Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

External Links Removal

Removed from `external links`:

All are vanity, not related to town, more than being located there. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, nor a vanity page. Thats what homepages and Yahoo is for.

PS: Some true Novocastrians should look through the `notable`s` section. Might be unmentionable vanity there too.. Ref Wiki guidelines for vanity.

-Snorre/Antwelm 18:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There are a lot of pages linking to Newcastle (disambiguation). I've gone through a lot of them, but there's still loads left, if anyone feels like giving me a hand :) The JPS 11:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Population

There has recently been an update to the Gold Coast page stating the GC is the 6th largest city in Aust according to 2005 figures. The Newcastle page claims that Newcastle is 6th, although this is based on 2003 figures. These are obviously inconsistent. I wonder if anbody is able to compare and varify the current populations of both and work out which is larger and amend wesites accordingly. Adz 00:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (PS: The Queensland page also states that Gold Coast is the 6th largest city in the country).

==According to [1] Newcastle is still the sixth largest city in Australia. Leukas 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Leukas

As at 2 March 2007, According to the ABS again, Newcastle region has 510,000 and Gold Coast has 482,000. See 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2007. User:unregisters

Neutrality

I wonder how neutral this page is, seeing as it mentions many controversial things about the transport and the university that seem to be more written by a council PR rep than anything else. The train line is scheduled to be cut soon and the university has just had a 25% cut in services. Perhaps a "current issues" section could be written up. Sumthingweird 19:30, 28 October 2005 (AEST)

== The university remains one of the best research universities in Australia, and although the train line is scheduled to be cut, it's only cutting the line into the inner city, trains will still run from inner suburban Broadmeadow, NSW. And besides, the line isn't scheduled to be cut for at least another 2 years, and is currently under review. The bus system is great. I know because I use it everyday. One wonders if you are from Newcastle or really have any idea about the place at all Sumthingweird, as you don't seem to be very neutral either, you seem to have a very negative, biased opinion. al.

I'm not entirely sure who you are as you did not sign your comment, but I have been living in Newcastle my entire life (born about 100 metres from the University), and my father worked at Newcastle University for over 30 years before he joined the ranks of the 450-odd employees to be retrenched this year. I don't hide the fact that I tend to be progressive rather than patriotic because I feel it is more helpful, and I don't hide the fact that I have a negative opinion of the Newcastle transport services and the University administration. We have certainly seen each other on the bus before since I take the bus everywhere as well, when I don't ride a bike. The bus line closest to me (the 235) comes around every hour and a half during the day, and the next-closest bus, the 226, which I have to walk about a kilometre to get to, is the most regular bus in Newcastle, yet only comes every half hour - extraordinarily good by Newcastle standards but pretty pathetic by Western democracy standards, as others here will no doubt attest to. I confess that I do not take the train. The revision should not be biased towards my point of view, and I agree that I am very biased, but according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, nor should it be biased towards the University's point of view. I believe that, considering that the downsizing and restructuring are the most topical issues at the University currently, it would be inappropriate not to include a mention of it. Sumthingweird 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

==Okay, Fair enough. And I probably have seen you on the bus, I catch the 226 occasionally. I'm mainly on the 349, 350, 351 or 322 though. And the bus system absolutely isn't the best in the Western world, however, coming back to Newcastle, after living in sydney for the last 5 years, I am incredibly grateful for the relative reliability and on time-ness of the buses, and they go across nearly all suburbs.

==With due respect, they are two bus routes. I would say most people in Newcastle are more than adequetely serviced by the bus system, especially seeing as we are a fairly small city by "Western Democracy" standards. As for the arguments with the University, i'd support a separate "current issues" section. NPOV is crutial, and this page is known to be full of political side-comments. I also changed "In the past year Charlestown has been developing madly" to "rapidly". I think the word "madly" has a negative connotation, whereas rapidly still implies the same without the subjectivity.Leukas 03:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Leukas

I think it says something about Newcastle people that this page tends to be full of bias. If the purpose of the site is to give a true account of the region, should this be included?

I agree it looks like the notables has been hijacked. :P

Also, the reports on the shopping center upgrades and development come off sounding like a council advert.

AdamHodson

Plagued Article

Okay, So I've come online today to see this page, once again plagued with bias and Negativity; And if it's not that, it's full of copy and pastes off of companies websites, being overtly positive and biased. I will edit this page once again when I get the chance, and rid it of some of this ridiculous bias; (i.e Newcastle Laps.. wtf is that? how is it relevant?) PLEASE, guys, KEEP IT NEUTRAL! Don't let your personal opinions get in the way. PhillyWolf 06:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, can someone who knows how to take the article back, please do so? What I mean is, looking in the history, all of the bias edits were by Ahodson, and I was thinking we revert the article back to the last edit before all of the bias ones, being 13:05, 12 January 2006 220.233.5.191 PhillyWolf 06:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. PhillyWolf 08:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Um Guys, What do you mean WTF is Newcastle Laps? Do you live here? This isn't biased, this is a huge part of the youth culture here. I'm not in any way involved in that crowd (I don't actually like it, but it's absolutely iconic here).


The current info is SO dry. This is a colourful town. You can be factual and neutral without being dull as a dishcloth.


To be honest, my entries (many biased, no question) were curiosity. I've only now discovered Wiki. I am fascinated by this community. As for my magazine. It and two others 'service' this region. Breathe, up in the valley, and Hunter Lifestyle. We all have our place, and are no less legitimate than the local papers.

A little moderation in reactions perhaps?

Adam Hodson TASTE Magazine - Australian Culture, People and Eco www.tastemediagroup.com.au

Again with the polemic carry-on I deleted the whinge session about Newcastle Buses. Not only was it incorrect, but it was poorly written. Buses to the 'Southern' The last bus for the 'Southern' suburbs departs after 10pm! Also, learn to spell before you even attempt to bore us all with your complaints against the bus service, which might I add, is very efficient and extensive for an urban centre outside of Sydney.







"this is a huge part of the youth culture here" "but it's absolutely iconic here)." ICONIC??? ICONIC??? I frequently go to youth concerts and do stuff around town with friends; I'm a teen and I've never heard of Newcastle Laps. Do you mean those youths of ethnic decent that cruise the foreshore on friday and saturday nights? IS that Newcastle Laps? I wasn't aware that was organized, or that many people participated in it, other then that group. PhillyWolf 04:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. It's organised and it's a fully functional social group. There's even been a photographic exhibition on it at the Regional gallery. you might be missing it because you are a thinking teen:P BTW, they are not ethnic. they are all races. As far as I can tell it's a very whitey turnout. I thought iconic was accurate, as so many Newcastle people are all about their cars.

Adam

Notable yes, Iconic no. What's interesting here is that Newcastle has multiple sub-cultures which are mutually incomprehensible. That's a good thing, but it leads to misunderstandings when we rely on our personal knowledge. There should probably be a link to Newcastle Laps off the mainpage, to the past controversies about Nobbies, Merewether and Kooragang. But Iconic is something different. The Council Bolt, the Kings Wharf Penis, the Cathedral, Obelisk, orange shipping navigation triangles, Stockton bridge etc. are iconic, they stand in for the rest of the image. When I see Australian street vehicle afficianados displaying their cars, I think "Summer Nats", not Newcastle. Fifelfoo 01:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, Notable. That works for me. I'm not going to put it up again though. Somebody want to do that? Adamh

There's no way that this article is remotely neutral, it was much better about a year ago.

Overly Positive Yes, this article is most certainly more positive than it should be. You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you put down the first "Notable Novocastrian" as "Su Cruickshank, notable Australian Actress" Im sure there is much better talent than her around. See Rhys Muldoon. The research done for this article is quite embarrassing. Oh and you forgot to mention Market Town under the sub heading Shopping centres.

Agreed - this reads like an Infopedia article, not a neutral article about Newcastle. Mgekelly - Talk 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Capital

A capital by definition is the seat of Government. As the Hunter Valley region is not an autonomous political entity with its own Government, it doesn't have an 'official capital'. The only relevant capital is Sydney - the State capital. Newcastle is an 'unofficial' capital and the article should reflect that. Suggesting that it is an official capital suggests that the Hunter region is an autonomous political entity - which it is not. I'm going to change it to say that it is the predominant city in the Hunter region. Adz 10:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC

Newcastle Today

"and the Hunter Valley's ongoing role in coal, aluminium and lead production." - The Hunter Valley no longer produces lead. The Pasminco Cockle Creek smelter was officially closed on 12 September 2003. I'm going to change this. (PhillyWolf 02:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Energy Australia Stadium

I think the section about Energy Australia Stadium needs some attention. To me it reads like an advertisment. I'm not familiar with the stadium at all so am reluctant to rewrite it but perhaps it could look something like this: 'The Energy Australia Stadium is a major sports venue located in (the suburb of ... ). As of 2005 it is undergoing a (cost) refurbishment to improve the amenity of the facility'. Perhaps mention something about seating capacity. Also mention something about what sports are played there and what sports will be played there in future.. I think words like 'drab', 'boring', 'new life', and 'new era of sport' read like an advertisment. Also, 'the premier sports facility in the state' needs to be referenced (I would have thought that Stadium Australia would still have claim to that title). Maybe also mention who Energy Australia are. Finally, I may be missing something, but what is the reference to the one eyed novocastrians about? -- Adz|talk 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've lived in Newcastle all my life and I've got no idea what "One Eyed Newcastle supporters" means. If it really is a real term used anywhere in Australia, it's most likely a slur and should be taken out. I've never heard of it before so I've got no idea where it comes from. Gohst 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. It appears that whoever has written the sections on the stadium, the shopping centres etc; has copied them straight from the companies websites, which is why they come across as an advertisement. Notice the proponderence of the word "we" in the Charlestown Square section. I have no idea what the reference to one-eyed novocastrians, however, Energy Australia Stadium would be the premier sporting venue for Northern NSW, as it is really the only venue of its class above the Sydney/Central Coast area. I will rewrite the sections now, from a more neutral point of view. (PhillyWolf 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Thanks PhillyWolf. While you're at it, the whole sporting facilities bit should probably be collapsed into one paragraph and moved into the sport section above. It will mean losing a few pictures, but if you compare it to Canberra or Melbourne that is standard. There is a Category:Newcastle, NSW sports teams, so perhaps those pictures could be included in a future article about Sport in Newcastle. I suggest you keep the basketball photo - just because the canberra article already has a rugby match photo in it. -- Adz|talk 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good point. (PhillyWolf 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)) Actually, Looking at the Canberra and Melbourne pages now, it doesn't seem regular to have all of the shoppng centres listed on the main page. Should I create a seperate "Newcastle Shopping Centres" page or something? (PhillyWolf 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Sounds like a good idea as an interim measure. I don't think they all need to be mentioned in the main article. i don't think they are notable enough as every city has shopping centres. I know that there is some interest in shopping centre articles though. When I was working on the Canberra page and Suburbs of Canberra, User:Ambi expressed an interest in shopping centre atricles. Perhaps we could ask her for an opinion on how best to deal with them. -- Adz|talk 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the best way to deal with shopping centre articles is to leave them out of the city pages altogether - this is what we've done in Canberra. Instead, we created articles on the individual ones (Canberra Centre and Westfield Woden being the two that have articles at that point) and linked them from List of shopping centres in Australia. While they might warrant mention in an "economy" or "attractions" section of the city article if they're big enough, often I think creating the individual shopping centre article and categorising it properly is enough. In any case, I really think that creating an article about shopping centres in a particular city is not a good way to go about things, and quite probably wouldn't survive AfD. Ambi 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I didn't create pages for the Homeworks Centre or Stockland Glendale though, as they are not really important enough. Westfield Kotara and Charlestown Square are the big two in this area. (PhillyWolf 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

This is rapidly changing. Glendale now has a Kmart, and has one of the better theatres around. There is a huge proportion of the population that go there, but it's lower socio-economic. There is an Aldi, and a Bunnings also. Not sure when you were here last to take a look, so I don't know which ones you are aware of.

Adam H

Personally, I don't recall a time anybody has squeezed 40,000 into the stadium. Any source or reference for that one? Timmah86 14:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At least one population/density figure is wrong

The area, population and population density figures in the infobox don't work out correctly. They aren't even close to doing so. ReeseM 06:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Morpeth, Stockton

Newcastle NSW, as the article states, gets its name from Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK (the history of migrating miners). Many of the street/suburb names are similar. However, are nearby settlements such as Stockton and, a little further away in NSW, Morpeth (both towns in the UK that are "reasonably" close to NewcastleUT) also take their names from the same area or is this just coincidence. I would have thought the former. If anyone knows I would be most grateful. Also, if anyone knows of a Crawcrook or Ryton in the area, I'd be very interested! Cheers hedpeguyuk 20:00 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the greater theme for place names in the Hunter area is mining towns throughout the UK. Take Cardiff and Swansea, both suburbs of the greater Newcastle area and named for Welsh cities. Mdgr 08:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe many of the places were named by immigrants from various mining towns and cities in the UK who were brought/ came out to work in the mines. Many early immigrants to Newcastle came to work in the mines and cames from mining towns, hence they named places after home. I am not sure i can find a reference for that though. --Ss11 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Im from Newcastle in the UK and there is a place called Ryton but not Crawcrook, nice to see descendants from my city and all of the places like Jesmond etc named after places in Newcastle Upon Tyne.

Coal deposit statistic in intro

"Last year coal exports alone were valued at A$6 billion." - This line in the introductory paragraph should be referenced, but it should also be amemnded to clarify whether 'last year' refers to 2005, 2006, or the 2005/06 financial year. Will 'last year' be out of date on 1 Jan '07? -- Adz|talk 07:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is safer to reference tonnage. July5-June06 was 80 million tonnes of coal according to the port authority... although even their site is ambiguous -- since in one place thay say a total of 85 million tonnes out of the port, but in the details chart says that 85 millions is a reference to kilograms.... (one of them is WAY off)...


2nd Oldest City in Australia

The first line of the article is "Newcastle is the sixth largest and the second oldest city in Australia.."

However, the Hobart article also claims "Hobart is the state capital and most populous city of the Australian island state of Tasmania. Founded in 1804 as a penal colony, it is Australia's second oldest and eleventh largest city..."

Only one of these can be right. Which is it? --Mckinlayr 03:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As i understand it Newcastle was initially settled in June 1801 (at more or less the current site) although the settlement was abandoned for some time before being continuously settled from 30 March 30 1804. That second date is a month after the founding of Hobart but the earlier date precedes it.

It would be correct to say that Newcastle is at the site of the first settlement outside sydney in Australia, or that Newcastle is at the site of the second European settlement in Australia. It would also be correct to say that Hobart is the site of the second longest continuous European settlement in Australia (or something less clunky) That may not help resolve it, but it does explain it! -- Ss11 07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC) That may not help resolve it, but it does explain it! -- Ss11 07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall Newcastle celebrating a bicentenary in 1997 (ie 1797). This could be related to when the place area was discovered rather than settled I suppose. I would be more inclined to believe that Hobart deserves the second oldest title and Newcastle should probably accept 'one the the oldest cities in Australia' title?? The whole Newcastle article is full of over inflated vanity anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.13.206 (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Is this based on when the settlement was declared a city ? I agree, Hobart appears to be older. Also, Launceston, Tasmania (which was also settled in 1804) and claims to be the third oldest city in Australia behind Sydney and Hobart. Where does this leave the claim that Newcastle is Australia's second oldes ??? --Rulesfan 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And what about Parramatta? Or do we just say that is part of Sydney now? Nomadtales 11:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be worth taking into consideration the importance ranking of each article, as there is obviously a conflict of information. Furthermore, the citation that is provided is unreliable as defined by Wikipedia policy. I have removed it and marked the statement accordingly. I have also tagged the section, as it is the leading paragraph of a B Class article, and contains two unreferenced declarative statements. Jason McConnell-Leech
06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What is continuous vs noncontinuous? I read in the journal "Light Railways", No. 196, Aug. 2007, the following statements concerning establishment of settlements at Newcastle.

< This activity (first attempt) ceased with the withdrawal of initial convict settlement in February 1802. Some miners remained to prospect and the *The New Discovery* mine was opened on the harbour side early in 1803, after the discovery of a promising area by a Lancashire convict miner, John Platt. By issue of a General Order on 25 March 1804, all coal was taken to be the exclusive property of the Crown.> 

 What this says to me is that while the convicts and their military overseers were removed in 1802, some Europeans *did* continue on in purposeful activity on behalf of the authorities.

Reference: J. Longworth, "Light Railways", No.196, p.14. Aug 2007 Documentation: Sydney Gazette, 8 May 1803; 12 June 1803; 5 May 1805. 203.217.66.19 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mati Morel (morel@ozemail.com.au) Aug. 5, 2007

Notable Novocastrians

This list was (rightly) removed by Darkliight. Some of these people should be included back in the article in the individual sections for their notability - either that or a category be created, as long as their background is verifiable.

Thanks. JRG 07:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent attention requested

Music
This section is very badly written. It almost entirely unencyclopedic, written with a strong bias, and does not cite any refrences or sources at all. As the article is at B Class status, this section in question is in urgent need of either a comprehensive re-write or deletion. Jason McConnell-Leech



  • This section (Music) will be deleted on the 1st of July, 2007 if no further edits or discussion are substantiated. Jason McConnell-Leech 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


  • This section has been deleted as a result of lacking further edits or discussion. Jason McConnell-Leech 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see what the problem with the section is - sure, it needs references, but you could have easily found them. Newcastle has produced a lot of notable bands like Silverchair and the Screaming Jets. If you don't think the article lives up to its rating, then add references and fix it up, or demote the article; don't just delete everything. I'll have a go some time at fixing up the section (and the article as a whole), but there really was no need to delete this section. (And please add new sections to the bottom of the page, not the top). JRG 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately JRG, the section in question (Music) was primarily in overt violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Essentially the entire section had been written with a strong and distinct bias, rendering it unencyclopaedic. Also, as you noticed there were no citations whatsoever throughout the section. This in combination with the large amount of declarative statements was a further "problem with the section". Additionally, there were obviously not any attempts to follow the guidelines dictated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
As this section was in need of a thorough and comprehensive re-write to remain in a Wikipedia article, and as I simply did now know enough on the detailed subject matter to provide this (sources proving Newcastle to be "the most active music scene in the world" are not "easily found") , and as there was a lack of user input, the only reasonable option was speedy deletion (WP:CSD). A demotion from B Class status was not appropriate as the larger part of this article was infact well-suited for the rating. A Start Class status would be unsuitable as it would provide a misrepresentation of the quality level of the article and mislead users into thinking that there was a general low standard of style when in fact only one section was aberrant.
I'm sure that Newcastle has produced many notable bands however, it is important that the information is documented carefully, clearly, with citations (as set out in WP:CITE) and in a neutral tone.
NB: This Talk Page section has been situated at the top of the page in accordance with Wikipedia policy as it was a matter of urgency relative to other issues in the process of discussion.
Jason McConnell-Leech 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added the material back in, toned it down a little and gave it a light copyedit. Fact tags remain so others can add in some references. I've moved this discussion down the bottom of the talk page again - I'm not sure why you think it belongs at the top. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 06:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Start-class

Is this article really worth just a Start-class rating? Auroranorth 13:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

18 August 2007 - reversions by JRG

I've posted the following on JRG's talk page but it also seems relevant to post it here. The discussion concerns infobox data and what is applicable to this article.

I note you've reverted my edits to Newcastle but the problem is that what you've reverted to is wrong for a number of reasons. The subject of this article is Newcastle, New South Wales. It's not about the entire statistical subdivision which includes the Newcastle, Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland and Port Stephens LGAs but the figures that you've reverted to represent the whole statistical subdivision. On a page about the Greater Newcastle region (ie the statistical subdivision) or the Lower Hunter region the figures might be appropriate but they aren't on an article about Newcastle itself.

In any case, the population figure for the statistical subdivision is wrong, which you'd discover if you did a bit of research. The population is not 512,000. It's 493,465 according to the ABS. The figures I've quoted for Newcastle are accurate according to the ABS and I've provided links to the data. If you want to dispute it, please provide appropriate authoritative links. Don't just revert.

As to your reasons for reversion:

  • the 7th is the commonly considered statistic

Indeed it is for the Greater Newcastle area but it isn't for Newcastle itself and the article is just about Newcastle as already pointed out. Interestingly, although not really relevant to the discussion, the "7th" figure is really a furphy these days. "Newcastle" has always been commonly assumed to include the area covered by Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Councils because they're right next to each other with no obvious borders between them. In fact when it was announced in 1976 that Lake Macquarie was to become a municipality there was considerable confusion because many people in the Newcastle area assumed that the suburbs around Lake Macquarie were actually part of Newcastle. They didn't realise that Lake Macquarie Shire existed. Maitland, Port Stephens and Cessnock are not commonly included in "Newcastle" because they are separated from the main body by geographical borders (Hunter River, the hills where Mt Sugarloaf is located and distance by road). When people read that "Newcastle is the 7th largest city" they don't realise that the figure includes a lot more than just Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. So, while the 7th is statistically correct for the Greater Newcastle region it's deceptive when referring to Newcastle, New South Wales.

  • we don't use statistics for a single local government area, just as you wouldn't use the City of Sydney to describe the population of Sydney

The Sydney article is about the Sydney Metropolitan Area which includes a number of LGAs so of course you wouldn't use City of Sydney stats. The Newcastle, New South Wales article is about Newcastle which includes only a single LGA within its boundaries so using stats for the Newcastle LGA is entirely appropriate.--AussieLegend 09:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is NOT just about the LGA. A user looking for information on "Newcastle, New South Wales" would not want to see information just on the LGA - they would want information on the whole city, just as a user looking for Melbourne or Sydney wouldn't want to see information just on the Sydney or Melbourne LGA. Please see the Demographics section for evidence that this article is more than just the Newcastle LGA. The population statistic needs to be updated to reflect the census figures (as was done earlier I think before it got reverted) - but it should not just reflect the LGA population. JRG 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The LGA and the city (Newcastle and its suburbs) share the same boundaries so that argument is irrelevant. People looking for information on Newcastle want information on Newcastle, not Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens. They all have their own articles and in any case this article doesn't provide any information on those areas so if it's about the whole city which you seem to believe is the Newcastle statistical subdivision then it is sadly lacking. The demographics section only remotely mentions thesse areas and the rest of the article focusses on the Newcastle LGA.--AussieLegend 10:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is that Newcastle, New South Wales should be about Newcastle the way an outsider would see it - just a city with a general extension in various directions, its culture, social characteristics, attractions etc - which would apply to the whole area which Newcastle services. At the end of the day it comes back to what the ABS says, as that's what we've used for everywhere else - Perth, Melbourne and Sydney have all had arguments about their borders which have been resolved by the ABS website, even if not in a way that everyone is entirely satisfied with. To give an example from Perth - the coastal city of Mandurah, in every way a continuation of the metro area and soon to get a metro train line and station (and already serviced by Transperth buses anyway) is excluded, while rural Serpentine, Chidlow and Bullsbrook are included. In Melbourne, a very similar area to Mandurah, Mornington Peninsula, *has* been included, as have areas as far out as Koo Wee Rup and Lang Lang. The Newcastle definition isn't the easiest to live with but it is reliably sourced. To say Lake Macquarie is a separate city and to draw an artificial municipal line between Kotara and Kotara South, between the two Adamstowns, etc, is to attempt something that hasn't been tried anywhere else, and ignores the reality that most people in the northern half of Lake Macquarie are in effect Novocastrians, and that outside the immediate area, everyone else sees them as such. Morisset and Wyee are a bit more complex. Interestingly enough, if you look on the 2001 census stats, where Urban Centres/Localities are defined, "Newcastle" is taken to be all of the Newcastle LGA plus a shade over half of Lake Macquarie, taking in everything to Swansea on the east side of the lake and about as far as Toronto on the west. (a new comment, written in part from contents of comments I have made elsewhere) I do agree that there's somewhat more debate over the status of Maitland, Cessnock and Port Stephens which are in a "greater Newcastle region" but are clearly separate and distinct entities economically, socially and even politically. Orderinchaos 12:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What you found in the 2001 stats can be explained by a quick look at the history of the area. In short, Lake Macquarie used to be part of Newcastle but Newcastle expanded to the point where it was decided to separate the area into two separate cities. From what I can gather the ABS definition of Newcastle is based on what used to be the case, before what is now Lake Macquarie expanded, and the ABS has never really updated. I've checked old street directories which are great for showing regional expansion over time and they show this quite well. Other agencies have updated and see the Newcastle Metropolitan area as being the combined Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs since the two cities are so closely related but they don't include Maitland, Cessnock and Port Stephens for reasons I've posted previously.
There's really no reason why you would draw a line between Kotara and Kotara South. It's enough to state that Lake Macquarie and Newcastle are effectively "siamese" cities and share some suburbs. If a suburb is notable enough to have an article (and I think a lot that do aren't, especially in Port Stephens) then the fact that they are shared or border another suburb in another LGA can be reflected in the article.
In finishing I have to ask, if the article is about the Newcastle Metropolitan area or about the Greater Newcastle area (I'm not sure anymore) and not about Newcastle itself, how can a photo of a street in the Newcastle CBD really be representative? And what actually is?--AussieLegend 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(*Sigh*) - I've already mentioned this - take a look at the List of cities in Australia by population. The pictures are of a representative part of the central business district area of that city. These pictures are all represented on their respective cities pages. The idea would be that Newcastle would have a similar representative part. I agree that there could be a better shot, but what I have there at present is the best thing we have. The best shot, however, I would think would be one taken of the CBD area from across the river in Stockton. However, I don't have time to travel up to NC and take a photo for Wikipedia. JRG 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


(*Sigh**)(*shakehead*) - As I've pointed out, no they aren't. Sydney has a shot of the Opera House, not the CBD per se although the CBD is a background, Melbourne has a painting from 1840 when there was no CBD, Brisbane has a photo of Government House which is not the CBD, Perth has a photo of what I assume is the CBD but to most people there's only one photo of Perth that's recognisable and that's the city skyline (sorry Perth but it's true), Adelaide also has a painting of what one day would be the CBD but wasn't then, Gold Coast has an aerial view (hmmmm!) of a large part of the area but not specifically of the CBD or anything in it, Canberra has a photo of a cottage that isn't the CBD, Canberra has a long shot of Caloundra from the beach-again not specifically of the CBD, Wollongong has a long shot of the harbour-the CBD may be in there somewhere but I can't recognise it and Hobart has a photo of a street marker that doesn't identify whether it has anything to do with the CBD. That's the first 10 not including Newcastle. I'd agree that the image should representative of the *area* but the CBD doesn't seem to be a mandatory part of the image. A photo of Nobbys Head would certainly seem to be a valid photo to use and that's most definitely not in the CBD. Aerial shots also seem appropriate, more so if they show several elements from the region. Since we are talking about a region and not just the Newcastle LGA Lake Macquarie, which is nowhere near the Newcastle CBD, would probably also be representative since it's a major geographical feature of the region and at any time has more people around it than the Newcastle CBD ever has. That's one of the reasons that Lake Macquarie has a larger population than Newcastle. I think you could probably even argue that the numerous ships waiting offshore to enter the port could be representative because they mean so much to the region and are are in fact a very recognisable element of Newcastle, even more than the CBD. When this weather clears I will take a photo of the Newcastle CBD from Stockton though. It's only 20 minutes away. --AussieLegend 04:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You may not have time to travel up to Newcastle, but I do, seeing as I live in Newcastle. I will endeavour to take a photograph some time this week. Macr —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:41:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion regarding infobox data and general article

The following has been copied from my talk page for future reference during edits as a result of the recent discussion between Orderinchaos, JRG and me about the article:

Cool - my main bone of contention was with the exclusion of Lake Macquarie, so it seems we agree on that, and I agree that you actually do have a point with regards to the other three. (I intend to come to the region in late November, so I'll see it all for myself I guess - though with the limitations of public transport :P) So two possible definitions here - an area of 826.1 km² with a population of 313,598 (2001) / 324,891 (2006) (the two councils together), or an area of 259.8 km² with a population of 278,773 (2001) (not yet measured for 2006) per ABS Urban Centre/Locality, either of which would seem to work for any evaluative purposes. Orderinchaos 13:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this is the way to go with this article although, since it seems that the convention with every government agency is that the Newcastle metro area includes the combined complete Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs, I'd be tempted to use OIC's first suggestion for the figures to avoid confusion, along with adding a note at the beginning of the article clearly stating that it is about the Newcastle metro area and not the LGA. The article also needs to be expanded appropriately to incorporate appropriate information that extends beyond the Newcastle LGA. --AussieLegend 14:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is very unhelpful now. The article was originally on the greater Newcastle area, it's just that the content of the article didn't reflect that. I suggest you change the intro back to what it was and expand the content of the article to include the rest of the Newcastle area. The intro was fine. JRG 05:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The article was not originally on the Greater Newcastle area. If you look back to the earliest edits from May 2002 it was very clearly about just Newcastle itself since it talks about the industrial city of Newcastle. Edits over time right up to the present clearly indicate that most editors seem to agree that the article is about what is now the area occupied by the Newcastle LGA and nothing else because there is almost nothing else about any other area in the Greater Newcastle area. In June 2003 a statement about mining at Cockle Creek, which is part of the Lake Macquarie LGA, was added but at the same time so was the following: "In 2000 the city of Newcastle had a population of 140,934 while the adjacent City of Lake Macquarie had a population 184,319" (bolding for emphasis) While the statement referring to Cockle Creek seems to include the Lake Macquarie LGA, although in the 1890s Cockle Creek was part of Newcastle, the second statement clearly excludes it. Since that 2003 edit the article has focussed almost exclusively on what is now the Newcastle LGA with nothing about the other parts of the Greater Newcastle area except for minor references previously discussed. Nevertheless, after the recent discusssion I have to concede that the article should be about the Newcastle metropolitan are rather than just the Newcastle LGA, since the two LGAs that form the Newcastle metro area (Newcastle and Lake Macquarie) are so closely linked.
Unfortunately I am just one editor and other editors still seem to be focussing on including information that is Newcastle LGA specific and therefore really should be in the Newcastle LGA article rather than in one that encompasses multiple LGAs. That is why the disambiguation was included.
Discussing the entire Greater Newcastle area in this article is not appropriate since that was never the focus of the original article. It should only be about Newcastle itself or, as Orderinchaos and I seem to agree, the Newcastle metropolitan area. This is the closest action to the article's original intent and seems most appropriate for this article. Including information on other LGAs in the Greater Newcastle area to the extent that the Newcastle LGA is covered in this article would make it huge and duplicate a lot of information from other pages. Information relating specifically to the LGA (ie most of the article) should be in the LGA article. This article should be a broader overview of the metropolitan area.
As we've already discussed this and two of three editors agree about the intent of the article I'm reverting your edits to what we agreed upon. If you have any evidence supporting your claim that the article is about the Greater Newcastle area please present it and discuss the issue before reverting again.--AussieLegend 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


"I am fed up with changing your edits back from your own preconceptions of what Newcastle constitutes."
Pot.kettle.black In any case, what I wrote was based on a 3-way discussion and was based on the agreement of two of those three editors and data obtained from the ABS, NSW Department of Local Government, the Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens Councils and various web sites. Where does your preconception come from?
"This article is on the whole city of Newcastle"
What exactly constitutes the "whole city of Newcastle"? The Newcastle Statistical District is NOT the city of Newcastle. It is the City of Newcastle plus other areas. There is nothing in the article history that supports your assertion. If you think there is, please provide proof.
"just as Sydney is on the whole city of Sydney"
The article on Sydney clearly states "This article is about the metropolitan area in Australia". The Newcastle metropolitan area includes the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs but excludes the other 3 as has already been discussed, and ignored by you.
"I don't care what it was on originally"
Hang on! You can't have it both ways. Only a few hours ago you argued "The article was originally on the greater Newcastle area". Clearly you cared then what the article was on originally. Now that your argument has been shown to be wrong you have apparently decided that issue is no longer important. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly. Either you care or you don't but either way it means that one of your arguiments is no longer valid. If you don't care then your eralier reversion wasn't a good faith edit. If you do care then you have to admit that your argument has failed.
"the focus in the immediate past has been on the whole of the city area,"
As previously pointed out, no it hasn't. The issues raised recently have all been focussing on the Newcastle LGA portion of the Greater Newcastle area, ignoring the other 4 LGAs. You even argued that a photo of the Newcastle CBD was appropriate as an article opener, thereby focussing on the Newcastle LGA yourself.
"all the articles which link here expect the article to be a general and broad one on the city itself, not a specific little article on the Newcastle CBD."
I don't disagree with that but places like Morpeth and Karuah are not part of the city yet you seek to include them in the city of Newcastle.
"I should not have to keep explaining it again and again and again."
Again, pot.kettle.black. Of course, if you do explain it a few citations or examples might help your argument.
"To make up some definition you have procured yourself which just includes 2 local government areas,"
As I have previously demonstrated with an example, legislation, ie THE LAW, defines the Newcastle metropolitan area as including Lake Macquarie and Newcastle but excluding the Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens LGAs. There is no definition that includes those last 3 LGAs in the city of Newcastle or the Newcastle metropolitan area. If you have one, I'd be happy to see it. And no, a Statistical District, as defined in the 2006 Australian Census Dictionary is not a city. FYI, according to the Newcastle City Council the City of Newcastle is the same as the Newcastle LGA.
"Now please leave the lead alone and fix up what needs to be fixed up"
Yet again....you know what. The whole article needs a re-write. I was attempting to do that but you seem intent on having the article fit your own, unproved definition.
"The lead paragraph was fine and should not be changed."
No it wasn't. It needed a re-write to reflect the subject. Your reversions have made it worse by introducing errors. Please feel free to respond but some proof of your assertions would be nice. And expected. --AussieLegend 10:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
To JRG: I note that you have now deleted your contributions on this matter. I would have preferred that you had presented some proof to backup what you have claimed because deleting your contributions is a pretty poor and blatantly obvious way of avoiding having to prove your assertions and reflects poorly on you. If you have the proof that what you argue is correct, present it. I'm more than willing to listen to what you say. If you aren't willing to provide proof, I implore you, please leave the article alone when others try to improve it. --AussieLegend 12:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Violent Gangs

In 2006, Newcastle was named Australia's Worst City for ' Gang Violence '. The city of Newcastle had recorded a number of inncidences during weekend nights. Newcastle's outter suberb infamous gangs are the so called "shorty" boys from Shortland, who already have recordings for attacks and even murders. Another fued is the ' R.P.E ' Rankin Park, Elemorevale street gang. Tensions between these to gangs are qutie calm. It is uknown the population of each gang. Police belive that if an attack between these to gangs broke out they would be able to handle it. Saying this Newcastle is still quite a safe place.

Besides the year 4, level of spelling by Liverpoolmike, has anyone else in Newcastle heard of these alleged gangs. I put it forward that Liverpoolmike has vandalised the page. -- Macr237 11:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually after doing a bit of research and not coming up with anything, I am guessing that this person may even be a Newcastle local, due to knowing the region. The only places not mentioned that are noteworthy, is Mayfield and Windale. I have highlighted all the spelling mistakes, to help you decide if it is a hijack. -- Macr237 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I too have my suspicions about the legitimacy of these edits but since the edits weren't by an anonymous IP address I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless it's clear that appropriate citations are necessary. If no citations are supplied I'd certainly support removal. --AussieLegend 14:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed them. I would encourage others to be bold and remove any dubious unsourced claims, especially when they are as poorly written and unencyclopedic as this. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am only new to this game and I wasn't brave enough, in case I incited the wrath of the mod squad. -- Macr237 07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Hello, someone should post a picture of the coat of arms of Newcastle, I believe the colours are brown and show a hill fort? Im not sure but I will look around and see if i can find it. Shuggyg (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

The following was in response to comments by JRG which he has now decided to delete from this page. --AussieLegend 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: this was not deleted. I moved the talk discussion to User talk:AussieLegend where it belonged in the first place as it had become a personal argument - and rightly does not belong on a talk page of an article. JRG 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
At the time of your last edits on 16 October there were two different forms of referencing in use in this article. I converted all references, with the exception of the those in the "Newcastle Today" section, 2 of which duplicated other references that already existed in the first section, to the same style. Once referencing has been standardised it isn't appropriate for you to change all of the references to a different style simply because you prefer that type of referencing. If people do that we can go back and forth all day claiming that one or the other form is acceptable. The system you prefer is no more flexible than the other form. yyyy-mm-dd in NOT an American format. You're thinking of mm-dd-yyyy. In any case, the dates display in the Australian format so this issue is trivial and irrelevant, as is your argument regarding "retrieved". The references as you have changed them are no more accurate than the references that existed before your latest reversion
While changing the referencing to your preferred format you've reverted numerous valid edits, including corrections to incorrect edits that you've made. For example:

As the Greater Newcastle region is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales, Newcastle as its major city has an extensive system of both road links and public transport services which cover most areas of the city. Within Newcastle city, the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

The article is about the Newcastle metropolitan area, not Greater Newcastle. The opening sentence implies that Newcastle has its "extensive system of both road links and public transport services" because it "is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales". This is not correct. Newcastle has the network because it is a large urban locality. It also ignores the fact that the public rail system is limited only to major rail corridors and everywhere else has no rail transport at all.ie this form of public transport is by no means "extensive". References to "Newcastle city" are misleading because Newcastle City is officially just the Newcastle LGA and the information in the citation refers to both the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs within the Newcastle metropolitan area.
There was no need for your latest reversion. There was nothing wrong with the article as I left it. (diffs) The edits I made were entirely valid so I'm reinstating them, as well as the referencing. You'll note also that I didn't simply revert your earlier edits. I restored all of your valid edits so you didn't have to. Some of the information though is unnecessary (eg giving transport population percentages as well as population figures - you don't need both) so I haven't restored those. Please don't be pushy and try to force only your opinions and preferences into the article. Remember, individual editors don't own articles. --AussieLegend 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The deletion of the transport figures was a simple case of removing unnecessary data. You don't need both percentages and actual figures. That said, I'm happy to leave them in if you really want to push the issue but they confuse matters because of the way that they were presented. That's why I edited them out.
"You've wanted to define everything to do with this article ever since you started editing it, and everything you don't like you just revert."
I'm afraid that's just rubbish. The first real edits I made to this page were changing some images and YOU reverted them.[2] You've continued on a number of occasions since then, including your latest edits where you reverted valid edits abck to just the way you wanted them and to the referencing style that you prefer. This continual reversion of valid edits is a clear display of WP:OWN.
"I made an attempt to fix things up, not destroy others' work like you are doing. You had several articles referenced which did not have access dates or authors, and I added them accordingly."
Several of those references weren't my own and there is no mandated requirement to include access dates or authors. Your efforts to add information to references is to be commended but you've done your fair share of destroying the work of others. I went to the trouble of standardising the article on one refewrencing method. You then changed all the references to your own preferred method. I made several quite valid efforts and you reverted them to just the way you wanted it. That, my friend, is destroying other peoples work, especially when your reversions reintroduce errors that others have corrected.
"I state again you do not have to use the cite template format, and it's easier not to, because it's more flexible for the reasons I stated above. You are yet to give me a valid reason why they are not."
I actually rebutted your reasons above. The point is, if you know how to reference neither system is really more flexible than the other. There is nothing in your referencing that isn't in the referencing that I standardised the article to on 16 October. You've just come along, decided you didn't like it and changed everything. That's not appropriate and it disrepects the efforts of others to improve the article.
"You also didn't read the sentence I wrote about the Newcastle area - I said because Newcastle city is the largest city within Greater Newcastle, it does have an extensive public transport system"
That's not what you actually wrote though, is it? Your original edit on 9 October was:

As the Greater Newcastle region is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales, Newcastle has an extensive system of both road links and public transport services which cover most areas of the city. Within the city, the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

I corrected that on 16 October to read:

Like any large city, the Newcastle metropolitan area has an extensive system of both road links and road based public transport services which cover most areas of both Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. Rail transport, however, is accessible to only a relatively small percentage of the population along the major rail transport routes and ferry services are restricted to those commuting between Newcastle and Stockton. Within the city the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

This was an improvement in the article because it eliminated the reference to the Greater Newcastle area, clarified the situation regarding rail and introduced information on the ferry system. In a clear display of WP:OWN you reverted those edits and made a couple of tiny changes that only served to add more confusion:

As the Greater Newcastle region is the second-largest urban area within the state of New South Wales, Newcastle as its major city has an extensive system of both road links and public transport services which cover most areas of the city. Within Newcastle city the car remains the dominant form of transportation.

"And please stop replying with lengthy discussions - they are unwarranted."
I'm sorry you don't like my replies but your edits are wrong and I'm simply justifying why. Claiming that what I write is unwarranted is somewhat hypocritical given that you've made such claims as "You are yet to give me a valid reason why they are not."
Your latest reversions have once again destroyed valid edits and your actions are now bordering on vandalism. Please stop and allow other people to edit the article. --AussieLegend 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You actually haven't made the claim that Newcastle has the second-largest public transport network. The way in which you've presented the information says that Newcastle has an extensive public transport system because Greater Newcastle is the second largest urban area in the state. That's why it was edited. I agree with everything else you've said in the rest of the praragraph. --AussieLegend 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is stupid so why not let other people edit the article instead of just reverting what other people have added or improved upon which you are continuing to do? I don't see where anyone has argued over definitions of what Newcstle is. We agreed that this article is about the metropolitan area a long time ago. --AussieLegend 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Population

I've now updated the population based on the 2006 Census according to the "Urban Locality" division, which is the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Council areas. The transport statistics reveal a blank page, so we may have to wait a couple of days before it's fixed and we can change these stats. JRG 13:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This new figure means that the current area and population density figures are no longer valid as they are for the whole of the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs and the UCL doesn't cover the whole area. --AussieLegend 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just coming in to say I've pulled the area out of the BCP, but seems others are onto this. :) Will do density now (never occurred to me that it wasn't there!) Orderinchaos 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For the population to be consistent with the stated populations of other major Australian cities, the metropolitan (statistical division) figure must be written. The population for all the other major cities in Australia is for the greater area. For example: many people consider Ipswich as being separate to Brisbane. However, it is the majority view that its population is included within Brisbane's. For clarification- refer to this article. -Depor23 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Such "consistency" would introduce unacceptable inaccuracies. The Statistical District, ie the greater Newcastle area, is the entire Lower Hunter region, covering the Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens LGAs. It isn't an actual recognised place. There is no "Greater Newcastle" or "Lower Hunter" administrative body, there are no organisations that specifically cover the area. Individual councils are responsible for the administration of their individual LGAs with the occasional interaction for any shared projects. The Newcastle Statistical District is just a statistical area created by the ABS for the management of its data. While Newcastle is undoubtedly a central hub for the area, all of the listed LGAs are almost completely independent of each other. They don't exist under one umbrella like the LGAs in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc. The closest relationship is Newcastle/Lake Macquarie but even that is more like Forster/Tuncurry (two independent towns that happen to be next to each other) than Sydney etc. The relationship between the LGAs is more like the relationship between Sydney and Newcastle, two separate cities, even by ABS standards. For the purpose of this article though, we've compromised and decided that the article covers the UCL since this presents a reasonable, albeit flawed, world view of the area.
As for the article you referred to, which you'll see that I'm very familiar with,[3], perhaps you should look at 50 largest Urban Centres by population, as it presents a more accurate view of actual city populations within Australia as they exist now. Capital city Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts by population provides for how the ABS sees cities in the future. For example, from the various maps,[4][5][6] you'll see that Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong are immediately adjacent to each other and that's certainly not the case in the real world. Newcastle may expand to fill the Greater Newcastle area in a few hundred years but it's not even close now. I won't even start about how the use of population figures that relate to places that don't exist now is a little bit WP:CRYSTAL. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The 4.3 mil and 3.8 mil populations for Sydney and Melbourne respectively are considered by the abs to be the statistical divisions of these cities. The 500 000 population is also viewed by the abs to be of Newcastle's statistical division. It is now standard in most population tables of the major cities to use the statistical division/district value for the population of that city. It's just inconsistent and misleading to state the 290 000 odd number as Newcastle's population. I understand that there is a paragraph in the article considering this but if one had an issue with the 0.5 mil figure, then this paragraph could be referred to for clarification. Also, I believe there is enough information in the article of the greater Newcastle area for the 0.5 mil figure to be correct. (Will reply to the second part of your response later.) -Depor23 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, statistical divisions (and statistical districts) are just areas used by the ABS for management of its data. They don't necessarily relate to any defined physical place so it's misleading to use the population figures to indicate the population for a physical place. The Sydney SD extends well beyond what anyone would actually call Sydney. For example, the Sydney SD includes suburbs as far north as the southern shores of Lake Macquarie, which is about 60km north of the Hawkesbury, which is what most people consider to be the northern reach of the Sydney area. To the south, the ABS Sydney extends beyond the northern extremity of the Wollongong S Dist almost to Wollongong itself. According to ABS data, the distances between Sydney and Newcastle and Sydney and Wollongong are each 0km, which clearly is not what most people would agree the distances are. While it may be standard practice to use the SD figure for population, that doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do, especially in an encyclopaedia. If you really want to be accurate, the officially, legally defined city of Newcastle is the Newcastle LGA which, at the time of the last census, had a population of less than 142,000[7]. The figure of 500,000+ relates to an entire sub-region, not the city. If you look at the definitions for Statistical Division and Statistical District[8] you'll see that the definitions apply to areas and not necessarily cities. In the case of an S Dist, the definition isn't even properly applied to Newcastle. The definition claims an S Dist is an area which bounds a large predominantly urban area. Cessnock especially, and to a lesser extent Port Stephens, which together represent 70% of the area included in the Newcastle S Dist, are predominantly non-urban and there are significant non-urban areas in Lake Macquarie and Maitland. This is important to the definition, and to an understanding of Newcastle itself, because what it means is that Newcastle will not expand to cover anywhere near the area covered by the S Dist in any foreseeable future, certainly not in the 20 year period mentioned in the definition. Newcastle, or rather what most people may see as Newcastle, is going to be pretty much what you see now for a long time. This is a big reason why the 500,000+ figure is misleading. It includes areas that are not now, nor will they ever (in our lifetimes) be part of Newcastle. It's therefore inappropriate to use their populations to bolster the Newcastle population. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely the statistical division populations aren't as trivial as you make them out to be as they are the most commonly used statistics. Furthermore, there are areas considered to be part of Sydney despite being close to 50km away from the city. How do these places differ to the likes of Cessnock and Maitland? The only reason I can find as to why one would believe they are not connected to Newcastle as Blacktown is to Sydney is that the density and population of the Newcastle area is a lot smaller than Sydney. For the sake of equal comparison to other cities- Greater Newcastle population should be included. -Depor23 (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Commonly used does not mean correct. People still commonly use "lts" and "kms" to refer to litres and kilometres and that's definitely incorrect. The statistics serve a purpose but they should be used where appropriate. The 500,000+ figure might be validly applied to determining power needs or road infrastructure in the lower Hunter but when it comes to Newcastle's population it's definitely misleading. Yes, there are areas 50km from the city of Sydney. The areas I'm talking about are over 50km from the nothern borders of the Sydney region. They're over 100km by road from the city of Sydney. They are most definitely NOT within the city of Sydney but they ARE in the Sydney SD. The places you're thinking of are either within the contiguous Sydney urban area or very close to it and rely on Sydney infrastructure, Cessnock itself is a country town effectively out in the middle of nowhere and doesn't rely on Newcastle infrastructure. As I've already said, Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens administer their own areas completely independent of Newcastle in virtually everything. They are geographically isolated from Newcastle. You can't hop on a train and travel from Newcastle to Raymond Terrace to Cessnock. You'd be lucky to be able to catch a series of buses. After all, you're travelling to another town. If you want to see the difference between Blacktown/Sydney and Cessnock/Newcastle, just open Google Earth. Using the Greater Newcastle population in no way provides an equal comparison. It provides a distorted view so far from reality that it's almost science fiction. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Something to ponder. Other than by their inclusion in the Newcastle S Dist, how exactly are Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens part of Newcastle? Why should they be included in this article? For extra credit, please explain how Oyster Cove and Wollombi qualify for inclusion in the city of Newcastle. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle today

To JRG: I only added the hidden comment about the shipbuilding industry being true because there are quite a few editors who will delete text with the {{fact}} tag after it has been present for a while and the comment was simply advice for other editors although, since WP:CITE specifically says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source", not "everything needs a source" and you're not challenging the information, at least according to your comment, the tag probably isn't needed. In fact, despite it being common knowledge, it probably won't be possible to find a citation. A lack of government contracts, particularly in the region of defence, is a major factor that has affected the viability Carrington Slipways at Tomago (now Forgacs) and ADI at Carrington and closed the Rushcutter class minehunter production facility at Tomago and the State Dockyard in Newcastle but it's unlikely that a reference that confirms this exists. --AussieLegend 02:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sports

Much of the content in this section reads like a tourist brochure. (As a Novocastrian, I do agree with some sentiments here, but they are not encyclopedic). I'll make some edits to restore NPOV. Bruiseviolet (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found in my time editing cities that sports and music seem to be the two things that attract the most cruft - I'm still not sure why. All of the capital cities bar one lost their GA status a few months ago because of this sort of stuff. Orderinchaos 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Media

I'm suggesting creating its own article, I don't want to lose things like radio stations but it's a lot of detail for a main article. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Biggest coal export port

Currently, article says Newcastle is the largest coal export harbour in the world, exporting 80.2 million tonnes of coal yet Hebei reports higher coal exports that "Qinghuangdao Port is the world's first and largest port to transport more than 200 million tons of coal" http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90884/6363571.html http://www.portstrategy.com/archive101/2008/april/news_asia/coal_cluster_at_hebei Michellecrisp (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Newcastle

Maybe somebody should write up a new page containing the history of Newcastle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoongta (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to be WP:BOLD and start one if you wish. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The history article, which now exists (History of Newcastle, New South Wales) is an almost word for word copy of much of this article. IMHO, the "History" sections of this article should be scaled back to become summaries of the sections in the history article.Downsize43 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rail debate

At a time of unparalelled interest in the CBD of Newcastle because of the recent decision of the GPT commercial group a list of the many reports on the rail and the city of Newcastle done through governments or semi-government agencies would be most helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.228.139 (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

City Map

It would be of some help to find a map of the city in this information thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.20.20 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newcastle,_New_South_Wales/Archive_1&oldid=499838684"