Talk:Sydney

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)

Yes, it seems ridiculous to use the statistical division, when it clearly covers a much larger area than what would usually be understood by the term "Sydney" or even "Greater Sydney". Using this area makes a nonsense of the density claim (if we use the stated population and area, then the density ought to be about 377 rather than 2,058). In fact, 377 is the density given by the same ABS document that gives the area as 12,144 km2. (see here). We need a clear and accurate set of criteria for giving these numbers and I while I think using the ABS statistical division of Sydney gives clarity, it is not an accurate picture of what most people mean by "Sydney".EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not convinced that the citymayors.com site is very reliable. It lists the population of Shanghai as 10,000,000 (when Wiki pegs it as just over 23m). Likewise, according to that source, Sydney's population is only 3,502,000. Elsewhere on their site, they mention that their sources are often ten to twenty years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthicsEdinburgh (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 March 2012 (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??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.9.39 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Port Stephens is also larger, although not as deep. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the source does source does support the claim, but I think we all know it's rubbish. I've deleted the claim. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

'Unconstructive' image changes

I think that the image looks far better and clearer of the size that I changed it too, and it illustrates the section in a lot more of an aesthetically pleasing matter. The thing this article lacks is decent images that assist the article's content, and I think that the image itself looks a lot more appealing in a larger, more enhanced size. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

May look ok on a 4:3 screen but on a 16:9 it doesn't as you have useless white space on both sides of the photograph, also making it larger add no vaule to the article. It is fine as it is. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IMGSIZE says that image sizes should not be forced unless appropriate, and when it is appropriate they should generally not be wider than 500px. This image is of such a shape that it is best displayed as a thumbnail, not as a centred panorama. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And again...

A new image was added to the article today. I reverted the change because it was a much darker image than the previous image but it was restored with the edit summary "It's not dark, increase your brightness or click the full size image. The current one is disgusting, it's pixelated and blurry".[2] The side by side comparison to the right clearly shows that the first image is brighter overall than the second. Contrast between the dark foreground and light background exacerbates the problem. This is evident on the three LCD TVs, 7 LCD computer monitors using the eleven computers I have here (I use KVM switches), so it's not a brightness issue on one computer. As for being pixelated and blurry, that's obviously rubbish, unless you're looking at it on a 50 inch TV, which most people are not. The second image is much higher resolution and you can look down the cleavage of the girls in the foreground on a 50 inch TV, but that's not what we're looking for when we add images to articles like this. An image showing the actual Botanic Gardens is required, not one showing a dark stand of trees in the distance. The older image is far better for what we require, as is File:Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney 11 lottatori di canova.JPG, which replaced File:Sídney-Australia16.JPG. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some better alternatives in the article Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney as well. ***Adam*** (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Montage image of Sydney in infobox

Today I added this montage image of Sydney in its infobox. A montage image can wonderfully summarize pictorial information of Sydney. This montage is not so big to cause any distraction, yet it was reverted.

File:Sydney five frame infobox image.jpg

Sydney five frame infobox image

Some editors don't appreciate the placement of a montage image of Sydney in infobox and among them one editor has impolitely ridiculed me calling it a 'travel brochure'. Another editor has informed me today that there is a consensus of not using a montage image of Sydney in the infobox. A consensus is not unchangeable. The reason of this consensus sounds feeble and it is time to reassess it. I strongly argue for an addition of a montage image in the infobox. For instance, a compact five-frame montage portraying five various parts of Sydney is not only a quick way to visually summarize the Sydney just like the summarized text information in the infobox, but also reveals its physical appearance to the readers to some extent. It also improves the visual information of the page. I also urge all those editors against the montage image to visit the Wikipedia pages of all major cities like London, Berlin, Rome, New York City, Tokyo, Athens etc. Those pages do contain multi-frame montage images in their respective infoboxes. Some of them are large in size too. If using a montage image is so irrelevant to the article page of a city, then why did other editors include a montage image in the pages of all those major cities? All major city pages in Wikipedia have montage images, which suggests an implicit 'global' consensus of using montage image in a major city like Sydney too. And this implicit 'global' consensus, in my opinion, is more meaningful than having a separate 'local' consensus of not using a montage for particularly Sydney page. This particular consensus for Sydney is evidently a discriminatory policy against the standard practices found in other Wikipedia major city pages. The opposition by the editors of using a montage image in Sydney page looks shamefully biased when they revert an addition of a montage image in Sydney page, although other major city pages contain montage image in infobox. Therefore, I again convene the wise editors to turn down this illogical and biased consensus of not using a montage image in infobox of Sydney page. Jonah rajxei (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A few comments...

• This is an article (i.e., words) not a flickr page, and certainly not tourist brochure. Images are there to support the text - there should be direct links to the text and image at the place that the topic is discussed. A multi-image info box is a WP:N problem - they all seek to show the city in its best light (hence my tourist brochure reference). There is no way that 1 (or 12) images are going to properly represent a city, particularly if you choose glossy shots of tourist landmarks, etc. Stick to one iconic image.
• Large info boxes are a problem. They push themselves down into the rest of the article which causes text and image placement issues for the rest of the article.
• WP:PRECEDENCE is not a policy on wikipedia. I don't believe the multi image info boxes on the other city pages are any good either, however, i don't have to change consensus on those pages in order to promote a single image box here. I'd be happier to not have the multi images on those pages, but I don't have time to have multiple (and possible fruitless) discussion across a number of pages. I need to choose my battles carefully.
• Accusations of bias go against the policy of WP:AGF, one of wikipedia's most important. You are basically saying to others, "you're not a good editor". Do you really think accusing people of bias will make them agree with you? I can tell you, you will only piss them off and possibly make them feel more strongly about their position. (and in my case at least, given that I've lived in Sydney for decades, bias accusations don't make any sense).

regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Merbabu summed it all up pretty well. But from someone who actually likes and supports the montages, I have to say this one isn't that good. Three out of 5 pictures just show part of the CBD skyline. I know they're meant to be focusing on one part of it, but it seems like a waste. That and the Opera house appears in two of the pics as well. I support a montage, but not this one. What we have is fine anyway. Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article looks untidy. Some paragraphs are too short, especially the last. 26 words does not constitute as a separate paragraph, it looks poorly structured. The last paragraph should become an add on to the fourth paragraph and same for first and second. 101.103.130.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the lede was disjointed, thanks to this edit, that slotted the "Alpha+ World City" content in as the second sentence, pushing basic and more important information about the city's location down the lede. I've edited the lede to move it down to related content, although it doesn't actually belong in the lede as it isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. The lede is now only slightly different to what it was before the IP's edit.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rankings section

do we really need it? They are highly subjective, and in the real world (ie, not amongst Wikipedians) no one really pays any attention. It's just a repository for trivia. Further to date, it's only rankings that highlight the positives (albeit very subjectively assessed). --Merbabu (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no. It's a lot of waffle that really means little and the rankings are POV at best. It certainly does not belong in the lede. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting on with the important business, is it safe to assume that this content can be removed completely from the article? --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes we need it, but not as a section on its own; I really think that the ranking section should be merged within the intro. It gives a such bright outlook on the city. Most of the other highly economical/liveable cities have ranking info within the intro. (User talk:Lionhead99) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary,[4] inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEDE, which is why it was removed in the first place.[5] The lead is supposed to summarise important points in the article. Content that isn't discussed elsewhere shouldn't be in the lead. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And, just because stuff is done badly in other articles, doesn't mean we should do it here. --Merbabu (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In 13 June 2012, I presented a compromise edit [6] (appearance of the article: [7]). After my edits, new short intro has only two information - about "world cities" and "livable cities" (each this entry has a some of independent sources), rest of contents moved to economy section and education section. My edition has two advantages: meets the requirements of WP:LEDE and delete this POV secion (not used in Wikipedia) create by user AussieLegend. However, my edits removed by User:AussieLegend and later User:Bidgee :p However, I still want to make this compromise editing, therefore I write in this discussion. User:Merbabu, you accept my compromise edition? Could you please give opinion. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I edit down the ranking paragraph and shove it in the lede? I can shorten it so it can fit there. We really don't need a rankings section. The intro/lede is already pretty vague (it's not like it's full). The lede will benefit to have the rankings information. (User talk:Lionhead99) 03:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been stated previously, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, not to discuss content not addressed elsewhere in the article. If the ranking section is not needed, then we don't need to address the deleted content in the lead at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Rankings data exist in lede (in almost articles about big cities), this is standard in Wikipedia. If you want to talk about delete rankings data from articles,please write in the technical sides of Wikipedia (this case concerns whole Wikipedia). What do you think of my compromise? Only one sentence (only overall two information - about "world cities" and "livable cities", rest of contents moved to economy section and education section. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How many times do we need to cite MOS:LEAD? If the rankings are included in the article they can be briefly mentioned in the lead but any detailed discussion needs to be in the main body of the article. If it's done other ways in other articles, that violates MOS:LEAD. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The No. 1 justification for inserting crap into an article is that "most other articles do it". Alas, there is no WP:PRECEDENCE policy on wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend, you write above "(...) they can be briefly mentioned in the lead (...)" - generally, my compromise is "briefly mentioned", rest of contents moved to economy section and education section. Second: please see intro of MOS:LEAD, quote: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Even if the rankings in intro of articles of cities do not meet the recommendations of MOS:LEAD, this is standard on Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that the occasional exceptions are articles that are too short to have a lead (stubs etc), or that have a lead and only a few paragraphs, articles where the content being discussed isn't long enough to warrant a separate section, etc. This article is not one of those cases. If the content is significant enough then a separate section is warranted. There is obviously enough content to justify a separate section with 10 citations but it isn't significant enough to warrant more than what is in the lead now. This article is almost 7,000 words long, yet the lead is only 200 words (2.9% of the article). The rankings section really doesn't warrant any more than a single 3.5 word sentence in the lead, but it already has more than 12 times that.

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Monopoly by User:Bidgee and User:AussieLegend. Thank you. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And, I'm informing you that there is a discssion about the content immediately above this section (in which you so far have not been involved). ANI is not for content disputes. And because someone reverts your edits, doesn't make them "monopoly" editors. Incidently, I don't agree wtih your edits either, and I support Bidgee and Aussielegend's request for you to discuss it on the talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You wrong. This case not concerns content disputes and my last edit. This case concerns long-term problem of editing article of Sydney. I asked in the ANI, in order to other users to observe this article (and history of changes). Sydney is the article in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, anyone can edit, not only two users. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about 2 editors, you have had a response at ANI. Regarding content, again I point out that you have not contributed to the above discussion even when specifically suggested. I think a number of people have been patient enough, and you should consider whether you really want to waste anymore editor time (yours and theirs) on this. --Merbabu (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sunshine hours

I wonder if people here would be in agreement for me to update the sunshine hours format in the climate section to be in line with other Australian cities and cities of the world. When comparing the sunshine hours of different cities, practically all cities use the format of listing the mean monthly sunshine hours with the yearly total at the end. Coming across a format that is presently on the Sydney Wikipedia page is not very useful for comparison. Other Australian pages have already had their hours converted. If there are no objections I will go ahead with it. Thanks.

Air.light (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Examples of other Australian cities? I'm assuming you're using the BoM data then multiply by 28.25? Bidgee (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I've been bold and changed the daily to monthly since the yearly daily mean is clearly not working. Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Air.light, function of Mean daily sunshine hours is new, now, small number of articles of cities used it. However, this feature was created to benefit directly from the sources (no conversions). The source for Sydney show the data of "Mean daily sunshine hours" and not "Mean monthly sunshine hours". When a function to develop in other cities, these temporary changes ([8], [9]) will be undone. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You've not stated the "formula" used, {{Weather box}} gives a standard to use which is figure * 28.25. You also failed to state as to why you removed |rain colour = green. Bidgee (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To convert daily to monthly you need to multiply by the number of days in the month, not 28.25. 28.25 is only for February because it has 28 days except in a leap year when it has 29, which is an average of 28.25 days, not 28 days. If you have a look at the template instructions, you'll see it only mentions 28.25 for |Feb percentsun=. That said, using mean daily hours is a better option than using monthly, because it's month independent. The problem with converting figures as has been done was discussed at Template talk:Weather box#Sunshine hours per day in April 2012. Notable was this post, which mentions {{Sydney weatherbox}} specifically, stating "the 200.6 that was given for the month of January is not the 7.1 * 31 as given in the source." The discussion also warns against converting as that can result in errors. The weatherbox was deliberately edited then to reflect the source,[10] but the recent edits re-introduced the error.[11] In short, if the source uses daily figures, that's what we should be using. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I see that you've gone ahead with it Bidgee. Thank you. Air.light (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend asked me to make a comment here. I feel that you should go with whatever the source gives and what is common practice in Australia. This is exactly what we do with different English variations and various measurements. By the way in this of the numbers in the left side only February is correct. A dead give away is September and October. Both have 7.2 hours a day and both have 203.4 hours a month but October has one more day. I see the bit about multiplying by 28.25 as only applying to February but it may not be clear and I should go fix it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee, you make a mistake. If you do not understand my edition, ask for explanation. Not "blind" revert, again. You need to multiply by the number of days in the month (for example: January - 31, March - 31, April - 30....), not number of 28.25. "28.25" is only for February because it has 28 days except in a leap year when it has 29 (= average 28.25). Subtropical-man (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop your attacks and vendetta against me. Bidgee (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. But... your behavior also has not changed - your "blind" reverts without discussion. If you do not understand my edition, ask for explanation in discussion. PS. Please, improve other articles (Australia relates) in which you entered the wrong data. Melbourne - I improved. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you guys not want to have the monthly sunshine hours presented on this Wikipedia article? This is the only Wikipedia article I have ever come across that has daily sunshine hours presented (even amongst Australian cities), instead of monthly hours listed. I realize that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology presents the records in this way, but you must understand that they don't record the data in this way. They record it as any other city in the world does and then chose to translate their data into "daily sunshine hours" instead of "monthly sunshine hours" which is fine. It is a simply mathematical translation to convert it the other way.

The deal here is that when one is comparing cities of the world for their sunshine amounts, one gets to Sydney and then doesn't know what to make of the numbers for comparison.

Is it that you guys want to remain special and unique and have this way of displaying the numbers? Is it that you guys have issues with the user Bidgee for whatever reason (valid or invalid) seeing that she was the one who made the edit?

I just think it would be nice to see something on this page that I can make sense of. Please consider agreeing for a common translation of the results here.

Comments? Air.light (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I addressed this above, referencing the discussion at Template talk:Weather box#Sunshine hours per day. There is a ig problem converting from days to months, which has to be done each time the figures are upated, and when this was done here it was done incorrectly, as it was in Melbourne. Monthly figures are also misleading, as CambridgeBayWeather deonstrated. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Air.light, almost sources show data as Mean daily sunshine hours. Formerly, Wikipedia does not have the appropriate parameters. Today, exist parameter Mean daily sunshine hours, it will be slowly implemented to articles about places (cities etc), according to what show sources. Sydney article is the first article with the new parameter. Congratulations :) Subtropical-man (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay so I see you guys have talked about this a lot already. I missed the discussion provided in your link AussieLegend. I am obviously one of the people in favour of monthly sunshine hours for the sake of comparison but you guys have already decided. If you guys are active with other Australian city's pages, I would suggest for simplicity, general understanding and comparison that you then standardize this across all the pages seeing that the source for all Australian cities sunshine climate information is recorded the same way. When one looks at Sydney's sunshine information and then Melbourne's, it is not reasonable to have to take out a calculator to figure out how they compare.Air.light (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Population contradiction

The given population density multiplied by the given area is six times the given population - this clearly can't be right. Can someone please check the sources of these figures, as it would seem they're not talking about the same things? Magic9mushroom (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Destination NSW link

This repeated adding and removing of the Destination NSW link both here and at New South Wales needs to stop. Accordinly I have protected this page for 24 hours. Discuss on the talk page and come to some consensus. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've indicated to both of the editors who keep restoring the link,[12][13] the link would not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, which is the first point of WP:ELNO. The second point of WP:NOTGUIDE says that Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable attractions such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Opera House etc can be mentioned in the article, with appropriate sources, but generic links to tourism sites aren't encyclopaedic. We could add all manner of tourism links to articles but we don't, because there are too many. If we allow one, we have to allow them all. Imagine if we added even 10% of the valid tourism links for NSW. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

These are the official government sites for Sydney and NSW, they have unique and fresh content related to both pages. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(Australia) both carry the official tourism sites as links. --Sbenj

That other sites may include them, doesn't mean that we should here. On your talk page you said, "many of the visitors to the page would be looking for that information". However, it's tourism information and Wikipedia isn't a tourist guide. As WP:NOTGUIDE says, "such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead." Ideally, articles should not have "see also" or "external links" sections at all; such content should be included in the body of the article, but this just isn't the sort of thing to include in articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Climate - again....

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

There have been a number of changes to the climate section of the article today first changing "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and mild winters" to "Sydney has a subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters",[14] then to "Sydney has a temperate oceanic climate with warm summers and mild winters",[15] "Sydney has a temperate climate, straddling the oceanic climate and humid subtropical climate zones, with warm summers and mild winters",[16] and finally to "Sydney has a humid subtropical climate with warm summers and mild winters".[17] None of these changes were sourced, or otherwise justified. The source that is used in the section says "Sydney has a temperate climate with warm, sometimes hot summers, cool winters and mainly reliable rainfall all year.[18] If somebody wants to discuss possible changes (again) then they're free to do so but, as the changes are opposed, I'm reverting to the status quo, as per WP:STATUSQUO while discussion, if any, is in progress. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this article About Sydney says "Sydney's subtropical climate ... " 188.28.47.157 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what expertise the Organ Donation Congress has in classifying climate, but I think it would be trumped by the Bureau of Meteorology, which supplied the information used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the reference. According to NSW Environment and Heritage it's temperate,[19] and this description from the Bureau of Meteorology also says temperate. They don't have anything to say about organ donation. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The second of the links in your comment does not mention Sydney; it gives Melbourne as an example of a temperate climate with a warm summer and a cool winter. Under the Koppen classification, which Wikipedia seems to favour, Sydney qualifies as humid subtropical. 188.28.47.157 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)