Talk:Parramatta

Separate page for the Local Government Area

As per discussion at Talk:List of Sydney suburbs, I have created a separate page for the City of Parramatta, the Local Government Area. -- Ianblair23 11:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Page move

This page was moved from "Parramatta" to "Parramatta, New South Wales" as per the naming convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) – Ianblair23 16:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

SydneySuburbBox2

I have added the box, but it is not displaying correctly. I have places a comment on the template discussion page to try and get a fix. Yewenyi 21:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor clean up

There was a section about a German gang, which I deleted on the grounds that it was severely misspelled, did not cite references, and is irrelevent as other pages about major towns do not have sections on gangs. I guess if someone strongly disagrees with this action, they'll reverse the edit. Naysie 13:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

German gang? German gang?? I thought the major gang in Chinatown was Slavic?!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

National Estate

Do we really need this section? If you don't know the suburb it conveys nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful, but only if we link the items in the list to their own articles (as per Lennox Bridge). That means we need to do more work! Ryanwiki (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But why? Surely we can list or describe landmarks without bracketing them like this...???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different things: Are you suggesting we delete the list or add descriptions? I'd support the latter, as they are important landmarks that contribute to the bearings, history and character of the city. Sure, we could put the descriptions on the page, and also link to another article if there is enough information to warrant it. (For example, I think Parramatta Park could be a contender for its own article.) Removing the subheading "National Estate" and subsuming the list under "Landmarks" may also be helpful. Do you agree? Ryanwiki (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to standardise the article, so that it looks more like other Sydney suburb articles. I use Summer Hill, New South Wales as a guide because it seems to be the most complete article, so far, and has one of the best ratings. J Bar (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Head of Waters"

According to Britannica the word Parramatta is an Aboriginal word meaning "head of waters". Source: [1]

Should the article be changed accordingly to reflect this, or should this be included alongside the existing explanation (as they differ)? What is to be done? —VerseDoorPlace (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The eels explanation is commonly accepted, as reflected in the local rugby league team. However, there is some commonality between these two versions. Parramatta is not the "head" (or source) of the Parramatta River, but it is the place where the fresh water and the salt meet, and this is why eels and other aquatic life converge there.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I think a more correct translation is "eel waters" or "eel place (water)". The suffix matta meaning "place (water)" appears in Cabramatta, Wianamatta etc. I have added this in.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk page conversations RE: recent changes to article

For reference purposes, I copy the following discussions here:

---

Before making any more edits, please consult with the people at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard. Your changes, while I am sure in good faith, are disruptive in nature. Major changes such as the ones you have made should probably be discussed first with other editors who may have different opinions. I am heading to bed so I am unable to help tonight but I can assist tomorrow if needed. Otherwise, I am sure someone at the noticeboard can assist. Regards, Mattinbgn\^talk 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits I have made have mainly been wikifying in nature, i.e. I have made the article consistent with other articles of its type e.g. Sydney, Melbourne, etc. On closer examination it shall be seen that very little has in fact been changed, but it has only been rearranged in good faith such that all information is put in its proper place. I do not believe this to be a problem or disruptive. The article was a mess in the first place. VerseDoorPlace (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

---

You are correct that Parramatta is a city but it is also a suburb.[2] It would have been wiser to create the city article separately and leave the suburb article alone, rather than move the suburb article and edit it to become a city article. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Parramatta is a suburb of Sydney (sub-urban wrt Sydney, right?), but it is a city. This has been captured by saying that Parramatta is a city within the Sydney metropolitan area. While technically it is sub-urban, it would be ridiculous to label it directly as such (suburban city?) due to the obvious connotations (i.e. since most suburbs are not cities), thus we have 'city within Sydney metro area'.

They are one and the same. The entries from the NSW Geographical Names Register are otherwise identical. I believe this is just a double-entry for some sort of obscure convenience purpose.

Parramatta is for all intents and purposes a city. I believe this is clear and am surprised at the oft-reverted edits, labeling Parramatta merely a suburb. How utterly ridiculous! Now I have gone that little extra and provided a reference (which was available just a few clicks away already on Wikipedia), thereby quashing all of this. But it's just common sense, really. Sure you can play that game, but it's obviously a no-brainer. Next we'll be saying that some other major city in proximity to some more major city is just a suburb of the latter (I can't think of any potent example right now to make this sound good, but you know what I mean).

It would be ridiculous to have a separation of Parramatta (city) and Parramatta (suburb) here, or anywhere else (although you will never see it officially anywhere else), as they are, as I have said, one of the same!

It would be good for these discussions on private talk pages to be copied somehow to the Parramatta discussion page, for reference purposes. (Perhaps you could do this as I am not a Wikipedia regular)

=) VerseDoorPlace (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the city and suburbs of Parramatta are not the same thing. Under NSW law, only LGAs can be declared cities and in accordance with this, city boundaries (with the exception of Sydney) now relate to the LGA boundaries. The original city of Cessnock, for example, now includes all placess in the Cessnock LGA, the original city of Newcastle now includes all parts of the Newcastle LGA and so on. The originally declared city of Parramatta now encompasses everything in the Parramatta LGA, including the suburb of Parramatta.[3] At the last census the suburb of Parramatta[4] had 18,448 residents[5], while the city[6] had 148,323 residents.[7] The two entries in the GNR are most definitely not double-entries. If they were, at least one of them would have "Status: Variant" in the extract (e.g.) but neither does.[8][9] They exist for a reason and that is to differentiate between the two different entities. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I believe this is only recent (1993) NSW law, and Parramatta was declared a city in 1976.

Since 1993, only Local Government Areas in New South Wales can be declared as "cities" by the Government, under the Local Government Act 1993.[1] Although the present version of the Act specifies no criteria for city status,[2], a previous version of the Act specified that to be a city, a Council area must: (From List of Australian cities)

In light of the above I do not think the legislation reverted the previous declarations of cities? Clearly Parramatta (and Campbelltown, Liverpool, and Penrith) were declared cities separately from their LGAs. All of the other listed cities in the aforementioned article (i.e. all of the cities not in the Sydney metro area) are recognised as such. We cannot discriminate like this. If only LGAs can be declared cities, then we must also change these articles and call them suburbs. I have not checked your sources (sorry, no time), therefore there is a chance that I am wrong. But I think this is compelling evidence already. (Also see my response below in 'justification of my reverting').

Also, DO NOT REVERT ALL OF THE EDITS. If it turns out that indeed it is merely a suburb (?), then please only change THE FIRST LINE. The reorganisation of the article I have conducted is to make it CONSISTENT with the rest of Wikipedia! It is a framework/skeleton for future work! The previous version of the article is a mess. VerseDoorPlace (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

In justification of my reverting:

As Aussie legend has said above. Most of the local government areas in Sydney have been declared cities. The articles that you have altered for Parramatta, Liverpool, Campbelltown and Penrith were for the suburbs themsleves and not the city (local government area). J Bar (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. When I changed the articles to reflect their status as a city this wholly reflected this status separately from their LGAs. Why did you not check the citations? Why did you not check List of Australian cities? If you did you would have clearly seen this. —VerseDoorPlace (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To further add to this: the aforementioned article says:

New South Wales, therefore, has two types of "city": cities which are acknowledged on the register of the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales,[4] and Local Government Areas which have been proclaimed as cities, either before or after 1993, which are not acknowledged on the NSW Geographical Names Register.

Parramatta, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Penrith are of the former type -- they are CITIES of themselves, and are recognised by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales and not merely 'cities' by virtue of their LGAs. They are as much cities as all the other names on the list (Albury, Armidale, ...). The only difference is that they are within the Sydney metro area.

Please get your facts straight before simply reverting the extensive work I have conducted here. —VerseDoorPlace (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been a contentious issue in the past and has been discussed by wikipedia editors often in talk pages and as part of the Sydney and Australia project. Every suburb in Sydney has its own suburb article and every local government area that is considered to be a city has its own article. Parramatta is considered to be both a suburb of Sydney and city, so we keep that distinction in wikipedia. If you start making the changes to the suburb articles, you will destroy links to many, many other articles and references. If you feel so strongly about the matter, i suggest you make your point on the talk pages or join the Sydney project before making such drastic changes.

Parramatta, New South Wales is the standard format for place names. Parramatta can be used in reference to many other articles. See Parramatta (disambiguation) for example. J Bar (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

I'd suggest that the (unstressed) second and fourth vowels were schwas.

I was just wondering about the pronunciation. Do locals really stress it initially, i.e. stress on the 'Pa-' and no more stress thereafter? Seems counter-intuitive and at least Dictionary.com, where you'll find the term in relation to the fabric, as well as to the city, actually provides a different pronunciation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parramatta

..stressed on the third vowel, which is the way I'd speak it (lacking definite information) intuitively. But then, I'm German ;) Can someone please clarify? Zero Thrust (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)::

If you want to hear how the word is pronounced you will hear it here [10]. You will need to listen through the video in which it is only mentioned once. Cheers ***Adam*** 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is primarily stressed on the third syllable with a secondary stress on the first: ParraMATTa. The article is wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought so and that's how it is spoken in the video provided. For that reason I've edited the IPA prescription. Looks better now. Zero Thrust (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sincerest Form of Flattery (Plagiarism)

Has anyone noticed that Raine & Horne (Real Estate Company) use a lot of this Wikipedia article for its info on the Parramatta suburb?

See for example [11] -- has lightly edited copy of chunks of this page on the right (Local suburb information).

Or I hope it is not the other way round? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.43.118 (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

An obvious move

There aren't a lot of other Parramattas. In fact there aren't any other places called Parramatta. We should move it from "Parramatta, New South Wales" to "Parramatta" and fix all the redirects. --TS 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

City Council

Would it be a good idea to put more content in about the Parramatta City Council[12] and the social enterprise projects[13]? Eclipsed (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Hi there, the church shown in the infobox is the same as this one, isn't it? Could anybody please let me know where on Church Street it is, e.g. what is the name of the side street? I'm working on an article on Thomas Forsaith. You can reply here, and many thanks in advance. Schwede66 04:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Parramatta. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Parramatta, New South Wales → Parramatta – I'm not sure if this has been requested before, but a user did suggest this on the talk page in September of 2010. This article is the only one with the 'Parramatta' name, making the ",New South Wales" part redundant and unncecessary. Also, 'Parramatta' is a redirect to this article which further suggests that the NSW bit isn't needed. Till 08:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question on the face of it seems straightforward, but Category:Suburbs of Sydney almost all seem to have NSW after them. Are they really all non-distinctive names? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmm some are, some aren't. But here in New South Wales, everybody knows Parramatta as a city-suburb since it is one of Sydney's focal areas along with Liverpool and Penrith. The ones in Category:Suburbs of Sydney are merely just suburbs. Till 10:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "Here in New South Wales" could probably be safely expanded to "here in Australia" (I say this having never lived in NSW). Jenks24 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:NCGN#Australia begins "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter their state of ambiguity . . ." There's an extensive thread on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention (along with a link to another extensive poll cum discussion in the last line of that thread). The inclusion or noninclusion of state names with unambiguous town names seems to be an unresolved, though not particularly contentious, question with regard to the naming of articles on Australian places. This discussion is not listed (at the time of my writing) among the active move discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia#Current discussions, but I think the opinions of the WikiProject's members might be welcome. Deor (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes but then it says "...but the undisambiguated Town is also acceptable if the article has a unique name". IMO Parramatta is a unique name, and the disambiguation page seems to support this. Till 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic, so there's no problem there. Australian placenames are slowly all heading in this direction, it is in with WP:PRECISION and the guideline says either is acceptable. Jenks24 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Uniqueness confirmed by GeoNames. Kauffner (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Disambiguated version will still be available redirect. If NSW is not part of the name itself then the article should be moved. Agathoclea (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Satellite City or Suburb?

After a recent edit, the article now says, "Parramatta is a satellite city of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, now subsumed in Sydney's suburban sprawl".

While it has the status of a second government centre of Sydney (Old Government House etc), and to a lesser extent an alternative CBD, I don't think Parramatta was ever a separate city. The local government area received the title "City" in 1938, but originally it was a "Municipality" and then a "Borough". Those previous titles indicate that it wasn't conceived of as a city back then. The historical population would have hardly justified that description. And Ryde LGA also is called a "City", but I don't think anyone would say Ryde is a satellite city.

I don't believe the comment about "Sydney's suburban sprawl" is justified. Given Australia's historical population, I think the area between the centre of Sydney and Parramatta has always been quite populated. NSW's first train line in 1854 went to Parramatta stopped at Newtown, Ashfield, Burwood, and Homebush on the way.

What is the justification for saying it is or was a satellite city?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That was me. Parramatta was not a mere suburb, but the second settlement. The two, Parramatta and Sydney, developed, connected by a track, Parramatta Rd, and ferries. Whether it was like a "satellite city" or "satellite township", probably the latter. There must be a better way to describe it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Something else tried. "Parramatta is a business district in the metropolitan area of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia". "subsumed sprawl dropped. The understatement of the secondary business districts (Sydney#Urban_structure), Parramatta, Penrith, Bondi Junction, Liverpool,

Chatswood, & Hurstville is common in all these articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's currently gazetted as a city. For contrast, North Parramatta is gazetted as a suburb. I believe this is the authorative source. FWIW, there are currently 35 cities in NSW (search for them here). Kerry (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You can use the Geographical Names Board as a source, but I can't see how Parramatta fits its definition of a city ("a centre of population...") any more than many other suburbs. Carlingford, for example, has a higher population. The GNB is wrong anyway, because it says Parramatta is on the south side of the river. It straddles the river. The GNB also has an entry for Parramatta as a suburb, so it's not as "authoritative" as you might expect.

There is some ambiguity between the LGA and Parramatta proper. A plaque on the Town Hall says that Parramatta was declared a city in 1938 on its 150th anniversary. However, this was the 150th anniversary of the settlement, not the council. I suspect this is the reason that the GNB designates Parramatta as a city (as well as a suburb!). There would have been less LGAs called "cities" in 1976 when this entry was made.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the real question here is what is in the intended scope of the Wikipedia article called Parramatta. Many city entries on Wikipedia have the same problem, as most city names are used in at least 3 senses: the central suburb (usually the central business district), a local government area and the informal sense of being part of the contiguous urban/suburban sprawl that has grown up around that centre over time. This is presumably why there are three listings for Parramatta in the GNB, reflecting each of these three uses. I note that there is a City of Parramatta entry that is intended for the LGA, so the Parramatta entry could be intended for the strictly defined suburb or for the historic centre known as Parramatta and its sprawl. When you look at the Parramatta article, it seems to be doing a bit of both. It may be the resolution of the situation is to do as is done for Brisbane and have three articles City of Brisbane (for the LGA), Brisbane CBD (for the suburb) and Brisbane for the historic sprawl. In which case, maybe the solution to have 3 articles on Parramatta that each explore the three uses of that name instead of just two. I don't think though that Parramatta should be described as a satellite city because of the expectation that it is close but still geographically distinct, which Parrammata is not. I note that Gosford is used as an example of satellite city/town of Sydney in that article. Kerry (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think 3 articles would be unnecessary and confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not so complicated, though the history of Parramatta is rich. Parramatta developed as a separate settlement, distinct to Sydney, in 1788. At the time, neither Sydney nor Parramatta were cities, rather towns; neither one part of the other. The fact that Parramatta was more populated than Sydney in its early years is an indication of its status. Today Parramatta is a suburb of the Sydney metro, a large CBD that is considered a city, and an LGA. How you refer to it depends on the context. Given the NSW Govt strategies for Sydney mention Parramatta as Sydney's second CBD, it would be correct to refer to Parramatta as a city within the Sydney metro. It is designated in most government strategies as the only other major centre/CBD in the Sydney metro outside Sydney itself, distinguishing it from other major suburban centres. AussieInfo (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is strangely complicated, and for no good reason. I think I have helped things by moving City of Parramatta to Parramatta local government area. For vertually every meaning of "city of Parramatta", the current business centre, the history, coverage is in this article, not the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• City or suburb. In the middle of cities, typically the business district with low residential population, is a smaller area called the suburb, with the same name. Confusing, yes. Compare http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/placename_search/extract?id=KWQloeKmJP http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/placename_search/extract?id=ujYbvqrXMa --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As in Sydney central business district, I think the topic of this article is of a suburb and as such it should say that in the lead.--2nyte (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think calling this topic a mere suburb would be very misleading. It is clearly more than a suburb. Parramatta central business district might do it justice, but is not suitable because this article includes the history of the locality/settlement, which is not the history of the CBD. The article appropriately does not dwell on borders with May's Hill and Harris Park, which would be appropriate for an article on the Suburb of Parramatta. By most sensible measures, Parramatta is not a "suburb". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

All but the history section is specific to the suburb of Parramatta. As for being misleading, the opening (as it was previously) clearly established that Parramatta is a suburb, as well as a major business district in the metropolitan area of Sydney, and the sixth largest central business district in Australia. I think the real question should be: does the history section belong on this article or on City of Parramatta. My opinion would be to leave it here still.--2nyte (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Climate section

The climate section is rather long and detailed. It could probably benefit from being trimmed considerably to two or three paragraphs, and the rest of the content merged into a separate article such as Climate of Parramatta. Looking at the statistics, it does appear that the climate does not really differ from Sydney's in general, apart from probably cooler winter weather, but not by much. There is already a Climate of Sydney page, so I don't know if a separate one on Parramatta would be overkill given that it is essentially still Sydney, just not the city centre which is what Climate of Sydney details. 58.166.244.49 (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I think it should be cut down. There is no justification for its own page.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox photo 2

This is a strange choice of photo. The church shown isn't a prominent one, and I think many people who know Parramatta would have trouble identifying the location.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Parramatta

Parramatta 37.111.146.213 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)