Talk:Sydney/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Request for comment - 30 April 2020

Per discussion at ANI, as an uninvolved administrator I am closing this RfC because the proposal (significantly changed from the original) would not lead to a clear outcome regardless of whether it was supported or opposed by consensus. Apart from those calling for a close, there are currently two supports: the first has no rationale, just a comment about RfCs (what is it supporting?); the second proposes that unspecified images be rotated every three months. See #Drafting an RfC below for a proposal for a new RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Sydney's page warrant a montage featuring known or recognisable landmarks and attractions? (Bondi Beach, Stadium Australia, Central Station, QVB, skyline, harbour, bridge etc.) Ashton 29 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am willing not to express a position in this RFC, but to close the RFC in 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Procedural close - RFC questions are supposed to be neutral and brief and this is certainly not. Firstly, "Just as many editors seem to support a montage as those who oppose it" is incorrect based on a recent post that shows 6 editors for a montage and 8 against".[1] Claiming that those who support a montage, which is the nominator's position, "are not as vehement in their agenda as those who oppose the montage" and stating an opinion that those who oppose "believe receive pings or updates every time a new discussion is raised about said montage" is not neutral. The second passage quoted is essentially an allegation of canvassing that the nominator has stated on another editor's talk page.[2] Accordingly, this RfC should be closed. Aside from these issues, this RfC is unlikely to achieve any useful outcome, as what constitutes an appropriate image has proven contentious. Almost all of the discussion on this page until recently has been about selecting suitable images, with zero success so, even if the result were to approve a montage with appropriate images, it's unlikely that there would ever be consensus on what images to include. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Completely agree with Procedural close. An RfC that begins with unsupported allegations of improper behaviour is not going to lead to mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Although it probably won't affect your !vote, please note that we had an edit conflict while I was amending my post so you may like to read it again. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- An RFC is quite standard practice to resolve disputes and come to a consensus. - Cement4802 (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Isn't RFC meant to be a request for outside comment? You've made a number of comments in here in support of montages.--Merbabu (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, i initially mistook this section for the support/oppose section - Cement4802 (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
That wasn't a mistake. This is the support/oppose section. Request for comments always always include the comments of people who have already expressed opinions on the matter. Cjhard (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RFC "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors." (bolding is mine for clarity) While you are correct that involved editors often make comment, they shouldn't. I've seen many RfCs derailed thanks to the inevitable ongoing squabbles that result. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for request for outside comments. In discussions above there was no desire to reach a consensus, users torpedoed the ideas of opponents, instead of choosing a agreement. The topic has not been exhausted, for example: in many articles about cities there is no consensus for images in photomontage, a consensus was reached that one photomontage will operate for 3 months, the other for another 3 months. It can be similar here: photomontage will operate for 3 months, single panorama for another 3 months. This is cooperation, consensus - and you and you argue like little children. The consensus is not that one side wins, to find a consensus, both sides often have to give way a little. However, I recommend changing the intro of this RfC to a more neutral one. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
"...users torpedoed the ideas of opponents" Who did that? How? What is the difference between disagreeing and torpedoing? Is that not yet another personal attack? (Once you answer those questions?) Specifically addressing your question - I would disagree with a montage for three months for all the reasons I have already given in opposition to a montage at all, many times above. I would disagree with it for one week, or for one hour, for those same reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You wrote: "I have already given in opposition to a montage at all" - thanks for the idea. Until now, some users wanted photomontage, they gave arguments for photomontage... and dot. You gave your opponents an additional argument: they all should behave the same as you: "I have already given in opposition to a" single panorama at all!!! Either there will be a fair division (for 3 or 6 months each) or there will be no graphics in infobox. You use the scandalous lack of cooperation against us, we will use the same lack of cooperation against you. Maybe you will learn that to make a compromise on difficult subjects both sides must step down. The principle is simple: if there is no clear compromise (similar number of votes) to change to photomontage, and users who support photomontage is against the panorama, so - there is not consensus for panorama!!!!!! So, there is not consensus for panorama!!! Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Request for closure Because of the already identified problems with the RfC question and failure of Ashton 29 to amend the question so that it is both neutral and brief, I have requested closure of this RC at WP:ANRFC. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support procedural Close The RFC is malformed, it is non-neutral and argumentative. - Nick Thorne talk 06:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a montage is necessary when the article body already has 54 images. There's not a city on Earth with that many landmarks in need of illustrating, really. It's overkill. Many city articles need to be pruned and simplified, not stuffed with more images. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the comment on 54 images - it's a massive amount. And yes, it's not just Sydney. happy to assist in that process. Seems easier than the infobox imagery. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support/Oppose for a photomontage

Going through the talk page and its history, this is the current situation for the supports and opposition to the photomontage

Support

Cement4802, Ashton29, Gracchus250, Cjhard, Trainsandtech, PhilipTerryGraham, Eothan,[1] Bookscale,[2] Beatenplastic,[3] CashythedogNovember, [4] Meganesia,[5] ImprovedWikiImprovment,[6] Subtropical-man[7]

Oppose

Merbabu, Hilo48, Nickthorne, Ivan the Boneful, Aussielegend, Bidgee, Camv8, Happy Waldo [3] - Cement4802 (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Note: There has been inappropriate manipulation of data in the "Support" section by Cement4802. Support requires an express indication of support for a montage, not simply involvement in selection of images. Two of the editors above, Eothan and Bookscale have only been involved in selection of images but there is no express indication of support. For comparison, I have been involved in selection of images (for example!) but oppose the montage as presented. Further, one of the editors added by Cement 4802 has not edited here since January 2019. Another only ever made 4 edits on 22 & 23 November 2018, 3 here and one on Ashton 29's talk page. If editors from more than 15 months ago are to be included in the current discussion then all editors in all discussions should be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: You are both edit-warring over a headcount that means nothing. This section should just be hatted. Cjhard (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The original comment by Merbabu is referred to in my post in the RfC because it is relevant to the RfC "question". That Cement4802 has decided to create this section after the RfC section could affect the RfC outcome without rebuttal. There is no edit-warring here but I do agree that it is a useless section. If you believe that the section should be hatted then I would endorse that action by you. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=935014507&oldid=935013789
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=935074027&oldid=935063460
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=881030172&oldid=876377619
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=870062073&oldid=868247553
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=751508827&oldid=751374633
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=809976181&oldid=809975886
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=854600434&oldid=854596155

Drafting an RfC

I have closed #Request for comment - 30 April 2020 above. The question in an RfC needs to be readily understandable to outsiders because the point of an RfC is to attract outside opinion. The question also needs to lead to a clear outcome that can be implemented without further dispute about exactly what should occur. The central issue concerns what image (or images in a montage) should appear in the infobox. It appears that the current disagreement concerns whether the image displayed in recent times should be replaced with a particular montage. In that case, the RfC question should focus on that point. If the dispute were about whether the image should be changed at all, the question would focus on that.

Someone supporting a montage might want two images, while another wants four, and others want seven. That means even if an RfC supported replacing the current image with a montage, there might still be disagreement about exactly what montage. Please use this section to decide:

  1. Should an RfC regarding the infobox image be held?
  2. What brief and neutral question should be asked?

My suggestion for an RfC is: "Should the infobox display the montage shown at permalink (diff) rather than the current image?". Please indicate below if you support an RfC with this wording or with some other wording which you would need to specify. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As i understand, the dispute is not over what images to use - rather it's more fundamental. That is: to have a single image or a montage (ie, more than one).
Thus, RFC should be single image vs. montage/multiple. Then what image/s to use would be a subsequent discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, but please let's get concrete. Do you have a proposed question? Perhaps "Should the current image [link] be replaced with a montage with the montage to be decided in a subsequent RfC?". Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, I think everyone should be thanking Johnuniq for stepping in here, so thankyou. :) Since it is an issue that has been a huge problem in the past, I really think we should be first deciding what images should be included in a montage if a montage were to be included at all. I agree with Merbabu that the dispute is more fundamental than that but so far, every montage discussion has failed because of the images presented by various proposers. For example Special:PermanentLink/953085224 includes a tiny picture of the Opera House, which is an iconic image that should be more prominently displayed. Even if it were, I wouldn't support that particular montage because of the other images that are included. I would support the two-image montage that I posted in #Opportunity - per Subtropical-man's suggestion or even a three-image version that includes File:Sydney (AU), Central Business District -- 2019 -- 2916.jpg but I wouldn't support the seven-image montage posted in #Selection of images for a photomontage. If we were to vote for either a single image or a montage, my vote would have to be a vague "it depends". If were to decide on montage versus single image before selecting images, we might end up with a single image montage, or an empty montage. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
John, format/arrangement is the dispute, not the actual image/s which is a separate discussion...a second RFC for actual image/s choice might not be needed.
For example, I'd prefer a single image as opposed to a montage/multiple, but I'm agnostic about the current image...if someone came up with a better single image, then I'd support a change to that image. I suspect I may not be alone.
It reminds me of the 1999 Australian republic referendum whereby a specific model (ie, image choice) came with a vote for republic. --Merbabu (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your first point as it's been at the image selection phase that every discussion has broken down. I agree with your two other points though. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
So, does that mean you'd support a montage if the selection was OK? As opposed to me, I prefer single image over montage on principle no matter the selection? Personally, I think we must confirm format first...single or montage. After that, image selection is another (and hopefully easier!) discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd support a montage if the images comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE and improved the article. The two-image montage that I suggested above contains images that I think are better than the current image but if we could find a single image that showed both the Opera House and the SHB, I'd prefer that. None of the 7-image montages so far presented do a better job than the current single image and that's where we keep falling down. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The original RFC was inappropriate but I think a well worded one could be beneficial. This dispute needs to be put to bed one way or another as it has been going on for a very long time. Please remember to follow the spirit of the guideline as opposed to the word. Remember that they are not rules. IWI (chat) 12:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy with ""Should the lead contain a single image, or a montage, with the contents of a montage to be decided in a subsequent RfC?" HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That's certainly a valid option. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I would support an RFC worded as HiLo48 has proposed. - Nick Thorne talk 07:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
What happens if there is, as a first step, an RFC on format in principle - ie, single image vs. montage/multiple - but then there is disagreement over the second step (ie, image selection)? Indeed, do we have to have agreement on both steps before a montage is implemented? Or can we implement a montage immediately if it is accepted as the first step - then argue over the second step (image selection)? --Merbabu (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That's a good question. I guess that if the first RfC had a clear consensus for a montage, then any edit which inserted a montage would be ok. Attempts to replace the montage with a single image would be reverted per the RfC. However, if bickering with a slow or fast edit war about which montage were to occur, I would be inclined to revert to the current single image until a second RfC about which montage was complete. Attempts which looked like gaming that by those favoring a single image would quickly result in sanctions. I'm hoping that wording for a first RfC can be decided soon and the RfC started. It looks like HiLo48's wording (in that, should "lead" be "infobox"?) is currently wanted. Let's wrap this up in 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. After we decide which format we will use, we should then wait for an approved selection of photos before doing anything. If we go ahead using any photo we will be back where we started and have people replacing photos they do not like with a photo of their choice. So we should wait until both decisions have been made.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Even though I'd prefer a single image, in terms of moving forward and resolving, I would like a one step then the second step approach. Ie, have the RFC on format first, and if it's a montage, then go ahead and implement a montage and people who can be bothered can edit war over the selection. But at least we've decided and moved on from the format question. One battle sorted. Then if we have to, we RFC the selection. If on the other hand, we had the first step (format) dependent on the second step (selection), then we never move on. --Merbabu (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that whatever we do, there are likely going to be problems. Merbabu's first step seems reasonable, but I don't think we should implement the montage until we've decided on the images that would be suitable. If we end up with a single image montage, which I hope doesn't happen, then we've achieved a result. Including the montage without first selecting is bound to result in stupid edit wars. Have a look at recent edits of the Newcastle, New South Wales montage for example. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
For me, agreeing on and implementing format first, then fighting over selection (including edit wars) within the agreed format is better than being stuck here trying to solve to steps at once - at least the format fight is done and we are fighting on the next step. --Merbabu (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I support an RfC with the suggested wording "Should the infobox display the montage shown at permalink (diff) rather than the current image?" over the question suggested by HiLo48. This question suggested by Johnuniq provides editors with concrete options and examples of what they're actually discussing. The question proposed by HiLo48 discusses the montage/single image debate as an abstracted choice between single images and montages. The issue for me, and I assume for at least some other editors, is that I don't' care about it being an image or a montage in the abstract. What I care about is that on this particular article, with this particular image and this particular montage, the montage is a much better visual representation of the article. Cjhard (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, what's key here is that I don't think the montage in the diff is perfect, I think it's better. These things can always be improved. Cjhard (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The single image that's there now could equally be improved. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would similarly support a suggestion for a better image. Cjhard (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I prefer single image to montage, but I'm not that fussed about the current image either. If someone suggested a better one, then let's go with that. But maybe that's hard. --Merbabu (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with Cjhard's proposed wording. I get that he acknowledges that the montage isn't perfect but the problem is that if we ask "Should we use this specific montage" somebody is going to try to game the system in the future saying "We agreed to this montage" as a way of insisting on that montage. I agree that the montage is not perfect. I've already pointed out that the image of the Opera House is far to small and not prominent enough for one of Sydney's 2 most iconic structures while the other images are not iconic enough. Yes, I'm very well aware of what they are but somebody not from Sydney won't be. If I was asked to vote whether to include that montage or a single image I would support the single image. However, if it was a montage in principle or a montage consisting of the 2 largest photos and File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg (a featured image) I'd support that over the existing image. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Support for the current proposed RFC. Not much else i have to say really, other than to get on with it in any productive and civil way possible - Cement4802 (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: I'm trying to see whether there is a consensus here for a particular wording but I don't follow what "current proposed RFC" refers to. Please quote the wording you support, or at least a timestamp of the comment with the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment AussieLegend makes a good point. Perhaps a reference to a particular montage may be inappropriate, and maybe the wording should be more general. IWI (chat) 05:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Current RfC proposals

The following proposals have some support:

  1. "Should the infobox display the montage shown at permalink (diff) rather than the current image?"
  2. "Should the lead contain a single image, or a montage, with the contents of a montage to be decided in a subsequent RfC?"

Related views:

  1. Everything should be decided in advance (e.g., if a montage, exactly what) before any change to the image.
  2. Deciding on the format (single/montage) would be good progress. Can deal with any disagreement over exactly what should be in the result later, if necessary with another RfC.

If there are known candidates to replace the image, another approach would be to post labeled mockups of each in a new section. The RfC would ask which of those mockups were supported with a tricky evaluation by the closer to choose the replacement.

A problem with proposal #1 above is that someone who would favor a two-picture montage would not be able to have that option considered. A problem with proposal #2 is that the discussions would drag on for another three months. Regarding the related views, I don't think view #1 can be supported in a wiki—if there is consensus for a montage then preventing a change to a montage would be mindless bureaucracy. The good news is that there won't be any edit wars, not without blocks. Is anything missing from this summary? Can we please progress with comments below by each of the participants to see if any consensus for an RfC or RfCs can be reached. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent summary of the discussion so far. I very much agree with the point you make regarding view #1. I think the problem identified with proposal #1 can be easily resolved by adding the two picture montage (presumably the one advocated by AussieLegend) as an option in the RfC. One other minor point I'd make regarding proposal #1 is that the link to the current image should lead to a diff of the page with the image in it, rather than a direct link to the photo. As a photo, it is gorgeous, the issue is that it's a landscape photo jammed into a vertical infobox. Cjhard (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree with Cjhard regarding the current image. It would be great elsewhere in the article and while I do think it's acceptable now, it does have its problems. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think image selection should really be that complicated as some good images have already been suggested. To gauge response, I've created the section titled Image proposals below. If it goes nowhere we can hat it. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Image proposals

Image 1 - Opera House, Circular Quay and CBD
Image 2 - Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay
Image 3 - Opera House, aparently from SHB (a featured picture)
Image 4 - Similar to to Image 33 but of lower quality
Image 5 - Current infobox image

I'm just trying to gauge editors' opinions on these images. Images 1 & 2 are straight from the montage at Special:PermanentLink/953085224. Image 3 is similar to the Opera House image in that montage but is of far better quality. In fact it is a featured picture on commons. For comparison, Image 4 is the actual, much lower quality, image used in the montage. Image 5 is the infobox currently used in the infobox. It's a great image but it doesn't really work in the infobox because of its aspect ratio. As infobox images, are these acceptable to everyone and if not, why? It doesn't matter if you are pro-montage or not, it's really just about the images at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to check commons for suitable images, these seem to be the three most relevant categories:


OK, my 2c worth. Bearing in mind WP:LEADIMAGE and particularly the part where it says the purpose of a leadimage is to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page

Image 1. Opera house is not well depicted, not instantly recognisable as the opera house to readers not overly familiar with Sydney, otherwise a generic cityscape.

Image 2. Indistinguishable to the casual observer from many other bridges around the world of a similar design.

Image 3. IMO the best image of this lot, clearly the Opera House and instantly recognisable to most viewers.

Image 4. OK, but not as good as Image 3.

Image 5. Shows both the Opera House and SHB, but the Opera House is tiny.

In summary, if I had to choose one image, I would pick Image 3: it fulfils the criteria specified in LEADIMAGE and is a single image which is implied there. If the RFC goes for a montage I would pick Images 2 and 3, but only them, as that combination instantly says Sydney - where the bridge alone does not and adding more pictures does not improve the recognition factor that is the crux of LEADIMAGE. That is of course unless someone comes up with a better picture of both the Opera House and the Bridge in single shot in which case I would support that as a sinfle image. - Nick Thorne talk 12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, my 2c worth. - Remember it's Australia. 2c would be rounded down to nothing. ;) Thanks Nick, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind that while the Manual of Style should be considered significantly, it's much more important to follow the spirit of it rather than the word. It is not a firm rule and is open to experimentation. (i.e. if someone proposes something that is slightly different to what the MOS exactly says, it shouldn't be immediately disregarded). IWI (chat) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to go out on a limb here and say that the image (shown on the right) could work well as it clearly shows both the opera house and the structure of the harbour bridge, eliminating the need for two more images and is easily recognizable and fairly recent (being from June 2019). Neither iconic landmark is too small, although the left half of the harbour bridge is obscured by the opera house, I think the bridge is still easily recognizable. Personally, I think this image (or something similar) along with a shot of the Downtown Sydney skyline would serve as the montage most effectively. But that's just my opinion. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Nkon21, that is exactly the sort of photo I was hoping someone would come up with, it gets my vote and no need for more than one image. - Nick Thorne talk 23:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree 100%. The harbour is there too, so it covers all that is instantly recognisable about the city for non-locals. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
That image does have it all. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If anyone has an image/montage they think is a serious contender for an RfC, I suggest editing it into the article then self-reverting. The permalinks could be used for an RfC to decide between viable alternatives. To test that procedure, I just put the image mentioned above into the article and reverted. The edit summaries I used were: 

temporarily try [[:File:Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge Dusk (2) 2019-06-21.jpg]] for consideration on talk; will revert
rv test at [[Special:PermanentLink/955678643]]

The test is at Special:PermanentLink/955678643. We already have a permalink for the seven-image montage and the current image. Please decide what others should be considered and perhaps a simpler RfC question could be used to support one result. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Made this edit a while back. The opera house and bridge would definitely have to be included, and then a few local landmarks such as St Marys or the GPO or the QVB or ANZ stadium etc etc (you get the gist) could be included. I'm happy to discuss what to include and the size of each image (just an example here) but I think the overall layout and number of images in this montage is quite balanced. [4] - Cement4802 (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is about finding an ideal single image, not a montage. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
If the RfC is to consider specific proposals, all links should be welcome. However, please only post those which you actually prefer over all others that you currently are aware of. A good way to run the RfC, if there were a limited number of specific proposals, would be to list links with the question being to select one. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I think there should be an image of downtown, you wouldn't have the NYC infobox just be the Statue of Liberty right? [5] ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not that should be included should not be debated here. If you have a specific suggestion, by all means suggest it here. We can discuss it later. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Meta discussion

I'm afraid this discussion is heading off the rails again. I see significant problems with that comment, as I did with that from Cement4802 above. Given the history of this issue, I'm not sure how much detail I should go into. In previous instances of criticising comments, I (and others) have been accused of personal attacks. Johnuniq - Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what problem there could be with someone making a single, short comment that does not mention other editors, and which includes a link to an image/montage. I would prefer that people unequivocally state that they are proposing their preferred candidate so we could tally up how many proposals there are. If a lot, an RfC where people are asked to select one could be too difficult for a good close. By contrast, if there were, no more than, say, six, an RfC with the specific proposals should get a good result. A discussion shouldn't head off the rails if people restrict themselves to one or two content-focused comments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, we had a rhetorical question about downtown (Sydney), with the Statue of Liberty, obviously NOT in downtown New York, somehow being used to justify it. Sorry, but that makes no sense. And I have felt precisely that about a lot of the pro-montage comments. Many of them don't make sense, amd they fail to address significant issues raised by those with a different view. In ALL the earlier discussions about montages, and not just for Sydney, my objection has ALWAYS been to images that aren't iconic. The earlier parts of this thread highlighted that, as I have said many times before, the only iconic images for Sydney are the opera house, the bridge, and the harbour itself. A single image presented above did that perfectly. Nothing in downtown Sydney is recognisably different to a foreigner from anything in downtown anywhere else. If a tiny image of something squeezed into a montage is not recognisable as part of Sydney to an outsider, there is no point in including it, and that will ALWAYS be the case for a montage for Sydney. (And almost every other city in the world.) And now I feel like I've repeated myself again, again, again, because I have. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Please save that for the RfC. The comment referring to New York was brief and focused on posting a link to a proposed image (a montage of two images) and should be allowed to stand without analysis here. That's because this section is to list image proposals, not debate them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The NYC/Statue of Liberty bit was clearly a debating point. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq's edit showing how File:Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge Dusk (2) 2019-06-21.jpg would look in the infobox convinces me that this is a good image to consider, as is File:Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg from Cement4802's proposal. I don't support the 3 small images in that edit but that's something to be debated elsewhere.
This discussion is about finding an ideal single image, not a montage - Actually, it's about picking images that are suitable either as a single or as part of a montage. Whether we choose a single image or a montage is irrelevant at this point. The main thing is to identify a short-list of images that everyone, hopefully, supports and then choosing which we want in the infobox after the RfC. As Johnuniq indicated, we should be selecting our favourites and presenting them. For now, I'm keeping an open mind and am happy to consider all proposals. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Like there's a rule anyway of what you can and can't discuss; this discussion is about whatever the editors want to discuss surrounding the lead image, HiLo48, like any other Wikipedia discussion. We are looking for images that could be used for either. Images that are outside of the Port Jackson area will also need to be considered. Obviously only one of the above images could be used in a montage. IWI (chat) 02:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And I have every right to point out that images other than the opera house, the bridge and the harbour will likely be meaningless to anyone not from Sydney, especially when shrunk small enough to put in a montage. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
HiLo48 Yep, we all hear you loud and clear. You've consitently made it very clear that you don't want a montage for that reason and we respect that opinion. The editors here supporting a photomontage still maintain their opinion too, and it's unlikely at this stage that it's going to change. We're here to discuss, make compromises and form a consensus now, not repeat ourselves again and again. - Cement4802 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The ONLY reason I continue to repeat myself is that I keep seeing the same repeated ideas from everyone else, seemingly ignoring everything I said last time round. That's what tends to happen with RfCs. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments regarding RfC but unrelated to its drafting

Comments regarding RfC but unrelated to its drafting

Comment I think the influence and power that AussieLegend has is basically one of the main reasons why this is still an ongoing discussion. They may have a lot of experience but their opinion has no more weight than anyone else's on Wikipedia, and we should all take this into account. They are not the boss or the owner of the article despite being an established editor here since 2005. Also, I noticed they have currently been given a bizarre one week block for a reason that I am not familiar with, and as a result will not be able to reply until it is lifted. IWI (chat) 16:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not as powerful as you might think given the "bizarre one week block" that you mentioned. However that has been lifted now. My position here has always been that we should be trying to improve the encyclopaedia in accordance with the policies and guidelines that we are all expected to follow. I am still opposed to montages that contain obscure images or images that are merely decorative but, with a couple of images that have been suggested here I'm less opposed than I was but I do respect that there are others who still oppose a montage. Thank you for informing everyone that I wouldn't be able to participate for a while. I wasn't sure whether most were aware of that. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
You'll always find an admin who holds a grudge I suppose; three quarters of admins make bad decisions often. The comment was nothing personal, I just didn't want people to think that your opinions held any weight over anybody else's. Yes, I thought that it would be worth mentioning that you had been blocked so people didn't think you were simply absent from the discussion (surely a desysop is due for that admin). IWI (chat) 20:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Are any Admins watching this discussion. Surely some sort of sanction is demanded for "I think the influence and power that AussieLegend has..." Obviously not a constructive comment in this discussion. To User:ImprovedWikiImprovment, please just talk about the wording of the RfC, and not other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very much not ideal. User:ImprovedWikiImprovment should avoid observations of that nature, particularly at article talk pages. I have moved side-discussion to a separate section to make it easier to follow the RfC drafting. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
What you're going to sanction me for a comment that is clearly true (which policy?), even probably at the admission of the editor in question? Experienced users often have such influence. It's constructive as it concerns this ongoing discussion directly. Please don't suggest bad faith here as it clearly relates to this discussion. IWI (chat) 05:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It was more of an observation of other Wikipedian's behaviour towards experienced editors than the editor himself. IWI (chat) 05:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq - please shut this down. The person being discussed here was blocked for far less. (OK, the decision was reversed, but....) HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlike "some people" at other venues, I can see both sides here, I understand ImprovedWikiImprovment's comment and nothing said really worries me. I don't think this section adds anything so maybe shutting it down is a good idea. Let's all just concentrate on the RfC wording. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes - this serves no purpose whatsoever. Fleet Lists (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I have warned the user that there must be no further commenting about other editors, regardless of how mild the comments are. This page is (obviously) to discuss proposals to improve the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I will refrain. IWI (chat) 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Circular Quay article...

Hi all - I've placed a comment on Talk:Circular_Quay#What_is_this? if people are interested in commenting. I've posted this seeking broader audience. --Merbabu (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC question

Discussion has slowed down and I have examined the situation so far. I see the following nominations for the infobox image:

I propose:

  1. An RfC in about a week should consider which of a specified list of images should be used.
  2. The RfC should include a proposal that there be a moratorium on further discussions about the image for six months (or a year?).
  3. There should now be a short discussion on whether any additional image proposals should be considered in the RfC, or whether the RfC should be more general (such as, single image vs. montage, with details for a second RfC).

The discussion at #Image proposals above was to identify good images—images which might be used alone, or might be combined in a montage. I listed the above nominations based on some enthusiastic comments in that section. Now is the time to speak up if anyone wants another variation. For a good RfC with a clear outcome, the shorter the list of contenders, the better, so please only include a new nomination if you really think it is better than those already listed. Would anyone interested in having the RfC held soon, please comment even if only to say "go ahead as above". Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There are some images in the montages linked to that I believe would make good candidates while some others would not. I'll refrain from mentioning my preferences for now so as to allow others to make their comments. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's not discuss preferences or whether some images might be good. An RfC will only work if there is a short list of candidates and there is no reason to add another image for consideration unless the nominator is planning to vote for it as better than the alternatives in the RfC. That is, don't nominate an image you think someone else might want to vote for. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I'm happy with the current suggestions for the RFC. Looks pretty inclusive of all the opinions that have been expressed here and I don't see why we shouldn't go ahead with the RFC from here on. (I have a personal preference for the 5 image montage). - Cement4802 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks pretty inclusive of all the opinions that have been expressed here - Nick Thorne has expressed his opinion above that If the RFC goes for a montage I would pick Images 2 and 3, but only them.[6] Image 2 and Image 3 are not in the list of options so he's pretty much forced into voting for a single image. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The current proposal for an RfC is below and Image 3 above is option 3 on its list. If Nick Thorne would prefer to vote for Image 2, he should say that at #Last-chance for opinions on RfC below. Per my request there, that should only be done if his current intention is to vote for Image 2 as preferable over all others on the existing list—don't add an image unless it is your first choice. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Nick Thorne said images 2 & 3, not just one or the other. That's the problem, people are going to have different opinions that are variations of what options are presented and are likely to pick the easiest, not necessarily the best. For example, as far as my own opinions are concerned, I am conflicted. I like the image in option 3 but I wouldn't vote for it because I think you need to include the bridge as well. I like some of the images in options 4 & 5 but I wouldn't vote for either montage as they stand. That leaves only options 1, 2 & 6 and I think most of us don't really favour option 1 any more. For the record, I have a list of images that I like, some more than others. These, not in any specific order of preference are at Special:PermanentLink/957138209. Which images I'd use depends on how many images we'd like in the montage but I doubt it would be more than 3. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
OMG that's far too wishy-washy. Sorry, but once the RfC starts, things will be serious and each participant will need to express an understandable preference. If you don't, you risk derailing the RfC and causing it fail with no clear mandate. At best, your warm thoughts will be ignored as unparsable by the closer. See my "get clear support for an option they can live with" message below. If you can work out a preference (a single image or montage not already in the list), add it at "Last-chance for opinions on RfC" below. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's far too wishy-washy at all. When somebody proposes a montage there is always going to be opposition to one or more of the images unless there has been thorough discussion beforehand. Even then somebody is likely to object. Some of the images that are in options 4 & 5 have been rejected in the past and I expect people to reject them again for the same reasons. If you could present a limited montage with some good images, people against more than a single image might be convinced to go for a montage. I don't think that's going to happen based on all of the previous discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been trying to encourage a thorough discussion for over a week but everyone went quiet. Let me tell you a secret: in an RfC on an image, the closer will ignore rants and waffly "on the one hand this, on the other hand that" posts, and will probably ignore ILIKEIT votes without some pretence of explanation. After that, the closer will essentially count votes. If you don't want to fight over the image for the next year, you need to form a very clear opinion on what you want. Preferably, vote for one image/montage because that's clear and easy to count. However, a vote for first and second preferences would be ok, at the risk of making the closer throw up their hands and declare no consensus. If everyone votes for more than two preferences, a clear outcome is unlikely and I'll probably get bored and move on. That might result in eternal bickering and month-long blocks when trouble next reaches ANI. After deciding what your first preference is, try to persuade others to get their first preference clear. If you can form a faction and work out a preferred candidate, you can probably stack the vote and get a clear outcome that each member of the faction can live with. I'm giving this candid advice in the hope that anyone who cares is reading comments here and will know that I am addressing them as well. Talk pages are for collaboration and compromise to reduce and preferably eliminate disruption. In the next three or so days, people are free to start a new section and propose their top few candidates, and invite comments (please don't do that in one of the sections I started which are for a more specific purpose). The #Image proposals section was good but it is time for people to make up their minds and only propose what they really want. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I am being verballed in the above comments. When I said I would support images 1 & 2 and only those I was referring to the images originally posted at the top of this discussion. Once the image of both the Opera House and SHB in one photo (image 2 below) had been produced I said that this was exactly the type of photo I was hoping someone would produce. I thought made it clear that this single image would be my strong preference. - Nick Thorne talk 15:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if your opinion as far as a montage is concerned was still valid. If the RfC ends with a preference for a montage, it's probably worth having an opinion on what images you would like in the montage. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Given my longstanding view that, for almost all cities, a montage is pointless because the images are far too small for anyone but locals to know what they represent, I reserve my right to not care. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft RfC: What image should appear in the infobox at Sydney?

Regarding the image in the infobox at Sydney:
(a) What image should be displayed?
(b) Should there be a moratorium on image changes and discussion for 12 months?
~~~~

Image options include:

  1. Permalink • Current image 14 May 2020
  2. Permalink • Opera House and Bridge 9 May 2020
  3. Permalink • Opera House 16 May 2020
  4. Permalink • Five-image montage 31 July 2019
  5. Permalink • Seven-image montage 25 April 2020
  6. Permalink • Two-image montage 9 May 2020
Looking good. Let's go with it - Cement4802 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Last-chance for opinions on RfC

Any opinions on the above Draft RfC? Please, no votes and no comments on the merits of each choice—save that for the RfC. Three days have elapsed with no feedback in this section so people wanting to add a nomination after the RfC starts should be prepared for pushback. If someone has a brilliancy which gets quick support, a new nomination would be fine. However, just adding suggestions could derail the RfC and would be regarded as disruptive. Opinions on whether this RfC format is desirable are welcome now (but not later!). Any alternative suggestions for an RfC? Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A question - and sorry if it's been asked above - i understand that we are looking for outside input, and those who have already participated are not meant to respond to the RFC. Is that correct? --Merbabu (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the aim of an RfC, but no outsiders will notice this page until an active RfC starts (and they might not participate even then). My request for opinions is for the people watching this page to speak up. Without feedback, I have formed the view that the RfC should be as above. However, if someone has an alternative, now is the time to say so. Everyone should respond to the RfC, not just outsiders. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq - I am concerned that we are now going to simply see yet another repeat of the claims, refutations, and counter claims that have been made in the past. I didn't find those earlier discussions terribly enlightening. In fact I found them frustrating and disturbing. What will stop that happening again? HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
If you mean during the RfC, I will ensure that participants focus on content and strictly follow CIVIL. Yes, there will be a rehash of earlier discussions, but it will be warm and friendly, without excessive repetition because that is a form a disruption. Of course people are able to challenge my opinions on that, but irreconcilable differences will be sorted out at ANI so would need care. If you mean after a successful close of the RfC with a reasonably clear mandate that selects an image and supports the moratorium in (b), I will ensure that its terms are followed. If the RfC does not show a clear mandate, there will be ongoing trouble. Anyone wanting to avoid that should work constructively to get clear support for an option they can live with, rather than splitting the vote by insisting on an image that only one or two others support. The reason things are different now is that the recent ANI fuss means the admin noticeboard is likely to support any cowboy admin action that enforces peace and quiet. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I look forward to the warmth and friendliness. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I do think that the options should include Special:PermanentLink/957536484. There should be more than one large image montage options as small, hard to see images have been quite a sticking point in the past. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC notes

Would everyone please add a considered view in the RfC below.
Preferably select a single number from the options, but two numbers
(first and second preferences) would be fine.
Give a brief reason for your preference.
Also answer question (b).
Do not mention other editors.
Make your point once, and do not repeat it.
In principle any suggestions can be considered, but they would risk
making the RfC too complex for a clear close.
Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description

In June 2019 the short description "State capital of New South Wales and most populous city in Australia and Oceania" was added to the article.[7] On 11 August 2019, Jozamba changed this to "Metropolis in Australia".[8] For some reason, Jozamba then removed it on 29 October,[9] and another editor added "Largest city in Australia" on 23 November.[10] That remained the description until yesterday, when Jozamba decided "City in Australia" was a "better description".[11] I disagree with that but instead of simply reverting, I changed it to "Most populous city in Australia". That was reverted without explanation by Jozamba,[12] and I would really like an explanation as to why "City in Australia" is better than any of the other options and why Jozamba has seen it necessary to make so many changes to what should be a simple statement. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a better like that. Short descriptions not need for long words. A city in Australia is much better. Hopefuly you understand and have a great day. Jozamba (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Jozamba, I have moved your post from the completely unrelated section that you added it to. I completely disagree that "City in Australia" is better. Wikipedia:Short description says that "The short description of a Wikipedia article or other mainspace page is a concise explanation of the scope of the page." Concise does not mean "make it as short as possible", it means "brief, yet including all important information" and "city in Australia" does not meet the definition of concise. "State capital of New South Wales and most populous city in Australia and Oceania", "Largest city in Australia" and "Most populous city in Australia" are all acceptable according to the example that Wikipedia:Short description uses for scuba diving: {{short description/test|Underwater diving where breathing is from equipment independent of the surface }} This is the sort of length that the short description for this article should be. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that Jozamba was reverted by Nkon21 who also thought that Jozamba's response was not an imporovement. Jozamba's response was to edit-war rather than discuss.[13] Jozamba has made similar edits at Sydney (disambiguation). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
For once, i'm with you on this AussieLegend. Sydney is the largest/most populous city and the description should remain that. Nothing excessive about that at all. - Cement4802 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Just noting that i have a few minutes ago reverted an edit by Juzamba which removed the short description altogether. If may be that if there was edit warring previously it has returned ~ i haven't taken a long look at the history. I think it now says simply "City in Australia", but that's only because that was the most recent description, not because that's what i think it should be; happy days, LindsayHello 17:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Courtesy correction of my mis-ping, Juzamba happy days, LindsayHello 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    I have restored the previous description that was changed with this edit. That said, {{Infobox Australian place}} is supposed to add short descriptions to each article. I'm not sure how exactly to check whether the functionality actually works. I suspect their may be some sock/meatpuppetry involved given the timing of the most recent edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought on the "most populous" description. While currently accurate, it doesn't tell us much. Could we use something more like "City in Australia with approximately 5 million inhabitants". At least that would give readers some idea of the size. The same should also apply to Melbourne. Sydney and Melbourne are very similar in population. Differences depend on where someone decides the city boundaries are, and that's pretty arbitrary. Note that I am not pushing Melbourne's barrow. I live there and wish it wasn't growing at the rate it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of a short description is to provide disambiguation for users of the mobile app when searching. In the case of searching for a name which matches a city, all that is needed is an indication that it is a city in a certain country. The less verbiage the better. If a change were wanted, I recommend asking at WT:Short description in an attempt to get some uniformity. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney/Archive_8&oldid=979472207"