Template talk:Sydney regions

	Australia Template‑class
Sydney regions 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

i'd Like to see the North shore as one distinct area with subcategories within the article describing the lower and upper regions, that would follow wikipedia's guidelines much better for one thing and clean up the map, since the two regions are still very similar and often both recalled as the north shore, atleast by everyone of my mates who live ther, and i went to a north shore private school, so yeh. 121.216.41.132 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drummoyne and concord are now part of canada bay. hawkesbury and wolondilly are outside the metro area:

please consult the NSW department of local government for the latest official list before adding new lga's:

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_regions.asp

clarkk 09:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should Sydney CBD be included on the list of Sydney regions? To me it is a region of Sydney. It took a few clicks to find the article. — Донама 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the CBD, as well as Upper North Shore, as requested by User:J Bar. I am not sure whether we need subregions such as Upper North Shore, but we should either have both Upper and Lower North Shore or neither. JPD (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Upper North Shore" - you've got to be kidding. --WikiCats 12:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore, Lower North Shore, Upper North Shore, Northern Beaches - How many names are there for the same place? --WikiCats 13:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The North Shore and the Northern Beaches are different places. Lower and Upper North Shore are parts of the North Shore. At first I did not like including them, but I can see an argument for it, and it is definitely wrong to include one and not the other. JPD (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Sydney my whole life and I never heard of Upper North Shore. --WikiCats 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the fact that you describe yourself as a Queenslander, I find it very unlikely that a Sydneysider would call the North Shore and the Northern Beaches "the same place". At any rate, it is fairly obvious [1] that a lot of people have heard of and talk of the upper north shore, so what you have heard of is fairly irrelevant. The only question is whether it and the lower north shore really need to be listed separately on this template. JPD (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The local newspaper is called 'Upper North Shore' Times and there are a number of local businesses that use the description. People outside the area usually just say North Shore and Northern Beaches. I suppose people on the Lower North Shore like to make the distinction because the area is considered to be more affluent and exclusive than their upper neighbours. The same thing happens in the south. The St George area covers local government areas of Rockdale/Kogarah/Hurstville, but Southern Sydney includes all of these as well as the Sutherland Shire. While I'm on the subject, can we have a link in those Local Government Areas Suburb Boxes mentioned above to the St George region, as well as Southern Sydney? J Bar 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think having links to both St George and Southern Sydney would be too much clutter, but it might be a good idea to replace Southern Sydney with St George. JPD (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between the Upper North Shore, the Lower North Shore and the North Shore? --WikiCats 13:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, the Upper North Shore and the Lower North Shore are two different parts of the North Shore. If you're still confused, try reading the intro to the North Shore article. JPD (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case either the [Upper North Shore and Lower North Shore] or the [North Shore] should be deleted. Or in the least Upper and Lower North Shore should be merged into North Shore. --WikiCats 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, one valid way of doing things, but it is not obvious that it is a good idea. Should St George also be merged into Southern Sydney? Using that sort of logic, we should merge them all into Sydney. Having separate articles for two regions that are reasonably often looked at separately is probably ok - the question here is whether they need to be listed separately on this template. JPD (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template should have one or the other but not all three. --WikiCats 14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, as I have already said. However, there is an argument for the other way, especially considering the St George/Southern Sydney case. I will mention the question at WikiProject Sydney, to get some more opinions. The other interesting factor is that the (disputed) definition currently at Lower North Shore (Sydney) includes Ryde, which is not usually counted as part of the North Shore, or any of the other regions in the template. JPD (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That area of Sydney (Ryde Council) is always left out of the regions of Sydney as it doesn't really fit into any part of Sydney - they don't like being called North Shore, and they're not Western Sydney either. The suburbs like Eastwood and Epping can be regarded as Hills District, but suburbs like West Ryde, Ryde, Meadowbank, Gladesville, etc. are not included there. There is a quasi-region called "Northern Districts" which encompasses this area - maybe we should include that? (

JROBBO 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC))[reply

]

Either the [Upper North Shore and Lower North Shore] or the [North Shore] should be removed from the template. If there is a problem with St George/Southern Sydney then that should be fixed too. --WikiCats 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Upper North Shore and Lower North Shore are parts of the the North Shore with together make up the North Shore, I propose that Upper North Shore and Lower North Shore be removed from the Template:Sydney regions. --WikiCats 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think repeating your proposal will change anything. Do you wish to say anything that hasn't already been said? JPD (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point keeping Upper North Shore & Lower North Shore as well as North Shore if they refer to the same area. If there is no objection I will delete Upper & Lower North Shore on the template. --WikiCats 12:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there is no point is assuming a lot. Is there also no point having St George on the template? I don't think so. The template obviously does not provide a breakdown of Sydney into regions, so what criteria are you using? JPD (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can get rid of St George as well. The template should list all regions of Sydney without duplications. Right? --WikiCats 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.... no. Getting rid of St George would be a very strange thing to do, as it has quite a strong regional identity, probably more so than the larger "southern sydney". So it's clear that the regions listed can have overlap. I still tend to agree that the lower and upper north shore don't need to be there, but it's definitely not as straightforward as that. JPD (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your changing the template in the middle of a debate? Why did you change Greater Western Sydney to Western Sydney? It that your bias? --WikiCats 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a debate. I changed the template because I thought all would at the very least agree that it is better than the old version. If you think it is worse, then say so - you can even change it back. If we come up with something better, we can change it then. I don't see what sort of bias would cause me to change Western Sydney. I changed it to use the more common name, and to fit in the template better. The article was originally Western Sydney, and now seems to have changed to describe a different area; this needs to be sorted out at Talk:Greater Western Sydney. I would have thought you would be in favour of the change, as "Greater Western Sydney" includes "South-western Sydney", as well as areas not considered part of Sydney in the LGAs section. JPD (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested that the template should list all regions of Sydney without duplications. You response was no. So you have decided parameters within your own mind that comply with your vision of what you want included. You made no proposal. Just edited the article to support your wishes. These are the actions of someone who feels they are losing the debate. --WikiCats 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about my actions, or trying to discuss what would make the template better? I changed it because I thought everyone, including you, would find it better that way. You haven't disagreed yet. As for the "all regions without duplications" suggestion, it is not clear to me what that means. I said "no", and explained why it didn't seem to make much sense. Please explain exactly what you mean if you feel I have not addressed it properly. JPD (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my thoughts on the subject. I think overlaps for Sydney Regions should be allowed. Living in the St George area, I know for a fact that more people living in it would be familiar with it being described as St George and use it rather than the term Southern Sydney. But for people outside the district, Southern Sydney is probably a more familiar term to describe the St George and the Sutherland Shire. As such, St George and Southern Sydney are both acceptable for my area.

Same goes for South-Eastern Sydney and Eastern Suburbs. People who live at La Perouse would probably say that they are part of the Eastern Suburbs, while people in the local government areas of Woolahra or Waverley would probably say that only their suburbs qualify as 'true Eastern Suburbs' and the rest are traditionally South Sydney, and now more likely to described as South-Eastern Sydney. Your region description could depend on where you live. That why a suburb like Maroubra could be part of South-Eastern Sydney but also part of the Eastern Suburbs. You could debate this forever and never reach a consensus.

As far as Upper and Lower North Shore goes, I'd say the terms are used less frequently than North Shore but they are still quite common. If you do a Google search or have a look at the White Pages, you will find many businesses who use Upper or Lower North Shore. People who live in the North Shore are more inclined to make the distinction rather than people outside the area. Personally, I'd like to see all of them remain as descriptions.J Bar 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for the template

The problem with this template seems fairly obvious to me. The majority of these articles describe these terms as informal descriptions of the regions. Everything we do here must be backed up by references. The fact is I don't believe there is a reference for "The regions of Sydney". The best I have found is this [2] and this [3]. Maybe someone can find something that matches our list.

My fear is that our template has become the reference. If this is the case then that makes it origional research. Quite a serious matter. Grounds for deletion.

This has to be based on at least one reference that lists the regions of Sydney. --WikiCats 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You finally seem to be understanding the point. There is no definitive way of dividing Sydney into regions. If we were trying to do that, it would be close to original research. What this template is actually intended to do is be a navigational box providing links to all the Wikipedia articles about regions of Sydney. Since these are not defined in any consistent way, there will be overlaps. The only question is whether each region is significant enough to be worth providing a link to it. "The regions of Sydney" doesn't exist, and this template shouldn't pretend that it does. JPD (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what were faced with is calling this "An informal list of the regions of Sydney" or "An unofficial list of the regions of Sydney". Without references it is not eligible for inclusion in the Encyclopedia and I suppose this would apply to the articles as well. --WikiCats 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the articles should have references, which shouldn't be that hard to find, as the terms are widely used in many contexts. We don't need to call this any sort of "list of the regions of Sydney", since it is nothing more than a navigational box. We are not claiming to list "the regions of Sydney" in any sense - simply saying that the areas listed are significant regions in Sydney. You are the only person who is trying to turn it into some sort of coherent system. JPD (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of an unofficial list of the regions for any other city in the world so we can have something we can work from? --WikiCats 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we could work from something for another city. I assume you are implying that we shouldn't have this unless something similar exists already somewhere else, which is debatable. Before looking for somethign similar, though, may I repeat that an unofficial list of the regions of Sydney isn't what this is. It isn't even List of unofficial regions of Sydney - it is simply a navigation box giving links to relevant articles. What exactly do you think is wrong with it? JPD (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you point out the guidelines that say a navigation box that is based on an unreferenced list is exempt from the guidelines? --WikiCats 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming it is exempt from the guidelines. I am asking what is wrong with it. That is, which guideline is it breaking? The fact that each region exists as a region is verifiable, and references should go in the articles. To have a template giving links to all these articles, without claiming that it is a definitive list, does not require any extra sources. JPD (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does claim to be an authoritative by claiming to be a list of Sydney regions. As such it should be based on references of which there are none. --WikiCats 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It "claims" to be a group of links to articles, of which each is about a region of Sydney. I don't see how this is a claim to be authoritative. JPD (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make changes to the template until a consensus is reached. --WikiCats 01:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just reverted a change that was made 10 days ago, without continuing any discussion here. That is not very helpful. I have several questions. Do you actually think that this edit didn't make the template better? What exactly do we need to reach a consensus on? What would the template look like if you had your way? If you answer these questions, we might be able to head towards consensus. (Also, please do not make obviously wrong edit summaries such as "rv to last version by JPD" when reverting one of my edits.) JPD (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It should have been "rv to previous version...". My issue has always been that the template should list all regions of Sydney without duplications. More exactly, the problem with Upper North Shore and Lower North Shore. The region has 5 different names. A particular suburb could be in the Lower North Shore, Northern Beaches, North Shore as well as the Northern Suburbs.

Then there is Inner City and Inner East. I expect them to pop up soon. If we sort out the problem with the multiple North Shores on the template, I would be happy. I am not advocating deleting any articles or indeed the template. --WikiCats 11:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is not clear what you mean by "all regions of Sydney without duplications". How do you define a "region of Sydney"? There are no formal areas called regions. At the moment, the standard for inclusion in this template is that the region has an article. What is a duplication? By my understanding of the word, there are no duplications at the moment - there are overlaps and inclusions. There aren't 5 different names for the same region, there are several named regions in which one place may be located. Why shouldn't a suburb be in the Lower North Shore, which is part of the North Shore, which is part of the Northern Suburbs? (I think you are a bit confused about the Northern Beaches, and the N Shore/Suburbs difference needs to be cleared up a bit more in the article.) The only question is which articles should be linked from this template. I would say all of them that deserve articles. I can see an argument for leaving out Upper/Lower North Shore, for the reason that they are in some sense obviously included in the North Shore. I can't agree with leaving out a region simply because it is included in an already mentioned region, because that would mean we couldn't have both St George and Southern Sydney, or both GW and SW Sydney, which would seem to defeat the purpose of the template. It is not possible to include all regions without overlap and inclusion, because the regional distinctions do not arise from a coherent system. As a result, I can't see a problem having Upper and Lower NS included. Given that they are there, it might be better to save space and present them as obviously part of the North Shore, hence my edit. I still do not understand whether you actually think this was not an improvement, or simply feel that no changes at all should be made yet. JPD (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have problems with verifiability. Not only is there no reference for the template, there are no references for all the information in the articles such as suburbs etc. The only thing we can verify is that these terms are used. After that the information is what anyone wants to put. These articles are now the reference(origional research). My concession for the sake of consensus is to deal with the North Shores. --WikiCats 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of making arbitrary concessions, you could listen to what I am saying. The articles should definitely be referenced. That is not the issue here. The issue here is what the template is. You think the template should have some sort of "all regions without duplication" which you have not explained, but sounds like you mean something impossible. I, and from the looks of things others who contributed to the template, think the template is simply there to facilitate navigation to existing articles about regions in Sydney. If the template is as you see it, it would need references. If it is simply a navigational aid, of course the existence of the article is all that is necessary. We should indeed find references for the articles, but in the meantime as far as this template is concerned, could you please answer my basic questions: What is the problem with the North Shores that needs dealing with? Did my edit that you reverted make the template better or worse? JPD (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll live with this for the time being:

CBD | Eastern Suburbs | Greater Western Sydney | Hills District | Inner West | Northern Beaches | North Shore (Lower and Upper) | Southern Sydney | St George | South-eastern Sydney | South-western Sydney

- but it does not address the issue that the list does not have references to back it up. --WikiCats 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what I've said above does address the issue. References are needed for the articles, not this template. Deal with it at those pages. JPD (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you have no objection to the proposal. --WikiCats 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reference for the template

This: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Sydney Statistical Subdivisions looks like the only notable reference for template.

So we could base the template on it. --WikiCats 12:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Sydney_______________will link to Sydney central business district
Eastern Suburbs____________will link to Eastern Suburbs (Sydney)
St George-Sutherland________will link to Southern Sydney
Canterbury-Bankstown_______will link to

Fairfield-Liverpool___________will link to
Outer South Western Sydney_will link to
Inner Western Sydney______will link to
Central Western Sydney_____will link to
Outer Western Sydney______will link to Greater Western Sydney
Blacktown_________________will link to
Lower Northern Sydney______will link to Lower North Shore (Sydney)
Central Northern Sydney_____will link to North Shore (Sydney)
Northern Beaches__________will link to

--WikiCats 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have a reliable reference we can make something of these regional articles. --WikiCats 12:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm.... I don't think so. The fact that some of these Statistical Subdivisions use names that are commonly used in other contexts gives us a reference for those articles about what sort of area is described by that term. It doesn't follow that every statistical subdivision is a region important enough to be on this template. (By the way, St George-Sutherland is

St George, New South Wales, the Inner Sydney SSD is much bigger than the CBD, etc., etc.) JPD (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well it's a good start and the only reliable reference for the Sydney regions we have. It's a good basis for the regional articles and it's the official Government subdivision of the regions.

You know as well as anyone that anything in the encyclopedia has to be based on verifiable sources. You went to the trouble and found this reference. It is probably the best we will find. I say we go ahead and use this reference for the regional articles. --WikiCats 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have already discussed why there is no reliable reference for "the Sydney regions", as there is no such thing as "the Sydney regions". You are righ that it is good to have reliable sources, and that I found these references. I used them as I thought appropriate. I don't think what you are suggesting is actually an appropriate use of the references. The subdivisions are not "the official Government subdivision of the regions", they are areas used for specific purposes by the ABS. As long as we present them like this, it is good. If we present them as anything more than this, it is a misuse of the reference. JPD (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by a misuse of the reference. Do you have another reference for the Sydney regions? --WikiCats 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reference does not tell us anything other than what areas the ABS uses for statistics at the level below the Sydney Statistical Division. To say it is a reference for a list of "the Sydney regions" is misusing it. If I had another reference for "the Sydney regions", I wouldn't be saying that there is not such thing as "the Sydney regions". I will at some point keep looking for references for different Sydney regions, but we need to be careful how we use them. JPD (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this template should contain the Wollondilly Shire. If it does, then we should add the Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury, Gosford and Wyong. I think the template should stick to the 38 councils listed in the Sydney article as commonly refereed to as Sydney. But if Wollondilly is added, it only makes sense to add the other one's that make up the Statistical division. Otherwise, is there anything that makes Wollondilly stand out? Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]