Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:33, 24 July 2006

Australia: Sydney A‑class Top‑importance

Sydney is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Sydney has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Sydney received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives
Archive 1

Outer Business Districts

I presume that North Sydney was not included in this list originally because it is so close to the CBD, however it does deserve some mention in the urban structure section. Should the list be changed to 6 other business districts, or should we use some other wording? JPD (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackp's disruptive edits

As many of you editors on Sydney know, Jackp has been a highly disruptive editor for some months now and I think it is high time to put a stop to it. His activity includes: inserting POV statements into articles, attempting to create sections again and again which have been reverted and discussed, removing sections he does not like and outright punctuation vandalism. His edits seek to promote Sydney and Australia whilst demeaning other cities and countries. He has added the same statement to the Sydney article no less than 8 times (and I only searched for a small sample): He frequently removes sections he does not like from other city articles, the section removed is usually the same section he tries to insert into Sydney: Here () he simply blanks a part of Tokyo out of frustration. He also commits sneaky vandalism through delevelling of headers: Here () he questions the need for Tokyo having a tourism section (because Sydney's tourism section keeps getting removed. Here () he says that NYC is not a good size (so he's going to make it a good size). He also attempts to insert the tourism section in Sydney again and again: Very few of his edits have not been reverted. His talk page is full of people complaining about his edits but he seems to take no notice of them. What I have uncovered is only a tiny fraction of his total disruption: his edit count is over 1000. I just wanted to ask for people's opinions on his edits and whether we should take further action because we simply cannot let his disruption continue. Skinnyweed 13:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is beyond a joke that it hasn't seriously been attended to. Warnings have been issued plenty of times on his talk page; a stronger line has to be taken. michael 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

it was so nice for 24hours when he was blocked and there was no jack to edit. It is very frustrating. the block seemed to have no real effect. he was back to his old ways straight away. I don't actually think he is an intentional vandal, rather he just doesn't get it. --Merbabu 14:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu is right, he's not trying to be disruptive but appears to genuinely believe he's helping. This, I assume, is why he's not been consistently blocked. If he'd only written his POV statements once and then justified them in discussion here, we wouldn't be at this point and some of his info might have stayed. It's a pity really since he's clearly very committed. Witty lama 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right, I'm very committed in getting Sydney's page into shape. And what where you saying about a POV statement? I'd be happy to post it here. Jackp 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jackp, the general consensus is that the sydney page is in good shape. You are the only one who seems to disagree. People have noted that your edits sound more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedia. Do you know what "peacock" terms are? FOr example "economic engine". THat means nothing. If anything at the moment Sydney's economy is the least healthy in all of australia particularly after the property boom, melbourne is only a little better - if we want to use the "economic engine" term, then it must be WA & QLD as they are raking it in due to the resources boom. --Merbabu 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ALso, have you used the history tab? You can see the reasons people give for changing your work. try it and maybe you will understand.--Merbabu 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is in reasonable shape. There is plenty of room for improvement, but most of Jack's edits make it worse. For a while after his block, I thought he was trying to be more reasonably, but I see he has gone back to repeatedly adding his versions without discussion. Jack, it would help if you at the very least actually bothered to understand why people disagree with you before continuing to edit the article. JPD (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine, if someone would just make an improvment, there is a lot on Sydney that could be added in, but know one seems willing, that just bugs me. Jackp 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The sections that are already there need improving. We don't need any new sections. If everyone wasn't so busy trying to deal with Jack's inappropriate additions, they might have time to make improvements. JPD (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no sections need to be added, ok then fine, I've got a few:

• Shopping (as a sub-section under "Arts and Entertainment")-Sydney tourists always engage in shopping, and it is something that makes Sydney stand out

• Architecture-No one seems to want it or consider it! Even though, Sydney has a classic architectural style, and is a classic case of old meets new.

• Tourism-Witch is a vital part of the Sydney economy, and Sydney is a tourism hub, but still no one cares!

MAYBE IF SOMEONE CARED, THEN NO TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN WASTED!!! Jackp 11:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, are you for real? Sometimes i think you are just joking - although i don't want to suggest you are a troll. You have raised each of these points before and people have responded to each. You say Sydney's shopping stands out. How? I've been to many big cities around the world and it is not that different. What do you suggest? Architecture - we've been through that. see above. Do you know what classical architecture is??? Sydney being a tourist centre is mentioned right at the start. It has been suggested that the economic importance of tourism be expanded in this article but no-one (yourself included) has down this so far - we are tired of removing your tourism promotion material. --Merbabu 12:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If shopping were important to tourism ("tourists always engage in it"????), there would be sources to back this up, and it could be included in economy. I don't see how shopping makes Sydney stand out, but it definitely doesn't need its own section. Architecture has been discussed before, and you still haven't listened. Same for tourism, which doesn't need a section when its importance can be described in the economy section. The main thing you don't seem to have understood yet is that this article is not about tourists! Saying noone cares is a bit ridiculous. Your sensible suggestions, like adding information on the film industry, have been acted on. Other suggestions, which most people feel would make the article worse, have been reverted, with reasons given in the edit summaries, on your talk page, and on this page. The least you could do is try to understand these reasons. JPD (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No one ever said why it shouldn't be there, they said they didn't like what I wrote (as always). No one even made an attempt to fix it. Why can't something I write be edited instead of taken out, I've added in a new version of the architecture, if you don't like it then why don't you just fix it, and this would end Jackp 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is riduclous - people have stated over and over WHY they don't like some (most?) of your changes. The reason the architecture section got removed was because it was mostly POV peacock statments, and the rest of the section was so thin that it didn't deserve a whole section. --Merbabu 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this! Can we all just move on? It is time we focus on more important things. Jackp 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you will stop your "disruptive edits"? --Merbabu 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it just doesn't matter anymore, I'm done on trying to get it through, so I think we shall all move on from this issue now Jackp 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

well, not all of your edits were over-ruled. Some were accepted. The problem was when you reinstate some edits numerous times despite a large number of people disagreeing. Just remember POV and no peacock terms. Cheers--Merbabu 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Jackp's disruption is intentional and nothing else; he has been told many, many times but he does not ceast. Skinnyweed 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure suggestions

Headings in Arts and Entertainment

Jackp obviously wants headings in the arts section. The way he has done it doesn't actually make sense. For example, The Push gets labelled as Theatre, and both Theatre and Plays appear in different sections. So, what shoudl we do? As I see it, there are three options:

1. Leave it as it is (ie no headings), possibly with some reordering for better flow. I currently prefer this option.
2. Reorganise it into separate subsections of culture.
3. Use

headings

(;headings) as Jackp suggests, but with better organisation of material.

Please add your opinions. JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to split, IMHO. Nowhere else does it, and for good reason - it's just unnecessary. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to make it bold, because it is easier to read, when it isn't in bold text, it gets all jumbled. Just like Paris's "entertainment" section, it stands out so the reader knows what section they are reading! Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume those who read the article aren't either blind or retarded. Most people aren't so stupid as to fail to differentiate between the paragraphs' subjects. Don't complicate the article. michael 06:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complicating it, I'm making it eaiser to read, besides it looks better. Jackp 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Separating paragraphs is not a reason to use subheadings. All the features cities I can think of have 2 or 3 sections within culture. The Paris sections look really terrible.--Peta 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have to agree. It does look pretty tacky. Jackp 08:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Parks and gardens

To me it seems that this subsection would be better in Geography than Culture, either as a subsection, or part of the urban structure subsection. Any other opinions? JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a paragraph under geography would suffice. It's a rather small topic with regard to the city as a whole.

I think instead of getting rid of all that information on Parks and Gardens (I think it is very well written), we should add it as a sub-section under "Geography" since there are so many parks and gardens in Sydney. Instead of removing it all together. Jackp 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It could easily be worked into the text - without being a seperate subsection - in Canberra info about parks is in the arts and entertianment section, which inclues all the sites of interest to locals and tourists.--Peta 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it works, although to me it doesn't quite match the heading. Some of the parks are already mentioned in the urban structure section, and I think some more would fit well there. While on the topic, is it only me that finds the "centrepiece of Sydney's wida array" sentence a bit ridiculous? JPD (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was much more ditinctive with as a sub-section. Maybe be it should go as a sub-section under Geography. Jackp 05:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The section has Nothing to do with gepography--Peta 07:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added much more info to Parks and Gardens in Sydney, and it's a little to big for it to be included under arts and entertainment, so it's gone back to having it's own sub-section. Jackp 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this much info in a summary article. We definitely don't need to describe parks such as the Chinese Gardens or RNP to that extent, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to single out Botany Bay National Park. I am still not sure how the Botanic Gardens are the "centrepiece", either. JPD (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why "Parks and Gardens" needs to be added under arts and entertianment (which has absoloutly nothing to do with parks and gardens)...It should still have it's own subsection. Jackp 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see an argument for not having it under arts and entertainment, but not for having its own subsection. JPD (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is where do we put it? The only reasonable option was giving it a sub-section under cutlure, because it can't go under geography, and there isn't anywhere else for it to go. So if it doesn't have a subsection...then where does it go? Also, why is the "further reading" section constantly removed? Jackp 07:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way of going about this would be that we don't put it, at least not in this form. The current section has way too much information about a relatively minor subject for a summary article such as this. It could perhaps do with a paragraph somewhere (I don't particularly care where), but it's hardly a necessity to have it at all. Rebecca 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds ok, or maybe just remove some of the parts that don't reall deserve a mention. Jackp 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LGAs

Someone above suggested that the list of LGAs in the body of the article was ugly and unnecessary, as they are listed in the template at the bottom. Does anyone agree? Alternatives that I can see include linking to a list of LGAs in Sydney, or possibly even moving the sydney regions template to that part of the article. JPD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind them as they are - I think they're formatted nicely and helpful. I wouldn't object if they were removed though. Rebecca 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point JPD. I agree that the table of 40 LGAs is a bit ugly, and disrupts the flow of the article. I think it was better with them at the bottom (they were there a few days ago, but aren't now) and a link to a list of LGAs in the Governance section Mako 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the template is the best way to do it as the information should be easy to find when the idea is first encountered. Mabye a seperate article on the governance of sydney linked {{main}}, which would have the obvious list information it could discuss changing boundaries and so on. It also needs to be made abundandtly clear that this article isn't only about the area governed by SCC.--Peta 10:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was only starting dicussion on an issue raised by someone else. I personally don't mind the list, although a link to a Governance of Sydney would be a decent alternative. JPD (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia's Capital?

A while ago I added this into the first part of the Sydney article:

"Sydney is the Australia's focal center of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture."

Well, isn't most of that true?? I want to no what is before I add the sentence in, because I feel it should be mentioned somewhere, and the top is the most venerable for people to see (there really isn't any other places).Jackp 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Peacock terms, Jack, peacock terms. The reason why that sort of sentence is not appropriate is set out in great detail up above. Please take the time to read and understand the comments people have made to your suggestions. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, we've already addressed it many times. Stop asking again and again. Do you actually read what people write let alone consider it? --Merbabu 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What about if the peacock terms are removed, eg "Sydney has Australia's largest concentration of politics, business, finance, education, media, and culture, or something along those lines? Jackp 08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And how would you actually prove any of these things? Rebecca 09:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rebecca, i think Jack was saying there that he would remove it. But i guess the proof is what he does in the article. --Merbabu 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Finance is already in the article, but for the rest, apart from tons of books and documentaries, this is where it can be proven:

1. link title 2.link title

Jackp 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, some of that stuff is verifiable. Centre of finance, or centre of culture, those can be verifiable via public perception. Centre of education? Hardly. Centre of politics? Umm Canberra is the capital for a reason... --Sumple (Talk) 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, if you really beleive that those two links are reputable sources and not just websites to generate clickthrough revenue then you truly are a lost cause! --Steve 06:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove education and politics when I re-add it. Also, if Sydney isn't, then what is Australia's education capital? Jackp 06:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you talk about high schools, then yes the NSW selective system produces the most out of all states - see Maths Olympiad and Science Olympiads to see that NSW is a a dominant contributor to Australian representative teams. However per capita it would be ACT. With the ANU, the tertiary level is probably the same, the ANU is usually ranked higher and per capita Canberra would also be higher rated in terms of ed qualification.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is an 'education capital'? There term is meaningless --Steve 06:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True, there is no proper definition, but I had to rebut anyway.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if every school or uni in australia was located in Sydney i wouldn't say "education capital" - rather just say that every school and uni is in Sydney. let the facts speak for themselves. dont fill this up with tourist brochure garbage. --Merbabu 06:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about verifying claims - it's the NATURE of the claims (whether they are true or not) that is the issue. They belong in a tourist brochure, this is an encyclopedia. I don't care if jack's hyperbole is true (it probably is) or that it is conclusively verifiable (it probably isn't), the fact is it doesn't belong here, end of F^&%*#)%* story. I cannot believe we have now spend weeks debating something that so clearly conflicts with central tennants of wikipedia. --Merbabu 06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The three top unis in Australia (according to the THES) are Melbourne, ANU and Monash. So the "education capital" (if, as Steve asked, that means anything) is probably Melbourne. (I'm a UNSW graduate, so aren't blowing Melbourne's trumpet). You'd better remove culture too, unless you can find a good source backing up that claim.Mako 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

i can't believe we are even giving it a discussion. There is no place for such a term even if all the superior institutions were actually in sydney. --Merbabu 06:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu, no offence but, why do you always have a bone to pick with everyone? We are just trying to discuss something here, is that illegal on Misplaced Pages. Everone is just answering the question about Australia's education capital. PLEASE LAY OFF. Jackp 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, Merbabu was not picking a bone with a person but with the topic at hand - YOU are the one who made the Ad hominem attack, not him. Don't try to pass the buck. Furthermore, whenever someone says "no offence" they generally DO mean offence! Witty lama 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What education capital? There isn't one. Universities are scattered everywhere. Many regional cities are university cities. Does every single thing in Australia have to have a focal point or a capital at one particular city? You don't just live in Sydney, Jack, you live in AUSTRALIA. Things don't magically change once you pass Gosford or Campbelltown. -- Chuq 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack has already stated somewhere that he doesn't live in Sydney. Some of the completely wrong statements he make back that up. Together with the fact that he uses American spelling, I wouldn't even be sure that he lives in Australia. That might be an excuse for not understanding that there is no "education capital" of Australia, but it's not an excuse for thinking that that sort of language is acceptable in an encyclopedia. JPD (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu is right. We shouldn't have to be discussing this sort of thing again and again, when the language proposed is something that should not be in an encyclopedia full stop. Rebecca 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack "no offence" to you either, but your last comment says quite a bit about the way you use words. Ie, you use them loosely with very little thought to how they are going to be read by others. I am not picking a bone with "everyone", as you put it. Rather i am contributing to a discussion to which I am in agreement with a lot of people, whereas you appear to be in agreement with no-one. As per usual, my advice to you is to read closely what people are actually saying, and cleary there is also a need for you to think carefully about the words you use in the article. Although, to your credit, you do seem to be heeding of the advice on earlier topics (ie, the introduction).--Merbabu 09:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

International rankings

I really don't like this section. If information about any of these rankings is important enough, then it can go in the lead or somewhere else appropriate. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in the article. There is no need to have a separate section for it. JPD (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If no further comments are made, I will remove the section. The Beta world city info is not a ranking, but a description of what sort of city it is, so can go in the lead. The other ranking could possibly go in the lead, but perhaps doesn't need to be there at all. JPD (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough

In light of today's reversions from Jackp, re-adding material which it has been explained to him time and time again is inappropriate, I have blocked him for a week. I have asked him to take the time to think about and try to understand why his editing has been inappropriate, and informed him that I will block him indefinitely if he continues editing in this way after the conclusion of his block. Rebecca 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am trying really really hard to control myself, so i will say this with some control - that is BRILLIANT news. He has completely failed to learn the not-so-difficult art of compromise and consensus. Yet, often he has claimed he has, is quiet for a couple of days, and then comes back with a vengeance. He asked me about creating a page on architecture in Sydney and showed his (typical jack) writings. I decided to treat his intentions as good and gave him a long answer - the general jist was this needs RESEARCH and i gave him a list of topics. But there was no reply which i think is telling.--Merbabu 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom :P Cheers, --darkliight 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone (203.208.120.247), presumably Jackp himself, is now doing the same things all over again. Is another block justified? JPD (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That IP address is assigned to Neighbourhood Cable, an ISP that covers regional Victoria. Verify with APNIC whois search. John Dalton 11:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) More specifically, according to the 'company info' section of their website they cover the following three towns: Mildura (8,500 homes), Ballarat (32,000 homes) and Geelong (50,000 homes). John Dalton 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Should be able to narrow it down further. Each IP block is probably assigned on a subnet basis. Find a domain name close to 203.208.120.247 and get its address details out of who is. 203.208.120.247 should be in the same city and maybe even on the same phone exchange? John Dalton 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Architecture in Sydney

Hello, I've just written a section on architecture in Sydney. I posted it on Merbabu's user talk page, because he gave me an idea for the architecture section. So after I read his ideas, I got cracking on the section. Anways, Merbabu gave it a quick read, and thought it was a good start, although he though it may beed to be re-sized, as it's a little too long. He also said that many of you mighten be pleased (he has a copy and says he'll work on it), so to be sure he said post it on the Sydney talk page, so give it a read and see what you think:

Sydney’s skyline is not characterized by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a long period of time.

Many prominent architects that are responsible for a large amount of iconic Sydney structures, such as the iconic colonial architect Francis Greenway Between 1816 and 1818, whilst still a convict, Greenway was responsible for the design and construction of the Macquarie Lighthouse on the South Head at the entrance to Sydney Harbour. His most famous works include the Hyde Park Barracks, St. James Church and the new Govermant building. Danish architect, Jorn Utzon, responsible for quite possibly the most famous Sydney structure, the contemprary Sydney Opera House which has since it’s opening in 1973 by the Queen Elizabeth, has become one of the most recognizable buildings in the world and makes Sydney’s skyline differ from many other cities due to it’s shape, which are suppose to resemble sails.

The late 1980s and early to mid 1990s resulted in a skyscraper boom in Sydney, but height restrictions limited future buildings to the height of 235 meters, to provide better views from certain buildings. The skyline is dominated by the highest, which is the Centrepoint Tower (or less more commonly the Sydney Tower) at The tower stands 305 metres above the central business district, it is located at 120 Market Street, between Pitt and Castlereagh Streets, accessible from the Pitt Street Mall, and sits upon Centrepoint (to which the tower is often referred as), an office building and shopping centre. The tower is open to the public, and is one of the most prominent tourist attractions in the city, being visible from a number of vantage points throughout town and from adjoining suburbs. The second largest at 244m is the Chifley Tower, which was completed in 1992 and is located at 2 Chifley Sqaure. Among the others are Citigroup Centre and the latter consisting predominantly of residential apartments. Sydney skyline is by far the most recognizable in Australia and is home to some of Australia's tallest skyscrapers, with 134, it has the largest skyline in Australia. The spectacular backdrop of Sydney Harbour means its real estate is amongst the most expensive in the world.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a better section, and could form the start of an architecture in Sydney article. However, that doesn't mean that it should be a section in this article. JPD (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I should also have said that even if the section does stay (and at the moment, I'd rather it didn't), the information about Centrepoint being open to the public and a tourist attraction doesn't belong there, because it doesn't have anything to do with architecture. JPD (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tourist stuff from Centrepoint. It's only claim to fame architectureally is that it is the tallest. Perhaps eventaully this should be its own page if it is good - Jack has come a long way but still a lot more work to be done. What about some other topics like federation architecture (although arguably not uniquely Sydney), suburban development (different periods, economic conditions - ie, look at the different styles from 18th century, then booming pre-WW1 federation, then post war, and now McMansions and urban fringe). Clearly this needs some research. Also, the significance of Macquarie using Francis Greenway to implement his vision of a small ordered city rather than a bedraggled prison colony for Sydney. --Merbabu 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu mentions exactly the sort of things I would like to see at Architecture in Sydney or something like that. The question is whether a summary of this material should be in this article as its own section. JPD (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm - this is getting confusing. What is best? Alshtough i think a seperate article might have legs, I don't think this would ever be a big article unless someone could come up with some major topics and link them all together. Also, there is this page Australian architectural styles - jackp won't be happy with this, but much of what could go into a sydney-specific article would be found here. It is difficult because some speific topics are already covered in specific articles - ie, Utzon controversy, Harry Seidler's impact on architecture (not just skyscrapers but he doggedly - but no single-handedly pushed us out of out conservatism and pushed modernism onto us). --Merbabu 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On a minor point - that Architecture in Sydney page redirects to a list of sydney skyscrapers. Should that be kept as seperate list or part of an architecture page??? --Merbabu 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if we just left the architecture section on the Sydney page small, and have a "main article" at the top directing the reader to the new article. And about the skyscrapers in sydney, well myabe, we could merge it into the architecture page-if we create one. Jackp 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Transport

"In the years following the 2000 Olympics, CityRail's performance declined significantly."

Is that true? I don't think it is, I haven't ever herd any information about it. And also, the trnasport section is missing a few sub-sections such as "Buses" (buses are used a lot in Sydney), and the whole section looks messy without a heading (i.e. airports, trains and rails), so I think they should be subsections under "transport", although the infrastructure will look all messy and out of shape, so I think the Transport section should have it's own section. Jackp 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the MoS, in particlaur this. And to avoid us repeating ourselves again, look st some other featured cities, like Detroit or Canberra for a guide to good layout and sections that should appear in a city article.--Peta 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a featured city? Jackp 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A featured article on a city. You've been pointed to those articles many times before. Rebecca 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So is New York City a featured city, what other cities are besides Canberra, Detroit and Ann Arbor? Jackp 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Rebecca 07:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll for removal of 'Architecture' section

This section does not belong and does not fit into the format of a featured city article.

Keep:

Remove:

1. michael 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• An architecture section works OK in the recently featured New York City article. However all the Sydney section says is that there is no distincitve style, and then talks about a few buildings. I'm sure some of it could be incorporated into the history section, the rest really doesn't add much--Peta 07:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that some of the particular buildings deserve note, but not in their own distinctive section. michael 08:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Use the power of hyperlinking! I think it would suffice to say words to the effect. "Sydney does not have a dominating architecture style. None the less, some notable buildings in Sydney are <list of architectural features hyperlinked to an article on each>" Full details are only a click away for the interested reader. Hopefully make the prose more interesting than just a list of building though.

I'm not sure that Sydney is without a distinctive architectural style, just that it shares that style with London (and other former British colonies). I once toured Europe and was struck by how familiar London felt compared to the rest of Europe. The buildings, street layout and lots of other details just felt like Sydney. Maybe it's worth checking some sources to see whether this is a commonly held view, or just a personal observation. Sydney tends to have distinctive buildings rather than an overall style. From an engineering/architecture point of view Sydney has some significant buildings. By the way, here is a good reference on some of Sydney's buldings.John Dalton 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

John, you make some good points about individual buildings, however what i would like to see - whether as a section here or as a seperate article - is something covering some more general themes and how architecture developed over time. yes, this is a lot harder than just choosing some stand out buildings and writing about them seperately. The current sections only touches on these topics and with some good research good be expanded and the less important stuff (ie, heights of specific buildings) dropped. --Merbabu 23:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its irresponsible to simply leave it at "Sydney does not have a dominating architecture style". Very few cities have a "dominating architecture style". what we need is an expert to chart, say, the trends or styles that have influenced Sydney and which have resulted in the city that we see today. For example, Frances Greenways and subsequent classical sandstone structures; Brutalistic architecture (think UTS tower and other concrete boxes); the first waves of skyscrapers; Harry Seidler; Opera House; contemporary redevelopment of formerly industrial districts (Darling Harbour, the Rocks, etc). --Sumple (Talk) 01:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• It definitely needs a rewrite, and I think the current focus is wrong. While CBD buildings and the Opera House probably deserve a mention, they're hardly typical of Sydney as a whole. A better architecture section should cover victorian terraces, federation style, brick walk-ups etc. It's probably worthy of an article of its own (suitably researched and referenced of course) Mako 01:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, and Mako you make some good points - we need to consider styles, trends over time in a Sydney context (indeed as a reaction to the sydney context???). It's own article could be good, although if it stays here for now it gets the exposure it needs to encourage people to develop it (hopefully based on research). --Merbabu 01:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Something could be mentioned about the so-called "Sydney school" as well. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A good point about the article being "CBDcentric", especially in light of the article covering Sydney the city, not Sydney the LGA. Topics like Sydney's urban sprawl and "what do people live in Sydney?" are worth a mention.

Perhaps one way to approach a rewrite is to write down a list of questions that a reader might ask about architecture in Sydney? The article would then set out to answer these questions. International readers would probably be interested in knowing about the opera house and similar. An Australian or Sydneysider might be interested in housing styles. Someone with a particular interest in Architecture might be interested in the finer points and history. This points to a possible structure. An opening that talks about the "obvious". It then moves on to talk about more typical Sydney architecture. Finally a section on history, finer points and where to find further information on these finer points. John Dalton 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The other point is, would a good architecture section have a place in a top level city article? Unless the architecture of a city is pretty remarkable (eg Rome and Paris for historic reasons) - its not something I would expect to see, nor do I think it is very relvant to the reader who wants to know general stuff about Sydney. Also the bulk of Sydney, is not the CBD, it's the suburbs, all the talk so far, just focuses on the CBD.--Peta 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sydney’s skyline is not characterised by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a long period of time." Gotta laugh at that one! 218 years is brief on the scale of city timelines. Rome, London, Bejing,... have building histories measured in millenia. One can hardly say that Sydney has "accumulated its buildings over a long period of time." Mako's suggestion of a rewrite seems a good one. I suggest that any rewrite should have *every* statement directly referenced to a reputable source. No source, no appearance in the article, no matter how obvious it seems.John Dalton

It doesn't completly need to be re-written, just a little more detailed and extensive. The section doesn't really mention much about housing because there wasn't much info on it. A little more detail, and more about buidlings and the article should go along just fine. Jackp 07:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but now it is even more hilarious: "Sydney’s skyline is not characterised by any particular architectural style, having accumulated its buildings over a period of time." What's the alternative to accumulating "buildings over a period of time", that Sydney burst into existence at a single point in time? Our own mini big bang!John Dalton 07:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey come on John, although i agree with your sentiments and note that you did make some very constructive suggestions earlier, i don't that being sarcastic about it is the best way - we got your point and agree. Yes, much of what Jack's contributed to this article has been highly questionable (and I've been one of the main reverters of his work), and indeed he is skating on thin ice in other parts of wikipedia, but at least with this time he did have a major go at it and it is, believe it or not, a major improvement at an earlier attempt. Yes, the section still falls way short of the mark, but the way to improve it is to do the research and actually make some changes. I've had a go - i hope to try again soon. Cheers --Merbabu 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Point accepted. It wasn't meant to be ridicule. I genuinely did find it funny and I can't change that. A bit like in conversation when someone comes out with a gaffe but doesn't realise it until others burst out laughing. Hopefully the gaffer (one who gaffes) will join in the laughter once the moment is over.John Dalton 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

he he, well, i am not without a sense of humour and your comments were spot on. Certainly creative ridicule, i will give you that!!!.

Taking note of your request to get on with fixing things, I'm rewritting the couple of sentences about the opera house. I've replaced the unsubstantiated claims about how great the opera house is with a reference to its proposed world heritage listing. By itself that is an objective indication of its status. There is only one building in Australia currently on the world heritage list. I've dropped the reference to QEII, that sort of info belongs in an article about the opera house. World heritage listing is more special then being opened by QEII, as lots of other things in Australia were opened by QEII. I've 'been bold'(to quote wikipedia) by jumping in and editing (based on Merbabu's invitation), so in the spirit of wikipedia, please feel free to knock my words into shape. All I ask is that all changes be backed by sources.John Dalton 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ha ha, nice work. cheers. --Merbabu 09:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Sydney

I’m very willing to create a portal on Sydney. All I need to know is whenever I go to create it, it redirects to the Australian portal, how do I change this. I've read throughly the rules on portals, the guidlines, how to make a good portal and so on, because I don't want to make the same mistake that I have on the Sydney page in the past. Jackp 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The Sydney article has been degraded significantly because of your edits. Why should this continue onto a portal? michael 09:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't enough quality Sydney-related content to sustain a portal of any substance, hence the redirect.--cj | talk 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

Since there are several comments here about Jackp's disruptive edits, I though I would let you all know that he seems to be making a POINT on New York City – see the talk page. –Joke 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

• A-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• A-Class Sydney articles
• Top-importance Sydney articles
• WikiProject Sydney articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Old requests for peer review
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles