Jump to content

Talk:Cronulla, New South Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The reference to the name being derived from Connell sounds more like maybe where Kurnell, not Cronulla, comes from.

Fair comment. Thortful 03:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

December 11, 2005 troubles

[edit]

Should information on this be moved to a newly-created page? 60.231.40.83 14:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When there's more information, yes. - Gt 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After this weekend definately! Nsrma

Location

[edit]

I've moved the 'suburb box' back to top section because I believe it belongs with the other location information. It also conforms with the other suburb listings on wikipedia. J Bar 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture downsizing

[edit]

I have been through some of the Sutherland shire articles and have found that a lot of these articles have many pointless photos. Some are a good representation of the area whilst others seem to double up, as if the author or whoever has taken two of the same photos from slightly different angles and then added them into the articles as different pics. My recent edits I hope will give the articles an overall layout improvement and decent tidy up. If an author has over 15 to 20 images of his or her own in an article I don't think they should mind a few being removed to free up some clutter. PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images that I have put back in the article were appropriate but should be replaced. I believe that images are relevant but should show some more of the surrounding area as well as being the type of image that you would want to look at. Most people from the area do not want to see pictures of the life guard tower, the bath house, the Shelly beach pavilion and so on. As well as the train station. But not just locals. I came to this article to learn about the area and to get a perspective on what the area might look like. A lot of the images in the Sutherland shire info box are disappointing but should remain until we can find better ones to replace these. When I move down from the coast in a couple of weeks I will be taking a lot of images of good quality images with my new cannon 5d that will be replacing some of these images. I don't want to replace them all but room should be made for others to add theirs if they want. I think its time for a refreshing change. . Adam (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just changed the main picture for this article. I will leave it at that for the time being, but I really think this article needs a clean up of images PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have just had a look at the Brisbane article. I went there expecting to have to reformat the article to try and make it look nice, but to my surprise the article looked fantastic. I think this article should be made an example of. Why can't some of these other articles be formatted in this manner, with minimal pictures and great formatting. Kind Regards PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:PoorPhotoremovalist has been proven as a sock puppet of User:Adam.J.W.C. and has been conducting bogus discussions as two separate editors across wikipedia. J Bar (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible consensus

[edit]

I have tried to clean this article up a bit in the past by removing a few simple images only to have my edits reverted on each occasion. I think that all the article really needs is possibly one image per section positioned on either the left or the right side of the article and a few images in a gallery at the bottom of the article. One editor has expressed that these images should be in commons link so instead of having a gallery we could just lead people to this commons link. I have done some searching and have found that the Boston article is a very good example of how this can be done. If more text is needed I could do some research to add content. Please also have a look at the Brisbane article. This to is a great example. Kind regards PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning to delete photos from articles, you should make sure all the photos are in the wikimedia commons page so that photos are not lost. I've had a look at the Boston and Brisbane and I agree that they do look great. However, they do have a large number of photos in those articles too. It's just that there is more content on those articles and the photos fit better scattered throughout. It would be good to have more content in these suburb articles, so we can better utilise these photos that we already have.
So maybe we should concentrate on adding more information to these articles as a way of improving them, rather than spending so much time and effort on deleting info and photos. J Bar (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, even if the article were three times the size we cold still do without all the images. Will explain more later PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you work on moving the existing images to wikimedia commons pages or adding categories to the existing images in wikimedia commons that links back to articles then you wouldn't have all these article contributors reverting your edits in edit wars. As I have said before, if your attempts at improving the articles are constructive then people will support you. If you just go around deleting photos and information from articles then people will defend their edits. Editors who have taken the time to contribute don't want to see their efforts deleted without reason. J Bar (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one editor that reverted my edits. Most of these articles already have a link to the commons website but the photos still remain in the articles. Just because someone has gone out and taken all these random snapshots of various landmarks doesn't justify the fact that they should remain in the article. If you want these images to stay then maybe you should try to take some better ones. If you would like to learn more you should visit this article Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. You will learn how to compose better photos and get an idea on what gear to buy PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These photos are well composed and excellent quality. A while ago, wikipedia made some sort of change that has altered the quality of photographs that appear in articles. This is not the fault of the original uploader. I have found that if I upload the same photo back into the file, the quality changes and the photo is super sharp and clear again. I am slowly going through and doing this but is a long and time consuming process. As I have said before, if people want to help improve the articles and photos they can help by fixing things like this. Deleting photos from articles enmasse is not an improvement. J Bar (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cronulla International Cycling Grand Prix et al

[edit]
  • Demographics Section
    This section says data comes from the Bureau of Statistics, but the ref goes to 'Dictionary of Sydney' which sources from the BoS, is this proper? Shouldn't we go straight to the source? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is notable enough you should go ahead and write your own article. I was actually out there today and saw it. I should have taken some photos but didn't, would have been good for a potential article.***Adam*** 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I though that as an IP I could NOT do that. Am I mistaken? I am not a 'bikie'/biker either. But, I have dropped a message to an editor (User:Thaf) who is and has created a LOT of cycling articles. They're in England however. But I suppose with the internet they have as much access to published data as I do. There seem to be editors who are editing out of their areas of expertise, (bad idea) so I think I'll keep to what I know about. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what the?

[edit]

Who is Luka Sikiric, he is on the notable people... -- CDK (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been removed, doesn't appear to have a WP page either. 220 of Borg 06:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cronulla, New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cronulla,_New_South_Wales&oldid=1199977418"