Talk:Sydney/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Montage

So I have justified by edits repeatedly, and fortunately I have one user, User:Meganesia, who thanked me for my edit to the infobox montage. But there's a rigidity that persists, and it's done to some very inconsequential details. User:HappyWaldo does not agree that Fort Denison makes for a notable enough inclusion, despite the fact that it represents Sydney's beginning as a penal colony, and in 1978 the former fortress was listed on the Register of the National Estate. Not only is it historically significant, but it is also a national park, nature reserve, tourist facility, and as a function space. Just because it doesn't have more than 5 articles on international Wiki's doesn't lessen its importance. There are many Australian subjects neglected on international Wikipedia's. User:AussieLegend and I agreed that it was significant for inclusion. I have sought consensus. My proposal for replacement to appease HappyWaldo was the Sydney Heads, an important natural landmark, apart of the Sydney Harbour National Park. But this did not reflect AussieLegend's desire for Fort Denison. St Andrew's is Australia's oldest cathedral, and thus is the oldest in Sydney, mentioned twice in the article's text, which is a legitimate argument for it being featured in the lead. It's important Neo-Gothic architecture, which serves as an introduction to the architectural variations found in Sydney (SOH, modernist and SAC, gothic) and a counterpart for the Opera House image.

Perhaps the biggest argument against the current montage is that it's repetitious, we already have a photo of the University of Sydney in the article body. It does not need to be repeated twice. The image of Darling Harbour isn't emblematic of Sydney, it's a cluster of 80s high rises that could be anywhere. My proposal for the montage is a small group of images that adequately, and clearly, summarise Sydney's most important (not most recognised...because ability of recognition is going to differ) natural and man-made landmarks. If the montage can indicate what is illustrating clearly, and the corresponding caption can take users to the appropriate page for further information if desired. These are the two montages I have proposed. Perhaps if you feel they need something, you could suggest a landmark, and I'll do my best to include it. But I think we need to agree on choosing one of these, because like I said, there are multiple issues with the one at present. Ashton 29 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The fort was built in the 1850s as a precaution during the Crimean War in the event of Sydney Harbour being invaded. How does it represent Sydney's convict origins? Also the lead image, like the lead itself, should reflect the most notable contents of the article. Nowhere in the article body is the fort mentioned. I would suggest replacing it with Bondi Beach. Oh, and the images of the fort and cathedral are amateurish. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, how do you feel about Bondi Beach replacing the Fort? As far the Fort representing Sydney's convict history, it states that "the rock was levelled by convicts under the command of Captain George Barney, the civil engineer for the colony, who quarried it for sandstone to construct nearby Circular Quay". Not to mention the hanging of convicts that occurred on the site. Personally, I don't find the image of the cathedral amateurish at all - it's high-res, clear and generally unobscured (many of the other images of it are partially obstructed by trees). Ashton 29 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The image of Darling Harbour isn't emblematic of Sydney, it's a cluster of 80s high rises that could be anywhere. (emphasis added) - "Could be anywhere" is an issue that I've raised elsewhere. To represent the subject, you really need something that is unique to Sydney. The church, cliffs, Darling Harbour and even Bondi are things that "could be anywhere". Bondi is just a beach after all. On the other hand, the Sydney skyline, Opera House and bridge are uniquely Sydney. For that matter, so is Fort Denison. As I pointed out on my talk page, it's shown in a lot more photos and videos of the city than the church, possibly because it's in the harbour, but regardless, it is more identifiable. However, we could leave it out easily. Why do we need 6 photos in the infobox? Why not 8, 10, or just 3? The skyline, Opera House and bridge are really all that we need. I don't see why there seems to be a push to jam more images into the article. WP:NOTIMAGE is clear, Wikipedia is not a repository of images or media files. The article already has 39 images, so why do we need to make that effectively 45? WP:MONTAGE even says "If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred", so there is obviously some preference against montages. The infobox, like most infoboxes, was built originally for just one image, as was Module:InfoboxImage. I added a second image field only so that LGA articles using a map of the LGA could still have a general image of the LGA. In non-LGA articles we can have two images, but 6? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What about Sydney Tower and Sydney Conservatorium of Music being in the montage? I'd remove the church because, as said, it can be found anywhere. I'd replace the cathedral with the Music center or Sydney Tower. They're the most unique looking establishments in Sydney. I would be happy with either. Meganesia (Meganesia) 04:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sydney Tower is too tall, so it would overwhelm the infobox as it requires too much space. The conservatorium suffers the same problems as other buildings. It's a building that could be anywhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth I would be happy just with the skyline, but there seems to be an increasing insistence on montages. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The image of the Tower can always be cropped. The observation deck of it can be in the picture. We don't have to see the tower in its full glory. About the conservatorium, I beg to differ, it looks rather unique to me. Doesn't share the same "found everywhere" problem that the other buildings have. So I disagree here. Moreover, I really don't think Sydney deserves one photo in the box. Sydney is a large city with so many landmarks. One photo of the skyline wouldn't do it any justice. And it will make it look like a small city or a suburb (as it's usually them that have a single photo in their image box). I would be very happy to have a montage there. Oh, to add another thing, how about omit the skyline photo (with the Opera house in view)? Instead of that we can just have the Harbour Bridge, Opera House, Sydney tower (cropped, observation deck) and either the Fort Denison or the conservatorium in the collage view. But that's just a recommendation. Meganesia (Meganesia) 10:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If we crop Sydney Tower to just the gondola, then we're only showing part of Sydney Tower. Why not crop the harbour bridge to show just a pylon, or the Opera House? As for the conservatoriun, it is unique, unless you compare it to other similar buildings, like HM Prison Pentridge. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't be hard for me to keep the current montage as it is with Fort, and just add an extra two at the bottom. Just have to decide what those images are. I also don't agree that St Andrew's could be anywhere - it's constructed from Sydney sandstone, which gives it that characteristic hue of all historic buildings in the city. We also need to illustrate Sydney's illustrious English Colonial history, it's also a relic in that sense. I'd suggest keeping that image, but perhaps adding two or more - I'm all for Sydney Tower, as well as the Conservatorium. Ashton 29 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need even more images? Wikipedia is not an image farm. The infobox image should be something unique to the subject. The more images that you add, the less effect each one has on the reader and the less a reader will observe the "characteristic hue" than they probably do now. Really, it looks no different to any other neo-Gothic church. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Harbour Bridge isn't totally unique either. It's the same design as Hell Gate Bridge. My point is that a montage of JUST modernist or post Victorian buildings (Opera House, Sydney Tower, even the Bridge is from 1932) is not representative of Sydney as a whole. It has a Victorian history. Two extra images isn't exactly overkill. Boston, a featured article, has a cluster of 12 images. 7 images isn't concerning. Ashton 29 (talk)

Most people don't know about Hell's Gate. If you ask someone from outside Sydney for two Sydney icons, they're bound to say the Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge, since these are the two things most well known both domestically, and internationally. People won't pick some church they've never heard of, or HM Prison Pentridge. Per MOS:IMAGELEAD, the lead image should be something that allows readers to quickly assess whether they are on the right page. The bridge will, the Opera House will. Very little else will. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Except, the observation deck of Sydney tower is uniquely recognizable. Most pictures of the tower are centered around the deck. A closeup of Sydney Harbour Bridge would never make the Bridge recognizable. And there are barely pictures of the Bridge cropped to show its pylons only. The comparison of the two is false equivalence as they are hardly comparable. Meganesia (Meganesia) 05:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Three images might be the way to go: bridge, opera house, and skyline, perhaps with Sydney Tower poking through as another distinguishing feature. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we selling Sydney short in that case? If there's only three things worthy of illustration, then it's not really an adequate summary of what the city comprises nor does it illustrate much of the landmarks discussed in the article. I'd say most people outside of Australia would have very little visual awareness of anything beyond Uluru, the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. It's because these three images have been used to sell Australia for decades. Just because these images immediately conjure up this country to an "outsider's observations" doesn't mean they are the only things worthy of inclusion, nor does it mean that is all Sydney is. I'd say a lot of people would be familiar with Sydney's cathedrals, furthermore, the Sydney sandstone is pivotal to Sydney's building history. It doesn't really strike me as being that out of place and it is mentioned in the article twice. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a montage looks like a travel brochure. One photo in the infobox should be fine. The harbour and cbd skyline photo is spectacular and should be the only image.CamV8 (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think there's overwhelming support FOR a montage these days. Even when we revert back to a single image, someone always comes along and adds one. If we can agree on one here we can settle it once and for all.Ashton 29 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see overwhelming support here, and the reversion by Subtropical-man was, I suspect, a reaction to the constant image changing. Personally, I hate the one in the article right now. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ashton 29, please stop edit-warring. In infobox, should be a collage than simply panorama because better represents the city and this is standard in the Wikipedia. However, should not be too long. I support this montage, but I would prefer to change the photo from fort to Bondi Beach. But that's just my opinion. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How about we get agreement. I can't find the wp policy on montage use in an info box. Hence the problem. How about this debate be taken off-line to resolve instead of constantly changing the Sydney article. This regular changing is not a good look. My 2 cents. CamV8 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Subtropical-man. For now, let's keep the montage. It's not perfect, but it does do the job of showcasing some of the landmarks. Ashton, you were against a single image (like I was), so I don't see why you'd opt for one now? Your edit will just appease those who prefer a single image on the box. Having a collage, despite what it contains, is still a step up in this quest to find a better one. So let's stick with it. Let's not go down a level by reverting it to the single-skyline image. @AussieLegend, I also don't see a an overwhelming opposition to it. Bare in mind that there are only a few people in here. So you will not see an overwhelming amount of either supporters or opponents. Meganesia (Meganesia) 12:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

But it's flawed. We are accepting something that is functionally poor, repetitious, whatever, over something that is obviously representative of what a montage is suppose to depict. I'm not sure which montage User:Subtropical-man is supporting. But I don't propose we just settle with something that is obviously inferior, because some people are in a dispute over what is "notable" enough to belong. A 19th Century cathedral, the oldest in the country, isn't important enough? It is leagues better than an image of the Sydney Uni quandrangle, which, in all honesty, is more an image of charred grass than an actual university building. Or a cluster of 80s office buildings. Or an image of Bondi Beach that I didn't even immediately recognise WAS Bondi. In fact, that particular image makes Sydney look like a sleepy suburban enclave or a beach community, which it just is not. Sydney is more than its beaches. It's a bustling city. This montage suggests otherwise. I don't know much about the policy of montages either, but I do know they aren't suppose to repeat what is already illustrated. I also know they are suppose to clearly represent the subject in the picture, which mine did. I would rather the single image over what the montage we currently have. Ashton 29 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It is flawed, alright. But just because it's not perfect that doesn't mean that we should regress. We should stick with a montage for now until we found another one. What are your thoughts on this? Yes, not perfect, but we can put up with it until a better one is created it. This is rather good, btw, but it's ruined by the last two images (Botany Bay and that "government house" which looks like a random suburban house). Somebody should add a photo of the conservatorium and Sydney tower instead of these two images, and it will be perfect IMO. Meganesia (Meganesia) 06:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the montage is causing so many issues, as it has in the past, we should stick with the original image, i.e. the status quo, until such time as there is consensus for something else. Changing to yet another montage just because it's been 24 hours since somebody replied here is disruptive. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's just that they should really make a montage already (I'm no expert at creating those, so I expect an experienced person making them). People are too busy chatting and arguing in here rather than creating some examples. I provided a few illustrations up there and I didn't get a reply - Really not sure what happened to the other two enthusiastic users in here? In short, I just want people to come up with a few examples, and we can vote on which collage is the best. Meganesia (Meganesia) 11:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I am willing to make it, I already have. It's quite easy when the software is available to me. I just want an agreement here from everyone involved on what this "improved" montage will comprise of. The church, surprisingly, irks quite a few here, even though it's a legacy of Sydney's Victorian past. Plus, it represents a religious demographic. The Darling Harbour image is a no-go, as is Bondi, and possibly the Sydney Heads. There are other options. St James Church, or Sydney Tower...anything not already illustrated and iconic enough to belong in a lead. We should also look to Good articles like Paris, London, Washington D.C., or anything of similar scope and importance, to find a structural rhythm for Sydney's montage. If we could fast forward 10 years, perhaps we could include Barangaroo in its completion, but obviously, we have to work with what we have and Sydney has plenty. Ashton 29 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this may be an inconvenience to you, but I think you should make a few illustrations and we can choose or vote for the better one. As I said earlier, this one is rather good, but it's ruined by the tedious government house establishment (which looks like a suburban house) and the Botany Bay "pole vault" (whatever that is). I'd say, instead of these two landmarks, insert the Sydney Tower and perhaps the conservatorium (or Fort Denison?). And it will be perfect. I'll be the first to approve of it. And we'll see what others have to say. Meganesia (Meganesia) 02:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sydney's Victorian - That alone is a reason for not including it. "Sydney" and "Victoria" should never be seen together. ;) I don't really think that File:Montage of Sydney1.jpg is very good at representing the city. The Opera House and brdge are great, and the skyline is one that I recognise, but a reader not familiar with the city wouldn't. File:Sydney skyline at dusk - Dec 2008.jpg is a better skyline view, although moving the camera east a bit so it captured Sydney Tower and the bridge would be better. Luna Park is not so representative of the city today, but it is acceptable. The other four images though... They just don't serve the purpose that MOS:IMAGELEAD says they are supposed to serve. And I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we need so many images. Everyone seems to be conveniently avoiding that. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Other articles have a montage. Sure, this may not be a good reason, but either way, Sydney has so many landmarks that can be showcased. A single image makes the city appear more "suburban" or "townlike" in nature. Sydney is a large city and a single photo wouldn't justify its greatness. And like you said, that 2008 skyline pic doesn't show the harbor bridge and the tower, as it's too westward. So even that one is far from perfect. Now I'm not opting for every landmark to be in the image, but Sydney Harbour, Sydney Tower, Opera House, Fort Denison and perhaps the conservatorium or Luna Park are acceptable. Meganesia (Talk) 03:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not only is the fact that other articles have montages not a good reason, it's no reason at all, and firmly in the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS world. A single image doesn't make the city seem "suburban" or "townlike" at all. It makes it encyclopaedic, rather than like a travel brochure. In any case there are already 39 images in the article, which is far more than most suburbs or towns. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I oppose File:Montage of Sydney1.jpg because it makes Sydney seem like a city (and not a large one at that) that is stuck in a gimmicky 80s architectural void. It's a concrete ditch, and a theme park, with a good 3 images that suggest it's a beach resort town and not much more. Sydney isn't a city that doubles as a theme park nor is it merely a tourist hotspot a la Surfers and it does have history, which this montage does not convey. The skyline image is decent, as are the bridge and Opera House photos, but I can't get beyond the rest. Anyway, the argument against the montage won't stand for long, there's alway someone coming along with a new idea for what should be featured. What about the second montage I proposed, with Fort Denison, but instead of the church, we use an image of the Town Hall, which is currently not featured in this article visually. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

We could avoid drawn-out discussions like this one if we stuck to a simple skyline. Montages were a mistake. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I am for that. Just as long as a good montage is put on the table I will be on the boat. The Art Gallery of New South Wales should also be considered. Meganesia (Talk) 12:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Already in the article body. Ashton 29 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent removal of content 24 March 2016

Twice now, YITYNR has removed "" from the article, claiming it is "opinion".[1][2] Prior to the second removal, YITYNR posted the following on my talk page:[3] Hello AussieLegend,

The reason I removed the content "warm summers, mild winters" from the article Sydney is that that statement is based on opinion. I realise that you copied that from the source, but all that phrase says is that the author of the source considers Sydney's climate to be like that. There is no objective classification for those terms, and they are based solely on personal comfort levels. Personally, for example, I would say Sydney has coolish winters and coolish summers, which is not the same as what was there. According to Wikipedia's own neutrality rules, opinions and personal synthesis are to be left out of articles.

If it had said, "According to XYZ climate classification system, Sydney has warm summers and mild winters", it would have been different since here it is clearly stated as the opinion of XYZ. However, this was not the case, hence why I removed it from the article.

Thank you,

YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 15:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The content that you keep removing is not the opinion of some random individual. The source is the Australian Bureau of Statistics,[4] which an official Australian Government organisation. It is based on data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, which is the official Australian Government organisation responsible for weather in Australia. As such it constitutes an authoritative source. The statement does not constitute an opinion or personal synthesis. It's regarded to be fact because of the authority of the source. Please note that this has been discussed numerous times (look through the archives of this page). That you do not agree with it is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. If you want this content removed, you need a source with more authority than the one used. However, even that would not justify removal. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, all relevant points of view need to be equally addressed. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well then, it could be noted that it is the opinion of the Bureau of Meteorology. With no disclosure of whose opinion it is, it appears to be passing off those opinions as facts. It would be like saying, "Donald Trump is a prime example of a fascist dictator." in the middle of the article on Donald Trump. (I disagree with that position, but your mileage may vary.) As I stated on your talk page, if something can be reasonably disagreed with on a subjective basis, it is an opinion; I would certainly not consider Sydney's summers to be "warm". They're mild, lukewarm at best, except during the odd heat wave. There is no one objective classification for these terms other than each person's subjective criteria, so without a disclosure of that this is the BOM's opinion, it appears to be breaking WP:NPOV.

I propose the rewrite "Under the Köppen–Geiger classification, Sydney has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa).[51] According to the Bureau of Meteorology's climate classification, Sydney has warm summers, cool winters and uniform rainfall throughout the year.[52]" Or something like that. As long as the opinions aren't passed off as facts.

The argument you made on my talk page about how oh, you have 90,779 edits and I have only 536 is irrelevant. Edit count by itself is not a measure of how valid someone's edits are. If an administrator were to add "lol pooop" to a bunch of articles, that would definitely be vandalism, and if a new user were to expand an article from stub class to A class, that would definitely be constructive. Just because the vandalising admin has 75,000 edits and the new user has five doesn't make the admin's edits more valid. In this instance, the new user's edits were certainly more valid and constructive. If I were to nitpick, I could say you're a nonconstructive editor because you don't have a clean block log, and I do. And besides, even though I have only 536 edits, I've been on here for a year and a half. That's more than enough time to familiarise oneself with Wikipedia policy.

Thank you,

YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 10:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Both the ABS and BOM are authoritative sources - what they say is widely regarded as fact. And no, saying that about Donald Trump without reference from authoritative sources is not at all the same.

As I stated on your talk page, if something can be reasonably disagreed with on a subjective basis, it is an opinion - That's not what you said.

I would certainly not consider Sydney's summers to be "warm". They're mild, lukewarm at best, except during the odd heat wave. - That's the subjective opinion of a Wikipedia editor. As I've already explained, Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. On the other hand, the ABS is a reliable source.

without a disclosure of that this is the BOM's opinion, it appears to be breaking WP:NPOV - No, that's not the case at all. The statement is followed by a reference, which provides the attribution necessary. Adding content that states it is the "opinion" of the BOM is unnecessary because it is referenced. It's only necessary to state that it is an opinion when it's the opinion of an individual.

The argument you made on my talk page about how oh, you have 90,779 edits and I have only 536 - I made no such claim. I told you about WP:BRD and then said While the matter is under discussion, you should not edit the disputed text (which includes removing it again) and, while discussion is underway, the status quo reigns. I note you only have 536 edits under your belt, so you may not have been aware of this. It's fairly clear I meant that you may not have been aware of the requirements of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.

If I were to nitpick, I could say you're a nonconstructive editor - Please comment on content, not on contributors, and please be civil in your communications with other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm too late to enter this debate, but I'll take a bash anyway. I really wouldn't say that Sydney has "cool winters", especially the CBD, with its such mild minimums. Even by Australia's standards, the winters are fairly mild. The term "mild winters" seems more appropriate - It was always described that way before here. Or at least, to compromise, "mild, sometimes cool winters" does sound good too. --Meganesia 16:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Meganesia: The average high in July is 16 °F (−9 °C) and the average low is 8 °F (−13 °C) at Observatory Hill. Personally, I would consider this mild for a wintertime temperature, but cool overall as it is below room temperature.

I propose the rewrite "Under the Köppen–Geiger classification, Sydney has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa). The Bureau of Meteorology considers Sydney to have warm summers, cool winters and uniform rainfall throughout the year." with the references in their existing positions. This way, the BOM's classification is given the same amount of weight as our good friend Köppen, but it is not stating an otherwise subjective statement as though a fact.

Thank you,

YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 11:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia. As such, we should be describing climates by world standards, such as Koppen. Sydney has hot summers and mild winters. Describing the winters as cool is ridiculous - they're frost-free. London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Milan, Seattle and Vancouver have cool winters. Jim Michael (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The authoritatve source in the article specifically says "cool". By all means find one that disputes that, but do not change the section again until such time as you can find enough sources to contradict that. Regardless, Wikipedia uses a neutral point of view and when sources contradict each other, all viewpoints must be noted. That means adding "mild" with sources, and without removing "cool". --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The temperatures in the climate chart clearly show that no month in Sydney is cool. No climatologist considers Sydney to have cool winters by world standards. Bias is being introduced by using national sources, rather than world ones. That means that climates are being described by national standards in this world encyclopedia. If we did that on every article, we'd say that Helsinki has mild winters - because they're mild by Finnish standards. We'd say that Tunis has a cold, wet climate - because most of Tunisia is even hotter and drier. Do you think that the Helsinki article should say that its winters are mild? Do you think that the Tunis article should say that it's cold and rainy? Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, the authoritative source in the article specifically says "cool". Your own opinion of what is or is not cool does not count as Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. We have to go by what reliable sources say. Wikipedia does not disallow national, or even local sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am all for taking the authoritative source as the guide for describing the climate in this article, but I also marvel at the fact that Sydney winters could be considered "cool". Yes, there are the odd chilly mornings, but winter days in the city are usually bearable and rarely dip below 14 degrees for more than 3 consecutive days. Plus, a record low of 2 degrees isn't particularly noteworthy even in an Australian city. Canberra's low is -10, which makes Sydney's low seem weak by comparison. Cool winters in Australia belong to Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Canberra. I guess the very subjective matter of describing weather is best left to weather experts and temperature averages but a more apt description of a Sydney winter to many people would be "mild".Ashton 29 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem with {{Sydney weatherbox}}

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2016&p_c=-872834611&p_stn_num=066062 and http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=123&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2016&p_c=-872834807&p_stn_num=066062 disprove the temperature figures in the

v t e Climate data for Sydney (Observatory Hill) 1991–2020 averages, 1861–present extremes
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °C (°F)	45.8 (114.4)	42.1 (107.8)	39.8 (103.6)	35.4 (95.7)	30.0 (86.0)	26.9 (80.4)	26.5 (79.7)	31.3 (88.3)	34.6 (94.3)	38.2 (100.8)	41.8 (107.2)	42.2 (108.0)	45.8 (114.4)
Mean maximum °C (°F)	36.8 (98.2)	34.1 (93.4)	32.2 (90.0)	29.7 (85.5)	26.2 (79.2)	22.3 (72.1)	22.9 (73.2)	25.4 (77.7)	29.9 (85.8)	33.6 (92.5)	34.1 (93.4)	34.4 (93.9)	38.8 (101.8)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	27.0 (80.6)	26.8 (80.2)	25.7 (78.3)	23.6 (74.5)	20.9 (69.6)	18.3 (64.9)	17.9 (64.2)	19.3 (66.7)	21.6 (70.9)	23.2 (73.8)	24.2 (75.6)	25.7 (78.3)	22.8 (73.0)
Daily mean °C (°F)	23.5 (74.3)	23.4 (74.1)	22.1 (71.8)	19.5 (67.1)	16.6 (61.9)	14.2 (57.6)	13.4 (56.1)	14.5 (58.1)	17.0 (62.6)	18.9 (66.0)	20.4 (68.7)	22.1 (71.8)	18.8 (65.8)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	20.0 (68.0)	19.9 (67.8)	18.4 (65.1)	15.3 (59.5)	12.3 (54.1)	10.0 (50.0)	8.9 (48.0)	9.7 (49.5)	12.3 (54.1)	14.6 (58.3)	16.6 (61.9)	18.4 (65.1)	14.7 (58.5)
Mean minimum °C (°F)	16.1 (61.0)	16.1 (61.0)	14.2 (57.6)	11.0 (51.8)	8.3 (46.9)	6.5 (43.7)	5.7 (42.3)	6.1 (43.0)	8.0 (46.4)	9.8 (49.6)	12.0 (53.6)	13.9 (57.0)	5.3 (41.5)
Record low °C (°F)	10.6 (51.1)	9.6 (49.3)	9.3 (48.7)	7.0 (44.6)	4.4 (39.9)	2.1 (35.8)	2.2 (36.0)	2.7 (36.9)	4.9 (40.8)	5.7 (42.3)	7.7 (45.9)	9.1 (48.4)	2.1 (35.8)
Average rainfall mm (inches)	91.1 (3.59)	131.5 (5.18)	117.5 (4.63)	114.1 (4.49)	100.8 (3.97)	142.0 (5.59)	80.3 (3.16)	75.1 (2.96)	63.4 (2.50)	67.7 (2.67)	90.6 (3.57)	73.0 (2.87)	1,149.7 (45.26)
Average rainy days (≥ 1 mm)	8.2	9.0	10.1	7.9	7.9	9.3	7.2	5.6	5.8	7.6	8.7	7.9	95.2
Average afternoon relative humidity (%)	60	62	59	58	58	56	52	47	49	53	57	58	56
Average dew point °C (°F)	16.5 (61.7)	17.2 (63.0)	15.4 (59.7)	12.7 (54.9)	10.3 (50.5)	7.8 (46.0)	6.1 (43.0)	5.4 (41.7)	7.8 (46.0)	10.2 (50.4)	12.6 (54.7)	14.6 (58.3)	11.4 (52.5)
Mean monthly sunshine hours	232.5	205.9	210.8	213.0	204.6	171.0	207.7	248.0	243.0	244.9	222.0	235.6	2,639
Percent possible sunshine	53	54	55	63	63	57	66	72	67	61	55	55	60
Source 1: Bureau of Meteorology^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]
Source 2: Bureau of Meteorology, Sydney Airport (sunshine hours)^[5]

. I don't know how to fix the

v t e Climate data for Sydney (Observatory Hill) 1991–2020 averages, 1861–present extremes
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °C (°F)	45.8 (114.4)	42.1 (107.8)	39.8 (103.6)	35.4 (95.7)	30.0 (86.0)	26.9 (80.4)	26.5 (79.7)	31.3 (88.3)	34.6 (94.3)	38.2 (100.8)	41.8 (107.2)	42.2 (108.0)	45.8 (114.4)
Mean maximum °C (°F)	36.8 (98.2)	34.1 (93.4)	32.2 (90.0)	29.7 (85.5)	26.2 (79.2)	22.3 (72.1)	22.9 (73.2)	25.4 (77.7)	29.9 (85.8)	33.6 (92.5)	34.1 (93.4)	34.4 (93.9)	38.8 (101.8)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	27.0 (80.6)	26.8 (80.2)	25.7 (78.3)	23.6 (74.5)	20.9 (69.6)	18.3 (64.9)	17.9 (64.2)	19.3 (66.7)	21.6 (70.9)	23.2 (73.8)	24.2 (75.6)	25.7 (78.3)	22.8 (73.0)
Daily mean °C (°F)	23.5 (74.3)	23.4 (74.1)	22.1 (71.8)	19.5 (67.1)	16.6 (61.9)	14.2 (57.6)	13.4 (56.1)	14.5 (58.1)	17.0 (62.6)	18.9 (66.0)	20.4 (68.7)	22.1 (71.8)	18.8 (65.8)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	20.0 (68.0)	19.9 (67.8)	18.4 (65.1)	15.3 (59.5)	12.3 (54.1)	10.0 (50.0)	8.9 (48.0)	9.7 (49.5)	12.3 (54.1)	14.6 (58.3)	16.6 (61.9)	18.4 (65.1)	14.7 (58.5)
Mean minimum °C (°F)	16.1 (61.0)	16.1 (61.0)	14.2 (57.6)	11.0 (51.8)	8.3 (46.9)	6.5 (43.7)	5.7 (42.3)	6.1 (43.0)	8.0 (46.4)	9.8 (49.6)	12.0 (53.6)	13.9 (57.0)	5.3 (41.5)
Record low °C (°F)	10.6 (51.1)	9.6 (49.3)	9.3 (48.7)	7.0 (44.6)	4.4 (39.9)	2.1 (35.8)	2.2 (36.0)	2.7 (36.9)	4.9 (40.8)	5.7 (42.3)	7.7 (45.9)	9.1 (48.4)	2.1 (35.8)
Average rainfall mm (inches)	91.1 (3.59)	131.5 (5.18)	117.5 (4.63)	114.1 (4.49)	100.8 (3.97)	142.0 (5.59)	80.3 (3.16)	75.1 (2.96)	63.4 (2.50)	67.7 (2.67)	90.6 (3.57)	73.0 (2.87)	1,149.7 (45.26)
Average rainy days (≥ 1 mm)	8.2	9.0	10.1	7.9	7.9	9.3	7.2	5.6	5.8	7.6	8.7	7.9	95.2
Average afternoon relative humidity (%)	60	62	59	58	58	56	52	47	49	53	57	58	56
Average dew point °C (°F)	16.5 (61.7)	17.2 (63.0)	15.4 (59.7)	12.7 (54.9)	10.3 (50.5)	7.8 (46.0)	6.1 (43.0)	5.4 (41.7)	7.8 (46.0)	10.2 (50.4)	12.6 (54.7)	14.6 (58.3)	11.4 (52.5)
Mean monthly sunshine hours	232.5	205.9	210.8	213.0	204.6	171.0	207.7	248.0	243.0	244.9	222.0	235.6	2,639
Percent possible sunshine	53	54	55	63	63	57	66	72	67	61	55	55	60
Source 1: Bureau of Meteorology^[1]^[6]^[7]^[8]
Source 2: Bureau of Meteorology, Sydney Airport (sunshine hours)^[9]

.

Hymnodist.2004 (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b "Sydney (Observatory Hill) Period 1991-2020". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 14 April 2020.
^ "Sydney (Observatory Hill): all years". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
^ "Sydney (Observatory Hill): highest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Archived from the original on Sep 27, 2023. Retrieved 23 September 2023.
^ "Sydney (Observatory Hill): lowest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 23 September 2023.
^ "Climate statistics for Australian locations Sydney Airport AMO". Bureau of Meteorology.
^ "Sydney (Observatory Hill): all years". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
^ "Sydney (Observatory Hill): highest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Archived from the original on Sep 27, 2023. Retrieved 23 September 2023.
^ "Sydney (Observatory Hill): lowest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 23 September 2023.
^ "Climate statistics for Australian locations Sydney Airport AMO". Bureau of Meteorology.

Top fifteen most visited?

I read on the page "Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world", which includes a footnote " Dennis, Anthony (2013). ""Too expensive" Sydney slips from top 10 tourism list". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2016. In this year's World's Best Awards, announced in New York this week, Sydney came in as the world's number 12 ranked best city." and a link to http://www.traveller.com.au/too-expensive-sydney-slips-from-top-10-tourism-list-2pdh4 On that page however, cities are not ranked on most-visited, but on some kind of popularity in a survey. Is the original statement true that Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world? If so, is there a (better) source for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwinrossen (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

County field in infobox

Per MOS:INFOBOX, information within the infobox should be detailed in the body of the article. This article makes no mention of county. Counties are not meaningful in the Australian context in the way that they are, for example, in the UK and this entry is, I believe misleading if left as is. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Counties have been used in Australia since just after European colonisation commenced in 1788. They are so important that they are still included in documents such as the Geographical Names Register and every title deed to every parcel of land, which also include the parish where the parcel of land is located. They are one of those things that are important, but which run relatively silently in the background. If you are concerned about the lack of information on the county in the article, by all means add something. You could probably add information on the state and country as well, as we don't go into any detail on them either. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Title page of article could do with a Montage

Hi, the Sydney entry page is a bit drab. It would probably look better if it followed the example of London or Tokyo, or other great cities pages, with its great sites and buildings in a kind of collage: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/London_Montage_L.jpg/413px-London_Montage_L.jpg ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo#/media/File:Tokyo_Montage_2015.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.146.99 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, it defiantly needs a montage like most major cities on Wikipedia (Tokyo, New York City, London, Paris, Shanghai etc.) and surprises me that it doesn't although this obviously needs discussion. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Montage for infobox image

Looking at articles of other large cities (e.g. Melbourne, Adelaide, NYC, etc.), they all tend to have montages as the top image, showing points of interest in the related city. One example is this image from the article about the city of Brisbane. Would someone be able to create one for this article? These are my suggestions of images from Wikimedia Commons and landmarks to include:

Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg (Skyline, Opera House and Harbour Bridge)
Central railway station Sydney 2017.jpg (Central station)
MC Sydney Opera House.jpg (Opera House closeup)
SydneyNight.jpg (Circular Quay)
George st sydney.jpg(Town Hall & George St)

Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed and consensus was not to use a montage in this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That seems quite strange to me, as I can't seem to find many articles about a city of comparable, equivalent or larger population than Sydney which doesn't use a montage. Paris? London? LA? Moscow? Auckland? To be fair, some (e.g. San Francisco, Perth) don't. What about using Sydney Panorama.jpg instead? It's in daytime, which allows for more to be seen and is, I think, a bonus, and includes more of the city in it. trainsandtech (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That panorama is all nice, but it's too small and thinly compressed. I previewed it on the infobox and it looked minuscule and unattractive. The current photo of the harbour at night is a better choice, but I'd still opt for a montage all in all. It will do the article much justice. ~ Meganesia (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I also want a montage (although some do not). There are some good images up there. ~ Meganesia (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Montages were a mistake. No one seems to agree on how to construct them. People get carried away with the number of images, turning the lead into some tacky tourist brochure or something. I'd be glad to see policy enforced against them. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I also support a montage (to 5 photos). The current graphics are poor. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sydney status

What is Sydney? I know that the Sydney metropolis includes the Sydney agglomeration or metropolitan area and there are governmental sources for the number of over 5 million inhabitants. Also, I know that "City of Sydney" (small main part of metropolis) is local government area. But, what is Sydney (metropolis) in terms of politics and administration? is this region? administrative unit? statistical unit? district? Sydney (metropolis) have a managing person like mayor or president or council? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Montage

I've created a montage here to illustrate the city. It is available here. It is a large city, of 5 million people, and Australia's most historically important, yet it does not have a montage. The reasons people use to oppose the montage are usually arbitrary and perfunctory ("looks like a travel brochure", problems with what landmark merits an illustration), and nobody ever reaches an agreement. I am not prepared to let this one slide, I think we need to make an agreement. Comments welcome. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Expressing issues with what images are included is hardly arbitrary or perfunctory although choosing them seems to be. Images should be recognisable and representative of the city. File:Dr Chau Chak Wing, Sydney.jpg is unique but not well known and certainly not representative of the city. File:St Andrews Sydney 01 western towers.jpg is, to most readers, just a church and File:Museum Station Sydney - panoramio.jpg is just a railway station. Why not pick Central Railway Station, say an interior view of the main councourse? That said, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an image farm. We don't need photos of everything. Pretty pictures are great for advertising but they should be used sparingly in a document dealing with facts about a subject. Ideally they should be the subject of commentary. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Also the aspect ratio of some of the images has been messed with, such as this panorama. Notice how its width has been squeezed for the montage. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

the Dr Chau Chak Wing building has only been standing in Sydney for a few years but is already an emblematic picture of the city's contemporary architecture. I'm concerned your points err on the side of personal opinion rather than objectivity. Yes the width is an issue, but it can be fixed. When you mention an "image farm", I don't see the issue if there is a healthy balance. Most Wiki cities, including the ones listed as FA, have a montage or heavy illustration. It aids the reader. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The Chau Chak Wing building is probably not recognisable to most Sydneysiders, let alone non-Australians. Here's an objective comparison. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How is a random image of an obscure building an aid to the reader? This article already has 54 images. That's one for every 258 words. Adding a montage of buildings that aren't discussed in the text really doesn't help readers. It just serves to make the infobox more "pretty" and that's not what Wikipedia is about. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Churches and underground train stations are cliched. Stick to unique features of the city. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

these debates go around and around in circles. It’s notoriously difficult for Australian editors to make decisions. I’ve noticed this both at a political level and a Wiki editing level. YOU don’t recognise Chau Chak, but that doesn’t mean others won’t. Simply because you pull some statistics out of the ether doesn’t mean it doesn’t warrant a depiction. Then HiLo chimes in and tells me to stick to unique features of the city. Underground train stations are cliched? Odd choice of wording. Try practical, reliable, an efficient mode of transport. Museum station is one of Sydney’s most significant from a heritage perspective and it’s distinctive tile architecture is very recognisable. If these pictures are not recognisable images of Sydney then people just dont know Sydney well enough, and that is hardly my problem. 58.174.79.28 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not from Sydney. That underground station reminds me of dozens of other stations I've been in around the world. You may think it's uniquely Sydney. Sorry, it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Museum Station is one of Sydney's most frequented CBD stations. It is significant on a heritage level. AussieLegend claims that montages don't help readers. Unless he's surveyed every reader who has clicked Sydney's Wikipedia page, I don't see how he can gauge this. Now we have had a spate of montages proposed over the last few years and it always results in the same arbitrary complaints or discussion that simply isn't constructive. If there isn't an agreement made about a montage now I'll simply take the discussion to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.Ashton 29 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Museum station is still just a railway station that doesn't mean much to anyone who isn't familiar with it. These articles are aimed at providing information for people who want to learn about a subject. Readers shouldn't need prior expertise with a subject in order to understand the articles and images that aren't the subject of commentary don't really help readers. That's what I said, not that montages themselves don't help readers. As for your threat to go to DR, discussions require an element of give and take. You keep claiming that the opinions of others are arbitrary but your own reasons for selecting images can be seen in the same way by others. You don't seem willing to compromise. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Compromising", to me, would involve the use of a montage I create. But you seem to be firmly opposed to any montage and thus all proposals are thwarted. Museum Station, to the contrary, actually tells people quite a lot of about Sydney's underground train network that serves the city centre. It is even heritage listed. Now not all train stations receive heritage listings, that is one thing we can all agree on. All montages have captions, and those captions usually name what is depicted in each image. If there is a desire to delve deeper than the name would lead to the appropriate article, i.e. Museum Station. If it's significant enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page (which it has), I'd say its significant enough to belong in Sydney's montage. If it doesn't then tell me what does belong there. It would need to be a panorama. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

City panoramas are a disaster, unless they include easily recognisable features of that city, e.g. bridge, opera house. Otherwise they look like every other big city in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Sheldon Cooper! It isn't up to everyone to accept your image just because you think they should. Other editors see obvious problems with the image. The aspect ratio of the top image needs to be fixed but generally is acceptable as an image that is representative. The Dr Chau Chak Wing building needs to be replaced with something that is more recognisable and representative of Sydney. Museum station and the church are too generic for an infobox image. The other 3 images seem generally OK. There's a willingness by others to compromise here. The montage might be acceptable if the problems perceived by more than one editor can be resolved but you steadfastly refuse to change anything. That's not compromise and it's not going to result in a consensus to use the image. Yes, images have captions but the readers shouldn't have to go to other articles to work out what on earth the things in the montage are. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Museum Station is one of Sydney's most frequented CBD stations. It is significant on a heritage level." I'm sure you're telling me the truth, but sticking it in a montage doesn't tell me anything about it at all. Sydney has some iconic images, very well known to people from outside the city - the bridge, opera house, tower, even Pinchgut and the ferry, etc. But that train station simply isn't. Nor will they notice it as anything special if they visit the city. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Where an image is not the subject of commentary, even in a caption, it needs to be recognisable without the need for research. The Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House fall into that category but the others really don't. The image to the right is of highly recognisable objects but if you aren't from the local area you're unlikely to have any idea what they are or why they're recognisable. I wouldn't consider putting them in an infobox because of that. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

oh come on. The image you just pasted bears no comparison to the images I have chosen, because it actually doesn't depict anything in the foreground. It's a grass field with an incidental cluster of buildings in the far distance. Nothing I have selected comes close to being as evasive as the shipyard you just used as an example. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You've clearly missed my point completely, which was about the type of image, not the specifics of what is in it. As I've already said above, a reader shouldn't have to have intimate familiarity with the subject to understand what is being depicted in an image. People seeing an image of the opera house or harbour bridge generally recognise them even if they have never been to Sydney because they are internationally recognised symbols of Sydney. Not so museum station or the Dr Chau Chak Wing building. To anyone not familiar with them they are as confusing as you find the image that I used. That said, the shipyard in that image is instantly recognisable to anyone who has driven along the national highway through Tomago. It's able to be seen from distances much further away from where I took that image. The point here is that what is obvious to some is not obvious to others. You need to try to cater for as many readers as possible. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48, "That underground station reminds me of dozens of other stations I've been in around the world". Ashton 29, I support montage but not large. Your proposition is too large (long). I support montage to 5/6 pictures (max 3 rows) like Barcelona or Madrid, for example: skyline and below two x two/three pictures. So, if there is consensus for skyline of Sydney (Sydney central business district), Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge, there are two-three spaces remain in third row - to discuss. My proposition: Bondi Beach [5], Royal Botanic Garden [6], Queen Victoria Building or St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney or Australian Museum. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with HiLo46 that underground stations can be a bit generic and also that the number of images needs to be kept down - the harbour bridge is a transport structure, the Opera House a Cultural icon. For the other images perhaps we could look at the Botanical Gardens or Bondi Beach for a nature reference, goat island for industrial history, Rocks for European settlement and maybe harbour rock carvings for indigenous Australia (not sure if images already in CC are Ok to use?). Sydney is a big city with a broad range of cultures so it could include a transport hub at Parramatta rather than focusing on the central CBD. I agree that all this sounds quite touristy but I also think that is the reality for most people when they think of images of the city, perhaps one outlier could be put in the montage and it wouldn't affect things too much? Eothan (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bondi beach is a good suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

But a transport hub at Parramatta is going to be just as insignificant to an unfamiliar reader as Museum Station. It's about educating people about Sydney, not just providing the global images of the city. We already have a picture of a beach in the body of the article, and I think providing another in the montage would not only be overkill but far too cliche. There's a lot more to Sydney than its beaches. What about, in place of Museum Station, a panorama of Central station? Interior or exterior. As far size, what do you think? Is it too large? Or can we keep the current arrangement of 7 images. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If someone forced me to make a montage, I'd include Bondi Beach. It's an obvious choice. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. And something else that stands out in Sydney, when comparing it with other cities, is rugby league. An action pic would be appropriate. (Don't worry about those Queenslanders.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I too agree with Bondi but the Bondi pic is already used in the "Eastern suburbs" section of the article where there is mention of the beach so it's best left there where it's next to relevant text. This is one of the big problems with montages, they should include photos that are representative of a city but if they are of representative subjects they should be addressed in the prose, preferably with a photo that's representative enough to be used in a montage. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

We can rule out the beach. Let's not be so unoriginal. There are plenty of other things that are recognisable to Sydney besides Bondi. We need to decide what they are. As AussieLegend mentioned, there is already an image of a beach in the Eastern suburbs which links with the prose. I imagine people had no objections to the Opera House, Fort Denison, Dr Chau Chak Wing, Sydney Tower and St Andrew's. What would people like to see in place of Museum Station? What about a pano of Hyde Park, the Royal Botanic Gardens, or some other natural element? Ashton 29 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If St Andrew's is that church, I say "No". Every city has churches. No idea what the Dr Chau Chak Wing is. You see, I'm not from Sydney. Maybe it gets a lot of press there, but not elsewhere. But you could be on to something when you mention "some other natural element". That harbour. It's why Sydney is there. Find a good aerial shot. That would belong in a montage. And that reminds me. The ferries say "Sydney". Maybe Circular Quay, with some ferry action. And one of those visiting cruise ships. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I imagine people had no objections to ... Dr Chau Chak Wing, ... and St Andrew's. Have you not been following the conversation? Both of those have been opposed for reasons already stated. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

These are the most superficial and useless arguments I've ever encountered. Perhaps it's useless arguing for a montage, or perhaps that's what you'd like me to think, because you already have your mind set that you don't want a montage. What do you mean about it getting "press"? Does a building need to be in the news to be distinguished, or noteworthy? They are clearly prominent buildings. The harbour is already featured in the montage, in the picture of the skyline. I'm told my choices aren't significant enough but "HiLo" just requested a picture of a bloody cruise ship. It's laughable. I don't take either of you seriously. I'm sorry. Ashton 29 (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Try to imagine being a complete outsider to Sydney, and trying to make sense of what they see in a montage. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this collage? For me is good. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, the church is just a church and what's the deal with the rocks? That seems a really random pick. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are from Sydney, and I believe you have claimed you are, then you should know that they are not just "rocks". These arguments are getting more and more farcical by the minute. Make a decision. 2001:8003:A973:6300:E524:6541:9C35:3D27 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You believe wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney is not "just" a church, de facto is the most known church in Australia. As for the rocks - I would replace them with another photo, eg Royal Botanic Garden. AussieLegend, you are too strict. There is no perfect collage, but most of the metropolises of the world in Wikipedia use collages in infobox. In most of these collages of other metropolises there are not 100% perfect photos. It does not exist 100% perfect collages. You want hundred years to discuss whether Bondi Beach is better than Royal Botanic Garden ....and block changes? Let's stop trolling. There is consensus for skyline of Sydney (Sydney central business district), Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge - ok. We can create two-three graphics:

Sydney_collage_1 incl. consensus (skyline+opera+bridge) and Bondi Beach and St Mary's Cathedral
Sydney_collage_2 incl. consensus (skyline+opera+bridge) and Royal Botanic Garden and Queen Victoria Building
(optional) Sydney_collage_3 incl. consensus (skyline+opera+bridge) and new two propositions

The montage we can be changed every year, for example Sydney_collage_1 from 1 October 2018 to 30 September 2019, Sydney_collage_2 from 1 October 2019 to 30 September 2020 etc. Changing montage is already used in several other articles. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read the entire thread above, especially the post immediately prior to yours in which HiLo48 says Try to imagine being a complete outsider to Sydney, and trying to make sense of what they see in a montage. We've addressed the issue of churches already and the same arguments apply to this one. As for changing the montage every year, that's really unnecessary. This is an encyclopaedia, not a book of pretty pictures. Images should be relevant to the prose, not merely be decorations. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The article body now has 52 images. Why is a montage necessary at all? 52 sounds like a big enough number to illustrate all that is most notable. An additional montage then would only be for show. I like how the Perth and Hobart articles have skipped the montage mess and gone with a nice, simple city shot. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The current picture contains the CBD, and arguably 2 of the most recognised symbols of not only Sydney, but Australia. The amount of pictures in the article is enough. Leave the current picture as is, the montage is overkill Luxure Σ 07:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sydney is Australia's most significant city and its largest. It deserves an adequate montage to represent it in the lede.2001:8003:A973:6300:5004:4082:FD50:1392 (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please direct us to the Wikipedia policy about cities "deserving" anything. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the current image isn’t representative of the city on the whole; an image that can illustrate the architecture overall of the city would be good for any reader, especially those who haven’t been to Sydney. It’s hard to explain what the city looks like with words. In relation to the “there’s a lot of images” argument, we can possibly use some of them for the montage. It is a general accepted standard for major cities worldwide to have a montage and very few do not. No, it’s not a requirement of course but like I said, a small dark image of the harbour is not adequate. IWI (chat) 18:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Current picture for Sydney

This has been gone on and on about for years. I do not understand why Sydney should different to any number of global cities. Having a montage showing some of the cities major sights is a Wikipedia standard. The current picture, and the map (who's idea was that? Its awful.) looks drab and lame.

Whatever collage is chosen, it should include the Opera House, the bridge, the Circular Quay skyline, maybe the new War Memorial, the heads, one of our beaches, etc. That there can't be agreement on this is just bizarre.....what is going on with the obsessives of this page? If its an issue with Bondi, fine pick Manly. If its an issue with the skyline, fine post Government House in Parramatta. Sydney is more than just the Bridge and the Opera House, or at least we should be making an attempt to showcase more of the city on this page than just those two landmarks.

I've gone back through the archives to 2016, and really this endless Sydney exceptionalism on display is nauseating. Whatever happens, that basic as anything Melways style map has gotta go. Its very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CashythedogNovember (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This was only recently discussed above with no resolution. It doesn't require a completely separate thread. As far as the map goes, its intent is to show the extent of the Sydney area and it does that. "Its very sad"[sic] doesn't explain any opposition to it. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The preceding sentence, the one that suggests its dated and tired, the one you've left out bizarrely even though the original text is just above here, goes some way in explaining my "opposition"[sic] to it. And it isn't really about opposing something, its about improving something. The Sydney page could be improved merely by following the trends of other global cities pages on Wikipedia. You are up and down this talk page, throughout the archived pages as well, arguing about this. Why? I'm new to Wiki, but I'm not sure I understand your motives or continued intransigence on this issue. As far as the issue being previously discussed, I don't think that is good enough. It looks as if this has become a kind of contest for power amongst certain users of this page. I don't think that is getting the best result for this page at all.CashythedogNovember (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

When you say the one that suggests its dated and tired, are you talking about the image or the map? If the image, I'm sorry but that's what the city looks like and there is very little we can do about that. Use of a montage is not a standard, it's just something that editors do. There is no policy or guideline that favours a montage. Reasons for not using a montage have been explained at length. If the map, again, there is nothing we can really do about that. A map is a map. It conveys information and again, nothing you've said justifies why why we shouldn't be using that one. It is accurate, only missing a border and other than that I don't see how it could be improved. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

My point still stands: the Sydney entry first page could be improved. You seem to be the main person in the way of this happening. You've repeatedly referred to previous pronouncements on this issue, but from I can read this is just you stating your personal opinion. I don't think the issue is settled. The page could be improved, and kept in line with other global city pages. Whether this is Wikipedia policy is neither here nor there. If one of the points of Wikipedia is to convey information to as wide and audience as possible, then showing quickly and easily a city's main landmarks/cityscapes seems appropriate. You've yet to explain why its ok for London, NYC, Paris, Tokyo, Melbourne, Los Angeles, Toronto, Auckland, etc etc, to have the montage format but not Sydney. Besides, of course, your personal taste on the matter. The map is dated looking, and it is barely legible. I am on PC and still it is hard to discern details on the map, even when I click on it. What is the point of something like a map that is difficult/impossible to read? It isn't doing the job you claim it is doing. For that reason alone it should be replaced. Once I work out how to do it, I'll be flagging aspects of this article. It is not doing what you are claiming it is supposed to be doing.CashythedogNovember (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're not really making youself clear so:

the Sydney entry first page could be improved - How, other than adding a montage as you seem keen to do.

Whether this is Wikipedia policy is neither here nor there. - Actually, policy is very important.

You've yet to explain why its ok for London, NYC, Paris, Tokyo, Melbourne, Los Angeles, Toronto, Auckland, etc etc, to have the montage format but not Sydney. - I suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles do it doesn't mean we have to do it here and, if you actually read the discussions you'll see that the opposition has actually been to the choice of images in the montage, not the montage itself. That is very clearly explained above.

The map is dated looking, and it is barely legible. - What exactly is "dated" when it comes to a map? I am on a PC too and I find it quite legible. At full resolution (2,412 × 2,310 pixels) details are easy to read. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This has gone on for years because AussieLegend has decided so, and that's apparently consensus: many people say "we need a monatage", but a couple including AussieLegend say "no we don't", and somehow, that's consensus. Absurd. IWI (chat) 12:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, please comment on content, not the contributor. Secondly, please get your facts right. Several editors have opposed montages. I'd actually support a montage if we could get some appropriate images that properly represent the city. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

My comment on the content is that the current image is completely ridiculous. It just looks like any other city. IWI (chat) 15:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with this looking like any other city? Part of Wikipedia is consistency. That's why we have policy and guidelines. This is an encyclopaedia, not a picture book. It's supposed to inform the reader, not just be pretty. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

How on earth does an awful map inform a reader, I'm sure nobody rocks up to wikipedia to get directions instead of a maps service. It would be more informative to have a natural perspective on the city rather than an artificial map as relevant as the view you might have from the ISS. I agree wholeheartedly that it should be a montage like other alpha global cities, of which none have a map with dated serif labels. beatenplastic 11:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox:settlement

For a large city like Sydney, Infobox settlement may be more appropriate. The current infobox works well for smaller cities in Australia, but we could take the British approach with Infobox UK place, using Infobox settlement for larger cities. The current infobox misses Metro or Urban populations, among other things. IWI (chat) 12:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place works well for every place in Australia, including Sydney. I don't see how Infobox settlement would be an improvement at all. In any case, it would be inconsistent with every other city in Australia. Regarding the populations, we use the populations as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and we can't just make stuff up. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The same is true for London but nobody opposes the use of it there, so that argument is (probably) false. Talk about consistency, all (not most, all) of the world's major cities use this infobox. Its format is widely regarded. In fact, we could propose merging the infoboxes as they can both serve the same purpose as I shall demonstrate in a minute when I add it here. Please don't automatically disregard this. IWI (chat) 15:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

all (not most, all) of the world's major cities use this infobox — Did you mean to say "All of the world's true major cities use this infobox? Is Sydney a major city or not? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The argument that Australia should do what the UK does is OSE. We try to be consistent across the project. It makes no sense to have one article different to the other 13,000 articles that use this infobox.

I shall demonstrate in a minute when I add it here. - Please don't do it here. Do it on test page somewhere. There is no consensus to use a different infobox in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you can see only the start of it here. IWI (chat) 15:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

What would have been the harm n putting it here? IWI (chat) 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it makes no difference to have one Australian article different to the 13,000 other Australian articles that use the infobox. We've previously discussed this and the standing consensus is to use IAP. If you really want to discuss this the best place to do so is WP:AWNB. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I will do so, it should also apply to Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane etc. IMO. IWI (chat) 15:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand having an infobox for one country’s cities. In particular, it does not include demonym, the word to describe a person who lives there. I Chicago, a Chicagoan; in New York, a New Yorker, in Paris, a Parisian. Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, what is the term? I appreciate the commonality of infoboxes in Wikipedia. —Prairieplant (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is not used just for cities. It is used for a wider range of places than infobox settlement provides and does a lot of "behind the scenes" stuff that IS doesn't do. It would make no sense to have one infobox for cities and another for every other type of place. As for demonyms, there is virtually no sourcing for most demonyms that do exist and really, they're not used all that much any more. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend:, I remember when my father (born 1941) told me to put "'tothersider" in the relevant Wikipedia article as an Eastern Australian nickname for Western Australians, he was reverted by someone much younger (and therefore would not know the facts) who claimed 'tothersider was rarely used. My father was a University academic who was around in the 50s and 60s. He knew who what he was talking about. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Was it reliably sourced? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep as is. There seem to be pros and cons for either template with no major advantage to change. So, I go for consistency within Australian articles. Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

19th century wealth, coffee palaces and the temperance movement

I'm just wondering if more detail should be added to the 19th century section of Sydney, under History. Specifically about the building of large, ornate coffee palaces that were designed to encourage a temperance or absintance from alcohol, which at the time had become a bit of an issue in the colonies of Australia, manifesting in disorderly or boisterous public/private behaviour. I have added a rather incredible image of Sydney's Grand Central Coffee Palace (later known as Hotel Arcadia), which was located on Clarence and Pitt Street until its demolition in the 1950s, which does give a little detail about the temperance coffee palace but doesn't go into detail.Ashton 29 (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Top fifteen most-visited city

I read on the page "Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world", which includes a footnote " Dennis, Anthony (2013). ""Too expensive" Sydney slips from top 10 tourism list". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2016. In this year's World's Best Awards, announced in New York this week, Sydney came in as the world's number 12 ranked best city." and a link to http://www.traveller.com.au/too-expensive-sydney-slips-from-top-10-tourism-list-2pdh4 On that page however, cities are not ranked on most-visited, but on some kind of popularity in a survey. Is the original statement true that Sydney is amongst the top fifteen most-visited cities in the world? If so, is there a (better) source for it? I posted this question also 1.5 years ago, but it got removed from Talk without any action. Erwin (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be careful with the "most visited" status. As someone from Melbourne I am far too often forced to go through the painful experience of transiting through Sydney Airport when I'm actually on my way to somewhere else. Obviously the same would apply to millions of other people. If all of those occasions count as visits, the figures are meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

[acnoh-1] "Sydney (Observatory Hill) Period 1991-2020". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 14 April 2020.

[2] "Sydney (Observatory Hill): all years". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 4 June 2018.

[3] "Sydney (Observatory Hill): highest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Archived from the original on Sep 27, 2023. Retrieved 23 September 2023.

[4] "Sydney (Observatory Hill): lowest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 23 September 2023.

[5] "Climate statistics for Australian locations Sydney Airport AMO". Bureau of Meteorology.

[6] "Sydney (Observatory Hill): all years". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 4 June 2018.

[7] "Sydney (Observatory Hill): highest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Archived from the original on Sep 27, 2023. Retrieved 23 September 2023.

[8] "Sydney (Observatory Hill): lowest temperatures". Bureau of Meteorology. Retrieved 23 September 2023.

[9] "Climate statistics for Australian locations Sydney Airport AMO". Bureau of Meteorology.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]