Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:24, 3 December 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Sydney / Music Top‑importance Sydney Opera House is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Opera This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Misplaced Pages articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Music venues Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. World Heritage Sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 20, 2004, October 20, 2005, October 20, 2006, October 20, 2007, October 20, 2008, October 20, 2009, and October 20, 2010.

Archives

May 2004-March 2008

Credit in opening paragraph

Earlier this week, I changed "Designed by Danish architect Jørn Utzon and Ove Arup & Partners" in the opening paragraph to remove "Ove Arup & Partners", which was immediately reverted back.

My point is more or less that either you should credit the whole design team (Utzons whole office - not just himself, Peter Hall, Eh. Farmer, the NSW government archiects office, Todd, Hall, Littlemore, Ove Arup and partners, Lothar Cremer, Ralph Symonds, etc. etc.), or credit the person who intially concieved the project (Utzon). Perhaps Arup as a team had a some more impact on the final design (ie. shape of the shells) than others (they were simply the biggest engineering firm associated with it), to credit them and utzon only seems silly to me. At the very least one would have to also credit the NSW government architects office, who did a substantial amount of work on the project (not all of which was bad), but also if crediting Arup and Partners, one should also credit all the other engineers. Also, you cant credit "Jorn Utzon and Ove Arup and Partners", as this includes everyone at Arups, but excludes everyone in Utzons office (the man didnt work alone...).

Perhaps to avoid the contentions of "designed by", we should just say in the opening paragraph something along the lines of "Based on the competition winning entry by Jorn Utzon".

Comments? Miscreant (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) It's gone now, but it would be up to the editor to verify it, I doubt they could or did.Uneffect (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar buildings

What are some similar buildings to the Opera House, I know one-the Hong Kong Exhibition Centre, but does anyone know any others? It's a pretty rare and unique building, but I'm sure there are some buildings which bare a resemblance to the Opera House, as I'm going to create a section about it. Jackp 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why there is a need to identify similar buildings in the article? --Merbabu 13:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think is notable if one has influenced the design of another. I'm trying to find out which out of the Lotus Temple and SOH was designed first.Uneffect (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The lotus temple was designed around 15-20 years later, (1970s-80s?). Difficult to talk about if it was an 'influence', being that the architect was an Iranian Bahai living in India, about as far away from Sydney (and its architects and engineers) as you can imagine.Miscreant (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think then maybe seeing as there was an intenational comp for the design it's likely an internatinal architect would have been aware of the SOH, the cionstruction looks similar in \both too, when it was apparently unique to SOH, made up as they went along almost.Uneffect (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "PJones" :
  • Jones, Peter: ''Ove Arup: Masterbuilder of the Twentieth Century''. Yale University Press, 2006.
  • page 199
  • page203
  • ref
  • page174
  • page 191
  • page 200
  • page 209
  • page
  • page 225
  • page224
  • page 228

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Major revisions without discussion

An IP-based editor ( 124.188.149.205 ) is currently working through this article, editing a lot of the text which deals with Utzon's part in the design, and various more or less controversial parts of the House's construction history. The net effect of these changes (apart from improving the quality of the writing) is to tone down or remove any criticism of Utzon, remove references to or de-emphasise any collaborators in the design, and generally ramp up the hagiographic qualities. - eg changing "Utzon's plywood corridor designs" to "Utzon's exquisite plywood corridor designs".

While a lot of the changes are improvements, and I'm reluctant to revert anything, this seems to be veering away from WP:NPOV, and really should not be being done without some discussion on this page, I think - and it really would be better to register, to better enable that discussion. I don't know how it's possible to communicate this to an unregistered editor, so I'm writing this note here, in the hope of attracting their attention. I'll also bring it to the attention of a couple of previous editors who I think might not approve of the tenor of these changes, and see what they think. Machina.sapiens (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say revert it all with a message to see talk and encourage discussion. I would be very leary of an IP editor making large changes without any long term edit history or a recent one of editing anything other than this article and the Utzon article. The editor has not used a single Edit Summary either. It feels underhand for it to be done this way, especially on a mature article. Mfield (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the IP about not using editing summaries and left them a message encouraging them to join this discussion. Mfield (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As the IP has not responded to my messages, not joined this discussion, and continues to make significant changes without edit summaries, I have requested temporary semi protection to prevent the anon IP from editing the article without logging in. Mfield (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That has been denied for now in favor of further warning of the IP. Removal of referenced material without explanation merits escalating warnings ({{uw-delete1}} through {{uw-delete4}}) and that is the preferred course of action. The hope is that the fist few warnings will spur the editor into explaining or discussing before it comes to a block. Mfield (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Projected reconstruction of interiors

The following might be useful: BBC News: Australia mulls Opera House revamp --Wetman (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that while reading this article that there was nothing about the continuous and consistent calls for the recontruction of the Opera House, nor is there anything recognising the inherent flaws in the current interior designs, including the call for rebulding the stage and layout of the opera theatre and fixing the acoustics in the concert hall. This debate for more funding to assist with these project repeatedly comes up whenever the opera house is in the news. There needs to be a serious attempt to add these issues and debates into the article as more than a mere paragraph or sentence in the Interiors section. Stravin (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This could also be helpful: This comes from Edo de Waart, former Chief Conductor of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra: While in Sydney, he made no secret of his dislike of the acoustics of the Sydney Opera House Concert Hall, the orchestra's home. He said ".. if there is no clear intention to do something to improve the hall, then we really seriously have to look at another venue". ' Stravin (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Power supply vs power use/ usage

A couple of editors have changed this line: "Its power supply is equivalent to that of a town of 25,000 people" to refer to the House's power "usage" or some equivalent term. I have reverted them, on the basis that power suppy and power usage are quite different things, and while there is no evidence I can easily find for either statement, "supply" is what is commonly claimed. The building does in fact have its own electricity sub-station in the basement, as do other large power consumers, so it might be at least possible to legitimately compare power supply scaling. Machina.sapiens (Talk) 07:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. But, and correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't it be somewhat pointless to compare power supply, as it wouldn't necessarily consume the maximum capacity that is available at all times? If anything, comparing usage would be somewhat more salient, as it would have some kind of impact on environment, emissions, etc. _Jame§ 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, if that's what is "commonly claimed", does this refer to other articles quoting power supply, or sources quoting the SOH power supply? Because in the latter case, it would be advisable to reference them, and in the former, it would be advisable to find out why. _Jame§ 21:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi James. I guess i meant something like: I can only find unreliable sources for the "Supply" statement (a whole lot of websites that seem to be quoting each other - quite possibly all quoting Misplaced Pages, but more likely all quoting some long-vanished press release) - but no sources at all to support the "usage" statement - and since they are quite different facts, I don't think an un-sourced one should be substituted for the existing one without evidence, even if it might be more interesting. In fact i suspect, from my knowledge of how performing arts centres work, that supply is correct and usage isn't. Not that I'm getting obessive or anything... I could probably find the answer quite easily, but only by the dreaded OR, so far. The other bit of that sentence ("645.5 kilometres (401 miles) of electrical cable") is also quite unsupportable, of course. There may have been that length of cable (Precisely?) when it was built, and quoted in PR bumf for the opening, which was probably the source of this stuff, but it's certainly not true now - given how many mods have been made to the building, it could well be double that by now. Anyway, I'll keep trying to find some adequate source - otherwise I might just remove them altogether. Not sure either is really notable. Machina.sapiens (Talk) 10:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Funding

There are mentions of the cost/budget of the building, but not of the funding. After all, the funding was secured in a rather peculiar way, the Sydney Opera House Lottery. Not only is this an innovative way of securing the funds, but it also adds to the controversy, that the government broke with Utzon over costs. The costs weren't tax payers money, but rather volunteer "donations". This would further the critizism of the government leaders, trying to wrestle control over a project from the originator, on shakey fiscal grounds (i.e. the government seeing themselves as the "owners" of the project, when the funding is in fact (largely) private. Should this not be mentioned in some form?--Nwinther (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits by 203.32.178.20 (talk)

An IP editor has made a series of edits to the body of this article today.

Reviewing them, i don't think any of them are improvements - they muddy the introduction with too much detail, introduce some grammatical errors, and at one point begin to sound like a PR release (eg Sydney Opera House also presents more than 700 of its own performances annually that offer an eclectic mix of artistic and cultural activities for all ages from the educational to the experimental.). I'm tempted to simply revert them, but I wonder whether I'm just getting a bit proprietorial here.

Any one else who watches the SOH article care to comment before i do it? Machina.sapiens (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with your assessment. The edits appear to have been made in good faith but do not truely improve the article. I think it was wise bringing it to the talk page - I was also hesitating to revert. One exception though: I think the removal of the contested sentence "Its power supply is equivalent to that of a town of 25,000 people and is distributed by 645.5 kilometres (401 miles) of electrical cable." was an improvement. First it is unrefernced since 3 years, second it does not provide any really useful information to the international reader about what this means (if it proves to be true). Does supply refer to installed capacity or consumption? Is it the equivalent of an Australian town, or European town or Indian town? and why compare an opera house to dwellings at all? Elekhh (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Current lead image (Dec 2010)

Just wondering why the colour of the OH is so muddy in the current lead image. Has anyone else noticed this?

I took some images last week in Sydney with much better colouring, unfortunately the weather wasn't the best so they don't have the nice blue sky of this image, so probably not worth replacing it with one of them, but maybe there's other truer coloured pics around? At the least this one wants some work on the white balance. --jjron (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cost

The construction cost estimate ($102 million) needs to be clarified and sourced. I'm guessing this is in Australian dollars but is it in 1973 prices or modern ones? To be of any use to readers, an adjusted figure for modern prices should also be given and in a bigger currency as well. The source that is currently cited for the 102 million figure also leads to a dead page. --Bjarki (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Utzon's absence from the official opening

We say both here and in Utzon's own article that he was never even invited to the opening ceremony in 1973. But I have in front of me an article from the SMH's Good Weekend magazine on 18 March 2006, recording an interview Utzon gave to Geraldine Brooks (writer). It says: When the Opera House finally opened, in 1973, he refused an invitation to the ceremony.

What's it to be, folks? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Position of Sydney Opera House (coordinates)

Hi AussieLegend. You reverted my good faith change of the coordinates of the opera house, and I wonder what map you use? On Google Maps, Bing Maps, OpenStreetMap, Wikimapia, MapQuest, ACME Mapper, and Flash Earth, the coordinates I used are right in the middle of the opera house buildings, whereas the previous coordinates refers to a point south and a little west of the opera house. So, on what do you base your claim that the new coordinates point to a spot in the harbour (water)? Which map do you use, and why do you believe that map is more precise than the seven maps I mentioned? --Jhertel (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To be even more precise, the coordinates are -33° 51' 25.74", +151° 12' 54.54" according to Google Maps. --Jhertel (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

While people may think that Google is accurate, it's far from it and the errors are not consistent. Google seems to get my house correct each time it updates but my parents' house 21.6km away has moved up to 65m between updates. The position of the Opera House on Google is 211m north of where it is shown on the topographic maps that covers the area (1:100000 9130 Sydney and 1:25000 91303N Parramatta River). I generally use GPS mapping software to plot locations, as the topo maps loaded into it are far more accurate than Google Earth, but I have physically confirmed the location of the Opera House on 9 June 2012 at 4:54 PM according to the logs. You'll note that the coordinates I've used are only 49.1m from the official coordinates for Bennelong Point, which is where the Opera House is located. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote while you changed your comment:

So do you use a specific map to find the position? Which one? And what are your sources to why that is better than all the rest?

And what do you mean by "I have physically confirmed the location"? I believe there are no coordinates cast in stone physically on the spot. Did you use a GPS device, and if affirmative, which one? And were exactly did you stand when you made the measurement? And how do you know that your GPS device shows the correct coordinates? And how do you know that the coordinates it showed were updated when you read the coordinates?

I think there should be some verifiable source on your claims, especially when you revert my good faith change that has several verifiable sources (at least 7). And how do you explain that all the 4 major online maps agree on the position I found (by 'major' I mean emphasized on the GeoHack page)? You only mentioned Google Maps. I mentioned 7 different maps. I actually tried 8 different maps, and Nokia Maps was the only one that deviated, but that showed a third spot entirely different from the other two.

Of course you are in good faith, just as I am in good faith. And none of us are right unless we can prove it. I try to strengthen my claim with several concrete sources that all support it, but I miss sources to your claims. I don't find it enough that you say you believe you are right. You need to come up with some sources to strengthen your claims. --Jhertel (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And now to your new comment about the Bennelong Point: Good that you supplied a source to strengthen your claim! But it is not enough to convince me. The source doesn't say that the opera house is actually centered at that point (it doesn't even mention the opera house), and it only says that the coordinates are "approximate".

But even when you go to the Misplaced Pages article on the Bennelong Point, it actually shows a point much closer to the coordinates I stated than the coordinates you stated. Please listen to my arguments and try to answer my questions. Assume you might be wrong (just as I assume I might be wrong) and let us find the truth as a team, using verifiable sources. --Jhertel (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Another source: WhereIs.com export to Garmin says "latitude=-33.85693&longitude=151.21507" in the URL, which agrees with my claim. --Jhertel (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the given link using the "Share: GPS" function from WhereIs.com on Sydney Opera House. --Jhertel (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a direct Google Maps link using the coordinates from WhereIs instead of the Google search link given before (the Google search gives a small map on my computer, but maybe it doesn't do that for everybody). I believe it shows that if WhereIs is correct about the coordinates -33.85693,+151.21507, then Google Maps is too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhertel (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And your claim that Google Maps is incorrect and moves position for every update also does not sound credible to me. That would mean that they change the position of their entire map with each update of the satellite imagery. Note that this Google Map view of Sydney Opera House is a map, not a satellite photo. Maybe they place the photos incorrectly sometimes, especially in rural areas (you don't state where your mother's house is), but I don't believe they change the maps. --Jhertel (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the position -33° 51' 25.74", +151° 12' 54.54" on OpenStreetmap. My claim is that that is correct. If your claim that Sydney Opera House is at 33°51′31.2″S 151°12′50.5″E is true, then the entire OpenStreetMap of Sydney (as well as the entire Google Maps and Bing Maps of Sydney) is probably wrong (as they can't just have the opera house wrong). It is hard for me to believe that. I would need some very reliable sources to believe that claim. --Jhertel (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I changed was adding the comparison to Bennelong Point. Of course I use a specific map, the topographic maps are generated for each location so it's necessary to use the map that refers to that area. As I indicated above, in the case of the Opera House, 9130 Sydney (1:100000) and 91303N Parramatta River (1:25000) are the relevant maps. Topographic maps are exceptionally accurate, far more accurate in fact than the average domestic GPS unit. I don't use a domestic GPS unit, although I do have a couple. My mapping software has available 1,400 maps for NSW and more than 1,200 of those are topographic maps, provided by Geoscience Australia. I do not have any doubts as to the accuracy of the software as I have recorded almost a million plot points. By "physically confirmed" I mean that I used my mapping software, with the topo maps loaded to confirm the location. As I hope you can understand, in order to provide an accurate GPS plot it's not possible to stand right next to the Opera House as the sails block the signal from multiple satellites, so I use easily identified reference points. For the Opera House, it was at the base of the steps, so I could lock onto enough satellites. Anyone who wants to can examine the official topo maps or take a GPS to the spot so it's easily verifiable. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, AussieLegend, you do not answer my questions, you just restate your unproven claims. For instance: Which GPS unit did you use? Which mapping software did you use? What are the links to the "official topo maps" that "anyone can examine"? You don't provide links to all that; please do that. And a link to the specific maps (is this the 91303N Parramatta River (1:25000)?). Maybe there is something else wrong. Which coordinate system do those maps use? It needs to be WGS84 according to Misplaced Pages:Obtaining geographic coordinates. And now it even appears that you do not provide coordinates to the actual opera house, but to something nearby; this is not what a user of Misplaced Pages would expect. And you don't answer all my questions to why you postulate that all the maps I mention are wrong. You are just silent about that. It does not feel okay that you ignore my questions; it inclines me to just correct the coordinates again, as you do not seem to be willing to investigate the problem and do not answer to my very valid objections at all. I have mentioned a lot of sources, but you don't (or are quite vague about them, with just one link that I refuted with no response from you). You seem to just cling to your belief and ignore anything else, with no other source than you believe firmly it is so – and that is not okay. It is not enough that you "do not have any doubts". That is not enough for an encyclopedia. You need to provide valid references so that other people can check your claims, especially when there are a many very reliable sources that claim something else than you do. And please answer my questions. They are very valid. When you ignore them, which I find both rude and arrogant, it just lessens the value of what you say. It is a serious problem if you put all the coordinates wrong all over Sydney (and maybe even other places as well), because there is something wrong with your measurements. "A million plot points" (whatever you mean by that) are worth nothing if they are measured wrongly or in a wrong coordinate system. Even though you believe to be right, you need to prove it in a verifiable way. And no, it is not easily verifiable to go to Australia to take a measure. And even if someone did make that trip, the GPS could have a fault. Your word and belief is not enough. Original research and unproven claims are not okay on Misplaced Pages. Please start from the point that you might be wrong, and not that you believe you are right; it is not constructive. Did you check the map? Could you provide a photo copy of it? I find it serious if the entire Google, OpenStreetMap and Bing Maps of Sydney (maybe the entire Australia?) are all wrong by at least 100 meters, and that is what you claim. --Jhertel (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter which GPS unit I used? You wouldn't be familiar with it anyway, since it's a military unit. As I said, I don't use domestic GPS units. Many people rely on car type GPS receivers but these are not accurate. I've already linked to the GPS mapping software that I use and I've told you where the topo maps came from. You can get any maps from there, but it's not really possible to link to them directly. The mapping software can use any source map. Australia typically uses GDA94, but WGS84 and GDA94 maps are essentially the same. Regarding your argument "You need to provide valid references so that other people can check your claims", I've given you the specific topo maps that refer to the Sydney Opera House, both in 1:25000 and 1:100000. These are the most reliable references that you'll get, and I've also pointed out that anyone can verify the coordinates with a GPS - it's a public area so there are no access problems. There are thousands of people there every day. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you know about this: "In Australia, mapping mismatches of 200 metres are common and result from confusion created by:

• Not understanding the difference between the old Australian Geodetic Datum (AGD66/AGD84 or AGD) and the Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA94 or GDA).
• Software settings on GPS receivers being ambiguous. This assists in creating confusion between what a projection does with what a datum does.
• Some modern software converting between different projections ‘on-the-fly’ without allowing for differences between datums."

(Fundamentals of mapping – Datums 2: Datums Explained in More Detail – The Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM))

If you did, then I believe you should have mentioned it and explained why you find that the datum you use is more correct than the datum all the big mapping web sites use. If not, please enlighten yourself and open up to the possibility that you might be wrong, no matter how much you believe you are right. --Jhertel (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I should have mentioned it at all. As I've indicated above, Australia typically uses GDA94, which is essentially the same as WGS84, at least for Australia. This section is not at all relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure that I've covered all your problems:

• "And now it even appears that you do not provide coordinates to the actual opera house, but to something nearby" - I assume that you're referring to Bennelong Point. The Sydney Opera House is built on Bennelong Point, therefore the coordinates of both should be extremely close.
• "And you don't answer all my questions to why you postulate that all the maps I mention are wrong" - I haven't checked all of the maps that you mentioned, but I have checked the topographic maps and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. They are the maps on which all else is based. It's an unfortunate fact of the digital age that errors appear when they shouldn't. If you look at my user page, you'll see a section titled "Electronic information isn't worth the paper it's printed on" detailing the problems that I had trying to get my parents' street "renamed" back to "street" from "avenue". When that was finally corrected, the change that had been initiated as the result of a single phone call rippled through the system. Even Google Maps and Google Earth were fixed all because of a phone call, and I have no doubt that errors ripple as easily as corrections. The source data, i.e. the original topo maps, isn't affected by downstream errors.
• "And please answer my questions" - I've been trying to answer but when you make multiple changes to your post while I'm attempting to reply, things get lost.
• ""A million plot points" (whatever you mean by that" - I'm sorry, I thought that would be clear. The software works in both stationary and mobile mode. If I'm driving in my car I can set the software to plot my course every so often, for example every 10 metres. The software has recorded almost a million locations in my travels.
• "it is not easily verifiable to go to Australia to take a measure" - Misplaced Pages:Verifiability doesn't require that it be easily verifiable, just that it be verifiable. Since anyone can (even with difficulty) travel to the Sydney Opera House and confirm the location, it is verifiable.
• "even if someone did make that trip, the GPS could have a fault" - That something may prevent you from accurately gathering data is always a possibility; it's just something we have to live with. GPS receivers are cheap now, you can get them here for only $60 so it doesn't stop you from checking, it just makes it inconvenient.
• "Did you check the map?" - I've already said that I did.
• "Could you provide a photo copy of it?" - You can download the map yourself. I don't have a photocopier that will photocopy a map that large. Have you ever seen a topographic map? And, of course I wouldn't know where to send it. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert

Good faith and useful additions by a new user are being removed for a variety of reasons, at least some of which are spurious. such edits should be reworded to include their new material, not simply reverted. This is Misplaced Pages policy, as should be familiar to more experienced editors. I intend to restore the edit, and I invite those more familiar with the subject to do just that, remembering that they, too, were once new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated to you on my talk page, the section to which these edits were made deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. That's why the section is titled "Reconciliation with Utzon", not "Failed attempts at reconciliation with Utzon" - the reconciliation with Utzon was a major milestone in the life and redesign of the interior spaces of the building. If you do restore the edits, hopefully without breaking the article again, they would be better placed in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section, since they deal more closely with the after effects resulting from the resignation, not the reconciliation in the late 90s. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you've restored the edits and left the article in a broken state. Most irresponsible of you, expecting somebody else to fix your errors. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I will say that I don't have a great problem with the edits, as long as they are added to the correct section, are properly referenced and don't leave the article in a broken state. I don't think that's too much to ask. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

1. "Room to Develop", Phil Carrick, ABC Radio 24 Hours, July 1999

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Top-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Sydney articles
• Top-importance Sydney articles
• WikiProject Sydney articles
• B-Class Australian music articles
• High-importance Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class Opera articles
• WikiProject Opera articles
• B-Class Architecture articles
• Top-importance Architecture articles
• B-Class World Heritage Sites articles
• Mid-importance World Heritage Sites articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2010)