Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Archive 2

Feeling ambitious?
This website's full of information on Sydney's suburbs. Don't know how accurate it is though. Maybe someone with enough time and energy can syphon it into Wikipedia in some way or another. Also, copyright issues may need to be considered. -- Jasabella 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * About the copyright issue: The dictionary of Sydney seems keen to try and release stuff under some sort of an open license . They mention creative commons.  This is probably the time for Wikipedians to interect with the Dictionary of Sydney to try and convince them to make their license compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. John Dalton 13:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

SydneySuburbsBox2
Just wondering, is the sydneysuburbsbox2 really neccessary (it's on a lot of the canterbury LGA suburbs and more)? The more I look at the box, the more I think that it doesn't fit in. Is there a discussion page on this somewhere? Aside from relevance, I'm also questioning what suburbs get put into those boxes (e.g. what defines 'near'?) and where we're getting the "this suburb is south-east of this one" info from? Do we have our own little map that we're using as an authority on this to make it easier to do this? Bringing this up because the first time I saw the one for Lakemba, New South Wales I didn't think it was correct. Mentioned this in Talk:Lakemba, New South Wales but I don't think there's much discussion going on there. Blu3d 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I hate it and I would readily vote for it to be deleted. But I won't nominate it I'll just remove it from pages and never ever ever use it myself.--Garrie 04:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it looks silly, especially at or near the top of the page. If it must stay, i vote move it to the bottom. Quaidy 02:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I quite like them, it'd be easier to put info like area, population, postcode, state district, etc in the infoboxes rather than in sentences. I do agree about the "this suburb is south-east of this one" argument though, it looks really queer esp. when 'incomplete' in the Lakemba page. Hectic18 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sydney SD" from census
Throughout The 2001 City of Blacktown Social Plan they refer to the "Sydney SD" being the Sydney Statistical Division. Is this "the same as" the Sydney greater metropolitan area? Is there a preferred phrase for that "area", and how far does it extend? is it
 * the greater Sydney metropolitan area or
 * the Sydney greater metrololitan area


 * or should there be more capitals in there

or does nobody really care? --Garrie 04:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Sydney SD includes the Central Coast, and in my opinion does not match any commonly used notion of Sydney. JPD (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It also includes the Blue Mountains and part of the Southern Highlands.Quaidy 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope
With regard to WP: Sydney, is the "scope" "any article related to any topic which is within any of the suburbs listed as being suburbs of Sydney"? There seem to be "a few" definitions of what is "in/not in" "Sydney", I am trying to go through shopping centres - there were a lot of Sydney ones straight in Category:Shopping centres in Australia, I have created Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales & Category:Shopping centres in Sydney - but are in Sydney, or New South Wales? (yeah, that list is facetious but lets see who draws the line where!) --Garrie 01:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hustville
 * Cronulla
 * Wollongong
 * Cowra
 * Hornsby
 * Tuggerah
 * Newcastle
 * Parramatta
 * Penrith
 * Lithgow
 * Bathurst
 * It came out in a recent discussion on Talk:Sydney that the Geographical Names Board of NSW defines Sydney city as: "The inner city area is located on the southern shores of Port Jackson, but the city extends to the north, south and west for many km."  How big is "many km"?  Maybe Sydney doesn't have an official boundary?  I wonder who decides where those brown "Welcome to Sydney" signs go on the "edge" of Sydney? John Dalton 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the GNB are attempting to "define" the extent of Sydney in that statement. I don't think there is an official boundary, although there are obviously well defined boundaries in specific contexts that may or may not agree with each other. As Garrie suggested at Talk:Sydney, it may be worth following the results of the discussion at Talk:List of Sydney suburbs - it covers the LGAs considered part of Sydney by the Department of Local Government, and places such as Richmond on the inside of the Hawkesbury River. JPD (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting articles created
Articles listed on come out on the top of Special:Wantedpages, due to how often  is called in. This has resulted in Azrael (band) being created by a user because if they weren't notable they wouldn't be #2 on the wanted pages list. is too big to display, so it is rarely used on pages, so the requests on it don't recieve any publicity - so they are not created. Sydney Children's Hospital has been on there for ages, I'm sure it's more notable than Azrael (band)?

Anyway - if we can keep an eye on and move some requests from  onto the other, more commonly used template, maybe some of the Sydney articles might get created? Even stubs are better than red links, aren't they?--Garrie 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Buses in Sydney- AfD help needed
Hi all.... have all been nominated for deletion. As the author of these pages, I encourage you all to have a look and see what you think, and if you think the pages should stay then please contribute to the discussion (and of course, improve the articles if you wish!). Many thanks, and apologies if this is not the right place to air this issue. Quaidy 12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sydney bus routes 200-299
 * Sydney bus routes 300-399
 * Sydney bus routes 400-499
 * Sydney bus routes 500-599
 * Sydney bus routes 600-699
 * Sydney bus routes 700-799
 * Sydney bus routes 800-899
 * Sydney bus routes 900-999
 * Sydney bus routes N00-N99
 * List of bus routes in Sydney


 * And of course people should contribute to the discussion if they think that those lists should be deleted or merged. The deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/Sydney bus routes 100-199
 * --Mako 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After some contemplation, I've realised that what is wrong with these articles is their focus. They're simply listing dry facts and travel information and offer no insight or understanding into why bus transport is important. In a comment on the AFD page I've suggested that the bus route pages should be replaced with pages offering knowledge (history of bus routes, operators, usage, importance to community) rather than simply information. I'll try to make some additions to Buses in Sydney over the next few days that could be used as a basis for what would make good articles such as Buses in Western Sydney or Buses in Sydney Eastern Suburbs. Others in Project Sydney (especially those with a particular interest in public transport) might already have this knowledge (I'm sure it exists in books and reports), so I encourage them to contribute in this way (keeping in mind WP:NOR) --Mako 23:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles on Buses in Western Sydney wouldn't work, by the bus company's own nature, and the fact that "East Sydney" and "Western Sydney" are such vague notions. Lists on WP are allowed to have dry facts and no information— check out stuff like this: List of judges of the High Court of Australia - that doesn't tell me about the High Court. It's a list of facts. The article High Court of Australia tells me that. I think you should read WP:LIST before you make decisions like this. They are different from your normal articles. (JROBBO 08:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I'd like to draw your attention to the first bullet point in WP:LIST. List of judges of the High Court of Australia is a list of links to articles. The lists I nominated for deletion are not.--Mako 08:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I recreated these with different names—before reading this discussion. My bad. As long as they're there, here's your opportunity to add more information to them. The N-series information is on the NightRide page, which I would think is safe from deletion. Joestella 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you had a look at what's already on Buses in Sydney?? Quaidy 10:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have. I think it's too long. There is relevant and specific information about the individual regions. Separating the information out in this way mirrors our treatment of CityRail lines (to an extent) Joestella 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you scroll up you will see that there was a major AfD debate a few months back regarding a group of very similar pages to what you have written. I would hate to see your hard work be wasted on another lost Afd debate. Quaidy 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

CityRail line colours
I recently checked the colours used for CityRail articles and found they were'nt the correct ones. Here are the correct colours:

Suburban lines
 * Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line: #0079C1
 * Bankstown Line: #F78F00
 * Inner West Line: #7E81BE
 * Cumberland Line: #B63E96
 * Airport & East Hills Line: #48A942
 * South Line: #72CDF4
 * North Shore and Western Lines: #FDBB30
 * Northern Line: #E31836
 * Carlingford Line: #004990
 * Olympic Park Sprint and special event services: #7E8183

Intercity lines
 * South Coast Line: #0079C1
 * Southern Highlands Line: #48A942
 * Blue Mountains Line: #FDBB30
 * Newcastle and Central Coast Line: #E31836

Regional line
 * Hunter Line: #5A3F99

Harryboyles 12:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked this against the source code for the CityRail timetable page, and here are the exact codes. The Olympic Park one is far too light to be readable, so I think we should continue to use "grey"; same with the South Line code (should continue to be 99CCFF). These should be the colours used:

Suburban Lines Intercity lines
 * Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line: #0072C6
 * Bankstown Line: #FF7800
 * Inner West Line: #8D80B8
 * Cumberland Line: #CC00A0
 * Airport & East Hills Line: #339E35
 * South Line: #99CCFF
 * North Shore and Western Lines: #FCB514
 * Northern Line: #CE1126
 * Carlingford Line: #002B7F
 * Olympic Park Sprint and special event services: grey
 * South Coast Line: #0072C6
 * Southern Highlands Line: #339E35
 * Blue Mountains Line: #FCB514
 * Newcastle and Central Coast Line: #CE1126

Regional line
 * Hunter Line: #6D28AA

(JROBBO 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC))


 * The Internet Explorer browser does not support "grey" colour, such that gray colour should be used. --Shinjiman &#8660; &#9832; 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New templates and approaches to colour
I have created a new infobox for rail, bus and t-way lines, Template:Public transport infrastructure in Sydney. It replaces Template:CityRailSydney. As you can see, unlike its previous iterations, there is no provision for this template to be colour-coded to match transit operator marketing material. This is, to say the least, contentious. However, there are sound reasons for keeping Wikipedia coverage of the CityRail network colour consistent. As you can see, I have selected one colour to highlight titles on a range of Sydney public transport templates. This shade of yellow is composed using the RGB values listed in NSW Ministry of Transport approved pictograms and arrows and thus ties in with the Ministry's overall look and feel for public transport signage in Sydney. I recognise that this change reverses long-standing practice on the CityRail pages. I would ask that anyone who strongly disagrees with the move away from colour-coding here to address the issues outlined above first. Joestella 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, and most importantly, none of our readers need to have the concept of "red", "blue" and so on illustrated for them.
 * Wikipedia is not a railway timetable, it is an encyclopaedia. While CityRail's use of colour is worth noting (in the map_colour field), it need not mandate the manner in which we display information.
 * CityRail maps are coloured to make sense of the tangle of intersecting lines, and to clearly convey navigational information to fast-moving passengers on visually crowded platforms. These imperatives do not exist at Wikipedia, nor at any other encyclopaedia.
 * The garishly coloured CityRail pages look messy and - in some cases - violate best practice for accessible web design.

2000 Olympics
Hello! I improve the article about the 2000 Olympics in the german wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympische_Sommerspiele_2000) for our writing competition. If you have photos with connection to this thema. I would be very happy, if someone could take a photo of the past olympic village and venues. Julius1990 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding photos from around Sydney
I've added photos of Westfield Eastgardens, Westfield Parramatta, Westfield Burwood, Iron Cove Bridge and Burwood Park. I hope these photos are useful. --Whats new? 07:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested photos list
Hello - if anyone is still reading this list, could anyone help add at least one photo to this list (Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_Sydney)? It seems to be a bit neglected lately. Any help would be great. (JROBBO 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Admiralty House/Kirribilli House Open Day
If anyone is interested there is an open day for Kirribilli and Admiralty House on October 29th. It costs money, but it would be fantastic to get some photos (at least outdoor ones if they let you) and info, given that the public can't get anywhere near them normally. Details here. (JROBBO 06:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC))


 * I thought every day was open day at Kirribilli House! ;-) John Dalton 09:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Compliment from the RTA
Yesterday it came to my attention (via Google) that the website for the seven bridges walk  had used text from Wikipedia without attribution. I've called the website authors and they have no problems with attribution by linking back to Wikipedia. They were apologetic as the text was provided to them by the RTA. It's quite a complement that the RTA's first port of call for information about their own bridges is Wikipedia! John Dalton 00:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I've just been to the site you mention and don't see any attribution to Wikipedia. Sorry, but are you sure that RTA aren't going to tell them that the copyvio is the other way around? Anyway, does "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. " sound familiar  ;)

Garrie 09:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the "Fig Tree" and "Tarban Creek" entries there are links to the relevant wikipedia article titled "More on Fig Tree Bridge..." and "More on Traban Creek Bridge...". Possibly other text came from Wikipedia but I only raised those two with them as they are the two articles in which I have a copyright interest.
 * I do want my work to be redistributed and edited mercilessly. That's why it's released under the GNU FDL! I do expect attribution though: 1) so my work doesn't get passed off as belonging to someone else, who will then falsely claim *I* plagiarised and 2) the GNU FDL does not mean I revoke my copyright, so I will defend it in cases where the licensing conditions (the GNU FDL) are ignored, and 3) I want people to know when Wikipedia is being quoted so the general public becomes more aware of Wikipedia.
 * I know your chiding is tongue in cheek, but I encourage Wikipedians to defend their copyrights for the reasons above. As my example shows, defending your copyright will most likely be in the form of a pleasant conversation and doesn't have to be adversarial.John Dalton 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a google tool: A robot that spiders wikipedia and uses the text of wikipedia as a basis for google searches. When it finds a match the robot emails the relevant Wikipedia author, informing him or her of the match so they have the choice of following it up John Dalton 00:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Railway Station Photo List
I've added this page to help us for railway station photos that we don't have. Some lines are now well covered, others have none. If there's anyone in Western Sydney that could help out with a few photos that would be great.

See WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations/Photos. JROBBO 04:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability of railway stations
I've been looking at some of the 180-odd articles on railway stations in Sydney. I recognise that these form part of a 5000-article universe of railway stations with their own pages. But I think that most of them are non-notable. Another user has set out draft guidelines on the notability of rail infrastructure, helpfully titled Wikipedia is not a timetable, which can be viewed here and here. I think they deserve serious consideration.

My concerns about the Sydney station articles are as follows:
 * Some stations (even in metropolitan Sydney) are not, and never will be, notable (e.g., Engadine)
 * Some stations are arguably notable, but their articles lack information that speaks to that notability (e.g., Newtown)
 * Many station articles appear to be based on original research (e.g., Campbelltown)
 * Virtually all Sydney station articles contain information better suited to a rail enthusiasts' site, of which there are many.

I would suggest that articles on Sydney railway stations only be included if they can be substantially based on information sourced from credible printed-matter sources—not CityRail, not railway fan websites and certainly not personal observations. If a station can meet this criteria, then detail from other sources could be added. Any other information can go on the railway line pages.

We can argue all day about notability. It's my plan to spend substantial portions of my day doing exactly that. But User:Mangoe makes a compelling call for self-regulation: "If we create serious and brilliant articles then more editors will be encouraged to create more and more such articles. If we create trivia then more and more editors will be encouraged to create more and more trivia." Joestella 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Please make your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations


 * It's time to kill off this recent cancer of "Notability" within Wikipedia. Notability is simply an excuse by a nosy minority to impose their view of what Wikipedia "should be" (according to themselves) on everyone else.  If there is the motivation to write and maintain a well sourced article in Wikipedia what right does some puffed up nobody have to make a judgment as to how important an article is, on a subject they probably know little about?  All notability will do is drive people (such as those who have put the effort into the railway station articles) away from Wikipedia.


 * By the way, did you know that the new notability "wannabe guideline" is heavily disputed? What is going on when a disputed opinion is being used to remove content from Wikipedia?  Shouldn't the dispute be resolved before going on the rampage?  Better to leave your comments on the notability talk page, letting everyone know what you think about this new "notability" push.  If enough people stand up (and ignore the pontificating) these people can be made to pull their heads in. John Dalton 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lady class ferries
Does anyone know the origin of the names of the Lady class Sydney Ferries vessels (Lady Herron and Lady Northcott)? Also, how best to include the names of now-decommissioned Sydney Ferries? Joestella 04:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lady Northcott was the wife of Sir John Northcott, who was a previous Governor of New South Wales. Not sure of the Lady Herron. JROBBO 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bus regions in Sydney
At present, Greater Sydney has 11 articles on bus regions, plus one for NightRide. User:Matt ke makes the quite reasonable point that the titles are a bit crap, even if the content is OK (or at least promising). The problem is finding a naming scheme that, ideally, has explicit or implied official endorsement. While 100 series bus routes, Sydney could easily be renamed Northern Beaches bus routes, Sydney, 400 and above are a bit more challenging. I'm reluctant to name some using region names and leave Western Sydney defined only by numbers. It would suggest that Western Sydney is an undifferentiated mass, when it is in fact a diverse region encompassing about half of Sydney by population and even more by area. Thoughts? Joestella 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a reflection on my previous concerns regarding what is meant by Sydney on this site! Unfortunately to some people Western Sydney starts at about Bridge Street (Sydney). Of course not many are quite that unrealistic... However there is no clear guidelines for this area.
 * If we are going to define areas for articles relating to public transport then the logical boundaries would be from a major transport organisation providing public transport. Does Sydney Buses, State Transit Authority, or any similar organisation, have a regional structure within Sydney? Most NSW state agency regional boundaries cover the whole state not areas of Sydney. Department of School Education have divided Sydney into regions as has the various Area Health Services. But neither these nor municipal boundaries will have much use for grouping articles related to public transport.
 * One alternative is, are groups of these routes radiating from common points (ie do most of the 1xx routes terminate at circular quay)?Garrie
 * Buses are already divided into regions by Transport NSW. Each region is typically run by a single operator, in some cases State Transit in other cases a private operator. Maps are available.  It would make sense to use the existing regions, as someone else has already put the hard work into figuring out which routes should be grouped together. John Dalton 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also meant to say that Sydney Buses (and most private operators) also have regional maps, derived from the NSW Transport regions.John Dalton 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to use the 2012 (year) regions. This will avoid reworking later on... If too many routes cross regions then I guess it would be better to use the 2005 ones and change a lot of articles in 2011 or so.
 * I hope the numbered regions have "meaningful" spoken names rather than Sydney Metropolitan Region 1?Garrie 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened to the Xxx and the Exx bus routes? They were on the single page of buses, but appear to have been lost in all the merging and changing. They are just as important as the numbered routes. JROBBO 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Joestella removed them - I hope in an attempt to removed the duplication claim as a cause to delete the 100 Series Bus Routes etc articles. It is there in the history and easily enough reverted I guess... The current version of Buses in Sydney is crap compared to what was there at the start of the month. (sorry to those who have improved it since then but some of it's best features have been removed!)Garrie 04:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The L, E and X series buses shouldn't be separated out. X00 belongs to the 500 series, L94 belongs to the 300 series and so on. They do not represent a separate series.

Reclassifying by Metropolitan Bus Region would be ideal, but we need to bear the following things in mind: GarrieIrons, the best features of the Buses in Sydney page were what exactly..? Joestella 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be difficult to discover which current routes belong in which future region, since many routes are cross regional.
 * The contract regions have numbered names, just like the current setup
 * Visiting Sydneysiders will find classification by contract region, rather than route number series, opaque.
 * Firstly - bugger, article names using numbered regions are fundamentally no improvement to article names using route numbers.
 * OK, best features are subjective... so I'm sure, in your opinion, you never removed the best features. But I liked that using the "rolled up tables" as seen here(but I've removed most the content :( I put it there for reference of the method), all the bus route information was available if the reader chose to see it. This (method? style?) has been well recieved at articles where it was well applied and I think it was a very worthwhile feature on this article.
 * Using this feature it kept the Buses in Sydney article brief (to view) while retaining all the detail on the "100 series bus routes" etc articles - I don't know what extra content they added while the rolled-up tables were on the central article, I wasn't that familiar with the content.Garrie 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like some debate should have occurred before the rolled up tables were removed and expanded into separate pages (coming from someone who put a fair bit of work into the rolled-up tables). Quaidy 11:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely agree Garrie. JROBBO 13:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The new articles contain more, and more encyclopaedic information: detailing (where available) historical and infrastructure information. Having an enormous list of bus routes and the depots from which they currently operate could be considered operational-level directory information, which is outside of Wikipedia's scope. Joestella 20:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be, but we've already had considerable debate on this (an AfD and a deletion review plus endless discussion elsewhere, to be exact) and it was decided that the information could stay. Perhaps you might take a bit more notice of what has been decided before barging in and doing your own thing in future, Joe? I don't blame Garrie and others for being upset about the complete lack of consultation. JROBBO 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Public transport in Sydney
While Joestella has done some good work on Public transport in metropolitan New South Wales, I am wondering whether we also (that's in addition - I don't want to replace the abovementioned page at all) need a page on public transport within the Sydney metro area? - after all, people will be linking to such a page from the Sydney page and other related ones, and they will want to read about what public transport services Sydney offers, not about the bus routes in Newcastle &c (as interesting as they might be, and as appropriate as they are for the metropolitan New South Wales article that Joestella has written). While there are links between the two, eg. with the CityRail network and the link between Sydney Buses & Newcastle Buses and Ferries, the public transport situations between the Sydney basin and greater Sydney (deemed "metropolitan New South Wales" here) are quite different, and Wollongong and Newcastle may deserve their own public transport articles altogether. JROBBO 09:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The major public transport networks in New South Wales are the CityRail network (which covers Sydney plus Newcastle, etc) and the Ministry of Transport Metropolitan Bus System (which also covers Sydney plus Newcastle etc). Any more-specific articles would create duplication (making updates more difficult) and require Wikipedians to draw their own boundaries for Sydney (in effect, original research or analysis).
 * As it stands, readers in search of information on public transport in Sydney will find that CityRail and Public transport in metropolitan New South Wales focus mainly on inner Sydney, where the majority of services are provided. Transport sections of articles on Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong may require more specific links. Joestella 09:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst I understand your point about updates, duplication isn't a reason not to have an article - I think it would be useful. And as far as I was aware, the Geographical Names Board did have an official definition for what constitutes the Sydney metropolitan area which would be helpful - I don't have the information on hand, but I was aware that it constituted everything up to the Hawkesbury River, west to the foot of the Blue Mountains, southwest to Campbelltown and south up to the Royal National Park (so Waterfall is excluded as it is in the non-national park corridor). Additionally, most public transport operators have defined boundaries, working either in or outside of the Sydney metropolitan area - I can't think of any that would cross the line, except perhaps the lower Blue Mountains bus operators. JROBBO 09:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplication is, in my view, an excellent reason not to have an article. See the Wollongong and Newcastle transport sections (which I've just edited) to see why a "Public transport in city" page need not be created. The only organisations creating "official" boundaries for public transport in NSW are RailCorp and the MoT, and they just divide NSW into CityRail/metropolitan and CountryLink/regional. I think we should follow suit. You know what would change my mind though? New and compelling content, such that Public transport in metropolitan New South Wales runneth over. Joestella 09:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes... well, your view doesn't count for much when it's already been said that it's ok. But what about the GNB definition? You haven't addressed that. JROBBO 10:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The GNB definition suffers from two problems. First, you don't know what or where it is. Second, it has no direct relevance to public transport. As I've said in the past in relation to other articles, there's no need to create an article when you don't have anything new to put on it. Oh, and thanks for sharing your views on how much my view "counts". Joestella 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You still haven't addressed the need that we have to have an article with direct information on Sydney's (and not Newcastle or Wollongong's, or the Central Coast's, Southern Highlands' or Blue Mountains') public transport. If you can think of a way to incorporate that in a better way, please let us know; at present none exists. And if it helps, my view doesn't count either on duplication. JROBBO 10:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have the data go ahead and write the article JROBBO. Personally I would think that there is plenty of information to write an article on Sydney's public transport.  (I've got quite a few books on the subject, and I'm by no means an avid collector of such books.)
 * Sensible duplication is not an evil in Wikipedia. Each article needs to be self contained, which at time requires information to be repeated.  The measure I use is "If this article was printed on paper and read in isolation from the rest of Wikipedia would it make sense?" Topics such as a country's public transport can support a hierarchy or articles, each more detailed than the last, as different people will be after different levels of detail.  For example, one hierarchy might be:
 * Transport in Australia
 * Private transport in Australia
 * Public transport in Australia
 * Public transport in Victoria
 * Public transport in ...
 * Public transport in NSW
 * Public transport in Newcastle
 * Public transport in ...
 * Public transport in Sydney
 * Buses in Sydney
 * Ferries in Sydney
 * Railways in Sydney
 * Railways stations in Sydney
 * Railways lines in Sydney


 * A person interested in an overview of Australian transport might start at the top. A person interested in the history of the level crossing of Parramatta Road and the Carlingford line in Sydney would dive in at the bottom.  One size doesn't fit all. John Dalton 11:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The above schema ignores two important considerations. First, the information should cascade. Second, we can develop any number of levels for the information. Duplicating information across articles is not a substitute for research. Nor is repurposing content from transit operator websites, which seems to account for a lot of the work being done on these pages. Joestella 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cascading: JROBBO and others generate a large number of stubs that have little genuine prospect of being expanded—or meeting notability criteria. A better strategy for developing content is to fill general articles with content and create more specific articles once sufficient content exists to do so.
 * Levels: We can doubtless come up with any number of levels for the information. My approach is to gather information at certain levels, rather than allowing the levels to multiply. We don't need all of Tranport > Transport mode > Transport in country > Mode in country > Transport in state > Mode in state > Transport in region > Mode in region > Transport in city > Mode in city > Transport in district > Mode in district > Operator > Operator in district > Line > Stop > Platform > etc, especially when the research done is patchy.


 * Come on, Joe - John Dalton wasn't suggesting that we have as many levels as that - you are exaggerating to try and refute his point. A sensible number of levels, such as John suggested, is a good way to go, and has been the sort of thing that we have been working on for a while now. And merging everything into one article is not the way to go - Yes, we do want sourced full articles, but the majority of articles on WP aren't full of inline sources at present, and no one's suggesting that we delete most of them; it seems this only applies to the number of articles that a very vocal group of deletionists don't like and put all their energies into deleting. The aim of Wikipedia is not to merge everything into one article on everything, such as everything to do with transport in Sydney. Stubs and shorter articles are ok for the time being, as they encourage people to edit the page more and to improve them. To continue to merge articles means that there will be then articles that will never be written, because the deletionists don't want anything but perfect articles, and that's ridiculous and sad, because a fundamental thing in Wikipedia is that it is not paper, and has the capacity to be more than just a clone of your average paper encyclopaedia; it has the potential to include and have a lot more than that; and there are too many people who don't understand that view. I've done a lot of work here, quite often by myself with little support from others, and I'm tired of being hounded by deletionists (which includes others apart from you - I am not trying to single you out) to get every article to full and sourced format. A year ago, most of the railway stations were one line stubs; most of them are a lot bigger now. However, with hundreds and hundreds of articles, these things take time. Why doesn't anyone understand that? There's too many vocal deletionists and not enough helpers. JROBBO 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add to this comment that stubs are important in Wikipedia as they form the nucleus about which collaborative development takes place. Some people tend to write an article in their private user space then copy it as a single unit into article space.  That is great if it works for them.  Personally I find it more productive to throw up a minimal stub and expand it in place.  Hopefully it catches someone else's interest and they start contributing too, getting the article fleshed out more quickly.  Sometimes the expansion process can take years, noodling away digging up small bits of information and adding them every few months or once a year.  In these cases the stub might seem to be abandoned.


 * Sources are good. Ideally every statement should be traceable to a source and I always encourage authors to include sources when they write.  Adding sources is time consuming but even a minimal list of sources that looks like a dog's breakfast is better than no sources as someone else can always come along and fix it up later.


 * While it is better to include sources I think it is a useful contribution to throw up an unsourced stub rather than no stub at all. In the spirit of release early, release often it is more productive to get anything out the door than to spend the rest of your days planning, writing and tweaking the perfect article and never releasing it.  One of the rules of the bazaar (of which Wikipedia is an instance) is that there is always time and a willing contributor to correct the shortcomings of earlier versions.  How many people here have spent a few hours using google to track down sources and adding them to an unsourced article?  The bazaar at work.  As proven by the death of Nupedia, the bazaar is central to the advancement of Wikipedia.John Dalton 22:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that you retract the implication that I put all my energies into deleting certain articles. I spend most of my time here adding content, as you are well aware. I don't buy your matyrdom argument - why not add to existing general articles rather than creating and abandoning hundreds of stubs? And since we (now) agree that we cannot have an article at every 'level', as in my example above, it's a question of where content is available to create specific articles further down the cascade. You bring the sourced, notable content, and you can create whatever article you like. Joestella 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "You bring the sourced, notable content, and you can create whatever article you like." - that's exactly the sort of thing that I'm sick of; In truth, I didn't create most of those articles that you so despise - I've slowly expanded them from one line stubs into articles that at least have some content. But I'm not going to argue now; there's no point. JROBBO 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "You bring the sourced, notable content, and you can create whatever article you like." I think it is polite to phrase personal opinion as personal opinion. Are you claiming that your statement has any more weight than personal opinion?  If so, on what authority is that statement made please?  I've commented here on the basis that you are in a public forum and silence would be to imply support for the statement made.   John Dalton 23:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone live or go near the Royal National Park?
Does anyone here live or go near the Royal National Park? I'm in the process of trying to fix up the Illawarra Line related articles, and it would be good to have some info and pictures of the old National Park branch as that would add a lot to the article. Just one photo of the old station would be fine. Any help would be greatly appreciated. JROBBO 02:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Name dispute resolution
Movieguy46 has moved "Kings Cross, New South Wales" to Kings Cross Sydney. His reasoning on Talk:Kings Cross Sydney is "that the most common search is for Kings Cross Sydney". I would have thought it doesn't matter about search results, that there should be a naming convention we should follow ie place name then state. Or for a feature/locality, place name then city ie Hyde Park, Sydney. Nomadtales 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have a naming convention for towns and suburbs. Town/suburb name, state is the established convention for said places as detailed by Naming_conventions_(places). A redirect goes from Kings Cross Sydney to "Kings Cross, New South Wales". Harryboyles 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Railway Line up for FAC
Hi everyone - I'm having Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney peer reviewed at the moment, with the hope that it could reach FA status quite soon (or GA status if it didn't get to that). This would only be the second Sydney-related article to become FA standard if it passed (the first is Sydney Roosters). However, before that happens, I'd appreciate some comments on the article if you have any suggestions. The peer review is here. Thanks. JROBBO 09:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Following some helpful comments, I've now put this up for FAC. I'd love some support or some constructive comments here. Thanks. JROBBO 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is now an FA, the second one for Sydney. Thanks to all who contributed to the article, and all those who made changes or made helpful comments. JROBBO 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Carlingford Court
The article Carlingford Court has been nominated for deletion on the grounds "No assertion of notability". If you have an opinion on either direction on this article, please feel free to contribute to the debate at the above link. Orderinchaos 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice images seek compatible article, free to good home?
Image:Cooks_River1.gif and Image:Cooks_River2.gif, which I noticed in the IfD discussions, seem to be quite nice pictures with GFDL licences that may be useful in illustrating a suburb - however, being from the other side of our fair land, I have no idea which one. If anyone can find a home for them that would be great. Orderinchaos 16:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cooks River2 quite conveniently is described as "at Tempe" - I am inclined to believe them... unfortunately Cooks River1 is described as "near the airport". Dunno that part of the harbour/river well enough to pinpoint it.

Very similarly named images to these pictures are already on Cooks River - Image:CooksRiver2.jpg and Image:CooksRiver1.jpg. So these are copies of pictures we already have. They should be deleted. But good on you for bringing it to our attention!Garrie 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. As you can understand I preferred to make sure first :) That's fine, I'll support the deletion then. Keep up the good work! Orderinchaos 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Page revamp
The Project page was looking a little tired and was a bit out of date, so I've updated it with a new layout. If you have any suggestions on further content, let me know. JROBBO 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Cityrail Station
Template:Cityrail Station has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Harryboyles 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

North-West T-Way
The Parramatta-Rouse Hill section of the North-West T-Way is opening on March 10; there's free rides on the Saturday on the section. It would be a great chance to get some photos of the T-Way; if anyone's keen they can visit the Parramatta-Liverpool T-Way and get some photos of that while they're at it (although it's not free). Anyone up for it? JRG 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone read this page any more or do people just like ignoring my posts? :-) JRG, 12:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not answering and ingorning aren't quite the same thing. I'd love to help, but I don't think I can make it ;-) JPD (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine - it would make for an expensive trip for you :-) I was testing if anyone still read this page, as the last couple of items haven't really been responded to. JRG 13:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my home pc got blasted by a storm and I'm a bit busy at work right now. So I reserve my comments for topics I'm most likely to contribute to.Garrie 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo or Map First?
Hi all, I'm new to this project. :) I've gone about madly submitting photos for various (greater) Sydney suburbs today including Bowenfels, Port Kembla, Prospect, Bundanoon, Queens Park, Dover Heights, Camellia, Nelson Bay, Breakfast Point, Otford, Wollongong, Stockton, Mount Sugarloaf, Waverton, Port Botany/La Perouse, Balmain East, Little Bay, Centennial Park Mount Canobolas, Ulladulla, Oberon, RIverstone, Wolli Creek, JBT, Mount Annan, Winmalee and Lavender Bay... But I've come across some suburbs/towns where the infobox has a map specified as the suburb/town's image, e.g. Kiama. My question is, if an image is available to be uploaded, should that spot be filled by an image or a map? Thanks Wyp 12:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just my own opinion, but it seems a map has been used as a filler while waiting for a reasonable photo. Some suburbs (espec. out my way...) don't seem to have much noteworthy to take a photo of - what would you photograph around some of the McMansion Estates, everything rolled out of the same cookie-cutter machine less than five years ago? Although that in itself may be worth a photo?
 * Garrie 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll try and add more photos when I get my uni assignments done. ;) Wyp 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, while I'll all ion favour of adding photos to the articles, I prefer the map in the infobox. There doesn't seem much point having the photo there unless it is really really distinctive. JPD (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Central West region
The article Central West (Sydney) was recently created, and linked to from Sydney and Sydney regions. I have expressed my concerns about the accuracy of the content and indeed the notability of this regional identity at Talk:Central West (Sydney) - more input would be appreciated. JPD (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New South Head Road, Sydney
I have created the page, New South Head Road, Sydney as per suggestion, though my knowledge of the road is limited, the article has been tagged for deletion, if anyone has a good knowledge of the road I encourage them to contribute to the article. Bandwagonman 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It was only proded - I removed the prod, I will add some categories.Garrie 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
I have taken a photo of the Sydney Harbour Tunnel and will get one of the ASX soon, regarding the Lane Cove Tunnel I tried to get a picture yesterday but the angle isn't ideal from the Pacific Highway does anyone ever use Reserve Road I think it is as it offers a good view of the tunnel, if anyone does it would help if you could take the photo whenever possible. Bandwagonman 11:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added some screengrabs from a time-lapse video I've taken of the orbital network in the meantime, until better photographs are taken. Wyp 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Intercity Line Photos - help needed
If anyone lives outside of Sydney along the main railway lines, I now have a list of photos of the CityRail network stations with and without photos. Any help (even one photo) would be immensely helpful. See WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations/Photos and scroll to the Intercity section. We're especially in need of photos in the Lower Blue Mountains, and the Shoalhaven/Illawarra area. Thanks. JRG 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Explorer page
Regarding the WikiProject Sydney's Sydney Explorer page: as written it currently fails WP:CORP as the article doesn't establish how Sydney Explorer is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I thought I'd throw this out to the project people first to see if it could be rewritten, rather than simply nominate the article for deletion as a non-notable promotional/advertisement insertion. SpikeJones 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sydney Explorer, together with the Bondi Explorer, was previously covered by one paragraph in the Sydney Buses article. That article was later seriously shortened and moved, cutting out the Explorer paragraph. While I can see why editors wanted to remove that sort of information from the Sydney Buses article, it has the result that we now have a whole article for something that probably doesn't deserve one. JPD (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be Sydney buses, in keeping with WP:STYLE? (ah, I see that it is already)   Or better, Transportation in Sydney where you would discuss all transportation options available in the city instead of needing different pages?   (ah, I see that as well.  Never mind)    Anyway, I'll leave it to the Sydney people like yourself to remerge or otherwise handle that page.  Just thought I'd bring it to you attention.  Cheers! SpikeJones 11:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Sydney Buses, one of the business units of the State Transit Authority of New South Wales, is the entity which runs the Sydney Explorer route. Since it no longer has its own page, I would suggest adding the Explorer routes to its section on the STA page, either along with the other "high profile" routes, or in a separate paragraph, as they are not commuter services. If it weren't for the fact that Sydney buses is often a typo for "Sydney Buses", I would say the redirect would be better directed to Bus companies in Sydney, or something like that. JPD (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stupid me. They are already included in the list of high profile routes. I don't see the need for an article as well. JPD (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With the Sydney Explorer article, well I think I was board the day that I wrote it and desperate for some ideas at the time, thats all I could think of, so if you want go ahead and delete the article or find someone who can add to it. On previous occasions I have tried to delete it myself but it keeps getting reverted.

It probably would be a good idea to delete this article, I have actually taken the main paragraph from the Sydney Explorer page and added that to atleast 2 other articles, with at the top of the section.--AdamJWC 03:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Wood (rugby player)
I have added a "" template to the article Brian Wood (rugby player), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

So much for the boilerplate. This is actually typed in by a human. I know squat about rugby and my memories of Sydney, though pleasant, are hazy and certainly don't include anything related to sport. Maybe I'm all wrong about this. -- Hoary 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research?
Sydney_Bypass Has a reference but it is written and webhosted by the page's creator and only contributor.. 129.31.72.52 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It does look like some sort of self-promotion. I think the key thing is that while there is indeed a proposal, there is no suggestion that this proposal was commissioned by the government or has received any sort of publicity or support, so including it in the article is giving it too much weight. Unless some evidence of its importance is provided, I would remove it. JPD (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. I did that in October last year shortly after starting editing wikipedia and had forgotten about it by the time I learned about original research and conflict of interest.  Andrew Stoner (NSW Nationals leader) looked at it around June 2006 and the federal Nationals have actively supported related roadworks but there is nothing on their web site or the Liberal site to show that they support it.  Anyway, I've removed it now.  --Athol Mullen 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JPD (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Home-made rocket attacks on Westbus at Willmot
This was reported this morning on Nova 96.9 8:00am / 8:30 am news. Does anyone have a better reference (ie press / web) I can use at Westbus, Willmot, New South Wales and [Public transport in metropolitan New South Wales]]? I think a series of attacks by someone leading to them using an improvised explosive device is worth covering. It has been covered while it was "only" rock-throwing in the Mt Druitt - St Marys Standard but at that stage I didn't see it as worth including - it is fairly mainstream vandalism even if it is at a significant level. Garrie 00:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what I've found from the Westbus/Hillsbus websites:
 * Diversions around Willmont
 * OH&S meeting – no busses between 09:30-12:30.
 * This may help too - links to two articles
 * Lou 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this one particularly shows that it is a noteworthy incident.Garrie 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)