Template talk:Largest cities of Australia

Topic

• Can I just note that AussieLegend's adjustment to this template is a vast improvement on its accuracy. Cheers to all.--VS ^talk 02:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tanks, I do my best. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

This template has undergone a number of changes over the past two days. VirtualSteve took exception to Albury-Wodonga being listed as Albury in New South Wales.[1] He was quite justified in doing so because Albury is not the "core city" of Albury-Wodonga. Albury and Wodonga are two independent cities in two different states that just happen to be close to each other. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) refers to them as "Albury-Wodonga" for statistical purposes only. It also refers to them independently[2][3] because they are independent as Local Government Areas of Australia (LGAs), as cities in their own right[4][5], and because they are governed under, and subject to, the laws of different states.

VirtualSteve's changes were reverted without explanation by NuclearVacuum.[6] After a discussion with VirtualSteve on his talk page[7] I edited the table to include the correct information. Finding identical issues with Canberra-Queanbeyan and Gold Coast-Tweed, I changed those too. I also changed "Core City" to "City Name" because it's an imprecise term. As I've explained, these places have no "core cities" per se. The fact that Albury, Canberra and the Gold Coast are mentioned first in the name is not an authority that they're the core cities. They're mentioned first only because they're the larger of each pair which has nothing to do with being a core city.

After these edits, João Felipe C.S changed the template to place the images in the middle of the table,[8] which had the unfortunate effect of making the table look lopsided so I reverted the changes. In an attempt to get the images back into the middle of the table he has edited the table to replace the accurate information with the imprecise terms[9] so I've again found it necessary to revert the changes. He made similar changes at Australia,[10]. Those had the effect of unlinking from this template, making it an orphan and therefore of little value. This has been corrected and Australia once again uses this template.

While a side issue, placing the images in the middle of the table also makes this template inconsistent with the other country specific templates listed at Category:Templates of city populations. Even Template:United Kingdom cities, which uses 4 images rather than 2, places its images at the sides as per every other template listed.

In summary:

• The cities listed have no core cities and should be listed by name as per the citation;
• Defining a core city is WP:OR because there is no authoritative reference that defines the core city;
• "City Name" is more accurate than "Core City" in this template; and
• Placing images in the middle results in the table being lopsided and inconsistent with other templates.

In line with the template as it stands now,[11] I've changed the link for Newcastle. Newcastle, New South Wales is about the Urban Centre/Locality that covers most of the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs. The Newcastle referred to by this template includes both of those LGAs, as well as the Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens LGAs.

(Talk:Australia#Cities by population table should also be referred to for other comments that may be relevant) --AussieLegend (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why the same rule was not applied to Brisbane? This ABS page says the population of the city of Brisbane is 1 007 901, not 1.8 million which I'm assuming is different because it includes a nearby city Logan and others. I mean don't the 253,861 people living in Queensland's third largest city (according to the ABS ref on the Logan City Council page) deserve their own entry in the table too? The city of Ipswich isn't on the list. Sunshine Coast isn't a city - its a region and LGA. The city of Caloundra isn't on the list either. We shouldn't sacrifice accuracy for convenience. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The same rule was applied. The cities referred to in the template are, as I posted at Talk:Australia#Template:Largest cities of Australia, based on List of cities in Australia by population#Capital city Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts by population. I don't see Caloundra or Ipswich in the citation used for that article. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Three images

As I've indicated in my edit summary, there's no need for three images in this template. It's only used in one article, Australia, and there is an image of Brisbane just above the template in that article. It isn't needed here. It just makes the template unnecessarily bulky and places too many images of Brisbane in close proximity. And, as a reference, other similar templates generally use only two images. The layout of this template was the result of consensus and a TfD discussion. Changes to the template shouldn't be discussed on user talk pages. Changes should be discussed here, with a note at Talk:Australia since that's the only other place it's used. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit summaries contain full details of the multiple edits that you reverted. Please see your talk page, and do not edit-war. You have not provided any reason yet for wiping the main changes that you lost in your reversions. --Zigger «º» 04:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the article I suggest you take your own advice regarding edit-warring. As I was the one who fixed the issues (as you can see at the very top of this page) that were the original cause of the problems several months ago, and as I set the template up specifically for 1024x768 resolution I'm well aware of the issues. Looking at the template now, as it has been for months, I see no problems at 1024x768 in either IE or Firefox. If you had issues you should have raised them here where the issues can be addressed by a reasonable audience instead of on individual user pages where any discussion tends to be limited in scope and audience. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ref tag causing problems

This template includes a ref tag, which is causing problems on the Perth, Western Australia page. I think the problem is that:

• This template is after the reflist in the article, in accordance with WP:LAY.
• This template includes ref tags, which thus appear after the reflist in the article
• Wikipedia seems to have a problem with ref tags appearing after the reflist - at least in some circumstances, although I'm not sure exactly which. (I do recall seeing a similar problem elsewhere, but can't remember where.)

I'm not sure what the solution is. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image change

Current image

The current thumbnail of Sydney is almost a decade old. Sure, the skyline hasn't changed dramatically, but the image itself is pretty average. A night shot, particularly from Kirribilli, such as the one I have tried to replace it with, would be far better suited. One person complained that it wasn't bright enough, but I had no trouble with the image in thumbnail size and my monitors brightness is less than half way. The cityscape is clearly defined, because of the lights and it's a neat view. A lot better than the current one which is really just the skyline obscured by the Opera House. If you're going to argue that it's not bright enough, then the Brisbane thumbnail could also be criticised. Perth's image is a daytime shot and you can barely make out detail, so why is the Sydney one targeted, User:AussieLegend? Rigidity at its finest. Oppose or support, otherwise its replaced. Ashton 29 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've adjusted the image sizes at right to show the size they actually appear in the template. At higher resolutions more detail begins to appear so it's important to view them as they appear in the template, since that is how they appear to all readers. All of the images in the template are daytime shots so a nighttime shot looks out of place. At only 120px, there's virtually nothing identifiable in the night image. The opera house is impossible to identify and the bridge is barely recognisable. The cityscape is not clearly defined at all, unlike the daytime shot. There is far too much black in the image to delineate between the buildings and the sky, especially just to the left of the centre of the image. While the buildings may be partially obscured in the daytime shot, these buildings are not notable and it can be seen in the image that there is actually a gap between the tall buildings here, so what is obscured is minimal. The Brisbane image is a lot brighter than File:Sydney from Kirribilli.jpg and nothing of note is obscured. Perth lacks any structures that are instantly recognisable by most readers, so it is at a disadvantage compared to Sydney which has the opera house and bridge, which are arguably two of the most well known structures in Australia. Images don't have to be a skyline view. Instead the Perth photo shows the extent of the city. There is actually plenty of detail in all of the daytime images but the nighttime image is just too dark. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)