Talk:Sydney

Number of page views in the past 30 days

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)

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)