From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Yet another Sydney districts discussion[edit]

Since I missed out on all the fun, time to re-start the discussion. I think the outer suburbs should be all be merged in as shown by the sparseness of the articles, with not much to see or do. South Sydney joins with Eastern Suburbs to become Eastern Sydney, Canterbury-Bankstown (which has no presence at all) joins with South West and St George to become Southern Suburbs. North West + Upper North Shore = Northern Suburbs and Outer West + Parramatta = Western Suburbs.

If possible, Sutherland Shire could also join Southern Suburbs, and Northern Beaches to Northern Suburbs, but it might be too much. That's about 11 districts cut down to 8. The top-level stuff like Bondi Beach and Manly are highlighted on the map. - Torty3 (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think the current system is way too detailed, throwing various suburbs at the traveller, when there should be a brief outline on what are the specific attractions of the area. Not many do venture out beyond the Inner West. For example, in Southern Suburbs, I would just point out Brighton-Le-Sands, Bankstown and Cabramatta which will be of interest to travellers (probably not Bankstown). - Torty3 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
If they don't venture there, then they don't need to read the guide, do they? The Sydney suburbs you mention should be picked out in the Sydney article --Inas (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I understand that district discussion has been going on for what seems like forever. I think you've done a great job in already defining the main boundaries, but I feel that it can be and has to be further refined. I hope you'll agree that my considerably fresher eyes will lend a new perspective.
Sure, maybe people don't venture out, but perhaps rather than a flippant answer of you're not coming here, so don't read this, shouldn't the guide be the one highlighting the things to see and do - read this, isn't it nice, come and see? It has been two years (?) since the map has been drawn up, and the Outer West, South West and Southern Sydney remain comparatively empty. If even locals have few reasons to head out to the Outer West, I don't think it should be recommended to visitors, and there is no need for it to be districted just because it matches local government areas.
What I propose is a semi-radial system, ie there's more focus on the Inner West, Lower North Shore and Eastern Sydney, then Northern Beaches and Sutherland Shire, and finally the Northern, Western and Southern suburbs. Right now the districts just look scattered and I cannot tell where the best place is to start. Giving more emphasis to Inner West (rather than joining with Canterbury-Bankstown) will only better the Inner West guide. Less emphasis on the outer suburbs will better the entire Sydney guide. Fair enough if you don't feel the need to merge articles, but at least see the merits of a better district layout that will aid and inform travellers' decisions to explore outside Central Sydney. - Torty3 (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your points, and appreciate your desire to focus on the tourist hotspots. However, regions should hopefully form natural groupings of suburbs for people who do want to visit them, and people do visit for different reasons - not just to see the sights, so they should perhaps have something in common. And not all visitors are international visitors. Visiting the Australian Botanic Gardens at Mount Annan has nothing in common with doing the Little Saigon thing at Cabramatta. Every section on the regional article would need to be divided, because every section would be different. I'm not being flippant when I say we should structure the regions around people who do want to visit them. By all means, lets highlight the primary tourist regions and the best things for visitors in the high level Sydney article, but I can't see we are going to improve the article by linking the Airport region with the Campbelltown region when they are an hours drive apart, and have next to nothing in common.

I appreciate your fresh eyes, but having observed the discussions going on for Sydney over the past 7 years, the best idea I've seen come out of it is the tri-radial division. What do you think?

  • Inner city split pretty much as it is now, but probably split the current City West between Darling Harbour and Inner West.
  • First Radial. Eastern Suburbs, Botany Bay and Airport, Canterbury Bankstown, Inner West, Parramatta, Macquarie Park/Ryde, Lower North Shore, Manly.
  • Second Radial. Northern Beaches, Upper North Shore, Hills and Hawkesbury, Penrith Valley, Macarthur District, Sutherland Shire.

It covers the whole region, and groups areas into trips, with a more visitor friendly theme than the current. --Inas (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this districting necessarily caters to international visitors or focuses on Central Sydney only, and I don't mean for it to. As long as the content is great, then I'm fine with it being a district on its own. Say, if I were staying with relatives in the Upper North Shore. I'd take a quick look around the area but I'm still going to travel the extra 10 minutes to the Northern Beaches or Lower North Shore or Ku-ring-gai Chase, simply because there's more to do there.
I agree that that your area division is better than the current, just not with the hierarchy and I still have a little concern over content. Agree with a split of City West. I've also been looking at the Chicago map, and it might offer a bit more of a structure we could adopt? Organising around compass points or train lines/transport routes, then we have the best combination.
Greater Sydney
This way the map won't look too scattered, organised geographically, but will still allow finer districts. Sydney is naturally split North and South, and a map like this will highlight it. Quite an inertia to cross over the harbour. - Torty3 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of issues with these compass point divisions.
Firstly, they are overloaded terms. I've always maintained that we can use region names in common use to mean what they mean, or make up region names if we wish, but we can't use names in common use to mean something different to their common usage. That is just confusing.
Southern Suburbs is a term used by locals, but it is never used to include Campbelltown or even Bankstown. Those suburbs are always called Western or South Western. Making this term mean something different on WV will cause confusing.
Northern Suburbs is a term used by locals to mean the suburbs north of the river but west of Lane Cove.
Eastern Sydney or East Sydney when used refers to the area around Stanley St. The Eastern Suburbs are only ever called the Eastern Suburbs and don't include the Brighton/Ramsgate area.
Secondly, they are just plain ugly. Look at the Melbourne article, where it forms unnatural compass point divisions across very wide and diverse regions. And is yet to lead to any content for these regions.
The radial plan has real benefits to the traveller, because they have several things in common.
Central Sydney - Unlikely to be able to park or drive without cost or difficulty. Usually reached by high frequency public transport or by walking, etc.
First Radial - Inner Suburbs. Likely to be able to reach areas by 15 minute frequency public transport in under 30 minutes. Parking may still be difficult, timed, or paid. Could accomplish two or more trips in a day.
Second Radial - Outer Suburbs. You'll want to be enthusiastic or want a car. Parking generally not a problem, so if you have a car, you can stay here for no cost. A trip here will likely take you the best part of your day. Don't plan to visit Cronulla and Wisemans Ferry in a day :-) --Inas (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Ha! This reminds me that I should go back and quibble about geographical terms in the Singapore article and I take your point about the un-natural terms confusing locals.
1. I'm not including the Brighton/Ramsgate area in the Eastern Suburbs at any point. (Realised I meant Botany, not Botany Bay). I'm just referring to Eastern Sydney as most things past O'Riordan Street. Actually I suppose that really just is the Eastern Suburbs + Airport, but the term has always been loaded anyway. Historically and even now, some people don't include Mascot, Maroubra and La Perouse in the Eastern Suburbs. That's why I'm not too fussed on the names. Perhaps Sydney Southern, Sydney Northern and Sydney Western have less baggage, and I think SES uses those terms albeit over a larger region.
2. I'm also not insisting that we create a S/N/W Suburbs page. Just as an easy umbrella term, ie. Western Suburbs (Parramatta, Penrith Valley), and now there is no content in either of those?
3. The radial system works, but we are stalling on where that inner radial should be. I still feel like more focus should be on the Inner West, Lower North and Eastern Suburbs. I find it's a hassle just to move between and within these districts, let alone widening the radial to Parramatta, Bankstown and Macquarie Park.
4. Suppose my base is either Manly or Cronulla? It would be much easier to explore Northern Beaches or the Sutherland Shire respectively. In this case compass point divisions are not unnatural and still play a huge role in deciding a trip , with Outer Suburbs not meaning much. - Torty3 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay so where are we? Yes, Botany LGA is naturally part of the Sydney/Eastern Suburbs. I only think that keeping Brighton and Mascot and Alexandria (and maybe even Rockdale) in the same article as the airport makes sense. There is a natural link there for locals and travellers alike. The reasons for a traveller visiting them (outlet shopping, accommodation near the airport, visiting Botany Bay) are very different to the beachside suburbs of Bondi to to La Perouse. Since you can't frame a region around the East than includes the western side of Botany Bay south of the airport, that's why I'm particularly keen on the Botany Bay and Airport grouping.
I agree Parra, Bankstown and Macquarie Park don't fit the inner radial the same way the Inner West, Eastern Suburbs and Lower North Shore do. I still think they are valid regions though - Mac Park mainly because it is such a significant destination for business travellers. Parra, Bankstown because they are pretty unique destinations. I'm certainly not committed any one way of presenting the regions.
The Parramatta article is far from devoid of content. I think it is one of our better articles. Have a look at the Penrith Valley tourism brochure [1] and Macarthur [2] for examples of what we could build towards with those regions. --Inas (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just referring to your comment about the Melbourne districts having no content despite being a large swathe. Dividing up Sydney by compass points doesn't have the same problem, because there is content anyway. It just makes it easier to navigate. And those tourism brochures should add a lot to those regions. Parramatta and Macquarie Park are valid, and visitors who know about it will head to that page, but the problem here is presentation.
And I guess you won't be too happy that I split up the Botany Bay and Airport grouping :p (before reading your reply). I actually think that should be a separate inner radial region then. And then group the rest of St George with Sutherland Shire, which have a lot more in common. Then I put Bankstown and Fairfield together as South West and Macarthur on its own. I've mocked something up in User:Torty3/Sandbox/Sydney, what do you think?
Agree that the northern Georges River suburbs have more in common with the Sutherland Shire than with the southern sydney areas and the east. You map doesn't reflect the Hills and Hawkesbury region as separate from the Macquarie Park/Ryde. It is a long way (and not much in common) Putney and Wisemans. I agree with grouping Bankstown, Cabramatta, Canterbury. Similar reasons to visit those areas. Include Liverpool? I think so, but no further. Not too happy with the name of "South Western", as that would normally include far more.. Have to think about that. --Inas (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, didn't have time at that moment to look up the Ryde and Hawkesbury boundaries. Do you want to extend it all the way to Richmond and Windsor, because that would be off the map. Also need to check the Airport & Botany Bay boundaries. Tempe, Sydenham and St Peters are all included, ending with San Souci in the south. I have a new city map, with Darling Harbour bounded by Wattle St.

Again, I lean towards less districts but still pretty happy with the split, and it should lead to more cohesive writing. I've left Parramatta in the outer radial in my suggested district section, although if you really do feel strongly about it then shift it, it doesn't matter much for the colour scheme which I hope is instructive and not confusing. Out of curiosity, did the old discussion about radials just peter out, leaving it at the current one? - Torty3 (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Greater Sydney 2.png
Central Sydney Districts.png
We have never really ever has a consensus on Sydney districts. I've sorta given up over the years, and figured that any division was better than none. I think Darling Harbour should extend up now to include Barangaroo, that forms more part of that region than The Rocks. What is the hole next to Penrith and west of Parra? --Inas (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Just looks like a reservoir, some quarries and substations. Shouldn't really need to be included - Torty3 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Prospect reservoir? Eastern Creek? It is hard to see without the overlay. Still, those a popular recreation places, and I don't see the need to leave those gaps in the map. Similarly with Holsworthy. --Inas (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Prospect reservoir probably. Not too sure about Holsworthy though, isn't it mostly a military reserve, with the civilian bits in South West and it does point out clearly that it's not easy to move between Sutherland Shire and Campbelltown. Ok with the South West term then, or put it back with Macarthur? Also any other changes? - Torty3 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add the rivers and bays. Although I can see the argument for greying out the miltary zone, I think the other areas should be included somewhere. I mean why doesn't Hornsby connect across? --Inas (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The non-military Holsworthy bits are already mostly included in South West. What do you mean about Hornsby? There's a lot of national park there so it's mainly the roads which connect everything together. I tried experimenting a bit with a roads layer and a parks layer, but it just got very messy. Probably easier to show on a district level. - Torty3 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I still can't figure all the grey bits within the Sydney metro boundary. They aren't water, are they parks, suburbia, what? I might need to download the map and overlay it to see what is happening. --Inas (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've uploaded the svg here. I'm mildly amused that this wasn't brought up before since the boundaries are virtually identical to the previous map, but I guess the same situation led to the weird districts now. - Torty3 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in any discussion on the previous map. As I said before, I was in a "anything is better than nothing" frame of mind. I'm still vaguely positive about this one. :-) !--Inas (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, better to hash everything out right now :) Although I have a feeling that there'll need to be further refinement later, but only if/when the pages are more developed. A few things I forgot to ask -

  1. Should North Sydney be only North Sydney - it seems to include St Leonards and Crows Nest right now.
  2. Should Palm Beach be merged back into the Northern Beaches? - I would prefer yes. - Torty3 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I say when a destination is a real visitor destination that wouldn't be combined with other destinations in the vicinity, then err on the side of letting it have its own article if it is not too sparse. If it is sparse, then merge it and split out if it ever becomes too detailed. City districts can be a mess this way. We have entire articles for destinations like Helensburgh and Camden that arguably are a similar distance and less of a destination than Palm Beach. I kinda feel the same way about places like Coogee, that have their own accommodation, attractions, restaurants, and ways of getting in and away. --Inas (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with that principle, which is exactly my reason for preferring a merge. But do you think it's not too sparse? Right now I feel both are pretty bare. I would much rather read one longer article than these two outlines. And to be fair, Palm Beach is quite an exception for its distance and I like to stop at the other Northern beaches to break up the journey or grab food on the way. Still is a nice endpoint for the beach and Barrenjoey Lighthouse. If that single merged page gets too long, I fully support a split. If you don't agree, do we leave the merge template as the result of a deadlock?
I was thinking the same thing about Coogee when editing the Sydney/Eastern Suburbs page. It's a rather crowded article and agree that stuff like the rockpools should really be highlighted. The thing is, when even a place like Sydney/Bondi Beach is so neglected, then it's a matter of priorities (or needing more editors). The difference between Helensburgh and Palm Beach is that one doesn't exist by itself and will be read much more than the other, and an outline reflects badly on the whole Sydney guide (precisely why status is determinant on its districts). In fact I do think such sparse articles on non-noteworthy destinations reflect badly on the whole of Wikivoyage (one common complaint seems to be that are so many empty 'X is in region Y' articles), but then that is both Wikivoyage's strength and weakness.
Any further thoughts about the boundaries too? Even as-is, I think it's a net improvement from the current, at the very least because Canterbury-Bankstown isn't included in the Inner West. - Torty3 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need for sparseness in any Sydney sub-subpages, so merge when that happens. I still haven't loaded up the svg to look at the boundary edges on a map. I'll do that this weekend. If you want to press forward earlier, I won't stand in the way. Its a wiki. --Inas (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Nah, it's alright, thanks though, it's still a bit hard for me to tell whether there's consensus or whether to plunge forward. And admittedly I don't always think everything through, so your input helps with direction. I'll probably do it later today or tomorrow. Should be ok to rename Southern Sydney Sydney/Botany Bay? I'm wondering whether La Perouse could be included in that case. - Torty3 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Southwestern Sydney. Found the article and comments pretty hilarious. This district discussion times a million. Looks like we got a head start on Macarthur. -- torty3 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Darling Harbour / Pyrmont[edit]

As a long term Sydney resident, I find the map covering the Pyrmont area as 'Darling Harbour' very strange. (Actually a previous discussion on the page said it would be distressing to the geographically minded)

Darling Harbour is really the very tourist area surrounding Pyrmont bridge, and ends by the Maritime Museum. Attractions such as the Sydney fish Market would certainly not be described as to be in this area.

Would it be possible to separate these out? Another previous suggestion was to create a Pyrmont/Glebe article which I would support. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Before we had a Darling Harbour article we had a separate City West article (which was effectively Pyrmont/Glebe), and an Inner West article. I really don't think we want a City West article back again, the previous one was bare, and always hard to distinguish from the Inner West. I think a Pyrmont/Glebe article would be bare too - i.e. I'm not keen to go back to a previous failure. I really agree it is a stretch to call the fish market in Darling Harbour. It isn't too much of a stretch to include the casino and pyrmont bay - they are pretty much opposite the end of the maritime museum, and easily walkable. The thing that links the fish markets, is the common tram line, that makes it easy to take in Pyrmont, the Fish Markets and Darling Harbour in one journey. It does make a natural region for tourism, although I see the problem for geographers. I'm happy to rename the area Darling Harbour/Pyrmont, and incorporate Glebe into the Inner West, where it will probably feel more at home with Newtown, Annandale and Leichardt than it was with Pyrmont. --Inas (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I do see your points. I'd be happy for some reference to Pyrmont in the description at least (even doesn't have to be in the title). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Garden Island[edit]

There is a military museum on Garden Island (part of a Royal Australian Naval base) which appears not to belong to any district on the map. Where should it go? Sydney/City_East

FYI:,_New_South_Wales Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's actually in Sydney/Harbour Islands. There are about 20-odd Sydney districts, which is quite a lot to maintain, and a few rogue ones like Sydney/Bronte and so on. The City East article seems really long, but it's not that comprehensive so I'm not sure how best it would be to condense district information otherwise. -- torty3 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Suburb Organization[edit]

I noticed the hierarchy for Eastern Suburbs is broken, with a couple of beaches have separate articles and being confusing for the traveler.

Talk:Sydney/Eastern_Suburbs#Districts --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Replace banner[edit]

The current banner has been created from this source image that is 1,920 pixels across.

Only 1,920 pixels across

The resulting banner is 2,100, which I'm guessing means it was stretched on purpose and hence a distortion.

If there are no objections I will look for a similar night time image of the bridge (there are probably only a few hundred thousand such shots to choose from) and make another banner. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

First suggestion:
Suggestion #1
--Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The stretching appears to be proportional, so I don't think there's a problem. We could re-crop the 1920 original. 2100 is nice to have but we really only need 1800. Powers (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That said, your suggestion #1 is phenomenal and I would immediately list it on Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition/Star standard banners. Powers (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll put it up. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Districts discussion[edit]

Sydney is a bit of a mess, and I think a lot can be done to improve the 'Greater Sydney' structure. There is a lot of 2nd level districts, with many 3rd level districts defined under them. I think this is a classic example of a city article created by people who are from here but has become too confusing to be accessible to the traveler.

Some initial suggestion:

  • Eastern Suburbs: Requires further districtification of this region or the merging of the Bondi Beach Coogee articles up
  • Inner West: Again, make into proper districts or merge Olympic park up
  • Northern beaches: Again, confusing to have Manly as a sub-district
  • Create one Sydney South region - place botany bay, south west, macarthur and everything under that

This is just a starting point --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Scenes in Sydney[edit]

Hi guys, I was wondering what the community would think about adding a box somewhere that would list some of the 'Scenes of Sydney' (e.g. Hipsters in Bondi, Indie /alternative in Newtown, Gay and Lesbian in Surry Hills, socialites in Double Bay, surfers in Maroubra in etc.). I think this would be handy for longer term travellers who are looking to meet like minded people --Justvagabonding (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not? But I'm not sure where in the article to place that infobox. The Cope section, maybe? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Depends on length.. if it is a paragraph and the colourful prose is good then why not add to 'Understand' ? Otherwise if it is something more comprehensive then a separate travel topic may be in order. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cool! ThanksYpsilon and Andrewssi2. I was thinking a short paragraph would be enough, just something to give readers a starting point. I will draft something up and share it here to see what we all think. --Justvagabonding (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What to do with Barangaroo?[edit]

Barangaroo is a brand new area in the Sydney CBD that has been recently opened to the public as a new parkland and exhibition centre.

The current Sydney map has the area in Sydney/The_Rocks, although 'technically' is isn't in the Rocks. Should we just expand the Rocks article to encompass it as well? ( Ping User:‎Inas ) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that I will just go ahead and do it. Barangaroo fits more naturally with the Rocks than Darling Harbour. I'll just wait a few days more. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I think Barangaroo will eventually fit more with Darling Harbour. When the tunnels are built and the concrete has set, and the ferry wharf has moved there. However, right now the headland park is very disconnected from it. It's a good thing we're a wiki, and we can just change it whenever we like. --Inas (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
With only the parkland open at this stage, I would see this best included as part of the rocks. However, when the full development opens in a couple of years, I would see this fit more into Darling Harbour. The Rocks is Sydney's historic district and I don't see Barangaroo with it's modern office towers and flashy casino as a natural fit for the region. Darling Harbour on the other has similar style developments (especially with all the new buildings planned for the area) and will share the same pedestrian waterfront. --Justvagabonding (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
We still haven't added any listings from Barangaroo to either the Rocks or Darling Harbour yet. I was thinking of adding some but there doesn't seem to be consensus as to where. When we do decide, I suggest renaming the district article to "City North" or "City West" depending on where it goes. Or we could just make a new article on Barangaroo. Gizza (roam) 05:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Map choice for Sydney sub-region articles[edit]

Do we have any consensus on what type of map style we want to use for Sydney's sub regions? If not, do we want to agree on one to create some consistency for the traveller? As you guys would know, there are a few different options we could use each with their own pros and cons.

  • Dynamic maps - currently used in Macquarie Park and City South. I am not sure about you guys but as a traveller I never use these maps. I think they look busy and don't give you a sense of borders, suburbs or main attractions.
  • Static country/region style map - currently used for City East article. I think the City East map looks great and together with the deceptions in the understand section, it gives the reader a good sense of all the suburbs in the area and the key landmarks scattered around. I could see this map style extended to at least the second ring of Sydney's districts.
  • Static city/district map - not currently used in Sydney but you can find a nice example at Southwest Side Chicago. While I don't think they are as clear as the region level map for giving readers a sense of orientation, I think they are better then the dynamic maps.

What do you guys think? Do you think it is preferable/possible to agree on one map style or should we just decide on an article by article basis? --Justvagabonding (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding a dynamic map takes less than ten seconds, by adding coordinates to listings you can make points of interest appear on dynamic maps, plus they can be zoomed and moved. Static maps usually take at least an hour to make. If one finds static maps in districts themselves, they are mostly from the time when dynamic maps didn't exist.
If you want to add boundaries for exactly one area, ie. for the district the article is about, this is certainly doable with a dynamic map. Also, when you're viewing the dynamic map and open the menu in the upper right corner and check the "boundaries" box you'll see the official boundaries of districts, regions, countries etc.
However, when there are many districts that we want to define in our own way, which is often the case with maps of a whole city, a static map is the only possible solution. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
There are some very strong proponents of static maps on this site, and I respect their position. Unfortunately I simple can't justify spending up to to 4 hours to crete a lovingly hand crafted map, whereas a dynamic map does indeed take 10 seconds and provides a great deal more functionality as well.
City East is actually a problem since it doesn't have any listings at all in its dynamic map. I would actually replace this with a dynamic one, even though we would lose the sub-districts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts guys. I appreciate your point about static maps taking a lot of time. I also realise that you can add points of interests and borders on dynamic maps. I guess why I'm still a proponent of static maps for Sydney is because our districts are actually quite large (compared to most districts articles I have seen in other cities) and contain many suburbs/neighbourhoods as opposed to just one. Take for example the Inner West, we refer to the Balmain peninsula, Newtown, Glebe and Strathfield all within the same article. The traveller is going to have a tough time getting their orientation of the region without a static map with the suburbs indicated. One possibility is we could have a static map in 'Understand' (if someone can be bothered) to give the traveller a sense of place, and then we can have a dynamic map in the 'See' section with all the listings. What do you guys think? --Justvagabonding (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
If someone is going to spend the 4 hours lovingly creating a curating a static map, and the additional time required to create it, then I'm all for supporting them. However, Sydney is a more loved city than most, and I see the static maps still getting out of date quite quickly, and regions being too sticky because changing the maps is hard. It would be nice to have an overlay for regions, though. --Inas (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


I just noticed User:Jdlrobson moved the daytrips to the See section. This was wrong, destinations and attractions outside Sydney (including daytrips) belong in Go next — See is just for sights actually in Sydney. Also see Wikivoyage:Huge_city_article_template#Go_next: Information about nearby destinations that would serve as a good "next stop." Provide a brief description of other nearby destination suggestions, adjacent cities and towns or day-trip ideas.. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a well meaning change that wasn't actually correct. These items are actually seperate destinations in WV and not to be found in Sydney at all. Reverted. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually on this subject, Melbourne, Auckland and Alice Springs are in 'go next' section, but frankly they are just random ANZ destinations (i.e. Why Alice Springs and not Cairns?) . Suggest removing. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm still a little muddled by how day trips work. Ive seen a few cases where castles have been placed in the "go next" section. If these are places where WV:Sleep here applies wouldn't it be better to not categorise them as day trips (e.g. put them under a subheading nearby). Usually when I use this section I'm looking for where next to go on adventure not things to do while I'm there - that's was the see section is for. Please advise! Am keen to learn - there are a lot of inconsistent uses of this section that I'd like to help standardise. Jdlrobson (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage tries not to be overly prescriptive in how the articles are structured. As long as the section headers are adhered to then there is flexibility.
If you take a small town in Europe with a famous castle a few kilometers away (for example Füssen), then that castle could be considered a 'see' listing.
If you take a large city with a wealth of sights within its limits, then adding to the 'see' section with long distance day trips may not be appropriate.
Blue Mountains to the west of Sydney are a good example. The vast majority of visits are day trips from Sydney, but the mountains themselves are very much their own destination and also very much outside of Sydney. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Essentially, "Go next" is for links to other travel destinations. "See" is for individual listings, and any given attraction should only have a full listing in one destination article. Powers (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Spicy Joint?[edit]

One of Shanghai's better places for Sichuan food, with a trendy crowd & often long waits for a table. listing.

They have now opened in Sydney & my guess would be they would immediately become one of the better Chinese places in town, well worth a WV listing. Facebook page Of course I could be wrong, especially since I have not yet visited Oz; I'm a Canadian who has lived in China. Pashley (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Pashley. I've been wanting to try out a Sichuanese restaurant near where I work ("Dainty Sichuan") but the lines are too long during lunchtime. I'll keep Spicy Joint in mind too. Gizza (roam) 05:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


This article, breadcrumbed to New South Wales, rather than Sydney, was just started. Should it be a district article of Sydney or should it be renamed Fairfield (Australia) and be breadcrumbed to another region (but surely not merely to the state)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Fairfield is very much a suburb of Sydney, so should should be breadcrumbed there. It should probably be merged into a wider district at some point. --Inas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)