Talk:Sydney/Archive 9

RfC: What image should appear in the infobox at Sydney?
Regarding the image in the infobox at Sydney: (a) What image should be displayed? (b) Should there be a moratorium on image changes and discussion for 12 months? Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Image options include:
 * 1) Permalink • Current image 14 May 2020
 * 2) Permalink • Opera House/Bridge 9 May 2020
 * 3) Permalink • Opera House 16 May 2020
 * 4) Permalink • Five-image montage 31 July 2019
 * 5) Permalink • Seven-image montage 25 April 2020
 * 6) Permalink • Two-image montage 9 May 2020 (skyline, Opera House/Bridge)
 * 7) Permalink • Three-image montage 19 May 2020 (Bridge, Opera House, skyline)


 * This RfC is an attempt to settle the protracted dispute evident at ANI: April 2020 + May 2020 + May 2020. The RfC was planned at and  above. I have no opinion on the outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * (a) A single image is all that is necessary to help readers know that they have arrived at the Sydney article per MOS:LEADIMAGE. However, if consensus is for a montage, then the montage should only include large, easy to see and understand images. For that reason I have a strong first preference for option 2. That image has it all as we've previously discussed above. Second preference option 6 - Contains the Bridge and Opera House but includes a city skyline that gives some context to the bridge/opera house location. Third preference option 7 - per second preference but while the images are excellent, they are a little darker than I like to see. Definitely NOT options 4 or 5. Comments on these are below in . (b) Most definitely, absolutely, positively YES. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - the montage options all appear too cluttered. Yes to a 12 months moratorium after that.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (a) Option 2. Sydney has three iconic things, the harbour, the bridge and the opera house. Nothing else to do with the city is instantly recognisable to non-residents. Option 2 shows all those three in a dramatic, bright image. No montage is appropriate. All include places known only to locals, and the five and seven image montages have the pics so shrunken as to be meaningless. If those images are truly worth including in the article, they should be used in larger format later on. (b) I'm never a fan of closing down conversation. Unfortunately, slow Admin response to earlier misbehaviours on this topic allowed things to get way out of hand. (I thank Johnuniq for his strong oversight now.) If I could trust Admins to intervene more effectively in future than they did earlier, we would not need a moratorium. Sadly I don't think I have that trust, so I guess a moratorium might be needed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 for reasons already stated. And yes to a moratorium. As an aside, option 5 is a great example of why montages should be banned altogether. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 6. It's nowhere near as cluttered as the other montages and Sydney's CBD is one of the most important financial centers in the world. Yes to the moratorium, however I think a year is too long. Maybe 6 or 8 months? ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  07:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 A nice balanced photomontage that includes iconic/landmark aspects of the city is really what the page needs as a proper illustrative introduction for outside readers into the article and the city itself. Hence, this has become standard practice for almost all wikipedia articles on major cities across the world, and a single image is simply not sufficient. And yes, we should hold a moratorium - Cement4802 (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2. A simple iconic shot. Captures all that we need. Simple and elegant. Some of the other single images are not so good, and the montages (like most) are messy and selection inherently subjective - at least with a single image, Sydney is unarguably about bridge and opera house. Montages aren't really NPOV either - they tend to show case a city's best. Funny how they don't show ugly areas, slums or traffic jams. A NPOV montage would. --Merbabu (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Add on Moratorium - i think it's a good idea. But if it's really on changes and discussion, then 12 months is too long though i think, but 12 months is better than 0 months of no discussion. Can we do 6 months on no discussion? --Merbabu (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We've had something like 7 discussions on the lead image over the years. I'd be quite happy not to see discussion for a year. If we can settle on one option here, why do we need discussion in 6 months? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 for all the reasons said above in this section and those I have said in previous discussion. The purpose of an image in the lead of an article is to provide visual confirmation that the reader has arrived at the correct page.  In order to do this the image needs necessarily to be stereo-typical, indeed iconic, of the subject.  Other images of aspects of the city not distinguishable from generic subjects, ie a church, a Victorian civic building, a city scape etc can easily and appropriately be placed later in the article in a section of the article that gives those images context.  I am opposed to montages in any article lead including this one for these reasons.  I support a moratorium after the RFC and frankly would prefer a two year moratorium, as this issue has been contentious for so long with too many people not being prepared to drop the stick, but since only a one year term is on offer here, I support that - Nick Thorne talk  00:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 6 - Most visually clean and immediately representative of Sydney. Agree with NKON21 that the inclusion of the iconic Sydney skyline is a big plus for Option 6. I strongly oppose a moratorium because this is not a complex or controversial issue. The protracted, ridiculous dispute regarding this matter is solely due to the behaviour of the editors involved and entirely unrelated to the actual issue at hand. A moratorium does nothing to address the actual cause of dispute. -Cjhard (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 followed by Option 3 and then Option 1. My preference is strongly for a single image that is instantly recognisable as Sydney as per MOS:LEADIMAGE. I find it hard to understand why we are even discussing a montage, given that WP:MONTAGE says that the use of montages is to "illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way", and none of the montages proposed are illustrating any point by their juxtapositioning. WP:MONTAGE further says "If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences." As we have no justification for a montage in the infobox, it would seem that a gallery is the preferred replacement (or do the old-fashioned thing of putting the images in the section where they complement the text). (b) Yes, I would support a mortorium, as this argument has gone on for way too long and descended into personal attacks. Kerry (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that WP:MONTAGE is not a relevant guideline as it provides guidance as to when "single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. (See File:Phoebian Explorers 2 PIA06118.jpg for an example montage.)" should be included in an article. That's why it discusses a gallery as the preferred replacement. I don't think there's any practical way to put a gallery in an infobox. Cjhard (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 for reasons already stated. And yes to a moratorium the longer the better. CamV8 (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Either option 4 or 6. I also believe photos should be in daylight where possible so that the harbour, which is the most iconic feature of Sydney, is visible. I tend to think a city's skyline should be included, as should the SOH and SHB. The harbour will already be included within those. If it came to being asked to identify what the next most iconic landmarks are I would say Bondi Beach and possibly the QVB.  Stormcrow Mithrandir  08:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 and Option 5 - typical montage. I prefer 5 pictures (one skyline, two photos, 2 photos) like Madrid. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 21:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course Option 5. Please see my below comments Ender  and  Peter  17:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 5 is near perfect.  IWI  ( chat ) 15:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 5 or Option 4. High quality images of well-known Sydney locations. Any other choice, bar Option 7, would be ridiculous. To have the Opera House and Harbour Bridge as the article's lede image (as in options 2 and 3) is preposterous, this article is not about those two structures, it is about Sydney as a city. If you have an image about those two alone, it's like using a single image of the Eiffel Tower for an article about Paris, or the Empire State Building for an article about New York. It is not substantial enough to use a single landmark to promote or illustrate an entire city. I am not a Sydneysider, and yet I can still recognise and identify every location in options 5 and 4. Someone else highlighted that an outsider or layman visiting the page doesn't need to recognise what is depicted in every image, as long as each image is significant enough to Sydney itself, or any Sydneysider. Ashton 29 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (Summoned by a bot) Option 2 Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of montages in infoboxes, I think they look cluttered so I'm going to gloss over them. As a Brit who has visited Sydney a few times, I'm somewhat familiar with the city scape, but I don't know it like the back of my hand. As others have said, Option 2 screams 'Sydney' at me, whereas in Option 1 I feel like the iconic opera house is not so recognisable - it's in there, but it's from an angle that a lot of people might not recognise. Option 3 is just the opera house, not the bridge and the rest of the city. Option 2 seems like the best choice to me. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sydney is known worldwide for only two things, the Opera House and the Bridge ~ pace, HiLo48, lots of port cities have harbours which are similar enough to be non-distinctive ~ and they should be the image facing the reader. Thus the montages should be cast aside and Option 2 or Option 3, with a preference for the latter as the Opera House is the more recognisable in it.  As to a moratorium, certainly; i think we ought to moratoriate more frequently on these long-lasting disputes; happy days, LindsayHello 08:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , hey. Can I check with you that you meant Option 3 for preference? I'm with you on the Opera House and the Bridge being the key features - but I can't see the Bridge at all in Option 3? Girth Summit  (blether)  16:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, . Thanks for the summons.  I did, because i feel the House is probably the better known and shows better in Option 3.  That being said, i've gone back for a second or third look, and Option 2 is also an excellent picture.  To my mind Option 1, though it shows both, is not a good image for a lead image, i agree with what you wrote.  Hope that helps -- happy days, LindsayHello 18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 is really only included because it's the current image. When Option 2 was found it fell out of favour with most people. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Except an RFC is not meant to be a vote count, but resolved by analysis of the strength of arguments put, with greater weight given to those respecting policy and guidelines. I've seen a lot of "but I like X" type of arguments especially from those proposing montages and precious little argument addressing the policy and guideline issues raised. - Nick Thorne talk  13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * See above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to options 4 & 5 (the 5 and 7 image montages) for the following reasons. As we have already discussed elsewhere on this page MOS:LEADIMAGE says "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." All that is needed to achieve that aim is a single image of something iconic in the city, something that is well known. We have that with option 2 which shows both the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge, both of which are internationally recognised symbols of Sydney. It also shows Luna Park which is well known in Australia but probably not in the rest of the world. The 5-image montage contains 3 images that I feel are unsuitable. The first two (St Marys and the GPO) are too small and don't comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE. That are really just a church and a building. Neither of them are unique or iconic. Christ Church Cathedral, Newcastle has the same basic structure as St Marys and the GPO is similar to a lot of buildings around the world. The image of the Opera House windows is what I call "arty-farty". It's artistic but not encyclopaedic. People know the general shape of the building but not the specific that this image shows. The 7-image montage has similar problems. The most glaring issue is the tiny size of the Opera House. It should be far more prominently display because it is so iconic. The Queen Victoria Building is, like the GPO, similar to many buildings around the world. It's not well-known outside Sydney and a won't "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". Central Station has a huge number of buses lined up outside so that's confusing. Is it a bus station or a railway station? State of Origin matches are probably not followed outside NSW and Qld let alone the rest of the world. The image focuses too much on the game and not enough in the arena, which most people have probably forgotten about since 2000. The last image could be any beach, anywhere and while the name "Bondi" is known internationally, the beach itself is not. In summary, none of these images really help the reader. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

-

According to the Sydney CBD article, "The Sydney CBD is Australia's main financial and economic centre, as well as a leading hub of economic activity for the Asia-Pacific region. The City has the largest gathering of workers in the whole of Sydney". Given that the CBD is perhaps the most important financial centre in the southern hemisphere and one of most important financial centers in the world, its inclusion in the "representative" visual should be vital. I 100% agree with Aussie above - all the beaches, cathedrals and stadiums in the city lack any sort of real distinguishing feature from really anywhere else in the world, but the CBD skyline stands different; the Sydney Tower and Deutsche Bank Place is not quite any other building as far I can tell. Adding the nearby soon-to-be-opened Crown Sydney, the skyline will become an even more prominent area in the country as well as those visiting the city. I don't know a single city on Wikipedia that doesn't show its traditional central business district in their infoboxes, and given the scale of influence Sydney's CBD has on the city's history as well as the globe, not including it would only make an deficient infobox visual. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  07:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did see something strange on the Sydney skyline a few days ago and thought "What the hell is that?" It turned out to be Crown Sydney. It's certainly located so as to be a fairly obvious building, more so than Centrepoint. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I could just as easily say the same thing for Sydney Tower, Deutsche Bank Place and Crown Sydney. To an outsider, these buildings aren't really landmarks, and look rather like generic skyscrapers, and we could just as easily shun the skyline image for being generic. However that has never been my view on the photomontage, and most if not all photomontages of city articles wikipedia contain images that aren't instantly recognisable to an outsider. The point is that they're local places of significance, and so are buildings such as St Mary's, ANZ Stadium, the GPO etc etc. As has been said before again and again in this discussion, the article isn't a tourist brochure but rather an informative article, and a photomontage does just that by introducing readers to areas of significance in Sydney. Only including the two stereotypical landmarks seems pretty touristy to me - Cement4802 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Including tiny images of things that outsiders won't recognise in a montage is pointless. If you think photos of those things should be in the article, why not include them later in the article in a much bigger format? HiLo48 (talk)
 * "Only including the two stereotypical landmarks seems pretty touristy to me". Yes, I agree with this statement. This is one big reason why I think only showing the stereotypical Opera House and Harbour Bridge results in a weak visual, as the only real impact those landmarks have on the global scale is merely tourism and is simply not a fair depiction of Sydney. That's why I advocate for the inclusion of the downtown skyline, as the CBD is unarguably the most important district in all of the city, and perhaps Oceania and the entire southern hemisphere. In nearly every video or movie I've seen that involves the setting of Sydney, the two stereotypical landmarks are always accompanied by the sight of the downtown skyline, and it seems silly not to include such a prominent area in the infobox visual it is supposed to do accomplish a similar role.
 * That being said however, I have to disagree with what you said about those "local places of significance", as you said it yourself with the word "local", it does not have a adequate amount of global importance or any distinguishable features that can set it apart from any other similar subject in the world. Bondi Beach is the only thing that comes close in my mind, however the word "Bondi" is only thing that strikes any familiarity, as an American with a pretty high knowledge of geography, I still wouldn't be able to tell otherwise, let alone people who don't. Unlike the CBD, those areas have no real prominent importance on the global stage anyways, aside from tourism. Instead, those "local" subjects are best highlighted in the article itself. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  20:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your second paragraph is pretty much what I've been saying for a long time. Where were you all that time? :) It's good to have an outside perspective. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

- Why not standard photomontage with 5 pictures (one skyline, two photos, 2 photos) like Madrid. For example:

Previous file:Sydney-collage-wikipedia 2.jpg also is good, however, I would change rocks to Bondi beach. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 21:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been over this many times before. Nothing in the Madrid montage yells Madrid. (I'm not actually sure what would but surely Madrid has something iconic?) In your montage the Opera House and Bridge are far too small for structures that are so iconic. As previously stated, the name "Bondi" is well known but the beach itself isn't. It could be any beach anywhere. The last image, File:Park in Sydney.jpg is another obscure view, so obscure that the uploader chose to use "Park in Sydney" as the name and a description that says "A famous park in Sydney located just beside the Opera house." I actually had to go to the file page then follow a link back to Sydney to find out what it was and I've actually been there more than once. The selection of montages in the RfC is what it is. We've been talking about this for a while and there was plenty of opportunity to make suggestions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem lies elsewhere - you haven't been able to understand a simple thing for years. There is no perfect graphic collection for any city in the world, each graphic has pros and cons. You and a few other users only want the ideal montage, such does not exist. I think there is a consensus for skyline (CBD), opera and bridge, the problem is choosing other graphics to collage (2-4 pictures, I prefer 2 to collage type skyline+2+2). If the city has no (more) icons known all over the world, it doesn't matter - may be less known, Bondi beach is ok, Royal Botanic Garden is ok, cathedral is ok. Most articles about cities in Wikipedia use collages but most cities in the world there are no icons known all over the world, photos of (locally) famous places are used, showing different places in the city. Simply. Please stop blocking changes, you've been creating the same problem for years, currently of the largest cities in the world only Sydney has no photo collage - through your fault because you want a perfect photomontage that doesn't exist. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 18:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read you will see that  has written "Do not mention other editors" and yet you've chosen to attack me without any justification. If read the discussion that lead to the RfC you'll see that I actually proposed one of the montages and my 2nd and 3rd preferences are both montages. Please don't attack any more. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For years - I remember you as an opponent to photocollage. But - ok, sorry. It doesn't change the fact that you still have trouble understanding these things - ideal montage does not exist, please give a chance for less important obiects (photos) to allow consensus. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 19:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48: "No montage is appropriate"

I hope that I can better understand the reasoning for this odd ultimatum. Please take a look at the articles on this site that pertain to capitals. Upon engaging in a survey of the content and conversations of these articles, you will see how montages are strongly encouraged and embraced.

I do not understand why this view is so popular among those who responded to this RfC. You will find that the consensus is to not only accept but to embrace montages. The outright rejection of such a thing as expressed by a number of commenters here stands out quite strongly in contrast.

I strongly disagree with AussieLegend's assertion that only a single image should be in an article about Sydney or any capital, and that the images must be internationally recognizable. As Cement4802 aptly points out, the point of these montages is to show images that are of significance to the location. They may indeed not have any significance to the reader. That is not to say that either the reader or the city are any less significant.

We should inform such decisions based on the consensus that we already see on Wikipedia. Take a look at this list of just five capital pages, two of which are in Good Article Status:


 * London


 * Brasília


 * Nairobi


 * Denver (Article in Good status with seven-image montage)


 * Berlin

Do you recognize all the images in these montages? I sure don't, except for the ones in Denver because I used to live there, but what does it matter where I lived? The point is that the images are strongly representative of the popularity, culture, and spirit of the city the article is about so that as I read the article, I finally have some understanding of the significance of Union Station, or what that weird inverted cone building thing is in the capital of Brazil, or what to one person may look like just a bridge but to people in Sydney is obviously the iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Do a search in London's article for conversations about the           lead image. You will find people talking about replacing current images with better ones, or making sure that they are more recognizable for anything that is so internationally famous, but you will not see too many people talking about getting rid of montages. Why on earth would we want to that here? AussieLegend you say that "nothing in the Madrid montage yells Madrid" and then say that you do not know what structures in Madrid would be iconic. So then, why would it be appropriate for you to determine which images of Madrid are most iconic?

The current montage is fine. The seven picture montage is even better. You will find just as many pictures on any number of random capital articles you look up. So many pictures is not a bad thing. You can cap it at seven if you wanted, but it by no means diminishes this article for contributors to highlight the beauty of the city with a small handful of introductory images. Ender and  Peter  18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ender and Peter, exactly. The problem lies elsewhere, users who blocking photomontage have not been able to understand a simple thing for years. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 18:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with AussieLegend's assertion that only a single image should be in an article about Sydney or any capital, and that the images must be internationally recognizable. - Did you bother reading my vote where 2 of my 3 preferences are montages? Have you read MOS:LEADIMAGE, which explains the purpose of the lead image? Note that I didn't say only single images should be used in any capital city. I was concentrating on this article. Obviously some place like Madrid may not have something that is iconic, but if a place has, then you need go further than iconic photos of that place. For somewhere like Madrid, maybe one photo with a decent caption is better than a montage of places that people don't know. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the point of these montages is to show images that are of significance to the location - That's not the purpose of the montages according to MOS:LEADIMAGE. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the point of these montages is to show images that are of significance to the location - so, Bondi beach Royal Botanic Garden or cathedral is not significance to the location? You answered your own question. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what was said. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - I have to point out that the entire above discussion beginning with the post from is built on a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote, omitting important parts of my argument. This happened a lot in previous discussions, and was part of the reason so much nonsense ended up at ANI. I felt angry when I first saw Enderandpeter's contribution, but am trying to be restrained here. I have effectively been lied about, but won't retaliate. Misrepresentation, lies and straw man arguments NEVER help discussion here. I note that immediately above this comment from me,  has said pretty much the same thing (albeit much more briefly). By claiming I said things I didn't, and then discussing those things that hadn't actually been said, Enderandpeter has derailed the conversation, with a large slab of text. This discussion section is becoming too big for anyone new to read. We are reaching the same sort of point Admins used as an excuse for not intervening early enough in the discussions at ANI. This is becoming another example of WP:TLDR. I don't know the solution, but I do seek your advice on how to respond to misrepresentation, and your thoughts on how to keep this RfC from going further off the rails. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding some inappropriate comments above (unrelated to you or Enderandpeter), I have issued a warning to the author—thanks to other editors for not escalating. Regarding your long comment, my reading of HiLo48's "No montage is appropriate" is that it says that none of the proposed montages is appropriate for reasons given. Describing that comment as an "odd ultimatum" seems to egregiously misrepresent what HiLo48 wrote. That might not be a big deal in that it is easily corrected, but the misreading is a problem. To avoid issues like that, might I suggest framing such comments as a question ("did you mean that no montage could ever be appropriate?") or at least a conditional statement ("if you meant ... then ..."). However, the best solution would be to simply argue for your preferred option or argue that another option is inferior. If someone wants to add a "Discussion 2" level-2 heading for any new comments on the image options, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I am even more confused by your responses...


 * First of all, I do agree with you that all in all, this is too much discussion about the lead montage. Why there has been so much debate about this is not all too clear. Please compare the nature of your discussion to that of others on this topic. Again, the current montage is fine and the seven-image montage is better. How is it worse? Simply because there are more pictures? Is there any more substantive argument that anyone can provide as to how having a lead image section like the Denver article would make this article worse rather than better?


 * AussieLegend pointed out to another user that it was agreed upon that other editors should not be mentioned by name, which was a caveat that I overlooked. But then I see pings to me, which only make me think that I should disregard that instruction.


 * I am disappointed that no one addressed the substance of my arguments. AussieLegend noted that although they said that a single image is all that is necessary, they would agree to a smaller montage. I do not think I misrepresented you because I am arguing against the view that a single image is all that is needed. You expressed that it is all that is necessary for "this article". Again, I ask you, why is only a single image necessary for this article yet montages are clearly appropriate for any other article about a capital?


 * HiLo48, it is very unfortunate that all that you saw in my comment were "lies" and "misrepresentations". Please read what I wrote carefully, and what you wrote for that matter. You did not say "none of these montages are appropriate" (a "clarification" made by another editor, as you did not even explain what it was that I misrepresented). You said "No montage is appropriate". I claimed that you said what you actually said and then proceeded to discuss this. Elsewhere in the discussion, you say things like "Photomontages don't work", "So what's the point of the montage?", and other statements where you are clearly endorsing a single image. Are you honestly asserting that you support a montage despite all of these other comments?


 * If that is the case then alright... if the strongest advocates for a single image and "no montage" are now saying that I misrepresented them and that they indeed endorse a montage, then I guess that settles that?


 * And so, if we are agreed upon a montage, please explain why there are articles in Good status that have an average of four to seven pictures, if this is in fact a violation of MOS:IMAGELEAD? Ender  and  Peter  20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly did say "No montage is appropriate". I also said a lot more, clarifying and giving reasons for that view. Arguing against YOUR interpretation of that statement in isolation, WITHOUT the clarifications and reasons, was misrepresentation, and a provocative Straw man argument. I could elaborate for pages, but won't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Instead of accusing people of straw man arguments and lying whenever they do not agree with you, I strongly recommend explaining your position so that we can deal head-on with the issue. No one is asking you to elaborate for pages. A few sentences or paragraphs of the most salient points that we can engage would be very constructive. Ender  and  Peter  21:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it worse? Simply because there are more pictures? Is there any more substantive argument that anyone can provide There is literally an entire novel-worth of text that dates back all the way to January that contains the discussions why montages with many images are not the best idea. I invite you to scan over the discussions and respond accordingly. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  01:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no current montage. I explained my opposition to both the 5 & 7 image montages here. When Johnuniq wrote "Do not mention other editors", he was talking about attacking other editors, not pinging them. If you read MOS:LEADIMAGE you will see that the purpose of a lead image is "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" using a representative image. If a place has something that is iconic to that location, like the internationally known Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge then you only need a single image of one or both to comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE which also says "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there". This would include images that aren't instantly recognisable like this, which is only 90px wide (compared to 220px for a standard thumbnail) and not instantly recognisable. i.e. it doesn't "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" but probably would give some eyestrain.
 * Again, I ask you, why is only a single image necessary for this article yet montages are clearly appropriate for any other article about a capital? - Nobody said montages were appropriate for other articles. What was meant is that other articles are irrelevant to this discussion.
 * You did not say "none of these montages are appropriate" - The RfC is about Sydney, not other articles, and HiLo48's comment was made with that clearly in mind. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Nkon21: Take note that no one feels compelled to repeat those arguments here, nor refute anything I've said, except one person. In fact, the first response to my message was outright denial of the strong preference for a single image, making it rather difficult to determine the core issue. Would you mind summarizing the strongest points so we can discuss them? Ender  and  Peter  22:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * AussieLegend: I could have sworn I saw a montage in the article lead when I left that message on May 23, but I must have been looking at one of the Options. My point is that either of those is fine and the one with seven pictures is much better.


 * I'm quite confused by this trend of people here saying one thing and then someone else tries to explain they meant something different. If Johnuniq means to say that editors should not attack each other, not that they should not mention each other, then why doesn't it simply say that? Had it did, I would not have said what I said.


 * When MOS:LEADIMAGE says "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there", you seem to be interpreting this as "use as few images as possible, unless they are 'internationally recognizable'". You are inserting arbitrary unneeded criteria. You are simply interjecting your personal preference.


 * Your statement "What was meant [in those] other articles are irrelevant to this discussion" is where I think we are having the most disagreement. What is meant in the other Wikipedia articles about capitals is entirely relevant to this discussion. You are refusing to acknowledge how other articles go about this subject and are instead arguing about a personal preference regarding clutter and recognizability. Again, someone who does not know what is iconic in Madrid should not be determining the most iconic images in Madrid. Instead, you should get a sense of the consensus here by seeing what other good articles are like, as they are much more representative of what is best for Wikipedia than any of our personal preferences. You will see how they embrace montages and you will not recognize every image, because the images are meant to portray what is important to that location, and the articles tend to have something to say about each location that is previously not so recognizable, until you learn about it.


 * And so, as time goes on and we all pass away, people in the future will also look at this article and wonder why there was such a bizarre edit war regarding the insistence on a single image when all the other articles on this site proudly show several images in the lead. Other people will very understandably try to add more images, until they face this very out-of-place opposition in this one article where a handful of people reject montages. Ender  and  Peter  22:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "I strongly recommend explaining your position..." This is something I detest about RfCs like this. I have explained my full position in great detail many times on this page. It's all there for anyone to read. You chose to quote me out of context. That IS your fault. YOU need to look at what I have said in the past. I should not have to continually repeat myself. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm quite confused by this trend of people here saying one thing and then someone else tries to explain they meant something different. - With all due respect, everyone else seems to understand what was meant so maybe it's just your misunderstanding. HiLo48's statement was clear in my opinion. Have you read in which Johnuniq explains why the RfC happened?
 * you seem to be interpreting this as "use as few images as possible, unless they are 'internationally recognizable'". - Not at all. The purpose of the lead image has been stated numerous times. Images that readers wouldn't expect to be there are images that don't "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". Images of the Opera House and the Bridge do that while images of more obscure buildings don't. Wikipedia is not an image farm. Images should be accompanied by encyclopaedic content. They are not just added for decoration, which seems the intent of most montages. If you can comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE with one image then that's all you need. If it takes more than one to comply then use as many as you need but don't use more than is necessary.
 * Your statement "What was meant [in those] other articles are irrelevant to this discussion" - That's not what I said. You have changed my statement to mean something else. I actually said "What was meant is that other articles are irrelevant to this discussion." If an article has a montage that doesn't mean this article should have a montage. To claim otherwise is WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * Again, someone who does not know what is iconic in Madrid should not be determining the most iconic images in Madrid. - And that's why I don't edit Madrid.
 * you should get a sense of the consensus here by seeing what other good articles are like - Who is to say that the montages are what got the articles elevated to GA status? What was the state of the article at that time? What comments were made by reviewers? When determining whether an article has a single image or a montage you can't look at other articles. You have to find out what works locally in order to comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE.
 * because the images are meant to portray what is important to that location - That's exactly the wrong way to do it because what is significant at a location is not necessarily what would "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". For example, at Madrid File:Azca-Skyline-271112.jpg is used. There's nothing in the image that tells me the article is about Madrid. If anything it's a little confusing because the light grey building looks like 2 World Trade Center, which was destroyed in 2001. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1
Rather than linking what other articles are like, or trying to comply to the very word of the manual of style, why don't we put that aside and prioritise what is actually best for the article. There is no obligation to follow the MOS exactly; it is not a rule, it is a general guideline. When the MOS says it should let readers know they have arrived at the right page, surely that applies more to articles like hammer rather than cities.  IWI  ( chat ) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How is what MOS:LEADIMAGE says not the best for the article? It applies to all articles, not just hammer and why shouldn't it? How is having a tiny picture of something as iconic as the Sydney Opera House "near perfect"? Why is it "near perfect" to have tiny images that are hard to see? How is having a photo of people on a beach "near perfect"? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not tiny, nor are they hard to see. Someone added near-thumbnail size images to the "Housing" section, yet you let that slide by. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The standard thumbnail is 220px wide. The images in the montage are only 90px. That's tiny and would be most definitely hard for some people to see. Maybe not you if you have 20/20 vision but a lot of people are not so fortunate and need larger images. That's a reason the default thumbnail is 220px.
 * Someone added near-thumbnail size images to the "Housing" section, yet you let that slide by. - I'm not the image police, but those images are 150px wide, which is about the smallest that a lot of people can see comfortably. The small images in the montages are only 60% of that, which is far too small. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not to say that LEADIMAGE doesn't say good things, but we should not let it govern our every choice.  IWI  ( chat ) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style is not, and never was, a rule. It is a general guide. We differ on opinions and there is no point discussing this again. I support Option 5.  IWI  ( chat ) 16:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine if you don't want to discuss but it does make your rationale seem a bit weak when you won't justify it IMO. Cheers. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that one would serve the article well.  IWI  ( chat ) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

For those in favour of a montage: What do you think of this? Or this? Over the top? A-OK? How small do the images have to get from overcrowding until a simple skyline shot is preferable to a montage? To me, these and many other montages are clearly the result of some unofficial "my-city-has-more-landmarks-than-yours" competition, and it has been spiralling out of control for years. Enderandpeter pointed out above that Denver, a Good status article, has a montage. The fact is it attained Good article status in 2007, well before montages were even a thing. It's crazy to me that there isn't yet a cap on number of images per montage, or at least some kind of attempt at standardisation. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Montages like those in cities you mentioned as well as this, this and this are some of the most unnecessary montages I've seen. There is literally no value in including itty-bity images that readers can barely even see, and any such cluttered montage should best be avoided. In the case of the latter montages in particular, including non-unique things such as public transport and stadiums don't have much value either. All of those things lack distinction that can be easily distinguishable from nearly every other city in the world; what kind of city doesn't have some sort of stadium or public transport? Well I am not 100% against montages, some of the ones I view favorably are those like this and this, as all subjects included are specifically unique to that city as well as clearly visible and distinguishable. But some of those found elsewhere like those mentioned along with the other montages in the RFC list I am particularly against. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  19:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're overplaying the statement that the images in the montages proposed at RFC are "itty bitty" and impossible to distinguish. Simply not true - they are quite clear. To a Sydneysider they're instantly recognisable, to an outsider, they give an indication on the city's landmarks and tourism focal points. I can't name any of those places in the Paris montage you linked, aside from the Arc de Triomphe and Eiffel Tower. That is a very atypical, usual view of Notre-Dame too. Yet they have links to the appropriate, corresponding articles. If anyone visiting Sydney's page has the same trouble, they have a link to the page to give them more information. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The images are clear to somebody with good vision but not all readers have good vision and we have to cater for them. Try reading MOS:ACCESS sometime.
 * To a Sydneysider they're instantly recognisable, to an outsider, they give an indication on the city's landmarks and tourism focal points. - For the umpteenth time, MOS:LEADIMAGE, which nobody has justified ignoring, says that the purpose of the lead image is "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". It's not to give an indication on the city's landmarks and tourism focal points. As has been pointed out by others, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That's firm policy by the way. As for Sydneysiders, a single image of The Bridge or Opera House would be all that is needed for them to see "visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". Sydneysiders don't need anything else.
 * I can't name any of those places in the Paris montage you linked, aside from the Arc de Triomphe and Eiffel Tower. That is a very atypical, usual view of Notre-Dame too - There are only 4 images in the montage and you just named three of them, so it's only the last you didn't know. Imagine you are a French person arriving at the Sydney article. Other than The Bridge and Opera House, what in the montages would be familiar to you? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have 20/20 vision and a HD laptop. Option 5, which you voted for, is almost as bad as the Cleveland and Detroit montages. The QBV looks like a brown lego block at that size. None of its distinguishing features are visible. The Opera House, the building that says "Sydney" to the world, is the tiniest of the lot—a cluster of pixels in the dark. Due to eyesight issues or screen size, a lot of readers will be straining to recognise a global icon. Think of it this way: Sydney's best known landmark takes up a fraction of a percent of option 5. Is that a problem? - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and In case you are interested, there is a discussion at Village_pump_(technical). If this proposal is implemented, you would be able to put wikilinks, bolding, and italics into the Sydney photomotage captions and it would show up in MediaViewer.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is this MediaViewer of which you speak, and what does it have to do with the first impression a reader gets when they reach the Sydney page, perhaps on a small tablet? And are we heading somewhat off track? How can it overcome the fact that tiny, squashed images of places unknown to most readers are of no use at the beginning of an article? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When you click on a picture in a photomontage, it gets big on your screen. The part of wikipedia that makes them big on your screen is MediaViewer. A caption is autogenerated. It has some bearing on this discussion because for some montages, the pictures might be expected to be a little small with the assumption that one could just click on them if they matter that much. If the autogenerated captions can include formatting, it becomes less unpalatable to expect users to use it instead of just looking at the montage without clicking on the images. But yes-- this is somewhat off track. I posted it here because I was looking for users who had an interest in photomontages to comment in the technical pump discussion. Feel free to ignore it if you prefer.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems to be an attempt to fix an obvious problem that fans of montages insist doesn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My conjecture is that the code could have been written by more than one person, with some of the earlier code intended to allow it, but then it was decided later on not to allow formatting. Or it was just an oversight.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to Johnuniq
Thank you to Johnuniq for stepping up and devoting time and patience to the lead image issue. Thanks for the clarity and consistency too. --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks to everyone for participating in an orderly RfC. Would someone please implement the outcome, preferably using an edit summary like:
 * Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've used the caption from the file information page, with a couple of tweaks to limit the caption to 2 lines. Thanks to Johnuniq for all of his efforts and extreme patience. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've used the caption from the file information page, with a couple of tweaks to limit the caption to 2 lines. Thanks to Johnuniq for all of his efforts and extreme patience. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

First European to chart east coast of Australia
I know this is a contentious issue with decades of ridiculous claims that James Cook discovered Australia but....surely he was the first person to chart the east coast of Australia and not just the first European. Is there any credible evidence that someone of any racial or national background other than Cook created charts of that part of the landmass? I certainly wouldn't change the page without something approaching consensus but shouldn't the article be more historically accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.120.98 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a number of claims based on maps etc that Chinese sailors may have "discovered" and chartered parts of the Australian coast before Cook, see, , , but I don't know how proven or accepted these claims are. I think we are safer to stick with saying he was the first European. Kerry (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

distances to other cities
Distances given in the location chapter are inconsistent with the distances given in the articles of respective other cities. Distance from Melbourne is given there as 713 km (instead of 877 here), from Brisbane 732 km (instead of 923), and from Perth 3288 km (instead of 3936) (Adelaide not checked). 2003:C0:8F15:4501:7545:FB2C:C039:DD7C (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one is distance by road (that works for Sydney to Melbourne being 877 km) and the other in a straight line, obviously shorter. I wonder if Wikipedia has a guideline on this? HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, WPAUST has used road distances as these are more useful. I'm not sure if there is any guideline. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, according to me, it is misleading. Distances beetween places is only geographical issue (straight line). The data in the articles about Australia are misleading. If anything, it should write "923 km per road". Besides, distanses per road breaks other guidelines, the longer-term (I don't remember the name of the guideline). Road distances change over the years: construction of a new road or motorway, construction of a bypass or bridge changes the distance. So, in 2015 may be 912km per road, in 2020 may be 898km per road. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 11:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A great encyclopaedia would probably state both. HiLo48 (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can use both, however straight line should be default. We can use too Template:Abbr (with dropdown information next to the number), for example: 713 km NE of Melbourne. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 16:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice idea. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that infobox Australian place directs you to use road distance in its various distance fields so until such time as that is changed by consensus, that is what you should do in the infobox (and any consensus to make such a change would need a huge commitment to update the many thousands of articles using that infobox, so it's not just a matter of changing the documentation). I think you can use either or both types of distance measurement in the body of the article so long as you make clear which is being used (both would be ideal). In a lot of urban areas the difference between the two distances is not such that a reader is likely to care (3.3km vs 3.6km). But in regional areas, 2 places can be close as the crow flies but very distant by road simply due to how few roads there are in the area. Similarly in both urban and rural areas, the presence of rivers, bays, mountains etc do create a big difference to distances. In Sydney it's 6km from Manly to Vaucluse as the crow flies but over 24km by road. I tend to favour road distances because that is the real distance that our most of our readers will be interested in unless they happen to be aeroplane pilots in which case I wuld hope their flight training provides them with better ways of determining distance than looking up Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

non break space characters.
Re change The deletion of the non break space characters should be reverted. states that theses characters should be used to ensure that a line break does not take place between the number and the following information.Fleet Lists (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Not sure what happened. I restored them. Zroota (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Misleading sentence
In intro, sentence of "Sydney is made up of 658 suburbs, and 15 contiguous regions"  is misleading. Sydney not not is made up of 658 suburbs, 40 local government areas and 15 contiguous regions in a general sense (suburbs+regions+LGA's).

The Sydney are subdivided into 40 local government areas, and these are further divided into 658 suburbs. Regions should not be mentioned in the intro because it is completely different (not related to any official division).

I think a confusing and controversial sentence of "Sydney is made up of 658 suburbs, and 15 contiguous regions" should change to "Sydney are subdivided into 40 local government areas, and these are further divided into 658 suburbs" or similar. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 21:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to hear counter-arguments but I'm kind of with you on removing mention of regions. Region concepts are flimsy at best. Or in Sydney, are constantly being redefined but others wanting to be in more desireable areas. North Shore was recently redefined on wikipedia based on...wait for it...the web pages of real estate agents as sources. --Merbabu (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—114.142.173.12 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Officially, according to the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales, the coordinates are correct, if overly precise. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Blue Mountains
Shouldn't the City of Blue Mountains be included in the list of LGAs since its included in the ABS definition? Sdinesh2222 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Demographics
I see edit-war in Demographics section. Please get a consensus first - otherwise - this new edition will be undone.

Generally, table of Historical population is too large, it is absurdly long, not suitable in this form for the main article about the city. I think that the table should be shortened or moved to a separate article of Demographics of Sydney.

So, author of the table is right: added table, he noticed that it was too long and shortened the table; users:, , , ,  - what are you doing? Are you waging an editing war against correct editing? You restored too detailed data (for main article of city) and data without sources and start edit-war against author of this data?!?! Knock, knock! Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 23:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Burgeroritos has been banned as a vandalism-only account, mate. Seasider53 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - is it a joke or a mistake ? User:Burgeroritos added new table to article, he noticed that it was too long and shortened the table. Other users mistakenly reverted this edit and an editing warfare ensued. This is not vandalism-only account! There is no vandalism here, can only see the incompetence of a some users who seeing that the new user has deleted some data - they decided to blindly undo the change, without verification. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 23:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the substantive merits of Burgeroritos's edits, the edit-warring was blatant. The user included no edit summaries. They had warnings on their Talk page to which they never responded. The user never requested to be unblocked with an explanation for their conduct. Instead, as I just noticed, they created another account, Manlikesodpw23, which I've just blocked as their sock. You and others can work out the content issues, but administratively I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop tagging everyone and his dog. The offender's talk page shows he was warned several times by three different people. - Seasider53 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ...the same three users who seeing that the new user has deleted some data - they decided to blindly undo the change, without verification? Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 00:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The table has been completely removed from the article. Return to Wikipedia:Stable version. This table is controversial, was the cause of the edit-war, table is too large. Added by a permanently blocked user (disputed). Table without any sources, totally break Wikipedia:Verifiability. The table can only be restored if consensus is reached (per Wikipedia:Consensus) and only with sources to all!!! data within the table (per Wikipedia:Verifiability) - necessary requirement (see: Wikipedia:Core content policies). Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 00:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed data
, you removed a large amount of data with the sources. I understand that lede is not a place for some data, however, deletion of data with the sources is prohibited without consensus. If the specified data should not match to the lede, please move the data to the section or occasionally to separate article. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 12:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If Happywaldo is being allowed to delete vast sections of Brisbane's intro than I will delete vast sections of Sydney's intro. I've attempted to revert Happywaldo's deletions and not one admin has stopped him--Caltraser5 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Sydney lead had bloated over time and needed condensing. Unfortunately you weren't trying to improve it, but hacked away at it on a bizarre quest for revenge. I gave reasons for condensing the Brisbane lead in edit summaries, all grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. All you've done is accuse me of trolling, because there is no rational defense to many of your edits. There is no reason to list every damn tourist attraction in the lead. Nor should we create architectural styles out of thin air, WP:OVERLINK, WP:EASTEREGG, etc. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree that some of the content removed by Caltraser5 should not have been removed, there is no policy preventing removal of sourced information if it is justified. I will be looking at Brisbane to see what's been happening there. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If Happywaldo is being allowed to delete vast sections of Brisbane's intro than I will delete vast sections of Sydney's intro. - If you're reasons for editing this are really that you're not happy with the way that somebody has been editing another article, at best that's disruptive. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Greater Sydney
The article could do with more detail and some corrections as to what makes up "Greater Sydney". The dimensions for Greater Sydney are given as 12,367km2, which looks correct. A more detailed reference source (with boundaries) than the Australian Bureau of Statistics table entry could help. This report has some rough information on the physical boundaries, but the details are probably somewhere on the Australian Bureau of Statistics site. https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/guides/city-at-a-glance The Geography section of the article incorrectly says that Greater Sydney stretches 88km north-south (Palm Beach to Waterfall) and 70km east-west (Bondi Beach to Emu Plains). That would give it a land area of only about 6,000km2. In fact Greater Sydney goes from the Central Coast to south of Wollongong, and as far as the Blue Mountains in the west, which leads to the 12,367km2 figure.

This story has some detail on it. https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-nsw-restrictions-update-what-is-greater-sydney-explainer/426bc899-7398-49d3-a78a-b83a0ecccc22. And here are some NSW maps: https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/new-covid-19-restrictions-for-greater-sydney-23-june-2021#greater-sydney-map Schnackal (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally, I hate the meaningless inclusion of the area of the ABS fiction that is the "Sydney GCCSA", and the even more meaningless population density figure given prominent place in this article. Mostly because this completely useless number gets quoted over and over again by media, academics who should know better, and the public, trying to compare it against urban density figures overseas. This is a problem with all Australian capital cities, fwiw. It's way past time we tried to come up with a more realistic/comparable definition, particularly for area and population density, for Sydney, as the ABS statistical unit of the GCCSA (and its predecessor unit also used in this article pre-2011) were never designed as geographical representations of Sydney. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, AT THE VERY LEAST (hear me out), the infoboxes used on every Australian capital city article should include the urban population density (from a reliable source) more prominently than the density of the ABS area. It would be better to have NO density figure rather than continue to include the completely misleading and useless density numbers for the GCCSAs, given their enormous size and inclusion of non-urban areas. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's the map I made a while ago attempting to show the difference between the ABS units: the GCCSA, the SUA (possibly a better definition of Sydney for this article), and the various urban areas. Grey is the GCCSA boundary (the area and definition currently in this article), orange the boundary of the SUA, and the solid pink area the actual urban centre (as defined by the ABS). It's immediately evident how much non-urban land there is in the GCCSA, and why it's not appropriate for the article to use the area of the GCCSA to represent the area of Sydney, imo. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)



In the past the ABS has defined Greater Sydney as extending all the way north to the Swansea bridge (in Lake Macquarie, south of Newcastle) and inland several km south of Wollongong. I found one hamlet that was included in greater Syndey but was something like 145km from the CBD. I'm north of Newcastle, only 15km further away from that hamlet but I'm not in Greater Sydney. I don't think there is an actual definition of Greater Sydney but there is a verifiable list of the LGAs that comprise (lesser?) Sydney. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is 'Greater Sydney' presented as an alternative name for the city of Sydney in the lead?
 * Why is 'Greater Sydney' presented as equal to 'Eora' in the lead (maps of the two indicate major differences in terms of area(s) covered)? Simulaun (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

New montage looks great.
I'm glad we've come to our senses re: montages. Just having the Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge as the lede image made it seem as though the article was just about those two things. Anyway, it looks great...elegant, neat, organised. 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashton 29 (talk • contribs)
 * Ashton, thank you to drawing my attention to this recent change to montage. We all know there was a long drawn out debate last year that included outside assistance. You'll recall that Option 2 (single image) was settled upon as the outcome.
 * As there is no new consensus away - a change that people, like myself, do not see is not a new consensus. If you want to change it, I suggest you seek a new consensus here. You should call in the people previously involved. See Talk:Sydney/Archive_9 and Talk:Sydney/Archive_8 for that previous discussion and its participants.
 * In the meantime, as per the Wikipedia way, I have restored the settled upon image. --Merbabu (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with all the details of RfC rules, but that RfC discussion was from May 2020 and only included a moratorium on changes and discussion for one year. As it's been two years I think changes and discussion are legitimate and I'm not sure automatically reverting is the best approach here. Better to have a discussion if there are issues with the change. Either way, I hope it can be discussed here and consensus found. In this case I believe the montage is higher quality than montages in the past and has a thoughtful range of images so I would support it being restored, with any substitutions that editors agree upon. Gracchus250 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it not slightly contradictory to say that reverting to the previous consensus is not the best approach, while acknowledging there is no new consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert just because you can. If there is a substantive reason to revert (other than "we won the last discussion and that's how it's going to stay"), you must describe that reason in the edit summary and here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The recent montage looked good to me too. Hopefully we can avoid red tape in reinstating it. Seasider53 (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Opening a discussion or attempting to find a consensus do not require reverting by default. Particularly in the case of a montage it is useful to see the actual set of images in question to discuss them, and Wikipedia editing is supposed to be evolutionary, edit-led etc. Regardless, I am in favour of the montage and am happy to discuss further. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)