User talk:Rangasyd/Archive 4

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

EnergyAustralia

Hi, Rangasyd. There is a proposal concerning EnergyAustralia and TRUenergy articles. Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems a non-controversial proposal to me. Is there any reason not to ask an admin to do the moves? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be little changes on the EnergyAustralia article generally; so I can see no hassle in proceeding. But it may be best to give it a couple of days. Better to wait then rush in. Rangasyd (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. (And it's getting close to bed-time, anyway ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(WP:BOLD isn't always the best approach! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

Template:Rivers of New South Wales

It might be prudent to consider redesigning {{Rivers of New South Wales}}. I created {{Hunter Region places and items of interest}} some time ago in a format similar to that of {{Rivers of New South Wales}}.[1] When it had 195 links it was nominated for deletion because it was too bulky.[2] By comparison, {{Rivers of New South Wales}} has 284 links. The irony is that the post TfD version of {{Hunter Region places and items of interest}} had 211 links and was a lot bigger physically, but that seemed to make everyone happy. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the issue is that New South Wales has lots of rivers. Templates exist for other states in Australia (Victoria, WA, etc.) and I've tried to break it down into sections such as Sydney Basin, Hunter and above, below Illawarra, Snowy River, and Murray–Darling. Do you mind if this discussion is moved to the template page? Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I also created List of rivers of New South Wales (A-K) and List of rivers of New South Wales (L-Z). I needed two articles because NSW has 439 rivers, which is far more than other states. Feel free to move this to the template talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversations over a year old

First please put things at the bottom of the talk page. Second I have very different ideas in some ways and need to go back - trying to start conversations a year or two after previous post is frought with issues. give me times. thanks SatuSuro 06:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ahh it all comes back, if you have a state, improve or create an article about that states regions... from memory all authorities insist on variants - that is why the WA one is like it is... SatuSuro 08:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

allusions to einstein in edit summaries - I am sure there is something to do with the speed of something depending totally from where it is observed, not the actual phenomenon... cheers SatuSuro 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Rivers of Queensland

I was wondering if you plan on working on rivers of Queensland articles any time soon. If so I look forward to your contributions. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The NSW Rivers have been on my agenda for a while. As a New South Welshman, I'm not sure I'm well equipped to do Queensland justice. There are a few other projects that are outstanding for me; including completing all bioregions for the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia that I've started here; updating demographic data from the 2011 Census in a standard format for all NSW local government areas (in the format as I've completed here and elsewhere); and then updating Census data for all towns/cities in NSW. By that time, federal, state, and local government elections should be round again, another Census completed, and perhaps a few more rivers flooded or run dry! And that's just in NSW. Rangasyd (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job on your articles for dams in New South Wales! Done very well with a great amount of information for a new article. NortyNort (Holla) 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've still got a few more dams to finish. While I was working on my NSW River project, it started with reviewing the Snowy Mountains Scheme and found it needed much more work as not all of the 16 dams were there. But I thought that I should finish the NSW Rivers first. I'm nearly at the end of my tether with the rivers! I only have rivers of the Shoalhaven catchment and further south to complete.

I'm wondering if you could do me a favour and look at {{Rivers of New South Wales}} and provide feedback/suggestions on improved structure or layout? When I started this project, there was no NSW Rivers navbox and it's developed as I've better understood the "administrative" groupings of catchments. As I work through this project, I'm thinking that it may be best to break the navbox up into four broad catchments, instead of bundling them all together. And should the minor waterways be included, at all? Thanks. All feedback is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, I worked on the Murray Power Stations recently a little but haven't dug too far in because of how monumental of a project it is. When I work on one article, I tend to get overwhelmed with all the other articles for the system. As far as the template, it is the largest I have seen. I am not familiar with the basins but it appears pretty organized. I think for the general reader, it would be best to break out that four catchments into embedded template. Only someone familiar with the system wouldn't be overwhelmed IMO. I think the minor waterways are important, a reader may be looking for a specific one and can find it there instead of looking through a series of river articles to find the right one.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. When you say "break out that four catchments into embedded template"; would you please clarify? Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant "break out those four catchments..." Now you have two templates embedded into one, I was suggesting making each catchment another template. I see now you cut out the sub-catchments which looks great too.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Back Creek disambiguation

Hi,

Just a question... I don't perform much Australian river disambiguations, and am aware that different locations disambiguate differently, but would it be simpler and appropriate to disambiguate the Australian Back Creeks as Back Creek (Richmond River) and Back Creek (Bombala River)? (That's how we would disambiguate them here in New Jersey, USA) Regards, Gjs238 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the question. The normal format of disambiguation of rivers in Australia is:

1. Only apply the disambiguation, if needed;
2. Then to apply the disambiguation, if needed, by state;
3. Then to apply the disambiguation, if needed, by local government area of the source of the watercourse;
4. Then to apply the disambiguation, if needed, by river catchment (as per your suggestion).

I know this sounds convoluted, but they're the agreed rules. For example, in the state of New South Wales there are approximately 265 variants of Back Creek; many of them very minor streams. Rangasyd (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Smart

Good work! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A big loss. It would be great to see some commentary from art critics (other than Pearce) about Smart's critical acclaim and justify some of the statements made in the article. Rangasyd (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

<grin> Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the infobox, would you say his 'awards' are actually awards. The prize may certainly be. In my mind, the honours are not awards. As the honorary doctorates, are they awards? Rangasyd (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting question. I expect / suspect that it's subjective. (But then I would, wouldn't I ... ) My opinion? Well, given that I'm the one who put them there, I'm sorry, but you do NOT get a Nobel Prize for guessing what I think. So what useful contribution can I respond with? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're so unbiased and able to stand back and be objective, NOT! My washing and drying is done. Sleep beckons. I will revisit your 'sloppy editing' with a fresh and uncluttered mind tomorrow. Rangasyd (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I beg your pardon! Biassed? Moi? How could you possibly say that? (Rather easily, I suspect.) Yes, "revisiting ... with a fresh and uncluttered mind tomorrow" sounds like a good plan. As for 'sloppy editing', well, you couldn't possibly be referring to me - I don't make sloppy edits! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Biassed (sic) vs. Biased, not sloppy editing at all. Q.E.D. Rangasyd (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Postnominals

Hi! Haven't spoken to you for a while! Regarding Division of Kingsford Smith, postnominals generally stay out of both article text and tables. They're pretty much meant for the lede in the subject's article, and their infobox. They shouldn't be showing up anywhere else. And we generally link all occurrences of a party name in tables too. Frickeg (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, awesome! His lack of article has been bugging me for ages but I really don't know that much about union politics. I had no idea he was so young! Any chance of more articles on prominent unionists/unions; in writing about Labor MPs I've noticed this whole area is horribly under-represented; Ged Kearney was merely a redirect until recently. Frickeg (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day and thanks. I started rewriting articles as a result of the creation of the Second Rudd Ministry and found that a whole lot of articles about ministers were inconsistent in their formatting, etc. And then, every now and then, I come across an article that's in need of major rewrite. So, I was doing the ministerial reshuffle, and Garrett needed a rework, then Matt Thistlethwaite (that was full of self-sourced or unsourced claims), and still needs work - any chance of input? That led me to create Dastyari. Until I finish the ministers, I will look at the Kearney and Paul Howes (that's a mess), and a few others. Hopefully, to have it all done by the time of the next federal election. Rangasyd (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As to post-noms, please have a look at Housing and Homelessness and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as examples of work completed where post-noms have been included. And then look at Human Services or Resources and Energy or yet to be completed. Also, many ministers were not updated with new titles re promotions and demotions, etc. Should there be a nav bar for ministers (as it's not easy to navigate between ministers)? Rangasyd (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As to those minister pages: they look much better, but I don't see any postnoms in there ... ? I would say, though, that common practice, at least in Australian articles, has been to have the party colours to the left of the party name. By "nav bar for ministers", do you mean for ministerial portfolios or for the ministers themselves - because there is one for the ministers, or at least for cabinet, I think. I do think one for the portfolios would be a good idea too. (I always think "MP" and "Senator" are a terrible thing to have in articles, though. They are basically job titles, and they are not permanent. Unless they're required to differentiate which house people are sitting in - like in the retiring MPs lists - I think it's better to leave them out.) Frickeg (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Current ministerial offices in New South Wales

Category:Current ministerial offices in New South Wales, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

Gap in List of As-G?

Hi! There appears to me to be a gap in the list, from 24 Mar 1993 to 1 Apr 1993 - I can't find a reference that mentions this 8 day period. Can you help / clarify / define / whatever? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day. "Prime Minister Paul Keating's original choice for Attorney-General in 1993 had been Michael Lavarch, but Lavarch's re-election was delayed by the death of an opposing candidate for the seat of Dickson; Kerr held the portfolio in the interim until Lavarch won the resulting supplementary election. Duncan Kerr served as Attorney-General for 26 days." There was no A-G for the eight days between Duffy's commission ending on 24 March 1993 and Kerr's commission commencing on 1 April 1993. I have amended the table and added a note. Rangasyd (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, well! Not the answer I expected, but it certainly solves my problem! Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your problem? User:Rrius may have different views along the lines that your problems are beyond resolution. :-) Thanks for picking up the gap. I must have missed it; but was generally aware of it, and remember the hassles that Lavarch had at the time. Rangasyd (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Rrius may have different views along the lines that your problems are beyond resolution. :-)

a) LOL!

b) Yeah well, that's his problem ...

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. FYI(?) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah. Saw that. Happy editing. I'm currently working on declared federal election results for 2013; starting with NSW. Rangasyd (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would wait on that. Declared results are not final results - notice how it says at the bottom of each results page "results are not final"? They will all change by small amounts over the next few weeks and someone will have to go back and fix them. I'd wait until it says results are final. Frickeg (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thanks for that, Frickeg. I'll stop now. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I did the same thing a few elections ago. Frickeg (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, User:Frickeg; how long should we wait until completing the final results of the federal election? Until the return of writs in mid-November, or once each seat is declared? Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Enh. I notice Canley's going ahead and doing them - they're still not saying final, but I'm pretty sure this is taking longer than usual, so I'm not sure what the deal is. Frickeg (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to wait until after the writs are due to be returned; which is after 13/11. Rangasyd (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

666!

As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I just missed my 333. Perhaps I can have a belated 333 with your 666. It's sure to be twice as good. Rangasyd (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

At least! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Road articles

Hi there Rangasyd, I see you've been editing articles on Australian roads. While I thank you for your efforts, some parts of your edits are going against Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) guidelines, and consensus that has been established at WikiProject Australian Roads (WP:AURD). In particular:

• Icons or graphics do not belong in the middle of a sentence or paragraphs, per MOS:ICON, as they break up they text, distracting the reader
• The route shields displayed at the top of the infobox should only be used on articles about a route itself. This includes articles such as Highway 1 (Australia) and A8, Sydney; but not standard highways and roads such as Westlink M7 or Oxley Highway, even if the roadway has a single shield over its entire length – from Template:Infobox_Australian_road/Guidelines#Route_shields_section_of_infobox.

If you have any questions, you can ask me or Nbound (another active WP:AURD editor), or on the WT:AURD project talk page, or there is an IRC channel which all the road projects for various countries/regions use: WP:HWY/IRC.

Thanks, Evad37 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Evad37. I hear ya. Have you corrected; or do you want me to revert? Rangasyd (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and another question. Why do some articles use the exits and interchanges in the format used by the M4 Western Motorway, but others use the format used by the Kwinana Freeway? My general observation of highways, motorways, etc., bearing in mind this is my foray into editing these articles, is that there is generally inconsistent editing. For example, some start with the location of the highway, some start with it being a state/national highway, some start with it being x km long, some start with being located in states x, y, and z., and so on. Just a general comment :-) Rangasyd (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected them already, thanks for understanding . The main reason for inconsistency is that up until this year, there hasn't been any effort to organise editing. Since WP:AURD was created in April, we have agreed on or are working on a number of article standards (see WP:AURD/AS). In the case of the junction lists, Kwinana Freeway uses the "proper" format, per MOS:RJL, whereas M4 Western Motorway uses an older, nonstandard format, borrowed from the UK road articles (before they starting converting to something closer to MOS:RJL). As for the lead information, which should be a summary of the whole article, that's probably best left to the individual article, depending on what they think most relevant information in the article is. When I've been improving articles to GA, A, and FA-class, I tend to use a format similar to "Highway name is an xx-long highway in state/city/region from pointA to pointB" for the first sentence. Oh, and the other reason for inconsistency is that most articles are at stub, start, or C-class stage, when they may be inconsistent with a range of Wikipedia-wide standards and guidelines. But by the time they get to B-class, they should be pretty good, and nearly ready to be nominated for GA. If you're at all interested, we'd be glad to have you helping out and improving articles. (PS, look out for WP:AURD in the next issue of The Signpost WikiProject Report). Cheers, Evad37 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks with all that. I've joined WP:AURD. Is the significance of the highway an issue that should be placed in the lead (e.g. national, state, local, etc.)? Please see {{Road infrastructure in New South Wales}} where different categories are used. Rangasyd (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to add official designations or classifications by the relevant authority (in this case RMS), if they can be reliably sourced (ie not roadgeek websites) - see WP:AURD/R for some good sources and other resources. That template probably ought to be updated, as the new alphanumeric route numbering system no longer includes national highways, and I'm not sure about the term local highway - sounds like it could be original research (unless it means controlled/maintained by local governments). So anyway, significance of a highway should be in the lead, but stick to reliable sources (the lack of which is actually a big problem for most Australian road articles). - Evad37 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

PM&C

Absolutely phenomenal job you're doing there. I've just been catching up and having a read and you're really doing a great job on a not particularly sexy topic! (Same goes for the other government departments you've been fixing up.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks The Drover's Wife. I've been working through each of the federal government departments following the Administrative Arrangements Order issued on 18 September 2013. This has been a huge job and everytime I think I've made progress, I turn the corner and find more issues. I'm yet to tackle the article on PM&C itself. But it's not too far, once I finish with the various Secretaries. Would you mind having a look over Departmental secretary to ensure that it actually captures the essence of the role, as there is a clear absence of references on the role itself, other than the officeholders. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian Electorate

Just an FYI, in early September I converted {{Infobox Australian Electorate}} to use {{Infobox}}. As part of that conversion, I incorporated some of the improvements that had been made to {{Infobox Australian place}}, one of which was the automatic formatting of |electors=, so {{formatnum}} is no longer necessary. I've also added |electors_year= and |electors_footnotes= (similar to |pop_year= and |pop_footnotes= in Infobox Australian place). --AussieLegend (✉) 18:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You're a LEGEND!! Rangasyd (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Real" billions versus "cheap" and/or "lazy" billions.

Once upon a time in Australia, a billion was a million millions, (i.e. 10^12), and a trillion was a billion billions, (i.e. 10^24). Your recent edit seems to suggest that, yet again, we have been polluted by US cultural imperialism, and billions and trillions have been devalued to 10^9 and 10^12. Is there some "official" definition somewhere that says 10^9 and 10^12 rather than 10^12 and 10^24? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No. And "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit;" Wilde. Rangasyd (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)