User talk:Wiki ian/Archive6

sheesh
I was worried a bit there - trying to answer to an archiving talk page :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_West_Tasmania and related pages sats 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * rats - you now have supported merging whereas I have tried to argue to keep separate - that is about 3 hours + editing to verify why they need to be separate - if I get to hobart in a month or two you owe me two rounds of coffee or beer! cheers - good to see you still editing after all these years. sats 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * no big deal dont apologise - just take care with the sleepless nightas - when I was editor of the west coast miner in queenie and much much younger I used to go 2 days without sleep every second week - it was fine in my young days - these days I'd be paralytic.
 * My argument about the 2 being separate need to be edited into the two articles - 2 or three years not getting around to fixing it up was ok in the past when tassie arts could go 3 years un-noticed... :) sats 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was a dumb revert - the merge issue is not even noticed or alluded to - there are two different subjects with a very similar name - I'll get someone else to revert when I have a pair of well written 2 article drafts - most outsiders conflate the issue - despite the effort to show they are more complex issue than even most living taswegians can appreciate - the generation of people who fought over the issues are dying off... sats 02:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How prophetic - one of my mates hit the Mercury obits yesterday, another one bites the dust. As for the south west issue, its gonna be a long haul - there are potentially four very large articles from what I see -  just wish I had the spare time... to even think them through, let alone write them out.


 * The most material I can access re the south west I got when I was in Hobart a couple of times in the last 10 years, and earlier. There hasnt been much about it in the open domain like wikipedia, why Richard and Richard did more for some aspects of writing up about  the west coast and south west than others...  sats 02:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! v/r - TP 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Stub elevation
The text and refs is almost Good article level - but lack of a piccie or a map is what refrained from the B, there are many challenged geographically who wouldnt know where the northern suburbs of hobart are/were etc - cheers for mo sats 14:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

the bowels

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monobook.js
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools

give yourself plenty time, clear head and plenty spare computer space and be very careful

when in doubt dont do it.... sats 14:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian Roads
Hi Wiki ian,

I have noticed that you have edited a number of Australian road articles, and are listed as a member of WikiProject Highway's Oceania Task Force. I have recently started up a new project for Australian roads, with the goal of improving Wikipedia's coverage of Australian roads – currently the vast majority of articles are stub or start class. The project pages are located at WikiProject Australian Roads, if you want to take a moment to look around, and join up if you're interested. Thanks, Evad37 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:HWY/O

Nbound (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian road code updates
This just to let you know, since you're listed as a member of WikiProject Australian Roads but haven't commented at the discussion, that there is a proposal to upgrade the code for Infobox Australian road currently underway. The proposal includes a number of completely optional functionality enhancements and some very minor layout changes but otherwise, the code is 100% backward compatible with the existing version of the template. The code has been built from code recently and successfully incorporated into Infobox Australian place. If you'd like to join the discussion, even if it's just to ask a question, please click here. Thanks for your time. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of discussion
There is a proposal at Template talk:Attached KML to remove data from Infobox Australian road and store it as subpages of Attached KML that you may be interested in. Related discussions are at Template talk:Infobox Australian road and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Filemover
I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. INeverCry  18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Tasman Highway
Hi Ian,

We dont use the  section on roads using the AU roads infobox anymore (there are a few exceptions, such as tourist routes, or articles about routes themselves - which are only created when the subroads arent notable). As it can be more accurately portrayed in the  section

While route A3 goes into Lonny, the highway itself [which is the subject of this article] ends at ends at St Leonards Road, I had trusted a sign on street view for it ending at Elphin Rd but the Tas Govt's LISTmap says otherwise. If it was a small town we could probably ignore it, but chances are at least some of the suburban roads that make up A3 in Launceston are worthy of an article (either for importance or historical reasons).

Brooker Ave in Hobart is signed as A6 beyond the roundabout at Liverpool St (A3), but it appears that its signed as National Highway 1 from the other end, so its probably best we put both?

I'll make the changes per above, and let me know what you think, or if you have counterarguments :)

At some point it would probably be good to make a Tasmanian version of this article, that lists the subroads of a route.

an A3 listing would probably look like:

... or something

Its entirely possible these routes are dual-named as Tasman Highway aswell, which would be handy to know, and would much more like your version of the infobox! :)

-- Nbound (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

HNY
HNY - have a good one! satusuro 12:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wallet/Puffer/Smokes/Keys


The article Wallet/Puffer/Smokes/Keys has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domain Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bypass (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) 09:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

check
your preferences here on wiki satusuro 13:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Some daft punk
In Sydney seemed to be on something (not sure which substance) and left a trail of poor old stokesies articles cited out of whack in refs that do not abide by any MOS guidelines... if you see them, best to change them - multiple apostrophes, stokes name after the arhs link, and etc - trust all is well, cheers satusuro 15:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Numerous refs/cites are found as - The Tasmanian Government Railways on the West Coast Stokes, H.J.W. Australian Railway Historical Society Bulletin, January;February, 2003 pp3-21;43-62
 * Closer to MOS would be - Stokes, H.J.W. (2003) The Tasmanian Government Railways on the West Coast Australian Railway Historical Society Bulletin, January;February, 2003 pp3-21;43-62

The eccentricity is bizarre and fits no known conventional referencing system that is suitable for WP en MOS - when seen best eliminated without fear or favour... satusuro 15:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Too cautious! better discussed email wise perhaps satusuro 15:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Tassie Road article quality
The assessment criteria for roads, described at WP:AURD/A (and WP:HWY/A, and similar for other roads projects) is basically based on the presence of three major article section: a route description, a history, and a junction list. If these sections are properly completed, then that covers the WP:FACR comprehensiveness criteria for almost all roads. For the lower half of the assessment scale (those without a formal review venue):
 * B-Class corresponds to having those three major sections completed and no major issues – ie, follows WP:NPOV, is well referenced, without trivia, no cleanup-type banners
 * C-Class corresponds to having those three major sections present, but with issues – incomplete, has cleanup banners, or large numbers of inline tags (such as clarify)
 * Start-Class is the next level down - one major section missing (or it contains a only small amount of unreferenced/poorly-referenced material).
 * And of course Stub-Class is for WP:STUBs

These criteria are really just more specific versions of the general wikiproject assessment criteria, which has
 * B-Class as "The article is mostly complete and without major problems..."
 * C-class as "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. ..."
 * Start-Class as "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. ..."

So for the specific examples you gave, Kingston Bypass now has a route description section, history section, and intersections section → C-class (not B-Class as there are other issues: lead is probably too short, route description could probably be expanded, history section ends with "The project is currently ahead of schedule and is expected to be completed by late 2011".) Brighton Bypass, has a good history section (plus the "Aboriginal heritage issues", which could potentially be included as a subsection of History), and an Exits section, but is completely missing the route description section → Start-class

Hope that helps - Evad37 &#91;talk] 11:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=608207753 your edit] to Hobart Area Transportation Study may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Longford ft/m
Referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_conversions , I don't think the convert back from metric to ft should be used when you know what the actual construction, in feet inches is, you should convert from there, maybe show the metric first with the extra switch thingy, but converting 200ft to approx 61m is one thing, if you then convert 61m back to feet, you might be lucky to get what you want (200ft) but it'd be easier to be accurate at the start. Plus, like our rail gauges, nothing in Australia was built to 1435mm, it was built to 4ft8.5in. Use the quoted source unit and maintain precision. (How'd I miss the missing coord) --Dave Rave (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * the accuracy mostly, but also the metrics would be in the brackets anyway and you San alter the display order and they were built imperial. The long text section, as now noted, is a quote and should be verbatim, I'm working on the trove edit ATM. Your edit of the 2ft9in now shows 3ft so accuracy, and the 61m x 2 = 122m now doesn't equal 400ft. The source should be kept, more people do understand metrics than you'd believe and in Australia we do know both, and we know where we came from. Except for the convicts, ;) (and my sentences, as always, run together) --Dave Rave (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement
 * Choice of Units - can I adapt / adopt the part about UK based engineering especially bridges ? --Dave Rave (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you! (but don't feel obliged to eat it)

 * can I have some ? --Dave Rave (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hobart meetup
Hi Wiki ian, I'm trying to organise a Hobart meetup in late Dec or early Jan. I'm just asking a few of the more active Tasmanian editors first before I lock down a date/time (I've put forward Tasman Quartermasters as a venue as they are nice and casual). Check the link and put your name down if you are interested! -- Chuq (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)