Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Newcastle, New South Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Information from Newcastle, New South Wales (or a previous version of it) is being actively used in the pool of 'Did you know?' facts on the Energy Portal.

Newcastle Meetup Newcastle Meetup Next: TBA Last: 16/06/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

Archives

Archive 1 - to 24 October 2007

Contents 1 Referencing 2 Population 3 Newcastle today 4 Sports

[edit] Referencing

The following was in response to comments by JRG which he has now decided to delete from this page. --AussieLegend 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: this was not deleted. I moved the talk discussion to User talk:AussieLegend where it belonged in the first place as it had become a personal argument - and rightly does not belong on a talk page of an article. JRG 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time of your last edits on 16 October there were two different forms of referencing in use in this article. I converted all references, with the exception of the those in the "Newcastle Today" section, 2 of which duplicated other references that already existed in the first section, to the same style. Once referencing has been standardised it isn't appropriate for you to change all of the references to a different style simply because you prefer that type of referencing. If people do that we can go back and forth all day claiming that one or the other form is acceptable. The system you prefer is no more flexible than the other form. yyyy-mm-dd in NOT an American format. You're thinking of mm-dd-yyyy. In any case, the dates display in the Australian format so this issue is trivial and irrelevant, as is your argument regarding "retrieved". The references as you have changed them are no more accurate than the references that existed before your latest reversion

While changing the referencing to your preferred format you've reverted numerous valid edits, including corrections to incorrect edits that you've made. For example:

As the Greater Newcastle region is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales, Newcastle as its major city has an extensive system of both road links and public transport services which cover most areas of the city. Within Newcastle city, the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

The article is about the Newcastle metropolitan area, not Greater Newcastle. The opening sentence implies that Newcastle has its "extensive system of both road links and public transport services" because it "is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales". This is not correct. Newcastle has the network because it is a large urban locality. It also ignores the fact that the public rail system is limited only to major rail corridors and everywhere else has no rail transport at all.ie this form of public transport is by no means "extensive". References to "Newcastle city" are misleading because Newcastle City is officially just the Newcastle LGA and the information in the citation refers to both the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs within the Newcastle metropolitan area.

There was no need for your latest reversion. There was nothing wrong with the article as I left it. (diffs) The edits I made were entirely valid so I'm reinstating them, as well as the referencing. You'll note also that I didn't simply revert your earlier edits. I restored all of your valid edits so you didn't have to. Some of the information though is unnecessary (eg giving transport population percentages as well as population figures - you don't need both) so I haven't restored those. Please don't be pushy and try to force only your opinions and preferences into the article. Remember, individual editors don't own articles. --AussieLegend 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the transport figures was a simple case of removing unnecessary data. You don't need both percentages and actual figures. That said, I'm happy to leave them in if you really want to push the issue but they confuse matters because of the way that they were presented. That's why I edited them out.

"You've wanted to define everything to do with this article ever since you started editing it, and everything you don't like you just revert."

I'm afraid that's just rubbish. The first real edits I made to this page were changing some images and YOU reverted them.[1] You've continued on a number of occasions since then, including your latest edits where you reverted valid edits abck to just the way you wanted them and to the referencing style that you prefer. This continual reversion of valid edits is a clear display of WP:OWN.

"I made an attempt to fix things up, not destroy others' work like you are doing. You had several articles referenced which did not have access dates or authors, and I added them accordingly."

Several of those references weren't my own and there is no mandated requirement to include access dates or authors. Your efforts to add information to references is to be commended but you've done your fair share of destroying the work of others. I went to the trouble of standardising the article on one refewrencing method. You then changed all the references to your own preferred method. I made several quite valid efforts and you reverted them to just the way you wanted it. That, my friend, is destroying other peoples work, especially when your reversions reintroduce errors that others have corrected.

"I state again you do not have to use the cite template format, and it's easier not to, because it's more flexible for the reasons I stated above. You are yet to give me a valid reason why they are not."

I actually rebutted your reasons above. The point is, if you know how to reference neither system is really more flexible than the other. There is nothing in your referencing that isn't in the referencing that I standardised the article to on 16 October. You've just come along, decided you didn't like it and changed everything. That's not appropriate and it disrepects the efforts of others to improve the article.

"You also didn't read the sentence I wrote about the Newcastle area - I said because Newcastle city is the largest city within Greater Newcastle, it does have an extensive public transport system"

That's not what you actually wrote though, is it? Your original edit on 9 October was:

As the Greater Newcastle region is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales, Newcastle has an extensive system of both road links and public transport services which cover most areas of the city. Within the city, the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

I corrected that on 16 October to read:

Like any large city, the Newcastle metropolitan area has an extensive system of both road links and road based public transport services which cover most areas of both Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. Rail transport, however, is accessible to only a relatively small percentage of the population along the major rail transport routes and ferry services are restricted to those commuting between Newcastle and Stockton. Within the city the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

This was an improvement in the article because it eliminated the reference to the Greater Newcastle area, clarified the situation regarding rail and introduced information on the ferry system. In a clear display of WP:OWN you reverted those edits and made a couple of tiny changes that only served to add more confusion:

As the Greater Newcastle region is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales, Newcastle as its major city has an extensive system of both road links and public transport services which cover most areas of the city. Within Newcastle city the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

"And please stop replying with lengthy discussions - they are unwarranted."

I'm sorry you don't like my replies but your edits are wrong and I'm simply justifying why. Claiming that what I write is unwarranted is somewhat hypocritical given that you've made such claims as "You are yet to give me a valid reason why they are not."

Your latest reversions have once again destroyed valid edits and your actions are now bordering on vandalism. Please stop and allow other people to edit the article. --AussieLegend 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You actually haven't made the claim that Newcastle has the second-largest public transport network. The way in which you've presented the information says that Newcastle has an extensive public transport system because Greater Newcastle is the second largest urban area in the state. That's why it was edited. I agree with everything else you've said in the rest of the praragraph. --AussieLegend 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is stupid so why not let other people edit the article instead of just reverting what other people have added or improved upon which you are continuing to do? I don't see where anyone has argued over definitions of what Newcstle is. We agreed that this article is about the metropolitan area a long time ago. --AussieLegend 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population

I've now updated the population based on the 2006 Census according to the "Urban Locality" division, which is the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Council areas. The transport statistics reveal a blank page, so we may have to wait a couple of days before it's fixed and we can change these stats. JRG 13:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This new figure means that the current area and population density figures are no longer valid as they are for the whole of the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs and the UCL doesn't cover the whole area. --AussieLegend 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming in to say I've pulled the area out of the BCP, but seems others are onto this. :) Will do density now (never occurred to me that it wasn't there!) Orderinchaos 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newcastle today

To JRG: I only added the hidden comment about the shipbuilding industry being true because there are quite a few editors who will delete text with the {{fact}} tag after it has been present for a while and the comment was simply advice for other editors although, since WP:CITE specifically says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source", not "everything needs a source" and you're not challenging the information, at least according to your comment, the tag probably isn't needed. In fact, despite it being common knowledge, it probably won't be possible to find a citation. A lack of government contracts, particularly in the region of defence, is a major factor that has affected the viability Carrington Slipways at Tomago (now Forgacs) and ADI at Carrington and closed the Rushcutter class minehunter production facility at Tomago and the State Dockyard in Newcastle but it's unlikely that a reference that confirms this exists. --AussieLegend 02:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports

Much of the content in this section reads like a tourist brochure. (As a Novocastrian, I do agree with some sentiments here, but they are not encyclopedic). I'll make some edits to restore NPOV. Bruiseviolet (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found in my time editing cities that sports and music seem to be the two things that attract the most cruft - I'm still not sure why. All of the capital cities bar one lost their GA status a few months ago because of this sort of stuff. Orderinchaos 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)