AussieLegend (talk | contribs) |
→Image suggestions: comment |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
:{{Reply to|Eothan}} An image of Usyd's Jacaranda would be great, but the problem is that the Jacaranda we know [https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/10/29/university-community-mourns-jacaranda-tree-collapse.html is no longer there]. Since the harbour already features prominently in two of the images, I think it'd be in the interest of variety to highlight the [[Sydney Trains]] system in some way instead. Perhaps people would like an image of the trains themselves instead? Also, I see no problem with the field of view of the current image for Bondi Beach - a larger field of view would make things a bit more indescribable, I'd think. – ''<span style="color:#00543c;">PhilipTerryGraham</span> ([[User talk:PhilipTerryGraham|talk]] <b>·</b> [[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Articles|articles]] <b>·</b> [[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Reviews|reviews]])'' 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
:{{Reply to|Eothan}} An image of Usyd's Jacaranda would be great, but the problem is that the Jacaranda we know [https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/10/29/university-community-mourns-jacaranda-tree-collapse.html is no longer there]. Since the harbour already features prominently in two of the images, I think it'd be in the interest of variety to highlight the [[Sydney Trains]] system in some way instead. Perhaps people would like an image of the trains themselves instead? Also, I see no problem with the field of view of the current image for Bondi Beach - a larger field of view would make things a bit more indescribable, I'd think. – ''<span style="color:#00543c;">PhilipTerryGraham</span> ([[User talk:PhilipTerryGraham|talk]] <b>·</b> [[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Articles|articles]] <b>·</b> [[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Reviews|reviews]])'' 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::{{Reply to|PhilipTerryGraham}} The image could be of the main quad at Usyd & we could use Many wharf - I would argue the harbour is a really iconic feature of Sydney and it would be best to use images of most recognised places - I'm not sure central station is one of these - perhaps George street with the new trams? Not really that concerned about the Bondi picture others feel it is Ok so I'm happy to go with it. [[User:Eothan|Eothan]] ([[User talk:Eothan|talk]]) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
::{{Reply to|PhilipTerryGraham}} The image could be of the main quad at Usyd & we could use Many wharf - I would argue the harbour is a really iconic feature of Sydney and it would be best to use images of most recognised places - I'm not sure central station is one of these - perhaps George street with the new trams? Not really that concerned about the Bondi picture others feel it is Ok so I'm happy to go with it. [[User:Eothan|Eothan]] ([[User talk:Eothan|talk]]) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::What about a Sydney Ferry? They are the most iconic Sydney form of transport and represent Sydney better than a shot of Central railway station or the new trams would. Perhaps [[:File:Sydney_Ferry_Golden_Grove.jpg|this]], or [[:File:Bungaree,_Circular_Quay,_2017_(01).jpg|this]] or [[:File:Pemulwuy,_Circular_Quay,_2017_(02).jpg|this]]? And do we have a Sculpture By The Sea photo to combine with Bondi (which would do a cultural event and iconic beach in the same photo)? [[User:Bookscale|Bookscale]] ([[User talk:Bookscale|talk]]) 08:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with your edit entirely. Sydney as much as many other cities both in Australia and around the globe deserves a montage to represent the varied culture and institutions of any metropolitan city of its size. Also consider an image of NSW Parliament House, such as the one from its article. Cheers [[User:Trainsandtech|trainsandtech]] ([[User talk:Trainsandtech|talk]]) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
I agree with your edit entirely. Sydney as much as many other cities both in Australia and around the globe deserves a montage to represent the varied culture and institutions of any metropolitan city of its size. Also consider an image of NSW Parliament House, such as the one from its article. Cheers [[User:Trainsandtech|trainsandtech]] ([[User talk:Trainsandtech|talk]]) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: Great! I think its gotten ridiculous that we still don't have a montage just because a few overly picky editors would rather bicker than agree on something. Here are some of my suggestions. Not all of them have to be used, and they don't have to exactly be the images i have chosen. |
::: Great! I think its gotten ridiculous that we still don't have a montage just because a few overly picky editors would rather bicker than agree on something. Here are some of my suggestions. Not all of them have to be used, and they don't have to exactly be the images i have chosen. |
||
Line 123: | Line 124: | ||
Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg |
Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg |
||
[[User:Cement4802|Cement4802]] ([[User talk:Cement4802|talk]]) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:Cement4802|Cement4802]] ([[User talk:Cement4802|talk]]) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
=== General discussion === |
=== General discussion === |
||
Revision as of 08:57, 10 January 2020
Sydney was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Photo montage
A bit confused as to why a photo montage for such a major city, and thus such an important article, is still lacking on this page. A photo montage on the top of a major city's page seems to be a thing for most other cities, so why is it not for the Sydney page? Cement4802 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- The most recent discussions regarding this issue are at Talk:Sydney/Archive 6. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- In the various archived discussions for the montage there seemed to be repeated support for the idea of a montage, with a few editors firmly against the concept. Much of the discussion seems to be a debate over what the content of the montage should be, which is understandable and isn't a reason not to have a montage. I would support any editor's efforts to compile a montage for Sydney, as it is an effective way to visually introduce a large city. I think a discussion over what should be included is healthy and I would encourage all Australian editors to engage in that in a productive and positive way.Gracchus250 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I for one support a photomontage, as this article is essentially castrated without one. Sydney is not just a bridge and an opera house, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's hardly castrated. This and hundreds of thousands of other articles exist with only a single image. However, that's not the real problem. It's what images to include, which you'll see has been discussed in the previous discussion that I linked to. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- "Sydney is not just a bridge and an opera house, after all." I would add the harbour itself, and then stop. Sydney is a large modern city, otherwise visually indistinguishable from almost any other large city in the world. I have said the same thing for several other cities. (It really annoyed the Brisbane people when I said it about their city.) Photo montages tend to only prove my point. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, I think a montage looks much better and is a better visual introduction to the city than the current small pano. I also like your montage. The fact this has been discussed before is irrelevant. We could spend ages debating which spots are more significant but at some point it's worth just putting up a montage and it can be adjusted and edited over time like all things on wikipedia, as views change and evolve.Gracchus250 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Since it has been 20 days and there has been no objection to a montage, nor any further discussion of the topic or of what photos should be included, I'd encourage User:PhilipTerryGraham to repost their montage into the article. Their montage was high quality and had a lot of effort put into it. In this spirit of WP:BOLD I think it'd best to post the montage into the article, then we can debate on the talk page which images to switch out and replace with alternative images. Otherwise this page will talk in circles forever like the past and this will never get changed. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- "...there has been no objection to a montage" Did you actually read my post? I DO object to the standard city montage. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I read your post and it did not make a clear point at all. What is your objection? That a montage highlights your personal view that big cities all look the same? Gracchus250 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. If you didn't understand my post, how could say there has been no objection to a montage? Seriously, have a look at the montages in several other city articles. Do they really show you anything unique about each city? HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, so there clearly is opposition. In response to your point, city montages clearly and effectively demonstrate the ways in which cities are unique and different and effectively showcases a variety of features, it's doesn't take many examples to demonstrate this (e.g. compare pages for Copenhagen, Florence and Osaka). This criticism doesn't make any sense to me. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. If you didn't understand my post, how could say there has been no objection to a montage? Seriously, have a look at the montages in several other city articles. Do they really show you anything unique about each city? HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I read your post and it did not make a clear point at all. What is your objection? That a montage highlights your personal view that big cities all look the same? Gracchus250 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- "...there has been no objection to a montage" Did you actually read my post? I DO object to the standard city montage. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I too oppose a montage that does not contain images that truly and obviously represent Sydney. For example, one of the images in the montage was File:ANZ Stadium, Essendon (cropped).jpg, the uploader's caption for which is "Our view, great position, no sun and with the Essendon crowd". This is a photo of a Victorian football club playing AFL (a Victorian football game) and is not representative of Sydney or NSW where NRL is the predominant game. The stadium itself is in NSW but it's not the focus.
there has been no objection to a montage, nor any further discussion of the topic or of what photos should be included
- There is clearly opposition to a montage and discussion of what sort of photos to include has occurred at previous discussions.In this spirit of WP:BOLD I think it'd best to post the montage into the article, then we can debate on the talk page which images to switch out and replace with alternative images.
- The original addition was the bold edit. That was reverted and this discussion was opened. There is no need to do it all again. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)- Great, I agree that photo or something like it should be included. I disagree with your assessment, the only criticism I saw came from you about which photos to include not on the use of a montage itself. Frankly you've been gatekeeping this photo montage business for a long time, because you seem to have strong opinions about the included photos. Which is fine and good, but there was and is no active discussion, so it's a better process to start with a montage then replace the photos depending on people's thoughts and objections, otherwise the conversation go around and around and the end result is no change (which is silly and is the end result of unnecessary gatekeeping). And you shouldn't be rude about other people's attempts to create a montage and they did a great effort based on what they think, they should be allowed to do this and have other people add to it and be constructive rather than needlessly negative and counterproductive. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Typically, the montages being included were single images so
start[ing] with a montage then replace[ing] the photos depending on people's thoughts and objections
was not a better practice as it meant creating a whole new image. I think it's better to gain consensus on which photos to use before adding a montage. And you shouldn't be rude
- pot. kettle. black.Frankly you've been gatekeeping this photo montage business for a long time
is being rude. I have merely been trying to keep relevant photos in the article, which has become a bit of an image farm, with 52 images, or 1 per every 277 words of readable prose. In doing so, those wishing to add a montage have not offered alternative images to those that are opposed or when alternatives are suggested, have not offered a new montage, which is their responsibility, not of those opposing inappropriate images. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)- You may think that statement was rude, but I'd encourage you to reflect on being more welcoming and supportive to new contributors and try and avoid unhelpful gatekeeping.
In doing so, those wishing to add a montage have not offered alternative images to those that are opposed or when alternatives are suggested, have not offered a new montage, which is their responsibility, not of those opposing inappropriate images.
These prior debates and the actions of editors in your opinion not offering the right images aren't relevant to a new edit. Again, this is why it's helpful to start with a montage and then discuss changes. As you can see there's no discussion currently taking place about a montage, so this approach has had the effect of tampering down debate, useful edits and change. Again, I'd encourage the original editor to post their montage. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)- Since that montage is opposed, it would be inappropriate to repost it. It needs consensus to repost it.
As you can see there's no discussion currently taking place about a montage
- Until such time as there is discussion, there is not consensus to add a montage. I'm sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia works. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- You may think that statement was rude, but I'd encourage you to reflect on being more welcoming and supportive to new contributors and try and avoid unhelpful gatekeeping.
- Typically, the montages being included were single images so
- Great, I agree that photo or something like it should be included. I disagree with your assessment, the only criticism I saw came from you about which photos to include not on the use of a montage itself. Frankly you've been gatekeeping this photo montage business for a long time, because you seem to have strong opinions about the included photos. Which is fine and good, but there was and is no active discussion, so it's a better process to start with a montage then replace the photos depending on people's thoughts and objections, otherwise the conversation go around and around and the end result is no change (which is silly and is the end result of unnecessary gatekeeping). And you shouldn't be rude about other people's attempts to create a montage and they did a great effort based on what they think, they should be allowed to do this and have other people add to it and be constructive rather than needlessly negative and counterproductive. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Selection of images for a photomontage
I'm being encouraged by Gracchus250 to open up a discussion on the selection of photos to be used in a potential photomontage for this article. I believe this to be an effort to produce a better-curated selection of images in the hope that such a curated photomontage will ultimately be agreed upon for inclusion in the article to replace an inadequate lead image. The motivation behind my bold edit to replace the current image, File:Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg, was derived from two things that bothered me greatly; a) it was too cramped for a 3:1 image viewed at a thumbnail size, meaning the only discernible thing in the image was the Harbour Bridge, and nothing really much else, and b) it did not represent the city beyond the CBD. It is my understanding than numerous discussions have taken place on the inclusion of a photomontage, (July–November 2010, May 2012, November 2016, August 2018, August–October 2018, November 2018–January 2019) with no meaningful resolution, but the matter of fact is that there has been a demand from numerous editors over literally a decade to include an adequate and illustrative photomontage as a lead image. I think it's time we recognise this and finally deliver upon it.
My initial selection of images was inspired by a need to illustrate the harbour better (File:Sydney skyline from the north aerial 2010 (cropped).jpg and File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay (cropped).jpg) and to illustrate the city's culture, education, transport, and leisure. The inclusion of images of Stadium Australia – the city's largest and most important stadium – and Bondi Beach – the city's most famous leisure landmark – were especially important. In the previous discussion, the inclusion of File:ANZ Stadium, Essendon (cropped).jpg was challenged as it did not accurately represent the city's sporting culture; it illustrated an Australian rules football game instead of a Rugby league game. This has now been replaced with File:State of Origin Game II 2018 (cropped).jpg. Any further suggestions for images are highly encouraged. Any further changes agreed upon in this discussion will be reflected using the {{Image frame}} box on the right.
Pinging every single currently active user involved in any of the previous seven discussions on this topic – Ashton 29, AussieLegend, Beatenplastic, CamV8, Cement4802, Eothan, HappyWaldo, HiLo48, ImprovedWikiImprovment, Merbabu, Subtropical-man, and Trainsandtech. WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Australian places, WikiProject New South Wales, WikiProject Sydney and WikiProject Cities have all been notified of this discussion as well. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Image suggestions
I'm happy with most of these but I have suggested an image file of Usyd would be more iconic and perhaps also be better composed than the current UNSW image. I agree is good to have a shot of Bondi but perhaps a more panoramic shot of Bondi would help bring down the tonal range as the current Bondi image stands out against the others the rest. I had a quick look but couldn't locate one of big enough file size but am sure there must be one in commons. I'm not sure what others think but the central station image seems to be a little lacklustre - perhaps a view of Manly or the ferries as that is the other most visited tourist destination? Eothan (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Eothan: An image of Usyd's Jacaranda would be great, but the problem is that the Jacaranda we know is no longer there. Since the harbour already features prominently in two of the images, I think it'd be in the interest of variety to highlight the Sydney Trains system in some way instead. Perhaps people would like an image of the trains themselves instead? Also, I see no problem with the field of view of the current image for Bondi Beach - a larger field of view would make things a bit more indescribable, I'd think. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: The image could be of the main quad at Usyd & we could use Many wharf - I would argue the harbour is a really iconic feature of Sydney and it would be best to use images of most recognised places - I'm not sure central station is one of these - perhaps George street with the new trams? Not really that concerned about the Bondi picture others feel it is Ok so I'm happy to go with it. Eothan (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- What about a Sydney Ferry? They are the most iconic Sydney form of transport and represent Sydney better than a shot of Central railway station or the new trams would. Perhaps this, or this or this? And do we have a Sculpture By The Sea photo to combine with Bondi (which would do a cultural event and iconic beach in the same photo)? Bookscale (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: The image could be of the main quad at Usyd & we could use Many wharf - I would argue the harbour is a really iconic feature of Sydney and it would be best to use images of most recognised places - I'm not sure central station is one of these - perhaps George street with the new trams? Not really that concerned about the Bondi picture others feel it is Ok so I'm happy to go with it. Eothan (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your edit entirely. Sydney as much as many other cities both in Australia and around the globe deserves a montage to represent the varied culture and institutions of any metropolitan city of its size. Also consider an image of NSW Parliament House, such as the one from its article. Cheers trainsandtech (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Great! I think its gotten ridiculous that we still don't have a montage just because a few overly picky editors would rather bicker than agree on something. Here are some of my suggestions. Not all of them have to be used, and they don't have to exactly be the images i have chosen.
Sydney (AU), Coastal Cliff Walk -- 2019 -- 2335.jpg Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg St Mary's Cathedral - panoramio.jpg General Post Office, Sydney.jpg Sydney Opera House At Night 2.jpg Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg Cement4802 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
General discussion
My position on montages for cities in general is that they are almost always rather pointless. Sadly, cities today the world over are ridiculously similar. Sydney as a city has two and a half images that are instantly recognisable - the bridge, the opera house, and perhaps the harbour itself. Beyond that, nothing in that sample screams "Sydney!" at me. Noting that the pics are shrunk anyway to squeeze into a montage, the football ground and beach could be anywhere, and I have no idea what the other three are. So what's the point of the montage? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have no suggestions for images but I still agree that the lead image is frankly absurd. How can that small image summarise this city adequately? We need a photomontage. I’m not sure about the stadium, but apart from that it seems mostly good although would need a lot of discussion. Hopefully this discussion won’t be dominated and then essentially closed by the same editor again who I won’t name. IWI (chat) 22:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just because they aren’t recognisable, doesn’t make them irrelevant. The point is to educate, not to show people stuff they already know. IWI (chat) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- "The point is to educate..." How is that going to happen? "...not to show people stuff they already know." So why include the bridge and the opera house? HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the images are too cliche or aren't instantly recognisable. This page isn't a tourist brochure. Isn't the point of a photomontage to simply summarise a city with a few well picked, quality images? Sydney is Sydney, and you can't change how iconic or uniconic its cityscape and landmarks areCement4802 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would have hoped my post above made it clear that I don't know what the point of a photomontage is, and nobody has been able tell me here. We certainly don't want one in this article simply because other city articles have them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Cement4802: - Have you ever actually read MOS:LEADIMAGE? Let me quote some parts of it: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.", "The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there", "Lead images are not required", and "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". Lead images aren't there to educate the reader, they are there to confirm to the reader they are at the right article, so they should be instantly recognisable. That's why we pick images like the opera house, bridge and harbour. They are things that people know. The place to educate readers is in the body of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would have hoped my post above made it clear that I don't know what the point of a photomontage is, and nobody has been able tell me here. We certainly don't want one in this article simply because other city articles have them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just because they aren’t recognisable, doesn’t make them irrelevant. The point is to educate, not to show people stuff they already know. IWI (chat) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)