Talk:Batt Reef

Location of Reef
This media link refers to the reef location: news.com.au

NevilleDNZ 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Latitude & Logtitude for Batt Reef are wrong. When you use WikiMap to view it you are directed to a spot in the ocean about 40-60km to the west. I don't have my navigational maps here but my land map shows 16°24′S as being around right, but it should be more like 145°45′E. Also a check of Google Earth shows Batt Reef to the east of Low Island, not to the west Mark1800 04:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks you're right I typoed a character in it, it should be (more) correct now. -Shogun 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, I think we edited it at the same time Mark1800 05:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC). BTW, I'm a little new at this, should we now update this with. (1) The place name is unofficial, (2) It was named after somebody Batt (name escapes me, I'll ask dad he knows these things), (3) It was the site of a B something WWII plane crash, I remember seeing the tail when I was a kid. Or is all of that independent research? Mark1800 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh ok as long as its right, anyway that would count as original research I think, see if you can find a reference to it. It may be this one: -Shogun 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did some research & I think it is more likely the one refered to in official records as having crashed off Woody Island (given Batt Reef is 10-15km off Woody Island). I added it to Woody Island ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Island%2C_Queensland )as that is where it is officially recorded as going down. (list of WWII crashes in Northern Queensland. http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ronqld.htm ) Mark1800 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin
I have removed the comments about Steve Irwin dying here as the comment was both sourced and irrelevant. Every place where someone famous dies does not have this occurrence noted on their WP article - what's different here? M a  rtinp23  12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike Shaftesbury, Schleissheim Palace, Nuenen, Shooter's Hill, Nangang, Changzhou and Slaný for a small random selection? I don't particularly care either way, just pointing out the inconsistency. -Shogun 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then remove them too, unless you're willing to go through every single article and add "X and Y died here"? I'd assume not. It is possible that the people who are listed had historical connection to the place; Steve Irwin has none to Batt Reef. – Chacor 03:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote add: Basically this guy was notable, the nature of his death was also notable (he died ironically). It seems almost like a vacuum not to mention the tragedy on the page.
 * For similar obscure places that are known chiefly for who died there, check out Dealey Plaza, Cholame, California, Kreva, Pentraeth, Ford's Theatre, Hastings and Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital . Also check out Checkpoint Charlie for a permutation on a theme, someone who became famous because of where and how he died.
 * Please insert, a small note is justified. NevilleDNZ 03:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverts to date:
Here is an list of the reverts on the Batt Reef page. (With some obvious real vandalisms removed).

Anonymous contributors

 * Sep 20 58.178.68.47 (Sydney NSW  2000/AU) followed by Chacor (rv per PLEASE DO NOT ADD INFORMATION ABOUT STEVE IRWIN'S DEATH TO THIS ARTICLE. A CONSENSUS HAS BEEN AGREED ON AT THE TALK PAGE. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS, PLEASE LEAVE A MESSAGE ON THE TALK P)
 * Sep 20 70.18.234.112 (Reston/VA/20191/US) followed by Chacor (rm Irwin mention)
 * Sep 17 71.208.141.73 (Denver/CO/80202/US) followed by Chacor (rv)
 * Sep 13 203.51.180.210 (ACT 2601/AU) followed by Jim Douglas (revert test)
 * Sep 10 144.131.165.83 (ACT 2601/AU) followed by Chacor (rv)
 * Sep 10 194.159.6.226 (Berkshire RG45/GB) followed by Martinp23 (revert, please see talk)
 * Sep 9 24.78.131.167 (Calgary/AB/CA) followed by Pschemp m (Reverted edits by 24.78.131.167 (talk) to last version by Chacor)
 * Sep 9 69.165.96.110 (Coudersport/PA/16915/US) followed by Martinp23 (rv see talk)
 * Sep 9 70.107.50.48 (Reston/VA/20191/US) followed by Chacor (sigh, revert... again)
 * Sep 9 88.105.17.91 (London W1F 8HT/GB) followed by Martinp23 (rv see talk)
 * Sep 8 88.111.14.166 (London W1F 8HT/GB) followed by Chacor (rv, please see talk page)
 * Sep 6 81.36.227.227 (SPAIN/ES) followed by Martinp23 (rv see talk)
 * Sep 5 220.239.61.224 (Chatswood, NSW 2067/AU) followed by Chacor (rv see talk)
 * Sep 5 70.88.49.93 (Mount Laurel/NJ/08054-4628/US) followed by Chacor (rv see talk)
 * Sep 4 124.197.21.70 (New Zealand/NZ) followed by Chacor (rvv) RVV?
 * Sep 4 80.47.3.171 (London W1F 8HT/GB) followed by Ryulong m (JS: Reverted vandalism by 80.47.3.171 to last version by Chacor.)
 * Sep 4 86.20.197.20 (SO21 2QA/GB) followed by Chacor (revert per earlier)

Registered Wikipedians

 * Sep 20 Joe12491 followed by Martinp23 (rvv) RVV?
 * See for a selection of this user's three contribs, all vandalism (this is his edit to this page  - not an appropriate wiki-edit, which I would revert on any page - the " Link title s" make it a bad, and vandalous edit, and indicate the nature of the editor)
 * Agreed NevilleDNZ 21:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They merely show that the editor has failed to master WP editing, after 3 attempts. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51 25 September 2006 (GMT).


 * Sep 13 Bnjijuice followed by Chacor (rvv) RVV?
 * - is this edit not vandalism?
 * Yes this link is indeed RVV, NevilleDNZ 21:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sep 11 Teebone followed by Chacor (rv)
 * Sep 6 IsaacN followed by Chacor (again, rv, see talk)
 * Sep 6 Xenon623 followed by Martinp23 (rv steve Irwin info - please see talk before adding it again)
 * Sep 5 Deenoe followed by Deenoe (Further revert)
 * Sep 5 Mark1800 followed by Pschemp (not relevent)
 * Sep 4 Spawn Man followed by Chacor (sheesh, not notable. There isn't an entry in Australia about how past Prime Ministers have died in the country...)

Note: The RVV tag is inappropriate in above cases.


 * Sorry, I disagree with the statement that the RVV tage was inappropriate, and have left my findings beneath the above. I have been one of those reverting edits on this artcle since the date of Irwin's death - and it is important for the proponents for the inclusion of Steve Irwin info look at the comparitive length of the article to the length of a comment on Steve Irwin - we would end up with more info on Steve Irwin than on the place itself.  I am against, in this case, the addition of otherwise irrelevant material to an already small article - it over-rates Irwin's importance.  I'm sure that other notable people have died in similarly ironic (I hate that term in this context) ways, but their places of death aren't recorded on Wikipedia.  If this article were to be expenaded hugely, I feel that it would (perhaps, if notability and real relevancy were discussed - I'm quite divided on the issue) then warrant a section on Irwin, but as it is now, I feel that an Irwin mention would dwarf the rest of the article.  I'm more concerned about getting information about the place, rather than one person's death there.   M  a  rtinp23  18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe a one appropriate sentence with a link back to [] is a suitable simple solution. Without this we are going to see more SHOUTING on the actual page.

BTW: The incident was more incongruous then ironic. I am not sure what the right word is. NevilleDNZ 21:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hrm - I think a sentence is probably OK to but put in, as long as it doesn't overstate the importance of the incident (something like "the area recieved a high level of media attention following the death of Steve Irwin, in 2006."). A concern I do have is that it may attract futher Irwin related edits, but there's no harm in trying - after all, this is a wiki :).   M  a  rtinp23  22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The "CONSENSUS"
The "CONSENSUS" of the contributors is to include the incident. How can we move forward on this?

NevilleDNZ 03:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversions are not consensus. I don't think the information is approriate. Get a straw poll or a discussion or something, but counting reverts is *not* consensus. pschemp | talk 03:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, reverting an article is like having a "CONSENSUS", without actually getting a consensus, especially when the majority of the reverts are being done by only two contributors. Would inviting the above contributors to participate in the straw poll be a reasonable start? (and - hopefully - a conclusion) 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've included a sentence as suggested above. Incidentaly, all incoming links from the main space relate to SI. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57 25 September 2006 (GMT).


 * If you want a vote from me, the one sentence is okMark1800 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unapropriate comments
Someone should take care, or even lock this temporarily. Someone wrote "GG NO RE!" at the end of information about Steve Irwin. Disgusting, I say.

Endimion17, 20:09, 4 September (UTC)

Protections
Protect is an admin-only function, much like delete and block. Adding a tag does not do anything to the page. – Chacor 12:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this, the addition of (or, for that matter ) does not actually protect the page.  The templates are used by admins, who can impose a protection on the page, to label it as protected.  To reiterate, the templates are for informational purposes, and don't actually change anything in terms of page protection on the article .  Hope this helps to clear it up  M  a  rtinp23  13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to Trinity Bay incorrect
link to trinity bay links to trinity bay Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kysonx1 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)