Talk:Sydney

Climate

See also: Talk:Sydney/Archive 3 § Climate, and Talk:Sydney/Archive 4 § Climate (again)

wouldnt it be more appropriate to classify Sydney's climate as subtropical or at least warm temperate? All other wiki pages on climate are alot more specific and there are many types of temperate climate. Britain has a temperate climate but of coure Sydney is alot warmer with not even snow so just stating temperate on its own is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

the change to warm temperate is already implied by the use of warm summers immediately following the edit that you did. This seems like duplication. Nasnema  Chat  09:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Many continental climates have warm summers too, what is the harm of mentioning warm temperate? after all as i said before all other wiki pages are alot more specific — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's already implied by the statement of warm summers and there is no category of warm temperate. Why duplicate? Nasnema  Chat  09:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

there is a category for warm temperate and it called subtropical. And as mentioned before, almost all temperate climates have warm summers so thats not exactly a classification, if you care to look at wikipedias Koppen climate classification page you will see that for yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.131.150 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Sydney falls under subtropical. "Warm temperate" is non-factual original research. Orderinchaos 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sydney just misses out on being subtropical, BoM classes Sydney as temperate. Bidgee (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course Sydney falls under subtropical, anyone who uses common sense would know that. Sydney has warmer temperatures than most Humid Subtropical climates during the winter period so if places like Atlanta which experience cooler winters are classified as subtropical then naturally Sydney is also Subtropical. Not to mention that sydneys latitude is subtropical as all areas at that latitude north and south of the equator either have a Mediterranean, humid subtropical or arid climate. (At least at sea level). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.166 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the article need two panoramas and two Opera house images?

I can't really criticise people for adding a large number of images to an article as I've done so myself many times, but do we need two panoramas? Really, do we even need one? And the two Opera house images? I originally wasn't big on Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, but I think that one should stay, it's probably the best image of the Opera House on wikipedia. Perhaps we could move that one down to the tourism section in place of the one that's currently there?

I don't know what anyone else things, but my suggestion would be to remove the second panorama (under the economy section), and replace the tourism image of the opera house with Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg. Either that, or remove both panoramas and also replace one of the architecture images with the opera house image (the Martin Place image really does need to be bigger to see it clearly, but we can't really make it larger with three images there). If we do that, then I'd also suggest replacing the image in tourism with an image of the Harbour bridge, if only because I think this article needs an image of the harbour bridge (which is the reason I don't mind the first panorama and think it actually does add something).

Anyway, just my suggestions. Thoughts? Feel free to tell me what I said made no sense; writing coherently has never been a quality of mine. Anoldtreeok (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked myself the same questions when I looked at the article earlier. I think that File:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg really catches Sydney, but because the image was taken at night, is a bit too short and the bridge overwhelms the image (compared to the tiny Opera House) it's not really suitable for the infobox. Since the two images are so similar, I think we can lose the huge panoramic image. The other panorama is, at least in my opinion' the better one of the panoramas to keep, if we are to keep one. However, it's not essential as there is a link at the bottom of the article to the images at commons. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a consensus of which images and charts should be included in the article. The amount of images and charts has really made this article look like a mess. Although most are relevant, some are less so than others. Oh btw I really like Anoldtreeok's montage and I'm really wondering why it isn't used as the article's lead image.YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to start the debate up again, but the consensus was a single image does the job better. The main argument I think was a montage looked more like an advertisement/tourist brochure.

Semi back on-topic, does aligning the images to the right in the history section really improve the layout on some screens? On my screen it looked perfectly fine when two of them were on the right, but now they push down into the geography section, and it just looks bad. Of course, that's just my screen, perhaps the other way looked worse to some screens.

I also think there's at least one too many pictures under the infrastructure heading, to finish this on topic. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed two infrastructure images, and moved the panorama that was under the economy heading to Urban structure. Put the image that used to be in "economy" back. If anyone what's the put more detail into the panorama's caption it would be appreciated (I can make out Botany Bay and the airport at the far right, and bits and pieces of the Northern suburbs). Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Martin Place panorama - as explained in my edit summary, it's subject is the pavement, its caption refers specifically to the CBD when that is not the scope of this article, and like all panoramas it stuffs up the page layout - a panorama should only be used when there is *no* other way to convey the point (and a dubious point that's not even mentioned in the article). --Merbabu (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. Can't say I agree with the removal of the Opera house (it may not be representative, but it's very notable), but I don't intend to reinstate it. I don't see what would represent the whole of Sydney architecture, though, so I would have thought notable buildings would have been fine. Either way, I'm, happy to leave it as it is. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed notable - that's why it's in the lead pic. But it's not representative of Sydney architecture. --Merbabu (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not largest

By calling it the largest and most populous city in Australia it means that it is the largest by area. Even if you determine it's area from the metro area or statistical division (whatever the difference is), there are many other cities that are larger. He'll, I'd go as far as to say that aside from the capital cities nearly all the other cities are larger in area, especially ones in western Australia. I think it should simply read most populous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.242 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, it is the largest Statistical division by land area. Many of the local government area's may be larger, but I don't think their statistical divisions (or districts) have a larger area than Sydney. Saying it's the most populous is based on its statistical division, so its area should be too. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Sydney statistical division extends over a ridiculously large area,[1] covering places that aren't actually part of Sydney and probably never will be (for example, Glen Alice, which is 128km as the crow flies and 223km by road from the Sydney CBD), so that artificially boosts all the Sydney figures to a point where they just don't represent reality. if you look at File:Sydney councils.png, which shows all of the LGAs that are part of Sydney, the actual area of Sydney is a lot less than the the statistical division which is, after all, only a statistical area used by the ABS, not an actual representation of the city itself. There are several internet sites, such as citymayors.com that say Melbourne's area is greater than that of Sydney. Sydney is definitely the most populous city but it's only the largest by area according to those who use the ABS statistical divisions, which are somewhat WP:CRYSTAL as they cater for future expansion (I can't really see Glen Alice being part of Sydney in any future though - it's still about 82km as the crow flies from the nearest Sydney LGA) that may or may not occur. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are the images in this article rubbish?

They're all boring and don't really depict/capture Sydney's beauty, and most of them are second-rate. Why can't the article have photos like London, Toronto or Melbourne's pages? Ashton 29 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a sock of User:Jackp who is banned, largely because of his edits to this Sydney page. --Merbabu (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical population

The following was copied from my talk page.[2]

I notice you changed the figure for historical populations of sydney, the figure you put down was not the correct figure. The figure you used was for the Sydney urban area, not the Sydney statistical division (which is the usual quoted figure, and the figures used for other data in this table). The figure I had put down was NOT an estimate, if you looked at the source, it said it was OBSERVED, not an estimate. In the future try to think about it before canging it: According to the figure you used, Sydney grew by ~50 000 in 6 years from 2000 to 2006, but then by 300 000 in 2 years from 2006 to 2008, this is extremely unlikely. I can assure you that the figure I had used was the appropriate one for this table. Nuiop729 (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you check the reference that I added when I restored the 2006 population figure, you will see that it is not the urban area population at all. It is the actual count for the statistical division from the 2006 census,[3] which I mentioned in my edit summary.[4] The urban population at that time was 3,641,422,[5] not 4,119,190. A check of your earlier edit "correcting" the figure[6] shows that 4,280,190 was an estimate from June 2006.[7] Even though it is listed as "observed" in the document, it is still only an estimate, as actual counts are only conducted in census years (2001, 2006 and 2011). Where they are available, we use actual counts in all articles, since they are more accurate, which is why the 2006 census count is used and why a 2001 figure (another census year) was used instead of a 2000 figure. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok yes it is the Statistical Division, but I still think the figure of 4 280 000 is more appropriate. Yes, the census figure is likely more accurate, but either way, a difference of over 150 000 clearly means that these figures are for different definitions of Sydney (the larger likely including more outer regions). If this is considered, the larger figure is far more appropriate for this table, as it fits in with the other data (2000, 2008, 2010 are ESTIMATES of the same region, and the projections come from the same source, so are most certainly based off this definition of Sydney). Again, please use your brain, with the figure you provided, Sydney grew at 18 times the rate from 2006-8 compared to 2000-6 (not likely at all, it must be said). In addition, note 2005 estimates for Sydney population from ABS give a value larger than the census figures. I agree that census figures should be used, but an error of 161 000 clearly means an alternative defintion of Sydney was used, and the larger value fits in with the other data provided, so is more appropriate for this table. If you wish, you may find the values from other censuses (2001 and previous), and then remove all estimates (except the most recent one, but leave a note mentioning the fact that it is an estimate) and projections. Until this is done however, the value should remain at 4 280 000, as it is the most appropriate value for the table. Please DO NOT alter this value again unless you wish to remove all estimates and projections, and replace them with census data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuiop729 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The census counts are based on the Sydney statistical division, which is what this article covers. Therefore they are the most appropriate figures for this article because they are directly applicable to the article's subject and because they are actual counts and not just estimates. If the larger figures include more outer regions as you've suggested, which is speculative, they don't apply to this article and therefore can't be used. If the actual count differs from the estimated count, we have to use the actual count, as it is more accurate, and the reason that there are differences between them is because one is an actual count while the other is only an estimate. It's fine to use estimates in the article provided they are noted to be estimates and sources. We don't need to mark accurate figures are being accurate. You've got that the wrong way around. And please don't continue to edit-war. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be speculative, but I am sure that the numbers are based off different definitions of Sydney, if you find the estimated data for Sydney in 2000, this gives a higher figure than the census figure for 2001, now the census is most likely correct, however the estimates for 2002 etc. (after the census) revert to the original higher figure, meaning that the estimates were not revised following the census, indicating that the two are inconsistent. It would therefore be inappropriate to include both the census figures and the estimated figures in the same table. The census is most likely a better figure, however there are only 2 data points for this (2001 and 2006 - there is no census data for Sydney SD for 1996 or before), whereas the estimates have continuous yearly data from 1989 to 2010, this would create a table which is actually able to show something. I personally thought it was better to use the estimates, but the census figures would be fine too. I wont try to change the figures back for a few days, but please, it should be either:

The two census figures plus the most recent estimate, OR

The estimates in five-year intervals, plus the most recent estimate, WITHOUT the census figures.

If you insist on having only two data points then I suppose that is ok, but the other estimtes should definitely be removed (2008 for example)

In addition, in a few days I will remove the projections, as they are projections, not predictions, as stated in the source. As for the pre-1990 data, I have no idea where that came from, but if anyone had any sources that would be useful.

And as an additional point, the original table I encountered several months ago was not accurate at all (or sourced), so I changed the figures to ones from the ABS. Someone (maybe AussieLegend, but I never checked) then changed the data to inconsistent and unsourced data, which I perceived as vandalism, and so reverted it, so I reject your claim that I am starting and edit war, it was only recently that you proved your data had any credibility.

In summary, in a few days (so as to give you time to respond), I will make the following changes: 1. Remove the projection data, 2. Remove the census data you provided, 3. Replace this with ABS estimated populations for 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010, 4. Leave the pre-1990 data as is, as I have nothing credible to replace it with. Please respond in the next few days if you object to any of these changes, and please, this time, state your case for any changes you make, as it is not a sufficient argument to claim that estimated values do not apply, and yet leave some of these values (as well as the projections) in the table Nuiop729 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation. Speculation is classed as original research and is not permitted. Secondly, stating in a discussion that you're going to do something unless somebody makes a case is not the way we do things. We decide what to do based on consensus.

The census figure is not "most likely correct", it is correct, since it is an actual count of the population, conducted across the whole of Australia on the same night, every five years. Because it is an actual count, census data is used in preference to estimates. We even have specific templates for linking to census data, {{Census 2001 AUS}} and {{Census 2006 AUS}}, which are currently transcluded more than 4,400 times across WP:AUSTRALIA projects. Between each census we use ABS official estimates only because we don't have a census each year. Ideally we use data from one source for consistency throughout a table, such as in List of cities in Australia by population, but that isn't always possible so we often have to include credible, verifiable data from different sources, as is the case here. However, actual counts are always used when available and it makes no sense replacing actual, verified counts with estimates that were never anything more than estimates, especially when those estimates has since been proven to be significantly different to what an actual count determined. I do agree with removing the 2008 figure as we don't need figures for every year. The 2010 figure is the latest official estimate from the ABS and that will suffice until the 2011 census data is released, when the 2010 estimate should be replaced by the 2011 actual count. Regarding your proposed changes:

1. The projection data gives the reader an indication of the projected growth of the city and therefore serves an encyclopaedic purpose. It is an official projection and is sourced, so I don't see any reason to remove it. However, I don't think that we need both 2026 and 2056 projections. 2056 is probably enough but it shouldn't be as precise as it is now, as the table in the source shows three different figures ranging from 6.56-7.65 million. The source's prose uses "7.0 million" so that is probably more appropriate.
2. The census data is accurate and should be used in lieu of mere estimates.
3. Estimates should only be used where accurate counts are not available. Since we have accurate counts for 2001, 2006 and soon 2011, they should be used post 1996. Obviously, until the next census data is available, an estimate will have to be used, but this should only be for the most recent non-census year. If official counts for 1991 and 1996 can't be found, then estimates for those years may be used, but official counts should be used for 2001 and 2006.
4. All attempts to source pre-1991 years should be made

You'll note that I've referred to years ending in "1" and "6", not "0" and "5". This is because the former are years in which the census is conducted and, because those are the years for which the most accurate data is available, we should be using them and not the 0/5 years.

Regarding your claim about your previous edits to this article, there is no evidence that you edited the article prior to 5 November 2011. If you used an IP, I was unable to find anything in the history for the past 15 months showing any IP matching what you claim to have done. If you used another username, well, that's something altogether different. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to the above:

Firstly, none of my edits were speculation, they were all based on fugures from the ABS. I was merely using speculation to convince you that the estimates and the census data dont belong in the same table, which I see you agreed with above.

Secondly, if you had read my entire statement, you would see that I offered to alter my proposed changes if anyone had any objections (I did not demand a case). I then requested that you state your case for any future changes you made (which you failed to do previously). This was so as to avoid confusion in the future, not an attempt to stop you from making changes. Previouly, you claimed that census figures should be used as they were more accurate, yet failed to alter the other estimates (such as the year 2000), meaning I was unable to understand what exactly you were trying to achieve. That is what I meant when I asked you to state your case. I see also that you referred to consensus, if you had actually read the link you provided, you would have seen it asked for all concerns to be addressed, which would have required you to state your case, so I would be able see where exactly we were at odds and attempt to reach a consensus. In the future please make sure you know the details of what you are referring to, before using it against me in this discussion.

You state above that the census is correct, not most likely correct, well at the risk of nit picking, I should correct you; the census is not 100% accurate, there is always an error, even in such an extensive operation such as a census. If you wish to use the census data from 2001 and 2006, then I will not remove it again. I will however remove the data for 2008, and I dont think any estimates should be used from 1991 or 1996. Again, I will leave the pre-1990 data as is. And just something to note: the article for Brisbane, and History of Melbourne both use estimates, not census data.

As for the projections, I still think they should be removed, or at the very least have the data changed to series B from the source, rather than series A. Again, the projections are not predictions, and only give a rough estimate of future population. In the source, the data was simply found by saying 'if Sydney experiences natural growth of (x) and migration growth of (y) every year, then population at (given year) will be (z)'. In my opinion, this is not encyclopedic content. At the very least, as you say, maybe a range should be given, as opposed to a precise number.

All estimated data for Sydney SD from the ABS is of the same quality, the fact that estimates occured in a census year does not imporve their accuracy (as shown in an earlier post of mine, the estimated value for 2006 differs from the census result).

I searched my ip adress in the pages history, and I cannot find it, perhaps I used a different computer. Either way, the data was innaccurate for 2001, so I altered it to a (more accurate) estimate, I then saw the UNSOURCED value for 2006 (which turned out to be a correct census figure), and saw that the table made no sense (as said earlier, the table showed growth was 18 times as fast from 2006-8 compared to 2000-6), so I then found an ABS figure for 2006 a put this in the table, with a source. You then reverted my change, but left the table in a bad condition, so a fornight later I made the same chnages again, but importantly, stated my case, so as to explain to you what I was trying to do. You then reverted my changes, leaving the table once again in a bad condition.

If I am to be perfectly honest, your actions over the past month have been quite a hindrance. From the page history, I see that you have made many changes in the past years, but overall your edits hardly improve the quality of the article. You revert changes by others, but fail to adress the problem. Take me as an example, I made a change to the table, using (admittedly) not the most accurate data (yet still reasonable), but it was sourced, and from the ABS. You then reverted one of my changes, leaving the table in an unsatisfactory condition (with some estimates and some census data). I then came back to the table, saw that it was (again) in an unsatisfactory condition, and remade my changes until the table was again satisfactory. It was only then you added further data (census 2001) to improve the table, and explained it on the talk page (yet still failed to remove the 2008 data). If you had replaced my original changes with census data from BOTH the 2001 and 2006 censuses, then I would have come back to it to see the table in a satisfactory condition, and not remade my changes. In the future (and this apllies to all of your edits) maybe you should focus more on the quality of your edits and not the quantity of your edits.

In conclusion, I accept the census data from 2001 and 2006, but I will remove the 2008 estimate. As for the projections, I will remove these aswell, but I see that you believe that they should remain, so I will wait (1 day). Certainly, the projection data needs to be (at the very least) replaced with projection data from series B from the source. Nuiop729 (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"none of my edits were speculation" - That wasn't the point. You were speculating as to why figures were different, and using that to justify use of one figure over another. You can't do that. You have to concentrate on the facts. If you don't concentrate on the facts, you make mistakes such as assuming that a figure is for the urban area and not the SD, even though the citation (a fact) clearly identified as being for the SD.[8]

"if you had read my entire statement, you would see that I offered to alter my proposed changes" It was the way you that you "suggested" your changes in the first place:

• "In summary, in a few days (so as to give you time to respond), I will make the following changes" - This is a fairly definite statement.
• "Please respond in the next few days if you object to any of these changes" - You knew full well I objected because I had already explained what should be in the table
• "please, this time, state your case for any changes you make, as it is not a sufficient argument" - I had already stated a case, both here and in my edit summaries, that latter you seem to avoid doing for the most part, which makes it hard to understand your motives.

"Previouly, you claimed that census figures should be used as they were more accurate, yet failed to alter the other estimates" - At the time, we weren't talking about the other estimates. We were concentrating on the one figure that you kept changing, the 2006 population figure.

" In the future please make sure you know the details of what you are referring to" - After almost 6 years and around 11,000 edits in untold discussions on numerous talk pages, I am well aware of the details of WP:CONSENSUS. I referred to that as a warning to you that we don't simply edit to make an article fit our preferred version while contentious edits are under discussion, as you continue to do. We work towards consensus and then make edits that are agreed upon.

"the census is not 100% accurate, there is always an error" - As you well know, I never said it was 100% accurate, I said it was correct. Despite tiny errors, the census is still correct and it's far more accurate than any estimate.

"I dont think any estimates should be used from 1991 or 1996." - Of course we should be looking for accurate data. That was my point from the beginning. Surely the ABS has population information available.

"the article for Brisbane, and History of Melbourne both use estimates, not census data." - Brisbane uses an older version of the same ABS source that this article uses. History of Melbourne is an altogether different article to this. Demographics of Melbourne, which has a similar table to this article, uses the same source as here, although I notice that your recent edit has introduced an error.[9]

"As for the projections, I still think they should be removed, or at the very least have the data changed to series B from the source" - As I indicated earlier, I think it would be best to just specify "7.0 million" as stated in the source, as the projected population is actually a range, but changing it to series B is fine with me. Again, I think we only need one of the figures; the 2056 population seems best.

"If I am to be perfectly honest, your actions over the past month have been quite a hindrance." - I am quite comfortable with my edits over the past month, and previously. Do you support things like incorrect changes to the infobox, unsourced changes that contradict reliable sources, changing to American spelling and date formats, coincidentally breaking links to other articles, and oppose fixing references? Your comments are bordering on a personal attack. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

" As for the projections, I will remove these aswell, but I see that you believe that they should remain, so I will wait (1 day)." - Again, this sort of thing is not working towards consensus. Such edits in the middle of the discussion constitute disruptive editing, as do edits such as this. Without providing an appropriate edit summary, it's impossible to understand your motives, especially when I had explained why the tags should go in the right column of the table in the previous edit. There is still no reason for moving them into the left column.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You don't just come along and expect everyone to bow to your way of doing things. If you make changes and they are reverted, the correct thing to do is to discuss the changes, as per WP:BRD. You don't make sweeping edits in the middle of a discussion, especially when such edits are opposed by other editors. You aren't going to achieve anything that way. When you do make edits, please leave an edit summary so that others may understand your changes, especially when you make changes to content that is currently under discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what your problem with my edits is. When I said I would make said changes in 1 day, this was to allow you to notify me of your objections, so I am not sure why you find this statement so confronting. All I meant was for you to tell me exactly what you object to, and give you time so I could see what we agreed on. Waiting for you to respond is far more constructive than editing the content immidiately, which is what you initialy found frustrating.

"I referred to that as a warning to you that we don't simply edit to make an article fit our preferred version while contentious edits are under discussion, as you continue to do. We work towards consensus and then make edits that are agreed upon." This is why I said I would make the changes in a few days, so this exact thing would not happen, your statement reflects more your own actions not mine. As for the 'personal attack', those comments were not meant as a personal attack, I was merely trying to highlight your less-than-perfect edits on this section in the past month.

"We were concentrating on the one figure that you kept changing, the 2006 population figure.", actually, I made changes to both figures, it was your actions which made the table inconsistent.

"I never said it was 100% accurate". You said that it is correct, that is essentialy saying that is is 100% correct.

"You knew full well I objected because I had already explained what should be in the table". Yes but I also mentioned the pre-1990 data and the projections, you had not made your position clear on this point previously.

"Surely the ABS has population information available." I did a quick search on the ABS website for the 1996 and 1991 censuses, but there was no obvious data for Sydney SD, there might be, but in the meantime I think the table is fine without this data.

"Brisbane uses an older version of the same ABS source that this article uses", no it does not.

Sorry yes, I did mean Demographics of Melbourne. "although I notice that your recent edit has introduced an error", sorry, but where exactly was the error?, (in the citation?). I edited the Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne to be consistent with the Sydney article, making the projections series B, from 2026 and 2056 in the source, and replaced the 2011 projection with a 2010 estimate.

"Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You don't just come along and expect everyone to bow to your way of doing things", this statement again reflects on your own actions than mine. The fact that you have been an editor for six years does not make your opinions anymore valid than another editor.

"You don't make sweeping edits in the middle of a discussion, especially when such edits are opposed by other editors", again I gave time before making my edits, you reverted my changes immidiately during the discussion.

As for the changes to the citations, my actions were to improve readibility, by moving the citation to the figure itself (since the words have been added to the right column, the cite looks like it is for the census itself, rather than the figure). You then said in your edit that the citation needed tag makes the table unnecessarily wide, so I removed these tags. You then reverted this change for no apparent reason.

I have found a citaion for some of the pre-1990 figures, but the data comes from a (rough) graph, so I am not sure this is appropriate - your opinion? - URL: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=855581&nodeId=baad0fbfa48a0e220507ae24fcf56ffb&fn=Appendix%20C%20-%20Urban%20growth.pdf

I propose to make the following changes (is this statement less offensive?)

Move the citations into the left column. To put it simply, this looks better, especially once cites have been found for all data. At the moment (for example) there is a citation needed tag next to the gold rush comment, this makes it look like the citation needed tag is for the fact that this was the goldrush, rather than the figure itself. For comparison, the Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne both put the citations like this (and yes, they were like this before I made my edits). Nuiop729 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've made my concerns about your edits fairly clear. When you announce, in the middle of a discussion, "I will remove these aswell, but I see that you believe that they should remain, so I will wait (1 day)" you are effectively saying "I will make these changes regardless of the fact that we have not yet reached consensus". As I've indicated previously, changes are made AFTER consensus is reached, not before. Similarly, "I was merely trying to highlight your less-than-perfect edits on this section in the past month" is an inappropriate thing to say. The edits are less than perfect only in your opinion. Some might say that your performance here is considerably less than stellar, but it's not the sort of thing you say in the middle of a discussion. I've only mentioned it now as an unfortunate necessity and I don't intend critiquing your past history here or anywhere else. Again as I've said previously, comment on content, not on the contributor. The figure that started this discussion was your change to the 2006 population,[10][11] nothing else. It's why you posted to my talk page. I didn't have problems with your other changes, only that one.[12][13] Something can be correct without being 100% accurate. "The sky is blue" is correct, but it is by no means accurate. In any case, we weren't talking about the level of accuracy, we were talking about the applicability of one figure over another, and an actual count is always more accurate than an estimate. Brisbane most definitely uses an older version of the same ABS source that this article uses. Brisbane uses 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2007-08 which was released on 23 April 2009. This article uses 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009-10 which was released on 31 March 2011, almost 2 years later. For reasons known only to the editors of Brisbane they also happen to use the data for Victoria, something I note that you didn't fix in your recent edit.[14] As to your error in Demographics of Melbourne, it's obvious in the diff that I provided.[15] You replaced the citation named "popprojections" leaving the 2026 and 2056 populations unsourced, which you should note when you scroll down to the references section, where you will see "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named popprojections; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text" next to reference No.27. It's OK, I fixed it.[16] "This statement again reflects on your own actions than mine" wildly misses the point, as well as being incorrect. In the middle of a discussion you announce that you will make certain edits in 1 day, when you've been told that's not how we do things. Discuss, reach consensus and then edit. If you make contentious changes during a discussion, as you have done, they are subject to reversion and you being tagged as being disruptive. Generally, the status quo prevails. It's up to you to convince others that your changes are valid when they have been contested. Moving citations to the figures in the table doesn't improve readability when some of the figures are sourced and others are not. The third column exists as a place for citations and very short notes. Before you started changing the article, that's how the table was used. These edits destroyed the readability, staggering figures and making the table ridiculously wide, compressing the text between the image, infobox and table, which is definitely going against MoS. Figures should line up so that it's easy to read straight down the column. Placing the citations immediately after the figures can make it difficult for those who have to use text readers, and we have to cater for those people.

"You then reverted this change for no apparent reason." - Perhaps you should try reading edit summaries.[17] It was actually you who made changes for no apparent reason.[18] I had already fixed the problem that I'd identified.[19] There was no reason for you to do anything.

The {{citation needed}} below "(Gold Rush)" is valid. The gold rush started in 1851 and ended in 1896 (I think), that this was the population at the time of the Gold Rush needs to be verified. If anything, "(Gold Rush)" could be deleted entirely. The ACCC chart is too vague to be of any practical use. I've found an ABS source that provides much better data and actually shows that the 1962 population in this article is incorrect. The pre-1911 populations are harder to source. I'm still working on that. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is as if you did not even read my previous post; you are still criticizing my statement in which I said I would ‘wait one day’. If you had read my previous post, you would realise that this was a misunderstanding, and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat this (your misunderstanding) again; as it is not constructive in this discussion.

"The figure that started this discussion was your change to the 2006 population, nothing else. It’s why you posted to my talk page. I didn’t have problems with your other changes, only that one". The table as a whole is what started this discussion. I changed both figures, to ones from the ABS which had been used in numerous other articles for Australian capital cities. You only reverted one of these changes, creating an inconsistent, unreadable table. You left the table in a condition where I was bound to return to the page, and remake my edits. If you had added the 2001 census data as well, I would not have found fault in the table and would not have reedited it; inadvertently causing an edit war. You ask me to respect the status-quo, yet it was you yourself who left the table in an unsatisfactory condition, whereas my edit, although less accurate, created a consistent, readable table.

"Something can be correct without being 100% accurate. “The sky is blue” is correct, but it is by no means accurate". No, wrong. Being correct implies accuracy; I suggest finding the proper definition of ‘correct’. I think what you meant to say was ‘Something can be precise without being accurate’. Correct is different to precise, correctness does imply accuracy.

"In any case, we weren’t talking about the level of accuracy". Actually you stated that the census is correct, with emphasis on the ‘is’, that is what started (this part of) this discussion.

As for the Brisbane page, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, but my edits were simply to make the table in the demographics section consistent with the Sydney page. I am not an editor of Brisbane, so it is unnecessary to criticize me for failing to address certain problems (which by the way, I am still unable to find what you are referring to).

I realise the mistake on Demographics of Melbourne, I must have missed that after making my changes.

"Generally, the status quo prevails. It’s up to you to convince others that your changes are valid when they have been contested". I have made my case for moving the citations to the left column. Since you have failed to address either directly I will restate my case: 1. Other articles with similar tables, such as Brisbane and Demographics of Melbourne, have the citations in the left column, and were like this before I edited them. 2. As the third column has comments as well as citations, the citations are out of place. They appear to be citations for the comments themselves, not the figures. "There was no reason for you do to anything" I have stated my case for moving the citations; you failed to address either.

You mention the citation needed tag below gold rush as necessary. I never said it wasn’t necessary, perhaps it does need its own citation needed tag. My point was that putting the citation needed tag there made it appear that it was for the gold rush, and not for the figure.

From my point of view, the fact that you dodged my arguments, and simply opposed my changes, shows that you are being unnecessarily obstructive and stubborn; I would appreciate it if you were to directly address these issues so I am able to understand your opposition to the changes. I understand that having the citation needed tags makes the table too wide, but once citations are found I see no reason to prevent these changes. You mention you have found ABS data; well maybe you ought to either share the link so I am able to prepare a citation, or add the citation yourself. For pre-1911 data, I am fairly sure I have seen similar figures in books, but this may take time to produce a citation. Nuiop729 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Largest Harbour?

"Sydney Harbour, is one such ria and is the largest natural harbour in the world."

Is this true? A quick look on Google Maps shows that even the Hawkesbury to the north is larger. And San Francisco Bay would be hundreds of times larger . . . not sure where this stat comes from???