As per the current discussion on Talk:Sydney, this area has been renamed City East, and now incorporates Moore Park. I've attempted to define the district in the intro.
The main reason for this it to avoid confusion with the psuedo-suburb, East Sydney, and the Eastern Suburbs. --(WT-en) inas 23:53, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
As far as I am aware, districting like this for a destination that is really undistricted is without precedent. As this level we would normally have a destination wt map rather than districting like this. I'd like to see what a few others think if there are any opinions. --(WT-en) inas 17:17, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
Yes, we should have a district map here, showing numbered listings and street names. However, the neighborhood names are certainly useful, although they should probably be listed in "Get Around" rather than an invented "Sub-Districts" section. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:40, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
I guess the question is do we want a district map, or a map of "sub-districts". The neighbourhoods were previously in Understand I think. Traditionally at this level, we just have a normal street map with attractions, don't we? --(WT-en) inas 21:33, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
For a large area like this district, it can indeed be nice to have a map that shows (among other things) where the different neighborhoods lie. The "sub-districts" section, though, is non-standard and that information should be moved back to "understand." We have at least one star article example of how to deal with large outlying district articles that cover more than one neighborhood: Chicago/Southwest Side. --(WT-en) PeterTalk 22:13, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
I like that example. --(WT-en) inas 22:31, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
I would never be happy to turn down such a well crafted map from a new user who is clearly keen to draw maps. I agree that eventually this should be a districts map with hotels, attractions etc., but also see a lot of value in the "semi-regional" approach of this map. The districts description should be in an Orientation sub-section of Understand I think. Is there a problem if the regionlist table is used for this? It could be the first time, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The Chicago/Southwest Side is a truly superb map but it is probably a bit much to expect a new mapmaker to come up with something quite that refined. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:13, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
Improve - not turn down. That's what wiki is all about. I'm certainly not fussed about leaving the map there for now, but it in everybody's interest to define where we want to get to. If we are agreed on a target layout, and that Chicago/Southwest Side is our best example of a map for this case, then it gives us something to aim for, and a more standard article look and feel. I not sure I agree that the regionlist template is appropriate for an undistricted article though. --(WT-en) inas 02:07, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
I would keep the map for now, get the user to improve the map, add major roads, Kings X railway station, bus routes maybe, and some attractions, accommodation, etc. For the moment, though, we should get rid of the "sub-districts" section and change it to "Suburbs" or something like that. (WT-en) JRG 23:21, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
Let's not get too pushy about telling map makers to "improve" their work. Major road names, railway stations, attractions and accommodation would be great to have in time. Bus routes virtually never work on these maps so I would advise not bothering. Changing "districts" to "suburbs" would be a mistake I think - same thing, different name. Rather, the suggestion of putting them with descriptions into an Orientation subsection of Understand is more in line with the Wikivoyage way. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:04, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
Hopefully everyone takes suggestions in the spirit given. I think it is always the best idea to give the map maker the opportunity to make the improvements first, otherwise we risk overlap and re-work. Usually our problem around here is insufficient suggestions and feedback, not too much. I thank everybody who has come here to give their comments on this little corner of Sydney, and for (WT-en) Lturner for drawing the map that created the discussion. --(WT-en) inas 22:50, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
The map is still a work in progress but I just wanted to put something up there to get some feedback, before going too far with it. So thanks for the comments and suggestions, I'll work on putting some of those things mentioned above into the map, and we'll see how it evolves.(WT-en) Lturner 08:32, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
Burmesedays, I wasn't trying to be pushy - what I was saying was more a wishlist of how I would like the article to end up. That's why I made a suggetsion on what should be done immediately. (WT-en) JRG 04:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:Nice work this is a good article in the making. This area certainly deserves an article of it's own. Many would say that this part of Sydney IS Sydney. Certainly this part of the city has it's own clear identity made up of the individual components as outlined in the map. It has many sub-cultures within but inner eastern Sydney definitely has a distinct and different identity to the rest of the city and most certainly to the greater metropolis. I hope my edits have assisted the process a little. It seemed a bit disappointing to overlook the art gallery and botanic gardens, they are 2 of the best bits and unlike much of the inner east they have no price tag attached.(WT-en) felix 13:37, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
The only problem being that they aren't in the City East, according to our current districting. They can go in the get out section though. I think the map looks a bit misleading. Look at the Map in Sydney for the current agreed Central Sydney districts. --(WT-en) inas 19:19, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
Well that is a bit of a problem, I thought it was a bit of a stunning oversight, now I understand.... I looked at the map and decided that it appeared to clearly include the domain and botanic gardens right down to farm cove. Logically then this includes the NSWAG. So is the aquatic centre and museum in or out, they are definitely East Sydney both by proximity and address Let me know and I will re-organise the edits if you have not already. I will go strare at the map for a while and try to understand this, maybe I was sleepy :)(WT-en) felix 23:21, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
Hi. Yes, the green bits on the East Sydney map should be a lighter green probably. I think common sense should largely prevail. By our currently agreed districts, NSWAG is in the City, Cook and Phillip Park is in the City, and the Museum is in City East. It always hard to draw a line somewhere, but this division does seem to make sense to me, as you can't divide St Mary's and Cook & Phillip - and St Mary's is definitely City. St James is definitely city. The Australian Museum is more attached to the East, but should be in the Get out section of the city --(WT-en) inas 23:48, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
Sorry we were crossing over on our notes so I will put up what I was wrtting at the same time:
comments on colour saturation issues and 'green' area definition on the map
I think the map has a problem. I was a bit sleepy when I did the edits last night but even if I was wide awake I think I might have made the same mistake. Having looked harder at the map I do now understand that dark green areas (hyde park/domain/botanic gds/rushcutters park) are dark green and have little x's all over the colour fill. This is to define them as 'park area, as with the blue fill and its similar pattern describing 'water'. The problem is that these park areas have a distinctive and dominant 'colour' like that of the adjoining "city east" area that the map seeks to describe and appropriately 'zone'. Also this dark green color is quite dominant (ie it does not recede). I do understand that the dark green does not appear on the colour bar legend but that is a technical qualification only as what we are examining here is a viewers most likely understanding and response to the information provided by the map. I made the mistake so I am sure many others will as well. Maybe the colour saturation of the green needs to be backed right off (possibly use transparency setting on that layer of the map assembly). It may assist if the colour intensity of the green was similar to that of the sea or surrounding grey coloured areas. Either that or include the domain into the City East area. I recall the Sydney City Council has had issues for many years trying to decide where to put the boundaries of different bits of the city. maybe adding a legend to the map itself (not the article) describing the dark green area as City of Sydney Park area may help. This is not just a problem of map design, the designer will have to overcome the natural inclination of the viewers visual processing to 'fill in' detail and logically include the park areas in City east. Confusingly I imagine that Rushcutters park IS included in this City East area or maybe I am wrong again. Is the map available in 'layers' , if it is I am happy to try some versions and see if I can help improve the visual message.(WT-en) felix 00:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
Oh, by the way I am not suggesting that the boundaries have a problem of logic, just that they have a problem in terms of processing the visual messages that arise from the map accompanying the article. It may be worth considering though that the Domain became an area for 'the people' and those people did not live in the central city as historically the CBD has not had a large population. The dormitory workers and their families from the suburbs of Wooloomooloo, Paddington and Surry Hills were the most likely users of these grounds so there is a historic link. When Sydneysiders were a little more motivated to public discussion and commentary they used to go to the Domain to have their say to others, often with quite colourful oration. Sadly now they seem more inclined to watch football on the television. No problem with the boundaries, things like that are often contentious and there is often no clear answer, this is more a problem of visual communications I think.(WT-en) felix 00:16, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
Here is a variation to consider, I just did it to quickly illustrate what I mean. It is not meant to be a solution, rather an aid to discussion.(WT-en) felix 01:52, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
variation on park color-for discussion (draft image only)
It definitely solves the problem of Hyde Park/Botanical gardens appearing to belong to City East, so it is an improvement. As you problably realise, it still differs around the actual defined regions, including a little too much to the East and West. Still, everything is still a work in progress, so thanks for your help with this.
Yes, I agree with the historic link, but in addition to that our modern Inner East residents also have a bloody big freeway and fences to contend with :-) I'm just thinking a usual visitor seeing the city would almost certainly do Opera House, Mrs Macquaries Chair, Domain, Art Gallery in a swoop, never thinking they have left the city. If they were going to go to Wooloomooloo, Kings X & Oxford St/Darlinghurst, they would start planning how they were going to get there. --(WT-en) inas 02:23, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
The original looked clear enough to me, but then again I seem to spend far too much of my life staring at Wikivoyage maps. If a solution is required, it should be to change the colour of the Moore Park district, not the colour of the standard Wikivoyage park pattern. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:28, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
I think the dark green colour is a problem in this context but Burmesedays of course has a point, if there is a WT styleguide uniform green colour for parks then why should this map go off on it's own. I was a bit noddy headed when I came to the page for the first time late last night. I had to stay up late to make a EU phone call. So I came to it cold so to speak. My visual cognition of the map just seamlessly included the 'dark green' areas into the City east area. There was no particular internal conflict arising whilst doing this as personally I think of the gardens, the domain and pretty much anything east of macquarie street, college street, wentworth ave, and on to elizabeth street past central as being 'city east', 'inner city' or 'inner eastern sydney'. By example to the west Pymont and Ultimno become more 'city' every year. As Inis has commented "where do you draw the line". Hence due to my assumption that the dark green park areas had been included and assuming theAG Gardens etc had been overlooked in a reasonably new article I then just went ahead and wrote up the art gallery, museum and domain/botanic gardens as being attractions in this 'eastern' part of the city, which they are. I am not saying anyone is wrong here just expressing my own misunderstanding of the boundaries of this City east area. As to the WT green I think it is far to primary and from an aesthetic viewpoint it is not a very nice green. However, as Burmesedays has clarified, it is the established WT green for parks. I am not sure there is any clear answer here... I might run away and hide I think...So Inis should my edits stay as is or should they go to the Get out section as you suggested, or were you thinking more of the museum, art gallery, domain and botanic gardens being re-located to the -Do- section of City east ?.(WT-en) felix 03:07, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
The problem, Burmesedays, is not that it's a similar color to one of the neighborhoods on the map, but rather that it's not clear from the map that those park areas are actually covered in a different article entirely. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:52, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
Oh. Stupid me then. I consider myself suitably told off.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:41, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
Labeling the other districts might help, as might a dotted line showing the boundaries.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:43, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't mean to tell you off, just letting you know. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:31, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
I really think making them lighter is the best idea I have seen. The alternative would be to make the area grey.
@(WT-en) felix - the AGNSW, the botanic gardens can be references in the get out section. you should add the info to the city centre article --(WT-en) inas 16:39, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
'The map: Greying the park area is a good idea but then the useful information that a huge and most enjoyable park area is adjacent to City east could be lost on those uninitiated to the area. I find it hard to get past the issue of the horrible WT park green that is causing this problem in this map. Problem is the more gentle colours describing the City east precincts visually -recede- and the green WT park colour -advances-. Hence the viewer will visually cognate the two as being one, Including the park area into City east.
It is a design and colour use issue more than anything. The best and most pragmatic solution to the problem and one that still accommodates WT colour formatting guidelines (that horrible green) has been proposed by Burmesedays. Put a border line (maybe a mid-grey colour) around City east hopefully there-by excluding the nearby parks but still defining their presence. I will have a look at it later if I can find the time, I am concerned that line may overlap map information creating readability problems but I will give it a try. However if anyone else wants to do one and upload it for discussion purposes then well and good. ::Sorry to have raised this boundary and map issue again as I can see the boundary matter has had a difficult gestation but I think this is a bit of a problem as it leads to an anticipation of content describing the nearby attractions that appear to be in the City east, indeed I got caught by this myself and hence my interest.
'Botanic gardens/Domain/AGNSW/Australian Museum, into the Get out section. OK I will move that content to there as at least then the attractions are described on the page. For continuity I will move the Au Museum content I wrote to the Get out section as well even though Au Museum is inside the map (college street, east sydney). BTY I note that the map on the Sydney article has not been updated to describe the same City east boudaries as those shown on the City east map.(WT-en) felix 02:02, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
Domain/Botanic Gdns/AGNSW/Museum now moved to Get out section as suggested, some more content added to several sections and a further edit clean up performed to conform more content to WT markup, include some more detail, fix some broken/outdated/badly formatted links(WT-en) felix 06:34, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
I have given Lturner's map a style makeover including the suggestions I made. I think it is fairly clear where the district starts and ends. A key issue was that the out of district areas were the wrong grey. I have installed the standard WT map making out of area grey. The park pattern has been used to great effect on a vast number of WT maps and I do not think we should change it just for this case. Any further comments and I will do my best to reflect :). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:02, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
That is an improvement in defining the area as being destinct from the park areas but maybe the original section colours might work better as they are stronger, also the middle (east sydney/darlinghurst) is 'receding' as it's colour is so close to the 'outside areas' grey.
Also I think it may work better it the dotted line circumnavigated the whole area including the waterfront sections at wooloomooloo bay and elizabeth/rushcutters bay and the part excluding the naval base at garden island at (the tip of the peninsular). The reversed out 'other' region names are good as well (city centre/southern sydney/eastern suburbs. It has more clutter but is is also more informing. I think the colours are not quite done though. (WT-en) felix 12:47, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
Done. Have another look. The Darlinghurst colour was a bit too similar to the out of area grey I agree.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:39, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but the park looks like it is in the district. It really does. The dotted line isn't effective - it looks more like a rail line than anything else. Lets make the out of distrct areas grey until we can agree on something else. --(WT-en) inas 21:47, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
A rail line that perfectly follows all the district boundaries? Let's wait for some more views on that. The park pattern has been used without issue on many maps that are exponentially more complex than this relatively simply example. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:51, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Another possible solution is to have the roads change colour as they leave the district. I did that with my Bloomsbury map, and think it is very effective. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:59, 6 June 2010 (EDT)(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:58, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
I'm not too concerned about what the dotted line looks like, but if it isn't apparent where the district boundaries are, how should the reader know it follows them "perfectly". I'm just concerned that the park still looks like part of the mapped area. There are other parks within the mapped area that aren't green, and to make them the same color would be even more confusing. I find it confusing, and I live here. Felix found it confusing. How many more views are you looking for on a single article? --(WT-en) inas 03:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
It is blindingly obvious to me, and felix expressed that he was now more comfortable after the addition of the dotted line. But the parks have now been deleted and the ones inside the district should be added if someone wants to do that.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:53, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
I think the map has lost information and looks worse now without the parks marked in green. I can see that there is a problem in that it looks like they are part of the area covered by the article. Surely this could have been better solved by an short explanation in the "Parks" section with a link to the City Centre article. ie "The Botanical Gardens, Domain and Hyde Park are all located on the western edge of the district in the City Centre". I think we should revert the map. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Lturner (talk • contribs)
We should really stop expanding this district now. If every time someone has a different idea about where this district is, or draws a map we change the region without arriving at a new consensus we are going to end up with a mess of regions. We have struggled to reach any consensus on regioning Sydney, however we have done so for the central area, and we really should either update the map and listings to reflect that consensus, or whoever wants to change it should argue for an achieve a new regioning consensus. We don't want detailed listings for the out of area attractions here. Just a word or two and the detailed listing should go in the area where the attraction is. --(WT-en) inas 21:54, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
When did it expand? I figured something had happened as we have that wierd bit directly north of Kings X out of the area. I only followed what was here already. If that map was wrong someone ought to have noticed before now. If this map needs updating, then please just give me details and I will do it. If the Sydney districts map needs updating, I think you drew that?
As an aside, I do think there comes a time when a sensible plan just needs to be implemented by someone willing to do the work. Trying to build perfect concensus on Sydney's districts has gone on way too long.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:49, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
It expanded when this map was drawn, and it was noticed, it is the basis of discussion above. Compare it to the Central Sydney district map. It continues now to expand with entries for parks and attractions outside of the even this mapped area. I'm not generally too fussed about this stuff, as everything is a work in progress and it is easy to move stuff between regions, however adding the extra level of detail that is now being added to out of area attractions is just going to make merging the multiple entries a hassle.
I've stated a number of times I'm happy to do the work on Sydney districts, and I've directed a number of attempts towards doing just that, and the amount we have achieved shouldn't be underestimated. Sydney is actually quite well districted with only a few gaps existing here and there. I'm not sure there is any precedent for abandoning consensus and going with a sensible idea of someone willing to do the work, however if I was nominated for such a role, and this were possible, I would happily do the task. --(WT-en) inas 03:26, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
There probably is no such precedent. Rather it is just an idea from me to get things moving. I am sure I am not the only one who prefers doing things rather than endlessly talking about doing them. I decided very recently that I am inherently unsuited to working on a collaborative project. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:04, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
The latest map seems to be getting closer to delivering a clear visual message. Sadly a degree of the information that the Domain/Botanic gardens is abutting this area is lost but maybe that information should not have been presented in the map with a colour code in the first place if it was not actually within the defined area.
It seems to make sense that parks inside the City east area should be green, and parks outside the City east area should just be the same uniform grey as everything else, yet described as they now, in white type reversed out of the grey BG. The greater Moore Park area and Centennial park could possibly now also benefit from the same naming treatment.
I did notice before that it was a bit anomalous that the similarly significant S Eastern adjoining Moore park and Centennial park areas were not green coded in the original map and yet the adjoining N Western Domain/Botanic gardens and Rushcutters park were.
There is now no longer a boundary definition problem so no dotted outlines are needed. When the area finishes-the coloured zone treatments finish.
Seems like the current map is the most pragmatically 'correct' solution to the problem. Works better for me anyhow. The adjoining park attractions are all (hopefully) now well described in the now created Get out section of the article so they are not 'lost' just explained in a different way to being shown on the map as an adjoining area.
I note that (WT-en) inas may have some disagreement with this and possiblly holds the view they are now 'over described' as a Get out. I take the point, but they are such significant features of the inner eastern area that it is hard to degrade that significant just because they abut or lie immediately outside the border of the currently defined the City east, rather than immediately inside it. People in the City east precinct do 'get out' into these green areas immediately surrounding the precinct. If in Elizabeth bay or Potts point then Rushcutters park is an immediate 'get out' to part of that domain, if in Darlinghust/Paddingtons South Darling street precinct then the NW corner of Moore park is immediate 'get out'. People in Darlinghurst and East Sydney walk across to the Domain and the Art Gallery and go to swim in the Aquatic Centre at Cook Phillip, or Boy Charlton, and walk in Hyde Park. Centennial park immediately abuts the City east defined areas of Paddington and Moore park and is certainly a 'get out'. The Museum is actually inside the map defined area and not even technically "Get out" at all. These destinations in G'et out' are so integral to the City east area that they are in many ways part of it,at least in a functional sense and so I they should be described in detail to clarify what they are and how they relate to City east.
The Get out section is all wrong. The Project:District article template does not have a Get out section as compulsory and often in large cities that makes sense. If present, this section should be a short list of suggestions of where to go next - see the Project:Small city article template for guidance. There should certainly be no listings in Get out and even more certainly no activities like swimming. A suggestion to visit Hyde Park (for example) should be a simple wikilink to the correct section of Sydney/City Centre with one line of pithy prose. Same principle goes for all the others. We have several district templated star articles for guidance — Chicago/Loop and London/Hampstead are two that come to mind to have a look at. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:26, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
When we draw a line, someone is always going to stay on one side of it with the attraction/facility etc, on the other side. The reality is probably that much of the City (and beyond) serves the needs of people in the City East, and thats a good thing. We need to encapsulate that in the city east article, without repeating all the listing info which should be in the correct district article. --(WT-en) inas 16:51, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
OK if you feel strongly about this (and I think that is a good thing by the way) then as I was the person who came along and put the stuff in there then I will move it. However I do not want to start smashing up the adjoining areas sydney city and eastern suburbs article so please let me know what you think about the following. As may be recalled from above, I was uncomfortable with the Get out section being used in this context. You do not "Get out", you just 'Do" it especially if it is only 100 metres or so away.
If there is some agreement on this then I will:
Move the City east content, Botanic Gardens/Domain across to City, See section, Museums and Art Galleries sub-section and amalgamate suitably. Place brief name header with a link to City article into the Do section of City east.
Move the City east content, AGNSW across to City, See section, Museums and Art Galleries sub-section and amalgamate suitably. Place brief name header with a link to City article into the Do section of City east.
Move the Swim section I created in City East, Get out into City east Do section and make it a sub-section. (It is not just fitness and it also has a cultural aspect to it). I feel that the Cook+Phillip Aguatic centre is questionably part of east sydney and is often described by locals as being in "East Sydney" as is the Au Museum across the other side of William St that has an East Sydney address. In the situation of Boy Charlton pool the address is Art Gallery road but the proximity is Wooloomooloo Bay and it is originally a Wooloomooloo bay feature replacing an original indigenous swimming place at that locality. I would also point out that the current City east map includes the S.W. shoreline of Wooloomooloo bay and last time I looked the steps giving access up to the art gallery road near the old fuel bunker site were still there.
Move the Museum back into the City east, See section in the Museum and Art galleries sub-section. If we are going to have a placement formula based upon district borders then we cannot cherry pick the Museum out and put into City when it is not actually contained within the City map, otherwise I would start arguing that the AGNSW should be listed in City east See or Do. Put an article link into City, Do section to list Au Museum correctly on that page. Also put article link in Museums and Art Galleries section of City article redirecting to City east article.
Rushcutters park is currently in Get out of City east, move to Eastern suburbs Do section and create (park) sub-section Rushcutters park.
Centennial Park is currently in Get out of City east, move to Eastern suburbs Do section and rebuild sub-section Centennial park in Eastern suburbs article. Place brief name header with a link to Eastern suburbs article into the Do section of City east.
Move Moore park from City East , Get out to City east See, Parks sub-section (Moore park is inside the City east map), with article comment that Moore park links through to Centennial park.
Please note that Centennial Park and Moore park are managed by Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust as one. (Centennial Parklands is the home of: Centennial Park | Moore Park | Queens Park | Moore Park Golf | Centennial Parklands Equestrian Centre | the Entertainment Quarter | Fox Professional Studios | Hordern Pavilion | Royal Hall of Industries | Centennial Parklands Dining).
So it is worth noting that the City east map has actually cut up what has been officially gazetted by the NSW gov. as being one green zone or 'park' entity and with the application of the City east boundary dividing it up then made it into several components again. Personally I agree they are each individual destinations but I am just stating the facts for the record. It may be worthwhile to give some consideration to removing Moore park altogether and putting it into Eastern Suburbs, The sporting facilities and entertainment sector is more a generalised attraction for all of central and eastern sydney than being a place of either City east activities or a City east focus. Really the greatest impact these areas have is when mass crowds returning to the western suburbs start trying to go home from the sports facilities.
The City east map needs the adjoining Centennial park added it in white type reversed out of the grey BG in the same style as the Domain and Botanic gardens to the N west(WT-en) felix 05:52, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
I have to agree with (WT-en) Burmesedays here. The Get out section does not feel right, that's why I queried putting the info into such a section earlier. Seems to me that for example, swimming in the city is something to 'Do' if you are doing it in an inner city pool. Where as going to Bondi beach would be more appropriate to "Get out" . (WT-en) felix 12:15, 7 June 2010 (EDT).
Felix - the only thing I feel strongly about is consistency in the districts, that is that getting any agreement on Sydney districts has been a tough slog. It has taken nearly 4 years to get the some agreement on the City East boundary, so I think a strong case should be needed to revisit it.
Having said that this guide is not at all about people living in City East. It is about travellers to Sydney, and how they group their travel. Lots of visitors are going to be coming from the City Centre - getting of the train, buses, transport or staying there. Just because the people of East Sydney swim in a pool on the City edge of their district, doesn't mean that it makes sense to the visitors to move it there. When Lturner made his argument about the Kings Cross Hostels, etc actually being in Rushcutters Bay, that was a very convincing argument to me, that we should include the extent of the Kings Cross commercial and accommodation district in City East. The fact that resdidents of the City East swim in pools on the City/City East boundary is less so.
We have a City, City East, City South, Darling Harbour, and City West. There are clear dividing lines between Sydney and Darling Harbour - anything else is always going to be approximate to a few blocks or so.
I agree with all your actions - and I'm more than happy to help.
As far as the Moore Park/Centential Park grouping, I don't think we should be concerned too much about the politics - I think most Sydneysiders and visitors regard them as distinct. In any event it looks like the NSW government is about to move Moore Park out of the Centennial Park trust, they are obviously moving to align with the Wikivoyage districts! [1] :-) --(WT-en) inas 21:59, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
Inis I am interested to hear that news about Centennial Park-Moore Park, indeed LOL, what a wonderfull idea, take a huge chunk of park area and community recreational zone and turn it over to the SCG. I think it is the only single time I have felt like supporting Malcolm Turnball on anything he has ever said. Hands of Centennial Park is a good idea. Thisplan to vandalise sydneys parks also neatly robs Cententenial park of 70% of its income virtually ensuring that either Centennial park turns into a dust bowl or that they will start charging for things, like introducing entry fees or similar. The area always struck me as a bit unwieldy though, especially the sporting facilities and the fox studios mess all into one with the park. Makes my head spin. Better to torch the SCG and that annoying football stadium than see that part of sydney turn into a further extension of the sport stadium culture. Maybe they are insane. It was only 30 years ago that this sort of silliness was put down and now it is back on the table again. I am glad I am a very long way away.
I do have a bit of trouble seeing how visitors to Sydney would include the Fox studios and further SE area of Moore park on the map as City east but maybe I am just wrong headed. Cewrtainly though I am not advocating redrawing any map boundaries anyhow. I was only ever joking about including the Botanic gardens in City east. Not so much so the Domain, that used to be very connected to the City east area until, as I think you pointed out, a large trench was dug along the edge and filled up with moving cars. The whole WT sydney exercise sounds daunting, 4 years in the making on these map boundaries sounds like fun as well. These discussions should have been over and dealt with 3 and a half years ago so I do not want to start poking any sleeping tigers. The task of doing a city such as this is not to be taken lightly, it is a noble endeavour and like all noble endeavours no doubt fraught with complications. I am with you on the comments you have made about 'do you need to plan to get there. I think that is a great way of thinking through the fog that tends to shroud things a times. It is very hard to be objective about these matters as somewhat subjective individual views of what is where, and where is to who can creep in. I stick with my viewpoint on the swimming pool thing though, it is an inner city thing to do and it is an inner city destination. Whether any tourists ever know the pools are there and go to them is a different matter though. Maybe though that is what we are meant to be doing, telling them about it so they know as a temporary inhabitant of the city that it is something that they can do as well, as an inner city activity, and as the locals may be doing themselves. Maybe I am getting carried away here though, maybe it is me that wants to go for a swim. I am not viewing this through the eyes of a resident, they see things through a different filter, rather I am trying to see this through the eyes of an uniformed visitor who may like to both see the sights of the city and do as the locals do. They may also just like to know a nice place to go for a walk or a swim. As to locals having a swim there I am not well enough informed to know, I was thinking of it as a destination for visitors. Personally I would walk from inner paddington to go to Cook+Phillip, any further I would be thinking about it harder, as would most visitors. As to Rushcutters bay I think once you have turned into New Beach Road it is no longer city. Even at a stretch I think the city is over by the time you get to the old travelodge site, or Vibe Rushcutters, inner eastern suburbs would better describe it, both in feel and the culture of the place. If backpackers think that is the city then they are seriously confused. Pitt street is the city. By the way I am not a resident, though I was once as I think you may have already suspected. I am not from sydney but have lived there for extended times in Surry Hills, Darlinghurst, Paddington and Darling Point. I also spent some time in the inner west but I would rather forget that I had.
It is too late to do the edits now but maybe I will attack them tomorrow, please though if anyone differs say now as I do not want to start up some sort of hackfest. Thanks for the imput.(WT-en) felix 14:15, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
felix, I have made some changes to using the parks information you had in the Get Out section. Sorry I didn't mean to jump in ahead of you. I came back after a few days and there has been a huge amount of discussions, so I didn't realise you were going to make further changes. I moved Rushcutter Bay Park and Moore Park up to the Parks section, and removed the entries on Botanic Gardens & Domain as Sydney/City_Centre has entries on these already (maybe you can incorporate you descriptions). Have a look and see what you think of my changes.
The Swim section you created is excellent. I can see your point that both those pools are quite relevant to City East area being right on the boundary, but they're also very relevant to the City Centre area. I think it could go either way, personally. Cheers (WT-en) Lturner 17:57, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I think we are all on the same page (excuse any pun). Generally, I think there are going to be more people viewing the city centre article, and coming from a city centre perspective than city east perspective. I think every visitor to Sydney will at least check out the city centre attractions, and only some will proceed to look at City East. For that reason I think we should err on the side of including bordering entries in the City Centre, and putting pointers to them from the East, but it could work the other way around too, and encourage more visitors to look at the City East article.
I see felix's point that someone in Kings Cross isn't going to see Moore Park as part of the same district. However, someone in the City Centre would see them both as areas close to the city, and to the east. Given that we have a choice of moving Moore Park into its own district, or putting it in Eastern Suburbs, or leaving it in City East, it is probably the lesser of three evils. --(WT-en) inas 18:54, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Yes I can see your point about the City Centre probably getting more viewings, so that's a good basis to put / leave the pool stuff there. I agree with you that Moore Park should be in City East, but I don't really see this as an evil. Personally I don't think it's too far from Kings Cross at all. I live right near the Coke sign and almost always walk there whenever I go to the footy. Plenty of people will walk there from Central Station as well. Cheers, (WT-en) Lturner 19:12, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Sorry I have not got the the edits yet but where live the power is off more often than it is on at the moment and my internet connection varies from nothing to very slow. Good thing someone else has got in there and did something. If we are all in agreement on the outline I gave above feel free to get in there and do it. I was hoping to do it in one sweep to lessen the confusion but it has not happened yet. At present everytime I go near the net I get slow page loads and time outs. I agree what was said about people looking at City centre first, although I must comment that I did not, I looked only at City east, as I was interested in seeing what was there. I also agree with Lturner, when I am in that district either as a resident or in more recent years as a visitor, I also walk all over the place like that and will often traverse the entire district, ie. walk from Paddington/Moore park to go to the Botanic gdns or the AGNSW, or walk to chinatown and home again. (WT-en) felix 06:14, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
I have done the edits now, I hope I did what I outlined above.(WT-en) felix 16:08, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
Those look great Felix. Just one thing - we seem to have a parks sub-section and museums & galleries sub-section in both the See and Do sections. Should we consolidate them into one place? (WT-en) Lturner 17:34, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
My original outline above stated the intent to edit as follows:
"Move the City east content, Botanic Gardens/Domain across to City, See section, Museums and Art Galleries sub-section and amalgamate suitably. Place brief name header with a link to City article into the Do section of City east."
"Move the City east content, AGNSW across to City, See section, Museums and Art Galleries sub-section and amalgamate suitably. Place brief name header with a link to City article into the Do section of City east."
I stuck to this as best as I could as I had posted that for collective consideration. If the outcome is confusing then it should of course be edited further to ensure it is not. It may also be a bit clunky due to the moore park overlap issue. I have an open mind on this but I think the moore park thing is just confusing as it is divided across two articles. I have done a re-arrangement~of the entries. Maybe it is better now, if not then we can do a revert or another edit later. Personally I think it is a bit better now that the repeat is removed and hopefully the redirect notes are quite sufficient on their own to describe the attractions in "abbreviated form". Have a look and see if you think it still provides the required info now. (WT-en) felix
Looks good, thanks. (WT-en) Lturner 14:17, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
I've made a couple of small changes to the map - fixed up the northern Paddington border, added a missing street on the edge of Surry Hills, and added the text for Edgecliff Station.
I can see there's been heaps of discussion about whether or not the parks that are out of the district should be marked in green. I think they should be shown in green.
The justification is:-
(1) It is useful information that is being omitted from the map. The purpose of this map is really to orient the visitor about the where the district is in relation to the rest of the city, where the localities are within the district, and where some of the main roads and train stations are.
(2) It looks better with the parks on there.
In response to the problem that it "looks as if" those parks are included in the district because they are on the map, my response is:
(1) I don't think it matters too much which district we put the parks into, because they are kind of like their own areas (esp Bot Gdns and Domain), therefore so we shouldn't be too concerned about this. What problems does this actually cause?
(2) The problem that some comes along as felix did and puts those parks into the article can be easily handled by a short comment about them with link to the City Centre page. So this is a problem that should not occur again.
Perhaps they can be on there in a lighter green? Maybe like the version that felix produced? Cheers, (WT-en) Lturner 19:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Perhaps we pick up the color scheme from rhumb. The parks out of area in that map are green, but they look very distinct from the bold colours of the districts. --(WT-en) inas 19:36, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
They look so distinct because they do not border the district. I do not think the colour scheme has much to do with it.
Lturner, well done for fixing up the map a bit. Be good if you drew the parks that are inside the district. There is no disagreement that they should be shown.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:40, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
[[Image:Sydney_City_East_LT1.png|rhumb|300px|right]].Thanks Burmesedays. And also to you for fixing up the colours and adding some text and station detail, looks great. This is what I think we should go to. Any comments? (WT-en) Lturner 16:20, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
I feel like I'm being really negative here, but I still don't like it.
It still goes too far to the east of our actual district.
It is just impossible to tell Centennial Park (out of the district) from Moore Park (in the district).
Perhaps I'm too obsessive about district boundaries at the moment.. Perhaps I would feel differently if the purpose of the map was to show locations of attractions, etc, but the purpose seems primarily to show the areas/suburbs of the City East. --(WT-en) inas 19:27, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
Dotted lines perhaps? (*runs for cover*) :=).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
The district has these huge adjoining parks, it seems inappropriate to ignore them, hence they should be described (graphically), however when they are so described they then take on the look of being part of the district as it is described by coloured sections. Accordingly anyone new to the article is most likely to include the parks into the district and hence look for content describing them. I agree it does not matter if the only problem that arises is that WT editors unfamiliar with this issue get confused, more important that the depth of information is presented to the user. However we must be careful that, 1. we do not confuse people too much, and 2. that we try and keep to the WT style guidelines and do not go too feral with the article or the map. Maybe the dotted lines or the lighter green need to be considered again even though they appear to be slightly outside the style guidlines. Darker green for the parks within the defined City east and a lighter green outside. We are fortunate that Domain/BGdns and Moore Pk are such huge areas as that allows them to also be clearly described with type on the map and this can hopefully aid the situation further. If Rushcutters Bay creates an anomaly maybe it should just be included into City east as it a 6 of one, half dozen of the other situation with that location anyhow. What ever I think this is all worth the effort as it seems to be slowly but surely working to ward a constructive and pragmatic solution. The article is improving and the content is becoming clarified. Personally I think it is better the map shows the adjoining park areas, that is useful to the article's reader. But then we are confronted with content voids as those Park areas cannot be described in the articles text, that content rightly belongs in the City article in the case of Domain/Botanic Gdns, and Eastern suburbs in the case of Moore park /Centennial Park. Do we think that appropriate links to the City and Eastern Suburbs article are sufficient to deal with this? If so then the content is available, just not as readily as it involves a click out to another page. Maybe the problem is just that the article did not yet have these links adequately provided. Also maybe City east border needs 'outlining' to clarify the district, maybe a dotted line all the way around it. Now I might join Burmesedays in running for cover...(WT-en) felix 06:14, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
Inas, to address your points:
1) I could be wrong, but I think the boundary between paddo and woollahra is Jersey Rd, which is what the map shows. Where do you suggest we move the eastern boundary to? Which street would form the boundary exactly? This would involve splitting Paddington in half. Is this a good idea?
2) rhumbPersonally I don't think this is a huge problem. I see the parks as part of the landscape that should be marked, whether in or out of the district, just like we show the harbour, and streets/stations/landmarks that are outside of the district but are useful for orientation. For example, this London map doesn't show which district Hyde Park is, because it's between districts so really it doesn't matter all that much. If anyone looks at the parks section, the confusion will be cleared up. Perhaps if it really is a problem we can show the out-of-district parks in the same grey colour but with the tree pattern (I don't know how to do this). Cheers (WT-en) Lturner 06:48, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
Just for the hell of it this is what I would consider doing if there was an entirely clean slate. Please no one think that I am saying we should tear everything up and follow this, it is just a response to the above and also to confirm that I can see no clear alternative that would not draw a line through Paddington separating the 'inner' part from the more eastern suburbs oriented part. Paddington does have many characters and many of those parts are really only united by name rather than culture or geography.
I have not even thought to put it forward previously as, yes, paddington would be cut up. But then again we are currently cutting Moore park up and we have cut off the Domain from the inner east and joined it onto the city where I must admit it now probably belongs as the eastern distributor canyon has changed the geography somewhat.
So here it is:
Personally I think the area extends too far to the east. If I were drawing a map I would start at Elizabeth street up Cleveland, take the NW corner off Moore Park, include Lake Kippax but exclude the Sport facilities and old showground, include Victoria Barracks (or not), up Oxford to William street(Paddington), down William to Hopetoun, follow Norfork and Cambridge to Lawson, on to Neide Ave, then to New South Road to include Rushcutters Park (or not), then follow the coast along Elizabeth Bay, cut off Garden Island naval base as in the current map, follow Wooloomooloo Bay along Cowper Wharf Road, include the finger wharf, follow the Eastern distributor cutting back to William Street in a straight line through Phillip Park-Cook Park, to College St at William street intersection in East Sydney, along College, to Wentworth Ave and down Elizabeth to Cleveland.
Everything outside this is either the Domain, The City, Hyde park, Central (Station), City South, Redfern, far flung parts of Moore park or inner Eastern suburbs sporting complexes and bits of Paddington that are more eastern suburbs than "city". That is just my point of view though.
But that is just a hypothetical and a response to (WT-en) Lturner's comments above and I will say no more less I be blocked for stirring up trouble :)-
Also have to further agree with (WT-en) Lturner who said that "Personally I don't think this is a huge problem", nor do I. the content is far more important. and letting the reader know those parks are there is also important, even if they are outside the defined precinct. I think Burmesedays is sitting on the most pragmatic map solution until the dust settles, either that or we go back to that non-standard light green for the parks but this time include greater Moore park and Centennial park, Rushcutters Park, Domain, and Botanic Gdns. (WT-en) felix 02:33, 12 June 2010 (EDT).
I've added an attractions maps of the Kings Cross and Woolloomooloo areas, to go with the full district orientation map. It still needs some work, any comments etc let me know. Cheers, (WT-en) Lturner 20:08, 6 July 2010 (EDT)
