Talk:Hurlstone Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move[edit]

This page was moved from "Hurlstone Park" to "Hurlstone Park, New South Wales" as per the naming convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) -- Ianblair23 04:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Participant[edit]

I live in this suburb, and can take photographs if required. 99of9 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take photos, anything interesting / unique / historic would be very welcome, either for this suburb or surrounding ones. As a general rule, 9 photos is probably about the max for a suburb - so maybe just pick your top 5 landmarks that you would enjoy photographing, and upload pictures of those with a brief caption. Also I think the railway station folks probably want a photo for Hurlstone Park railway station, Sydney (the railcorp logo is a placeholder used when there is no photo of the station). -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfield?[edit]

I don't believe that the Municipality of Ashfield should be mentioned; and certainly not in the opening paragraph. After looking at the municipality maps of both Ashfield and Canterbury, it seems clear that Hurlstone Park belongs to the City of Canterbury. If parts of Hurlstone Park really are in the Ashfield municipality, could someone please define those parts (in a section lower down in the article)?  HWV258.  03:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are definitely parts in MoA - where I live on the Ashfield side of Canterbury road for example. --99of9 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

I believe the image in the current Infobox (HurlstonePark1.JPG) is not representative of the suburb. The trouble is that I don't know of an image that is representative. Perhaps one around the railway station is better (at least the name of the suburb would be visible)? Any suggestions?  HWV258.  10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with you, but I don't think we have any better options yet. It's actually quite a difficult challenge to get a "representative" photo. Let's set out to get one! --99of9 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many photos?[edit]

While there is a little bit of concern, I don’t think this article needs a {too many photos} tag (∆ here).

I don’t think the article needs those last two from the same bridge: “Cooks River (east)” and “Cook River (west)”; they are too similar. So I took the liberty of deleting (∆ here), one of them. If we are going to occupy that thumbnail space, we should find a different locale. We don’t rely upon the fact that Wikipedia has infinite digital white-space to grow into; readers have attention spans.

As to the larger issue though of the rest of those pictures: they are wonderful. There are lots and lots of Wikipedia articles on cities. So much of understanding what a city or town is like depends upon seeing a nice gamut of it. Seeing the commercial area, types of public transport, pub & clubs, houses, and parks: what a neat way to *understand* what a town is like. The solution employed here (almost like a tourists’ bus tour by a knowledgeable tour guide) is a fabulous way to provide readers with nice feel of the town. More of our town and city articles could benefit by patterning themselves after this article. Greg L (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that some of the pictures in this article are of better quality to that of some of the other Sydney suburban articles, it must have something to do with the fact that different editors have taken the photos here and more effort was put into them. I must say that the photos of the houses are quite bad with dark shadows in the foreground and blown out sky's as well as being poorly composed with parts of building cut out as so on. ***Adam*** 01:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, we can’t chase you around as you cite different shortcomings. I wasn’t addressing the quality of the photographs; I was addressing the {too many photographs} tag. Is there a {there aren’t too many photographs here but some of the ones here suck} tag?

    And, yes, I agree with you that some of the photographs are poor with too much shadow; particularly “The Sydney Olympic Sporting Club” one.

    But, setting quality issues aside, I find the *concept* of capturing key elements that comprise the nature and personality of a town with a virtual guided bus tour to be a great one. Wikipedia affords editors lots of latitude to try out new ideas and show the community new ways to do things; that’s how we sometimes innovate and affect change. If anything, select pictures here should be enlarged to proper-size thumbs for each major section.

    …And some of the bowzers can certainly be replaced with better lit ones; I certainly agree with you there. Greg L (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I'm one of the photographers with an interest in this suburb (some of the high quality pics are mine). I'll see if I can replace some of the lower quality ones in the next few months. 99of9 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern was the park section where we have so many different pictures of the river that look pretty much the same. I think that section could be reduced to either two or three of the best photos aligned to the right of the section ***Adam*** 05:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about the river/park. I've removed the two lowest quality/most redundant. --99of9 (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with the sports club photo can be fixed slightly, I could possibly have a look at this. ***Adam*** 05:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I can take my own shot of that location with better lighting at some point. --99of9 (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that looks much better now. If you can't get better lighting you could always look into doing HDR photos. ***Adam*** 06:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Quoting Adam: My main concern was the park section where we have so many different pictures of the river that look pretty much the same. Issues such as this are now actively being addressed by the community. I’m not seeing a consensus that the article has “too many” photos—not by any stretch; only that some pictures are redundant and would be better replaced with different or better ones. Such editorial judgements about what pictures work best don’t seem to warrant the {too many pictures} tag. I’ve remove it and am pleased to see so many editors working collaboratively to make Wikipedia better. Greg L (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good now, I like the idea of the photo stack, never seen it before. It might be a good idea to expand on some of the text whenever possible though, there seems to be a long list of of one liners. Perhaps we could, if possible find some more background information on each of these topics and expand them a bit, if the information is available. On another note has anyone heard of the light rail extension track works currently taking place. I took this picture just up the road form Hurlstone Park, doesn't look like Dulwich Hill, looks more like tropical cairns or some country region. ***Adam*** 05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurlstone Park, New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurlstone_Park&oldid=1199520287"