Talk:Sydney/Archive 5

Not largest
By calling it the largest and most populous city in Australia it means that it is the largest by area. Even if you determine it's area from the metro area or statistical division (whatever the difference is), there are many other cities that are larger. He'll, I'd go as far as to say that aside from the capital cities nearly all the other cities are larger in area, especially ones in western Australia. I think it should simply read most populous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.242 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, it is the largest Statistical division by land area. Many of the local government area's may be larger, but I don't think their statistical divisions (or districts) have a larger area than Sydney. Saying it's the most populous is based on its statistical division, so its area should be too. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the Sydney statistical division extends over a ridiculously large area, covering places that aren't actually part of Sydney and probably never will be (for example, Glen Alice, which is 128km as the crow flies and 223km by road from the Sydney CBD), so that artificially boosts all the Sydney figures to a point where they just don't represent reality. if you look at File:Sydney councils.png, which shows all of the LGAs that are part of Sydney, the actual area of Sydney is a lot less than the the statistical division which is, after all, only a statistical area used by the ABS, not an actual representation of the city itself. There are several internet sites, such as citymayors.com that say Melbourne's area is greater than that of Sydney. Sydney is definitely the most populous city but it's only the largest by area according to those who use the ABS statistical divisions, which are somewhat WP:CRYSTAL as they cater for future expansion (I can't really see Glen Alice being part of Sydney in any future though - it's still about 82km as the crow flies from the nearest Sydney LGA) that may or may not occur. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems ridiculous to use the statistical division, when it clearly covers a much larger area than what would usually be understood by the term "Sydney" or even "Greater Sydney". Using this area makes a nonsense of the density claim (if we use the stated population and area, then the density ought to be about 377 rather than 2,058). In fact, 377 is the density given by the same ABS document that gives the area as 12,144 km2. (see here). We need a clear and accurate set of criteria for giving these numbers and I while I think using the ABS statistical division of Sydney gives clarity, it is not an accurate picture of what most people mean by "Sydney".EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I'm not convinced that the citymayors.com site is very reliable. It lists the population of Shanghai as 10,000,000 (when Wiki pegs it as just over 23m). Likewise, according to that source, Sydney's population is only 3,502,000. Elsewhere on their site, they mention that their sources are often ten to twenty years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthicsEdinburgh (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Largest Harbour?
"Sydney Harbour, is one such ria and is the largest natural harbour in the world."

Is this true? A quick look on Google Maps shows that even the Hawkesbury to the north is larger. And San Francisco Bay would be hundreds of times larger. . . not sure where this stat comes from??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.9.39 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Port Stephens is also larger, although not as deep. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the source does source does support the claim, but I think we all know it's rubbish. I've deleted the claim. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

'Unconstructive' image changes
I think that the image looks far better and clearer of the size that I changed it too, and it illustrates the section in a lot more of an aesthetically pleasing matter. The thing this article lacks is decent images that assist the article's content, and I think that the image itself looks a lot more appealing in a larger, more enhanced size. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * May look ok on a 4:3 screen but on a 16:9 it doesn't as you have useless white space on both sides of the photograph, also making it larger add no vaule to the article. It is fine as it is. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IMGSIZE says that image sizes should not be forced unless appropriate, and when it is appropriate they should generally not be wider than 500px. This image is of such a shape that it is best displayed as a thumbnail, not as a centred panorama. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And again...
A new image was added to the article today. I reverted the change because it was a much darker image than the previous image but it was restored with the edit summary "It's not dark, increase your brightness or click the full size image. The current one is disgusting, it's pixelated and blurry".

The side by side comparison to the right clearly shows that the first image is brighter overall than the second. Contrast between the dark foreground and light background exacerbates the problem. This is evident on the three LCD TVs, 7 LCD computer monitors using the eleven computers I have here (I use KVM switches), so it's not a brightness issue on one computer. As for being pixelated and blurry, that's obviously rubbish, unless you're looking at it on a 50 inch TV, which most people are not. The second image is much higher resolution and you can look down the cleavage of the girls in the foreground on a 50 inch TV, but that's not what we're looking for when we add images to articles like this. An image showing the actual Botanic Gardens is required, not one showing a dark stand of trees in the distance. The older image is far better for what we require, as is File:Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney 11 lottatori di canova.JPG, which replaced File:Sídney-Australia16.JPG. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some better alternatives in the article Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney as well. &#42;**Adam*** (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Montage image of Sydney in infobox
Today I added this montage image of Sydney in its infobox. A montage image can wonderfully summarize pictorial information of Sydney. This montage is not so big to cause any distraction, yet it was reverted. Some editors don't appreciate the placement of a montage image of Sydney in infobox and among them one editor has impolitely ridiculed me calling it a 'travel brochure'. Another editor has informed me today that there is a consensus of not using a montage image of Sydney in the infobox. A consensus is not unchangeable. The reason of this consensus sounds feeble and it is time to reassess it. I strongly argue for an addition of a montage image in the infobox. For instance, a compact five-frame montage portraying five various parts of Sydney is not only a quick way to visually summarize the Sydney just like the summarized text information in the infobox, but also reveals its physical appearance to the readers to some extent. It also improves the visual information of the page. I also urge all those editors against the montage image to visit the Wikipedia pages of all major cities like London, Berlin, Rome, New York City, Tokyo, Athens etc. Those pages do contain multi-frame montage images in their respective infoboxes. Some of them are large in size too. If using a montage image is so irrelevant to the article page of a city, then why did other editors include a montage image in the pages of all those major cities? All major city pages in Wikipedia have montage images, which suggests an implicit 'global' consensus of using montage image in a major city like Sydney too. And this implicit 'global' consensus, in my opinion, is more meaningful than having a separate 'local' consensus of not using a montage for particularly Sydney page. This particular consensus for Sydney is evidently a discriminatory policy against the standard practices found in other Wikipedia major city pages. The opposition by the editors of using a montage image in Sydney page looks shamefully biased when they revert an addition of a montage image in Sydney page, although other major city pages contain montage image in infobox. Therefore, I again convene the wise editors to turn down this illogical and biased consensus of not using a montage image in infobox of Sydney page. Jonah rajxei (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A few comments...
 * This is an article (i.e., words) not a flickr page, and certainly not tourist brochure. Images are there to support the text - there should be direct links to the text and image at the place that the topic is discussed. A multi-image info box is a WP:N problem - they all seek to show the city in its best light (hence my tourist brochure reference). There is no way that 1 (or 12) images are going to properly represent a city, particularly if you choose glossy shots of tourist landmarks, etc. Stick to one iconic image.
 * Large info boxes are a problem. They push themselves down into the rest of the article which causes text and image placement issues for the rest of the article.
 * WP:PRECEDENCE is not a policy on wikipedia. I don't believe the multi image info boxes on the other city pages are any good either, however, i don't have to change consensus on those pages in order to promote a single image box here. I'd be happier to not have the multi images on those pages, but I don't have time to have multiple (and possible fruitless) discussion across a number of pages. I need to choose my battles carefully.
 * Accusations of bias go against the policy of WP:AGF, one of wikipedia's most important. You are basically saying to others, "you're not a good editor". Do you really think accusing people of bias will make them agree with you? I can tell you, you will only piss them off and possibly make them feel more strongly about their position. (and in my case at least, given that I've lived in Sydney for decades, bias accusations don't make any sense).
 * regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merbabu summed it all up pretty well. But from someone who actually likes and supports the montages, I have to say this one isn't that good. Three out of 5 pictures just show part of the CBD skyline. I know they're meant to be focusing on one part of it, but it seems like a waste. That and the Opera house appears in two of the pics as well. I support a montage, but not this one. What we have is fine anyway. Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction to this article looks untidy. Some paragraphs are too short, especially the last. 26 words does not constitute as a separate paragraph, it looks poorly structured. The last paragraph should become an add on to the fourth paragraph and same for first and second. 101.103.130.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the lede was disjointed, thanks to this edit, that slotted the "Alpha+ World City" content in as the second sentence, pushing basic and more important information about the city's location down the lede. I've edited the lede to move it down to related content, although it doesn't actually belong in the lede as it isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. The lede is now only slightly different to what it was before the IP's edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Monopoly by User:Bidgee and User:AussieLegend. Thank you. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And, I'm informing you that there is a discssion about the content immediately above this section (in which you so far have not been involved). ANI is not for content disputes. And because someone reverts your edits, doesn't make them "monopoly" editors. Incidently, I don't agree wtih your edits either, and I support Bidgee and Aussielegend's request for you to discuss it on the talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrong. This case not concerns content disputes and my last edit. This case concerns long-term problem of editing article of Sydney. I asked in the ANI, in order to other users to observe this article (and history of changes). Sydney is the article in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, anyone can edit, not only two users. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your complaint about 2 editors, you have had a response at ANI. Regarding content, again I point out that you have not contributed to the above discussion even when specifically suggested. I think a number of people have been patient enough, and you should consider whether you really want to waste anymore editor time (yours and theirs) on this. --Merbabu (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rankings section
do we really need it? They are highly subjective, and in the real world (ie, not amongst Wikipedians) no one really pays any attention. It's just a repository for trivia. Further to date, it's only rankings that highlight the positives (albeit very subjectively assessed). --Merbabu (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. It's a lot of waffle that really means little and the rankings are POV at best. It certainly does not belong in the lede. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Getting on with the important business, is it safe to assume that this content can be removed completely from the article? --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes we need it, but not as a section on its own; I really think that the ranking section should be merged within the intro. It gives a such bright outlook on the city. Most of the other highly economical/liveable cities have ranking info within the intro. (User talk:Lionhead99) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I indicated in my edit summary, inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEDE, which is why it was removed in the first place. The lead is supposed to summarise important points in the article. Content that isn't discussed elsewhere shouldn't be in the lead. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And, just because stuff is done badly in other articles, doesn't mean we should do it here. --Merbabu (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In 13 June 2012, I presented a compromise edit (appearance of the article: ). After my edits, new short intro has only two information - about "world cities" and "livable cities" (each this entry has a some of independent sources), rest of contents moved to economy section and education section. My edition has two advantages: meets the requirements of WP:LEDE and delete this POV secion (not used in Wikipedia) create by user AussieLegend. However, my edits removed by User:AussieLegend and later User:Bidgee :p However, I still want to make this compromise editing, therefore I write in this discussion. User:Merbabu, you accept my compromise edition? Could you please give opinion. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I edit down the ranking paragraph and shove it in the lede? I can shorten it so it can fit there. We really don't need a rankings section. The intro/lede is already pretty vague (it's not like it's full). The lede will benefit to have the rankings information. (User talk:Lionhead99) 03:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been stated previously, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, not to discuss content not addressed elsewhere in the article. If the ranking section is not needed, then we don't need to address the deleted content in the lead at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rankings data exist in lede (in almost articles about big cities), this is standard in Wikipedia. If you want to talk about delete rankings data from articles,please write in the technical sides of Wikipedia (this case concerns whole Wikipedia). What do you think of my compromise? Only one sentence (only overall two information - about "world cities" and "livable cities", rest of contents moved to economy section and education section. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times do we need to cite MOS:LEAD? If the rankings are included in the article they can be briefly mentioned in the lead but any detailed discussion needs to be in the main body of the article. If it's done other ways in other articles, that violates MOS:LEAD. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The No. 1 justification for inserting crap into an article is that "most other articles do it". Alas, there is no WP:PRECEDENCE policy on wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, you write above "(...) they can be briefly mentioned in the lead (...)" - generally, my compromise is "briefly mentioned", rest of contents moved to economy section and education section. Second: please see intro of MOS:LEAD, quote: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions ". Even if the rankings in intro of articles of cities do not meet the recommendations of MOS:LEAD, this is standard on Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense would dictate that the occasional exceptions are articles that are too short to have a lead (stubs etc), or that have a lead and only a few paragraphs, articles where the content being discussed isn't long enough to warrant a separate section, etc. This article is not one of those cases. If the content is significant enough then a separate section is warranted. There is obviously enough content to justify a separate section with 10 citations but it isn't significant enough to warrant more than what is in the lead now. This article is almost 7,000 words long, yet the lead is only 200 words (2.9% of the article). The rankings section really doesn't warrant any more than a single 3.5 word sentence in the lead, but it already has more than 12 times that. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunshine hours
I wonder if people here would be in agreement for me to update the sunshine hours format in the climate section to be in line with other Australian cities and cities of the world. When comparing the sunshine hours of different cities, practically all cities use the format of listing the mean monthly sunshine hours with the yearly total at the end. Coming across a format that is presently on the Sydney Wikipedia page is not very useful for comparison. Other Australian pages have already had their hours converted. If there are no objections I will go ahead with it. Thanks.

Air.light (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples of other Australian cities? I'm assuming you're using the BoM data then multiply by 28.25? Bidgee (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I've been bold and changed the daily to monthly since the yearly daily mean is clearly not working. Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Air.light, function of Mean daily sunshine hours is new, now, small number of articles of cities used it. However, this feature was created to benefit directly from the sources (no conversions). The source for Sydney show the data of "Mean daily sunshine hours" and not "Mean monthly sunshine hours". When a function to develop in other cities, these temporary changes will be undone. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've not stated the "formula" used, Weather box gives a standard to use which is figure * 28.25. You also failed to state as to why you removed |rain colour = green. Bidgee (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To convert daily to monthly you need to multiply by the number of days in the month, not 28.25. 28.25 is only for February because it has 28 days except in a leap year when it has 29, which is an average of 28.25 days, not 28 days. If you have a look at the template instructions, you'll see it only mentions 28.25 for Feb percentsun. That said, using mean daily hours is a better option than using monthly, because it's month independent. The problem with converting figures as has been done was discussed at Template talk:Weather box in April 2012. Notable was this post, which mentions Sydney weatherbox specifically, stating "the 200.6 that was given for the month of January is not the 7.1 * 31 as given in the source." The discussion also warns against converting as that can result in errors. The weatherbox was deliberately edited then to reflect the source, but the recent edits re-introduced the error. In short, if the source uses daily figures, that's what we should be using. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I see that you've gone ahead with it Bidgee. Thank you. Air.light (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * AussieLegend asked me to make a comment here. I feel that you should go with whatever the source gives and what is common practice in Australia. This is exactly what we do with different English variations and various measurements. By the way in this of the numbers in the left side only February is correct. A dead give away is September and October. Both have 7.2 hours a day and both have 203.4 hours a month but October has one more day. I see the bit about multiplying by 28.25 as only applying to February but it may not be clear and I should go fix it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee, you make a mistake. If you do not understand my edition, ask for explanation. Not "blind" revert, again. You need to multiply by the number of days in the month (for example: January - 31, March - 31, April - 30....), not number of 28.25. "28.25" is only for February because it has 28 days except in a leap year when it has 29 (= average 28.25). Subtropical-man (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop your attacks and vendetta against me. Bidgee (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But... your behavior also has not changed - your "blind" reverts without discussion. If you do not understand my edition, ask for explanation in discussion. PS. Please, improve other articles (Australia relates) in which you entered the wrong data. Melbourne - I improved. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you guys not want to have the monthly sunshine hours presented on this Wikipedia article? This is the only Wikipedia article I have ever come across that has daily sunshine hours presented (even amongst Australian cities), instead of monthly hours listed. I realize that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology presents the records in this way, but you must understand that they don't record the data in this way. They record it as any other city in the world does and then chose to translate their data into "daily sunshine hours" instead of "monthly sunshine hours" which is fine. It is a simply mathematical translation to convert it the other way.

The deal here is that when one is comparing cities of the world for their sunshine amounts, one gets to Sydney and then doesn't know what to make of the numbers for comparison.

Is it that you guys want to remain special and unique and have this way of displaying the numbers? Is it that you guys have issues with the user Bidgee for whatever reason (valid or invalid) seeing that she was the one who made the edit?

I just think it would be nice to see something on this page that I can make sense of. Please consider agreeing for a common translation of the results here.

Comments? Air.light (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I addressed this above, referencing the discussion at Template talk:Weather box. There is a ig problem converting from days to months, which has to be done each time the figures are upated, and when this was done here it was done incorrectly, as it was in Melbourne. Monthly figures are also misleading, as CambridgeBayWeather deonstrated. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Air.light, almost sources show data as Mean daily sunshine hours. Formerly, Wikipedia does not have the appropriate parameters. Today, exist parameter Mean daily sunshine hours, it will be slowly implemented to articles about places (cities etc), according to what show sources. Sydney article is the first article with the new parameter. Congratulations :) Subtropical-man (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay so I see you guys have talked about this a lot already. I missed the discussion provided in your link AussieLegend. I am obviously one of the people in favour of monthly sunshine hours for the sake of comparison but you guys have already decided. If you guys are active with other Australian city's pages, I would suggest for simplicity, general understanding and comparison that you then standardize this across all the pages seeing that the source for all Australian cities sunshine climate information is recorded the same way. When one looks at Sydney's sunshine information and then Melbourne's, it is not reasonable to have to take out a calculator to figure out how they compare.Air.light (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Population contradiction
The given population density multiplied by the given area is six times the given population - this clearly can't be right. Can someone please check the sources of these figures, as it would seem they're not talking about the same things? Magic9mushroom (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Destination NSW link
This repeated adding and removing of the Destination NSW link both here and at New South Wales needs to stop. Accordinly I have protected this page for 24 hours. Discuss on the talk page and come to some consensus. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've indicated to both of the editors who keep restoring the link, the link would not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, which is the first point of WP:ELNO. The second point of WP:NOTGUIDE says that Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable attractions such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Opera House etc can be mentioned in the article, with appropriate sources, but generic links to tourism sites aren't encyclopaedic. We could add all manner of tourism links to articles but we don't, because there are too many. If we allow one, we have to allow them all. Imagine if we added even 10% of the valid tourism links for NSW. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the official government sites for Sydney and NSW, they have unique and fresh content related to both pages. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(Australia) both carry the official tourism sites as links. --Sbenj
 * That other sites may include them, doesn't mean that we should here. On your talk page you said, "many of the visitors to the page would be looking for that information". However, it's tourism information and Wikipedia isn't a tourist guide. As WP:NOTGUIDE says, "such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead." Ideally, articles should not have "see also" or "external links" sections at all; such content should be included in the body of the article, but this just isn't the sort of thing to include in articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Climate - again....
There have been a number of changes to the climate section of the article today first changing "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters" to "Sydney has a subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters", then to "Sydney has a temperate oceanic climate with warm summers and mild winters", "Sydney has a temperate climate, straddling the oceanic climate and humid subtropical climate zones, with warm summers and mild winters", and finally to "Sydney has a humid subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters". None of these changes were sourced, or otherwise justified. The source that is used in the section says "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm, sometimes hot summers, cool winters and mainly reliable rainfall all year. If somebody wants to discuss possible changes (again) then they're free to do so but, as the changes are opposed, I'm reverting to the status quo, as per WP:STATUSQUO while discussion, if any, is in progress. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of this article About Sydney says "Sydney's subtropical climate ... " 188.28.47.157 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what expertise the Organ Donation Congress has in classifying climate, but I think it would be trumped by the Bureau of Meteorology, which supplied the information used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the reference. According to NSW Environment and Heritage it's temperate, and this description from the Bureau of Meteorology also says temperate. They don't have anything to say about organ donation. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The second of the links in your comment does not mention Sydney; it gives Melbourne as an example of a temperate climate with warm summers and cool winters. Under the Koppen classification (which Wikipedia seems to favour), Sydney qualifies as humid subtropical, Melbourne as temperate. 188.28.47.157 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The second link includes a map that covers Sydney. Wikipedia doesn't favour the Koppen classification, it favours reliable sources and, when it comes to Australia's weather, the Bureau of Meteorology is the most reliable you can get. It's only some editors who favour the Koppen classification. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) According to Climate of New South Wales all of the state is "temperate". The Australian climate zones - major classification groups and Australian climate zones - all climate classes, all of which are from the Bureau of Meteorology, agree that Sydney is temperate. I also looked at File:Koppen World Map.png, File:Australia-Oceania Koppen Map.png and File:Koppen classification worldmap CfbCfc.png all of which appear to put Sydney in a Köppen Oceanic climate (Cfb) zone which is a temperate climate. The only things I saw that indicated a Humid subtropical climate (Cfa) was Climate - Australia and Global Climate Classification and Vegetation Relationships (Power Point) but I have no idea how reliable they are as sources. I would go with the BoM as they would be a more valid source than the ODC. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Koppen classification not used term "temperate", used "oceanic" climate for Sydney. Second: your three main links (for term "temperate") are derived from the same source - Bureau of Meteorology of Australia and are unreliable. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, this source is reliable source - ok, but data from Bureau of Meteorology are wrong. We have a dilemma. These data are absurd compared to the standards in the world. Most likely, employees of Bureau of Meteorology describe the mild climate of Sydney as temperate in comparison with other locations in Australia, where the climate is harsher (whole Australia lies within warm/hot climate according to world standards). This is only regional (Australian) classification. No other independent studies (not counting mirrors etc) do not describe the climate of Sydney as temperate. Taking into account that there are several sources and several terms, we must all (terms with sources) present in the article. While again be the opposition from the same users, time to end this long dispute . However, I prefer the term "temperate[41] subtropical[28][29]" for Sydney as compromise. So, my proposition:
 * "Sydney has a temperate[41] subtropical climate[28][29] with warm summers and mild winters. Rainfall is spread throughout the year. (...)" Do you agree? Either that, or longer and more complicated current version. Take your pick. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep dreaming, BoM is very much reliable. Your sources are just OR, since it doesn't state anything about Sydney, poor resolution and very much pin a tail on the donkey situation. Also, Don't use US English in Australian articles. Bidgee (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * User Bidgee - again. "BoM is very much reliable" - very funny. "Don't use US English in Australian articles" - grammar can be improved without erasing data. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you're as thick as a brick.... Bidgee (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Keep dreaming", "very much pin a tail on the donkey situation", "Sigh, you're as thick as a brick" - three personal attacks. OK. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it feel like that I'm heading my head against a brick wall. Surely you're acting dumb with you're comments. Bidgee (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth personal attack, congratulations. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's rather ridiculous to claim that the Bureau of Meterology is wrong. The BoM is the authoritative service for weather information in Australia. It has a continent wide network of devices constantly collecting data and has extremely high standards as to what data it will accept. It is the national specialist for determining Australia's climate. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is the national specialist" - yes, national. Only national. In Australia, Sydney has a mild climate. You can say - temperate. But, in the world this is subtropical climate, fits: low temperature, high temperature, mean temperature, record temperatures, rain, sun, all. We must use from variety of sources, also including those which show Sydney within a different climate than very controversial temperate. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "In Australia, Sydney has a mild climate." - Yes, that seems reasonable since Sydney is in Australia, not Germany. Nothing you've posted convincingly argues that the world sees Sydney as subtropical. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Taken out of context, full is "In Australia, Sydney has a mild climate. You can say - temperate". Therefore, in Australia, BoM describe Sydney with the temperate climate. This is the crux of the matter, your source is reliable but terms (by BoM) are consistent for Australia, not the world. Sydney has temperate climate in comparison with other places in Australia i.e Brisbane, Perth or Darwin, but in comparison with other places in the world, Sydney has subtropical climate. BoM used tags for Australia, not the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So the BoM is an invalid source for weather because you say so but the ODC is a valid source, is that correct? The links I gave were for the world wide Köppen classification not for some specific Australian classification. Australian climatic zones is a map based on an Australian climate perspective and that's why I didn't link to it the first time. Although there are no reliable sources saying that the climate is subtropical I would point out that according to Köppen climate classification both the Oceanic and Subtropical are listed in that section as temperate. Just because there are other sources saying something different we do not need to present that if the sources are reflecting a minority or fringe view or a just plain unreliable. I would also point out that other than the ODC you haven't given any sources here nor shown any studies that support your view. Saying you are as thick as a brick is a insult and Bidgee shouldn't have said it. On the other hand the other three remarks are not insults. Although "Surely you're acting dumb with you're comments." should be "Surely you're acting dumb with your comments." Thought I would point that out before Jack came and mentioned it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Just saw File:Australia-climate-map MJC01.png but it's based on the BoM so of course you will say it is usless. I should mention that your comment right before mine is nothing more than conjecture on your part, see WP:Original research. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. What it is: "ODC"? Second: this is not my conjecture. Third: This is proof that the BoM is not a reliable source of information: . According to Köppen climate classification, Sydney has a oceanic climate. BoM based his work on the Köppen classification but BoM changed to meet the needs reality of Australia from oceanic to temperate. Fourth: other sources does not mean worse or to delete, just because they write other data. Fifthly: it's next discussion on the topic, and there will be more in future because Sydney does not a temperate climate. Sixthly: better term "oceanic climate", term "temperate" for Sydney will always be controversial. Oceanic is neutral term. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ODC = Organ Donation Congress. Due to some remarks you made it seemed to me that you were the OP but had not logged in. An oceanic climate is a temperate climate according to Koppen. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "An oceanic climate is a temperate climate according to Koppen" - please source for this text. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, that is, you do not have sources that Oceanic = Temperate in the Köppen climate classification. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Koppen climate classification, Oceanic climates are Group C climates and Group C climates are "Temperate/mesothermal climates". --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Koppen climate classification - GROUP C: Temperate/mesothermal climates is: Dry-summer subtropical, Mediterranean climates, Humid subtropical climates, Oceanic climates, Maritime Subarctic climates, Subpolar Oceanic climates. As the distinction between other main groups: GROUP A: Tropical/megathermal climates, GROUP B: Arid and semiarid climates, GROUP D: Continental/microthermal climate and GROUP E: Polar climates. As you can see, subtropical climate need to put it in a some category. To GROUP A: Tropical? No. To GROUP B: Arid? No. To GROUP D: Continental? No. To GROUP E: Polar? No. Maybe to GROUP C: Temperate/mesothermal climates. Yes, this is the closest category. This does not change the fact that Sydney is located in the subtropical climate zone. Officially, according to Koppen climate classification, lies within oceanic zone. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Koppen climate classification, Sydney is subtropical. Its summers are just warm enough (over 22C) and its winters are easily mild enough. Under the Trewartha climate classification scheme it is Group C subtropical, because 8 or more months (in this case all twelve) are warmer than 10C. 188.29.150.84 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Koppen climate classification, Sydney lies within Oceanic zone (officially). Also in Siegmund/Frankenberg climate classification and Troll-Paffen climate classification, Sydney lies within subtropical zone . As a colleague wrote above, according to data of Trewartha climate classification, Sydney meets the conditions of subtropical climate. Generally, from all sources of meteorology, only Bureau of Meteorology of Australia maunder about temperate climate for Sydney. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Image preference
Can we have a vote over which image is preferable for the "Parks and Gardens" section?





Rfkzsaok7 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no, because we don't use votes. We discuss, to establish consensus. The second image is nice, but it's too tall and pushes the image in the following section down even if tagged with "upright", which is undesirable. Based on that I'd have to disagree with its use. --  AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 12:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps if it was cropped to depict just the garden area? Although I'm not sure on the policy of cropping images on Wikipedia and how it is done. (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Collage
I dont understand why a collage is not present in the article. There is no clear justification as to why one is not present. A collage is found in the vast majority of wikipedia pages about cities. Articles which have been certified "good" contain a montage of images, look at London. Even Melbourne and Perth contain collages. A city can not be depicted in one image. There seems to be a minority of people who edit this wikipedia page who for some reason which has not truly been discussed within the talk page, do not want a collage. I read something on this talk page that says, "Stick with the one image, we dont want it to look like a travel brochure", that is ridiculous. All wikipedia page about cities, were multiple images can be found contain a collage in the infobox, so why does the Sydney one look like a "travel brochure". If a true reason why a collage is not present in this article does not arise, than a collage will be added to the page.

--Editor2205 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Editor2205

Main port
Im changing the main port to Port Botany. I don't have a source, but no source is shown currently to support it being Sydney harbour, which it plainly isnt. Sydney harbour hasn't been a working port in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.138 (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mean Daily Sunshine Hours
In the weather section, it says mean daily sunshine hours are a minimum of 5.5 in winter, and a max of 7.8 in summer. Am I an idiot, or is this wrong? I've lived here my entire life, and the sun does not come up at 10am and set at 3:30pm (or whatever combination of times adds up to 5.5hrs) ..... and the longest days are 7.8hrs? So in the peak of summer the sun comes up at 8am and sets at 4pm? Sorry.... what? Either the stats are drastically wrong, or the meaning of 'mean daily sunshine hours' is not properly explained. Im still having trouble figuring out what it could possibly mean. Does it mean when its not cloudy? If so what defines not cloudy. I dont know why this stat disturbs me, but it does. User:Leecharleswalker 16:52, 10 January 2013 (move from article )


 * Sorry. You're wrong two concepts: daylight and sunshine hours. You write about daylight, i.e. from sunrise to sunset. Sunshine hours is hours of clear duration of sun (direct sunlight falling on the object, without clouds, rain, fogs etc). For example, this page show data both: Hours of Sunshine and Hours of Daylight, Sydney in January has 7 hours of sunshine (direct sunlight falling on the object) and 14 hours of daylight (from sunrise to sunset). I hope I managed to explain :) Subtropical-man (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I realised this soon after posting it. I still think it sounds misleading but it seems to be the accepted terminology so it's my problem not the page's ;D Thanks Leecharleswalker (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute about having the Global City ranking section...
I think this section should be removed because it can be viewed as a "bragging" tool by some people. It can also be subjected toward some sort of an editing war by some opposing parties that take stock in this kind of describing cities in general. Rockies77 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be removed. Interiorcamping (talk) 10:00, 06 June (UTC —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Warnings in the climate section!
I also checked the discussion archive. What's the problem with editing it? Different classifications classify and name climates differently. There is a climate classification called Köppen–Geiger climate classification system which classifies Sydney's climate as humid subtropical, with the code. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer adding in the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system for this city. Almost every city article in Wikipedia use the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system to classify the climate of a city. Yes I think it should be added. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Köppen–Geiger contradicts the Australian Bureau of Meterology, which says Sydney has a temperate climate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * contradicts? It does not matter. Wikipedia is neutral, should be shown different views/opinions, not just one - by Australian Bureau of Meterology. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have two different classifications in the article it's going to be problematic at best. Climate isn't an opinion, it's a fact. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not problematic and climate classification is opinion, not fact. Fact is rain, snow etc, names in climate classifications is opinion, vary depending on the sources. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, for Mahmudmasri's benefit, the problem with editing the climate area is that we have had problems with editors in the past replacing "temperate", with "sub-tropical". This is despite the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's classification of "temperate". One editor even claimed, quite ridiculously, that the official Australian government agency responsible for climate predictions was an unreliable source. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe, for Australians, climate of Sydney is temperate but for most other residents of other countries in the world, climate of Sydney is not temperate. Generally, Australian Bureau of Meteorology is reliable source but term of "temperate" to Sydney is quite ridiculously and contrary to common sense. Besides, term of "temperate" by Australian Bureau of Meteorology it is the own (Australian Bureau) opinion of its (Australian climate), it is not independent source. In this article must be other views/opinions and sources about Sydney's climate (especially independent sources) because term of "temperate" is very controversial. There two views/opinions about Sydney's climate, we have to show both. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually even though the term humid subtropical is a misnomer (not all places with this climate are subtropical), the group C climates (Cfa, Csa, Cwa, Cfb, Csb, and Cwb) in the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system are classified as "temperate" (based on the source from Peel et al.). I believe that including both would be good (explain that it is temperate and include the Köppen–Geiger climate classification for it). On a side note, the source from the New South Wales Government classifies Sydney as temperate. I would oppose to using the word subtropical by itself (I support adding in humid subtropical) but on the other hand, it should include both "temperate" and the Köppen–Geiger climate classification to avoid being solely based on Australian Bureau opinion of its Australian climate. All other major cities articles in Australia such as Melbourne and Brisbane use the Köppen climate classification. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All cities should all go under the Koppen Classification System. Just because it refers to 'Temperate' does not mean we should change cities like Los Angeles, Brisbane, Perth, Sao Paulo, San Francisco or Tel Aviv climates to reflect 'Temperate' Subtropical climates are located North of 38°S and last time I checked, Sydney is located 33°S, with Perth only 2° above it. I will change it to freflect the Koppen System but, for the best of both worlds, I will keep the BOM reference until further discussion Perisher Blue (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's funny that the "subtropic" supporters never give a reliable verifiable source that states Köppen climate, and have only cited a map that uses low res data and doesn't show the cities (basically pin the tail on the donkey) or they use OR by using the climate history from one site and use the their opinion of Köppen. The burden is on the supporters to find sources stating it and getting a new consensus. Bidgee (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is "old" consensus? Subtropical-man (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion after attempts to add the alleged Koppen classifications has resulted in no consensus to add them. In such cases, the WP:STATUSQUO prevails. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (@Subtropical-man) Where did I say there was an "old consensus"? I'll repeat more clearly, you need to find a reliable source (please don't use OR) that states Sydney's Köppen climate is "subtropical" and get a new consensus for it. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Why dont we just do it like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland#Climate? Isnt Wikipedia a reliable source? Were not supporters but wikipedia is about representing correct information is it not? It should include the Koppen info like Auckland and all other cities. There is no point getting info from another website when all similar articles use the Koppen System Perisher Blue (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that obviously won't please everyone. The view of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology must count for something. It's a major player on the global stage in climatology. Does anyone know the rationale behind it using a classification system different from Koppen?


 * You can use the Koppen System in conjuction with the BOM's view. But anti-subtropical supporters wont like it like that, even though every other city uses it. It should be a precedent like in the Court System Perisher Valley (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How does this sound? Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters, with rainfall spread throughout the year. Under Köppen's climate classification, the city has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa )? Perisher Blue (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably other Australian cities use the BOM's view, but maybe it's only Sydney where it makes a big difference? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Only Sydney does (The Black Sheep) Perisher Blue (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What? HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sydney is the only city in the whole of Australia using the BoM view, otherwise Darwin would say that it has an Equatorial Climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.141.66 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes little sense. However, I'd still like to know why the BOM uses a different system. It's not exactly a rebel organisation. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim that Sydney is the only city using the BoM view is rubbish. Canberra uses BoM as a reference, although BoM says "continental" and the article says "oceanic", and other cities don't use Koppen either (the capital cities are not the only cities in Australia). The capital cities only include Koppen because a certain somebody managed to add the content without meeting the opposition he met here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's interesting. Maybe our friend Perisher Blue is being less than honest. What has bothered me with him is his unwillingness to comment on why the Bureau of Meteorology, one of the three World Meteorological Centres of the World Meteorological Organisation, should be regarded as wrong on this. Who is Koppen to over-rule the BOM? HiLo48 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perisher Blue/Valley is misusing the signature feature. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've had problems with another editor who does that. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sunrise/Sunset
Should we include Sunrise/Sunset times in Sydney? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_Australia_Sun_Times.png Luxure (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate / incorrect statistics
The statistics in this article are inaccurate or incorrect. --103.27.224.100 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have access to the correct ones, then, could you replace them or post them here for someone else to put in the article? Barnabypage (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Global City ranking section...
I think this type of information would be best found in seperate articles eg. World's most livable cities, Global city, Fashion capital. I suggest this section should be removed from the Sydney article. CamV8 (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This was discussed previously in a conversation now archived at Talk:Sydney/Archive 5 with an inconclusive outcome. Since then, it has been discussed again (see Talk:Sydney/Archive 5) with both involved editors opposing its inclusion. You're the fifth editor to oppose its inclusion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Record low of 2 degrees? That's not very low
Is Sydney's record low temperature of 2 degrees accurate? Does it comprise the whole Sydney metropolitan area? The reason I ask is because that is pretty mild, even by Australian standards. Most of the capital cities have managed lows below 0. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * its what BoM has http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_066062_All.shtml from its 154 years of recorded data at the Sydney Observatory. Gnangarra 06:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Housing
I have revised the "Housing" sub-section so that it covers the topic more broadly and left the expand template in there, so that it can be developed. It may be more appropriate to merge the content into a section on architecture instead, so I will explore the topic further in the context of the article.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Even the revised wording seems to draw undue attention to one specific area that has been in the news lately. Why this area in particular given that Sydney is a lot bigger than this area? My reason for reverting the original addition was WP:NOTNEWS but, given additions at Pru Goward and Barry O'Farrell, I'm concerned this is perilously close to WP:SOAPBOX. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

SYDNEY AREA
How can have CITY area over 12 000 km2 ?? It's larger than Jamaica, it's larger nearly than half of Belgium. IT'S NONSENSE. Metropolitan area of city which includes mountains, forest, fields, villages, other towns? There must be mention CITY AREA - 26,15 km2 and REAL AREA OF SYDNEY, urban area which is around 1 700 km2. And this is probably only the correct area of Sydney. /// 12 000 km2. It's 14 times bigger than New York! --Pimlico27 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, and we've discussed this previously, most recently in this discussion. There is a longstanding agreement to use Australian Bureau of Statistics data for the population but the data used for Sydney is obviously wrong. As I pointed out in the linked discussion, Glen Alice is 128km from the Sydney CBD by direct route, 223km by road and 82km from the nearest local government area that is confirmed as being part of Sydney but it is still included in the Sydney area. Unfortunately, the same data is used by just about everyone when stating Sydney's population. Nobody ever seems to look at the area that covers. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Location
I just replaced all the road distances with the real distances.

This was reverted by User talk:AussieLegend.

Is there some WP standard that road distances should be used to give location rather than real distances? If so, I cannot find it. Ordinary Person (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've explained on my talk page, it's a long-standing consensus that WP:AUSTRALIA articles use road distances. The requirement to use road distances is stated in the instructions for Infobox Australian place. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

World rankings
I really think that Sydney's world ranking should be mentioned in the article. It's such a shame that other articles have it for the cities, but not Sydney's. My recent edit (shown below) is rather 'edited' itself - I already cut out the long draggy bits. It didn't seem too long in contrast to other city articles lede. The admins should have a second look to it and reconsider adding at least one sentence of it. Meganesia (talk) 8:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Sydney is classified as an Alpha+ World City by the GaWC's 2010 entry. Sydney ranks among the top 10 most liveable cities in the world. In 2013, the EIU placed Sydney as the third most expensive city in the world to live in behind Tokyo and Osaka. Sydney is also considered among the top fashion capitals in the world."


 * This was something that was discussed for some time. It was decided to remove the section from the article. It certainly doesn't warrant a whole paragraph in the lead, which was also discussed. It's interesting that what you've written is very similar to what blocked user was trying to add to the article. You just missed him. He was blocked around the time that you started editing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Koppen Climate Classifications
Sydney has a temperate climate (Köppen climate classification Cfa) with warm, sometimes hot summers and mild winters.

The standard for Koppen Classifications seems to be on nearly ALL articles relating to cities, whether they be Australian or not. The Uni. of Melbourne considers Sydney to be Cfa and as such is a reliable source.

I also have added the 'warm, sometimes hot' clause into the article, as it was missing in the text, and, as we are quoting the BOM, should include the whole phrase

I shalt await thy response

Luxure (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
A short time ago, a significant edit was made to the article. The edit bloated the article by 32kbyte adding a lot of content that needs review. Unfortunately the editor chose to arbitrarily change the format of every reference in the article contrary to what the MOS says, losing a lot of information in the process. He also added quite a lot of overlinking and repeat links - the increase of 32kb added 595 wikilinks to the article, on top of the existing 737, which turned the article into a sea of blue. I've been attempting some cleanup, and in the process discovered duplication of some information, as well as some content that rightly belongs in other articles, and already is in some cases. While the editor seems to have good intentions, the article was quite a mess because of these issues as well as some strange formatting, introduction of curly quotes and apostrophes etc; these were all problems that didn't exist in the previous version of the article. There also seems to be some information that has been reinserted from earlier versions, the lead no longer properly summarises the article and so on. All in all, it's a reasonable effort for an obviously inexperienced editor but, despite my efforts, it's no longer the stable article that it was. Regrettably I've decided to revert to the stable version but I'd invite the editor to progressively restore some of the edits, taking the above issues into account. That way we can fix things as they're added, keeping the article to a reasonable size as we do so. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014
In the paragraph beginning "The area around Sydney ...", please change "founded modern Sydney as at first a penal colony." to "founded modern Sydney, at first, as a penal colony." for a natural-sounding expression.

M4rk001 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 7:30 pm, 5 November 2014, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC+11)

❌ There was no Sydney prior to 1788 Lux ure   Σ  11:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Luxure, please do not remove posts made by other editors. In fact the request was done, but the wording in the article was incorrect so I edited appropriately. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Parramatta River is "mostly industrial" no more
In the Topography section is the statement "The Parramatta River is mostly industrial..." This was true in decades past, when it was often treated as a large drain, but huge efforts have been made to clean it up since then. Is there any objection to rewording this section so that statement is relegated to history where it belongs? --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. Please do it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Climate section
There are several issues with the Climate section that Luxure prefers to keep as I have outlined below:

Information about the warmest and coolest months is not grouped in the same paragraph. The record-breaking maximum temperature is mentioned twice. Facts about record-breaking temperatures are separated between two non-adjoining paragraphs. Information on unusual weather events is divided into different paragraphs. The coastal sea temperatures do not warrant a single-sentence paragraph. There are no references for the information on cyclones or bushfires.

I believe that my edit addresses these problems. Please discuss with me if you feel otherwise. Zv92 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a few inconsistencies in the grammar and factual inaccuracies. The edit zv92 prefers is better suited for the dedicated climate article of Sydney. Adding references for cyclones and bushfires is good, but it is like adding a reference that Hobart is the capital of Tassie. It's common knowledge.Until consensus is reached the old version stands. Compare the stable and Zv92 versions. Lux ure   Σ  05:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

NSW map
The location map on most NSW cities such as City of Newcastle is this: Why isn't this map used on this article and why. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been a convention for a long time that the capital cities use the national map. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

notable persons
Hi, just wondering why sydney article doesn't have a section of notable people. most other wikicities do eg. london st petersburg cairns Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable people don't define the city, so it's really trivia to include them. The criteria for inclusion is never defined and addition of a person is often WP:OR. Because of this, some lists become so large that they dwarf other sections that are far more important. This happened with London, which doesn't actually have a section listing notable people. Instead, the 30 articles in which they're included are linked from List of people from London. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Population
Perhaps the article should differentiate between the population of Sydney and the population of greater Sydney. Sydney branches out from Bondi to Penrith and Hornsby to Cronulla. Whereas greater Sydney includes the RNP, everywhere up until Wyong and all the way west to Katoomba. You have listed 4.7 million as the population of Sydney in the article which is misleading as that figure is for GS, which includes areas that do not define themselves as Sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.144 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Sydney
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sydney the suburb
The article doesn't distinguish between the suburb of Sydney (which is mostly contiguous with the CBD) and the greater city. The Geographical Names Board of NSW is very clear that Sydney refers to both, and as this is the official authority for determining place names in NSW I think it should be mentioned - see here, http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/placename_search/extract?id=KWwGlMZTMn

The Melbourne article distinguishes between the two well in its opening paragraph: "The name "Melbourne" refers to an urban agglomeration area (and census statistical division) spanning 9,900 km2 (3,800 sq mi) that comprises the greater metropolis – as well as being a common name for its metropolitan hub, the Melbourne City Centre." PeacockAutomatic278 (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The GNB entry says that the suburb "more or less encompasses" the Sydney central business district for which there is an article. The CBD article should also be the suburb article and this article doesn't needs to mention much more than the link. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Sydney is a suburb and a city (which takes its name from the suburb). If there is an article on Sydney it needs to at least mention it in the way that the Melbourne article does. PeacockAutomatic278 (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I would love to but as I am new account holder I can't edit the page. Any suggestions on how to get someone with edit permissions to do so?PeacockAutomatic278 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of information on lockout laws in the section 'Entertainment'
This section was necessary to include because:

Indeed, anyone visiting Sydney needs to know about these laws to stay WITHIN the law and/or to avoid major inconvenience
 * This is a MAJOR change in the laws governing ALL entertainment that includes alcohol within the (previously) DOMINANT entertainment district in the city. To talk about entertainment in Sydney now WITHOUT mentioning this massive change is to redact key information.


 * Frankly I would challenge anyone who decides to delete or significantly reduce this new section as to their bona fides, because to do so is tantamount to censorship considering it's significance AND CONTROVERSIAL nature. Therefore I would challenge any person now deleting this section as to whether they are under the influence of some interest group such as government, or the entertaintment, tourism, hospitality or liquor industries.

- a very large reduction in patronage in the traditional entertainment district - a decrease in violence in that area and an increase in surrounding areas - the closure of a number of the iconic venues
 * It has had a MASSIVE affect on the 'night-life' of Sydney, as attested by numerous press articles and govt statistics regarding:

I would be willing to say that anyone who wishes to challenge the significance of including this section is almost certainly not a Sydney-sider.

If one wishes to check the importance/significance of the lock-out laws to Sydney, one can simply do a google search - which returns over 250,000 results:

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sydney%20lockout%20laws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Answering HappyWaldo's criticism of inclusion of this section
the laws have been in place for at least a year and are now part of the LANDSCAPE of the subject of ENTERAINTMENT re Sydney
 * RECENTISM:


 * NOTNEWSPAPER:

is about excluding first-hand reports of FLEETING events, not LONG-TERM changes to significant laws and so forth. It says W ""does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE that are currently in the news," (my emphasis)

The section is about the ENTERTAINMENT in Sydney. Nightlife is a MAJOR part of the entertainment in any city. Indeed, one could divide such subject into three phases: DAY, EVENING and NIGHT. The ENTIRE phase of NIGHT in Sydney has been RADICALLY altered by these laws and it is therefore reasonable to include information about that HISTORICAL and CURRENT reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BALASPS:

Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It might merit a sentence somewhere in the article, not an entire section with a ridiculously specific and overlong title. I guess I'll just wait patiently until someone else decides to clean up this mess. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is probably worth moving to Culture of Sydney and possibly leaving a sentence describing the issue in the main article. Giving this issue its own section in the article is definitely WP:UNDUE weight to this issue. This issue likely merits its own article as well if it is as major as you make it out to be. Winner 42 Talk to me!  02:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, hold on, this is described in Crime in Sydney. If someone wants to create a section for crime, a moderately reduced version of the disputed text could be a paragraph in that section. Winner 42 Talk to me!  02:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Accurate Nuanced Clear has decided to edit-war and restored the content to the article with the edit summary "Restored - so far a majority of two people agree this is within wikipedia guidelines. SEE TALK PAGE for extensive explanation", which is rather confusing as I haven't seen anything that supports that claim. There certainly wasn't any support at the time that Accurate Nuanced Clear restored the content. That being the case, since the content is clearly disputed I've reverted the article to the status quo. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Accurate Nuanced Clear is currently blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. Hopefully he will consider discussing here instead of reverting again after his block is over. Back on track,, thanks for finding that this is already covered at Crime in Sydney. Interestingly, it seems that this is the only crime worth mentioning in Sydney. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 one external links on Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140409105144/http://qa.mpiweb.org/Archive?id=3918 to http://qa.mpiweb.org/Archive?id=3918
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080610031914/http://www.abs.gov.au:80/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article32000?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2000&num=&view= to http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article32000?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2000&num=&view=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140415214139/http://www.rpdata.com/images/stories/content/pressreleases/2014-04-01--rpdata-rismark-home-value-index.pdf to http://www.rpdata.com/images/stories/content/pressreleases/2014-04-01--rpdata-rismark-home-value-index.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140621101231/http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/doing-business-in-nsw/industry-sectors/finance-and-banking/financial-services to http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/doing-business-in-nsw/industry-sectors/finance-and-banking/financial-services
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140314131123/http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2622 to http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2622
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140708231528/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/531947/20131227/party-new-year-s-eve-australia-sydney.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/531947/20131227/party-new-year-s-eve-australia-sydney.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140927103437/http://www.sydneyfestival.org.au:80/About/About-Us/ to http://www.sydneyfestival.org.au/About/About-Us/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141024181253/http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/SCO2_court_locations.html to http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/SCO2_court_locations.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140625093221/http://sydneytrains.info/about/history/central_station.htm to http://www.sydneytrains.info/about/history/central_station.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110301005900/http://www.socsci.flinders.edu.au/geog/geos/PDF%20Papers/Amphlett.pdf to http://www.socsci.flinders.edu.au/geog/geos/PDF%20Papers/Amphlett.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130923041440/http://www.centralparksydney.com:80/gardens/ to http://www.centralparksydney.com/gardens/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005163802/http://www.centralparksydney.com:80/architecture to http://www.centralparksydney.com/architecture/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sydney as Australia's "Bonn"
Sydney effectively serves alongside Canberra. Even Paul Keating remarked that most federal politicians prefer Sydney to the "bush capital". I'm highly stressed because of my mother's illness, but it would be nice if some acne'd and drewdrops neophyte didn't revert someone whose been here since July 2002 with a snotty edit summary like "no". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly an "acne'd and drewdrops neophyte" young fellow. I'm 20 years older than you. Your edit was reverted because it was misleading, unsourced and effectively duplicates the content after it. By the way, I've been online since you were 7. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Under heavy stress. I might take a wiki-break. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Corporate section
I have trimmed this section because based on the GA review and the policies on what Wikipedia is not, it is not a page where all the businesses are listed. As the source stated that around 280 multinational companies have regional offices in Sydney, listing a couple indicates spam and bias so I trimmed it down. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos
As a bit of a drive-by comment, only one of the article's photos (which I just added) depict the areas of Sydney west of about Balmain. Given that most of the city is well away from the main CBD and Harbour, a more representative range of photos would strengthen the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sydney. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100529122055/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Australia/Royalvisits.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Australia/Royalvisits.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)