If official counts for 1991 and 1996 can't be found, then estimates for those years may be used, but official counts should be used for 2001 and 2006.
4. All attempts to source pre-1991 years should be made

You'll note that I've referred to years ending in "1" and "6", not "0" and "5". This is because the former are years in which the census is conducted and, because those are the years for which the most accurate data is available, we should be using them and not the 0/5 years.

Regarding your claim about your previous edits to this article, there is no evidence that you edited the article prior to 5 November 2011. If you used an IP, I was unable to find anything in the history for the past 15 months showing any IP matching what you claim to have done. If you used another username, well, that's something altogether different. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to the above:

Firstly, none of my edits were speculation, they were all based on fugures from the ABS. I was merely using speculation to convince you that the estimates and the census data dont belong in the same table, which I see you agreed with above.

Secondly, if you had read my entire statement, you would see that I offered to alter my proposed changes if anyone had any objections (I did not demand a case). I then requested that you state your case for any future changes you made (which you failed to do previously). This was so as to avoid confusion in the future, not an attempt to stop you from making changes. Previouly, you claimed that census figures should be used as they were more accurate, yet failed to alter the other estimates (such as the year 2000), meaning I was unable to understand what exactly you were trying to achieve. That is what I meant when I asked you to state your case. I see also that you referred to consensus, if you had actually read the link you provided, you would have seen it asked for all concerns to be addressed, which would have required you to state your case, so I would be able see where exactly we were at odds and attempt to reach a consensus. In the future please make sure you know the details of what you are referring to, before using it against me in this discussion.

You state above that the census is correct, not most likely correct, well at the risk of nit picking, I should correct you; the census is not 100% accurate, there is always an error, even in such an extensive operation such as a census. If you wish to use the census data from 2001 and 2006, then I will not remove it again. I will however remove the data for 2008, and I dont think any estimates should be used from 1991 or 1996. Again, I will leave the pre-1990 data as is. And just something to note: the article for Brisbane, and History of Melbourne both use estimates, not census data.

As for the projections, I still think they should be removed, or at the very least have the data changed to series B from the source, rather than series A. Again, the projections are not predictions, and only give a rough estimate of future population. In the source, the data was simply found by saying 'if Sydney experiences natural growth of (x) and migration growth of (y) every year, then population at (given year) will be (z)'. In my opinion, this is not encyclopedic content. At the very least, as you say, maybe a range should be given, as opposed to a precise number.

All estimated data for Sydney SD from the ABS is of the same quality, the fact that estimates occured in a census year does not imporve their accuracy (as shown in an earlier post of mine, the estimated value for 2006 differs from the census result).

I searched my ip adress in the pages history, and I cannot find it, perhaps I used a different computer. Either way, the data was innaccurate for 2001, so I altered it to a (more accurate) estimate, I then saw the UNSOURCED value for 2006 (which turned out to be a correct census figure), and saw that the table made no sense (as said earlier, the table showed growth was 18 times as fast from 2006-8 compared to 2000-6), so I then found an ABS figure for 2006 a put this in the table, with a source. You then reverted my change, but left the table in a bad condition, so a fornight later I made the same chnages again, but importantly, stated my case, so as to explain to you what I was trying to do. You then reverted my changes, leaving the table once again in a bad condition.

If I am to be perfectly honest, your actions over the past month have been quite a hindrance. From the page history, I see that you have made many changes in the past years, but overall your edits hardly improve the quality of the article. You revert changes by others, but fail to adress the problem. Take me as an example, I made a change to the table, using (admittedly) not the most accurate data (yet still reasonable), but it was sourced, and from the ABS. You then reverted one of my changes, leaving the table in an unsatisfactory condition (with some estimates and some census data). I then came back to the table, saw that it was (again) in an unsatisfactory condition, and remade my changes until the table was again satisfactory. It was only then you added further data (census 2001) to improve the table, and explained it on the talk page (yet still failed to remove the 2008 data). If you had replaced my original changes with census data from BOTH the 2001 and 2006 censuses, then I would have come back to it to see the table in a satisfactory condition, and not remade my changes. In the future (and this apllies to all of your edits) maybe you should focus more on the quality of your edits and not the quantity of your edits.

In conclusion, I accept the census data from 2001 and 2006, but I will remove the 2008 estimate. As for the projections, I will remove these aswell, but I see that you believe that they should remain, so I will wait (1 day). Certainly, the projection data needs to be (at the very least) replaced with projection data from series B from the source. Nuiop729 (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"none of my edits were speculation" - That wasn't the point. You were speculating as to why figures were different, and using that to justify use of one figure over another. You can't do that. You have to concentrate on the facts. If you don't concentrate on the facts, you make mistakes such as assuming that a figure is for the urban area and not the SD, even though the citation (a fact) clearly identified as being for the SD.[14]

"if you had read my entire statement, you would see that I offered to alter my proposed changes" It was the way you that you "suggested" your changes in the first place:

• "In summary, in a few days (so as to give you time to respond), I will make the following changes" - This is a fairly definite statement.
• "Please respond in the next few days if you object to any of these changes" - You knew full well I objected because I had already explained what should be in the table
• "please, this time, state your case for any changes you make, as it is not a sufficient argument" - I had already stated a case, both here and in my edit summaries, that latter you seem to avoid doing for the most part, which makes it hard to understand your motives.

"Previouly, you claimed that census figures should be used as they were more accurate, yet failed to alter the other estimates" - At the time, we weren't talking about the other estimates. We were concentrating on the one figure that you kept changing, the 2006 population figure.

" In the future please make sure you know the details of what you are referring to" - After almost 6 years and around 11,000 edits in untold discussions on numerous talk pages, I am well aware of the details of WP:CONSENSUS. I referred to that as a warning to you that we don't simply edit to make an article fit our preferred version while contentious edits are under discussion, as you continue to do. We work towards consensus and then make edits that are agreed upon.

"the census is not 100% accurate, there is always an error" - As you well know, I never said it was 100% accurate, I said it was correct. Despite tiny errors, the census is still correct and it's far more accurate than any estimate.

"I dont think any estimates should be used from 1991 or 1996." - Of course we should be looking for accurate data. That was my point from the beginning. Surely the ABS has population information available.

"the article for Brisbane, and History of Melbourne both use estimates, not census data." - Brisbane uses an older version of the same ABS source that this article uses. History of Melbourne is an altogether different article to this. Demographics of Melbourne, which has a similar table to this article, uses the same source as here, although I notice that your recent edit has introduced an error.[15]

"As for the projections, I still think they should be removed, or at the very least have the data changed to series B from the source" - As I indicated earlier, I think it would be best to just specify "7.0 million" as stated in the source, as the projected population is actually a range, but changing it to series B is fine with me. Again, I think we only need one of the figures; the 2056 population seems best.

"If I am to be perfectly honest, your actions over the past month have been quite a hindrance." - I am quite comfortable with my edits over the past month, and previously. Do you support things like incorrect changes to the infobox, unsourced changes that contradict reliable sources, changing to American spelling and date formats, coincidentally breaking links to other articles, and oppose fixing references? Your comments are bordering on a personal attack. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

" As for the projections, I will remove these aswell, but I see that you believe that they should remain, so I will wait (1 day)." - Again, this sort of thing is not working towards consensus. Such edits in the middle of the discussion constitute disruptive editing, as do edits such as this. Without providing an appropriate edit summary, it's impossible to understand your motives, especially when I had explained why the tags should go in the right column of the table in the previous edit. There is still no reason for moving them into the left column.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You don't just come along and expect everyone to bow to your way of doing things. If you make changes and they are reverted, the correct thing to do is to discuss the changes, as per WP:BRD. You don't make sweeping edits in the middle of a discussion, especially when such edits are opposed by other editors. You aren't going to achieve anything that way. When you do make edits, please leave an edit summary so that others may understand your changes, especially when you make changes to content that is currently under discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what your problem with my edits is. When I said I would make said changes in 1 day, this was to allow you to notify me of your objections, so I am not sure why you find this statement so confronting. All I meant was for you to tell me exactly what you object to, and give you time so I could see what we agreed on. Waiting for you to respond is far more constructive than editing the content immidiately, which is what you initialy found frustrating.

"I referred to that as a warning to you that we don't simply edit to make an article fit our preferred version while contentious edits are under discussion, as you continue to do. We work towards consensus and then make edits that are agreed upon." This is why I said I would make the changes in a few days, so this exact thing would not happen, your statement reflects more your own actions not mine. As for the 'personal attack', those comments were not meant as a personal attack, I was merely trying to highlight your less-than-perfect edits on this section in the past month.

"We were concentrating on the one figure that you kept changing, the 2006 population figure.", actually, I made changes to both figures, it was your actions which made the table inconsistent.

"I never said it was 100% accurate". You said that it is correct, that is essentialy saying that is is 100% correct.

"You knew full well I objected because I had already explained what should be in the table". Yes but I also mentioned the pre-1990 data and the projections, you had not made your position clear on this point previously.

"Surely the ABS has population information available." I did a quick search on the ABS website for the 1996 and 1991 censuses, but there was no obvious data for Sydney SD, there might be, but in the meantime I think the table is fine without this data.

"Brisbane uses an older version of the same ABS source that this article uses", no it does not.

Sorry yes, I did mean Demographics of Melbourne. "although I notice that your recent edit has introduced an error", sorry, but where exactly was the error?, (in the citation?). I edited the Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne to be consistent with the Sydney article, making the projections series B, from 2026 and 2056 in the source, and replaced the 2011 projection with a 2010 estimate.

"Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You don't just come along and expect everyone to bow to your way of doing things", this statement again reflects on your own actions than mine. The fact that you have been an editor for six years does not make your opinions anymore valid than another editor.

"You don't make sweeping edits in the middle of a discussion, especially when such edits are opposed by other editors", again I gave time before making my edits, you reverted my changes immidiately during the discussion.

As for the changes to the citations, my actions were to improve readibility, by moving the citation to the figure itself (since the words have been added to the right column, the cite looks like it is for the census itself, rather than the figure). You then said in your edit that the citation needed tag makes the table unnecessarily wide, so I removed these tags. You then reverted this change for no apparent reason.

I have found a citaion for some of the pre-1990 figures, but the data comes from a (rough) graph, so I am not sure this is appropriate - your opinion? - URL: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=855581&nodeId=baad0fbfa48a0e220507ae24fcf56ffb&fn=Appendix%20C%20-%20Urban%20growth.pdf

I propose to make the following changes (is this statement less offensive?)

Move the citations into the left column. To put it simply, this looks better, especially once cites have been found for all data. At the moment (for example) there is a citation needed tag next to the gold rush comment, this makes it look like the citation needed tag is for the fact that this was the goldrush, rather than the figure itself. For comparison, the Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne both put the citations like this (and yes, they were like this before I made my edits). Nuiop729 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've made my concerns about your edits fairly clear. When you announce, in the middle of a discussion, "I will remove these aswell, but I see that you believe that they should remain, so I will wait (1 day)" you are effectively saying "I will make these changes regardless of the fact that we have not yet reached consensus". As I've indicated previously, changes are made AFTER consensus is reached, not before. Similarly, "I was merely trying to highlight your less-than-perfect edits on this section in the past month" is an inappropriate thing to say. The edits are less than perfect only in your opinion. Some might say that your performance here is considerably less than stellar, but it's not the sort of thing you say in the middle of a discussion. I've only mentioned it now as an unfortunate necessity and I don't intend critiquing your past history here or anywhere else. Again as I've said previously, comment on content, not on the contributor. The figure that started this discussion was your change to the 2006 population,[16][17] nothing else. It's why you posted to my talk page. I didn't have problems with your other changes, only that one.[18][19] Something can be correct without being 100% accurate. "The sky is blue" is correct, but it is by no means accurate. In any case, we weren't talking about the level of accuracy, we were talking about the applicability of one figure over another, and an actual count is always more accurate than an estimate. Brisbane most definitely uses an older version of the same ABS source that this article uses. Brisbane uses 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2007-08 which was released on 23 April 2009. This article uses 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009-10 which was released on 31 March 2011, almost 2 years later. For reasons known only to the editors of Brisbane they also happen to use the data for Victoria, something I note that you didn't fix in your recent edit.[20] As to your error in Demographics of Melbourne, it's obvious in the diff that I provided.[21] You replaced the citation named "popprojections" leaving the 2026 and 2056 populations unsourced, which you should note when you scroll down to the references section, where you will see "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named popprojections; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text" next to reference No.27. It's OK, I fixed it.[22] "This statement again reflects on your own actions than mine" wildly misses the point, as well as being incorrect. In the middle of a discussion you announce that you will make certain edits in 1 day, when you've been told that's not how we do things. Discuss, reach consensus and then edit. If you make contentious changes during a discussion, as you have done, they are subject to reversion and you being tagged as being disruptive. Generally, the status quo prevails. It's up to you to convince others that your changes are valid when they have been contested. Moving citations to the figures in the table doesn't improve readability when some of the figures are sourced and others are not. The third column exists as a place for citations and very short notes. Before you started changing the article, that's how the table was used. These edits destroyed the readability, staggering figures and making the table ridiculously wide, compressing the text between the image, infobox and table, which is definitely going against MoS. Figures should line up so that it's easy to read straight down the column. Placing the citations immediately after the figures can make it difficult for those who have to use text readers, and we have to cater for those people.

"You then reverted this change for no apparent reason." - Perhaps you should try reading edit summaries.[23] It was actually you who made changes for no apparent reason.[24] I had already fixed the problem that I'd identified.[25] There was no reason for you to do anything.

The {{citation needed}} below "(Gold Rush)" is valid. The gold rush started in 1851 and ended in 1896 (I think), that this was the population at the time of the Gold Rush needs to be verified. If anything, "(Gold Rush)" could be deleted entirely. The ACCC chart is too vague to be of any practical use. I've found an ABS source that provides much better data and actually shows that the 1962 population in this article is incorrect. The pre-1911 populations are harder to source. I'm still working on that. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is as if you did not even read my previous post; you are still criticizing my statement in which I said I would ‘wait one day’. If you had read my previous post, you would realise that this was a misunderstanding, and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat this (your misunderstanding) again; as it is not constructive in this discussion.

"The figure that started this discussion was your change to the 2006 population, nothing else. It’s why you posted to my talk page. I didn’t have problems with your other changes, only that one". The table as a whole is what started this discussion. I changed both figures, to ones from the ABS which had been used in numerous other articles for Australian capital cities. You only reverted one of these changes, creating an inconsistent, unreadable table. You left the table in a condition where I was bound to return to the page, and remake my edits. If you had added the 2001 census data as well, I would not have found fault in the table and would not have reedited it; inadvertently causing an edit war. You ask me to respect the status-quo, yet it was you yourself who left the table in an unsatisfactory condition, whereas my edit, although less accurate, created a consistent, readable table.

"Something can be correct without being 100% accurate. “The sky is blue” is correct, but it is by no means accurate". No, wrong. Being correct implies accuracy; I suggest finding the proper definition of ‘correct’. I think what you meant to say was ‘Something can be precise without being accurate’. Correct is different to precise, correctness does imply accuracy.

"In any case, we weren’t talking about the level of accuracy". Actually you stated that the census is correct, with emphasis on the ‘is’, that is what started (this part of) this discussion.

As for the Brisbane page, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, but my edits were simply to make the table in the demographics section consistent with the Sydney page. I am not an editor of Brisbane, so it is unnecessary to criticize me for failing to address certain problems (which by the way, I am still unable to find what you are referring to).

I realise the mistake on Demographics of Melbourne, I must have missed that after making my changes.

"Generally, the status quo prevails. It’s up to you to convince others that your changes are valid when they have been contested". I have made my case for moving the citations to the left column. Since you have failed to address either directly I will restate my case: 1. Other articles with similar tables, such as Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne, have the citations in the left column, and were like this before I edited them. 2. As the third column has comments as well as citations, the citations are out of place. They appear to be citations for the comments themselves, not the figures. "There was no reason for you do to anything" I have stated my case for moving the citations; you failed to address either.

You mention the citation needed tag below gold rush as necessary. I never said it wasn’t necessary, perhaps it does need its own citation needed tag. My point was that putting the citation needed tag there made it appear that it was for the gold rush, and not for the figure.

From my point of view, the fact that you dodged my arguments, and simply opposed my changes, shows that you are being unnecessarily obstructive and stubborn; I would appreciate it if you were to directly address these issues so I am able to understand your opposition to the changes. I understand that having the citation needed tags makes the table too wide, but once citations are found I see no reason to prevent these changes. You mention you have found ABS data; well maybe you ought to either share the link so I am able to prepare a citation, or add the citation yourself. For pre-1911 data, I am fairly sure I have seen similar figures in books, but this may take time to produce a citation. Nuiop729 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)