Talk:Blue Mountains (New South Wales)

earlier comments

The Blue Mountains are not a range of sandstone mountains. They are a disected sandstone plateau.

Nowhere are the sandstone gorges up to 1000 m deep. The maximum depth is around Mt Banks and the Grose River where the elevation ranges from 1062 m to 300 m.

The area of the City of Blue Mountains local government area (BM LGA) is stated as 1433 square kilometres on their website www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/ This seems to be written from the BMCC point of view rather than a neutral point of view. Many people would be referring to a much larger area when they refer to the Blue Mountains. Bushwalkers would talk about the Grose Valley and areas within the city of Blue Mountains as the central Blue Mountains, areas around the Kanangra Boyd National Park and Lake Burragorang as the southern Blue Mountains and areas in Wollemi National Park as the northern Blue Mountains. From that point of view the area of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area would be a better estimate of the area of the Blue Mountains. Others may include much of the developed areas near the National Parks as part of the Blue Mountains. The National Parks and Wildlife Service Blue Mountains Region covers a much larger area but not all of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is within that region!

In this regard, while parts of the City of Blue Mountains (the National Parks) are part of the world heritage area, the rest of the local government area is not.

We need to be clear what Blue Mountains this article is talking about. It seems to keep changing.

The Blue Mountains Range extends north west into the Lithgow local government area and is tenuously connected to the Great Dividing Range by Wolgan Gap. It is mostly separated from the GDR by the Coxs River valley. 1111 m is not the highest point on the Blue Mountains Range. It may be the highest point in the City of Blue Mountains. It gets to at least 1190 m in the Lithgow local government area.

Stringybark forest is not the predominant vegetation on the higher ridges of the Blue Mountains Range. Above about 800 m the predominant vegetation on the ridges is "Blue Mountains Sandstone Plateau Forest". This is an open forest dominated by Eucalyptus sieberi Silvertop Ash and Eucalyptus piperita ssp. piperita Sydney Peppermint. Neither of these species is a stringybark. Other species in this forest type include E. oreades, E. radiata, E. sclerophylla, E. oblonga and E. mannifera. Of these only E. oblonga is a stringybark.

Heath is found on the plateau edges above the cliffs. It is quite extensive in some places.

The Wollemi Pine grows in one remote and isolated valley in the Wollemi National Park in the northern Blue Mountains not on the Blue Mountains Range nor in the City of Blue Mountains local government area.

In recent years extensive bushfires have caused only the loss of a handfull of houses in the Blue Mountains. The 1950s and 1960s were much worse. This is true of the Greater Blue Mountains area not just the local government area. There is certainly the potential for great loss of property and loss of life. Compare this with loss of over 500 houses, four lives and $300 million damages in Canberra, the capital of Australia, in January 2003.

The upper Blue Mountains (within the BM LGA) have had large fires in recent decades. The Bell Range fire in January 1994 burned from the upper mountains all the way to the Hawkesbury River at sea level.

The Mount Hay and Mount Hall fires started in the "upper mountains". There have been extensive wildfires in the southern and northern Blue Mountains in the 1990s and 2000s.

It is wrong to say "A program of winter burning seems to have been quite successful in reducing fires in the upper mountains". Hazard reduction burning is seldom successful in the higher elevations of the Blue Mountains Rural Fire District (roughly the same as the City of Blue Mountains). It is normally too cold and wet to burn in winter and too dry and risky to burn in summer. Burns are attempted in spring and autumn but seldom are hot enough to remove enough fuel to make a real difference above 800 m. At lower elevations well planned hazard reduction burns are often successful.

--144.131.98.43 08:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a separate article Blue Mountains City Council so I have moved the City of the Blue Mountains material there. This article can refocus on the mountain range. Nurg 07:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has obviously been vandalised, can someone revert it? I don't know how. Thanks Naysie 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The blueness

I was told the eucalyptus oil story growing up in the area, but have come to doubt it. I have since seen blue distant mountains on sunny days all over the world. I think it is just the same refraction of light that causes the sky to be blue. What do you folk think? Rumiton 09:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

David Iredale

Does anyone have a reference for the death of David Iredale on Mt Solitary a year or so back? Am doing an article on Mt Soli and would like a reference for David's death. I have a clipping but it does not have the date and page number.

Sardaka (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Page move

There are many Blue Mountain ranges, and it's not clear to me why this range is more notable than some of the others. Is there any objection to moving this article to Blue Mountains (Australia) and redirecting Blue Mountains to the Blue Mountain disambiguation page?Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the first ten pages of Google, and all links for Blue Mountains go directly (and exclusively) to the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, Australia. These results would seem to suggest that the Blue Mountains here in Australia are very notable indeed. Figaro (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the page should not be moved. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The first ten pages of Google? Are you sure you're not searching www.google.com.au? I just searched for the term "Blue Mountains" on www.google.com. A hit for Blue Mountain (ski resort) in Canada shows up on the first page. Hits for Blue Mountains (Jamaica) and Blue Mountains (Oregon) show up on the second page, along with hits for several companies named Blue Mountain. The Blue Mountains, Ontario shows up on the third page. It's true that the Australian Blue Mountains seem to be the most common result, but the other "Blue Mountains" have enough notability that it would be appropriate to send this search term straight to the disambiguation page. A random reader entering "Blue Mountains" into the Wikipedia search engine may indeed be looking for the Australian mountains, but I believe searches for the other mountains are common enough that disambiguation is in order. You have to think globally. Readers in North America will be more likely searching for one of the other ranges. Blue Mountains (Oregon) is the only "Blue Mountains" defined in the American Heritage Dictionary and Random House Dictionary. If you go to dictionary.com and type "Blue Mountains", you're going to get the Oregon range. Glancing down the list of Special:WhatLinksHere/Blue_Mountains, I can see several articles linked to this page by mistake, and I think moving this page to a more precise title would help clear that up.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. After all, this is an international encyclopedia, and, as there would appear to be a number of 'Blue Mountains' (something I was not aware of, until this discussion arose), all Blue Mountains should receive equal acknowledgement. I also notice, from your link above, that this article used to be called Blue Mountains (Australia), with tha page being later redirected to the present title of 'Blue Mountains'. Incidently, I do not agree with your suggestion that the Blue Moutains page should be redirected to the 'Blue Mountain' disambiguation page, because people looking for the Australian Blue Mountains page would be looking for the article under the title 'Blue Mountains' (not 'Blue Mountain'). Therefore, if this page was to be again changed to the earlier title, then I feel that the title 'Blue Mountains' should become a 'Blue Mountains' disambiguation page (not just a redirect link to the 'Blue Mountain' disambiguation page). In fact, I think that 'Blue Mountains' and 'Blue Mountain' should be distinctly separate from each other – with 'see also' links to the other page - i.e. the 'Blue Mountains' disambiguation page could have a 'see also' link to that of the 'Blue Mountain' disambiguation page, and vice-versa. By the way, I notice that you live in Oregon in the United States, where there is the Blue Mountains Range you mention, so I understand why you are personally interested in the change being made. Figaro (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out. You are correct in noting my motivations as an Oregonian. I stumbled upon this article by clicking the Blue Mountains link in an Oregon article and ending up here, which alerted me to the problem. "Your" Blue Mountains seem to be very popular on wiki, with nearly 500 articles linking to this page, but "Our" Blue Mountains are pretty notable also. When someone says Blue Mountains anywhere in the Western states of North America, it's assumed s/he means the Oregon mountains. Hence my request to redirect this to a disambiguation page. If we redirected Blue Mountains to Blue Mountain, readers searching for the Australian Blue Mountains would still have no problem. They search under "Blue Mountains", they get automatically redirected to the disambig page, and they find Australia under the first link. I guess I don't really see the problem there. Having a shared disambiguation page for singular/plural terms like "Blue Mountain" and "Blue Mountains" is a common practice, but if you feel they should be split, I'm okay with that. I don't have a strong objection to doing so, but I don't really see the advantage. It might complicate the situation with regard to Jamaica, where there is a Blue Mountain Peak within the Blue Mountains (Jamaica) range, for example. On the other hand, Black Mountain/Black Mountains and White Mountain/White Mountains are already split, so I have no problem with following their lead. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

'Done. Admin User:EncMstr helped make this move, and I have split the Blue Mountain and Blue Mountains disambig pages per Figaro's suggestion. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

EncMstr has expressed some concern that Blue Mountain and Blue Mountains are not sufficiently distinct and should be merged into one disambig page. Anyone with an opinion, please comment at Talk:Blue Mountains. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion after the move

Further information: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30 § Blue Mountains moved to disambig page

What on earth are you doing? The Australian Blue Mountains are much more widely known than any other Blue Mountains or Blue Mountain - they're one of Australia's major tourist attractions. There should definitely NOT be a disambig page as the main one. Kindly change it back? I can't even see how consensus has been reached on this page, let alone Wikipedia. JRG (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For the page to be the article, instead of a disambiguation, Blue Mountains would have to be well known, like Paris and Alps. While I don't doubt they are well known in Australia, they don't rise to that level worldwide. —EncMstr (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. The Blue Mountains are one of Australia's top-most tourist attractions. People overseas do know about them, and they have far more widespread knowledge than any other Blue Mountains or Blue Mountain. And to prove my point, why did it take so long before someone decided that the Australian ones were no longer worthy of being notable? Why did the Australian ones stay as the main page for so long? I think that says something, don't you? JRG (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this a little more, given the above "debate". All the main links even in Google link to the Australian one. Yes, there's a Canadian ski resort and link to Jamaica, but they are few among the Australian Blue Mountains links, which are many. There should be a disambiguation page listed as the first thing on the page, but the main page should link to the Australian Blue Mountains as they are by far the most well-known ones, even according to Google's ranking system. If your Blue Mountains are so notable, then why don't they show up in Google as much under the ranking system? It's because they are not well-known enough to deserve a disambiguation. This whole argument seems completely ridiculous and smacks of bias. It's like saying a minor town's existence should disambiguate a major city's name simply because it exists - that does not happen on Wikipedia and it is not sensible. Though I come from Australia, I am trying to be sensible here - this is not a competition between two equally notable mountain ranges where a disambig page as the main page would be sensible; it's about one which is extremely notable (on a world-wide basis) and others which are only slightly notable. And in other situations we have given precedence to one place and made the others on a secondary disambiguation page. The same should apply here. Let's be consistent. JRG (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but we're not talking about a "minor town." Blue Mountains (Oregon) has 100 incoming Wikipedia links. Yes, it's not as many as Blue Mountains (Australia), but it's still an article with significant traffic and significant notability. When I open up my household dictionary, it has the Oregon mountains, not the Australian ones. The same thing happens when I type in "Blue Mountains" at Dictionary.com. Yes, it's an American dictionary, and perhaps dictionary.com is an American company; but if the Australian Blue Mountains rose to a level of worldwide fame, wouldn't they be listed in my dictionary, as the Alps, Himalayas, Urals, Pyrenees, Apennines, Caucasus, and even the Harz are? My dictionary has an entry for the Great Dividing Range but not the Australian Blue Mountains. This tells me, hopefully without bias, that the Blue Mountains aren't as famous worldwide as you seem to believe. Are they more famous than Oregon's Blue Mountains? Probably. But are they so overwhelming famous that they should be located by default at Blue Mountains? No. Roughly a third of incoming wikilinks are intended for other articles. And I would venture to say that at least a third of Wikipedia searches are looking for other articles. That's a high enough percentage to warrant a disambiguation page.

I'm just making a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia by helping readers navigate to the right article. This seems to have upset you, but I'm still not sure why. It's not like I put Blue Mountains (Australia) up for AfD. It's still there. Everyone who wants to find it can find it. Myself and several others are in the process of disambiguating all wikilinks pointing to Blue Mountains so that they will point directly to the appropriate articles. I don't see what the problem is.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doubting your good faith, and I accept your apology on the Australian noticeboard (and I'm sorry for using the word idiot (even though I was being colloquial in using that word at what I thought was the apparent silliness of that decision). But my concern is that we are not being consistent with Wikipedia policy. One-third of the links might go elsewhere but the fact remains that two-thirds of them still go to the Australian one. The first thing that comes up when I type in Blue Mountains in dictionary.com is web links to the Australian Blue Mountains. The Google links are overwhelmingly centred towards Australia (and yes, it's Google.com, not the Australian Google as was wrongly assumed above). It does not have to be so extremely notable that no one has ever heard of the other ones, but it needs to be more notable than the others - and that is the case here. Let's move it back, put a link as the first thing on the Australian page to the disambig page (and a separate link to the Oregon page if you want) and that way we can maintain what is most well-known. JRG (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what Wikipedia policy we are not being consistent with. WP:NAMING says quite clearly, "Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings." Blue Mountains has multiple meanings; thus, it should be a disambig page.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The PRIMARYTOPIC guideline as per "Debate"s comments below. JRG (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article traffic statistics speak for themselves. Blue Mountains in April received 11226 hits [1], were as the Blue Mountains (Oragon) only received 1962 hits [2]. During April the name Blue Mountains directed to the Blue Mountains article and not the disambig that it goes to now, so if you click on the Blue mountains link in the wikistats page it will direct you to the disambig page. For this month under the new name Blue Mountains (Australia) it has received 5617 hits [3] and the Oragon 1178 [4]

This is truly a more notible article and Mountain range. I will look into the others as well . Adam (talk) (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The other Blue Mountains stats up to the 16th of June 08

Here are the stats for the other Blue Mountains up to the 16th. This will change as days go by:

• Blue Mountains (Australia) - 5617 [Blue Mountains (Australia) [5]
• Blue Mountains (Oregon) - 1178 [6]
• Bankstown Bunker - 1639 [7] in Jan
• Blue Mountains (Congo) - 118 [8]
• Blue Mountains (Estonia) - 133 [9]
• Nilgiris (mountains) - 929 [10]
• Blue Mountains (Jamaica) - 1297 [11]
• Blue Mountains, New Zealand - 97 [12] ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
• Abajo Mountains - 261 [13]
• . Adam (talk) (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the stats. Hmmmm - I'd say if it was not for the Oregon. Nilgiris and Jamaica examples, then there would be no need for a DAB, ie direct to the Australian Blue Mountains. However, while page counts of 100 are insignificant compared to 5,000, 1000 page counts vs. 5000 is not insignificant. As someone who knows the Blue Mtns intimately, if anything I'd say the stats above actually support the need for a disambig page. --Merbabu (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Blue Mountains disambig may actually lead more people to the Australian Blue Mountains article. Someone looking up the Jamaican, New Zealand, Oregon and so on may have a quick look at the Australian while they are at it. Adam (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the stats. Thinking about it another way, that's 5617 hits for the Australia Blue Mountains article, and 3752 hits for other Blue Mountains articles, or about a 60/40 split. Looks like the disambig page is a good idea.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Smart arse! ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point I find myself having to ask three questions:

1. Now that the change has happened, what would be achieved by moving this page back to Blue Mountains, other than saving people a single mouse-click, of course?
2. What would be achieved by moving the disambiguation page back to Blue Mountains (disambiguation)? And, finally:
3. If we opt to stay as we are, shouldn't Blue Mountains (disambiguation) point to Blue Mountains rather than Blue Mountain? it just seems more logical to me.

--AussieLegend (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Blue Mountains (disambiguation) should point to Blue Mountains. There used to be only a single disambiguation page at Blue Mountain. Per Figaro's suggestion above, I split it to Blue Mountain and Blue Mountains. I neglected to correct the redirect you discovered, and I have just done so. Thanks for catching it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[Copied in part from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Also edit conflict with last post so this post does not respond to the questions raised by AussieLegend.] Looks like I'm in the minority here, but the fact that Blue Mountains (Australia) receives five times as many hits as the next most significant use of the term Blue Mountains strongly suggests to me that Blue Mountains (Australia) should be the primary page with the disambig linked off it. I note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". In my view, however, construing a 80%/20% split as not quite significant enough seems to be an extraordinarily high hurdle to use as a baseline. Northwesterner1's construction of a 60%/40% split even more strongly provides an indication of which one is the primary topic since well over half of all hits are going to this one article alone. Other arguments in favor of keeping the situation as is, such as the potential tourism benefits to Australia, seem particularly unconvincing when used as an argument for the organization of encyclopedic material. Debate 木 04:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"well over half" go to the Australian Blue Mtns. Or, "almost half aren't for the Australian Blue Mtns." depends how one spins it. --Merbabu (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't depend on how one spins it. All we need to determine is which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is absolutely, 100% clear by a huge margin. Debate 木 07:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - this is what I have been trying to argue for a while. JRG (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Mountains should stay as a disambiguation page and this one should stay as Blue Mountains (Australia) as this method better suits the arrangement of all the different blue mountain articles in my opinion. Stats don't really do much for me I'm afraid. Naming conventions would seem to support geographical articles such as this one indicating where the location is actually located. Which Blue Mountains (Australia) does nicely.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions, even in Australia, have exceptions for very very well known landmarks, which the Australian Blue Mountains are. And combined with the above assertions about primary topics, I believe it should be the primary page, with the other topics noted as the first line on the main article and in a separate disambig page as was the case earlier. JRG (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dabs complete

I think all the wikilinks to Blue Mountains which should point to this article are now corrected. A good number of the referring articles use the text ...Blue Mountains, west of Sydney or something very much like it. Even some Australian authors didn't think they were all that well known. There are 61 links remaining linked to the Blue Mountains disambiguation page: 24 are from anonymous editors' talk pages, probably warnings for vandalism; 4 are permanent navigational assistance links like The Blue Mountains; approximately 13 relate to debating the move; 14 are bot logs or dab tracking pages; 2 are the talk pages themselves; and 4 are of indeterminate character. Thanks to everyone who participated in swiftly resolving the issue. —EncMstr (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Swiftly resolved? I don't think so. No one ever replied to Debate's or my own comments. We need to sort this out, as the links primarily to the main page were to the Australian mountains by a long shot. JRG (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

First Crossing

The history section says it is a "misconception" that Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth were the first to cross the mountains. This needs a reference. I always understood that B,L and W were the first to do it. Does anyone have any views on this? Can anyone suggest any authoritative books?

Sardaka (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

POV language

Can we avoid any suggestive language that pioneer settlements did not know the mountain passes? Patsy Adam Smith:

“ The New South Wales Railway Guide (official) could literally charm a traveller on to a train, and its wares were true to label. A sort of early days tourist brochure, it extolled the beauties and availability of the countryside.

By 1879, when the hard-won fight to cross the Blue Mountains was well over, they were offering: “Route No. 4 – from Sydney to Wentworth Falls (formerly called the Weatherboard Platform): 62 miles. – Should you desire to go from Sydney direct to ‘The Weatherboard Gorge and the Campbell Cataract’ – a grand piece of scenery of wondrous wildness and unrivalled beauty – your better way will be to drop a line by post to the keeper of the accommodation house at the ‘Weatherboard,’ Mr Charles Abraham Wilson; and having so arranged for your bed and entertainment, go up by the evening mail train and sleep. You will arrive at about quarter past 11 o’clock. But whether you go up in the morning or in the evening, you must remember to tell the guard, at the Blue Mountains station, to set you down at ‘Wentworth Falls,’ or you will be carried on to Mount Victoria. The accommodation house, a clean but unpretentious little place, stands close to where the train stops, and on the southern side of the line. Having slept there that night, you can, without fatigue, visit the Weatherboard Gorge and Cataract early on the following morning.”

They knew the routes they extolled. “Take the morning train if you wish to see the varied scenery along the line on the Blue Mountains,” they advertised for Route 1. “Particularly that of the First Zig-Zag near Lithgow.” On Route 2 they knew the tricks: “Come provided with a rug to sleep in between Bathurst and Orange.”

Favouring none, but knowing all, they recommend on Route 6: “There is at Hartley, near the two churches, a decent, old fashioned, way-side inn, kept by Mrs Evans, the air being very bracing and remarkably pleasant, is much recommended for invalids.” Every side excursion possible is mentioned: “Mount Victoria will be for you a good headquarters, from which Govett’s Leap, at Blackheath, may conveniently be visited either by driving up to the eastward on the old road in a buggy, or by riding on a hired horse, or by walking along near the railway. The distance from Mount Victoria to Blackheath is only 4 miles, and the old road here is in a state of good repair.”

The guide is as friendly and garrulous as the guides they had provided at most of their recommended beauty spots. “Route 5 – From Sydney to Blackheath (i.e. ‘Govett’s Leap’): 73 miles. – If you should desire to pay a hasty visit to the lovely and stupendous gorge and waterfall usually known by the curiously inexpressive name of ‘Govett’s Leap’ (and you do not particularly care whether you see any other spot on the occasion or not), take your place in the train for Blackheath, and tell the guard at ‘The Blue Mountains’ (or Lawson station) to put you down at Blackheath. There is a convenient accommodation house here, 2 miles from Govett’s Leap, on the north side of the line; an easy walk, and an easy way to find. You had better sleep at the inn, and return to Sydney on the next day by the ‘up’ train; for Blackheath is only a siding with a platform, and you may find it troublesome to be up and ready at the proper time so to get to Sydney by the eight train from Bathurst and Orange. If you find yourself comfortable at Blackheath, and time permits, you can ride, drive, or walk thence to Mount Victoria and back.”

”

I hardly think that level of interest in the area developed out of the commercial life of Sydney in the days when the iron horses travelled at most twenty miles an hour. Ottre (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a POV problem. Perhaps factual. Anyway, there is much there that is not cited. Perhaps remove it all and only allow very well-cited info back in. Also, I moved the tag down to the relevant section for clarity. I'm not sure that is any benefit having the whole article tagged.--Merbabu (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Have revised History to cover the first crossing by Blax, Laws and Went, with references. If anyone wants to say they weren't the first to cross the mountains, please provide sufficient references. Sardaka (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks sardaka. The questions above were raised, and POV tag provided by Ottre. I've asked that he respond to the changes made, and to re-clarify. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for being so patient. Was busy with several articles this week. Heading into the city today, might stop by the state library and see if there is anything more on this. I realise it makes little sense to anybody just reading the quotation above. Ottre (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue Mts articles

Since there is so much stuff on the mountains, I thought it might be worth having an article with a comprehensive list of all the articles on the Blue Mts. Does anyone know if a list like this exists already? Haven't seen one.

Sardaka (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a navigation box (if there is not one already) or even a category. If there was a navigation box or template, this could be used in all the related articles, if it was appropriate and would be there for all to see, like this Template:City of Bankstown topics. This would also allow for some of the 'see also' lists to be removed and transferred into the template as well. For example, the list of peaks in the Blue Mountains article could be transferred into it and then taken out of the article. Something like this would help others to find article they normally would not find. When it comes to a separate article as a list chances are a lot of people will not see it and miss out. Some would, some wouldn't. Let us know what you think and then we can get working. Adam (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Adam's suggestion for categories is the best. Nav boxes can be a bit in-your-face (depending on size) and well structured categories are easier to get around than a list. --Merbabu (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a category but I have not checked the content of it. There might be a need for more sub cats. With the template, what if it was a collapsable template. Adam (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A good category and sub-cat system should be the default and priority. Having said that, *a* well-conceived nax-box should actually be fine. Perhaps my real concern is a proliferation of nav boxes (the Indonesia page once had over 15 at one time, with many more been suggested!), however, I don’t think this will be such a problem on the Blue Mountains as it is inherently a much smaller topic. So, collapsible or not, is probably fine. regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind working on a template myself but we would have to work out what topics will actually go in the template. I think someone like Sadarka would have a pretty good idea and a few others. I guess you could have topics like maybe tourist attractions, suburbs, peaks and so on. I'm not a hundred percent sure. If someone gave me a list or an example I could start working on it (on the weekend). Adam (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The template looks okay, but does it have to be placed on each article separately? If so, it would be a hell of a lot of work, whereas a list/article only has to be done once.

(I'm trying to place a link to Category:Suburbs_of_Sydney, as an example of what the list could be like, but for some reason it's not showing up on the page. Hope people can get the idea.)

Now I see the prob. I didn't mean a category box that appears at the bottom of the page; just an article with a list. So the issue seems to be an article that only has to be done once, compared to something that may have to be done on every article. Have I got it right?

Sardaka (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Black and white photo

I am just curious as to what the circa 1885 means in this black and white photo. Does it mean the photo was taken around this time or is the building from around this period? Also should we still be using black and white photos for modern day images in articles Adam (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Circa" means the estimate of time when the photo was taken, when you don't for sure of course. Basically, "circa" translates to "around the time of". And of course we are going to use historical pictures in B&W because color film wasn't around back then. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for replying to this. This photo is a modern day photo that was taken this year. It was either taken in black and white or changed to black and white after it was taken. Maybe the author of the photo is trying to say that the structure (pictured) was built around this time perhaps. . Adam (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why an apparently new pic is put in as black and white, and then the caption written to imply that the pic was taken in 1825. That the structure could be in that state of ruin would be plainly ridiculous to anyone with even the most basic understanding of Australian history. I will at least change the caption to make more sense, and suggest that future new pictures be in colour. --Merbabu (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all modern photos should be in colour but I think that the author was trying to be artistic in some kind of way or create an effect of some sort. Adam (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i can see that the intent was artistic which should of course be encouraged in the correct time and place, but this is an encyclopedia for information, not artistic expressions. cheers. :-) Anyway, it's not really a big deal - perhaps a solution in the near future might be to replace it with an actual historic shot of an important part of mountains in "the olden days". --Merbabu (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats this obsession with the Cox River

Someone has mentioned three times that a route via the Cox River is the easiest way to cross the Blue Mountains. This is simply nonsense, if it was true, someone would have built a road that way at some point, and nobody ever did. From the Megalong Valley on the Cox's river, there was never a road to the Burragorang Valley, and there was never a road through the Warragamba Canyon either. Its simply nonsense and unless someone has a good reason otherwise, I will soon change it.Eregli bob (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkesbury part of the Blue Mountains?

The "Greater Western Sydney" article also lists Hawkesbury Council as being a part of that district. I know that parts of that council could definately be considered as being in the mountains, such as towns Like Kurrajong, etc, however going by my UBD directory, most of the council area in the mountains seems to be National Park. Perhaps someone could put a map up defining, roughly, which is which? Looking at other "regions of Sydney" articles, I'd actually like to know what the source is for certain suburbs being in, say, the "inner west" or "upper north shore" (for example), as there doesn't seem to be any clear definition available online. 202.168.112.15 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Coxs River

Coxs River was the easiest way to cross the mountains on foot, back in the 18th century. It was never a way to cross the mountains in a vehicle.

Also, who made the statement that John Wilson was the first person to cross the mts? He MAY have been; it couldn't be confirmed. I have corrected this.

Circa 1885 means approximately 1885, which would mean the building was built then, but I can't explain further because I can't remember the original caption.

Such a fuss about a little pic in sepia. Is there a law saying shots have to be in colour?

Sardaka (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Eucalyptus myth

I'm quite sure the widely believed myth concerning the blue colour is that the (supposed) prescence of eucalyptus oil vapour discolours the light.

There is no way people would widely believe it is caused by light "reflecting off eucalypt leaves" since most species of tree have leaves of a very similar colour.

150.101.206.3 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)