Jump to content

User talk:ScottDavis/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:ScottDavis

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 27 July 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:ScottDavis) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ScottDavis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

South Australian places

I remember we talked about this a while back, but god, South Australia's vague place names are infuriating. I'm going through one of the history books I grabbed some stuff from when I was in Adelaide, and I've come across a school that is variously referred to as Apoinga and Brady Creek, in a church formerly called Koonoona, and near the post office in Emu Downs, despite the fact these days they're four separate places. *bangs head* The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Yes, it makes life "interesting" for family history research too. A place might have been on a pastoral lease (and their boundaries change over time), then taken up for closer settlement, and initially named for the Hundred. A railway station might have been named for a nearby town/village, the hundred it was in, or nothing in particular. Towns then sprang up and got named for the hundred, railway station, local backsmith/pub, land developer's best mate or nothing much either. The much later partitioning into formal LOCBs across the entire state has picked up many of these older names, but also dropped a few and left them as LOCU with coordinates that are far more precise than is appropriate for a handwave in the direction of the map. Churches popped up wherever the congregants wanted them, and locality boundaries have moved over time or been obliterated by later settlements or other developments. Areas that never really had a name have either been subsumed into a nearby LOCB (moving its centre away from the historic centre), or created new place names with no real history (which moves old names' centres the other way). My family history has found one person died at "Apoinga", but I haven't tracked a 3rd-great aunt any further yet, so don't know if it refers to the Hundred, or something smaller. I also have lots of family events that occurred at "Hundred of English", which isn't very precise these days, either. --Scott Davis Talk 11:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
...to continue the Apoinga confusions, I just noticed I have historic relatives who were married at "Zion Chapel (Emu Downs), Robertstown" in 1875 and 1881. --Scott Davis Talk 13:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Even more so, isn't that the Zion church that was at Upper Bright? :P The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Robertstown had a Zion Lutheran on the edge of the town on Church Street/Black Springs Road, and our article says Robertstown was also known as Emu Flats (without dates). More work required :-/ --Scott Davis Talk 22:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Emmaus to Worlds End" book suggests that the district was known as Emu Flats at the time of the town's settlement, and says "when Mr Roberts opened a Post Office in his store the town obtained its name - first Roberts Town then Robertstown" but doesn't give a specific date because it wasn't a gazetted town. The post office would make it 1874 though, which a Trove search supports, and the Zion Lutheran you're talking about opened in 1871, so it seems likely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Great idea for an article, though could use getting fleshed out a bit with the context so it isn't just a rehashing of that day's news - a bit more about the before and the after etc. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I didn't consider it to be a complete article yet, but started writing to see if it could look like it had potential. The topic is a bit more vague that politicians, places, and events that I normally write about. I have added a bit of early history and moved it to Draft:German schools in South Australia. I don't have time to fill in the gap this morning. --Scott Davis Talk 21:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

They're all at "state by-election" around the country after a discussion years ago. Didn't agree with it then, but can't be bothered changing umpteen hundred links so I try to standardise them. It was a ferociously controversial by-election though so shouldn't be hard to find sources on if someone has the election results - maybe someone like Kirsdarke01 could help? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Dukes Highway

Hi. I've added a comment on a recent edit of yours at Talk:Dukes Highway. Adpete (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Surat roads

Hi Scott, I have left a message for you on my talk page. Regards Summerdrought (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Great Central Road

Hi Scott, I noticed in your Junctions edit for the Great Central Road there is a note that says "Great Central Road is now considered concurrent with Gunbarrel Highway". I am wondering if you have a particular reference that can be quoted for that note, as I have done a lot of travel and study of the works of Len Beadell and there is only a short section of the GCR of about 45km which is actually concurrent. I am aware that some people may confuse the two roads, but as Wikipedia should quote references, then I think one may be required here. Regards, Graham. Summerdrought (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Summerdrought: the main source I used for that claim (which should have been explicit as "between Warburton and Warakurna" rather than just using the colour) was the map on Gunbarrel Highway and the (uncited) text in the "Conditions" section of that article. You are right, we need more references, which I didn't have to hand for my purpose. It is possible that tourist information sources will conflict with local and official knowledge and historical usage, too.
I have been doing a few of these junction lists, not just for outback tracks, and find that the effort often takes longer than expected because articles have developed independently and don't always agree. Thanks for noticing this one and for any help on working out which version is "true". I suspect that by the time I ever get there, the Outback Highway will have developed enough to remove some of the "adventure" in the past and present. --Scott Davis Talk 23:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ScottDavis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Status of towns and townships in South Australia

Hi ScottDavis

In the recent past, I remember reading a comment by you either on your talk page or on someone else’s page that you were looking at relevant state legislation concerning the existence of towns et al. The following summarises what I have found in the recent past.

Firstly, in 2016, I edited a number of articles about towns/localities/suburbs to include former names that were officially discontinued in 1940 (please refer NEW TOWN NAMES APPROVED). In a couple of cases, I started new articles including Walloway where I discovered that the town had been ‘ceased’ in 1988 by a proclamation made under the Crown Lands Act 1929. When one looks at a source such as Property Location Browser where the layer for ‘Government Towns’ has been selected, no boundary is shown for the former Town of Walloway which suggests that those towns whose boundaries are visible still exist. Presumably, these towns exist until proclaimed otherwise. Previously, I was of the view that towns ceased to exist after the proclamation of suburbs and localities in the late 1990s and the early 2000s.

Secondly, I noticed that section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999 includes the following definition of a ‘township’:

"township" means—

(a) any government township and any land laid out as a township where plans of the township have been deposited in the Lands Titles Registration Office, the General Registry Office or the Surveyor-General's Office; or

(b) any part of the area of a council that contains at least 20 residences and that is defined as a township by the council by notice in the Gazette;

It would be possible to locate townships of the class listed in (a) above via Property Location Browser reports while the class of townships listed in (b) above could be found by a search of the SA Government Gazette from the date of proclamation of the Act on 26 August 1999. In summary, I think it would be possible to identify what towns and townships do exist with the result that various lists could be upgraded and categories associated with placenames in South Australia could be revised.

Please reply on this page.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Cowdy001: I don't remember exactly the conversation you mention, in particular I don't recall saying I would look at the legislation about towns. I do recall a few conversations around that kind of stuff, so maybe I said something a bit like that in passing. Others who are interested in this stuff include @The Drover's Wife and Donama:, maybe it was one of them? I suspect that class (a) is what we read as "originated as a private subdivision of..." and (b) is what were created as "government towns".
I hope we have recorded the "former names" in that news article in the articles about the current town/localities.
I suspect that the need to define "township" in the Local Government Act is because councils apply different rates to township and rural land.
I think that tagging places like Walloway as |type=suburb in the infobox is absurd by any meaningful interpretation of the word "suburb". Since the infobox doesn't do anything special for "locality", I figure there is no point trying to decide whether any article about a rural place is about the LOCB or the Township (current or former), and the state is neatly partitioned into LOCBs (and SUBs in urban areas), so they are an ideal way of naming articles about places in SA at the lowest level. It makes life a little difficult at times for deciding what to do about places that are on current LOCB boundaries but have historically been separate places. Examples I think of quickly include Oxford Landing, Craneford, Neukirch that have been redirected and described in one of the relevant LOCB articles. I think we do have one or two "town" articles that do not have a current LOCB by that name, but I can't think of them at the moment. Historic placenames that show up in family history research can be difficult, as they either don't exist now, or have well-defined boundaries now that may be different (and often smaller) than the historic area that had that name. Examples I've seen for that include Apoinga and Moorook that possibly once meant anywhere in the cadastral hundred of that name (along with Hundred of English, which at least seems to be explicit that it means the Hundred in records I have seen).
Collating data to make complete lists sounds like a lot of effort that would be borderline WP:OR and a maintenance challenge. Finding lists that someone is paid to maintain and a few lines of sed/awk/python to import them would likely be valuable though. --Scott Davis Talk 10:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I more or less agree with Scott, I think. My reading was that the government towns had ceased to be of relevance once uniform localities were rolled out and that the "incorporated the Government Town of Blah" or "incorporated the ceased Government Town of Blah" wording for the LOCB entries functionally meant the same, just with the "ceased" ones having been eliminated earlier. As with Scott, I'm not seeing a great deal of benefit in trying to gather that sort of data: the localities, now uniform, make for sensible bottom-level articles in most cases. I feel like most of the historically-different-but-now-merged towns can be covered in the one article for modern localities (because usually neither are that big), though can always be spun out in the unlikely event they get enough content, and the Apoinga/Moorook examples best served by developing standalone articles on those hundreds as distinct from the localities. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Port Germein

Hi Scott,

I have been working on the history of Port Germein for about 10 years and never in that time have I seen it referred to as Hummock Harbour. I am currently collating every news story from 1881 onwards and have written a small book about the time when I lived there together with information about sailing vessels that visited during the grain races. Several news articles refer to ships calling at Hummock Harbour on the trip to or from Port Lincoln, but certainly did not give the impression that it was Port Germein. There is a Hummock Hill in Whyalla. I have been in frequent contact with HATS in Port Germein and have given them quite a lot of information. They would not be in a position to confirm that the place was ever Hummock Harbour, I would think. Louisenord (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have continued the conversation at Talk:Port Germein, South Australia#Rollbacks - Hummock Harbour and Melrose District Council rather than splitting it further here. Please join there. --Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Peter Georgiou

I've moved your draft of the above article into mainspace with some minimal changes after today's confirmation of Georgiou's election. Obviously the article could use some expansion at some stage, but I figured best to get it in place given likely attention on the subject today. Alaric004 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alaric004: Thank you. I have had a busy week away from home and had not heard the news yet. --Scott Davis Talk 06:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robinvale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Curran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A favor

Hello ScottDavis, I'm asking you for a favor to leave your opinion here Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens#RfC for map usage. You are an admin and your view will have more significance regarding the issue since you better know wiki rules and guides.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

MLCs

Thanks for starting that infobox discussion! The template does remove the "incumbent" thing if you have the "succeeding = " parameter filled in, but that obviously doesn't work for multi-member seats and I couldn't find any other way to get rid of it other than commenting out the entire thing. Hope someone can come up with something! Frickeg (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frickeg: No worries. Choosing a predecessor might make sense if the party has the same number of members before and after, and only one changed, or only one seat changed party (I haven't checked if any of these make sense). I hoped that just setting a future start date would drop the word "incumbent" (it didn't as you know), or that readers would work it out fromthe future start date, but that is definitely suboptimal since "incumbent" stands out more than the date. I guess we could contrive something like |office=MLC-elect |term-start=11 March 2017 |term-end=22 May 2017 but that looks pretty lame overall. Last year it did not apply for the senate, but it is an issue for "normal" senate elections. --Scott Davis Talk 11:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It would definitely be a good thing to get sorted out. I had a look at the history of Jacqui Lambie to see what we did for senators-elect, and it looks like we just had "office=Senator-elect for Tasmania" and then left out the dates altogether, which I guess is another possible compromise. But a better solution would be for the template itself to be fixed. Frickeg (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol

They ARE middle upper class suburbs But I see you're from the north so understand the hate. You ask for proof, well you give me proof they aren't! For example, Davran Park IS a crap hole! We just know that! No proof required! Wikipedia is about everything including Real Estate! Do a google search on the suburbs you removed that from and you May learn something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Target101 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You see where I live now, I grew up south of the city in the hills, but my address and background don't influence Wikipedia style anyway. Even the Domain reference doesn't say that, and it's in their interests to talk up every suburb as much as they can. Have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for example, and other pages linked from their sidebars. --Scott Davis Talk 08:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Time in Australia

I admit I do not have a reference but its a fact that the vast percentage of computers and security systems are not adjusted to Daylight saving times.

Hi ‪BernardZ‬. The vast majority of computers (including mobile "smart" phones and car navigation systems) don't need to be manually adjusted. I do know people who don't adjust the clock in their oven or car, but I don't have any evidence to suggest that is any more or less prevalent in Australia than anywhere else. --Scott Davis Talk 13:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the computer used in security systems. Few companies will pay a security company to come twice a year to change the time so they set them to the appropriate time zone

BernardZ (talk)

Gichuhi

Ok re Gichuhi. I didn't see the tweet. That is enough! I don't have time to fix just now. It needs to be updated in the Senators template, AUstralian senators article, Gichuhi own article and the FAmily First article all in one go for consistency is all. Donama (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pacific Highway

I think we are both in agreement that the Pacific Highway articles need work, but as no one else really seems interested in stepping up to the debate, seems a bit of a lost cause given the totalitarian way AussieLegend uses to defend the status quo. But thanks for your attempts to address, may have to put it on the backburner until our esteemed colleague moves on. Silverserv (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silverserv. Yes, I think the job would be much easier if the NSW government gave the old road between Sydney and Newcastle a new name (like the Gold Coast Highway in Queensland). Then we would not have as much confusion about what is the Pacific Mumbleway vs its former routes. There doesn't seem as much dispute over bypasses of towns north of Newcastle. Perhaps incremental steps will get us to a better place eventually. --Scott Davis Talk 10:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm having another go, but I'm facing the same resistance. Still it looks like there's a mood for change from everyone else involved in the conversation. Ausmeerkat (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Crown Lands alienation

page at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/claao1861n26270/ which can be linked directly at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/claao1861n26270.pdf can be noted at {{Cite Legislation AU|NSW|num_act|claao1861n26270|free form text for description}} - numbered act - working on how to get that into the docs Dave Rave (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Rave: I'm not sure I understand the question. It looks like the support for num_act was introduced to the template in June 2013. Your example works for me as free form text for description (NSW). Is the issue that you hadn't found the link to edit Template:Cite Legislation AU/doc to update the documentation? --Scott Davis Talk 06:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't like t be messing with templates and official stuff. And I get bogged doing the wordage. Plus the doc page isn't bleeding obvious like on some others Dave Rave (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dave Rave: How does this look? --Scott Davis Talk 11:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
that looks fine, I didn't have the by number in my head as wordage. Dave Rave (talk) 19
11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi ScottDavis, i have just removed the stub tag from Dorset Vale, South Australia and reassessed it to a 'start' as i reckon its a concise infomative article.

Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Coolabahapple. It's quite a while since I got a present on my talk page. I appreciate it. --Scott Davis Talk 05:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia campaign update

I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.

After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.

Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.

Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].

And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.

Sincerely, Wittylama 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, ScottDavis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JarrahTree 14:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates

I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves with updating infobox instructions ahead of changes to the actual infobox.[1] While it's inevitable, the changes to some of the infoboxes, including {{Infobox Australian place}} have not yet proceeded and the "old" parameters still work fine. We should be using the current method until the infobox is changed, so as to ensure the correct coordinate strings are generated when the articles are changed by a bot. When I automated Infobox Australian place in 2012 there were thousands of articles with incorrect/incomplete strings that needed fixing because editors had made errors when formatting {{coord}} and I can see this happening again. In fact, I think it already has. I picked up this change today. {{Infobox Australian Electorate}} automatically generates {{coord|32|24|25|S|151|55|5|E|type:adm1st_region:AU-NSW|display=inline, title}} but this was manually changed to just {{coord|32|24|25|S|151|55|5|E|display=inline, title}}. The string generation by Infobox Australian place is considerably more complex due to it serving multiple types of places. Personally, I see the same mess that I fixed in 2012 reappearing. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AussieLegend. As far as I could tell, {{Infobox Australian place}} was actually updated a couple of months ago by Frietjes. I admit I did not do a thorough set of tests, but the one or two I tried (without saving) generated identical output as near as I could tell (I clicked through the coordinates to look at the region parameters displayed on the Geohack page). In particular, the region was set to include the state. I did not have time to test whether the hemisphere parameters are needed, so left them in the blank template examples. The last three versions of Division of Paterson all generate exactly the same geohack link, including the region. I edited Template:Infobox Australian place/Blank after reading Wikipedia talk:Coordinates in infoboxes#Getting close to being done, thinking that it needs to be corrected before the old parameters are removed, and not sure how many people are both aware of the coordinate parameter change and aware of the /Blank page. When the bot gets to this infobox, I may well get several thousand alerts in my watchlist :-/ --Scott Davis Talk 09:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
IAP has still not been converted. It's on the "ToDo" list, I assume because of the complexity. Some changes have been made in preparation, but that's all. You're right about Division of Paterson though, I just looked at the code. I'm not sure how it generates the "missing" part of the string but that in itself is a concern. You can override the generated string just by adding the wrong thing to the coord string, like adding type:electorate_region:Brisbane to a NSW electorate. That wasn't possible in the pre-conversion version without raising red flags. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
AussieLegend, repeating my response here, if you omit the 'type' and 'region' information in {{Infobox Australian Electorate}} it will automatically add this information for you. and, you are correct that if you manually specify this information the 'coordinsert' function in Module:coordinates will not override it. however, we could definitely add optional flags to the 'coordinsert' function to toggle (a) add tracking categories when the manually specified region/type does not agree with the values being automatically inserted, or (b) to overwrite any manually specified region/type information. I would think that (a) is probably the better option since it's plausible that it's a useful way to override the defaults in exceptional cases. by the way, if you search the code for Template:Infobox Australian place for 'coordinsert' you will find where the 'type' and 'region' strings are being inserted. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

strategy

Was good to meetup in Adelaide !

At this stage I am in process of writing a report about discussions in Australia about https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017 the cycle 2 of the broader wikimedia strategy -

You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks - JarrahTree 05:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject Australia and a long term editor and administrator. I am having trouble; I imagine this is a reasonably common problem. I have made some edits to an article and unregistered user(s) are reverting the edits over and over again. Is there anything that can be done about this? It is a bit disheartening to put a lot of time into work that simply gets deleted and as the other editor is anonymous it is impossible to have a conversation with them. Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The 3 revert rule applies to everyone. Whoever is reverting instead of talking can be blocked by any administrator. You did not mention the page(s). --Scott Davis Talk 11:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

An example page is LJ Hooker. The problem is that the edits are being made by people with IP addresses and not names. The LJ Hooker page needs a comprehensive review but this is difficult when any edit to it is anonymously reverted. --PinkAechFas (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@PinkAechFas: It looks like one of the anonymous users may be using the same IP number on consecutive days, so it is possible they will see a message you post to their (IP) user talk page. You could also try to engage them on the article talk page. Edit comment of "update" while removing a large chunk of text does not make it obvious what your intent is. We cannot tell if the human behind the IP is a new user, or an experienced wikipedian who happened to have not logged in on that occasion, so really, just treat them with the same respect as anyone else, and invite them to create an account and log in. The other recent IP editor to that page seems to have restored your edits, demonstrating that they aren't all bad. --Scott Davis Talk 07:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: small places

Thank you, Scott. The places are small or non-existent today but to me they are important. Plenty of our SA ancestors were born/married/buried in just such small places and the event was duly registered as having happened thus! Donama (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Donama: Indeed. My wife and I have spent many Sunday afternoons visiting the graves and towns of our ancestors and their relatives in SA. Perhaps when we finally attend the same meetup, we can discover if any of yours knew any of mine or hers, since there seems to be some geographic overlap. --Scott Davis Talk 05:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of File:Adelaide Metro logo.svg on O-Bahn Busway

Hi. I removed File:Adelaide Metro logo.svg from O-Bahn Busway in the understanding that it was in violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17. As the O-Bahn does not have a logo of its own, the Adelaide Metro logo should not be used in its place. A similar discussion occurred over the usage of TV network logos of Seven, Nine and Ten in articles for each individual station, that too failed WP:NFC#UUI §17 irrespective of the fact that they had fair use notices. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Mitchell 98: Thank you for the explanation. I see it was me who put the fair use notice on the image, and I created the first infobox too, so I am not a suitable adjudicator. If you remove it again with that explanation ("WP:NFC#UUI §17" in the edit summary), I won't revert. As I said, the logo was there when the article passed FA review, so I'm not the only person who missed it, but I accept your interpretation. Cheers. --Scott Davis Talk 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
No problem, just wanted to explain myself before making any further changes in case there was something you saw that I might have missed. No matter. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 12:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottDavis/Archive_14&oldid=792526853"