Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:30, 25 November 2014

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AussieLegend.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

It is approximately 3:57 AM where this user lives (Raymond Terrace).

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31

Archive index This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Threads with no replies in 7 days may be automatically moved. Discussions here are automatically indexed by User:Legobot)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hell's Kitchen Transclusion

While you are doing Hell's Kitchen Transclusion, I think having the Color Code/Key text being trancluded into the season pages might work well, opinion?Naraht (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That would provide for some more consistency between seasons, which is what I'm attempting as part of the transclusion process, but we may have to create that as a separate template. I'm going to have to take a break from this for a few hours though. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanx, I'd expect it to be a separate template and WP:NODEADLINE....Naraht (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Naraht: I assume we want to create a single template for all articles, se we're consistent? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, No. Seasons 1-4 should contain BoW and possibly BoB, I still haven't figured out if BoB meant something. 5-13 should be the same. I'd *really* like this not to encourage editors to add BoB to the more recent seasons... Maybe it could be one with an argument to indicate which one?Naraht (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, that shouldn't be too much drama. The switch should specify that we want to use BoW while the default would be without it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'll ask on the main Hell's Kitchen talk page whether BoB every *meant* something.Naraht (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been through every article to check for variations in the keys. I found that "SICK" was used both to mean "withdrew for health reasons" in two seasons and "was hospitalized" in another two. I've fixed that by changing "SICK" to "HOSP" in the articles. "IN" has the same meaning in all seasons except s12, so we need to fix that as well, but here is the combined key as it stands now. I've noted where codes and colours are only used in certain seasons:

I'm concerned about the size of that versus the key found in some seasons like this from s13:

As you can see, it's a lot more compact. What's your opinion? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a large chunk of the season X only are either the Cook for your Life or *Robert*. I think IMM can be a color only since IMM is a subset of IN. I think the caveat on IN for CfyL can probably be dropped.

Is there any way we can cleanly have a core template and then cleanly have ones added to the end per season?

Also, what does it look like with only entries which are 4 seasons or more?

"the caveat on IN for CfyL can probably be dropped" - The only problem with doing that is that everyone in episode 1209/10 was "IN" and blck jackets had not been issued.

"Is there any way we can cleanly have a core template and then cleanly have ones added to the end per season? " - I don't think so. It tends to get messy.

"what does it look like with only entries which are 4 seasons or more?":

We can get around seasons that don't use the standard key by adding a special key or using notes. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know about this. I like your latest version. My comments

• Cook For Your Life was a one-time event where I'm assuming the participants are selected by Ramsay, so the participants would be the equivalent of NOM / Orange for the winner and OUT / Orange for the loser with a footnote or an asterisk can be added saying they took part in that challenge.
• Regarding SICK, HOSP, and other absences, I would use IN (if they missed the main service but was retained), OUT (if they were eliminated) and LEFT (if they took themselves out of the competition) and rename "Chef was hospitalized, but was eliminated" to "Chef was eliminated for other reasons". Footnotes can always explain the details.
• I also agree about BoB and BoW pertaining only to the seasons that use the term. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

To make the table even simpler, you could remove the "by Ramsay" and have nominations to cover anyone who was called up to have to defend themselves to stay in the competition for that episode. Remove "not called up" or "eliminated from winning team". Readers just want to know at a glance which folks had to defend themselves.

Color key

  Chef was eliminated after nomination

  Chef was eliminated without nomination - (for any eliminations at the "end" of the episode, regardless of circumstance (winning team, sick/absent, not called but spontaneously picked) )

  Chef was eliminated during service - (any mid-episode eliminations)

  Chef withdrew from the competition

  Chef was retained after nomination

  The winner of Hell's Kitchen

  The runner-up of Hell's Kitchen

What do you think? -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly more compact and would simplify the table somewhat. @Naraht: What are your thoughts? --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, general comments. I'm not sure BOB *ever* meant anything, we should check. Also, I think it still might be better to have the words inside the color boxes able to represent different situations. If nothing else, "Severed three fingers during the Palate Test - not coming back" and "Served uncooked pork twice, Ramsey gets a restraining order" perhaps should have the same color but probably should have different text inside the box. Another thing that we need to consider whether they are the same or not... Situation: Red team loses. Anna and Barbara are nominated by the team. Ramsey calls up Anna and Cindy and eliminates Anna. Should Barbara and Cindy be colored the same? Should the words be the same?Naraht (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If the different situations are more useful then let's keep the color scheme as that's less confusing than adding subtext like "NOM-R" (Nominated by Ramsay) but SICK, FIRED, LEFT, BACK were good keywords. As for the situation where Barbara's being nominated but not called, is that a fairly regular occurrence where Ramsay disregards some of the team's nominations? Does he call some people up and then send them back in the group without defending themselves? -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with File:Jacqui Lambie PUP.jpg

Hey AussieLegend,

I seemed to have uploaded the permissions for this file wrong, could you have a look at it and fix it please? It has been nominated for deletion. Tell me what you can do.

It's located here

Cheers, Luxure Σ 07:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There's not a lot that can be done to save the image. It's clearly non-free and non-free images can't be used in biographies of living persons. A free image needs to be found. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the image on aph.gov.au doesn't load so I just uploaded the one from the PUP. Luxure Σ 23:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey...

I just wished to say thank you for all of the help that you've been recently.

I really appreciate it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Suburbs and localities

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but your assertion that "Karuah is not a suburb, and you can't have a township located within a suburb" was not correct. Karuah is on the Geographical Names Register as a locality, but the difference between a suburb and a locality is one of "character" The definitions for both are almost identical, being:

• Locality - A bounded area within the landscape that has a 'Rural' Character
• Suburb - A bounded area within the landscape that has an 'Urban' Character

However, the terms are used interchangeably. For example, Bobs Farm, which is most defintely has a rural character, is registered as a suburb. The Australian Bureau of Statistics refers to Karuah as a suburb. As you can see by the red-bordered area in the map at that url, which represents the "gazetted locality" (the ABS uses "gazetted locality" regardless of the status of the suburb or locality), Karuah extends well beyond the township, which leads to your assertion that "you can't have a township located within a suburb". Anna Bay is registered as a suburb, and the border can be seen in red here, however you will note that the town exists only in the very southern part of the suburb. It is entirely possible for a township, or even a larger town, to be located within a suburb. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Geographical Names Board often fails to use such terms properly, and as such isn't the be-all and end-all in this. Rural and Urban aren't the same thing, so using them interchangably isn't appropriate. A suburb is a sub-urban area. Karuah isn't urban. If it was, terms like village or township wouldn't even be a consideration. And if its a suburb, what is it a suburb of? Newcastle? You might also want to consider what the definition of township is, before asserting that you can have one inside a suburb. If a township is a self-contained small town, then it necessarily must have rural areas around it to separate it from other places. That cannot be sub-urban. Karuah is probably more significant than just a locality and but I am happy enough with the new re-wording that removes any confusion that the use of suburb creates. Of course this is ridiculously semantic, but its important to use clear and unambiguous language when you're defining what something is. The Geographical Names Board often uses ambiguous and illogical language, as well as counter-intuitive definitions that make technical terms out of regular words and make them mean something completely different to their normal use. Suburb is just one case of this, as is interchanging locality and suburb. The failure with properly defining Bob's Farm doesn't mean the terms are interchangable, it means that the Geographical Names Board has got it wrong again, and as such shouldn't be relied on to provide good definitions for Misplaced Pages. It needs to be recognised that just because the Geographical Names Board is official, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be correcting them when they are wrong.Mdw0 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Geographical Names Board is the official government agency responsible for registration of place names in NSW so it's authoritative. If something is registered as a suburb then it legally and verifiably is a suburb. In NSW, a township isn't defined, it's somewhere between a town and a village, which are defined as:

• town - "A commercial nucleus offering a wide range of services and a large number of shops, often several of the same type. Depending on size, the residential area can be relatively compact or (in addition) dispersed in clusters on the periphery"
• village - "A cohesive populated place in a rural landscape, which may provide a limited range of services to the local area. Residential subdivisions are in urban lot sizes."

Nowhere does it verifiably say that a township can't fit inside a suburb and this is reasonable because the size of a suburb is not defined anywhere. You're assuming that a suburb is a small place and that's not true. There are plenty of large suburbs. Kooragang, a suburb of Newcastle, covers 35.4 km2, which is larger than Anna Bay at 23.1 km2. As I've already pointed out, with sources, the town of Anna Bay fits well within the suburb of Anna Bay, and if a town can fit in a suburb then a township can. and a town can easily fit in the suburb of Kooragang. Please note that the Geographical Names Board isn't the only authority to be involved with registering place names. Local councils register the place with the GNB and the GNB has to register the place in accordance with the law. Claiming that they got it wrong based on your opinion is classic original research. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said a suburb had to be big or small. Certainly some suburbs are massive, but NONE have townships inside them. Until we have both terms defined, we can't really say one can't be inside the other, except that a suburb, being sub-urban, that is, part of something urban, must be at least connected to an urban area. It might be on the edge of an urban area with rural sections on its borders, but this definition means it can't be surrounded by rural areas like Karuah is. Dictionary definitions of suburbs being urban logically exclude any definition that calls an area with rural borders all around it like Karuah. On the other hand, if a township is defined by its rural borders, then logically that also excludes it from being part of a suburb. It comes down to word definition, not just my opinion. I never mentioned towns. Town doesn't mean anything specific any more - towns can be self-contained or swallowed up by a city and still be called towns. My point regarding the GNB is just because its official and authoritative, that doesn't always make it right. If the GNB makes a claim that is wrong or even debatable, its up to us as editors to consider our readers and use words that define a place better than the GNB if and when the GNB is wrong or vague or misleading. I would have thought that your own example of Bob's Farm and your problems with Telstra naming things wrong would have shown that government authority often fails in this area and needs to be corrected.Mdw0 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Questionable chatter

I dunno about you but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that there might be some talk-page socking going on at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4). The discussion is becoming really circuitous, vague and troll-y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That's all I can standz...

...I can't standz no more! 1 Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed the number of edits you made. LOL. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mythbusters

What are you doing to the Myth busters season end date. There are clearly no more episodes this year. On the discovery site and the video on the citation I provided, it is said that "Plane Boarding" is the last episode of the 2014 season and that new episodes will begin to air with the 2015 season in January. So, why are you so sure that the season is over when no one else says so. I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages but I realize you should back up your reverts with more than just a vague sentence about their season structure. Please revert the edits.StevieB5175(talk) 11:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was hardly vague. Nor was the note that I subsequently added, which includes a link to List of MythBusters episodes, where it is explained that we follow the calendar year, and why we do that. The citation that you provided doesn't actually say "new episodes will begin to air with the 2015 season in January". It has been common for MythBusters to air episodes throughout the year, before and after that year's season, so we don't usually add a date until very close to the year's end, when we're sure that they won't sneak another one in. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At the end of "Plane Boarding", Adam and Jamie came back with the following video provided in the cited source. In it they stated that this was the last episode of the season and that the three co-hosts would not return. They would have given this information unless this was the season finale. Watch the cited video... The season is over. Even if it was not over, we should have caught wind on the Discovery site that there would be additional episodes; however they only say that new episodes will return in January.StevieB5175(talk) 15:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What you've just stated constitutes original research, which is not permitted. A source explicitly stating that there will be no more episodes in 2014 is required in order to justify adding an end date to the 2014 season article. We don't base edits to articles on what Misplaced Pages editors think may or may not be the case. Everything has to be verifiable. That's a core policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Having a video with the host stating that it is the "final episode of the season" does not constitute as "original research" as far as I know. Assumptions have not been made because the host, Adam Savage, explicitly said that the season was over. I realize that YOU might think that there will be more episodes but where is your evidence if you are so sure. For someone with as much experience and credit as you have on Misplaced Pages, you are rather unwelcoming to newcomers like me to the collaborative process! please do not bite the newcomers Take it from my perspective, someone came in and reverted half my edits with out so much as a proper explanation. Even though I'm new, I realize Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, but its becoming hard to tell. StevieB5175(talk) 20:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries have a finite length and the summary I left was clear and concise: "These articles are not based on season years, but calendar years". I immediately added a note saying "MythBusters season articles are based on calendar years, not seasons, per the explanation in List of MythBusters episodes. Accordingly, please do not add an end date until the last episode airs in this calendar year (2014)." I don't know what else I could have done, or why you don't consider that a proper explanation. You're reading a lot more into the source than is there, which is classic OR. The prose says "Only Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman will return to the popular Discovery Channel show next season". It doesn't explicitly state that there will be no more episodes this year. The video only mentions seasons and, as has been explained at length, the articles are not based on seasons. As I've explained above, it has been common for MythBusters to air episodes throughout the year, before and after that year's season, so the announcement of the end of a season does not necessarily mean there will be no more episodes aired in the following 4 months. In 6 of the past years, episodes have been shown right up to December, 4 aired until December and in only 1 did episodes end as early as October. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK now I get what you are saying. How close do you wait to post updates unless sources arise?StevieB5175(talk) 02:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

&&&&&

This guy is yet another sock operator. When did everybody go nuts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Distances for Aussie Places

Are distances for Australian place road or as the the crow flies distances? (eg. Sydney is 877km NE of Melbourne). Cheers, Luxure Σ 22:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We normally use road distances. See T:IAP for some links to sites that can calculate the distances. I normally use travelmate.com.au. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiEditor2016

Here's more on tagging socks: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Blocking_and_tagging. You should be able to understand why it's a bad idea to tag a someone as a sock that and SPI has not yet concluded was a sock.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice that section is titled "Blocking and tagging" and starts with "follow these instructions to block sockmasters and sockpuppets." They don't apply before or while the SPI is in process. Tagging a suspected sock is appropriate. See the guidelines at {{Sockpuppet}} and {{sockpuppeteer}}, and note that both of these templates contain text that would clearly not be appropriate after a block. In particular, {{Sockpuppet}} contains the text "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be", and the instructions include "You think the account is a sock, but aren't sure". --AussieLegend (✉) 01:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)