Talk:Turramurra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Turramurra, New South Wales)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Sydney (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Turramurra is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Meaning of the name Turramurra[edit]

I think the meaning of Turramurra is "big hill", but I'm not certain about this. Someone might like to check on it, and add it to the article, in future. James Foster 12:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The meaning of Turramurra is big hill. Ziperingzap 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

This page was moved from "Turramurra" to "Turramurra, New South Wales" as per the naming convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) -- Ianblair23 01:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the major editing done to the 'Climate' section on the Turramurra page by "220.239.177.60", some of the information provided seems misleading and is not properly referenced. Examples of this can be seen "it's the wettest place in sydney because it is the highest point". I'm pretty sure it is definitely not the highest point in sydney... It certainly is one of the highest points, I won't deny that... but definitely is not THE highest point... For example... a neighbouring suburb 'Wahroonga' is 204metres above sea level and Turramurra is 192m above sea level. Someone please confirm and check what "220.239.177.60" has added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.214.81 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, things like one or two degrees difference between areas of Turramurra are dubious, and unreferenced. The source for the temperature data seems to be Sydney Observatory Hill, so it doesn't need repeating here for a Sydney suburb. If the author has a source, or wishes to clarify, please do so, otherwise I think the section should be removed. --Inas66 (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wettest suburb in Sydney[edit]

Turramurra has always been the wettest suburb in Sydney, the reason is Turramurra sits at the top of Pymble Hill. With the prevailing winds from the south, the sudden rise of air caused by hitting Pymble Hills results in their dropping all the moisture on the place at the top of the hill i.e. Turramurra

all we need is link to a current publication, to put this statement back on the main page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjopat (talkcontribs) 23:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done under the Geography section. Note that I have avoided making any claim about Turramurra being the wettest suburb overall because that would be WP:SYNTHESIS, so this entry just states the BoM's conclusions for each year. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Move information about North / South Turramurra to the relevant pages[edit]

As it is now, the "Geography" section also describes North and South Turramurra. Those are separate suburbs with their own articles, so that information should be moved there. Comments? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be inclined to leave the mentions in Geography, as they are clarifying, and relocate (if required) the information in Commercial --Inas (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Good catch - the Commercial material was actually what I had in mind. I must have had a "senior moment" when I wrote "Geography" instead. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hillview and other heritage listings[edit]

Sardaka recently added a section on the heritage-listed property "Hillview". This prompted me to search the NSW Heritage listing web site, and it revealed that there are 89 such listed properties in Turramurra: two are state listed and the rest (including Hillview) are local council listings. I don't think we want to go down the path of describing all of them in this article, so is anybody aware of guidelines to determine which such properties are notable enough to include here? --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I searched the state heritage register for Hillview and only found three listed, all of them being the buildings of the Hillview about which I wrote. Couldn't see the other 86. In any case, they have a state listing, see:State heritage register. Sardaka (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Sardaka:. Yes, Hillview is listed, no question about that. The link you gave is specifically for the Hillview entry, so of course it only shows Hillview. My point is that there are also dozens of other listed properties in Turramurra, and it is not clear why this one was singled out for inclusion. Try the link I gave above to search the NSW Heritage listing using the criterion suburb=Turramurra to see the full list. (Unfortunately, the Search Results page is dynamic so I can't provide a direct link to it.) The three items "listed under the NSW Heritage Act" are at 43 Ku-Ring-Gai Avenue (Cossington}, 17 Boomerang Street (Ingleholme & Garage), and 140 Pentecost Avenue (Stowe on the Wold). Then there are another 87 records "listed by Local Government and State Agencies" (one more than when I wrote my initial comment). If being on the register is enough to show notability, then should all 90 listed properties be listed here? That sounds like overkill to me. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncited people in the list of Notable Residents[edit]

Many of the people currently listed here do not have any citation, so should be removed. I am mentioning it here first to give any interested editor time to add citations where relevant, before I remove them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)