Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sydney Opera House: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:53, 3 April 2014 editAussieLegend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits Factual dispute tag: fix← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:17, 16 January 2025 edit undo31.124.48.211 (talk) Voyager: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
(149 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{On this day|date1=2004-10-20|oldid1=6792060|date2=2005-10-20|oldid2=25953739|date3=2006-10-20|oldid3=82661331|date4=2007-10-20|oldid4=165766826|date5=2008-10-20|oldid5=246328908|date6=2009-10-20|oldid6=320618684|date7=2010-10-20|oldid7=391773573|date8=2013-10-20|oldid8=577809579}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Art|class=B}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Australia|class=B|importance=Top|Sydney=yes|music=yes|music-importance=high|Sydney-importance=Top|Sydney-class=B}} {{WikiProject Australia|importance=Top|Sydney=yes|music=yes|music-importance=high|Sydney-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Opera|class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Opera}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Architecture|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Music venues|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Event Venues|music=yes}}
{{WikiProject World Heritage Sites|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject World Heritage Sites|importance=mid}}
}} }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-10-20|oldid1=6792060|date2=2005-10-20|oldid2=25953739|date3=2006-10-20|oldid3=82661331|date4=2007-10-20|oldid4=165766826|date5=2008-10-20|oldid5=246328908|date6=2009-10-20|oldid6=320618684|date7=2010-10-20|oldid7=391773573|date8=2013-10-20|oldid8=577809579}}


== Omission of the role of Peter Rice of Ove Arup ==
== Recent revert - 3 December 2012 ==
Peter Rice was THE engineer on site at the Opera House for most of the trouble-shooting period. He has his own well documented] .


It is strange that he gets absolutely no mention on this page.
Good faith and useful additions by a new user are {{Diff|Sydney Opera House|526150203|526145433|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. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


I have refrained from inserting any such edit given the level of dispute that is evident...but it still seems unfair/incomplete.
: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. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 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. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 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. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 11:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


] (]) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
It's very disappointing that you've chosen to disregard my comments above, asking "those more familiar with the subject to... include new material" and are seemingly refusing to assist a new editor to make the changes - changes which are both of value to Misplaced Pages, and cited - they wanted to make, as I requested both here and on your talk page, in order to preserve your preferred vision of how the article should appear, to which you have again reverted. This is a dreadful way to treat a new editor, whose further editing is now unlikely. I'm done here, but will ask uninvolved editors to look by. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


:While he may have an article, his involvement with the Sydney Opera House is limited to one, ]. None of that can be used unless references can be provided. --] (]) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:The edits were removed by those familiar with the subject but you chose to restore them, and broke the article in doing so. ''YOU'' are not a new editor and you know exactly how the article was broken, but expect others to fix the problems that ''you'' have re-introduced. You've been around long enough to know that's not the way to edit so please, get off your high horse, accept some responsibility and stop blaming others while absolving yourself of all responsibility. You know better. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


== It ==
===Opinion of an uninvolved editor===
The intro is written in the style of a 12-year old. It has eleven sentences and seven start with "it." It seems like a list of unrelated facts. It is unaided by a sentence structure that could actually like facts together. It could use help. :) ] (]) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Guys. Relax. I think what happened here is:
#HubbleConstant, a newbie, made some good-faith edits that nonetheless made a bit of a mess of the article.
#AussieLegend reverted the edits and warned the editor about adding unsourced material.
#Andy/Pigsonthewing saw this as unhelpful and reverted the edits and told the newbie not to worry about the warning.
I can see what both of you is getting at but I think this is a situation where a bit of extra consideration can save a lot of time in the long run.


::I have just restructured the lead para, including moving some of the information into the Performance Venues section heading. Feel free to revert if its not an improvement ] (]) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are some recommendations for you, AussieLegend,


== Reference ==
#Start a thread here, on the talk page of the article, explaining
Any good? -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 09:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
#*What the section that HubbleConstant added text to is supposed to be about
:Not just a comment—as stated at the end, "this is an edited extract from the book Utzon and the Sydney Opera House by Daryl Dellora, published by Penguin Specials." As an eyewitness and newspaper worker of the day in Sydney, I can confirm that this account is spot-on. It was common knowledge that the ABC (Moses) kyboshed the opera theatre to serve the interests of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and its subscription concerts. The massive and intricate revolving stage was thus mindlessly scrapped, dooming the building to become at best a third-order purveyor of grand operatic productions. The state politics and corruption of those days was a minefield for anyone with any sort of principles. It was a woeful tragedy for Utzon, as well as for grand opera and for the people of New South Wales. ] (]) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
#*Why the new text doesn't fit
#*Where in the article it would be more appropriate to mention the things HubbleConstant mentions.
#Have a think about the sourcing of the new text. Much of it may just be an issue with the style of how the sources are presented. Improve the situation by editing the new text or discuss the issue on the article talk page.
#Leave a message on HubbleConstant's talk page saying that you're sorry you got off on the wrong foot and asking if he/she would like to respond to your comments on the article talk page.


== Bolding and / or Italicising of venue names in a list==
Keeping discussions of the article's contents on the article talk page helps to keep all editors included in the discussions. It helps to keep the discussion about the content of the article, rather than the behaviour of a particular user. It is also more welcoming for the new user because you are inviting them in to a discussion about how to improve the article, rather than just pointing out where they went wrong.
The issue of whether the venue names can be either bolded or italicised is currently being discussed. I do not believe that the MoS supports italicising names of places or venues but I am willing to be shown otherwise. If there is something in the MoS then please provide it here so that it can be discussed and decided upon by consensus. ] (]) 13:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


:I have been researching the MoS and so far the indications are that it is okay to bold the venue names in the way I have done in the article (because they are done so in a list) as per ]. There is no indication that I can find that it is okay to italicise them instead ~ just the opposite from my reading of ]. ] (]) 13:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 12:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


::Firstly, when something is under discussion, the ] prevails. You don't arbitrarily decide to ignore concerns by other editors and revert to your preferred version and demand that somebody provides a MOS reference when you've made edits that don't comply with the MOS. We revert to the version prior to to the disputed edits (yours). ] says {{tq|Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text; instead use template {{tlx|em}}, or the underlying {{tag|em}} HTML markup, which render as italics in most browsers.}}. Also, punctuation shouldn't be inside the markup. I forget where the MOS says this but it's something that we went through at ] because editors were bolding punctuation inside markup. I agree with {{u|Machina.sapiens}} here when he says {{tq|On re-reading the MOS, I see that WP doesn't really want bolding used in this kind of situation, but I think it helps readability to have the venue names picked out in some way - so what would you think of italicising the venue names instead?}} Italics are what the MOS says. Wher in the MOS do you claim that it says bolding is appropriate? --] (]) 13:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for your input. There is already an explanation above as to where and why the problems occurred. HubbleConstant's only edits were made before I warned him about adding unsourced content and he hasn't returned since his edits were reverted by two other editors. In all likelihood, nothing more would have eventuated if Pigsonthewing hadn't chosen to restore the flawed edits. This really is a storm in a teacup that doesn't warrant any more action until (and if) HubbleConstant returns. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


:::According to the MoS bolding is acceptable in lists and this is common practice in most articles. What we have here is a list. Where in the MoS does it say it is okay to italicise the names of things such as venues? Probably nowhere but I'm open to your evidence otherwise. ] (]) 14:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
::That's the thing. We want HubbleConstant to return. To the encyclopedia if not to this article. That is what ] is all about. We don't want new users to get the impression that their contributions are not welcome. We want them to continue to contribute and to learn as they go. If you follow the recommendations above we have a much better chance of retaining new editors, which is what we need to do, to survive and grow.
::I recognise that you have already explained the problems you have identified as part of your conversation with Andy/Pigsonthewing. However, I think it would be easier for the newcomer to understand if you laid it out clearly in a new section. This means that the new user can be directed to this section and jump into the conversation, without having to understand the conversation between you and Andy.
::Also, your text above does not include anything about where in the article it would be better to put the new text. Including that is essential because it shows that you do value the new user's contribution.
::] (]) 13:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


::::{{u|Afterwriting}} Again, when your edits are disputed, as they have been, we revert to the status quo. You've received an edit-warring warning and chosen to edit-war after that, so there's a case for an AN3 report, unless you revert your last revert. I've presented you with a link to the MOS and a quote from it. You have not, despite my request, so your claim is unsupported. Bolding is appropriate in some cases, such as definition lists, which is not the case here. The example used by the MOS is ], which is not the type of list used here. In this case we aren't listing terms per say, we're merely emphasising names. Note that you have not provided justification for bolding punctuation. --] (]) 14:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
:::As somebody who spends an awful lot of time fixing the screwed up edits of new editors who pop in, edit and then disappear never to be seen again, trying to reduce the damage cause by new editors who are here only to vandalise, or just doing janitorial work that nobody else wants to do, I don't have the time to spend chasing after somebody who may not even return after their initial edits, which happens all too frequently. If HubbleConstant returns, we can sort it out then, but doing anything more at this point is a wasted effort based on my experience. As for where to put HubbleConstant's edits, perhaps you missed the bit where I said "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."
::::Sorry. Yes. You did say the new content would be better in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. Perhaps the fact that I missed that illustrates the point that it easy to miss things when they are part of two editors arguing, as opposed to a laying out of what would be best for the article.
::::I do a bit of article patroling using ] and so have also come across many edits by editors who never return. I know this can be annoying but it isn't always the case. As experienced editors, we are supposed to try to encourage others to take part in the project.
::::] (]) 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


:::::FYI ]:
===Continued....===
I really don't see the point of the most recent edits made by Pigsonthewing. He hasn't seen fit to explain the edits here, although the second edit summary alludes to his problem. The thing is though, it's completely wrong. Nobody has disputed the accuracy of the edits, only their placement in the article, and the fact that the edits broke the article, as I've explained to him above, and on my talk page. There is no dispute about the accuracy of of the article, so a tag is completely unnecessary.


:::::From the Manual of Style at ] in the "Neither" section:
I've explained on my talk page, and above, that the section titled "Reconciliation with Utzon" 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, which is why it has its own section. I've indicated above that the edits by HubbleConstant would be better placed in the section titled "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" but, in the 24 days since this started nobody, including Pigsonthewing and HubbleConstant (the latter hasn't even edited Misplaced Pages in that time), has seen fit to do so. I'm therefore at a loss as to understand why Pigsonthewing thinks the problem is unresolved.


:::::"There are a few cases in which the title should be in '''neither italics''' nor quotation marks (though many are capitalized): .... Names of buildings."
For the benefit of any new editors here, something stated by Yaris678 needs addressing:
"''AussieLegend reverted the edits and warned the editor about adding unsourced material.''' - Nope, that's not what happened. Initially, HubbleConstant completely removed the "Reconciliation with Utzon" section, without explanation. This was quite correctly reverted by Tbhotch. HubbleConstant then made edits to the section, without including any actual citations, breaking the section in the process. The break, as explained to Pigsonthewing, was caused when text was added into the section, resulting in change. removing "Beginning in the late 1990s, the ] began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" from "Beginning in the late 1990s, the ] began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work." The change was reverted by Ian Rose because it did not contain ], which was true. (Comments in the prose are not citations) HubbleConstant then changed "Beginning in the late 1990s" to "Beginning in the late 1978", which was both gramatically incorrect and incorrect given the context of the section. The edit also added "<nowiki>#</nowiki> Numbered list item" above the section. This edit was reverted by Ian Rose. It was only ''after'' these events that I discovered the history and gave HubbleConstant a warning for the unsourced edits. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:"''without including any actual citations''" That's still not true. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::There were no ] in the content that was added. The diffs don't lie, but that's not the real point here. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::The diffs may not lie, but the claim that the edit concerned was made "''without including any actual citations''" is most certainly and demonstrably a falsehood. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::No it's not. There are most definitely no ] in the content that was added. However, as i said, this is not the point. The pont here is that you've twice added a tag without any explanation as to why this tag was added. What is the dispute over the factual accuracy of the section? --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 21:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::That there were no ''inline'' citations is not in dispute; you said there were "''no actual citations''"; that is false. The facts evidenced by those citations have been excluded by you, in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s, which is shown by them not to be valid. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure if you've noticed, but when most people refer to citations, they refer to inline citations. That's why they were referred to as "actual" citations. The content was NOT excluded "in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s" at all. It was excluded, as explained to you quite clearly that ''the section titled "Reconciliation with Utzon" 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.'' Nobody disputes that there were failed attempts at reconciliation many years before, they are just irrelevant to that section. As also explained very clearly, in my first post in the thread, those edits ''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.'' --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 21:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Your apparent claim that only "''inline citations'' are "''actual citations''" is also bogus. The reconciliation cited in the removed edits were not failed. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::They did indeed fail. Utzon had nothing to do with the Opera House until the 1990s reconciliation. He wanted to design a new building for Sydney, but wanted nothing public to do with the Opera House. Much of what was in the removed edits is uncited and not supported by the alleged sources, including the final claim, "It has been incorrectly claimed that it was not until 1992 that he first gave an interview to an Australian publication, the Fairfax Good Weekend. But this is not the case.... he gave m". And, of course, the edits are still not relevant to the 1990s reconciliation. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 21:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


:::::] (]) 14:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} "''An interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978''". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:Sigh.... Yes, that's very nice but it doesn't hide the fact that the attempts at reconciliation did fail, that much of the content is not supported by the alleged sources and appears to be OR and that very little is actually ]. You're concentrating on the sources, instead of the real problem; that the edits are irrelevant to the section, which is not factually incorrect. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::Well, that's your view; I dispute it. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Then please explain how attempts at reconciliation in the 70s and 80s are relevant to the reconciliation in the lead-up to the re-works in this millenium. There's simply nothing that's factually wrong about the section and you haven't demonstrated how it is. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#fee72c 0em 0em 0.8em,gold -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] (])</font> 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::::There is and I have; and your question is nonsensical in that context. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Okay, well I've just stumbled across this. I've read through the edit war and all of the above comments. I really can't buy into a lot of the arguments made above - for example, to me, I don't see an issue either way with respect to where to put comments about "failed reconciliations". I don't have a problem with them appearing in the "Reconciliation with Utzon" section as a chronological sequence. It doesn't matter if they failed, they provide historical context and can be seen as the first chapters in the reconciliation saga. Likewise, I don't see a drama if the failed attempts are put in the earlier sections. If it were me, I'd put the failed attempts with the successful attempt in the one section, but I just don't see it worth the argument - it works either way. The prose-style citations could easily have been converted to in-line format and, if necessary, tagged, to give someone an opportunity to check them out in hard copy. The Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary is held by the State Library of NSW and the other references are held either there or may be in online databases. They can be checked.
::::: This said, I see two big problems here. The first is that in general the content needs a heck of a lot of clean up work and a lot of that is impossible without the sources. It says, for example, that in the interview Utzon explained why he didn't want to come back for the fifth aniversary. That doesn't really fit in the article. What this addition should do is actually say the reason that Utzon gave, then cite the article as the reference for the statement. I don't think unfulfilled wishes to design another building on Sydney Harbour are relevant here (unless someone can show how they are). It's not relevant to say he gave numerous witty interviews, that he gave a major interview in such-and-such a place, that a book exists, that a photograph exists in that book, nor that Utzon is handsome in that photograph. Utzon's AO belongs to his own article more than this one. The letters to Ava Hubble (who is who exactly?) in themselves are not relevant and I can't see the relevance of the content examples given. It just seems to be attempting to make a very laboured case that he was in contact with at least one Australian and didn't hate all Australians, but I don't think this is disputed nor do I believe the article currently claims otherwise.
::::: This all leads into my second concern, which is that there appears to be a possible ] issue with the edits, as they primarily appear to put forward the views and work of Ava Hubble, as also expressed elsewhere such as . It's worth noting that these views are disputed by others . I think ] is important and if there is an issue here, this editor would likely to nevertheless be in a position to make valuable contributions to the article and it's a pity this wasn't something that could have been managed more carefully at the time this issue first came up last December.
::::: At this point, if a third party was to view the June 1978 Opera House Monthly Diary it might yield a potentially interesting viewpoint worthy of inclusion about why Utzon didn't want to come back for the fith anniversary. I'm not convinced the visit by his daughter is necessarily worth a mention and I don't see anything else that's worth including. The crux of it is the article probably needs at most a paragraph to briefly cover off the strained relationship prior to the late 90's reconciliation, but currently there's no solid sources to provide the necessary cited input. At the moment, I can't see anything I can really use to add to the article, just some ideas of threads that could be pulled to head in that direction. Having made that consideration, I am going to remove the disputed tag as nothing has happened for 10 months and nothing has been discussed for 9 months. In any case, it's not the correct tag. The article might be missing some potential content, but what's there is not inaccurate. -- ] (]) 16:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::I've restored the tag - that no progress has been made does not mean the accuracy of the current content is no longer disputed. It's also not clear, who you think has the CoI you allege. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::You asked that "those more familiar with the subject" attend to the article and they did. You haven't explained how the article is factually inaccurate - the lack of the additional content doesn't make it so. In fact the article as it stands ''is'' accurate; as explained to you previously the content that was removed deals with earlier failed attempts at reconciliation, which is why I suggested that it be more appropriately added to the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. {{tl|Disputed section}} is not the correct template to use. What you really need is {{tl|Expand}}. {{tl|Missing information}} isn't really appropriate as the content isn't really missing. As Rob.au indicated "''The article might be missing some potential content, but what's there is not inaccurate''". Generally I agree with Rob.au except on where the content should be added and that "the prose-style citations could easily have been converted to in-line format and, if necessary, tagged". It would be irresponsible to restore the content added by HubbleConstant without actually verifying the content first. As for the COI issue, that should be obvious. As Rob.au indicated, the content that was added by '''Hubble'''Constant are the views of Ava '''Hubble'''. (emphasis added). There seems to be a link between the two. --] (]) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
Please don't misquote me like that. What I in fact said was {{tq|"such edits should be reworded to include their new material, not simply reverted. This is Misplaced Pages policy... and I invite those more familiar with the subject to do just that"}}. I repeat that I dispute the accuracy ''of the section tagged''; since material which contradicts it has been removed. And I have indeed already explained how the article is factually inaccurate, above, when I wrote: {{tq|"The facts evidenced by those citations have been excluded by you, in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s, which is shown by them not to be valid."}}. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
:The content that you claim was removed was only added to the article 10 hours before you first restored it after it had been removed because it was added to the wrong section, was unsourced, improperly sourced and/or contained original research. It didn't contradict what was already in the article at all. These reasons have been explained to you at length. The "citations" did not evidence anything because they were not appropriate citations and were not verifiable. An example is "a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983", which is extremely vague and not at all what we expect of citations. It is so vague as to not even identify which edition of The Weekend Australian contained the interview. There are up to 6 within the period that the interview could have been given as there's no guarantee that the alleged interview was printed in December 1983, just that the interview was given that month. The actual interview could very well have appeared in the 1 or 8 January issues. However, that was not the reason that I removed the content. As was very clearly explained to you on my talk page, as well as being mentioned in the edit summary, the content was removed because the edits broke the article by randomly removing a large section of valid content, something you persisted with even after being told that your edits were breaking the article. The content was certainly ''not'' excluded "in favour of a claim that attempts at reconciliation began in the late 1990s". It has never been claimed that attempts at reconciliation didn't begin until the late 1990s. Attempts began a long time before that but they failed, and there were long periods where there was no communication. It was the ultimately successful attempts at reconciliation that didn't start until the 1990s. As was explained to you, the "Reconciliation with Utzon" deals with the successful attempts of the 1990s, not the long past failed attempts, which was why adding content dating back to 1978 was inappropriate. Those attempts are more correctly dealt with in the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section since the failed attempts happened in the immediately following years, before the gap. --] (]) 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
::That the content was ''removed'' (note: not moved), by you, is not a ''claim'', it's a demonstrable fact. You continue to falsely refer to it as unsourced: it was not. The contradiction that I highlight is clear for anyone to see. While you have indeed posted at length, your so-called explanations have done nothing to refute my points or justify the ''exclusion'', by you, of the new, and significant information. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
:::"Removed" gives the impression that the life of HubbleConstant's edits to the article was greater than the 31 minutes that they spent in the article before you restored them. ] requires that content be reliably sourced and that content that is challenged or likely be challenged be supported by inline citations. The edits that you restored had clearly been challenged and yet contained not a single inline citation. Any editor had the right to remove them. However, sourcing is not the reason I removed them. They were removed because they broke the article and were not relevant to the section to which they were added. Your points about sources are irrelevant to this, as has been explained previously, yet you want to concentrate only on the sourcing issue. The tag is invalid because the section is not factually inaccurate, again as has been explained. As for "You continue to falsely refer to it as unsourced: it was not.", well that's false itself. I suggest you review ]. Better still, don't - Sourcing isn't the issue here. --] (]) 19:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I'm not seeing the point of retaining the tag at this stage - it seems to be demanded by one editor, who is demanding other unnamed editors find a way to add the content to the article. I tried and failed to find anything worthwhile of inclusion that could be sourced. I'm not sure how another "white knight" is going to come in at this point and do it. Also, the probable ] was abundantly obvious, as AussieLegend has since pointed out. Pigsonthewing - you talk of new and significant information. Given I went through the addition quite carefully and couldn't find anything I could work with, can you identify exactly what information from the addition you define as significant? I'm just not following what you are expecting to happen at this point. -- ] (]) 14:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Somehow my relevant edit summary disappeared, but I have got rid of the tag not only because it is outdated but also because there isn't much controversial content left. Surely the section can continue to be developed by normal editing. ] (]) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::I have restored the tag; the issue is not one of controversial content being in the article, so much as it being misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events. Nothing has been done to address this. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::As can be seen in {{Diff|Sydney Opera House|526150203|526145433|this cited edit}}, there were approaches in 1978 and 1984. Communication did not "begin" in "the late 1990s", and it seems that reconciliation of some sort had already occurred. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::As has been explained numerous times, the section is ''not'' "misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events". The content that was added to the section was not relevant to the section, which is why its addition was reverted. Multiple editors have now reviewed this section and agree the tag is not needed. It's time you ]. Fifteen months is far too long. --] (]) 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::: As I have addressed all but one of the points in your latest comment previously, I refer you to my earlier responses, which you appear to have overlooked, forgotten or ignored. As to your new point, "''fifteen months''", ] applies, and there is no time limit in the use of a dispute tag. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::No, you haven't addressed the comments because ]. The section has nothing to do about the earlier attempts at reconciliation. It's about the 1990s efforts in the lead-up to the building refurbishment. Yes, there is no deadline but there is no excuse for continuing to disrupt an article simply because you refuse to get a point. --] (]) 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::The WP:IDHT appears to be all yours; I have read what you and others have written, and refuted it where necessary. If you're particularly concerned about the tag being in an individual section (one which you have selectively retitled), feel free to move it to the top of the article. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::You have not refuted it at all. You just keep pushing to include edits that broke the article and which have nothing to do with that particular section. At least three editors now disagree that the tag is required. You're the only one who sees a need for it. I'm not going to move the tag because I don't see a need for it at all. The section was retitled to reflect the content in the section, again has been explained to you, since you simply don't get the point. --] (]) 18:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


::::::That is about the building, not spaces within the building. As Machina.sapiens has explained, we're trying to emphasise the name of spaces within the building. Emphasis is correctly done with italics, per ]. --] (]) 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
===Factual dispute tag===
@]: You have now placed the onus on yourself to clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed. Alternatively, the flag must be removed. You are simply out of order to use this disruptive device as a tactic to reinstate historically removed content. ] (]) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


:::::I suggest that (contrary to {{u|AussieLegend}} above) ] (definitions lists) does apply, and that semicolon-colon should be used rather than direct bold markup. ] (]) 09:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:I am dong no such thing; and have {{diff|Talk:Sydney Opera House|601218910|601213931|already replied}} to a similar question from you, above. Quite why you and other editors refuse to address the actual issue at hand is inexplicable. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
::Your reply was irrelevant as the section in question is not about the reconciliation efforts in 1978 and 1984, as has previously been explained at length. Nobody has refused to "address the actual issue at hand" because you haven't explained what your issue actually is. If you can't explain now what facts are disputed, then there is no reason to keep the tag and it should therefore be removed, as multiple editors have said. --] (]) 10:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Given that I said above, recently, {{tq|"the issue is not one of controversial content being in the article, so much as it being misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events. Nothing has been done to address this."}} and {{tq|"there were approaches in 1978 and 1984. Communication did not 'begin' in 'the late 1990s'."}}, I can only conclude that you're deliberately ignoring what I've said. As I also said, {{tq|"the WP:IDHT appears to be all yours"}}. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
::::And I replied "the section is ''not'' 'misleading due to the removal of cited information about earlier events'". An editor added unverifiable content that was not relevant to the section which broke the article and it was appropriately removed. You restored it, expecting anyone but you to fix the errors. You are still quite clearly missing that point after 15 months of back and forth. --] (]) 13:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::I have amended the correct point that communication was resumed (not begun) in the 90s. Now, what else, please? ] (]) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Details of the currently (and deliberately, for no apparent good reason) prior communications. As discussed at length above (from {{tq|"edits... reworded to include their new material"}} to {{tq|"cited information about earlier events"}}). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, but this section is about events from the late 1990s onward. Please specify the facts in it that are "factually inaccurate" so that I can put them right and remove the flag. If you wish to introduce earlier events, please add them yourself to an appropriate earlier section. If they are really relevant to the context, and reliably sourced, there is a good chance that they will be allowed to stand. ] (]) 09:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I actually suggested this in my first post in this discussion, back in 2012. The edits that broke the article are far more relevant to the "Jørn Utzon and his resignation" section. --] (]) 10:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: They ''were'' introduced (see first diff, at the very top of this section) and were removed by other editors. Besides, the section currently tagged appears to be about "Reconciliation with Utzon", despite attempts by some to avoid the issue by retitling it. Nonetheless, if you're not happy that the tag is in a certain section, feel free to move it to the top of the article. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::They were removed because:
:::::::::#They were in the wrong section - As has been clearly explained to you 100 times, the section is about the attempts at reconciliation in the leadup to the 2000s building refurbishment. Everything in that section is about that. There is '''''nothing''''' about anything prior to the late 1990s. Even the image is about the refurbished spaces. Clearly, you are ignoring this;
:::::::::#They lacked inline sources and the alleged sources in the section are unverifiable; and
:::::::::#They broke the article.
:::::::::If you wish to reintroduce the edits in the appropriate section, properly referenced and without breaking the article then please do so. If yu are unwilling to do so, you should not expect anyone else to do so. This is a collaborative effort, we're not here to do your bidding. The only place to move the tag, if you're unwilling to demonstrate which facts are in dispute, then the only place to move the tag is out of the article. Moving it to the top of, or anywhere in, the article serves no purpose if you can't identify the facts that you dispute. --] (]) 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
* It has now been a week since the last post was made in this discussion, in which I suggested, as I did in my first post in 2012, that Pigsonthewing should add properly cited edits to the appropriate section of the article. It is 9 days since {{u|Bjenks}} asked Pigsonthewing to "clearly state which facts in this section are disputed so that they can be logically addressed". Pigsonthewing has done neither, only replying in the vaguest manner. Since the tag was first added in 2012, several editors have reviewed the section containing the tags and commented here. Other editors have simply removed the tag. Only Pigsonthewing seems to see any issue with the article as it stands and only he supports its inclusion. Since he does not seem to wish to "fix" the problems himsef and will not explain specifically what his problems are so that they can be addressed, it is time to remove the tag once and for all, so I intend doing that. Given the total lack of support for Pigsonthewing's position and his failure to specify the problems, restoration of the tag must be viewed as disruptive and appropriate administrative action will be necessary. --] (]) 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


::::::Did you look at the definition list example? The content isn't being uses as a defintion list, it's being used simply to emphasise the names, and regardless, the punctuation should not be bolded. Semicolon-colon markup would result in a messy section compared to what should be there now:
== Omission of the role of Peter Rice of Ove Arup ==


:::::::The Sydney Opera House includes a number of performance venues:
:::::::;The Concert Hall : With 2,679 seats, the home of the ] and used by a large number of other concert presenters. It contains the ], the largest mechanical tracker action organ in the world, with over 10,000 pipes.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}
:::::::;The Joan Sutherland Theatre : A ] with 1,507 seats,<sup></sup> the Sydney home of ] and ]. Until 16&nbsp;October 2012 it was known as the Opera Theatre.<sup></sup>
:::::::;The Drama Theatre : A proscenium theatre with 544 seats, used by the ] and other dance and theatrical presenters.
:::::::;The Playhouse : An ] with 398 seats.
:::::::;The Studio : A flexible space with a maximum capacity of 400, depending on configuration.
:::::::;The Utzon Room : A small multi-purpose venue, seating up to 210.
:::::::;The Forecourt : A flexible open-air venue with a wide range of configuration options, including the possibility of utilising the Monumental Steps as audience seating, used for a range of community events and major outdoor performances. The Forecourt will be closed to visitors and performances in 2011–2014 to construct a new entrance tunnel to a rebuilt loading dock for the Joan Sutherland Theatre.
:::::::That's not as neat as:
::::::::The Sydney Opera House includes a number of performance venues:
::::::::* The ''Concert Hall'' With 2,679 seats, the home of the ] and used by a large number of other concert presenters. It contains the ], the largest mechanical tracker action organ in the world, with over 10,000 pipes.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}
::::::::* The ''Joan Sutherland Theatre'' A ] with 1,507 seats,<sup></sup> the Sydney home of ] and ]. Until 16&nbsp;October 2012 it was known as the Opera Theatre.<sup></sup>
::::::::* The ''Drama Theatre'' A proscenium theatre with 544 seats, used by the ] and other dance and theatrical presenters.
::::::::* The ''Playhouse'' An ] with 398 seats.
::::::::* ''The Studio'' A flexible space with a maximum capacity of 400, depending on configuration.
::::::::* The ''Utzon Room'' A small multi-purpose venue, seating up to 210.
::::::::* The ''Forecourt'' A flexible open-air venue with a wide range of configuration options, including the possibility of utilising the Monumental Steps as audience seating, used for a range of community events and major outdoor performances. The Forecourt will be closed to visitors and performances in 2011–2014 to construct a new entrance tunnel to a rebuilt loading dock for the Joan Sutherland Theatre.
:::::::We're not out to draw excessive attention to the spaces, just to emphasise their names. And, of course, ] says {{tq|Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings.}} --] (]) 09:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::According to the Australian Manual of Style, the names of the spaces (Concert Hall, etc) are being used here as "run-on headings" (where the heading appears on the same line rather than above its content - a more compact form suitable for short content, which is the situation here). The MoS does not appear to discuss this particular type of heading (or at least I could not find it!) but, as headings, I think they should be bold rather than italic (as that is the WP style). Certainly if the associated content were to grow, we would almost certainly explode them into true headings and subsections. Aside, if these spaces were presented as subsections (with actual headings) rather than a bullet list, it would enable other articles to link to specific spaces in the building. E.g. ] is one of many articles that talks about a performance in the concert hall but can only link to the Opera House article. I didn't do searches for the other spaces but I would assume a lot of the larger ones would get mentioned in many other articles. Indeed, some of the larger spaces are probably notable in their own right as they are likely to be performance venues for world premieres and other such events. ] (]) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you, ], for your considered comments. The MoS is quite clear that the names of buildings (and, by logical inference, the names of any particular parts of buildings) should not be italicised for emphasis. There is not, therefore, any valid MoS reason to italicise the names of specific venues within the opera house for emphasis. As to whether they can or should be in bold in some form of list then I am open to persuasion and your comments and suggestions are very sensible. ] (]) 01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Regardless of whether the names are bolded or italicised, the names should be the actual name of the space. Afterwriting has arbitrarily decided that "The" is part of the name when the Sydney Opera House website excludes this from all of the names. And, of course, the colons added by Afterwriting should neither be bolded or italicised. --] (]) 16:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: While being slightly nervous about putting my toe back in this pool :-), I have been checking out how other PAC articles have actually Listed the component venues.
:::::::::::eg], ], ], ], ], ]
:::::::::::There's not a standard Way, but almost all do provide a List, and in almost every case, the venue names are bolded in the style of a headword (unless they're wikilinked) - either just bolded manually in-line, with or without bullets, or made into a heading.


:::::::::::Having thought about this a bit, I think there's case for making the list a subheading/body list, rather than what I would call an elaborated List, where the headword is just inline, with a few explanatory words, as it currently is in the SOH article. The venues which compose a PAC are of course a critical part of its description, and it might be useful, as ] points out, to go into some more depth (for the major spaces at least) in such a list, without breaking its Listiness. (It would seem that the Glossary template could possibly legitimately be used for this sort of List, although it's obviously not a Glossary. MOS talks about using it for "terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name–value data", (and also almost-deprecates the ;/: method)). That would give us something like the KenCen version (although that's done with actual subheadings, of course). I'd be happy with any of those options, or indeed the original version, which just manually bolded the venue names in a simple list, but I'm beginning to change my mind and think that a heading/body list might be better - for future development. ] (]) 03:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Peter Rice was THE engineer on site at the Opera House for most of the trouble-shooting period. He has his own well documented] .


== 'No War' protest ==
It is strange that he gets absolutely no mention on this page.
Is there any reason this fairly 'notable' incident on 18 March 2003 isn't mentioned? Too trivial? , , . ] ] <sup>]</sup> 12:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:] would seem to apply. --] (]) 14:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:I think it should be included.--] (]) 08:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


== Architectural design role of Peter Hall ==
I have refrained from inserting any such edit given the level of dispute that is evident...but it still seems unfair/incomplete.
The entire section is based on only two sources, of which one ("ABC, The Opera House Project, online") would appear to be nonexistent. Given the contentious nature of the subject this does not seem appropriate. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:The Opera House Project is at http://theoperahouseproject.com. --] (]) 20:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


==Suitability for Opera==
:While he may have an article, his involvement with the Sydney Opera House is limited to one, ]. None of that can be used unless references can be provided. --] (]) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anything be said about its performance as an opera house? I have heard that the acoustics are totally dreadful. Does anybody know about this aspect? ] (]) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


== It == == Voyager ==
Is it worth mentioning the inclusion of the Opera House as one of 116 images featured on the ]??? I'd argue this is worth including. ] (]) 03:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


:I think it is worth inclusion, as it shows that the Opera House is considered notable. ] (]) 09:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The intro is written in the style of a 12-year old. It has eleven sentences and seven start with "it." It seems like a list of unrelated facts. It is unaided by a sentence structure that could actually like facts together. It could use help. :) ] (]) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


== Usage of the Word 'Surrounds' and Several other Rare Words ==
::I have just restructured the lead para, including moving some of the information into the Performance Venues section heading. Feel free to revert if its not an improvement ] (]) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, this article is limited in readability because of the usage of several rare words or uncommon forms of words. For instance talking about 'the surrounds of the structure' instead of allowing it to be changed to 'the surroundings' inhibits flow and causes most readers to stop and try to understand what they just read. If this is the goal of the article, that is an issue. If not, why not allow the editing of the article for grammatical flow instead of reverting back to difficult or improper grammar and punctuation? I am simply posting this here as a reference and a challenge to make Misplaced Pages better and not a wall to 'leave your mark on'. I will not be monitoring this page as the article will either be improved by this challenge or it won't be and the article will remain flawed. The choice is up to you, CrowdSource World.
] (]) 19:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
:] is actually quite commonly used. It is generally taken to mean (in the context used here) the building and its immediate surroundings. i.e. only the land very close to the building. "The White House and surrounds" would generally mean the White House and any grounds within the fences surrounding it. Here there are no fences so it means anything up to the water on three sides and, on the fourth, the ground ''immediately behind'' the Opera House. You changed the text to "The building and the areas around it" but that is rather ambiguous as it could include water outside the surrounds as well as parts of Bennelong Point toward Circular Quay. --] (]) 21:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


== Reference == == Windows ==
What type of windows did the opera house have. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Quite big ones. They had to make special windows as they couldn't find any suitable off-the-shelf-items. --] (]) 04:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


== Should the car park be mentioned? ==
Any good? -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 09:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
outlines some interesting details about the car park structure that explains how unique it is. (which is unlikely to be a reliable source) claims it is the world's deepest basement. I don't know where in the article this information fits due to the section headings. - ] (]) 05:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
:Not just a comment—as stated at the end, "this is an edited extract from the book Utzon and the Sydney Opera House by Daryl Dellora, published by Penguin Specials." As an eyewitness and newspaper worker of the day in Sydney, I can confirm that this account is spot-on. It was common knowledge that the ABC (Moses) kyboshed the opera theatre to serve the interests of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and its subscription concerts. The massive and intricate revolving stage was thus mindlessly scrapped, dooming the building to become at best a third-order purveyor of grand operatic productions. The state politics and corruption of those days was a minefield for anyone with any sort of principles. It was a woeful tragedy for Utzon, as well as for grand opera and for the people of New South Wales. ] (]) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, i think it should be mentioned. --] (]) 04:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-01-31T00:39:40.723421 | 20040324-135654-6-1920x1381we.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 00:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

==Festivals section==
I don't know what happened to my edit summary that I wrote when undoing {{u|Merbabu}}'s removal of the content I'd added about the Message Sticks and Homeground Festivals. It took me some time to put the content together, which I went looking for after stumbling into mentions of the Message Sticks festival all over the place. At this point this article is its most logical home as it was the Opera House itself which staged the events, and I do not have the time at the moment to create a separate article with all of the relevant information that could go into it. However (as noted in editors' comments), there are several redirects pointing to the section, used in a number of articles across Misplaced Pages, which can be reassigned when a separate article is created. So please do not remove this section unless you are creating a separate article for the content. Message Sticks was an important event in the history of Indigenous cinema. ] (]) 08:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
:I've now created the article per your suggestion above. ]. Per my edit summary, this Opera House page is not the place for such lengthy description of an event...and your suggestion for separate articles alludes to this. The new article is a bit raw, but your content seems well-referenced and is a good start (just not well placed in the Opera House article), and is a good place for more content that you have alluded to.
:I did notice of my explained content removal. But I'm glad to see you note it was an accident. --] (]) 10:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Hi {{u|Merbabu}} yes, I'm not sure what happened there - it showed me the usual auto-populated message when I did the undo (Twinkle wasn't working on my tablet) and I added a few more words trying to convey what I wrote above. I never intentionally leave edit summaries blank. Thanks for creating the article - I will try to get back to it soon and build some further content. ] (]) 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 10:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-03-28">28 March 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-05-08">8 May 2019</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 10:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-12-09T02:22:26.516347 | Sydney Opera House logo.svg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 02:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

==CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0?==
This reference {{cite NSW SHR|5054880|Sydney Opera House|hr=01685|fn=H99/00168, H05/00022|access-date=3 September 2017}}, seems to be referring to the same thing as this, under '''Attribution''': This Misplaced Pages article contains material from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5054880 ''Sydney Opera House'', listed on the "New South Wales State Heritage Register" published by the Government of New South Wales under licence (accessed on 3 September 2017). ] (]) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

== History, Opening ==

The photograph of this event is sourced from an archive of slides. It seems that this slide at least, has been scanned from the wrong side, leading to being reversed laterally. ] (]) 08:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:17, 16 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sydney Opera House article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
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, October 20, 2010, and October 20, 2013.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAustralia: Sydney / Music Top‑importance [REDACTED]
WikiProject iconSydney 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
[REDACTED]
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
[REDACTED] Opera
[REDACTED] 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
WikiProject iconArchitecture Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEvent Venues (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues
WikiProject iconWorld Heritage Sites Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Omission of the role of Peter Rice of Ove Arup

Peter Rice was THE engineer on site at the Opera House for most of the trouble-shooting period. He has his own well documented .

It is strange that he gets absolutely no mention on this page.

I have refrained from inserting any such edit given the level of dispute that is evident...but it still seems unfair/incomplete.

Artied (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While he may have an article, his involvement with the Sydney Opera House is limited to one, completely unreferenced paragraph. None of that can be used unless references can be provided. --AussieLegend () 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It

The intro is written in the style of a 12-year old. It has eleven sentences and seven start with "it." It seems like a list of unrelated facts. It is unaided by a sentence structure that could actually like facts together. It could use help. :) 842U (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just restructured the lead para, including moving some of the information into the Performance Venues section heading. Feel free to revert if its not an improvement I hate thinking of names (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference

Guardian Utzon Comment Any good? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not just a comment—as stated at the end, "this is an edited extract from the book Utzon and the Sydney Opera House by Daryl Dellora, published by Penguin Specials." As an eyewitness and newspaper worker of the day in Sydney, I can confirm that this account is spot-on. It was common knowledge that the ABC (Moses) kyboshed the opera theatre to serve the interests of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and its subscription concerts. The massive and intricate revolving stage was thus mindlessly scrapped, dooming the building to become at best a third-order purveyor of grand operatic productions. The state politics and corruption of those days was a minefield for anyone with any sort of principles. It was a woeful tragedy for Utzon, as well as for grand opera and for the people of New South Wales. Bjenks (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bolding and / or Italicising of venue names in a list

The issue of whether the venue names can be either bolded or italicised is currently being discussed. I do not believe that the MoS supports italicising names of places or venues but I am willing to be shown otherwise. If there is something in the MoS then please provide it here so that it can be discussed and decided upon by consensus. Afterwriting (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been researching the MoS and so far the indications are that it is okay to bold the venue names in the way I have done in the article (because they are done so in a list) as per MOS:BOLD. There is no indication that I can find that it is okay to italicise them instead ~ just the opposite from my reading of MOS:ITAL. Afterwriting (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, when something is under discussion, the WP:STATUSQUO prevails. You don't arbitrarily decide to ignore concerns by other editors and revert to your preferred version and demand that somebody provides a MOS reference when you've made edits that don't comply with the MOS. We revert to the version prior to to the disputed edits (yours). MOS:BOLD says Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text; instead use template {{em}}, or the underlying <em>...</em> HTML markup, which render as italics in most browsers.. Also, punctuation shouldn't be inside the markup. I forget where the MOS says this but it's something that we went through at WT:TV because editors were bolding punctuation inside markup. I agree with Machina.sapiens here when he says On re-reading the MOS, I see that WP doesn't really want bolding used in this kind of situation, but I think it helps readability to have the venue names picked out in some way - so what would you think of italicising the venue names instead? Italics are what the MOS says. Wher in the MOS do you claim that it says bolding is appropriate? --AussieLegend () 13:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the MoS bolding is acceptable in lists and this is common practice in most articles. What we have here is a list. Where in the MoS does it say it is okay to italicise the names of things such as venues? Probably nowhere but I'm open to your evidence otherwise. Afterwriting (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Afterwriting Again, when your edits are disputed, as they have been, we revert to the status quo. You've received an edit-warring warning and chosen to edit-war after that, so there's a case for an AN3 report, unless you revert your last revert. I've presented you with a link to the MOS and a quote from it. You have not, despite my request, so your claim is unsupported. Bolding is appropriate in some cases, such as definition lists, which is not the case here. The example used by the MOS is Glossary of the American trucking industry, which is not the type of list used here. In this case we aren't listing terms per say, we're merely emphasising names. Note that you have not provided justification for bolding punctuation. --AussieLegend () 14:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI User:AussieLegend:
From the Manual of Style at MOS:TITLEQUOTES in the "Neither" section:
"There are a few cases in which the title should be in neither italics nor quotation marks (though many are capitalized): .... Names of buildings."
Afterwriting (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
That is about the building, not spaces within the building. As Machina.sapiens has explained, we're trying to emphasise the name of spaces within the building. Emphasis is correctly done with italics, per MOS:BOLD. --AussieLegend () 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that (contrary to AussieLegend above) MOS:DEFLIST (definitions lists) does apply, and that semicolon-colon should be used rather than direct bold markup. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at the definition list example? The content isn't being uses as a defintion list, it's being used simply to emphasise the names, and regardless, the punctuation should not be bolded. Semicolon-colon markup would result in a messy section compared to what should be there now:
The Sydney Opera House includes a number of performance venues:
The Concert Hall
With 2,679 seats, the home of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and used by a large number of other concert presenters. It contains the Sydney Opera House Grand Organ, the largest mechanical tracker action organ in the world, with over 10,000 pipes.
The Joan Sutherland Theatre
A proscenium theatre with 1,507 seats, the Sydney home of Opera Australia and The Australian Ballet. Until 16 October 2012 it was known as the Opera Theatre.
The Drama Theatre
A proscenium theatre with 544 seats, used by the Sydney Theatre Company and other dance and theatrical presenters.
The Playhouse
An end-stage theatre with 398 seats.
The Studio
A flexible space with a maximum capacity of 400, depending on configuration.
The Utzon Room
A small multi-purpose venue, seating up to 210.
The Forecourt
A flexible open-air venue with a wide range of configuration options, including the possibility of utilising the Monumental Steps as audience seating, used for a range of community events and major outdoor performances. The Forecourt will be closed to visitors and performances in 2011–2014 to construct a new entrance tunnel to a rebuilt loading dock for the Joan Sutherland Theatre.
That's not as neat as:
The Sydney Opera House includes a number of performance venues:
  • The Concert Hall With 2,679 seats, the home of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and used by a large number of other concert presenters. It contains the Sydney Opera House Grand Organ, the largest mechanical tracker action organ in the world, with over 10,000 pipes.
  • The Joan Sutherland Theatre A proscenium theatre with 1,507 seats, the Sydney home of Opera Australia and The Australian Ballet. Until 16 October 2012 it was known as the Opera Theatre.
  • The Drama Theatre A proscenium theatre with 544 seats, used by the Sydney Theatre Company and other dance and theatrical presenters.
  • The Playhouse An end-stage theatre with 398 seats.
  • The Studio A flexible space with a maximum capacity of 400, depending on configuration.
  • The Utzon Room A small multi-purpose venue, seating up to 210.
  • The Forecourt A flexible open-air venue with a wide range of configuration options, including the possibility of utilising the Monumental Steps as audience seating, used for a range of community events and major outdoor performances. The Forecourt will be closed to visitors and performances in 2011–2014 to construct a new entrance tunnel to a rebuilt loading dock for the Joan Sutherland Theatre.
We're not out to draw excessive attention to the spaces, just to emphasise their names. And, of course, MOS:ACCESS says Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. --AussieLegend () 09:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the Australian Manual of Style, the names of the spaces (Concert Hall, etc) are being used here as "run-on headings" (where the heading appears on the same line rather than above its content - a more compact form suitable for short content, which is the situation here). The MoS does not appear to discuss this particular type of heading (or at least I could not find it!) but, as headings, I think they should be bold rather than italic (as that is the WP style). Certainly if the associated content were to grow, we would almost certainly explode them into true headings and subsections. Aside, if these spaces were presented as subsections (with actual headings) rather than a bullet list, it would enable other articles to link to specific spaces in the building. E.g. The New Crystal Silence is one of many articles that talks about a performance in the concert hall but can only link to the Opera House article. I didn't do searches for the other spaces but I would assume a lot of the larger ones would get mentioned in many other articles. Indeed, some of the larger spaces are probably notable in their own right as they are likely to be performance venues for world premieres and other such events. Kerry (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Kerry Raymond, for your considered comments. The MoS is quite clear that the names of buildings (and, by logical inference, the names of any particular parts of buildings) should not be italicised for emphasis. There is not, therefore, any valid MoS reason to italicise the names of specific venues within the opera house for emphasis. As to whether they can or should be in bold in some form of list then I am open to persuasion and your comments and suggestions are very sensible. Afterwriting (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the names are bolded or italicised, the names should be the actual name of the space. Afterwriting has arbitrarily decided that "The" is part of the name when the Sydney Opera House website excludes this from all of the names. And, of course, the colons added by Afterwriting should neither be bolded or italicised. --AussieLegend () 16:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
While being slightly nervous about putting my toe back in this pool :-), I have been checking out how other PAC articles have actually Listed the component venues.
egJohn F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Barbican Centre, Arts Centre Melbourne, Overture Center for the Arts, Southbank Centre, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts
There's not a standard Way, but almost all do provide a List, and in almost every case, the venue names are bolded in the style of a headword (unless they're wikilinked) - either just bolded manually in-line, with or without bullets, or made into a heading.
Having thought about this a bit, I think there's case for making the list a subheading/body list, rather than what I would call an elaborated List, where the headword is just inline, with a few explanatory words, as it currently is in the SOH article. The venues which compose a PAC are of course a critical part of its description, and it might be useful, as User:Kerry Raymond points out, to go into some more depth (for the major spaces at least) in such a list, without breaking its Listiness. (It would seem that the Glossary template could possibly legitimately be used for this sort of List, although it's obviously not a Glossary. MOS talks about using it for "terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name–value data", (and also almost-deprecates the ;/: method)). That would give us something like the KenCen version (although that's done with actual subheadings, of course). I'd be happy with any of those options, or indeed the original version, which just manually bolded the venue names in a simple list, but I'm beginning to change my mind and think that a heading/body list might be better - for future development. Machina.sapiens (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

'No War' protest

Is there any reason this fairly 'notable' incident on 18 March 2003 isn't mentioned? Too trivial? image, , . 220 of 12:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply. --AussieLegend () 14:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Architectural design role of Peter Hall

The entire section is based on only two sources, of which one ("ABC, The Opera House Project, online") would appear to be nonexistent. Given the contentious nature of the subject this does not seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.189.133 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Opera House Project is at http://theoperahouseproject.com. --AussieLegend () 20:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Suitability for Opera

Can anything be said about its performance as an opera house? I have heard that the acoustics are totally dreadful. Does anybody know about this aspect? Seadowns (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Voyager

Is it worth mentioning the inclusion of the Opera House as one of 116 images featured on the Voyager Golden Record??? I'd argue this is worth including. SecretName101 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is worth inclusion, as it shows that the Opera House is considered notable. 31.124.48.211 (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Usage of the Word 'Surrounds' and Several other Rare Words

Sadly, this article is limited in readability because of the usage of several rare words or uncommon forms of words. For instance talking about 'the surrounds of the structure' instead of allowing it to be changed to 'the surroundings' inhibits flow and causes most readers to stop and try to understand what they just read. If this is the goal of the article, that is an issue. If not, why not allow the editing of the article for grammatical flow instead of reverting back to difficult or improper grammar and punctuation? I am simply posting this here as a reference and a challenge to make Misplaced Pages better and not a wall to 'leave your mark on'. I will not be monitoring this page as the article will either be improved by this challenge or it won't be and the article will remain flawed. The choice is up to you, CrowdSource World. DoulosBen (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Surrounds is actually quite commonly used. It is generally taken to mean (in the context used here) the building and its immediate surroundings. i.e. only the land very close to the building. "The White House and surrounds" would generally mean the White House and any grounds within the fences surrounding it. Here there are no fences so it means anything up to the water on three sides and, on the fourth, the ground immediately behind the Opera House. You changed the text to "The building and the areas around it" but that is rather ambiguous as it could include water outside the surrounds as well as parts of Bennelong Point toward Circular Quay. --AussieLegend () 21:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Windows

What type of windows did the opera house have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.250.26.164 (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite big ones. They had to make special windows as they couldn't find any suitable off-the-shelf-items. --Merbabu (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the car park be mentioned?

This article outlines some interesting details about the car park structure that explains how unique it is. This youtube video (which is unlikely to be a reliable source) claims it is the world's deepest basement. I don't know where in the article this information fits due to the section headings. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, i think it should be mentioned. --Merbabu (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Festivals section

I don't know what happened to my edit summary that I wrote when undoing Merbabu's removal of the content I'd added about the Message Sticks and Homeground Festivals. It took me some time to put the content together, which I went looking for after stumbling into mentions of the Message Sticks festival all over the place. At this point this article is its most logical home as it was the Opera House itself which staged the events, and I do not have the time at the moment to create a separate article with all of the relevant information that could go into it. However (as noted in editors' comments), there are several redirects pointing to the section, used in a number of articles across Misplaced Pages, which can be reassigned when a separate article is created. So please do not remove this section unless you are creating a separate article for the content. Message Sticks was an important event in the history of Indigenous cinema. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've now created the article per your suggestion above. Message Sticks Festival. Per my edit summary, this Opera House page is not the place for such lengthy description of an event...and your suggestion for separate articles alludes to this. The new article is a bit raw, but your content seems well-referenced and is a good start (just not well placed in the Opera House article), and is a good place for more content that you have alluded to.
I did notice your unexplained revert of my explained content removal. But I'm glad to see you note it was an accident. --Merbabu (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Merbabu yes, I'm not sure what happened there - it showed me the usual auto-populated message when I did the undo (Twinkle wasn't working on my tablet) and I added a few more words trying to convey what I wrote above. I never intentionally leave edit summaries blank. Thanks for creating the article - I will try to get back to it soon and build some further content. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RobertYe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AIHTNY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0?

This reference "Sydney Opera House". New South Wales State Heritage Register. Department of Planning & Environment. H01685. Retrieved 3 September 2017. Text is licensed by State of New South Wales (Department of Planning and Environment) under CC BY 4.0 licence., seems to be referring to the same thing as this, under Attribution: This Misplaced Pages article contains material from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5054880 Sydney Opera House, listed on the "New South Wales State Heritage Register" published by the Government of New South Wales under CC-BY 3.0 AU licence (accessed on 3 September 2017). Davidships (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

History, Opening

The photograph of this event is sourced from an archive of slides. It seems that this slide at least, has been scanned from the wrong side, leading to being reversed laterally. 31.124.48.211 (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Sydney Opera House: Difference between revisions Add topic