Jump to content

Talk:New South Wales/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

State names

Hum, I don't know about having states in the format of [[State, nation]] since this can easily be confused with the [[city, nation]] format. I think it would be best to have New South Wales, Victoria etc. be where the states live and deal with ambiguity issues on a case by case basis. Besides whoever makes a disambiguation page at Victoria (or where ever) would then be responsible for fixing all the links to that page so that they point directly to their intended articles (and almost all the links to Victoria that I saw were intended for the state). I for one would find it odd to see California at California, United States of America and also think it is odd to have New South Wales at New South Wales, Australia. But then there is the issue of English counties.... which I don't even want to think about right now. The Austalian state issue seems easier to resolve. --maveric149

True... there ARE only seven of the things and three of them have the name of the country in them already. :) I did the disambiguation thing for Victoria because the page was split between Queen Victoria, Victoria in Australia and Victoria in a couple of other places too... Victoria, Australia sounded better to my ear than Victoria (State). I guess it could be Victoria (Australian state) but that's a bit of a mouthful. KJ

Since the Australian state is only known by simply "Victoria" and Victoria, Australia looks like the name of a city (as does New South Wales, Australia), how about having the state at Victoria and then perform block disambiguation there (same for the other states -- see Kent for an exampl). We need't have to do so much disambiguation hand-holding that we start to give things unnatural names. States are large and important enough political entities so that minimal disambiguation can be used for them. --maveric149

Initial comments

What the place for the lowest elevation doesn't say where it is. Instead, it is filled by the highest. Can someone fill that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubert Wa (talk • contribs) 10:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC).

The misplaced elevation should be fixed, but it might be a bit hard to say "where the lowest elevation is". As far as I know, NSW doesn't have any points below sea level, and has quite a bit of coast. JPD (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NSW has an area near Cootamundra that is below sea level. Its is on the geo maps somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.202 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours (AEST))

  • Rather surprising since Cottamundra's elevation is said to be 318m [1], glancing at an atlas, I don't see any evidence than any land nearby is below sea level - need a more specific reference perhaps.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Its coast faces the Tasman Sea." -last time I checked, the Pacific Ocean was off the coast of NSW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.105.164 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 March 2006 UTC.

The Tasman Sea is part of the Pacific Ocean. JPD (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does Australia's most populous state, have such a small article? At 10.5 kb, it is the smallest of any Australian state/territory even the ACT has a bigger page with more information! Kyle sb 16:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

POV/bias

I normally try to be nice and understanding but did someone from Liberal Party HQ write sections of this? To describe post-war Labor as corrupt and Bob Askin as "vigorous" is a bit much. Also why does Askin get a run and Neville Wran nothing? Please save your propaganda for meetings. Tigerman2005 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stuby

This page is a bit stubby. I would tag it but I dont know how.Rudraksha 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Page is really short!!

The article is written greatly, but it's too short, first of all it needs info on the climate, popular sports in NSW, and maybe attractions...anyone want to write this up and add it, if not I will 202.6.138.33 09:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! You might also want to create your own login to edit from—this lets you set up preferences for display and editing, and Wikipedia can help you track pages that you're interested in following. But if you want to do the edits anonymously, you're still perfectly welcome to do so. Glad to have you aboard!/blahedo (t) 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this article lacking, maybe tourism info, climate ect Jackp 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article needs expansion in the sections that are already there, a decent history section, people/demographics, then maybe education, culture, etc. Climate would go in the geography section, but tourism info does not belong in Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Except in the context of economy.--cj | talk 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. I should have said tourist info, rather than tourism info. JPD (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeline removal 9 July comments

Who took the rest of the Timeline away? if you think the First Fleet's commission and setting out isnt of huge importance to the establishment of the Colony of NSW then you are robbing this page. All decent versions of NSW's colonial story include the first fleet content as do most schhols etc when they ask students to do a project on it. That info came from NSW's Timeline up to 1879 so was part of the first 100 years of colonisation. I'm dumb though. I dont have a degree in this stuff re Oz so dont know that any decent representation of a place isnt just about one dimension. Actually Malaspina's report should be in that timeline also

Put the first fleet stuff on its own page then with a link back to it.

The timeline is way too short now. Surely more than that has happened the last 230 (600,000,000) years in NSW. It seems there are computer geeks from out of Australia editing stuff here who want to be clever with their tools but are not so clever with the content they put up or remove, and have probably no local knowledge re NSW let alone qualifications in presenting its multifaceted story. Can the geeks that get here realise other non computer wizz people may think the geeks are divine with their editing 'tools'; but have way higher skills then they probably ever will in history/cultural heritage/Indigenous stuff etc, as well as extensive local knowledge of areas - and stop stuffing stuff up!! If you really have to remove good and relevant content find another place to put it such as creating a page for it then putting a link leading to it from its previous site. Imagine readign that NSW page and there is nil there on the timeline or its Indigenous story. You know, Today's NSW started off with the colonials 'Creating a Nation' (Grimshaw, Lake, McGrath, Quartly, 1994). A theme line for presenting that process as its given in MODERN NSW these days runs as: birthplaces, conceiving a colony, transplanting patriachy, making male and female worlds, man's space, women's place, sex violence and theft, contested domains, gendered settlements, giving birth to the new nation, depression dreaming, freedom fear and family, the State as Father, Affirmations of difference.

There may be too much geek/male stuff happening re what gets put here. Computer geeks are very very clever but its the content that gets put here is more important that geek ego. If stuff gets put up that looks like some tired old 1950s representation of what NSW and Oz is about, then what use is that?

Try and follow the above themes a bit when putting stuff here re Oz as its how its done. DONT cut out the story of over 50% of the population by just putting in dead facts and the male story. Also include the Indigneous, women and children's stories on every last topic page or wik oz content is no good for anything much. Just simple stuff such as white women being hugely respected by their culture in 1850 (good for more than just washing up etc as labour was short) but barefoot and preggers at the sink by 1950 needs to be reflected. There is a reason for those two differences that should be reflected in the content that gets up re those two eras etc. on any timeline. How many women explorers were there? None? Right. I'll rephrase it - how many women with exploring parties were there? Who were they and what were their roles? Same as Ted Egan's 'The Drover's Boy' story.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.112 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours (AEST))

What is up on the NSW page now reads like half the Australian Almanac, that I have the 1999 copy of. Its good but geez. If I want to read that book, I can just pick it up and read it or find it online. Extracts fromt hat book , yeah, but not all NSW's page like that as that isnt how NSW is presented anywhere else and hasnt been for many years apart from in that sort of publication. Add some substance to the NSW page following the above themes a bit. Tie some of the dry fact stuff in with some of the other.

The First Fleet was hugely significant to NSW - and it got deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.112 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours (AEST))

I may have different ip numbers but never a need to have different names. The following is from that other first fleet page

"The number of people directly associated with the First Fleet will probably never be exactly established, and all accounts of the event vary slightly."

Below is from what I put up: "'Sirius', H.M. frigate, Captain John Hunter; 'Supply', H.M. armed tender, Lieutenant Henry Ligbird Ball; 'Golden Grove', storeship; 'Fishburn', storeship; 'Borrowdale', storeship; 'Scarborough', transport, carrying 1 captain, 33 marines, 208 male convicts; 'Lady Penrhyn', transport, carring 1 captain, 2 lieutenants, 3 privates, and 102 female convicts; 'Friendship', transport, carrying 1 captain, 44 marines and privates, 77 male and 20 female convicts; 'Charlotte', transport, carrying 1 captain, 43 men, 88 male and 20 female convicts; 'Alexander', transport, carrying 2 lieutenants, 35 marines and 213 male convicts."

Mount Kosciuszko

Geoscience Australia gives the height as 2,228m. In any case, if there are further discussions to be had on this matter, I suggest Talk:Mount Kosciuszko. JPD (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New South Welshmn

An inhabitant of New South Wales is referred to as a New South Welshman or, in gender-neutral language, as a New South Welsh person, but this is rarely used. It is far more common to say "s/he's from New South Wales" than "s/he's a New South Welshman".

Can you really say "she's a New South Welshman"? Is it a unisex term? Is there such a term as "New South Welshwoman"? Flapdragon 12:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we really called New South Welshman? Its the first time i've ever heard of it...--Ari89 10:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes the term is sometimes used - eg Proportionately less West Australians than New South Welshmen owned cars. [2] or But it’s not just the local fishing gentry among the New South Welshmen ... [3] or While many New South Welshmen served in WWII, ... [4] --Golden Wattle talk 09:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Howard himself used it in a speech recently Virtual circuit 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

--On the contrary, I've heard New South Welshmen (potential sexism aside) frequently, but who's ever heard of New South Walers? Anyone would think it's a State full of whale eaters...Simonmetcalf (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

References

To make this article better, it needs more referencing.

You're 100% right there. Atlantis Hawk 08:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Population of Sydney relative to the rest of the state

Seeing a {{fact}} tag on a statement that 2/3 of the state's population resides around Sydney, I checked the city's article. According to the city's article, about 4.2 million people live there, and the main article records about 6.8 million people. Seems to me that this is close enough Nyttend 18:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Early 1900

Sorry to whoever wrote it but a lot of it reads like a 6th grade school project - and a poor one at that. NSW is a state so its opinion on conscription is irrelevant. I gather this is a reference to Billy Hughes who was Prime Minister of Australia. He supported conscription, the Labor Party he led did not so he left the party. In any case it doesn't belong here. Tigerman2005 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the line: "An inhabitant of New South Wales is referred to as a New South Welshman or, in gender-neutral language, as a New South Welsh person."

to: "An inhabitant of New South Wales is referred to as a New South Welshman."

Examples of gender-neutral language should be kept in the "Gender-neutral language" article unless it is particularly pertinent to the topic. I don't see how including it here adds anything to an article about New South Wales.

Date of establishment of the Colony

Phillip arrived at Sydney Cove on 26 January, which is now celebrated as Australia Day. But I seem to remember reading that his proclamation formally establishing NSW as a Colony (as distinct from a British possession) was not made till 2 days later, 28 January. Can anyone confirm this? JackofOz 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New Data

This new ABS data may allow some updating of this article. angela26 06:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Touch Rugby league

A couple of editors are saying that "touch football" has more players that Football and linking to this site - http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4177.0Main%20Features22005-06?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4177.0&issue=2005-06&num=&view=

I don't think this is corrent. In this document [5] outdoor Football in NSW is shown with 219800 participants against "touch football" having 131000 participants.

This document [6] lists participtation levels with a total for organised and non organised sport. Again Football is clearly bigger.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tancred (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please don't refer to any code simply as "football" in a context like this - it's just silly. Now let's look at the figures. The organised/non-organised document is not helpful, as it refers to the whole of Australia, not NSW. The NSW document does indeed show that soccer has more participants that touch, but the claim made by "a couple of editors" (actually, only one) was that rugby league has more participants than soccer when touch is included as a form of rugby league. This is believable, but it is not clear that it is true, as participants may have been counted in both the league and touch categories, so the numbers can't simply be added together. At any rate, this is all a bit silly. If we are talking about participation alone, we shouldn't be focussing on football codes, but things like golf and cycling. The original statement that RL was the most popular winter sport was clearly intended to be about spectator interest (compare it with the statement about cricket!), so simply replacing it with a statement about registered participants is not helpful. JPD (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New Wales

I'm sceptical about this addition:

"It is not clear whether New South Wales refers to the area being named after South Wales, or a New Wales in the Southern Hemisphere.[1]"

Can somone be more precise about this "New Wales" than saying it lies south of the equator? The cited page doesn't even mention it. Looks like a candidate for deletion to me. Coughinink 01:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the cited page doesn't give any meaning other than the South Wales assumption, but the statement in the article makes more sense than your question? What more could be said? JPD (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So "New Wales theory" is not supported by cited page. (In fact the cited page gives very little info and is not a reputably historical source.) There is a New South Wales in Canada too - and that's no south of the equator. Yes, it is an odd name. Apparently Canada was named first. Was Cook inspired by this? Does South Wales look like the NSW coastline??? I'm deleting both this speculation and the irrelevant citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice the speculation is back. "South Wales" is a distinct region in Wales, and is where most of the population lives, and is the industrial region. It is referred to frequently by people in Wales and England. New South Wales is named after South Wales. I will delete the speculation again. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the speculation here, I saw it on the history of New South Wales page. I will direct that page's discussion page to here. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Energy production

Does anyone have information available at hand they could use to create an Energy section for this page? WA Burdett (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Groupings

Why does this article not have the ethnic groupings? Wikipedia usually does a great job on having all the information on things like this, but this article lacks much of the information about population. If someone finds this information, please post it on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.98.56 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

National parks

NSW has over 200 parks and reserves covering a huge area and this needs mentioning. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. When you put something together you should probably include a total parks area vs state area for comparison purposes. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Premier

As the article itself makes clear, the Governor of NSW commissions an MP to be Premier and form a Ministry. In practice, as with every other Westminster system, the Governor does this on advice of the party with a majority of seats, and the person so selected holds office until the Governor withdraws that commission, the person resigns or they lose a no confidence motion on the floor of the Parliament.

On 5/9/08 Iemma resigned and Nathan Rees was selected by the majority party to take his place. However, Iemma has not (at this point) been to Government House to offer his resignation and the Governor has not (at this point) commissioned Rees as his replacement. Right now therefore, iemma remains Premier.

I raise this to make clear why we should not keep changing the Premier's name to Rees in the article. As of this moment it is inaccurate - it will inevitably be accurate in a few days and can be added then. Can I aslo remind people this is not Wikinews - there is no need to rush latest updates into articles, especially when to do so makes the article factually wrong.

Other opinions or comments welcome. Euryalus (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added "<!-- Do not remove until Nathan Rees is sworn in by the Governor. Please see the talk page. -->" to the infobox and Government section. Just hope people read it before adding Nathan Rees before his sworn in. Bidgee (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Apparently the swearing in will occur this afternoon, so it can be changed then. Euryalus (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. At this rate I'll say this evening or tomorrow since it's 4pm in NSW ATM so time is starting to run out. I'm keeping and ear and eye out (Watching TV and News sites). Bidgee (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nathan Rees was just sworn in (National Nine News showed part of the swearing in). No online sources online yet. Bidgee (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added that Rees was premier after Iemma, with a reference, and that Keneally was then put in in 2009.--Amaher (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

History section

The was a section entitled "Gold Rush" which I have shortened and renamed "Mid-late 1800s". The preceding version was inaccurate, e.g. implying that the Gold Rush was mainly in NSW whereas it was mainly in Victoria, saying that the colony's self-government preceded the breakaway of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, rather than the other way around, etc. It went into great depth about an act that gave responsible government in NSW, which was not appropriate for this page and out-of-place.

More generally, I worry that the history section in this article is growing (in a stunted, amateurish way), rather than leaving history of NSW to be the definitive article. Do we really need this history section here at all? It should certainly not be in competition to the main history article, and the other is well written and extensive. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't my history of NSW link above work? 86.9.117.51 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably because you've linked to a non-existent article. The article you're after is History of New South Wales. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You've missed my point - there is a redirect from History of NSW to History of New South Wales. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
...or at least there was until you vandalized the article by removing it so you could appear superior! Please explain why what you did isn't vandalism. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There was no vandalism. Neither history of NSW or History of NSW exist so there can be no redirect. The template you added to History of New South Wales does not create redirects. The redirects have to be created at the pages themselves. Of course you would not create both history of NSW and History of NSW. Only History of NSW needs to be created as a redirect. Before you accuse people who have far more experience here than you do, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Manual of Style. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with the Manual of Style. This is to do with you taking it personally because you wanted to delete two useful links in a list of links (below) and then going out-of-your-way to be unhelpful regarding creating a redirect page, as discussed on your talk page - you would rather leave dangling links when History of NSW would obviously be a useful redirect page. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm simply trying to deal with a new and rather aggressive editor who sees correction of his mistakes as vandalism, as well as dealing with actual vandalism at some of the other 375 pages that are on my watchlist. I didn't have time to create History of NSW as I was busy dealing with your reversion of corrections that were made to History of New South Wales. Now that we've dealt with that I've created History of NSW. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As you now know, I am not new. As others could tell if tracked your edits and comments in response to mine, you at least appeared to be deliberately unhelpful, and I reacted robustly (not aggressively) as someone who was faced with such a person. I'll take your above comment as an explanation of why your actions came across as they did. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, I think the History section in this article should either be removed altogether, and just refer to the History of NSW article, or it should be severely pruned to very briefly paraphrase the History of NSW article. It should not be a written independently as some kind of stunted history. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the section in this article is too long but as a separate article exists, and since this article links to that one, I don't see an issue with pruning this article appropriately. It shouldn't be removed altogether. There needs to be something about it in this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There are three issues supporting severe pruning and modification, one is that the history section constitutes about one-third (far too much) of the present article length, when there is already a separate History article; the second issue is that the history section here is not entirely correct; and the third issue is that the history section here should be more consistent with (not developed independently of) the separate extensive History article. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Article links in the list of breakaway colonies

The general policy of linking to the first and not subsequent mentions of another article is intended to avoid repeated unnecessary hyperlinks. However it is not a hard-and-fast rule and is not always sensible. Sometimes it is useful to link again to an article in a different context, especially if it is part of a later list with links to the other articles in the list, as is the case here. Linking to Tasmania, South Australia, but not Victoria and Queensland in the list of colonies that separated from NSW in the 19th century is simply unhelpful, even though the reader can find the latter two in another context further up the page. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It may prove unhelpful if the reader has to search several paragraphs up the article for the links and the policy takes that into account. However, in this case the states are linked only four lines up the page in the same paragraph so there's simply no need to link them again so soon. Of the 111 words in the paragraph, 18 (16.2%) are linked. That's excessive linking by any definition.
--AussieLegend (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the article you quote from about excessive linking is not about linking on wikipedia, but on webpages in general. It does not constitute wikipedia policy or practice. Secondly, the quote you use doesn't say what it is describing is always excessive, it says it is usually excessive; and it might "usually" be excessive to link to the same word twice in a paragraph in some cases, but not in this case, since the second link is part of a list of links. Thirdly, you would expect there to be many links in the introductory paragraph to a wikipedia article, there are not too many (I note you have switched smoothly from saying that two links to the same article is "excessive", to saying that the number of links in the paragraph is "excessive"). Fourthly, your numbers are wrong - how can 18 words be linked out of a total of 11? 86.9.117.51 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The article in question is equally applicable to both external and internal links, both of which we use at Wikipedia. That's why it's linked to from Wikipedia:Linking. That particular article is part of the Manual of Style which is Wikipedia practice. Whether Methods of website linking says "usually excessive" or "always excessive" is really irrelevant to this case. Here we have a situation where you want to link exactly the same term within four lines of each use of it and that's clearly excessive. There's simply no need to link the same term so frequently. Once in the same paragraph is more than enough. That it's a list of links, which it isn't, is a poor argument. The opening of an article is supposed to broadly summarise the article. It should be fairly brief and doesn't need to get too deeply into specifics. Having already mentioned Victoria and Queensland once, there's no need to provide links to those articles again just because they're mentioned again. To do so is overlinking. As for the numbers, it should have been clear that it was a typo. Obviously there are more than 11 words in the paragraph so some simple maths, made possible by the fact that I included a percentage figure, would have made it quite obvious that I meant 111 words. I really don't understand where you're going with "I note you have switched smoothly from saying that two links to the same article is "excessive", to saying that the number of links in the paragraph is "excessive"". Two links to the same article in the same paragraph is excessive and the number of the links in that paragraph is excessive as well, especially given that it's an introduction. I'd expect far more links in the body of the article. I don't know why you'd expect the lead to have more links. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we've covered enough ground to show clearly that there is no consensus about whether having those two links is excessive or not. The best you can come up with is a quote describing something that could be "usually excessive". I say that doesn't apply in this case. But since the two links are part of a list of links, they are clearly useful. Unless we are going to remove them all (which would open up a whole new can of worms), they are necessary for contextual consistency. So we'll leave them in. EOF. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
They are not a list of links and there is already broad consensus across Wikipedia that such linking is excessive. That is why they were unlinked in the first place and why, undoubtedly, someone will unlink them again. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Content of 'post-war period' section

In regards to this edit. Given that this article is primarily about New South Wales, it is not necessary to detail specific incidents between politicians. -Reconsider! 06:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Whence the name New South Wales? There is no New North Wales in Australia, is there? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I wish this issue were tackled a little better. There is indeed a distinct area of Wales referred to as South Wales . But was the first person to find NSW from South Wales? This section fails to fully explain anything.YellowAries2010 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that the intention of Captain James Cook (a Yorkshireman) when coining the name is unknown. It is unknown if Cook meant the name to mean "A new Wales in the south" or a new "South Wales". It is hard for this article to fully explain the situation because it is unknown. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. YellowAries2010 (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Stating the fact it is unknown would already be an improvement of the article, IMHO. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's an explanation, albeit an unsourced one. [8] The Seventh Taylor (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ, with The Seventh Taylor, by saying it isnt an explanation, rather a speculation. I note that Captain W.J.L. Wharton's preface to his 1893 transcription of Cook's journal (as footnoted in the article) draws no conclusion as to Capt Cook's reason for "revising the wording" from SW to NewSW New Wales to New South Wales in the Admiralty copy of the Journal. I have previously removed the term "corrected" as it implied a mistake by Cook in giving the name New Wales in the first instant; and there is no evidence demonstrating that he made such a mistake in his original work/s -- his journal/s was what it was for 2 1/2 years at least. One may even surmise that a higher authority required Cook make the change - but that would be a speculation, yet one as 'valuable' (which it is not) as any other. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC) with correction (see strikethrough and bolding) and text change. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It's purely speculative of course, but the change could be because Cook thought that the land in the southern hemisphere looked like Wales, and the addition of "New" was to clarify that he wasn't referring to a southern part of Wales, but to the New land in the South that looked like Wales. Unfortunately, without a time machine it will never be possible to know what he was thinking. I was always surprised that he never explained his reasoning in the logs of the Endeavour. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Aussie, I agree it is puzzling why Cook never explained himself, especially as he was so meticulously sharp with everything he did. I understand the change was made when back in England, as it is only in one of the three copies. No explanation, therefore, would be expected to be found in the Endeavour's log. Perhaps he felt some political, or 'sponsor' pressure and so constrained himself from commenting. Would also be interesting to see the argument for saying it was Cook who revised the text in the Admiralty copy and not someone else with authority and pen in hand, in the Admiralty, such as Sandwich's secretary. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Population

It seems strange that the population figures given for Coffs Harbour and Tweed Heads are exactly the same. I have been able to confirm the Coff Harbour population from the source given, but the figure given for Tweed Heads in the same source includes the Gold coast and therefore it is hard to separate a figure for Tweed House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.165.202 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the population figure for Tweed Heads. According to the source "3218.0 Population Estimates by Statistical Local Area, 2001 to 2007", cell L172 in Table 1 shows Tweed Heads (not counting Tweed Coast) with a population of 53,650 in 2007. The same table lists Coffs Harbour with a population of 50,726 so I will assume the numbers can be drawn from the same source, and that the 50,726 for Tweed Heads was a typo. 220.253.177.223 (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gross State Product

Hi, the reason why I edited the GSP was because I clicked on the reference link which said that the NSW 2009-10 GSP was 389 billion and not 401 billion as the page suggested. So I was wondering why my edit was deleted if the reference clearly shows that the page is incorrect? Wheeler1346 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The figure you're looking at isn't the GSP but the SFD (State Final Demand). This Excel document shows the figure cited. Bidgee (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thanks!

Wheeler1346 (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a moot point

'.... New South Welshmen, though the term is not in common use and residents are more likely to see themselves simply as Australian.' (per Nyamafingu's edit of 05:50, 9 April 2012).

It's a moot point, in my opinion. What do NSW-women call themselves? What about football fans at 'State of Origin' time - Cockroaches? All depends on context and am not sure this edit does justice to the variations in usage or lack of them. I do agree, tho, it is 'not in common use' - preferring to say 'not in popular use' - in terms of the spoken language, from my experience, but that may be just splitting the same hair different ways.

In terms of the written word, I found it interesting that google search for "New South Welshmen/man" on www.nsw.gov.au web site, gave 1140/332hits. So, does that usage by the state government affect this last edit? At least a source is offered, but such a source is only of any good use, in my opinion, if it is used by way of contrast or comparison. Generally, the term "New South Welshmen" scores 269,000 hits and it is used by Aussie media for example. But is it encyclopedic?

The phrase 'residents are more likely to see themselves simply as Australian' needs some reliable source to be accepted as encyclopedic. Benyoch (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That last bit is is true insofar as all Australians see themselves as Australians first and representatives of their state lower down the pecking order. The state demonyms only ever come into play in political speeches ("I promise to govern for all Queenslanders no matter which party they voted for") or when making comparisons between states ("Western Australians are less conscious of geographical isolation than Tasmanians are"). But in those contexts, those demonyms do indeed have a role to play, and we can't just dismiss them on the spurious grounds we've been doing up till now. What did Fatty O'Barrell say in his victory speech last year? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This page has been temporarily protected until some consensus on the Destination NSW link is found. See discussion at Talk:Sydney#Destination NSW link. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we already have too many links in the links section (and too many links in the see also section too). I propose to trimming to:
  • Agriculture – Statistics – New South Wales
  • NSW Official State Website -- keep
  • NSW Parliament -- keep
  • NSW Police
  • NSW State Law
  • NSW State Library – History of Our Nation -- keep
  • NSW Weather and Sydney Weather[dead link] dead link
  • New South Wales at the Open Directory Project last updated 2007
  • WikiTravel – New South Wales as per usual practise with user-editable sites

I also propose to remove see also links that are linked to anywhere else (or can be linked to anywhere else) in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why remove the NSW State Law link when there is no discussion in the article on this subject. At least with this link readers will be able to discover something substantial about NSW law.

Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Added sources

[1][2] These don't really made the grade -- the first reference would justify using "cockroach" as well as New South Welshmen and the second is an opinion piece -- and speaks against New South Welshmen as excluding half the population. NE Ent 20:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The origin of the term 'cockroach'". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 13 June 2012. Retrieved 29 January 2013.
  2. ^ Jopson, Debra (23 May 2012). "Origin of the species: what a state we're in". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 29 January 2013.
The first only supports the claim that "cockroach" is a term used by Queenslanders (mainly footballers). The entire population of Queensland is only 21% of the total population of Australia and there's no credible source that it's widely used in Queensland, any more than "Mexicans" for Victorians. In any case, it's only a nickname, not a proper demonym. The second does say that "New South Welshmen" excludes half the population, but that reinforces that it is being used to refer to all of the people, hence the opposition to its use because it excludes womenpersonpeople. (I guess "women" must exclude 100% because it has "men" in it.) As I said above, "New South Welshmen" is so widely used, and has been for so long, along with Queenslander, Victorian, Canberran, Tasmanian, South Australian, West(ern) Australian and Territorian that there shouldn't be any question as to its authenticity.[9][10][11][12] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"New South Welsh" & "New South Welshman"

I would like to form consensus to place "New South Welsh" in the demonym section of the infobox, alongside "New South Welsh". This addition has been repeatedly removed by User:AussieLegend, who claims that "New South Welshman" is the only acceptable term, regardless of gender. My sources for the widespread use of "New South Welsh" is as follows:

  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15] (Page 3)
  • [16] (proof of historical use rather than just current "political correctness" regarding gender)
  • [17]
  • [18] (proof of Government use)
  • [19]
  • [20] (page 2)
  • [21] (page 19)

There is also widespread use of "New South Welsh" in personal blogs and NGO websites. Please comment below for inclusion of "New South Welsh" in the infobox, alongside "New South Welshman". Fry1989 eh? 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of "New South Welsh" in current use, "New South Welshmen" is a common term used. Just to point out that at least three of your sources are unreliable. Bidgee (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Back in 2010 I had a video of the Premier use "New South Welsh", that got removed by AussieLegend because "She's an American", I don't have the video anymore. But even if you strike out the sources you think are unreliable, there's the other ones that are, and there's alot more on the web to find as well. The other fact remains that neither AussieLegend, or anybody else for that matter when this was discussed back in 2006-2008, have provided a counter-source that "New South Welshman" is either the official and exclusive term, or that it's use is so much bigger than "New South Welsh" that the latter is negligible. Fry1989 eh? 22:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And AussieLegend made a fair point, she was American and had only been in Australia for a short amount of time. Regardless, you're cherry picking sources that suit your opinion and not the article nor the context. I'm not stating or denying that "New South Welsh" wasn't and isn't in use, it just isn't the common term used in the real World. Bidgee (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I'm cherry picking anything. I feel that it's a term which deserves to at least be side-by-side with "New South Welshman" similar to "Kosovan" and "Kosovar" on that country's article, and therefore my purpose is to post sources that support my suggestion. I'm not here to list "well on one side we have 50,000 hits for this term, and 75,000 hits for the other term", I'm here to show that it's in use, and that it's not just A: a mix-up with Australian politicians who came from somewhere else, or B: a matter of modern political correctness in these days of gender obsession. Fry1989 eh? 23:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"New South Welsh" is used when "New South Welshman" isn't appropriate, such as in the question "How New South Welshman are you",[22] but the people are called "New South Welshman". Even when it is used, "New South Welsh", it's infrequent at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Infrequency isn't a reason to exclude it after "New South Welshma/en". Showing that it's usage is so small it can be considered negligible is, but I've already provided sources that would suggest it's more common than that. Fry1989 eh? 05:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You've cherry picked some sources that show some use, but they don't demonstrate use beyond negligible. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
New South Welsh only has 491 google hits. It seems to be used as an adjective, plural, or adjective with people: "New South Welsh People". "New South Welshman" has a similar number of hits. However it has news hits whereas New South Welsh has 0. New South Welsh seems to be mainly used in unreliable sources. Neither seem to be common so perhaps there should be no demonym. "New South Welshwoman" has 162 ghits and so should not be ignored along side "New South Welshman" or "New South Welshmen". Even "New South Welshites" "New South Welshies" "New South Welshians" "New South Walesians" "New South Walesers" "New South Waleser" all get a mention, even in some reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cockroaches, [23] NE Ent 11:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Ian Cohen used "New South Welsh" in testimony to parliment. ... however, from the Wikipedia standpoint what is relevant is that no one have provide a source for any demonym. Why did we need it in the article at all? NE Ent 13:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I love how so far (besides NE Ent who is being more neutral here), I'm the only one with sources. Those against my suggestion surely know that when there is a dispute on Wikipedia, sources are king, not "I've only heard it this way" or "In my experience, this one is more common". But then, if people don't want it here, who am I to get in their way with facts that there is another term in at least some use and thinking that it deserves mention too. Fry1989 eh? 19:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Part of the issue here is the way that Fry1989 has been going about this, which has annoyed other editors. Individual sources mean nothing as they are just a count of 1. If there was a source that had substantial coverage on the use of the term, then that would be the kind that would be relevant. For the infobox I would say that we do not use a demonym at all. Using any of the terms is like "Taswegian", jocular use, and nothing on the same scale as "South Australian". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'VE annoyed others! Did you even consider the fact that the way I've been spoken to regarding this may be annoying to me? I post a factual source, and I get "She's an American!". I post other sources, and I get a combination of continued "She's an American!" with I've never heard it this way" and "In my experience this one is more common", none of which actually help or progress the issue. So far none of the users of the opposing side have been willing to actually discuss the usage of the term, post sources about how wide-spread it's use is, whether it's negligible or a mistake or anything else. Yeah, they're the ones who need to feel annoyed. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well this response is also annoying. However one person using the term does not count in itself, nor does disclaiming that the person is American. If Americans used the alternative term more than Australians then would have to seriously consider it in preference. But since both of the proposed terms are jokes, I think we can do without either. However as a personal opinion I would say New South Welsh is more wrong than New South Welsh--man, where xx is optionally wo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Just noting that New South Welshman is gender neutral, like "human", or "woman". Just because it has "man" in it, doesn't mean it doesn't include women or needs some qualifier to include them. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Gender neutrality is the least of things on my mind regarding this dispute, I'm not one of those people. All I care about is that we show the term(s) that are in use. I have not disputed "New South Welshman", nor have I tried to replace it completely with "New South Welsh", all I'm trying is to show "New South Welsh" alongside the other term because it clearly has some use, both modern and dating back to at least 1860. Why is that so unreasonable??? Fry1989 eh? 20:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
So are ANY of you going to actually discuss the issue, give real reasons for it's exclusion, discuss statistics, ANYTHING besides just repeating opinions? Cause right now all I'm getting from you people is "I never head it like that" and "this is more common", which you know as much as I do is not a valid argument when sources are involved. If none of you are willing, I'll take it to Dispute Resolution again, because from my end it looks like you're all trying to hush the issue in the hopes I'll walk away, instead of actually dealing with it. Fry1989 eh? 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It has already been pointed out, more than once, that you haven't demonstrated use of "New South Welsh" is common enough to justify its inclusion as a demonym. Of the five involved editors, only you seem to support inclusion so WP:CONSENSUS seems to be not to include it. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Consensus does not remove burden -- can ya'll provide a reliable source for Welshman? NE Ent 03:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"I haven't demonstrated that the use of New South Welsh is common enough"? And who are you to make that judgment on your own? The rest seem to be taking a neutral POV on this, except perhaps Bidgee who is leaning more towards exclusion. I'm still the only one who will post any sort of sources. As the principle user in support of exclusion, I've repeatedly asked you to post some sources of your own, discuss the statistics of use, ANYTHING to support the exclusion of "New South Welsh" and you have refused to do any of that. You have to know as much as anyone that "I only heard it like this" isn't an actionable stance in a dispute on Wikipedia. It's like talking to a brick wall because nobody is putting in any effort to discuss this. Fry1989 eh? 03:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
New South Welshmen gets 854,000 ghits,[24] while "New South Welshman" gets 509,000.[25] It's a term that has been in use for well over 100 years,[26][27] and is so commonly used that there shouldn't be any dispute over its use. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Took long enough! First let me address "It's a term that's been in use for over a hundred years". I've already demonstrated the same for "New South Welsh" that the use of that term goes back at least 150 years. As for hits, "New South Welsh" seems to get at least 113,000 hits on Google.au. May not be 800,000, but definitely not "uncommon". Also just to mention, your links actually say 853,000 and 507,000 respectfully. Fry1989 eh? 04:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Also if you search without brackets, New South Welsh gets 29,000,000, while New South Welshmen only gets 360,000 and New South Welshman only gets 236,000. That's 29 million to less than 500 thousand each. Fry1989 eh? 04:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course you'll get more hits because it looks for all variations, not specific phrases. It's not a valid way to search because it's too generic. I've checked the links I provided and they show 854,000 and 509,000 for me. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but the point I'm trying to make by posting alternate search results without quotation marks is that the fact it's searching for all variations still doesn't explain the disproportionately large difference of 29 million to less that 500 thousand. That's a MASSIVE difference compared to searching with quotation marks where results vary by a margin of about 700,000. But fine, count my little experiment out. 113,000 hits, where all three terms get less than a million, is not a huge sign that one is negligible or uncommon. It's about a 1 in 7 ratio. As for the numbers from your results, I'm simply saying what I see when I open your links. Fry1989 eh? 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So numbers do show moderate use. Explain why it still needs to be excluded. Every time you guys just walk away and forget about this still being an unresolved issue you show a lack of interest in having a resolution. My patience is not infinite, brining it to DR looks like it's getting closer to becoming necessary. Fry1989 eh? 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed section entirely due to lack of sourcing; see WP:GNUM for why google search results themselves don't really work as a reliable source. NE Ent 12:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, by removing the demonym entirely you've made NSW completely inconsistent with every other Australian state article, none of which source the demonyms properly. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Atleast NE Ent is being neutral. Nobody else including myself is. Either way, both terms (3 if you consider the difference between "man" and "men") are sourced, and there is no super-majority of one over the other. Why should "New South Welsh" still be excluded rather then being placed 2nd beside "New South Welshmen"? Nobody's been able to explain why, or what kind of harm it causes, or that it's fake, or any real reason. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We've explained at length that you need to demonstrate that uses of "New South Welsh" are significant enough to include. That a few people use it does not demonstrate that. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've already done so, a 1 in 7 ratio with all under a million is hardly "few". It's simple math really, the the higher the numbers the bigger the difference. If it was 7 billion hits for one and only 1 billion for the other, that is a gigantic difference. In this case the numbers are far smaller, all under a million, which decreases the difference and enlarges the commonality. Every time you come up with a "reason" for it to be excluded, I've shown you to be wrong. You and Bidgee said you both never heard of it so it must not be in use. I showed there is broad use in various contexts. You said I have to show it's used enough to be significant and not just "a few". I've done so now. What excuse are you gonna come up with next? That there's "only room for one and we should use the more common one"? You have no reason for it's exclusion, not one. Fry1989 eh? 20:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Who is "we"? NE Ent 20:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where you got 1 in 7. 854,000 for "New South Welshmen" + 509,000 for "New South Welshman" (both variants have to be catered for since the e and a are commonly interchanged) vs 107,000 for "New South Welsh" demonstrates that the use of "New South Welsh" is far, far less frequent despite it being less specific and "gender neutral". As explained by Graeme Bartlett, "New South Welsh" is used primarily as an adjective or plural and seems to be mainly used in unreliable sources. By contrast, Welshmen/Welshman is used widely in reliable sources, such as ABC broadcasts and newspapers like the Sydney Morning Herald. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's called math, ya know? You learn it in school? I was doing a ratio only between "New South Welshmen" (because it has more hits than it's singular counterpart) and "New South Welsh". Also I don't care what you deem "unreliable". Fry1989 eh? 20:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There's the problem, over here in Australia we do maths. Didn't "ya" [sic] know that? The reliability of sources is important, you can't justify claims using sources that aren't reliable, you can only use them as a rought indicator of the extent of use and, whichever way you look at it, "New South Welsh" has minimal use at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Searching Google for terms doesn't really show a true picture of usage, the search for "New South Welsh" can't be held as reputable at all, the first link defaults it to "NSW" and shows the wiki page, the second is someone in Wales asking if the term "New South Welsh" is used, the third uses both terms, the fourth is a forum with a couple of people fooling around, the fifth is a blog, etc etc, hardly compelling evidence. If however we search Google news and only look at news stories we get "461 hits for "New South Welshman" and "two for "New South Welsh" and of those two one is a NZ resource that actually uses the term "New South Welsh-folk" and the other is an op-piece not a news article. I'm not convinced that New South Welsh has common usage, I've never used the term. Liamdavies (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please retract the final sentence, "I never use it" and "I never heard it" are not actionable or reliable and everyone here knows it. Repeating it shows a disregard for actually discussing the issue by implying that your own personal knowledge is on an equal level with reliable sources. Wiki-policy is clear that's not to be considered the case.
You guys also seem to care only about labeling sources as "unreliable". What about the ones you can't throw that label on to? Are you seriously going to claim Monash University and the Deaf Society are unreliable organizations, and that a newspaper from 1860 is unreliable in the context I am using it to show historical use? I'm convinced at this point I could contact the Premier's Office about the issue, have them say "New South Welsh" is this or that and AussieLegend would still try and say "oh no, we can't trust that cause while he was born in Australia, he's from Victoria!". The stupidest of excuses are being used here where none is valid in an attempt to hide something that causes no harm nor misleads in any manner, against the intent of Wikipedia which is to inform. Fry1989 eh? 20:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Liamdavies doesn't have to retract anything. While his opinion may not qualify as a reliable source, the point that you should be picking up on is that we are actually here and know what Australians are called. I'm 53 years old and have lived in New South Wales all my life, except for two short periods living in other states. I've never heard New South Welsh used except when our ex-American premier used it, so I find it amazing when somebody from the 51st US state[28] tries to tell Australians what we're called based on a handful of reliable and unreliable sources. I'm sure that Liamdavies feels the same way and he certainly doesn't have to retract his observation just because you don't like it. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So, lacking reliable sources AussieLegends is now resorting to personal insults? Not helpful, and not convincing. Living in the 5th US state the most common term for a NSW resident -- and probably the most common in the English speaking world -- is "Australian." But since none of us have to prove who we are we based content on sources, not editors. I can find some sources for Welshman, and I can find sources for Welsh, and I have no reason to prefer over the other. NE Ent 03:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No need to be Captain Obvious, most Americans wouldn't know the correct location of New South Wales, let alone heard the demonym. When in the US, most of them though that New South Wales was in Wales! The demonym is really only used in Australia (some times in New Zealand and maybe the UK) but the most comment name used is New South Welshman, as pointed out by Liamdavies but unlike him, I've only heard New South Welsh once or twice in my life (excluding this talk page). Bidgee (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that New South Welsh isn't used at all, just rarely, and it isn't accepted as correct, Melbournite is also used instead of Melburnian, Taswegian is used instead of Tasmanian and Canadia is used instead of Canada, but simply usage doesn't make it correct, or well used, which I reiterate; New South Welsh isn't. I've searched the nsw.gov.au domain for both terms and come up with "1490 hits for New South Welshmen", "490 for New South Welshman" and only "30 for New South Welsh", and of those thirty only a handful refer to the people with most referring to things pertaining to New South Wales (clay, councils, land, etc etc), not really the people. The Australian National Dictionary online (http://australiannationaldictionary.com.au/index.php run by Oxford University Press/ANU) lists only New South Welshman (defined as "A non-Aboriginal inhabitant of the Colony of New South Wales; one who is native to or resident in the State of New South Wales. Also New South Welsher." - I've searched for New South Welsher and found no hits on Google News or at nsw.gov.au, so assume it to be archaic and not in common usage), with a search for New South Welsh redirecting to it. Liamdavies (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to add that I have never, ever used "New South Welsh" used except in discussions about what to call a female from New South Wales. Asking for sources to prove that it's not used is very silly - I don't have a source to prove that people from NSW aren't called "purple space peaches", but that doesn't mean we should add it to the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC).

True, but no one is asking for sources to prove a negative. NE Ent 13:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/ausclim/ausclimnsw.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:New South Wales/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

With an article as highly important as this one, I find it apalling to see it in such a state. It does not cite or even state its references, has little information compared to that of the articles of other states and is fairly poorly written. As a New South Welshperson I feel ashamed in a way that this article is in such a state. So if you're reading this, I suggest you get to work to improve this article! Atlantis Hawk 11:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on 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 07:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

#History

The “first inhabitants was Odessa”. Summats askew there. Errantius (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Name

Why is it called 'New South Wales'? Is it 'the new version of the south of Wales'? Is it the south part of a formerly-larger 'New Wales'? Is it 'New Wales' in the Southern Hemisphere? At the risk of stating the obvious: Cite sources; speculation is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7D80:159:6405:5041:8104:B99 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

New South Welshmen

I have to wonder where some editors have been all their lives? New South Welshmen has been the demonym for all residents of NSW, not just males, for as long as I can remember (I'm 60!). There are a couple of sources used in the article regarding this. One is an opinion piece, written by a female coincidentally, who wrote "New South Welshmen excludes half the population", which is absolute crap. Millennials may not be aware that "back in the day" names applied to both sexes. Actor refers to both males and females, while "actress" only applies to females. Women are not some type of men, but the word contains "men", while "person" contains "son" (also masculine) but refers to both sexes. Similarly, "Welshmen" doesn't apply just to males, it applies to females as well. Back in my younger years, that was how New South Welshmen was used. It's still used to be gender non-specific now,[29][30][31] as it was in the past.[32] Advance Australia Fair's starts with "Australia's sons". This is not meant to specifically talk about males only, it was meant to refer to all Australians. That's just how they spoke at the time and New South Welshmen is exactly the same. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, c'mon mate... we both know New South Welshman has never been common. [33]. Nonetheless, that "New South Welshman" is a word, that the occasional website/person will use it, and that it was more common in the past are not under dispute here. The main point in that Sydney Morning Herald article (incidentally, the newspaper of record for Australia/NSW, unlike "top100golfcourses.com" and "thelott.com") is that most people never use New South Welshmen because it's awkward.
This is a fact of the English language: some demonyms (e.g. Australian) are extremely common, others not so much. Unlike in other languages (e.g. Chinese which simply adds 人 to everything and that's it), it is possible for a location to lack a widely used English language demonym, as is the case for NSW. If you really are desperate to use a demonym, then sure, use New South Welshman because other options are even more awkward/impossible; but most people will say things like "a man from NSW", "he's from NSW", "Are you from NSW?" and the like.
On the sex issue, "back in the day", "man" was used to refer to both sexes, as in "mankind", and that's fine. It's not like I'm trying to edit Armstrong's famous words to make them fit modern usage. But this article is not about "back in the day in NSW when AussieLegend was young and free". Now pretty much everyone, not least Wikipedia, says human and humankind for that meaning because "man" has become more narrowly associated with the male sex.
All up, it is misleading/silly/wrong to state bluntly on the first few lines of the Wikipedia article on NSW that "New South Welshman" is the demonym, without any qualifiers, ignoring both its minimal usage throughout time, and how little it fits with modern English use of "-man" as a suffix.
MiG-25 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
we both know New South Welshman has never been common. That's incorrect. You can provide all the links that you want but they don't take into account common speech, especially before the internet started to become popular in the 1990s. The SMH article was written by someone who is likely not old enough to remember common usage. I can remember in the '60s and '70s when Sydneysider, coathanger, Novocastrian, banana bender, sandgroper etc were very popular in normal speech. I'm curious as to how old you are. Were you around then? If not then you probably don't know. Whether we're talking about today or 50 years ago, the demonym has never changed, even if it's less popular today, and modern usage doesn't take that away any more than it takes away "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind". You can't have it both ways. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)!
By the looks of it, you're a prolific contributor to Wikipedia so I hope you'll see that your (or my) age, place of residence, memories, etc. cannot be used as arguments on English language use against a massive corpus of texts ranging from the 1800s until today. That's way before the Internet, so please have a look at that link again. Also, feel free to look up other corpora not based only on written books (there are many such resources available for look-up or download online, e.g.: https://www.corpusdata.org/). If you manage to find that New South Welshman is as common as South Australian, Queenslander, etc., then the "dubious-discuss" tag will be justified. And let me insist, I'm not trying to change the demonym. I'm trying to inform people of actual usage: it has always been particularly rare when compared to other demonyms of Australian states and it is awkward in its use with women (ask yourself how many women you have introduced or heard/read introduced as "New South Welshmen"). MiG-25 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
NSWelshman is another red herring like calling the Harbour Bridge "the coathanger". Sure, one can find references to it, but literally almost no-one ever uses it. --Merbabu (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
My point about age is that younger people tend to reinvent history, having not been aware of what happened in earlier years. This problem is getting worse for various reasons. Even though I was born nearly 15 years after WW2, I know all about it. A lot of young people don't even seem to know what happened 10 years ago. Some don't know how to use a dial phone, VCR, typewriter, road map or load film into a camera. My point about age is that if you are younger then you simply may not be aware of the extent of the usage.
cannot be used as arguments on English language use against a massive corpus of texts - Again, links are one thing but typical speech is not generally in books.
then the "dubious-discuss" tag will be justified - I could have reverted to the status quo. You made an edit,[34] it was opposed,[35] and you should have started a discussion per WP:BRD rather than bulldozing your edit back into the article.[36]
it has always been particularly rare when compared to other demonyms of Australian states - That is really irrelevant. It's an accepted demonym for NSW people and has been for many years.
it is awkward in its use with women - The sources only indicate that it's awkward with one woman.
NSWelshman is another red herring - It's not a red herring at all. It's a valid demonym for the state. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the entire history of a subject, not just the latest information. If you want to say that it doesn't apply to women then you have to provide a reference better than one opinion piece and if you want to say that it's hardly ever used you need to source that as well. I've never heard the term "cockroach" used but apparently bananabenders use it. Bastages. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

History

Hello all

I have expanded and rewritten the History section from Settlement to Federation to make a fuller and more coherent narrative. I have added citations where necessary.I have removed some tangental material and POV statements not supported by the sources. I hope to rework and expand the material from 1901 to the present later. Any comments or suggestions would be welcomed. Thanks --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand

Hello all

I have removed references to New Zealand in the History section and the lead. It is doubtful that NZ was part of NSW in 1788. It was briefly annexed to NSW in 1840 before becoming a separate colony in 1841. (see: The Cambridge History of Australia (2013), Volume I, p 140 and Beverley Kingston (2006) A History of New South Wales pp 1-2.) Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory sourcing for Religion

I just tried to access the sources for the Religion sub-section. It doesn't really work. The first of the two sources takes me down a convoluted path that seems to require me to download a zip file that opens an Excel spreadsheet, that is pretty much incomprehensible to me. The "other" source just seems to be another path to the same thing. This really is unacceptable. It makes that whole sub-section effectively unsourced. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that there's two links to the same data; have removed the second one. The first link is to abs.gov.au, so it's definitive. Agreed, a little hard to find. The spreadsheet tab "G14" has detailed breakdown of religious affiliation (by gender), so I can't call the section "unsourced". peterl (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 Response

Hello all

I have removed this sub-section for the following reasons:

1) It is recentism WP:RECENT. 2) It doesn't belong in the History Section because it is current affairs, not history. In the 230 year history of NSW it doesn't deserve equal weight to the entire post-WWII history of the state. 3) The content doesn't reflect the heading. Most of the content isn't about the response to COVID-19 but a list of random facts about COVID-19 in NSW. Most of these facts are already dated and would need to be updated on a daily basis. 4) There is already an article on COVID-19 in NSW for any readers interested in the topic. I have added a link to this.

There might be a case for a separate, very brief sub-section on the COVID pandemic in NSW , but I would argue that it would belong as a subsection to a separate major heading of Health. I would be happy to work with any interested editor on developing a health section for this article. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also suggest that the recent addition on the Berijiklian premiership and resignation gives undue weight. It too tends to current affairs, and the section is overly long compared to the rest of the post-war history section.--Merbabu (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
True. I mainly wanted to draw a line under Berejiklian and add a link to COVID-19. I'll cut it back.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

'Population by Significant Urban Area' - Tweed Heads is missing

Tweed Heads itself has a pop of only 9000, but add in all the attached townships/settlements and that rises to well over 30000, maybe over 40000. The lede to the Banora Point article mentions a pop of 28000, including Tweed Heads South and Terranora. Add in Tweed Heads itself, Tweed Heads West, etc - see the list of suburbs of Tweed Heads in the Tweed Shire article. Boscaswell talk 22:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There's probably a broader issue with SUAs that span two states like Gold Coast – Tweed Heads and Echuca – Moama. Also the data in the table is the ERP (estimated resident population) and that's only calculated for SUAs, not for Urban Centres and Localities (UCL) where there's only 2016 census data available [37]. I don't think it's possible to split the SUA over the state border for the ERP, unless you revert to using figures from the 2016 census (or wait until the 2021 census data is released then it could be done). --Canley (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Removals 2022 July

Hi @Thorpewilliam: Without an edit summary I don't know why. Why remove all the images of wheat and canola?

You removed the Ug99 information with the edit summary Outdated. How would that be outdated? This fungus is guaranteed to reach the state eventually, although there can be preparation and delay if action is taken now. As such this never becomes outdated. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Invasive Spices, the source was published in 2009 and seemed to convey then-timely information. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Right. I didn't demonstrate this is still the thinking. Ok then: [1][2][3] November of 2019 is the most recent I have. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ug99 wheat stem rust". Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 28 August 2020. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
  2. ^ "Rust diseases - a threat to global food security". NSW Department of Primary Industries. 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
  3. ^ "Potential economic impacts of the wheat stem rust strain Ug99 in Australia". Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. 04 November 2019. Retrieved 2021-03-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_South_Wales/Archive_1&oldid=1142333522"