Talk:Crown Sydney

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skyscrapers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: New South Wales / Sydney Mid‑importance Crown Sydney is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Gambling Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Gambling To-do: edit history watch purge Current collaborations: Improve an article to FA Improve an article to A Help with the Gambling articles needing attention. Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner. The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated. Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'. Travel and Tourism: Hotels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Hotels.

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

• Crown Sydney topped out 2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One user keeps mass deleting referenced content from the controversy section on the basis that it is 'opinionated'. The whole point of documenting controversy is to document opinions - if it is reported in reliable sources. The deleted section is balanced, recording both favourable and unfavourable reviews published in reliable sources. We record public reception of films, plays, even people - why should so-called "Packer's Pecker" be accorded a different treatment? Please discuss here and obtain consensus before you delete again. --49.255.252.131 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]