Talk:List of public art in the City of Sydney

DYK

The article was nominated for DYK on 26 May 2016. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

According to Freedom_of_panorama#Australia, Australia seems to have fairly liberal FOP laws: "The copyright in a work ... that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work". However, a few of the works appear to be inside buildings - can someone comment on whether these buildings are considered "premises open to the public" for the purpose of Australia's freedom of panorama laws? Intelligentsium 22:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

When you say (in the DYK nomination) that Australia's FoP laws are "fairly lax" I think you're getting it reversed. There are very strong freedom of panorama rules - allowing photography of many things, including inside private premises that are open to the public.

As for the specific in-copyright works that are also indoors on this list, I can confirm that they're all publicly accessible. They are, for example, in the foyer of the State Library of New South Wales; the Sydney Theatre Company lobby where people wait before the show; the Cook + Phillip Park public swimming pool; the lobby of the Sydney Hilton Hotel; and works in the foyer/cafe of landmark private buildings - including several each from Governor Phillip Tower, MLC Centre, and Aurora Place. Note that the latter, in the footnote provided, has a dedicate page for the works which specifically says "these works are viewed as considerable contributions to public art."[1]. Wittylama 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think by wikt:lax in the nom he meant that the laws were "not strict" (permissive, lenient), not "lacking care, neglectful, or negligent". That's how I read it, anyway.  — TORTOISEWRATH 00:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Title

Is there any good reason for the title to contain "City of"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I.e. we have many such articles, e.g. List of public art in Coventry which do don't preface the city with "City of" (with dubious capitalisation). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The City of Sydney is the proper name of the central local government area within Sydney, a metropolitan area with no administrative significance (to the best of my knowledge, the concept of "city" is not legally defined in Australia, nor is any level of government below the LGA). Though I don't have much context to base this on, I assume this article is limited in scope to the City because the artwork listed is that covered by the "Public Art Policy" of the City mentioned in the lead, making the current title much more accurate than simply List of public art in Sydney, which would refer to a much larger superset of this region with presumably varied rules. (Perhaps that should be a redir to this list, however?)  — TORTOISEWRATH 00:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking further, we do have articles such as List of public art in the City of London and List of public art in the City of Westminster (both within London) that are making the same distinction. If my assumption of the origin of this article's title is correct, we should probably change the lead to begin "Public art in the City of Sydney" rather than simply "Public art in Sydney".  — TORTOISEWRATH 00:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the title is chosen to indicate that the scope of the article is limited to the city as explained under the section "List of Works". The term "Sydney" is often (and imprecisely) used to refer to a very large area that includes surrounding suburbs and extends to the natural barriers of the mountains in the west and the national park in the south as a way of communicating "not Melbourne" or "not Brisbane". There are of course many art works beyond the central area which are not included in this article. It might be possible to create an article on "art works in greater Sydney" but this one sticks to the city. The first sentence has been changed to emphasise the distinction. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Close-paraphrasing

My comments from DYK nomination page: "On the face of it the article looks good; however, considering all the previous issues raised by previous reviewers - issues haven't been sufficiently resolved. Each of the list items only have a brief description and I have found that many of these have been copied and pasted from source. Earwig doesn't bring them up as high likelihood due to there only being a couple of sentences used from each reference.Example. I don't think the nominator understands the seriousness of copying text. As a number of book sources are used, I am concerned that Earwig hasn't detected a vast number of other violations. I will shortly be adding a tag to the article to explain my concerns to reader (I just need to find the right one). Note to nominator; you should not be directly copying ANY text, EVER. You need to write it in your own words, if this is not possible you need to be clear it is a quotation. You have done a good job on this article overall and have done all the research; you just need to look over everything again to ensure you haven't violated copyright laws."

If you have any questions, I am happy to help just give me a shout on my talk page. ツStacey (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been involved in/following this article so I'm not a neutral third party (and therefore wouldn't remove the 'close paraphrasing' alert notice that you've placed) but I find the aggressiveness of your message here and on the DYK nomination to be quite over the top. You say you've found "many of these" to be problematic but in the example you provided there are only a couple of things that could be considered even vaguely problematic (all of which I've now adjusted just to be sure (diff). Instead of knocking down other people's work when you can clearly see, and have acknowledged, the level of research that's gone into making this list, why not instead just indicate which items you believe to be problematic. Wittylama 12:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am again worried by the lack of concern regarding copyright - we cannot legally copy others work. The only reason this wasn't deleted was because the table only includes short statements from lots of different sources (instead of from just a few). I am sorry you felt my response was too harsh; I attempted to be fair and as I stated, I do see the research has been done - but the writing of the article was lazy and just copied and pasted. If you would like more examples of "copied and pasted" text just use the Earwig tool and it will give you many. My concern is that this has also been done with text from books which Earwig will not identify. ツStacey (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You've said there are "many" examples, you've added a warning tag to the article itself (and you're even now saying that the article borderline deletable!), so I would say that it is your responsibility to either identify the specific pieces of close paraphrasing that you're concerned with (or at least to provide the EarWig links) or remove the warning tag. In short, you can't just declare there to be lots of problems and then say that other people have to identify them. Otherwise, how will it be possible to ever know if the concern that caused to you place that warning had been adequately addressed?

Moreover, given your concern is one of close paraphrasing then the "fixes" are easily achieved - like the above Diff where I changed "Pink concrete head of a girl" to "Head of a girl made of pink concrete". So it should be easier for you to help improve the article directly than to describe the problem you wish to see fixed. So - feel free to productively edit the article to address your specific concerns rather than just critique it in a general sense. Wittylama 13:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in this topic - I am working on many other projects; I edited it and found issues as a result of a DYK nominations. Stop complaining about me and use the Earwig like I suggested to identify the problems. ツStacey (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Wittylama, I think Stacey's concerns are valid (she ran them by me before bringing them up at DYK and here). If you look at the Earwig tool, there are dozens of areas where there has been small amounts of copying and pasting. Over and over the descriptions in the page are shown to be copy and pastes. How many examples would you like me to provide you? Every one I've checked so far shows a breach, and while they can be easily rectified - it's not for the DYK reviewer to do it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've worked through the top two results that were there (SMH's 'Tom Bass Retrospective' (Diff) and 'Wurrungwuri' (Diff). Remaining things from those are all direct (and properly cited) quotes or the names of things. I'll work my way through the rest - in descending order of % - next week. Wittylama 13:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added four more items to the list and removed the contentious references even though I think that doing so makes the article less encyclopaedic, less verifiable, less notable, and less interesting. However, if "pink concrete head of a girl" is not acceptable and "head of a girl made of pink concrete" is (notwithstanding that it makes no sense), I cannot see any other way around it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder comment: I have restored the version of the article with the 'notes' and will continue to check the EarWig reports. I will comment further here when work has progressed. I have restored the 'notes and references' column and now systematically worked through all the Earwig reports from highest-percentage to those reporting a copyright violation "confidence" lower than 4%. I've made many small amendments - each saved edit represents my changes as a response to an individual Earwig report - this is the combined diff of these 23 edits. Of course, in saving these edits, subsequent re-runs of the tool recalculate the sources that I've looked at with lower percentages, so several of the items below 4% have probably been accounted for too. The words that the tool is now identifying as potentially problematic are either direct quotes (with quotation marks and correct citations), proper nouns (e.g. "Friends of the Royal Botanic Garden" or "Art Gallery of New South Wales"), common phrases (e.g. "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander") or combinations of these (e.g. "in the collections of the Mitchell Library" or "memorial to the First Fleet", or "presented to the City of Sydney").

I would therefore appreciate it if Stacey or Worm That Turned could, upon review of this work, please now revisit whether you think that the "close paraphasing" tag is still needed. Wittylama 15:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of public art in the City of Sydney. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062135/http://www.wendysharpe.com/newfiles/pool%20mural.html to http://www.wendysharpe.com/NewFiles/pool%20mural.html

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) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Transferring sculptures of the year 2000 to the 20th century

Year 2000 is the last year of the 20th century and list of sculptures for this year should be transferred to the 20th century. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Formally true, perhaps, but 2000 is considered by most to be the first year of the 21st century and the third millenium. Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)