Talk:North Shore (Sydney)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
North Shore (Sydney) 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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] North Shore or Northern Suburbs
I am a bit disturbed by the opening paragraph claiming that "North Shore" or "Northern Suburbs" are both terms used to describe either the area from Middle Harbour to Lane Cove or the whole northern area. I have only ever heard North Shore refer to a smaller area, and "Northern Suburbs" generally refers to the larger area. I don't know why WikiCats originally added the "Northern Suburbs" reference, but I assume J Bar added the whole northern area comment because Northern Suburbs was mentioned. I would like to remove references to northern suburbs and the larger area, or at least spell out how each term is usually used. JPD (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a reference for the exact area covered by North Shore, then Northern Suburbs you should change it. If Northern Suburbs covers some different area according to notable references then we could create an article for that. --WikiCats 12:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a strange double standard. You had no reference for the very strange inclusion of "Northern Suburbs" in the article, and yet you say we need a reference to remove it. Of course there is no reference for the "exact area" because it is not an exact area. A simple google search makes it clear that "northern suburbs" is usually used to describe the bigger area, but this doesn't count as a reliable source, so we will have to work a bit harder. JPD (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Remove Northern Suburbs if you want but there's no double standard. We have to be able to reference everything in Wiki. Since there is no reference for what's in all these articles most of the information will have to be removed. The problem is these so called regions are the outcome of someone's fertile imagination one day and the boundaries of these areas are just as imaginary. Without references about all we can say in these articles is what the regions are called. --WikiCats 11:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- You insisted that I have a reference before removing your unsourced addition. That is not the way it should be, but maybe that is not what you meant. If something has no references and you think it is not true, you remove it. Otherwise, if it is not referenced, then look for references. I am confident that references do exist for most of this stuff, just that they are not easy to find. You are dreaming if you think the regions are the result of a single person's imagination, rather than natural usage over decades. We need to find references documenting this natural usage. The borders are not well defined, but that doesn't make them imaginary. How about we find some references, instead of talking about it. JPD (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Somebody thought up these names to start with. They are not gazetted and there not on any map. I'm challenging them. It's not up to me to find references. --WikiCats 14:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Somebody thought up all the names on maps to start with as well, and most of those required a lot more thinking up than general descriptors such as "north shore". Things can exist and even be worthy of articles without having approval from the Geographical Names Board, you know. What do you mean by "I'm challenging them?". If you want to make this article a good article, then you should find sources. If you don't, then the only reason you could have for saying anything is that you don't think the article should exist. Now, I'm not overly attached to the article, but you haven't given a good reason against. You seem to be saying that because we don't yet have a reference saying "north shore refers to this area...", it doesn't matter that we could easily find references saying that, for example, Chatswood is in the North Shore, not to mention numerous serious references to the region that don't bother to define it? JPD (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations JP on the references you have found. I'll check them out when I have time. --WikiCats 09:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
They're a start, but we need a lot more. JPD (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs more work
This article should be considered a stub, as these is insufficient material on the history of development in the North Shore. External links also need to be added so that people wishing to analyse the historical dynamics of the North Shore can use Wikipedia as a base to navigate the net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.176.209 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Removed Macquarie Park
As Macquarie Park, North Ryde, North Epping, Cheltenham, Pennant Hills, etc, aren't on the North Shore by any definition that I am familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.245.14 (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] North Shore != Northern Suburbs
Let's not kid ourselves. The North Shore most commonly refers to a set of suburbs running generally in parallel to the North Shore train line to Wahroonga, comprising the North Sydney, Mosman and Ku-rin-gai Council areas. The Northern suburbs is a more general area that includes Cheltenham, Epping, Pennant Hills, North Ryde, Macquarie Park, Hornsby etc. An example of this distinction is the Northern Suburbs cemetery at Macquarie Park which is west of the Lane Cove River. The North Shore is bordered to the north and west by Hornsby Shire, the Hills District and Ryde - all of which could be considered Northern Suburbs.
