Talk:Sydney Harbour National Park

The get in and get around section of scattered national parks.
For those that might be wondering, a scattered national park what is SHB2000 talking about? And to be honest, when I first learnt about this park a couple of years back, I was also like what?

Anyway back to the original topic, Sydney Harbour National Park is one of them, attracting a lot of international and interstate visitors, and to be quite frank, I was surprised that it didn't have an article. However, this park is just a lot of heads and islands scattered across the Sydney Harbour, and the get in and the get around section will be different for each location.

Apart from the Grand Canyon National Park, I don't know of any other national park that's split up. Even the grand canyon is connected, but to explore each part is the split up part.

What should I do with this article. Should I write a separate get in and a get around section for each and every one of the locations? Or should I just leave it out, or write one that's universal for all (although there isn't).

If this sounded like an essay, I apologise in advance. Sorry for wasting your time here. But right now, I'm just super confused.

Cheers, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps ==Get in== should talk about how to get to the general location (i.e., how to get to Sydney), and the individual "attractions" (the different pieces of the park) should have "directions" in the listings/descriptions for the individual pieces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Erm, not sure how that'll work since Sydney is a big city area wise, and the fact that getting from one side of the harbour to the other takes about an hour by driving. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like it will work as a single destination article to me. Maybe an extrahierarchical region? Individual islands, smaller areas of the park etc, could then be breadcrumbed under Sydney, or whichever region is appropriate.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately too small for individual articles. I know 5 of the 11 can but the other 6 have no chance of being it's own article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But if they're essentially separate destinations, they should be treated separately. Do any of the six have city/ district articles they could naturally attach to as listings? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If you are going by the book, it could be a travel topic, but I think writing a park article might still make sense (I don't know Sydney or the national park, so I might be wrong). Scattered parks are not unheard of here either. For Kurjenrahka National Park I kind of ignored the issue, just mentioning it in passing and giving directions for different parts in the park, a little like Urho Kekkonen National Park, which isn't scattered, but too large to cover from any single entry point (like the Grand Canyon). The Archipelago Sea National Park is like the Sidney park, scattered in dozens of parts (just over a larger area). I chose to write about the Archipelago Sea instead. That would be somewhat like having the parts listed as individual attractions of Sidney.


 * As Sydney exists, I'd refer to that article (or districts) for most of the Get in and around (I suppose combining them makes sense). You could give directions for some tricky or important places, while for others you could just give coordinates/address and perhaps nearest bus/metro/ferry/whatever stop, and otherwise give just general directions: how do you get a boat for the islands without ferry, are the capes difficult to reach by walking, etc. You'd probably want to link the park article from districts that have (significant) parts of the park.


 * –LPfi (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:ThunderingTyphoons! above – it's not very useful to the traveller to cover these attractions located in different parts of Sydney in the same article just because they're classified as part of the same national park. Maybe this article can work as some kind of broad summary, but I think the main listings for these POIs should be in the district articles where they're located. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I created this article in my early days at this site so arguably many guide park articles I've written are better than this article (to name a few, Budderoo NP, Sturt NP, Mungo NP, New England NP, Hartz Mountains NP, Myall Lakes NP or various other parks in New South Wales national parks). It probably needs a cleanup, and I'm willing to do that.
 * On the other hand, I would still favour keeping this article with listings for various reasons. It's the state's fifth most visited national park, and a lot of the content here doesn't really go elsewhere. For the record, few travellers visit Manly for the national park, most visit Manly for the beaches (and the national park is more so a separate destination) so it makes little sense to overload the article with listings from Sydney Harbour. Sydney/Eastern suburbs has become somewhat long, and the same can be said for the ES. I will cleanup some of the "get in" section in the next few days, but I think the current hierarchy makes more sense to me. Ferries connect most of the mainland sections together (via Circular Quay). SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Star nomination
Copied from Star nominations

Sydney Harbour National Park
It's been about a month since I created this article, but I've wanted and have researched all about this park for three months now. I've been to all the mainland sections of the park, and will plan to make some trips to the some of these islands soon (Fort Denison and Goat Island). While I believe there'll probably be a couple of people who'd be using this article for the long weekend (NSW), it may not be enough at this stage, there's a variety of good quality images in the article to enhance the reader's understanding, there's a dynamic map, and most sections are basically comprehensive. The listings are well detailed where need be, and the ones that aren't are pretty self-explanatory: for example, the The Hornby Keepers Cottage is just where the old former lighthouse keepers used to stay, and there's not much more to say about it. I've also gone above and beyond and added some restaurants in Manly, 1km from the park, just so those who want to eat don't have to take the bus to Q-station, which can take up to an hour (my experiences). I've also arranged them in alphabetical order and if I use 82's table, here's a checklist:

Please share your thoughts, as any feedback will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Close . Even details that seem trivial could be of interest in the listings and I think something should be included in every one for it to be a star article (only needs to be a sentence or two). A little more information and it will be ready for star status. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi SelfieCity, when you say trivial, do you mean as in adding listings that are trivial, or just adding some fun facts throughout the article? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter. Some of the listings with no content sound interesting and I’d like to know more. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try finish it before 0030 tonight (AEST) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if I've ever used 24 hour clock in the article, could you please let me know. It's sort of hard when my personal preference is 24hr, but living in a society where 12 is used (and you may notice my hatred of 12 in my edit summaries). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as more work has been done to improve the article (by both of us, but mostly you) since my above comments. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI take a look at the way I used markers at Loneliest Road in America. This enables you to include coordinates for places that aren’t worth more than a brief mention and could work well in articles such as this one. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: the section "Landforms​" is the only section where the landform names are not in alphabetical order. Another comment: the map that belongs to the color scheme is missing. Is such a map under development and will it be placed here after completion? The map does not show those colors. --FredTC (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the static map. My understanding is that static maps are not required for star status. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not any more. And from the checklist: "static would look ugly". But I cannot see the colours on the dynamic map either. Having the colours without showing them on the map is confusing, and having the colours on the map would make it easier to get a grip on where the different places are. –LPfi (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - the reason why it's not in alphabetical order is because of the significance of North and South Head as well as Vaucluse park. But I'll move it. Also, I'm not too much of a technical person, so I'll just remove the colours (and the fact that putting colours on the map may disorient some readers.) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 04:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - I understand the reason, but I'm glad you made the changes. That made the article easier to use (at least for me). However, thanks to that it also disclosed a few little inconsistencies, like: Fort Denison/Muddawahnyuh (in Landforms​), Fort Denison/Pinchgut Island​ (in Get in), Pinchgut Island (in See) and Fort Denison​ (in Eat).
 * About the map: you are right, putting colors to the map would not improve the map, that has so many markers. I have seen articles that have more than one map. A map that has only one marker for each Landform could be usefull.
 * BTW: do you think more See-listings will be added? There is a problem when there are over 100 of them. TIP: I see several See listings that are in the gray parts of the map, so, they are not in the park. There is a that could be used for things that are not really in the park, if the >100 situation would occur. --FredTC (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At this stage, there's not going to be anymore. Also, I'll replace the Pinchgut Island with Muddawahnyuh since that's the original indigenous name. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did also notice the problem with over 100 listings on Interstate 5. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

- It has been three weeks now, and since all issues are fixed, should I just upgrade it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d support upgrading now. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Will do. Thanks for helping me to get this to star :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Success. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)