User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Unreliable sources

Here you stated using Twitter as sources is unreliable. Although, one part of your reasons made no sense to me: "Especially notable is that this is not a verified Twitter account." Can you expand that please? Thanks, Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Twitter verifies certain accounts to ensure that the account belongs to the named person.[1] Verified accounts have a blue badge next to the name. Accounts that are not verified could belong to anyone, as anyone can create a Twitter account, under any name. You can easily pass yourself off as somebody who you aren't, which is one reason Twitter posts are largely not acceptable as reliable sources. As an example, to the average reader, this might seem to be an account belonging to Taylor Swift. It isn't but this one is. You can tell that because of the blue badge next to the name, which confirms that the account is verified as belonging to Taylor Swift. At Bones (season 11), the citation added in this edit is from Hart Hanson's verified account, but the rest are not verified accounts so, while the Hanson citation can be considered reliable, the rest cannot. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That clarifies everything. Thank you so much! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries! --AussieLegend (✉) 13:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing in Template:Cite tweet, WP:SPS, or WP:TWITTER that states an account has to be verified to be counted as a reliable source. As long as the requirements listed are meet, which they clearly are in this case, they can be used. In Twitter's FAQ about verified accounts it states, "We concentrate on highly sought users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business and other key interest areas." Obviously a litte-known TV writer is not a "highly sought user" unlike Taylor Swift, one of the popular music artists in the world. It meets WP:SPS because Emily Silver is a writer for the TV series she is providing information thus she is an "expert on the subject matter" and it meets the requirements of WP:TWITTER for obvious reasons. This is a TV writer posting information about upcoming episodes, there is nothing to support that this information is false. We've been using her Tweets on Bones (season 11) for all upcoming episodes (until we get press releases) and all the information has been correct. How can you possibly assume what's been posting is false when she posts pictures of script pages in the writers room, another script page of an aired episode, photos from the set, etc. I could go on forever. She is followed by verified accounts including Bones creator Hart Hanson, Bones actor John Boyd, the official Finding Carter Twitter (a TV series she created), the official Bones Twitter, and I'm sure tons others if I kept looking. Just recently, the official Bones Twitter retweeted a set photo she posted (you'll have a scroll a little, as I guess retweets don't have individual links). Again, it's absurd to think someone who writers for the TV series in question is "unreliable" and to think that this information is anything but accurate, because there's nothing to assume otherwise. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on your talk page, anyone can create a Twitter account and any editor must be able to verify a claim, not just fans of a particular TV series. Because the average editor can't verify that the account is actually that of the person who it claims to be, it can't be used as a source.

Emily Silver is a writer for the TV series she is providing information thus she is an "expert on the subject matter" - Yes, Emily Silver may well be but the reader cannot verify that the Twitter account is actually that of Emily Silver, and that is the problem.

How can you possibly assume what's been posting is false when she posts - I'm not assuming it is false, you are assuming that it is correct. A reader trying to verify one of these tweets is only going to see the particular tweet, not the entire history of the Twitter account holder. A reader shouldn't have to have to research the entire history to be able to verify. These tweets are primary sources and WP:PRIMARY says A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Knowing the history of the Twitter user is specialised knowledge beyond what WP:PRIMARY permits.

it's absurd to think someone who writers for the TV series in question is "unreliable" Nobody said that. The problem here remains that since the account is not verified, we don't actually know that the person posting the content is actually the person they claim to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian standard pallet

Do you have any evidence that your claim of copyvio is copying on Wikipedia's part? Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia standard pallets. SpinningSpark 20:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I did, and it appears the source is not the site I thought it was. A number of Australian sites use the same wording, so it appears at first that they may have copied the content from Wikipedia, but then I found a site that has some extra wording that ends in [7], which is usally a good hint that the text has been cut and pasted. However, Australian standard pallet only has 2 references and the text is not that found at Pallet#ISO Technical Committee 51: Pallets for unit load method of materials handling. Unfortunately archive.org doesn't seem to archive any Australian pallet sites before 2013 or thereabouts, so it is difficult to work out where the text originally came from. I did find a couple of US pallet sites with similar wording, but I had too many tabs open by then, Firefox crashed and I gave up and went to pick up my wife from hospital a week before I thought I had to. The really suspicious text is "which fits perfectly in the RACE container of the Australian Railway". "Perfectly" triggered my spidey senses and "Australian Railway" really set them off. It should actually be "Australian Railways", but I can understand somebody not so familiar with Australia misunderstanding that, which is why the US websites seemed to be heading in the right direction. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to share your links? At the moment that is all a bit vague. I wouldn't set any store by the refs currently in our article, they were added long after the article was created. SpinningSpark 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, Firefox crashed. At that point I lost all the links, which is why it's all a bit vague, even to me. I've given up on the issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So, to summarise...you found a random site on the internet that you can no longer identify that showed evidence of copying from another random site that has never been identified. The evidence was a sentence, that has never appeared in the Wikipedia article, has a copied reference number that exceeds anything ever in the Wikipedia article. Even if we accept that it is definitely copied, it certainly does not show Wikipedia copied anything. The evidence is someone else did some copying, so if anything, we should assume they copied from us. I don't think that is a good basis for deleting material from the article and I would be asking you to self-revert if someone had not already reverted you.

I agree that "fit perfectly" is usually a sign of advertising speak, but in this case it is accurate. The pallets were designed for precisely the purpose of fitting exactly into RACE containers. SpinningSpark 15:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I found several sites, one of which lead me to a US site that had wording so similar to what was in the article that it had to be more than a coincidence. The US site didn't include the conversion templates and it didn't include all of the text but the key phrases were there and there was additional text. All in all it looked liked somebody had copied somebody, but it wasn't clear which way the copying went. It was at this point Firefox crashed and I decided that as I had other, more important things to do I'd give up and leave it to someone else. Unfortunately I can't seem to get away from it...

I would be asking you to self-revert if someone had not already reverted you - Given that the reversion happened 15 hours ago, I'm wondering why you'd even bring that up now. At this point I'm still convinced it's a copyvio, but if you disagree then that's fine. Leave it in the article but I just don't want to have anything to do with it any more. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Article Protection

I've noticed there has been a lot of disruptive edits recently from unregistered users on the "Dance moms" and its seasons articles. They always make 2 edits so users without rollback can't undo all their disruptive edits. Is it possible to semi-protect these pages to prevent unregistered users editing them? From the edits it appears to be the same editor using different IP addresses. Thanks --Sgcosh (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be the same editor. You can always request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Do you have Twinkle installed? That makes it easy to revert the changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will do that (I assumed it was something only admin could request) I've never heard of Twinkle but will check it out. --Sgcosh (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle is worth having, especially when targeting vandalism. It also makes sure that you can check all the boxes easily with AfDs etc. I've asked for all of the articles to be protected as a group, since the IP has made a lot of edits to them, two of which I didn't pick up until now. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

MythBusters questions

Hello, I just had a few questions regarding MythBusters. For episode titles, I noticed that on Wikipedia an episode is titled "Hindenburg Mystery", which is spelled correctly, but the official Discovery website has a typo that spells it with an e instead of a u. I also noticed that there is a mistake where they titled the second "Alaska Special" identically to the first (see [2] and [3]). What should be done in these two situations? Also, I had a question reguarding the Adam Savage (American) article. It looks as though someone created Adam Savage (British), but is this the correct way to differentiate? I feel as though nationality is not usually used in this scenario. Thanks! Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret Agent Julio (alt) (talk • contribs)

"Hindenberg" has always been a peculiar episode. The word is spelled correctly in the episode description but the episode has always been called "Hindenberg". Regarding the Alaska specials, both the 2008 and 2009 episodes have always been called that.[4][5] Technically there is no reason why two episodes can't have the same name. It's not conventional, but it isn't against the law. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please also note that tv.com is not a reliable source for episode information. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So I renamed the Alaska Special per the reference, but should I adjust the title of the Hindenburg episode to include the typo? And thanks, I did not realise earlier that TV.com is user-generated. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you revert the synopsis for the upcoming eps of Hell's Kitchen. I was reading what the next ep is aboit according to the press release on futon.72.64.207.76 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It is generally considered best to wait until the episodes have aired instead of paraphrasing from a press release or another site, which may still constitute copyright violation. Though you're only paraphrasing small portions in this case, it's still better if someone writes a non-paraphrased summary after the episode has aired and they have watched it. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, I'm just popping by to ask for your opinion on something. I know we've had our differences, but I think ultimately we both an accurate and constructive editing processing on Wiki. In the latest two episodes of Code Black (TV series), three characters have gained new roles. User:Drmargi believes that by referencing these new roles in the character descriptions, WP:TV standards are being breached. She believes only the original roles of a character should be mentioned, despite an evolving narrative, and indeed, narrative purpose. The differences, of course, are minor, but in order to maintain an accurate encyclopedia, they are necessary. Drmargi is insistent on reverting.

My version of the page: [6] Drmargi's version: [7] Comparison: [8]

Do you think I am in the wrong for making this edit, or should it be enforced? --Unframboise (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget to mention that you've stated more than once the you will edit war rather than work toward consensus. And I never mentioned MOS-TV. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I have better things to do. I stated I would not concede to your flawed opinion - which is entirely different from threatening to edit war - indeed, by this I meant I would seek other users opinions and request a third opinion formally. Aussie's talk-page is not the place to start a dispute. Please respect this. --Unframboise (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What a cozy place on the moral high ground. You initiated the edit war, you refuse to abide by WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS or to leave the article at WP:STATUSQUO, and now are chiding me? Takes nerve, I'll give you that. So much for the reformed, collaborative Unframboise, and I'm not the only editor who's noticed it. --Drmargi (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop bullying me. This is not the time nor the place for personal grudges. I feel attacked. --Unframboise (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Unframboise and Drmargi: MOS:TV requires that articles reflect the entire history of a series so the character listing should incorporate significant changes that have occurred during the series, presented in accordance with WP:FICTENSE. Because fiction is referred to in the present tense, it's always a good idea to refer to specific episodes if possible, or even seasons. "John Smith, portrayed by Fred Jones, is in medical school, training to be a doctor after losing both of his parents five years ago. During season two, he graduates and is employed at Sacred Heart Memorial Hospital. In "Ouch!" he suffers a needlestick injury while treating a patient and subsequently succumbs to AIDS in season 10." Anything that happens during the series should be written in the present tense but incidents that occurred before the series started can be referred to in past tense. The subject of how to treat character listings was only recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Character descriptions. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Television season ratings

I'm confused as to how the colour and smaller text has been alright in a multitude of articles when the table existed as raw wiki-text, but as soon as it entered template form, it's a violation of something that's not a policy? Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody ever said it was alright. You've been around long enough by now to know that just because something is in an article doesn't justify keeping it or spreading it to other articles. Ratings tables seem, more often than not, to have been added by anonymous or newly registered editors who seem to live for nothing more than adding ratings tables. The code they use was likely added to one article a long time ago, and then copied and pasted without question by editors who probably didn't even realise them MOS existed. Typically the tables violate numerous parts of the MOS including MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT, MOS:BOLD, MOS:HASH and MOS:CAPS. Deprecated HTML code is often included, as is unnecessary padding in fields. Some of the code used just doesn't make any sense. Take for example the two tables below:

Season	Episodes	Time slot (ET)	Season premiere		Season finale		TV season	Rank	Viewers (in millions)
			Date	Viewers (in millions)	Date	Viewers (in millions)
1	7	Sunday 8:30 PM	January 31, 1999	22.01	May 16, 1999	N/A	1998–99	#33	12.80
2	21	Thursday 9:00 PM	September 23, 1999	N/A	August 1, 2000	N/A	1999–2000	#114	6.32
3	22	Thursday 8:00 PM	July 11, 2001	N/A	November 9, 2003	N/A	2001–02	#125	4.50
4	30	Sunday 9:00 PM	May 1, 2005	11.85	May 21, 2006	7.88	2005–06	#68	7.90
5	18		September 10, 2006	9.93	May 20, 2007	9.15	2006–07	#71	7.20
6	12		September 23, 2007	10.86	May 4, 2008	7.68	2007–08	#84	7.94
7	16		September 28, 2008	9.20	May 17, 2009	7.33	2008–09	#69	7.56
8	21		September 27, 2009	10.17	May 23, 2010	6.13	2009–10	#53	7.56
9	18		September 26, 2010	9.41	May 22, 2011	5.85	2010–11	#56	7.66
10	23		September 25, 2011	7.69	May 20, 2012	5.35	2011–12	#70	7.30
11	22		September 30, 2012	6.55	May 19, 2013	5.16	2012–13	#63	6.94
12	21	Sunday 9:00 PM Episodes 1 – 11 Sunday 8:30 PM Episodes 12 – 21	September 29, 2013	5.20	May 18, 2014	3.85	2013–14	#78	6.11
13	18	Sunday 9:00 PM	September 28, 2014	8.45	May 17, 2015	2.85	2014–15	#94	5.86
14	TBA		September 27, 2015	2.87		TBA	2015–16	TBA	TBA

Season	Episodes	Time slot (ET)	Season premiere		Season finale		TV season	Rank	Viewers (in millions)
			Date	Viewers (in millions)	Date	Viewers (in millions)
1	7	Sunday 8:30 PM	January 31, 1999	22.01	May 16, 1999	—	1998–99	33	12.80
2	21	Thursday 9:00 PM	September 23, 1999	—	August 1, 2000	—	1999–2000	114	6.32
3	22	Thursday 8:00 PM	July 11, 2001	—	November 9, 2003	—	2001–02	125	4.50
4	30	Sunday 9:00 PM	May 1, 2005	11.85	May 21, 2006	7.88	2005–06	68	7.90
5	18		September 10, 2006	9.93	May 20, 2007	9.15	2006–07	71	7.20
6	12		September 23, 2007	10.86	May 4, 2008	7.68	2007–08	84	7.94
7	16		September 28, 2008	9.20	May 17, 2009	7.33	2008–09	69	7.56
8	21		September 27, 2009	10.17	May 23, 2010	6.13	2009–10	53	7.56
9	18		September 26, 2010	9.41	May 22, 2011	5.85	2010–11	56	7.66
10	23		September 25, 2011	7.69	May 20, 2012	5.35	2011–12	70	7.30
11	22		September 30, 2012	6.55	May 19, 2013	5.16	2012–13	63	6.94
12	21	Sunday 9:00 PM Episodes 1–11 Sunday 8:30 PM Episodes 12–21	September 29, 2013	5.20	May 18, 2014	3.85	2013–14	78	6.11
13	18	Sunday 9:00 PM	September 28, 2014	8.45	May 17, 2015	2.85	2014–15	94	5.86
14	TBA		September 27, 2015	2.87	TBA	TBA	2015–16	TBA	TBA

The top one violates several parts of the MOS. Small text is used to reduce column widths, but then the columns are padded to make them wider than they need to be. The colouring serves no purpose at all, so it's not necessary, but it does violate WP:COLOR, which is part of MOS:ACCESS, and you're aware of how important that is. When we see MOS violations we should be fixing them, which you've been doing in multiple articles as far as WP:COLOR compliance is concerned. We certainly shouldn't be creating templates that deliberately violate the MOS. How many templates have you created that have been modified to make the MOS compliant? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) On the topic of this table and its layout, is the timeslot column encyclopedic? I can see both sides, it justify potential ratings differences if the show changes timeslots, and the other side that we aren't a TV guide. Also, the TV season it aired in should be further left in the order than it currently is. Just some thoughts... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the timeslot information as encyclopaedic and I seem to remember this being discussed elsewhere. I agree about the season information. It should really be where the timeslot information is. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with some of the above. You assume that the ratings tables were made by anonymous users (I'm noting a lot of "seem to have been", "likely added", "probably"), but that's only what you believe and there's nothing to back that up. The layout of the ratings table could even be mutual consensus between editors. I would also note that MOS' are guidelines and not policies, and do not necessarily need to be followed to the punctuation mark. Okay, so perhaps the small text isn't required. The coloured cells are AAA compliant, so there is no issue there. I personally find the timeslots encyclopedic, as they show the decisions of the producers of a series and its respective channel to determine where the show airs, and what results from this. It does not make the table a television guide - in that line of thinking, an episode table could also be considered a television guide, as it lists future episodes and when they are. I do agree that the television season column should be moved, but next to the timeslots, rather than having the seasons instead of the timeslots. These are my thoughts on the matter, and if there's further disagreement, then perhaps a discussion should be opened at the television project's page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been fixing these tables in many articles over a long period and the edit histories of the articles supports what I've said. Many have been added to articles on my watchlist, which is how I know who added them. As far as I can determine, there was never any discussion about these tables, they were just added to articles, just like the templates that you've created. Somebody thought a ratings table was a good idea, added it to an article, and it's gone from there. While the MOS is a set of guidelines, we are expected to follow them. That's why the MOS pages carry a banner stating "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Note "occasional exceptions", which implies that we should normally follow the MOS. For the record, even policies aren't mandated. There can often be a reason not to follow policies or the MOS, but you have to have a good reason not to comply. Simply being AAA compliant is not reason for inclusion of decorative colour. WP:COLOR says do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. The purpose of colour in these tables is not stated at all. It is purely decorative and unencyclopaedic. As for the time slot, look at the tables above and tell me something based on inclusion of that information. Why is the program being aired at 9PM on Sunday when its highest ratings were in the 8:30PM time slot. My point here is that, without further analysis, the time slot does not provide any encyclopaedic information. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to Alex, I definitely don't know who created these tables, but I know whenever I saw one with the color and small text, I thought it highly unnecessary. My guess would be that some user copied a format from another wiki or user edited source and brought it here, and that place used the small text and colors. So to that end, I don't see the justification of it, when we have our variety of other tables (some you created) that don't use color, and are far superior in its presentation of the information. And if we color only the avg ratings column, it begs the question why are we doing it just for that column?

Just a note on the timeslots, it generally isn't the producers who have the say in when the show airs, it's the network. Like I said in my original comment above, I can see both sides of including and not including. However, I'd lean stronger for including if the timeslot info was sourced in the "Broadcast" section, and there was commentary regarding it beyond, the network just moved it, which sort of harkens to Aussie's point about unable to see how the timeslots affect anything without the commentary to go along with it. Additionally, I don't see the benefit of including that column, if the timeslot is the same throughout the run, or only deviates once or so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Pacific Highway route number

Your last revert of my edit on Pacific Highway (Australia) was not justified. The end of the Pacific Motorway is Brunswick Heads, not Ewingsdale, as per the Gazette (http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Government-Gazette-10-May-2013.pdf).

The only reason Ewingsdale is mentioned in any of these articles is that, for a time, that is where the M1 route ended. However the route from Brunswick Heads to Ewingsdale is not a part of the Pacific Motorway.

You cannot use the Gazette as the source of truth for route numbers. While there are recent examples where the new gazetted name has a route name and a number ("M1 Pacific Motorway"), there is no requirement for route numbers to be gazetted and the overwhelming majority of them are not.

Given that all signs on the Pacific Highway from Brunswick Heads to Ballina are marked as M1, and there is no official source to my knowledge that says it is called A1, the article should list this section as M1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausmeerkat (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ausmeerkat: I am well aware that the M1 ends at Brunswick Heads. This was something that I raised in January last year, and is why the Pacific Motorway article was moved to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads). Yes, the gazette CAN and is used for route numbers, as that is the official source documenting the route. Route numbers are not official until the route change is documented in the gazette. Route number signs change before the gazetting as a matter of practicality. The presence of signs does not override the documented route. For example, in Newcastle, Hunter Street and maitland Road, between Stewart Avenue and the Industrial Highway, a section of road that is 6.6km long is still signposted as the Pacific Highway, despite not having been part of the Pacific Highway for nearly 3 years. The speed camera on Maitland Road even still identifies the road as the Pacific Highway. (Here is an old example from 2013, after the change was gazetted)

"there is no requirement for route numbers to be gazetted" - Contrary to your argument, the gazette includes the route markers.

"there is no official source to my knowledge that says it is called A1" - The new Pacific Highway route was gazetted in 2013. The source you've used for your most recent edit states quite clearly that the end of the M1 is Brunswick Heads. We don't need a source to say that the 42km section between Brunswick Heads and Ballina is not the A1, we need a source to say that it is part of the M1. At the moment, that section of the road is still gazetted as being A1 and should not be changed until it is re-gazetted. Note that the route for the Pacific Highway was discussed in September 2013 on the article's talk page. Please do not change the article again until you can provide an authoritative source that confirms the road from Ballina to Brunswick Heads has been re-gazetted as M1. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I stand by all my statements. I fully accept that the Gazette is the source of truth for road names (and I hope you agree that my edit fixes an error in the previous version that you restored which wrongly claimed the Pacific Highway ends in Ewingsdale). However I do not accept that it is the authoritative source for route numbers. In 2013, every route number in NSW changed, yet only 5 changes were gazetted - this is because the road names changed. The only way to intepret the presence of route numbers in the gazette is that it is giving more information about the road whose name is changing (note the headline is "Route Marker", not "New Route Number"). So the gazette I reference says that the route that was once called the Pacific Highway between Brunswick Heads and the Queensland border, is now called the Pacific Motorway, and that route is part of the M1. It makes no statements whatsoever about whether any other roads are or are not the M1. The gazette does not say that the M1 ends at Brunswick Heads (and indeed it doesn't), it says that the Pacific Motorway does. Ausmeerkat (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

And just to drum home the point, by your logic the gazette clearly states that the M31 ends at the Mereworth Road Interchange, and that the Hume Highway must have some other route number. Ausmeerkat (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You can stand by your statements, but they are not supported by reliable sources. The gazette says that the road is the Pacific Highway and the route marker for the Pacific Highway is A1. The road between Brunswick Heads and Ballina is the Pacific Highway (A1), not the M1 Pacific Motorway. It may well be that it is going to be re-gazetted but, at the moment, it has not been. Some signposts have just been erected. WP:V is a core policy and has to be followed. There have to be authoritative sources confirming that the road is now A1 and there are not. Road signs are not authoritative sources. If you bother reading the discussion at Talk:Pacific Highway (Australia)#Warabrook etc, you'll see that I was effectively arguing what you are.

"I fully accept that the Gazette is the source of truth for road names ... However I do not accept that it is the authoritative source for route numbers." - The gazette is the authoritative source for everything. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly does the gazette say that "the route marker for the Pacific Highway is A1"? Ausmeerkat (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can find the gazette showing the changes to the Pacific Highway (I don't have the link handy) it's in there. As I remember, the RMS document (see linked discussion) also included this information, but that link seems dead. It is clear though that M1 is the route for the Pacific Motorway (That's why it's called the "M1 Pacific Motorway"). --AussieLegend (✉) 10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for verifiability too, but my point is that I do not believe that route number changes are gazetted as a matter of course. We do have the reference that says that the Pacific Motorway is the M1, and neither of us are disputing that - but that entry tells us nothing about the Pacific Highway. I have looked for such information myself, but haven't been able to find anything. So your claim that the route is A1 is currently no more verifiable (from gazette sources) than mine that it's M1... except that at least I have the signs on my side. The only official source of info about NSW route numebers that I know is the RMS info that is still up at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/key-build-program/alpha-numeric/index.html. There's a fact sheet about Northern NSW at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/key-build-programs/alpha-numeric/northern-factsheet.pdf but it's ambiguous (there's a zoomed-out map but no commentary about where the route changes), and anyway the routes are subject to change without necessarily being documented on that site. In the FAQ at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/key-build-programs/alpha-numeric/qanda.pdf it states "As sections of the Pacific Highway between major town centres are upgraded, the M classification will be implemented along those parts of the routes." - so an extension of M1 further south is consistent with that. But if you can point me to a gazette that says that specific part of the Pacific Highway is A1, go ahead. Ausmeerkat (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"So your claim that the route is A1 is currently no more verifiable (from gazette sources) than mine that it's M1... except that at least I have the signs on my side." - You're claiming that the route number has changed from A1 to M1. The WP:BURDEN is therefore yours to prove that this is the case. As the discussion at Talk:Pacific Highway (Australia)#Warabrook etc shows, signs are not a good source. It's not necessary to provide verification for the status quo, it's necessary to verify the change, per WP:BURDEN. The article itself demonstrates that A1 is used for the Pacific Highway. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a rubbish argument. You're arguing that route number changes must always be gazetted, yet you are unable to prove that it has happened in the past. If your approach were followed consistently from now on, then no route numbers could ever be changed again on any article, unless it so happens that the road name also changed. I get it that you are trying to follow the rules around verifiability, but you really need to be pragmatic about what that means for this speciifc case. I suggest we need input from more people to resolve this. In the meantime, I'm going to bed. Ausmeerkat (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's a rubbish argument when I expect editors to follow established policy, guidelines and consensus. My argument is now, and always has been, that you haven't provided an authoritative reference that confirms Brunswick Heads to Ballina is now part of the M1. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with following policy; I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of policy in this case. You've set an impossibly high bar for verifiability by insisting on a source that does not exist because route number changes are not gazetted. I have provided a government source for my change. The moral of the story in the talk page is not that signs are unreliable and should never be used; it's that if there is a conflict between road signs and a more formal source, the latter should be used. That's fine, but in this case there is no more formal source, and the absence of such a source cannot be interpreted as evidence against a change because route number changes are not gazetted. I don't know what you want me to do here - I don't get to decide what sources are published, I'm doing the best I can to make the article correct with the sources that are avaialble, and you're trying your hardest to drive me away from the community. Ausmeerkat (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Question, re: "Guest cast" lists

Hello AussieLegend! I have a question for you – I am nearly positive that including "guest cast" appearances in TV series 'Cast' lists was recently deprecated as per a discussion at, I think, WT:TV – by any chance could you point me to the relevant discussion? After a quick search, I couldn't find it on my own... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the relevant discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 5#Addendum to the Cast section and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 5#Guest lists. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammy Awards 2016

Hi AussieLegend. I saw you've deleted my notes about several Grammy wins in the winners & nominees section, stating that these quotes were misplaced. I'm curious why these notes were misplaced - one or two notes on winners in a specific genre field (e.g. Pop, Rock, etc.) belong in the section belonging to that genre field, which was exactly what I did. If I put them elsewhere on the page, the link between those notes and the winners in a specific genre field may not be clear. That's why I'd like to revert those changes. Zighlveit (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I said they were misplaced because they don't seem to have any link to the sections in which they were added:

• "Taylor Swfit's second Album of the Year win" is under "Best New Artist"
• "Tony Bennett's thirteenth win in the Traditionl Pop category" is under "Best Pop Vocal Album"
• "'Justin Bieber's first Grammy win" is under "Best Dance/Electronic Album"

and so on. They are under a level 3 heading, but they should be under the actual sub-heading to which they are relevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mel & Joe

I see. I understand what you mean, so my phrasing was bad "we can assume"... Indeed I also contribute to several Wikia (in addition to Wikipedia in Fr, Sp & Eng), so that may come from there... If you look at the production code (=order of episodes produced), then you don t need to assume anything anymore... My thought process was: hair short in between episodes of long hair-> must belong to old season -> go check on Internet -> boom, production codes confirm my hypothesis. Hypothesis is thus not an hypothesis anymore and one can drop the "assume".

Just like the episode order is displayed very prominently on that page, production order is worth noting, especially when very different from airing order.

Rgds. --AnTho-aR (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"My thought process was: hair short in between episodes of long hair-> must belong to old season -> go check on Internet -> boom, production codes confirm my hypothesis. Hypothesis is thus not an hypothesis anymore and one can drop the "assume"." - Regardless, that is classic original research, which is not permitted. What you claimed needs to be backed up by reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Monster Bug Wars episodes

Hello User:AussieLegend, I edited Monster Bug Wars , but I'm not sure how many seasons of the show there are. Before I edited the article it said that season 1 started on March 29 2011 and ended on May 3 2011, but the Season 1 section list episodes that aired in 2012 and 2015 also. There is also a special episode that should be in the Series overview. How can I fix it? Thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the Futon Critic, the series has had two seasons,[9] each with 6 episodes. This is confirmed by TV Guide,[10] and even imdb.[11] The 2015 episodes listed in the article do not appear in any of those listings. The instructions for adding a special to the series overview are in the documentation at {{Episode table}}. The article needs a good rework. I know how I'd do it, but it's a bit hard to convey. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a few things need doing, the "special episode" (if it's not part of season 2) needs a template and some episodes are wrongly listed as season 1 need their own seasons. I imagine adding special to overview would be the same as adding the pilot, which I've already done. Monster Bug Wars and Finding Bigfoot episodes are 2 articles I know that are in bad shape at the minute, but I mentioned Finding Bigfoot episodes to AlexTheWhovian and he said he'd sort it. Also, do you think the 2015 episodes actually aired? This could have been made up by an earlier editor. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, adding the special is the same as the pilot. There was some vandalism last year and the 2015 episodes were added during that so they do seem made up. Regarding the episode layout, I'd suggest reformatting the list using {{episode list}}, something like this:

No. overall	No. in season	Title	Original air date
2	1	"Death at Midnight"	March 29, 2011 (2011-03-29)
Rounds: – Giant rainforest mantis vs. Spiny leaf insect – Bull ant vs. Redback spider – Water spider vs. Water strider – White-tailed spider vs. Black house spider – Sydney funnel-web spider vs. Garden wolf spider

I don't really like the bolding (see MOS:BOLD) but I can't think of a better way to do it. That's a far more conventional layout and far less "busy" than the existing table. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the bolding is ok, easiest way to reveal the winner. The above is a lot easier to work with, with the rounds in the episode summary. So should I delete the 2015 episodes, they do have convincing titles and insects? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

BOLD is only used under certain circumstances, and this isn't one of them, but use of italics could be misinterpreted by other editors. Unless you can find sources for the 2015 episodes, I'd delete them, noting why in the edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, I tried to do the new edits, but the title in pilot template doesn't showup and season 2 template doesn't show up. Can you fix it? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PROD

Thanks for letting me know about the PROD rules in regard to Red Forman. Although I knew the article had been to AfD before, I was unaware that PROD was disallowed in this case. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PROD can only be used once on an article, and it was previously. When you added the PROD template it should have warned you that the article had been prodded before, but for some reason it didn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

On screen credits

Hi, Aussie, There's a bit of a disagreement at the moment over at CSI. User:Drmargi believes that on-screen credits, production codes, and the existence of two separate scripts do not count as evidence for "Immortality" being two episodes shown together in one block. In this situation, what does count as evidence? Shouldn't the scripts, production codes, and on-screen titles be enough? --Unframboise (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Simple, pilgrim. When the episodes are broadcast as a two-part episode, not when the network publicizes and broadcasts a two-hour film. It was century rerun as, gasp, a two-hour film. The network is the last word. You don't know why the credits are as they are, and a faint Screencap from a fansite is hardly reliable. --Drmargi (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Excuse you, and your condescending attitude. Pilgrims were diseased, racist murderers. Grave Danger was broadcast as a two-hour film. That's still listed as two episodes. The network gets priority over the TV series itself? I'm done with you, I don't have the mental energy for this. Do as you please. --Unframboise (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Retitling The Name

Thanks for making Kasam Tere Pyaar Ki to be the primary name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.106.5 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Maiorana links

Hi User:AussieLegend, thanks for the great work you did fixing Monster Bug Wars, I have a different problem with links on the Maiorana surname article, should be easy enough but I'm not too good with using links. In "References" section the 2. and 3. links, called "[1]" and "[2]" aren't referenced the same way the others are, also there the same link to the same website. Can you help? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, no unsolicited third-party ops

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I do not appreciate being bombarded with opinions/users that have not been invited to take part of the conversation. I ask that you never do it again. I repeatedly suggested that the user I was engaging with take the conversation to the series Talk page; they refused to do so. If your were so insistent on interjecting your 2-cents, perhaps you should have taken on the initiative. LLArrow (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't own your talk page and any user can post there. Most editors appreciate comments from others when they are in a dispute with someone, even when the other editors don't support their point of view. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you don't want the opinions of others, perhaps you should not put yourself in a position that warrants the opinions of others. Please also note that your tone is somewhat combative, and not at all appropriate. It's also incredibly hypocritical of you to expect people to stay off your talk page when you don't seem to think that you should do the same thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Home release as sources

Hello again, can home releases be considered reliable sources? Are they primary, secondary or tertiary sources? How do we use them on Wikipedia, by using a link to a picture of the back cover? Thanks in advance. — Artmanha (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Season 13 Restaurant Impossible Episodes

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restaurant:_Impossible&oldid=709288482#Season_13_.282016.29

• Official Website: http://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/restaurant-impossible/episodes.html

• TV Guide: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/restaurant-impossible/episodes/309197/

All future episode content requires inline citations. None were provided. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I Just added them right now.Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You've added one, which does not support all of what you've added, and you have misused fields in the infobox. Please see your talk page for more information. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please have the infobox television template updated?

I need your help. Every time I try to create a new infobox television template, I see a screwed up infobox television template.

Superman
Created by	Jerry Siegel Joe Shuster
Starring	Christopher Reeve
Theme music composer	John Williams
Country of origin	United States
Original language	English
Production
Running time	120 minutes
Production company	DC Comics
Original release
Release	1978 (1978) – 1979 (1979)

Could you please get that template fixed so that there won't be any more problems? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've answered this at the infobox talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Just wondering if you got my ping on the Doctor Who talk page? It is in concern about the apparent WP:NFCC#3a violation you mentioned at Template talk:Infobox character of the file File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg. Thanks, Aussie. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's in my notifications, but for some reason I don't remember seeing it. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

Hi User:AussieLegend, is it worth mentioning on The Aliens article that all Alien characters have French names like Fabien, Antoine, Christophe, Gaspard, etc? Because there isn't a section on the article that mentions other, more important elements of the series (plot in general) to begin with. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source that discusses this? --AussieLegend (✉) 03:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the end credits of episodes 1-3 list Fabien (1, 2, 3), Antoine (2, 3), Christophe (1), Gaspard (3); also not sure if Dominic is a male given name in France (if so 1, 2, 3 also). Or there's these Channel 4 profiles, like this one for instance: [12]. It's probably not a coincidence, but, as I say, may not be worth mentioning. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Aussie is talking about a source that discusses about how all of the names are French and the significance of it, and not the episode edit credits that merely show the French names. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There clearly French (names), but I'd be surprised if I could find a source that talks about it, it's more of an observation and trivial, the article doesn't go into detail about character backgrounds or individual episode plots and has an incomplete cast list, so it might even look odd to put something like that on without the more important stuff. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Then if it is merely "an observation and trivial", it fails WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's no different than, for example, In Camelot#Title reference, that doesn't give sources but points out insignificant trivia from that episode. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That episode is a good example of what needs to go to AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sydney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Talk:Sydney#Recent removal of content 24 March 2016

---

Hello AussieLegend,

The reason I removed the content "warm summers, mild winters" from the article Sydney is that that statement is based on opinion. I realise that you copied that from the source, but all that phrase says is that the author of the source considers Sydney's climate to be like that. There is no objective classification for those terms, and they are based solely on personal comfort levels. Personally, for example, I would say Sydney has coolish winters and coolish summers, which is not the same as what was there. According to Wikipedia's own neutrality rules, opinions and personal synthesis are to be left out of articles.

If it had said, "According to XYZ climate classification system, Sydney has warm summers and mild winters", it would have been different since here it is clearly stated as the opinion of XYZ. However, this was not the case, hence why I removed it from the article.

Thank you,

YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 15:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vanadalizing

Hi!, I have been editing the BGC articles and this user 24.183.29.4 keeps deleting contestant tables and removing the MOS compliance. Since I don't have the authority to block/issue a warning, I was wondering if you could since you are one of the main editors too.VietPride10 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I can't block him, but I have issued some warnings after reviewing today's vandalism. Any editor, including you, is able to issue valid warnings, so feel free to do that if you see the need. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit war and pov pushing about Yemen

Hi Could you treat the request here ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

List of The Real Housewives of Vancouver episodes

Should the tables at List of The Real Housewives of Vancouver episodes have not had their title columns stretched out, and had the same treatment as the tables at List of Vikings episodes? I thought that stretching a column out to 76% was unacceptable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The treatment of columns at Vikings was a compromise. It hasn't been an issue at any other lists. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The compromise was after you raised the issue of the wide columns. Are wide columns not an issue on the other linked page? Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. The problem at Vikings started when you removed the US ratings and set some of the remaining column widths to some random values.[13] I set them to values that ensured only one column was wider than it needed to be but you reverted.[14] I constantly said having only one column with too wide is preferable to having them all too wide.[15] Artmanha took exception to me setting the table widths so that the table was 100% in the season articles, which include episode summaries, but only as wide as it needed to be on the LoE page, which doesn't include episode summaries. The compromise happened because of that, and now we have tables with heaps of unnecessary, empty cells at the LoE page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the discussion itself, was there any opposition to the table you posted directly after "In a table like the one below, you read the data, read the next data"? It seems we went straight to the next suggestion, which was the one the introduced the empty cells. Artmanha reverted the edit in the fourth link you provided, but I don't see it coming up in the discussion (though I still disagree with the |total_width = <includeonly>70</includeonly><noinclude>100</noinclude>). Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That was the version that you reverted here. I really don't see the logic behind rejecting the version that automatically resizes depending on locathion. Tables don't need to be the full width of the page if there is not enough data to fill the width. Why does the following table need to fill the width of the LoE page?

No. overall	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original air date
20	1	"Mercenary"	Ken Girotti	Michael Hirst	February 19, 2015 (2015-02-19)
21	2	"The Wanderer"	Ken Girotti	Michael Hirst	February 26, 2015 (2015-02-26)
22	3	"Warrior's Fate"	Jeff Woolnough	Michael Hirst	March 5, 2015 (2015-03-05)
23	4	"Scarred"	Jeff Woolnough	Michael Hirst	March 12, 2015 (2015-03-12)

--AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the extra length for the title (though I prefer them to be spaced out, but the site's not based on my preferences), I just don't see the need for the hack with the widths. All the LoE page is is a combination of all of the tables on the season pages, so it should reflect what is given on said season pages, given that there's just as much whitespace in the table columns on the season pages as there is on the LoE page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The extra length for the title was what I argued for, but it was opposed. I'm happy to reinstate that as it's the simplest option. The season articles need to contain more whitespace than the LoE page, only because they have to be 100% wide so the episode summaries don't take too much space vertically. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Arthurs Seat and indigenous name

Hi I've returned the statement of Arthurs Seat's indigenous name of Wonga to the lede of the article. Wonga is the most common indigenous name for the landmark by far - I was there two days ago where a plaque describes the indigenous heritage and name, and online resources only know it by this name (though they are few). I added the information about the other two names to the article as a matter of interest, more than anything else. They certainly do not have equal weighting and the last one (Tubberrubberbil) is spurious and should probably be deleted anyway. In fact I think that is the only online source which makes any reference to other names at all.

Also a word of thanks on your consistent work. Ljgua124 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you've included 3 different names in the history section. We can't give undue weight to any of those names unless there is a reliable source, or sources, that say "Wonga" is the indigenous name. To do so without reliable sources violates WP:NPOV. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits to List of NCIS: New Orleans characters. Sometimes I let my inner Amanda Lamb take over - aesthetics, aesthetics, aesthetics - and need reeling in a little! --Unframboise (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The important thing is that you made the effort. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

Aussie projects
... you were recipient no. 445 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

NCIS

Hi there. Some of the TV shows are having "current" and "former" pages. EI: General Hospital. They are also listed in alphabetical order.- Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is that they shouldn't. Per WP:FICTENSE, fiction is always treated in the present so even characters that have died are still "current" main characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that. Unfortunately, there needs to be changes to those pages, change NCIS, or possibly updating WP:FICTENSE. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

NBN Television coverage

@AussieLegend: Hi. When I originally added the station infobox for NBN Television, I listed "Northern New South Wales & Gold Coast, Queensland" as the broadcast areas. The name "Northern New South Wales" is the correct broadcasting terminology for the area covering Hunter Region, Mid North Coast and Northern Rivers, the areas you listed. This can be seen on this official Southern Cross document that labels the area (in orange) as "NNSW", on this government document from the Australian Communications and Media Authority which labels NBN's coverage as "Northern New South Wales", and on the NBN website which lists its coverage as "Northern New South Wales". Using the terminology for the Northern New South Wales area as a whole is both the officially recognised terminology and is the terminology currently in use on all other regional television broadcaster articles. As such, can the infobox please be changed back to "Northern New South Wales & Gold Coast, Queensland" (the correct name will also leave the infobox less cluttered) – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 07:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Northern NSW" is a broad, generic term that doesn't actually correspond to any of the recognised regions. That's why we don't have an article for it on Wikipedia. It doesn't help to link to New South Wales, as was the case in the article, as much of the state is not covered by NBN. The regions defined by Southern Cross Austerio don't have any authority whatever. The ACMA document is confusing. The big blob to the west has a "Northern NSW" tag but does that also refer to the bit on the coast that is attached much further south? The green area covers Sydney, which is very definitely not part of Northern NSW. The NBN link doesn't actually define any areas. It simply says "On the 1st of March NBN introduced 2 new services to Northern New South Wales". That's not the same as saying that's it's coverage area, especially since much of its coverage area is not Northern New South Wales. The Hunter Region (NBN's home area) is not part of Northern NSW, nor are parts of the Mid North Coast. The 3 links you've provided don't support each other and are contradictory. We're best off sticking with the regions as they are commonly known and for which we have sourced articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You are correct in saying that "Northern NSW" is a "broad, generic term" that doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, but that's because its a term used officially in broadcasting to denote the area covered by stations such as NBN, NEN (Prime) and NRN (SC10). The term is "broad" as it is used to cover a broad area, and its much easier than listing each of the governmental regions that you have listed. The ACMA document is not colour-coded to separate each broadcast region but instead shows each broadcaster's assets as a whole, hence the Sydney metro area and Northern NSW regional area appear merged into one, this does not necessarily make it confusing. I included the SCA map to make it easier to visualise the approximate coverage of the Northern NSW area. Naturally, as Nine and SCA are two separate organisations with different transmitters and permissible coverage allowances, their versions of the Northern NSW area may differ very slightly.

In addition, the coverage area of Northern NSW in reality corresponds more to North-Eastern NSW as most of North-Western NSW falls under remote coverage; you are confusing the coverage area (officially named "Northern NSW") with the geographical Northern NSW, which explains why the Hunter Region and Mid North Coast are covered by the Northern NSW coverage area. Most of the geographical Northern NSW is included in remote coverage. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 10:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Also, another official source that denotes the name of the coverage area as "Northern NSW" is Managing Director of QTQ and NBN Kylie Blucher: "Deborah has spearheaded NBN's commitment and support of the Northern New South Wales region".[16][17] The terminology is also used by numerous media sources. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're using the ACMA map to justify use of "Nothern NSW" then it is very confusing because it is all merged into one. It doesn't show NBN's coverage specifically, so it's not a good source at all. If you tried using it in an article it would have to be rejected as WP:SYNTH. We're supposed to convey accurate information to our readers and Northern NSW is just as ambiguous as saying "part of Australia". If we're going to tell our readers where the coverage is, we need to be as specific as possible. Telling them that the Hunter Region is in Northern New South Wales without explaining that "Northern New South Wales" is just a convenience term and the Hunter Region is not actually in Northern New South Wales is conveying blatantly misleading information to readers, and we can't do that. That's why listing the actual regions covered is far better than using a vague description. That is may be less convenient to list the actual regions is of little consequence. The two sources you claim to be "official" are not actually official at all. Kylie Blucher is in no way a recognised authority on regions of NSW and QLD. Anybody can say anything, it doesn't mean they're right. By the way, you don't need to ping someone on their talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

South Sea Islands Museum

• Got it. But, could reverse the order, museum then house in the listing? Reason is, every town has an old house or two, but that canoe and museum are remarkable, and the sole cultural attractions in the region that are likely to be of interest to people form outside the region. Just a suggestion, you're the local expert.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, reversal might work. Just an FYI, Cooranbong is pretty much the Seventh-day Adventist capital of Australia, and much of the town is oriented towards the Seventh-day Adventist church, which explains why a Solomon Islands war canoe is in a small, out of the way rural town in News South Wales. Well, actually it doesn't, but a museum documenting the works of the church is understandable. They also have a Sanitarium Healthfoods factory and Avondale College, both of which are owned by the Seventh-day Adventist church. As such the town is one of the more well-known obscure places in the Hunter Region, but the museum itself is not so well known, although I'm sure all Seventh-day Adventist's know of it. It's a shame really, because it's quite a nice little town. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I get that, this sort of town is a familiar type in America (denomination varies.) If I ran Lake Macquarie or Newcastle, New South Wales, I'd take that little museum and hype the hell out of it, the missionary angle does put people off, but some of the artifacts in that museum are stunning. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In Australia religious towns are highly unusual, which adds to the appeal. There's a store there called The Elephant Shop that sells geodes, thundereggs and various other things. They used to advertise on TV all the time, but don't any more. They also used to have a flying school, but that moved. The town is just off the Pacific Motorway giving easy access so I don't know why it's not promoted more. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion nominations to Australian consulate general

Hi AussieLegend, I would appreciate your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu. What do you think? Clare. (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place

Oh, you champion! Thanks for that - that'll take out a bunch of hoaxes and out of date references. I took the post down because I wasn't sure if that was a possible thing to code - glad that it is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for Lets Marry

Thank you so much for your help on the article! The edits were fabulous - the problem was that they dont transfer over to wikia, and are more complex and I don't know how to use them. I hope that helps explain. Again, thank you so much for taking the time to go the extra mile. Is there any way I can say thank you? Moscowamerican (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

		The TV Star
		For help with Lets Marry article, I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work :-) Moscowamerican (talk)

History (TV channel)

Ach, sorry - I looked at the category history and didn't see anything about that. Easy enough to fix - I'll do it now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the confusion. This edit didn't help. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OK - I've reverted all save one, which is about programs broadcast in Canada. There may be a couple missing, but I think I've caught 'em all. Apologies again. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I'm sorry you had to waste your time. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The Reviewer Barnstar For Your New Page Patrolling !

Thank you for reviewing so many of the articles that I made! Moscowamerican (talk)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		It is easy to patrol and mark for deletion obviously-bad pages, but there are few quality patrollers like yourself that are dedicated to patrol the more complicated articles as well. Wikipedia and I thank you for your great work . Moscowamerican (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Australia

Sorry there, I just saw the rationale on the image page for the Tri-Service defence flag and was confused why it wasn't on display. My apologies. - Imperator ^Talk 13:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey

There are 100 episodes of tanked Readthinkit1234 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There are only 85 listed at Tanked#Episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Lost Girl Final Season.jpg

Hello, Aussie! It's been a long time, eh? How have you been? I uploaded a new file for the Lost Girl (season 5) infobox. As with files used for previous seasons, this one is the cover of the Blu-ray and shows the spine. I tried to edit the name but am unable to. Perhaps you can? Instead of being named "Lost Girl Final Season.jpg", I think a better identifier name would be "Lost Girl Season 5 (Final Season) Blu-ray Cover Art.jpg. What do you think? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the file and updated the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! But did you see what AlexTheWhovian did right after you? He reverted your edit and tagged the Blu-ray cover file for deletion on May 6th. What's going on? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I don't have the file mover flag, so I didn't revert any such edit. The file still exists at File:Lost Girl season 5 Blu-ray cover art.jpg, per Aussie's move. I simply updated all five images to display the cover art rather than the box set, per every television series article, and tagged it with {{Orphaned non-free revision}}, and not deletion. Might I suggest you read it properly? Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"I simply updated all five images to display the cover art rather than the box set." You don't know what you're doing. There was no "box set" cover art. You removed the images of the covers for the individual Blu-ray formats and exchanged them for poster versions of the DVD covers. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I converted pictures of the releases to the cover art displayed upon them. I can link you to hundreds of articles that use the cover art over the box sets, if you would like? Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a serious problem. You might like to swim in pissing contests, but I don't. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for removing the cover art for the Blu-rays and replace them with the cover art for the DVDs. All you've done is trample on the articles and changing the colors that have exited for years proves how much of a trampler you are. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do remain civil during discussions. You might take note of the example that I am giving you as I am attempt to do the same with you. If you check the previous history of the images, you would note that the DVD and BluRay releases have the same cover art. So this is not a matter of BluRay over DVD. This is a matter of a picture of a box over the correct art. Do you take issue on how I seem to have mistakenly added the wrong captions? Easily correctable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Treat articles with respect ... and you earn respect. Your editing is uncivil. You trample on the contributions of other editors. Since you know absolutely nothing about the purpose of the colors that existed before you willy-nilly changed them: the colors were the colors used by the series. Your idea of what looks better has zero connection to Lost Girl series. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather than trampling them, I updated the articles to a modern-day perspective. I am not entirely sure if you aware, but when you check an article's history, you can see the edit summaries that editors provide. You might see that I provided "Colours more reflective of updated cover arts" when I updated the articles and removed deprecated parameters (do you have a problem with the latter as well?). There's the connection you're looking for. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Template: Infobox Australian place

The changes you made to this template today have had the effect of adding nearly a thousand articles to Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, making it effectively impossible to find and deal with any non-Australian articles in the category. The articles using the infobox can be fixed by deleting the "coordinates" field in the infobox and adding "coordinates_display = inline,title", but it's a bit much to expect that someone will go through all the articles and do that by hand. Any suggestions? Deor (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why the changes I made would have caused that, since they were just to identify invalid parameters. I'll have to investigate further. For now, I've commented out the changes, since they aren't essential at this time. This should resolve the problems with Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags. This is probably the best option at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm remarkably ignorant when it comes to templates, but one of the things that the category catches is multiple sets of coordinates appearing in the title position in articles. All of those articles seem to be using both the "|latd=|latm=|lats=|longd=|longm=|longs=" fields and the "|coordinates=" field in the infobox, where the latter is apparently totally redundant. Just deleting the "|coordinates=" field seems to remove an article from the maintenance category without affecting the appearance of the article at all. My guess is that including either "coordinates" or "coordinates_display" (or both) in your "unknown parameter tracking" addition somehow exposed this redundancy. Deor (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that is the case too, but I don't know why. It might be something in the Lua module. I'm going to add some code that checks for the presence of both |latd= and |coordinates= in the infoboxes so I can identify the offending articles and go through them all with AWB before restoring the unknown parameter checking. That should keep the coordinates category empty. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Oh cool name! Anyway I would like to request your comments here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No religion - cheers Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No action on this, MfD was already closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)