Talk:Sydney/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Photo montage

A bit confused as to why a photo montage for such a major city, and thus such an important article, is still lacking on this page. A photo montage on the top of a major city's page seems to be a thing for most other cities, so why is it not for the Sydney page? Cement4802 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The most recent discussions regarding this issue are at Talk:Sydney/Archive 6. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In the various archived discussions for the montage there seemed to be repeated support for the idea of a montage, with a few editors firmly against the concept. Much of the discussion seems to be a debate over what the content of the montage should be, which is understandable and isn't a reason not to have a montage. I would support any editor's efforts to compile a montage for Sydney, as it is an effective way to visually introduce a large city. I think a discussion over what should be included is healthy and I would encourage all Australian editors to engage in that in a productive and positive way.Gracchus250 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I for one support a photomontage, as this article is essentially castrated without one. Sydney is not just a bridge and an opera house, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It's hardly castrated. This and hundreds of thousands of other articles exist with only a single image. However, that's not the real problem. It's what images to include, which you'll see has been discussed in the previous discussion that I linked to. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Sydney is not just a bridge and an opera house, after all." I would add the harbour itself, and then stop. Sydney is a large modern city, otherwise visually indistinguishable from almost any other large city in the world. I have said the same thing for several other cities. (It really annoyed the Brisbane people when I said it about their city.) Photo montages tend to only prove my point. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I think a montage looks much better and is a better visual introduction to the city than the current small pano. I also like your montage. The fact this has been discussed before is irrelevant. We could spend ages debating which spots are more significant but at some point it's worth just putting up a montage and it can be adjusted and edited over time like all things on wikipedia, as views change and evolve.Gracchus250 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Since it has been 20 days and there has been no objection to a montage, nor any further discussion of the topic or of what photos should be included, I'd encourage User:PhilipTerryGraham to repost their montage into the article. Their montage was high quality and had a lot of effort put into it. In this spirit of WP:BOLD I think it'd best to post the montage into the article, then we can debate on the talk page which images to switch out and replace with alternative images. Otherwise this page will talk in circles forever like the past and this will never get changed. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"...there has been no objection to a montage" Did you actually read my post? I DO object to the standard city montage. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I read your post and it did not make a clear point at all. What is your objection? That a montage highlights your personal view that big cities all look the same? Gracchus250 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. If you didn't understand my post, how could say there has been no objection to a montage? Seriously, have a look at the montages in several other city articles. Do they really show you anything unique about each city? HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so there clearly is opposition. In response to your point, city montages clearly and effectively demonstrate the ways in which cities are unique and different and effectively showcases a variety of features, it's doesn't take many examples to demonstrate this (e.g. compare pages for Copenhagen, Florence and Osaka). This criticism doesn't make any sense to me. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

File:ANZ Stadium, Essendon (cropped).jpg

I too oppose a montage that does not contain images that truly and obviously represent Sydney. For example, one of the images in the montage was File:ANZ Stadium, Essendon (cropped).jpg, the uploader's caption for which is "Our view, great position, no sun and with the Essendon crowd". This is a photo of a Victorian football club playing AFL (a Victorian football game) and is not representative of Sydney or NSW where NRL is the predominant game. The stadium itself is in NSW but it's not the focus.

there has been no objection to a montage, nor any further discussion of the topic or of what photos should be included - There is clearly opposition to a montage and discussion of what sort of photos to include has occurred at previous discussions.

In this spirit of WP:BOLD I think it'd best to post the montage into the article, then we can debate on the talk page which images to switch out and replace with alternative images. - The original addition was the bold edit. That was reverted and this discussion was opened. There is no need to do it all again. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, I agree that photo or something like it should be included. I disagree with your assessment, the only criticism I saw came from you about which photos to include not on the use of a montage itself. Frankly you've been gatekeeping this photo montage business for a long time, because you seem to have strong opinions about the included photos. Which is fine and good, but there was and is no active discussion, so it's a better process to start with a montage then replace the photos depending on people's thoughts and objections, otherwise the conversation go around and around and the end result is no change (which is silly and is the end result of unnecessary gatekeeping). And you shouldn't be rude about other people's attempts to create a montage and they did a great effort based on what they think, they should be allowed to do this and have other people add to it and be constructive rather than needlessly negative and counterproductive. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Typically, the montages being included were single images so start[ing] with a montage then replace[ing] the photos depending on people's thoughts and objections was not a better practice as it meant creating a whole new image. I think it's better to gain consensus on which photos to use before adding a montage.

And you shouldn't be rude - pot. kettle. black. Frankly you've been gatekeeping this photo montage business for a long time is being rude. I have merely been trying to keep relevant photos in the article, which has become a bit of an image farm, with 52 images, or 1 per every 277 words of readable prose. In doing so, those wishing to add a montage have not offered alternative images to those that are opposed or when alternatives are suggested, have not offered a new montage, which is their responsibility, not of those opposing inappropriate images. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You may think that statement was rude, but I'd encourage you to reflect on being more welcoming and supportive to new contributors and try and avoid unhelpful gatekeeping. In doing so, those wishing to add a montage have not offered alternative images to those that are opposed or when alternatives are suggested, have not offered a new montage, which is their responsibility, not of those opposing inappropriate images. These prior debates and the actions of editors in your opinion not offering the right images aren't relevant to a new edit. Again, this is why it's helpful to start with a montage and then discuss changes. As you can see there's no discussion currently taking place about a montage, so this approach has had the effect of tampering down debate, useful edits and change. Again, I'd encourage the original editor to post their montage. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Since that montage is opposed, it would be inappropriate to repost it. It needs consensus to repost it.

As you can see there's no discussion currently taking place about a montage - Until such time as there is discussion, there is not consensus to add a montage. I'm sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia works. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sydneycityscape.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sydney Metro map?

Is there any reason the Sydney Metro map, showing the operating North West line and the under construction City & Southwest line, adjacent to other Sydney rail lines, was removed in favour of the image of the Alstom train? Ashton 29 (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

what do you mean? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Start of human activity

• Radiocarbon dating suggests human activity first started to occur in the Sydney area from around 30,735 years ago.[37] However, numerous Aboriginal stone tools were found in Western Sydney's gravel sediments that were dated from 45,000 to 50,000 years BP, which would indicate that there was human settlement in Sydney earlier than thought.

This seems a very round-about way of saying there's evidence of human habitation for 45-50,000 years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It would seem appropriate to drop the first of those sentences, and restructure the second, perhaps as "Aboriginal stone tools found in Western Sydney's gravel sediments indicate there was human settlement in the region from 45,000 to 50,000 years BP". HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Selection of images for a photomontage

I'm being encouraged by Gracchus250 to open up a discussion on the selection of photos to be used in a potential photomontage for this article. I believe this to be an effort to produce a better-curated selection of images in the hope that such a curated photomontage will ultimately be agreed upon for inclusion in the article to replace an inadequate lead image. The motivation behind my bold edit to replace the current image, File:Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg, was derived from two things that bothered me greatly; a) it was too cramped for a 3:1 image viewed at a thumbnail size, meaning the only discernible thing in the image was the Harbour Bridge, and nothing really much else, and b) it did not represent the city beyond the CBD. It is my understanding than numerous discussions have taken place on the inclusion of a photomontage, (July–November 2010, May 2012, November 2016, August 2018, August–October 2018, November 2018–January 2019) with no meaningful resolution, but the matter of fact is that there has been a demand from numerous editors over literally a decade to include an adequate and illustrative photomontage as a lead image. I think it's time we recognise this and finally deliver upon it.

My initial selection of images was inspired by a need to illustrate the harbour better (File:Sydney skyline from the north aerial 2010 (cropped).jpg and File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay (cropped).jpg) and to illustrate the city's culture, education, transport, and leisure. The inclusion of images of Stadium Australia – the city's largest and most important stadium – and Bondi Beach – the city's most famous leisure landmark – were especially important. In the previous discussion, the inclusion of File:ANZ Stadium, Essendon (cropped).jpg was challenged as it did not accurately represent the city's sporting culture; it illustrated an Australian rules football game instead of a Rugby league game. This has now been replaced with File:State of Origin Game II 2018 (cropped).jpg. Any further suggestions for images are highly encouraged. Any further changes agreed upon in this discussion will be reflected using the {{Image frame}} box on the right.

Pinging every single currently active user involved in any of the previous seven discussions on this topic – Ashton 29, AussieLegend, Beatenplastic, CamV8, Cement4802, Eothan, HappyWaldo, HiLo48, ImprovedWikiImprovment, Merbabu, Subtropical-man, and Trainsandtech. WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Australian places, WikiProject New South Wales, WikiProject Sydney and WikiProject Cities have all been notified of this discussion as well. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Image suggestions

For discussion on the selection of images in a potential photomontage

I'm happy with most of these but I have suggested an image file of Usyd would be more iconic and perhaps also be better composed than the current UNSW image. I agree is good to have a shot of Bondi but perhaps a more panoramic shot of Bondi would help bring down the tonal range as the current Bondi image stands out against the others the rest. I had a quick look but couldn't locate one of big enough file size but am sure there must be one in commons. I'm not sure what others think but the central station image seems to be a little lacklustre - perhaps a view of Manly or the ferries as that is the other most visited tourist destination? Eothan (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eothan: An image of Usyd's Jacaranda would be great, but the problem is that the Jacaranda we know is no longer there. Since the harbour already features prominently in two of the images, I think it'd be in the interest of variety to highlight the Sydney Trains system in some way instead. Perhaps people would like an image of the trains themselves instead? Also, I see no problem with the field of view of the current image for Bondi Beach - a larger field of view would make things a bit more indescribable, I'd think. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: The image could be of the main quad at Usyd & we could use Many wharf - I would argue the harbour is a really iconic feature of Sydney and it would be best to use images of most recognised places - I'm not sure central station is one of these - perhaps George street with the new trams? Not really that concerned about the Bondi picture others feel it is Ok so I'm happy to go with it. Eothan (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eothan: What about a Sydney Ferry? They are the most iconic Sydney form of transport and represent Sydney better than a shot of Central railway station or the new trams would. Perhaps this, or this or this? And do we have a Sculpture By The Sea photo to combine with Bondi (which would do a cultural event and iconic beach in the same photo)? Bookscale (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your edit entirely. Sydney as much as many other cities both in Australia and around the globe deserves a montage to represent the varied culture and institutions of any metropolitan city of its size. Also consider an image of NSW Parliament House, such as the one from its article. Cheers trainsandtech (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Great! I think its gotten ridiculous that we still don't have a montage just because a few overly picky editors would rather bicker than agree on something. Here are some of my suggestions. Not all of them have to be used, and they don't have to exactly be the images i have chosen.

Sydney (AU), Coastal Cliff Walk -- 2019 -- 2335.jpg

Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg

St Mary's Cathedral - panoramio.jpg

General Post Office, Sydney.jpg

Sydney Opera House At Night 2.jpg

Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg

Cement4802 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

well said trainsandtech (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to MOS:LEADIMAGE, especially the parts of it that I have taken the trouble to quote below. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE we should be choosing images that are truly representative of Sydney and which make it clear to readers that they have "they've arrived at the right page". Pictures of jacarandas do not do that. Since the Usyd one fell down, if anyone wants a photo of a jacaranda, I have one in my front yard, my neighbour has one in his back yard, and down in the CBD of my town we have a street full of them. A jacaranda might mean something to Usyd alumni but to the vast majority of readers it's just a tree. Going through the images that have so far been suggested, I see problems with most of those already suggested. While the word "Bondi" is well known internationally, the actual beach itself is not. To non-residents of Sydney an image of a sign saying "Bondi Beach" or just "Bondi" would be more representative than an image of the beach. Beaches in Australia are common, we have over 10,000 beaches in Australia and most look the same, with only the size changing. Images of trains and trams are not suitable for the infobox as trains and trams exist everywhere. They don't define Sydney. While ferries might be "the most iconic Sydney form of transport" to Sydneysiders, they don't identify the city either, especially to people who have never been to Sydney. They're seen in images of the harbour certainly, but they're not something that would tell a reader "I've arrived at the Sydney page". That brings me to Cement4802's list, which does at least contain two possibilities, File:Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg and File:Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg. The subjects of these are both instantly recognisable worldwide, although the second is probably only recognisable because of the opera house. File:Sydney Opera House At Night 2.jpg is nice, but it's more suited to the opera house's article and might be misunderstood by the average reader. None of the remaining 3 images really identify anything that the average non-Sydney reader would see as obviously Sydney, just some rocks and water, a church, and an old building somewhere (which looks like the old Newcastle Post Office to the casual reader).
In the montage that PhilipTerryGraham presented above the first two images are great. Looking objectively and trying to look through the eyes of someone who hasn't been to Sydney, the rest don't really don't say Sydney to me, just some fountain in front of a church, a modern building of some sort, a fancy looking old bus station, some type of football game, and people on a beach somewhere.
I should point out that I'm not a Sydney resident. I was born in Newcastle and live just north of the city but I have a long association with Sydney. One of my earliest memories of Sydney is driving over the Sydney Harbour Bridge looking at the Opera House while it was under construction. In my analysis of the images I'm looking at how someone not from Sydney would see the city and it's important to do that for the readers and to comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: This is way too long of a paragraph to essentially say that somebody who isn't from Sydney is better at being able to illustrate Sydney and it's culture than somebody who's actually from Sydney... A single, crunched 3:1 image of a harbour doesn't tell the reader what kinds of sports Sydneysiders enjoy, or what we do for leisure, for example. It may adequately serve "a representative image" of Sydney Cove, but not Sydney as a whole. Why bother sticking a gigantic map of the city right beneath it if we're not gonna bother illustrating at least some of that map? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is way too long of a paragraph to essentially say that somebody who isn't from Sydney is better at being able to illustrate Sydney and it's culture than somebody who's actually from Sydney - That's not what I was saying. I actually acknowledged a long association with Sydney. I was trying to illustrate that you need to be objective in determining what images to include for the average reader, most of whom are unlikely to be intimately knowledgeable about the subject. That's why I referred to the Archibald Fountain as a fountain in front of a church. That's how most people would see it.

A single, crunched 3:1 image of a harbour doesn't tell the reader what kinds of sports Sydneysiders enjoy, or what we do for leisure - As MOS:LEADIMAGE indicates, that's not the purpose of a lead image. A lead image is supposed to be visually representative of the subject and I would disagree that It may adequately serve "a representative image" of Sydney Cove, but not Sydney as a whole. I'm sure that if you asked anyone outside Sydney for the most iconic features of Sydney, The opera house and the bridge would be the top two responses. As I've already pointed out MOS:LEADIMAGE says that the purpose of the lead image is "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" and photos of the opera house, bridge and harbour do exactly that. MOS:LEADIMAGE also says, as I've quoted below, "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there". Why would readers expect images of individual ferries, trains, fountains, etc to be the lead image when such items are not representative of Sydney as a whole? Ferries are only in the harbour, you won't see one in the western suburbs, and universities are only representative of a relatively small percentage of the population. Remember, lead images are not required at all and images should be encyclopaedic, not merely decorative, which most of the images in your photomontage are. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"A single, crunched 3:1 image of a harbour doesn't tell the reader what kinds of sports Sydneysiders enjoy..." Gridiron? That was my first impression of that football field pic. The rest of the article is for telling the reader what kinds of sports Sydneysiders enjoy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m going to put it out there that editors should be reminded that the MOS is not an absolute rule but only a guideline. Citing MOS as your argument won’t be enough. We’re not here to satisfy the MOS; we’re here to help the reader understand Sydney. I’m sure you’ll agree there’s more to Sydney than Port Jackson. The reader will likely already be familiar with this, so we need to portray other important aspects of cities. It’s this reason, that photomontages have became an unofficial standard. IWI (chat) 02:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Put it out there all you want but, as it says at the top of every guideline, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". You can't just ignore it because it doesn't suit your POV. When presenting images for possible selection in this section if you want to ignore the guideline you have to justify why you are ignoring the guideline and so far nobody has done that.

The reader will likely already be familiar with this, so we need to portray other important aspects of cities. - Wikipedia articles attract readers from all over the world and uncaptioned images in a photomontage do nothing to help readers unfamiliar with the subject learn more about it or assist them in determining that they are the right page. Most of the images that have been suggested in this section fall into this category.

It’s this reason, that photomontages have became an unofficial standard. - They're unofficial certainly but a standard? No. MOS:IMAGE only refer to montages once in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES when it lumps montages together with galleries. It does that because montages are essentially just another way of presenting a gallery of images and galleries are discouraged.

When suggesting images in this section they need to comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE unless you can provide really good justification to ignore the MOS. They shouldn't be recommended just because they look nice. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Bookscale and Eothan: It seems that there's a demand here for the city's transport to be represented by an image of a ferry. I would then, in turn, suggest that an image of either a Freshwater-class ferry or a First Fleet-class ferry be used, since they're the oldest of the current Sydney Ferries fleet, and thus the most recognisable. Which one would we prefer? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: - happy to go with the First Fleet class - they are probably slightly more recognisable (and also close to the current Emerald fleet). Bookscale (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Would there be any opposition to dump an image of the University of New South Wales in favour of the University of Sydney's quadrangle as Eothan had suggested? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: - no issue. Bookscale (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Would there be any support to remove the current image of St. Mary's Cathedral and the Archibald Fountain? I feel that the image is also too cramped for features to be discernable at a thumbnail level. If there is support to replace the image, what shall we replace it with? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: - agree - the image is hard to discern unless it's made a lot bigger, which will be a problem, suggest we choose something else. Bookscale (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Would there be any support to remove the current image of St. Mary's Cathedral and the Archibald Fountain?" Are they a cathedral and a fountain? Serious question. I'm using a fairly large PC screen here, I have my reading glasses on, and I had no idea what those images were. So yes, I totally support removing them. But the same problem will exist for any image that isn't known outside the city as representing Sydney, and is simply too small. Photomontages don't work. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You forgot to sign your message, just as a heads up! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thx. Fixed HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So which images have we more or less agreed on? From the looks of things, the opera house and bridge are definite common ground and most of us are in support images such as the ANZ stadium, a form of iconic public transport, something natural and other cultural/historic sites of significance. I think we should start by compiling a list of potentials:

- Opera House

- Harbour Bridge

- Bondi Beach

- Ferries

- ANZ Stadium

- St Marys Cathedral

- Centrepoint Tower

- University of Sydney

- Botanic Gardens

- Centennial Park

Feel free to add more and minus, as we narrow things down Cement4802 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to ignore everything others write, and keep repeating yourself, I'll repeat myself too. There's no point including anything below the first two. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm seeing a lot of IDHT here. There's no point suggesting images that have been opposed with justification. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Face it. Only you two are in complete opposition to a photomontage. It's rather on the contrary here, you two seem to be ignoring the overall push for a photomontage, and you're trying to get in the way of any form of progress. Cement4802 (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I also want to reiterate what @PhilipTerryGraham: has had to say. This is the section for discussing potential images, and not for general discussion or voicing your opposition. All the images i've listed have been suggested, and if you're here, you should be suggesting potential images to add to the photomontage, instead of simply objecting to everything that's been suggested without making any of your own suggestions. Keep everything else in the General Discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cement4802 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. This can obviously be the place for saying that an image is not appropriate, and that's really all I've done. And mostly because you don't like it and hence won't acknowledge it, I'll say again, there's no point including anything below the first two images in your list. There, I have discussed potential images for you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Only you two are in complete opposition to a photomontage. - more IDHT. I have clearly stated "If a montage with appropriate images could be made I might support it" so I am NOT in clear opposition. However, CamV8 has expressed opposition.[1] That said, this is not the part of the discussion to discuss opposition. If you're going to reiterate what PhilipTerryGraham you should not be hypocritical and do the opposite.

This is the section for discussing potential images, and not for ... voicing your opposition. - This is entirely the correct place to discuss images that have been suggested. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

General discussion

For general discussion on a potential photomontage

My position on montages for cities in general is that they are almost always rather pointless. Sadly, cities today the world over are ridiculously similar. Sydney as a city has two and a half images that are instantly recognisable - the bridge, the opera house, and perhaps the harbour itself. Beyond that, nothing in that sample screams "Sydney!" at me. Noting that the pics are shrunk anyway to squeeze into a montage, the football ground and beach could be anywhere, and I have no idea what the other three are. So what's the point of the montage? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no suggestions for images but I still agree that the lead image is frankly absurd. How can that small image summarise this city adequately? We need a photomontage. I’m not sure about the stadium, but apart from that it seems mostly good although would need a lot of discussion. Hopefully this discussion won’t be dominated and then essentially closed by the same editor again who I won’t name. IWI (chat) 22:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because they aren’t recognisable, doesn’t make them irrelevant. The point is to educate, not to show people stuff they already know. IWI (chat) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"The point is to educate..." How is that going to happen? "...not to show people stuff they already know." So why include the bridge and the opera house? HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the images are too cliche or aren't instantly recognisable. This page isn't a tourist brochure. Isn't the point of a photomontage to simply summarise a city with a few well picked, quality images? Sydney is Sydney, and you can't change how iconic or uniconic its cityscape and landmarks areCement4802 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have hoped my post above made it clear that I don't know what the point of a photomontage is, and nobody has been able tell me here. We certainly don't want one in this article simply because other city articles have them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: - Have you ever actually read MOS:LEADIMAGE? Let me quote some parts of it: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.", "The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there", "Lead images are not required", and "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". Lead images aren't there to educate the reader, they are there to confirm to the reader they are at the right article, so they should be instantly recognisable. That's why we pick images like the opera house, bridge and harbour. They are things that people know. The place to educate readers is in the body of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Your assessment that the only argument for a photomontage is "because other city articles have them" is a gross mischaracterisation – our actual arguments are that a) the current lead image does not adequately illustrate an article about a large and extensive metropolitan area and b) any single image simply cannot do that. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that a single image cannot represent Sydney. As I've already pointed out, MOS:LEADIMAGE points out that we don't even need lead images. Most infoboxes only have room for one image because one image will suffice. If you are asked what cities Big Ben, 1WTC, the Eiffel Tower, the Sydney Opera House, the Great Pyramid and the statue of Christ the Redeemer represent would you not immediately think London, New York, Paris, Sydney, Cairo and Rio de Janeiro? Multiple images of places within a city that are relevant to only small parts of a city or small populations within a city do even worse to represent the city as they only represent a small part of the city. To fully represent Sydney using images such as those that you are proposing would require hundreds, if not thousands, of small images in order to do the job properly. I do tend to agree with HiLo48 in that just because other cities do it doesn't mean that all cities have to. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: You have actually now attempted to present a different argument for a photomontage than what has been previously presented on this page. The very first paragraph on this page includes the words "A photo montage on the top of a major city's page seems to be a thing for most other cities, so why is it not for the Sydney page?" So that has been the basis for discussion so far. If you disagree with Cement4802, maybe you should have said so. My point about photomontages being totally ineffective for modern cities stands. They will inevitably contain images so small and unidentifiable to an outsider that they serve no purpose in a Wikipedia article. And discussions like this inevitably lead to insiders, people who already know the city well, competing to get a photo of their favourite spot in the montage. Not encyclopaedic behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: "The very first paragraph on this page", which was part of the discussion headlined Photo montage, and not this discussion headlined Selection of images for a photomontage. The opening statement of this discussion was not an other stuff exists argument, and neither were the comments by ImprovedWikiImprovment and Cement4802 in this discussion. Please be mindful of your context. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t made an OSE argument, this is true. We should follow the spirit of the MOS but not necessarily follow it word for word. I wasn’t suggesting ignoring it entirely. This is not because of my POV, this is a vital way to treat a guideline so it can grow and adapt. Putting an image of Big Ben as the only image for London would be a gross misrepresentation of the city. There are skyscrapers and several different building styles and landscapes. This is why montages are common, but that doesn’t mean my argument is that they are common. We should represent the city as best we can, and an image of one part of Sydney won’t do this. IWI (chat) 10:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"There are skyscrapers..." ...most of which fail to distinguish one city from any other. It's very difficult to find "identifying" images for most cities that are recognisable when shrunk into the montage format. If such images exist, save them for the relevant part of the article where they can be displayed in a larger format and properly explained to the reader. I seriously recommend to those wanting a montage here that they go and look at the montages in articles for other cities, cities they don't know much about, and see how useless the montages are. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You’re missing my point. There are several different building styles in Sydney built in multiple periods, as well as natural landscapes. Looking at the London montage, you can see the array of images used, which accurately summarises the city. This is why I believe a montage would improve the article for readers, as opposed to the barely visible long shot image used currently. IWI (chat) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting an image of Big Ben as the only image for London would be a gross misrepresentation of the city. - I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out that it is a single image that is immediately recognisable as being in London.

This is why montages are common, but that doesn’t mean my argument is that they are common. - So are they common or not? You can't argue that montages are common and then say that you're not arguing that they are common.

Back to Big Ben and London, if you look at the montage in London's infobox, you will see that all of the images are of internationally recognisable parts of London: Trafalgar Square, London Eye, Tower Bridge and a London Underground roundel in front of Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben). They are the type of images that we should be using, not images of internationally obscure churches, fountains or ferries. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"Looking at the London montage..." I did. I saw four images that instantly said "London" to me, plus a skyline that might be unique to London, but as I've said before, is too shrunken to show the detail that might scream "London!". So, forgetting skylines - they really don't work - can Sydney present even four such images? I don't think so. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the two large images in the montage above are the best we can get. Finding a truly representative photo of places is always difficult. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend:Not convinced. Most cities at best usually only have a few "instantly recognisable" landmarks which can be included in a photomontage based on your definition. If we were to go by that definition, i think you'll find that the majority of existing articles of cities shouldn't have photomontages included, which is quite frankly ridiculous. Let's have a look at New York City's photomontage. Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square and the Statue of Liberty are the only images in the montage that instantly scream New York. Everything else is maybe only recognisable to native new yorkers, and would be rather generic urban images to most other international readers. Going by your standards, that would pretty much strip New York's page of the need for a photomontage, since there aren't really that many "instantly recognisable" images that could make up a photomontage. Let's have a look at melbourne's photomontage. I don't think you'll find a single image that's instantly recognisable to non-Australians, possibly even non-melburnians. Maybe flinders street station is possibly recognisable, but even that statement's a bit of a stretch. The point i'm trying to make is that you can't expect Sydney to only include the opera house and the bridge. Wikipedia's not a popularity conteset for cities for crying out loudCement4802 (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"...i think you'll find that the majority of existing articles of cities shouldn't have photomontages included, which is quite frankly ridiculous." No it's not ridiculous. It's reality. It's presumably why our MOS doesn't recommend using a montage. Any chance you could change your view on using one? PS: I'm from Melbourne, and I agree with you that the montage in that article doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not convinced that we should use obscure images. You are wrong about New York City, all of the images there are very recognisable. That you have not heard of the Unisphere (never seen Men in Black or The King of Queens?), the World Trade Center (should be immediately obvious to anyone who has ever heard of the 2001 terrorist attacks), Central Park, or the United Nations just demonstrates an incredible lack of general knowledge. I agree about Melbourne's montage but that doesn't mean we should make the same mistakes here. Your argument really is a WP:OSE argument. It's also similar to arguments I've seen where people try to justify a mistake in one article by saying "look at these other articles that do it that way". The fix is not to replicate an error in one article because others do it, it's a reason to fix the other articles. As I've pointed out above, MOS:LEADIMAGE says that we don't need lead images at all. We certainly don't need to fill a montage with obscure images just because there is space. We only include what helps readers and an image of something obscure with absolutely no context as to why it is included does not help readers. How, for example, does a photo of the Archibald fountain help readers? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually do recognise all of the images in New York's photomontage for the record. That's exactly the argument i'm trying to make. Most people with a bit of general knowledge would see that those slightly less iconic locations are still associated with New York. Likewise, anyone with an ounce of general knowledge would recognise Sydney locations such as ANZ stadium, St Mary's cathedral, Centrepoint tower, Sydney's cliffs and beaches etc etc. The argument you're trying to make is that because such locations aren't instantly recognisable and in-your-face iconic to an individual with absolutely zero understanding of their surrounding world, they shouldn't be included in a photomontage. I believe the overwhelming majority of editors involved in this dragged out discussion would disagree with the premise that the images have to be in-your-face iconic and recognisable in order to be included in the photomontage. Cement4802 (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"...anyone with an ounce of general knowledge would recognise Sydney locations such as ANZ stadium, St Mary's cathedral, Centrepoint tower, Sydney's cliffs and beaches etc etc..." With all due respect, I don't think a Sydney resident is in a position to make such a statement. To start with, I have given up trying to keep track of frequently changing sponsored names for sports stadiums. Sydney's beaches are simply not unique. A cathedral is a cathedral. Half a dozen famous ones in the world. Not in Sydney. Which tower is Centrepoint? HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There are 51 images in this article at last count. How many more are required? Photomontages are just another gallery. I prefer the single lead image of the Opera House, Bridge, Harbour an City skyline. I have seen many fine examples of this one image. CamV8 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually do recognise all of the images in New York's photomontage for the record. Really? You picked only a small number of the images, Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square and the Statue of Liberty are the only images in the montage that instantly scream New York. Everything else is maybe only recognisable to native new yorkers and yet you now claim to recognise them all. Are you a native New Yorker? If you actually do recognise them that destroys the claim that maybe only native New Yorkers recognise them.

anyone with an ounce of general knowledge would recognise Sydney locations such as ANZ stadium, St Mary's cathedral, Centrepoint tower, Sydney's cliffs and beaches etc etc. Not at all. The ANZ stadium photo is not actually a photo of the stadium. It's a photo of a football game in a stadium but it's not clear what stadium it is. St Mary's cathedral and the cliffs are not well known outside Sydney at all. They just look like a church and some cliffs and they could be anywhere. There is absolutely nothing that says "Sydney" in the images. Centrepoint may be recognisable at a pinch but I doubt many would know what it actually is. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I was stating that my argument for the inclusion of a montage is not simply that they are common. The point in trying to make is it doesn’t matter if they’re not recognisable, yes these particular images aren’t ideal, but a set of images exist that represent the city well. The idea is to represent the essence of the city, and not to simply show a photo of the Harbour Bridge and say "that’ll do". Again, we are here to educate the reader and the Infobox consolidates the primary information about the city. It doesn’t matter whether the images "scream Sydney" at all and I’m not sure why you think that is a vital factor here. The only reason the images in the New York Infobox are recognisable is that everyone knows New York. Does this mean that an obscure city should have no image because there are no recognisable features? IWI (chat) 00:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No, and that's a straw man question, because nobody is suggesting that here. Misrepresenting the arguments of those disagreeing with you is inflammatory behaviour, and unlikely to be productive. The position of most people here in the past few days has been to begin the article with a single, instantly recognisable "Sydney" image, i.e. Bridge and/or Opera House. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

it doesn’t matter if they’re not recognisable - It does indeed matter. The images are supposed to visually identify the subject so that readers can be sure they've arrived at the correct page. You don't need multiple images to do that and images of obscure locations don't help the reader. All you need is one image of a recognisable aspect of the city to achieve the task.

we are here to educate the reader - The lead image is not supposed to do that at all. It's purpose is simply to tell the reader that they've arrived at the right page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

Since nobody else has mentioned it, I should point out that this is blatant canvassing. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Seeing as Gracchus has not even appeared in this discussion as of writing, that's a bit of a stretch. Especially as I had been a participant in a previous discussion, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Prior to your creation of the section titled Selection of images for a photomontage" your last edit to this page was endorsement of a montage over a month ago,[2] a position that Gracchus supports. You hadn't even responded to my response to you so you obviously were no longer involved in the discussion on 6 January, which is when he contacted you. He went to your page with the obvious intent of engaging a person who supports his opinion in a discussion where he was not being supported. He did not approach anyone else. That is classic canvassing. By contrast, your Pinging every single currently active user involved in any of the previous seven discussions on this topic is NOT canvassing. It's what you are supposed to do and what Gracchus should have done if he wanted anyone else to participate in this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This was not canvassing, I was encouraging an editor to post the montage that they created back up for discussion on the talk page, so other editors could see the montage, comment and discuss specifics rather than the abstract. Otherwise people get discouraged and give up contributing. I didn't contribute to the ongoing discussion because I don't particularly care about the images selected, I just didn't want to see someone's hard work repeatedly dismissed. This is a blatant attack on me personally, I cannot believe it. Your repeated WP:Harrassment is shocking, and I genuinely ask you to stop bullying myself and other editors. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This was indeed canvassing and is something that will be discussed at WP:ANI if you contine to harrass me on my talk page and make personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This was absolutely not canvassing. My statement clearly encouraged the editor to post the actual montage to the discussion so it could be further discussed, I don't know how that could be any more evident. I did not ask for support, nor was I even making an argument. I'm happy for the discussion to play out but I'm not happy about editors squashing down the work of others without care or discussion. My lack of contribution to the ongoing discussion further demonstrates this, the editor posted the montage as I suggested and called for contributions appropriately. We should absolutely still be encouraging editors to post their work to talk pages for discussion. Please do not throw around accusations, when you have personally harassed me repeatedly, accused me of canvassing and then insulting me. Your repeated accusations of harassment and complete lack of engagement are completely inappropriate. Gracchus250 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you look at WP:CANVASS, especially the part titled "Vote-stacking".

I did not ask for support, - You encouraged another editor, who shared the same opinion to you, to disruptively restore an opposed edit to the article and to open a discussion. Anyway, we can discuss this at ANI if need be.

My lack of contribution to the ongoing discussion further demonstrates this, the editor posted the montage as I suggested - In other words you sneakily got another editor to do what you wanted without having to do it yourself. You should also read WP:MEATPUPPET.

you have personally harassed me repeatedly - You have not been harassed at all. Warnings were left on your talk page for inappropriate edits that you made and you then made the situation worse by copying and pasting the warnings to my talk page, as evidenced by this edit, without any justification for doing so. That alone justified a warning.

Your repeated accusations of harassment and complete lack of engagement - I believe that I have engaged more than you. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You encouraged another editor, who shared the same opinion to you, to disruptively restore an opposed edit to the article and to open a discussion. Anyway, we can discuss this at ANI if need be. No, this is false. I encouraged the editor to post it to the talk page for discussion. The original edit was the addition of the montage, it is entirely fair to discuss that montage on the talk page, I didn't want to post it because it wasn't mine and I didn't want to engage in a discussion over particular images. Please stop falsely accusing me of something I didn't do and transparently attempting to twist my words to suit your desired outcome, this is absolutely harassment.

In other words you sneakily got another editor to do what you wanted without having to do it yourself. You should also read WP:MEATPUPPET. Again, a personal insult. This is what I warned you about on your talk page, please don't call me sneaky and please don't attack me personally. Discuss the content, not the contributor. And no, you are the one getting repeatedly angry and aggressive about this ongoing montage affair, I was trying to be constructive without getting too involved, then I come back and you're alleging I canvassed.

You have not been harassed at all. Warnings were left on your talk page for inappropriate edits that you made and you then made the situation worse by copying and pasting the warnings to my talk page, as evidenced by this edit, without any justification for doing so. That alone justified a warning. You just called me sneaky, you have thrown around an accusation to help your ongoing arguments with others, you have insulted me without any provocation multiple times on this page. You have repeatedly placed warnings and accusations on my talk page whenever I post or attempt to respond to your accusations. If that's not harassment, I don't know what is. Please stop immediately. Your actions fully justify the warnings on your page, you should heed them and think about your ongoing behaviour rather than lash out at other editors. Nor is it up to you to decide when your behaviour constitutes bullying.

I believe that I have engaged more than you. You have not engaged with a word of substance that I have said, you have only attacked me as a person, as demonstrated by this baseless thread on here. If you had genuine concerns about my innocuous attempt to help the discussion, you could have raised it with me, instead you have posted a personal attack here in an attempt to canvas further support for your ongoing argument. You have only launched accusations and used your position as a senior editor to attempt to bully and silence me. It is a clear case of WP:Harrassment and part of an ongoing effort of WP:Status quo stonewalling and WP:Gaming the system. I seriously suggest you take a moment, calm down, and reassess your behaviour towards others. Wikipedia should be a safe and welcoming space and you are creating a toxic and unwelcoming environment for editors attempting to work through an ongoing discussion.Gracchus250 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

If I'm not mistaken, i believe a good majority of editors would prefer to at least have a photomontage for this page. Much of the discussion seems to centre around what should be included in the photomontage itself, and having a photomontage started could at least serve as a good central point to which images are removed and added. That would also solve much of the dissatisfaction over the lack of a photomontage itself for the page. I should stress that i cant be certain that this is the view of most editors, so i believe we should start a consensus over whether or not we should go at least go ahead with a photomontage for the time being and add/remove images later on as we try and find common ground. Thoughts? Cement4802 (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: I think the opposite should occur; we ought to have a proper photomontage curated by editors through discussion first, so that we can have a photomontage that bests represents the main aspects of the city. After that, then we should put it forward to a final yes/nay consensus vote. It be better that way, so that a photomontage of acceptable quality and compliance with guidelines on lead images can be presented to fellow editors, rather than one hastily put together like mine was. I’ll be continuing the discussion on image selection above tomorrow afternoon. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"If I'm not mistaken, i believe a good majority of editors would prefer to at least have a photomontage..." I think you're mistaken. That reads to me like a serious misrepresentation of recent discussions here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Nope, it's a fair assessment. Seven editors on this page have either expressed support for a photomontage or actively participated in the selection of images for a photomontage, while only three editors voiced opposition to it. Seven out of ten is a majority. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that seven editors SINCE the pinging exercise four days ago? HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

or actively participated in the selection of images for a photomontage - Participation doesn't necessarily mean support for a montage. I've participated there but that doesn't mean I support a montage. If a montage with appropriate images could be made I might support it but I don't actually think there is a need for one and I certainly wouldn't support a montage with images that don't comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE.

Seven out of ten is a majority - Wikipedia doesn't work on majority voting, it uses consensus to determine outcomes. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, consensus is blatantly the opposite, even if I disagree. IWI (chat) 10:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this has been going back and fourth for years. All the naysayers, opposers, detractors seem to do is try and derail the efforts or proposals put forward by ambitious editors who want a montage. So, for the umpteenth time, I would like a montage, I agree with most of those images put forward by User:PhilipTerryGraham and would like this discussion to advance it forward. Ashton 29 (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd point above commentators to Wikipedia:What is consensus? and the clear statement that consensus does not mean unanimity, which is not always possible. Nor is 'I don't like the images that may be chosen' a valid basis to oppose a montage itself, as the choice of images will be an ongoing discussion and process based on wikipedia's regular edit and discussion cycle. Finally, I'd caution strongly against this ongoing Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling behaviour by certain editors, particularly User:AussieLegend, and I'd refer them to the 'abusing the consensus building system' in Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Consistently abusing this process over years is unproductive, ungracious and unacceptable; failing to reach consensus due to their own opinions enforces the status quo and does not benefit the development of the article. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please remove your baseless personal attack and do not attack any other editors, anywhere on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to respond, please do so to substantive points, not attacking me personally. And please stop harassing me on my talk page and attempting to dismiss my valid criticism of the ongoing stonewalling effort. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has attacked you. You have received warnings for inappropriate edits that you have made and such warnings will continue if you continue making inappropriate edits, whether that be disruptively editing the article, making personal attacks, canvassing, harassing editors on their talk page or any other type of inappropriate edits. The simple way to avoid this is to NOT edit inappropriately. It's entirely up to you. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop harassing and attacking me personally, this is a forum to discuss changes to the Sydney page, it is NOT a forum for you to repeatedly grandstand and bully other editors. I strongly suggest you consult WP:Harassment and WP:Don't be a jerk, especially the section on coping with accusations. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Gracchus250, one does not acheive consensus by bludgeoning the discussion. Please ease up on the walls of text and it is not necessary to reply to every post, especially with the same points that have already been made, ad nauseum. For the record I oppose a montage as indicated in my post in the Photo montage progress section below. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in the montage discussion anymore, I think you're right that it's clear there won't be any consensus on this topic and there remains enough good-faith opposition to the montage to prevent it being implemented. But I refuse to stand by and allow myself to be bullied by other editors, no one should have to accept that. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The lead image is there to let the reader know they're on the right page. A simple Opera House+Bridge shot is all that is needed. HappyWaldo (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Photo montage progress

Apart from the few editors who are in opposition to a montage, most of us here seem to be in favour. So where has discussion gone? I would very much like to be a part of this whole process but nothing will happen if we completely abandon all conversation. Those in opposition have made their point clear, that they're entirely not in favour of a montage. But for the majority who would like to see this montage go ahead, the direction we're trying to head in is still pretty ambiguous. Cement4802 (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

As AussieLegend said above, Wikipedia doesn't work on majority voting, it uses consensus to determine outcomes. Ignoring those who disagree with you is not a way to achieve consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreeance that the article needs a montage and have long said so. I really like the one that was put forward this year here by User:PhilipTerryGraham, above this thread. Although the main image of the skyline in daylight is a little underwhelming and dated, at roughly 10 years old. But the rest are great.Ashton 29 (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does it NEED a montage? Please address all the arguments made here against a montage in your answer. HiLo48 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I support a montage for the reasons stated previously in multiple discussions. A montage is a better visual presentation of multiple different aspects of the city and the current image is small, unattractive, unrepresentative and a poor lede for a major city article. I'd also refer you to Wikipedia:What is consensus? where it defines consensus as the following: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process." Gracchus250 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Insisting on unanimity - Nobody is doing that.

There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process - That's not the purpose of the three-revert rule. You've quoted from this essay but clearly not understood it. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Please don't insult me, I was directly quoting a passage, not interpreting it. Nor was it an essay that I was quoting. Please read the links before commenting and please don't insult other editors. Your attacks on me and repeated comments on my talk page constitute WP:Harassment and I would strongly ask you to respond to substance and not harass me repeatedly. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nor was it an essay that I was quoting - It's an explanatory supplement, which is effectively just an essay. As stated in the banner at the top of the article "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Now please, either contribute positively to the discussion or don't comment at all. This is not the place for what you are doing, which no other editor in the discussion on either side has done. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop personally attacking me, if you'd like to address the issues I have raised then great, but otherwise please cease posting on my talk page, throwing around accusations and repeatedly harassing me. Gracchus250 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose a montage. A decent shot of the harbour with the bridge and the opera house in view should be sufficient, those are the most iconic elements of the cityscape. Not 100% attached to the current image, a different angle and/or a daytime shot would be improvements IMHO. However I would support the current image over any montage. Not sure that the metro map is needed in the infobox either, haven't seen many city articles with one. No objection to it being further down in the article, but what purpose does it serve for readers? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Ivar, actually, I don't think a photo of the harbour bridge on its own is a good representation of Sydney as there are several other bridges around the world that to the casual observer are virtually indistinguishable from it. The Opera House on the other hand instantly screams Sydney to practically anyone. That photo meets the MOS guideline admirably and no one in all this lengthy discussion has provided a reason, valid or otherwise, why the MOS should be ignored in this case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Support a montage. Someone accused AussieLegend of stonewalling. That about sums up my experiences with him over the years - editing Sydney's page was/is like trying to get past red-tape, due to his authoritarian editing style and a few others (HiLo48 etc). It's clear there's support for a montage, but always comes down to the same lazy, trivial opposition: "Why do we need one? "I don't like those pictures". Ashton 29 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This entire post is a personal attack. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

and a few others (HiLo48 etc) - The fact that more than one editor has opposed your images should tell you something. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ashton 29 - That post is insulting, and misrepresents my position completely. When those taking a different position in a discussion to mine resort to tactics like that, it further convinces me that I am right. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose a montage; I have always opposed photo montages in articles, first of all they do not conform to MOS:LEADIMAGE and secondly, we are an encyclopaedia, not a glossy tourism website. Bidgee (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Bidgee you've used that line "not a glossy tourism brochure/website" for years. What exactly is it about a montage that goes against the grain of an encyclopaedia? Have you seen any modern encyclopaedia? Many of them have multiple glossy pictures of the subject they are illustrating, some are arranged in the format of a montage. Wikipedia is an enyclopaedia, yes, but it's an ONLINE one, so you must make concessions for how it might change the scope or the layout of traditional textbook encyclopaedias, presumably ones from many years ago when colour imagery was expensive and thus they were rarely included. Most major cities on Wikipedia have a montage, some of them are Featured Articles, and none of them contradict Wikipedia's Manual of style, which is what we follow as an outline, not your own rather vague ideal or notion of an encyclopaedia. I must also remind you that your oracle of editing, MOS:LEADIMAGE, says nothing about montages nor cities. I don't see why it's a problem for you, nor is it something you've been able to reach compromise over with the many editors who have raised the question about Sydney's proposed montage over the last ten years. I think it's time a third-party editor is involved, not someone who guards the Sydney page obsessively. Ashton 29 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGE, says nothing about montages nor cities - It does say numerous times, "lead image" (singular) not "lead images". --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"I think it's time a third-party editor is involved, not someone who guards the Sydney page obsessively." I'm not from Sydney. I feel no ownership whatsoever of this page. I have criticised the idea of a montage in the Talk pages of the articles about maybe ten different cities. I reckon that makes me a third party editor. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that's my situation as well. My interest is in building an encyclopaedia with encyclopaedic articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines and which are not image farms. Some people seem to think that the more images an article has, the better it is and that's not true. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, the opinions of a select few editors (very much the minority) have anchored any sort of progress on this page. Have an opinion sure, I respect that but the complaints of a few shouldn't hold back the overarching need for progress, and the genuine efforts and hard work of enthusiastic editors. The minority have always milked the excuses "I don't like the pictures" or "this isn't a tourism brochure" or "why do we need a montage" without any sort of valid reason for why we shouldn't have a montage. Why we're not more adamant as editors in getting progress through, I really don't know. I could just as easily go around to any article on Wikipedia and voice out a few overused and invalid excuses to stall any sort of progress but that wouldn't (and shouldn't) really fly. Why does it fly here? I know that the few certain editors here will be quick to jump aboard and retaliate and voice the same excuses again in response. I've pretty much given up on editing this page at this rate. This is beyond ridiculous Cement4802 (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

::I agree, it's pathetic. Why does it fly here, you ask? Because (Personal attack removed) ("Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure", sung in a repetitive chorus since at least 2006 - how exhausting!). Gracchus250, why don't you take this further? I am happy to assist you in the process of involving non-biased Wikipedia editors who do not generally edit Australia-related articles. I just added a montage to the Hobart page but it was promptly reverted by HappyWaldo for the same, silly ill thought of reasons. Can you believe it? It's time to seek external resolution against their tyranny. Ashton 29 (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Those two most recent posts above are pretty much outright personal attacks. You need to do better. Now, Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure. Tiny pics of obscure places non-residents won't recognise are not helpful. Feel free to try to find someone who will declare my comments to be tyranny. I look forward to the discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure. Yes, it has been said before. Wiki is also not instagram, if you want to see images, that is where tourists go. When tourists want to know more they look at wiki and no longer want to see the pretty pictures they want to read well researched and well written / edited content that explains the reality behind the miriad of images they now think are Sydney. I suggest wiki keeps doing what it does best and that words are what makes an encyclopedia. CamV8 (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't keep peddling that pathetic tourist brochure excuse. It didn't stand in 2007 and it doesn't stand now in 2020. Look at any Featured Article page for any city on Wikipedia and you'll see an infobox with a montage of pictures. Also, the proposed pictures were not obscure places, get real. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's rather hypocritical to accuse someone of "peddling that pathetic tourist brochure excuse" when you continue to peddle your own debunked statements. A montage is not required for an article to be promoted to FA and several of the images that you suggested are obscure to somebody without an intimate knowledge of Sydney. Some of the images were probably obscure to somebody with an intimate knowledge of Sydney. WP:TOURISTGUIDE is quite a valid argument, whether you like it or not. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"...the proposed pictures were not obscure places..." I know I've addressed this before, but I have time, so I'll play the game again. In the most recent proposal above, I see the opera house/Circular Quay, the bridge, a beach (no idea which one), and four other images far too small to identify. (And I have a large computer screen). HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support a montage. It's hard to believe this is still going on. I don't see why some people could so strongly oppose it. Let's join other major cities such as Melbourne, London and NYC. trainsandtech (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

How about you stop talking about other editors (there's far too much of that here), and address the points they have made? Such as the one about size of images in my comment immediately above? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not simply a matter of supporting a montage, it needs to be a montage with appropriate images of appropriate sizes that provide readers with visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page, as both Nick Thorne and I have quoted from MOS:LEADIMAGE and which has essentially been ignored by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose montage The very first sentence of MOS:LEADIMAGE says It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. Note the last clause. nearly all the images proposed for inclusion in the montage do nothing to assist a reader in visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page for the simple reason that they are of subjects that are indistinguishable to the ordinary reader from similar images of other places. I would suggest that the only image that could possibly be considered to be ambiguously Sydney would be one including the Opera House. A picture of the harbour bridge including the opera house would be even better, but the bridge alone would not work because of the large number of bridges around the world with very similar designs. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Support a montage. An image montage, such as is used in the Melbourne article, would be immensely more illustrative than what's currently on this article. Currently the lead image (of the Sydney Harbor) is about a quarter the size of the map of the Sydney metropolitan area, which, as a thumbnail, is a blobby mess. Visually, the infobox is just awful and does a poorer job of conveying "Sydney Australia" at a glance than a montage. I'd note that each individual photo in the montage doesn't need to be of something unique to the city, that's the value of a montage: it's taken as a whole. Cjhard (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

How about you actually address the concerns expressed by other editors in recent posts above? HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose montage - what other cities/pages do is never a justification. It smacks of "Look at me too". Montages invariably end up with promotional style images, and those supporting montages always compare it to other pages/cities. Sure, it's not as overt on this page as in, say, Asian city articles, but still there is more than a subtle smell of "but we must keep up with others". Infox boxes are already oversized and dominate articles...often running for most of the length of an article. Montages just make this worse. "Because we can" should never be a justification for the incessantly increasing bloat of infoboxes. --Merbabu (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Support a montage - The current single image is not an accurate representation of the city of Sydney, and fails to provide an effective overview of the contents of the article or the city itself. A lead photomontage would be more effective in illustrating these aspects to an outside reader. - Cement4802 (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. That's what the rest of the article is for. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, i hear your opinion loud and clear, along with all the personal attacks you have directed at other editors. My support for a photomontage remains the same - Cement4802 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop making baseless allegations of personal attacks against other editors. I have already had to warn you about doing that today on your talk page. As I have already had to explain at ANI, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are themselves considered to be personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegendYour "warning" was actually a misuse of a template, and you could potentially face further discplinary action should you continue. I have made no such attacks or allegations. - Cement4802 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

All of the warnings that I have given were entirely appropriate. Like I said at ANI, I can provide diffs. Now, please stop sending discussions off-track. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802 - Where did I make personal attacks? And if you keep repeating yourself, why can't anyone else? HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48 Perhaps you should keep your comments and opinions in the appropriate section above. This was simply a "support" reply, and is not a sub-heading for a new thread for more arguing. You're not going to make me change my "support" to an "oppose" like this. - Cement4802 (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse somebody of making personal attacks as you have done, then you had better be prepared and willing to present evidence of that when asked for it. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction

This section above starts by claiming a majority ("apart from a few") support a montage. Yes, I know that majority is not meant to be how it works...rather, my count below merely corrects (at the time of writing at least) the assertion that there is majority support for a montage. Sorry if I missed any names...

Support

Cement4802, Ashton29, Gracchus250, Cjhard, Trainsandtech, PhilipTerryGraham,

Oppose

Merbabu, Hilo48, Nickthorne, Ivan the Boneful, Aussielegend, Bidgee, Camv8 regards, --Merbabu (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

^Please don't change my post. original diffs for the record I collected the names I saw in this section in good faith - to make a specific point. You don't have to agree with my point. I don't care. (PhilipTerryGraham was added later. That's fine). Now make your own posts and votes elsewhere. It's all a bit beneath me...I'm surprised that more of you don't feel the same. There's better things to do on wikipedia and real life. Sad really, some of the behavior once would have resulted in blocks....on both 'sides'. Hopefully there's still a chance for that. --Merbabu (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like more eyes on the page has led to about the same level of consensus. I suggest that an RfC should be opened, so the concerned parties can say their piece, move on and eventually get some closure. Cjhard (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Forming the RfC question would be a problem in itself. It can't simply be "Should this article have a montage?" --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC sounds like keep shopping around until you get what you want. Alternatively, "closure" could be achieved by just accepting there is no consensus to move the page and "moving on". --Merbabu (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. An RfC would achieve nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

An RfC is the standard dispute resolution process on Wikipedia when local editors are unable to come to a consensus. "Accept there's no consensus, go away and leave it the way I like it" is not how things work here. Weren't people being accused of stonewalling up above? Gross. Cjhard (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Introducing straw-man parodies of the opposing arguments is not helpful. As for saying "stonewalling", "gross" - that's not really AGF is it? It's a borderline personal attack. Perhaps that is not helping to get people on board? Rather, perhaps change your approach that might help you better achieve your desired outcome. --Merbabu (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor calling it how I see it, friend. My desired outcome is for good editors to stop wasting their time with time-wasters. War and Peace has been written on this talk page about replacing a shitty image with a montage. The "A" in "AGF" stands for "assume". Cjhard (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Your words "... replacing a shitty image with a montage" is evidence of you being quite the opposite of uninvolved. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::Then let's find a better image - really, if there's a better one, use it. Do you know of one? it's not simply a choice between a "Shitty image" and a montage.

And, no one is being forced to "waste time" here as you put it. And no one is asking you to divide us into "good editors" and "time wasters". That's not going to resolve it. That's just going to annoy people, and entrench positions. --Merbabu (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Merbabu. Interesting you've come out of the woodwork after a solid (curious) reprieve from editing. Suddenly, you want to stake a claim here and oppose an article you have little interest in? Ridiculous. Cabal doesn't even begin to describe it. It's an orchestrated attempt led by AussieLegend and Merbabu to shut down any changes or progress to the page. AussieLegend, I feel as though you may take this to heart and accuse me of PA again. Which it isn't. It is incredulity at the fact that suddenly all of these editors who I hardly see are suddenly coming out in droves saying they don't want a montage. Where were most of you six months ago? A year? There's no transparency here, it's all shoddy rubbish, because User:Merbabu has even gone and conducted some paltry "Oppose" vs. "Support" list, but very conveniently left off a bunch of users names from the "Support" list. I see what you did, buddy. Sly, scheming behaviour. Ashton 29 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"I feel as though you may take this to heart and accuse me of PA again." Yep. Pure and simple. Allegations of rule breaking behaviour without evidence. That's a personal attack. Why should anyone want to cooperate with you? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashton, your post about is complete nonsense on every level. You have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, your words and post are quite nasty and don't belong on wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Merbabu did leave a few off the support list, but i agree that those comments weren't appropriate. Having said that, personal attacks and harssement seems to be more common on the oppose side than on the support side - Cement4802 (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, Cement4802 STOP making baseless allegations! As you are well aware I have documented personal attacks by Ashon 29 at WP:ANI and you have made some obvious attacks here and on your talk page. Comment on content, not on the contributor! --03:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Further, you've added at least 2 editors who have not expressly indicated support for a montage on this page, Eothan and Bookscale. They have been involved in the selection of images, but that is not an express indication of support. I have been involved in the selection of images and I do not support the proposed montage. What you have engaged in is WP:SYNTH like actions, manipulating the data without adequate proof. Please stop doing this. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Eothan may not have explicitly said "I support a montage" with those exact words in that exact order, but he has always maintained his position that he is happy with the images being suggested for the photomontage and that he is "happy to go with it" (for the montage). . Same with Bookscale. In contrast, editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage. There's a big difference. At the end of the day, the fact is that more editors support the montage than those who oppose it, EVEN IF we were to remove Eothan and Bookscale. Stop moving the goalposts and manipulating the votes. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"...editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage." Utter bullshit!!! Do you plan to ever stop lying about other editors? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48 That comment is an unsubstantiated personal claim about me and is an uncivil in its use of language and description. That falls under the category of a personal attack. Please stop this, as you seem to have a consistent history of doing this - Cement4802 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

cement, hilo48 - you've both actually inserted your comments into my dated comment. I can accept people updating the "votes" (if it makes your side feel better), but I can't accept you messing with my post (which i now regret, but at least leave it there for the record.)

Who's going to fix it? --Merbabu (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So i fixed up my comment. --Merbabu (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

MerbabuWas not expecting you to be upset over the edits, but its understandable. My bad - Cement4802 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What comment? I just apologised to Merbabu. This IS confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(This is now even more confusing. That comment of mine was in direct response to a comment from cement... It's now gone. No idea where to.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries. let's move on. Perhaps i was confusing to start with. Focus on a solution maybe the rotation is a way out? Details need to be nutted out. Then focus on bigger and better things. --Merbabu (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Nobody has canvassed me or drawn my attention to this discussion. It came up on my watchlist. I believe MOS:LEADIMAGE makes it clear that the Infobox photo needs to an immediately recognizable image of a place. For me, the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House are "Sydney". I am not totally in love about the particular image in use, but I am 100% in favour of a single iconic image. Lots of itty bitty photos in a montage don't work for me at all, I can barely see them. This is a long article, it can have plenty of photos. Put all of those montage photos somewhere else in the article. Kerry (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Friday funnies

This is good for a giggle. I can't work out whether it's said straight or tongue-in-cheek. No one wants to get involve - you're just taking your squabbling across wikipedia. That's not how ANI works. --Merbabu (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Opportunity - per Subtropical-man's suggestion

Really, anyone posting more than maximum 3 times on this topic (yup, I've exceeded that too) needs to walk away and stop acting like children - that's both "sides". I feel strongly one way on it, but I know there are better more pressing things to do. Like adding good referenced content...preferably written. Seriously, there's so many other productive things desperately needing doing both on wikipedia and real life. You are all needed somewhere else, somewhere better.

So, someone fresh to this page tried to be reasonable (yes, let's start with trying), and suggested a rotation of montage and single image - i think it was in the RFC section. Why don't we do that? Try weekly, fortnightly, or monthly for starters. And don't try and be dicks about it to sabotage the "other side". Can we nominate someone wise and calm to administer that? I'd support a change to a montage for a week. Then swap back for a week. and so on. --Merbabu (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said but constantly rotating the image is really pointless since nobody can agree what photos to include in the montage. Some images were suggested for a montage above but others were opposed for various reasons and suggestions for alternatives were sought. That's when the discussion fizzled and the latest "contributions" have achieved nothing. I was actually happy for a montage just using File:Sydney skyline from the north aerial 2010 (cropped).jpg and File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay (cropped).jpg but that went nowhere, like every other discussion. As far as ANI is concerned, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it went off track with the very first response to my original post. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, so the question of whether to have a montage is different to the question of what photos would be in a montages (or indeed, what photo would be the single image). Why not accept a rotation and leave the contents to someone else?

Consensus is about collaborating and compromising and finding alternative ways. (and you we all need to be nice to each other for that to work - that's why we have WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL...to make wikipedia work, not because of any fuzzy kum-ba-ya hippy ideals) Consensus is not a vote whereby 60% get everything they want and 40% get nothing...which is how both sides are acting here. --Merbabu (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No. I have consistently opposed montages in the articles for many cities. My reasons are consistent. Having one for a week is still unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

well, give rotation some thought. Things are heated here, maybe everyone needs 2 days break. or think of another way to find consensus as opposed to winning the war. I have opposed them too. and i still don't like them. but the above can't continue. --Merbabu (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:DEADHORSE really applies to the whole discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support the proposal as described. This is a fairly inconsequential issue that hasn't been resolved in years. If this will mean people can move on to more productive pursuits, then it's perfect. The only concern I have is that the proposal will/is facing the same behavioural issue that the previous discussions faced, and for the same reason, won't go anywhere. An alternative would be establishing what each editor wants the lede image/montage to be, and then presenting the most popular options to an RfC for the community to decide. Cjhard (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support the rotation proposal. At least some users have notions of compromise. I would suggest that others, like AussieLegend and HiLo48 leave Wikipedia well alone if they think their way is the only foreseeable conclusion we can reach, you can't claim ownership on articles and flat out refuse agreements like that HiLo48.Ashton 29 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's only going to work if you all stop your childish bickering and swipes at each other. Rotation would mean you move closer to your preferred, and the other group has to move away from their position. Maybe acknowledge that - even commend them if they move their position. even commend them now. Because sticking the boot into each other every time is not helping. --Merbabu (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PS - evertyone, maybe in this section, let's keep comments on editors out (continue it elsewhere), and focus on the issues. --Merbabu (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)