User talk:CJ/Archive 2

Add topic
Active discussions

Use of Stills from copyrighted television programs

Hi Cyberjunkie. I have a problem with the use of stills from copyrighted digital television programs. I can see that in certain circumstances they might be of use, under fair use provisions, for rare events or news, etc, but their original copyright prevents open use by other sources which is a major restriction. For basic descriptive photography of geographical features, I do not think we should use such stills. It would be better if you think an article needs a photo or two, to put in a request to WikiProject Melbourne. There are several wikipedians in Melbourne, myself included, who would be willing to take such digital photos. That aside, congratulations on your great work on Adelaide. --Takver 09:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Australia

The template "Commonwealth Realms" cannot go on Foreign relations of Australia. The fact that Australia is a CR has no bearing on the foreign relations of the country. Foreign relations relate to how a country interacts with its peers, not on their constitutional nature. The template links to all of the country pages for every other on the list, and it should link to Australia too. Also please do not accuse me of vandalism when I make additions to Wikipedia. Astrotrain 13:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall ever suggesting that the template be placed in Foreign relations of Australia, so I cannot understand why you be making such irrelevant statements. And on that point, I do not require an explanation on what foreign relations pertains to. Whilst discussing the matter of the "Commonwealth Realms" template, though I was not the first to remove it, I do not believe it is a necessary template for the article - especially given a "Commonwealth of Nations" template is present.
On reverting your edits, designating them as vandalism was perfectly valid. If you had reviewed your edits, you would have noticed the nonsensical duplication of the article. Your resentment, however, indicates that it was a mistake and not vandalism. But not knowing your edit history, I was unable to make that distinction.--Cyberjunkie 13:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
here's what happened: SimonP removed template:Commonwealth Realms and template:Commonwealth of Nations completely from Australia, to preserve i moved them both to foreign relations of Australia, see my suggestion on his [[user talk:SimonP#{{Commonwealth of Nations}} and friends|talk page]]. i updated the link in the templates to match.
i don't have a strong opinion on where they should go, i'm happy if they stay on the country articles, but others don't like the proliferation of templates at the end of country articles. one compromise is to include them on the various economy of..., demography of... articles like has been done with the template:WTO templates. i think that is a good compromise.
but regardless, the point is that the templates should match, they should appear on all of the articles linked in the template, or none. and the links should match the page they are on, so that current article appears unlinked and bold. if you move them around, please make sure they match and that they appear on every article. clarkk 02:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Clarkk. Though I'm still clueless as to why Astrotrain directed his/her response to your suggestion towards me. Perhaps s/he was as confused as I.
Though I am not particularly fussed, I am one of those you mention who dislike the proliferation of country article templates. And I do very much like your, and others, compromise of channeling the templates to relevant articles (as was done with SOPAC).
However, I hesitate to suggest that Wikipedians should be obligated to place a template on the linking article simply because it exists. While templates are a valuable navigational tool, there exist many irrelevant and pointless ones.
With regards to the templates on the Australia article, I'm not all that concerned. The reason for my reversion of Astrotrain's edit, was because s/he had duplicated the article, puruposefully or not. But nonetheless, I don't think that the "Commonwealth Realms" template is appropriate for the Australia article, and the "Commonwealth of Nations" template should be preferred over it. Having both is overkill. Besides that, personally, I find the Commonwealth Realms article to be sub-standard and POV, and would seek to avoid linking to it in any case.
As for moving the templates to other articles, I agree with Astrotrain that the "Commonwealth Realms" template is not relevant to foreign relations. It would be more appropriately placed at Government of Australia or as others have suggested Queen of Australia. The "Commonwealth of Nations" template (which I'd like to see remain in the Austalia article), if moved, is placed correctly in foreign relations. But I think it has more of a bearing on Australia as a nation and historically. In any case, this is something that will have to be taken up on the template pages and/or at WikiProject countries.
Thanks again, --Cyberjunkie 06:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for supporting my adminship nomination. --nixie 03:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks also

Thanks for fixing up the last few places I'd missed with the COTW/F renaming. The infobox looks nice, as well. :) Ambi 08:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, but it's still a fair way from completion. Starting at such an early point in a city article has giving me some ideas for improving the Adelaide article. But the thanks really should be going to you! Hopefully the clean-up and your motivation will end this stagnate period, and get Aussie Wikipedians contributing where they can.--Cyberjunkie 08:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Darwin

If you redirect Darwin to Darwin (disambiguation) I'll accept this as a reasonable compromise. I was really not happy at all that someone deleted the previous copy of Darwin with its history in order to move Darwin, Northern Territory there. This should have been listed on WP:RM to get consensus prior to any action of that kind, and the history should have been merged in.

In my experience Darwin, NT is a moderately well known Australian city, but nowhere near as eminent as the naturalist after whom it was named. This is why I used primary topic disambig, but I see that there are quite a few new articles about Darwin, NT now and so a change to disambiguation may be merited at least in the short term. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the disambig redirect is the best option, and something that perhaps should have been done in the first place. It's only since Darwin became the Australian COTF that I became interested in the article, and I am unaware of who, stupidly, deleted the page.
And I'd never wish to slight Charles Darwin, if you thought I was. I greatly respect his work, as do most Australians - hence we named a city after him! ;) But (and I might be biased) the city of Darwin, too, is a popular topic, and will eventually become more popular as the city grows and as the articles expand. It is an important city, historically, and presently - especially with regards the S-E Asia.--Cyberjunkie 11:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox on airports

Please hold off on the infobox. I need to make it a template format and then I plan to hit them all. Burgundavia 01:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

cyberjunkie has made a parameterised version for all australia airports: template:Infobox Australian Airport, perhaps that could be used as the basis of the global template:Infobox Airport, or maybe you were referring to cyberjunkie's template. 01:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

airport infobox redux

I put a lot of thought into this. We need to create a runway template and the stats template. Thus aiports can have as many runways as they need and no stats if that is not available. I am also thinking of moving stats into a table, as well as and airline template. Your ideas are appreciated. Burgundavia 01:44, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Burgundavia (I like that name). I realise that the airport infobox isn't yet ready for universal implementation, but I thought it a worthwhile edition to the major Australian airports. I had no intention of adding it to all Australian airports, for the time being at least. It was hard enough to find the stats for the major aiports, let alone attempting the minors. For the templates you've created, great work! I did a little bit of re-arranging for the Australian airports - "Closest Town"/"Distance from" changed to city and IATA/ICAO codes moved lower. I've now created Template:Infobox Australian Airport, as Clarkk mentioned, based on that hybrid infobox, but have yet to implement it.
Now, I'm the first to admit that I know next to nothing about template syntax. I work around this by using various exemplars. But having two separate templates, one for stats and one for runways, sounds like an awful complication. And I don't see how this will change the problem of some airports having more runways then others - though I am perhaps blinded by my inexperience. However, this idea does make sense for smaller airports, where it might be very hard to get information on either. Nevertheless, I think there should be one infobox in, say, four different versions: v1 2 runways; v2 3 runways; v3 4 runways; and, v4 5 runways. This is what I may do with Template:Infobox Australian Airport, though only two versions would be required. Thoughts?--Cyberjunkie 03:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have not tested this, but what you would have is a runway template and then on each page you would have as many links to the template as you need. Templates are expanded server-side, before the client see them. Is that clearer? Burgundavia 03:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Could this not then be done in a single infobox?--Cyberjunkie 03:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A single infobox yes, a single template no. The server would expand them all into a single infobox from teh users perspective. Burgundavia 03:28, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
It sounds good, but still, functionability/user-friendliness is a concern. So your planning to make a test template? If so, will it be in the style already used. I'd like to see the changes I made to the Australian infobox carry through.--Cyberjunkie 03:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final airport infobox stuff

I would like to know your opinion on leaving off the statistics and the airport url from the info box. I will make a statistics box to go inline, and the link can stay inline with all the other links, where people would expect it. Burgundavia 08:02, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

The statistics should remain attached to the Infobox in my opinion. As for the airport weblink, I'm not particularly fussed either way. I made that addition to the infobox because it seemed a nifty feature, and one included in some other infoboxes I've worked on. I've seen the progress you've made, and all seems well. Although, once your more prepared, the WikiProject Airport infobox page may need to be better organised and more instructive. Also, I think that changing the "Closest town"/"City" to "Serves" is a very good compromise. I might suggest, however, you change "Distance from town" to "Distance from CBD".--Cyberjunkie 08:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

The reason I left out stats was that they are better seen as a whole, as we are going to have to have another place for the stats not in the infobox. I also think CDB is far to technical. The issue with the external link is that no other infobox does it that way and there is no pressing reason why we should go against there. There is long standing WP policy to avoid external links wherever possible and to place them in clearly defined places, which this isnt. The current box is one I am going to roll out across all the airports. Burgundavia 08:30, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that there will be a separate table for the statistics? I can't find anything on the WikiProject Airport pages that sets out any sort of standard layout. If that is what you meant, I'd advise against it. Generally, the airport articles are not large enough to warrant the use of more than one table. The infobox seems sufficient. The stats currently comprise only two facts anyways. Of course, if you mean that the stats are going to be included within the written article, that is appropriate. With regards to the external link, as I've said, I don't care if it is removed. I was just explaining why I included it in the first place. The only thing that I am disagreeing with you on, is the "Distance from" section. Town is erroneous terminology. CBD is universally understood, though admittedly in more common usage in the Commonwealth countries. As for it being too technical, I think that is negligible, especially within an infobox citing ICAO/IATA. CBD is the correct term, and one that is applicable to all airports. Anyone who requires clarification can follow the link (the point of a wiki) and see its near-equivalent 'downtown'.--Cyberjunkie 03:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Snowtown murders

Brookie here. I have taken out nearly all of the murders section and created a new page with the data removed. Can we now remove the clean up tag without falling out? I'll look into moving the location as suggested on the discussion page Brookie 15:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I did not respond to your message Brookie. Occasionally I just don't, and I can't really explain why - temporary apathy perhaps? Anyways, it does not mean I have lost interest with this article. I'm not going to re-tag it, because the article has improved - or rather, the problem has shifted to a separate article. But what I am rather perplexed about is why on earth you and Susvolans have moved the article to different names. As far as I can ascertain, Susvolans moved the article to Snowtown, and you then, recognising this was wrong, moved it to Snowtown - South Australia. Am I right in assuming that you had meant to move it back to its original (and correct) name, Snowtown, South Australia, but made a mistake? I hope this was the case, because otherwise, I'll remain perplexed. --Cyberjunkie 11:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism

  • Thanks. I actually just found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833 [1], being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.[2]. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412gab 10:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Lesotho in South Africa article

You reverted an edit I made to South Africa that may have been inadvertent (you rolled back several versions). See my comments in Talk:South Africa for details. Crust 18:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was indeed unintended. I had only wished to restore the article to the last complete version (Meelar's edit) and in doing so, made the mistake of assuming that all edits pursuant to his were vandalism. With regards to Lesotho, I think that "independent enclave" would suffice, or alternatively, "...and borders independent countries of Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland and landlocked Lesotho". I apologise if my revert caused offence - I sought only to correct the article.--Cyberjunkie 11:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Looks good to me now. Thanks, Crust 15:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiPortal

Could I ask, why isn't Portal:Cricket a wikiportal (ignoring the namespace)? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

My answer depends on what you're referring to. Are you referring to my removing it from Wikipedia:Wikiportals or my vote for moving it from article namespace? If the former is your concern, at the time it was posted by jguk it was not a portal in any form - closer to a disambiguation page - and consequently, did not warrant listing. Its namespace was a further disqualification. If you are enquiring about my vote on its VfD, I don't feel I have to explain my vote at all. I will, however, say that I don't wish it deleted, but simply moved to the correct namespace (where all other Wikiportals exist).--Cyberjunkie 04:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree that you do not have to explain your vote. I was referring to its deletion from Wikiportals. I see now that it was in this horrible state and I quite understand your action. Could I ask: would you put the page at Portal:Cricket onto the list? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it would be appropriate to list it whilst the conflict continues. I have not voted on the new VfD because I have not yet come to a personal conclusion. Whatever the resolution is, it is likely to effect all Wikiportals - ergo, the list is essentially a lame-duck.--Cyberjunkie 14:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I was just wondering whether its current state, disregarding VfD and namespace, makes it suitable, and whether you would put it there if it was under Wikipedia:Wikiportal/cricket. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 14:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Although I stated that had not come to no conclusion, you've succeeded in eliciting my position. My position is: If the portal were at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket, I would include it, simply because that is where all others reside. To not include it would be exclusionist. However, I maintain no objection to a new Wikiportal namespace being created for all Wikiportals.
The issue of the Cricket Wikiportal's format is secondary at best. The broader debate (the beginnings of which can be found here) on the purpose of a Wikiportal will determine how Wikiportals are formatted.--Cyberjunkie 14:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Snowtown

Thanks for the post - someone had moved Snowtown, South Australia back to just Snowtown nad the edited the history page so that it couldn't then be reversed - presumably to make his move stick - this was an attempt to bring some sense back to it! Not ideal though. Best regards Brookie:A glow in the dark 07:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

After attempting to move it back myself, I thought that might have been the case. I put a request up at the administrators notice board for it to be moved back to Snowtown, South Australia, but violetriga moved it to Snowtown. Maybe s/he is unable to move it back, too. I am going to seek another administrator's help.--Cyberjunkie 07:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested moves

Your last edit to Wikipedia:Requested moves deleted a whole bunch of text. I've seen this happen in a couple of other places, so it may be that there's a bug. Can you remember exactly what you did when trying to back out your addition? Noisy | Talk 10:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, a lot was removed. But, no, I did not delete it, so perhaps it is, as you say, a bug. All I did was excise my addition, which was as follows:
This article requires a qualifier to avoid confusion with the more widely known international relations theory of the balance of power. Ergo, it should be moved to Balance of Power (computer game), which is consistent with other articles of this nature.
How I did so, I cannot be certain, but I believe I edited via the 2 May 2005 edit tag.
Thank you for fixing that error, and for not being accusatorial. Many would have shot first and questioned later.--Cyberjunkie 14:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've normally got a hair-trigger temper, so you were just lucky that I'd already seen a couple of similar instances.  ;-) Noisy | Talk 14:19, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Chinatowns in Australasia and Oceania

Hi Cyberjunkie - I suspect that you may be Australian, because no New Zealanders even say they are in Australasia. New Zealand is firmly and solidly in Oceania, as noted on many articles, and as rolled back for the Chinatown article. Grutness|hello?   05:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

My edit, unlike yours, was completely objective and my nationality bore no influence on it. And at the risk of being undiplomatic, the pettiness and ignorance of your comment was truly surprising, especially when I consider you to be, on the whole, a very valuable contributor. The fact is Australasia is a term that encompasses New Zealand, and one that is used widely on either side of the Tasman. Anyways, there was duplication in terms, and given the scope, Oceania is preferred and the article was so moved. --Cyberjunkie 08:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if you took my comments personally (perhaps I should have added one of those horrible smiley things) - I have no wish to upset you, as my feelings on your edits are equally positive. However, the term is widely used in New Zealand to refer to Australia and Papua New Guinea, but not New Zealand. Checking the article's edit history would have revealed that New Zealand had already been moved from the Australasia section to the Oceania section in the past. Reverting it without checking the reasons for the earlier edit was hardly objective. Grutness|hello?   08:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems out messages "crossed in the post". No offense was taken on my part, and I apologise oif any was taken on your part. Grutness|hello?  
My point was, that if the term Australasia is used, it cannot be used to the exclusion of New Zealand. New Zealand is Australasia, along with Australia and, broadly, New Guinea. It may very well be that Oceania is the preferred term, but Australasia incontrovertibly means Australia and New Zealand. Any usage contrary to this (notwithstanding broader interpretations) is incorrect. And it is furphy to suggest that New Zealanders don't subscribe to the term. If not, then what of the many, many joint organisations that use "Australasia"? Rather, there is a naïvety among a small nationalist indoctrinated section of the society who see "Austral" and think "Australian domination", when it is simple latin.--Cyberjunkie 14:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Snowtown

I think I owe you an apology. Brookie was moving a lot of British town articles, and I was trying to move them back. Snowtown got caught up in the process. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think an apology was due. An explanation, however, at the article's talk-page would have been nice. I was just puzzled by the goings-on.--Cyberjunkie 10:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth templates

Unfortunately the discussion is quite spread out on the talk pages of individual countries and users. There was formerly a fair bit of discussion about the issue on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (see especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive5#Of footers and Orcs where the original consensus to remove most of these templates was reached and the more specific, but inconclusive, discussion of the Commonwealth template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Country Footers). Currently there are discussions of this issue on Talk:Australia, Talk:Canada, Talk:United Kingdom, and Talk:New Zealand. There is also considerable discussion on the user pages of User:Astrotrain, User:TreveX, User:Jtdirl, and myself. - SimonP 05:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch-up. I had originally monitored discussions, and occasionally commented, but later lost track. Any chance of consolidating them all? The vicious cycle of addition and removal that you and Astrotrain are engaged in has continued much longer than it should have.--Cyberjunkie 09:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
You are very right, and I would much appreciate any outside input into this matter. Since the discussion got very hard to follow I have amalgamated most of it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. - SimonP 16:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)