User talk:Bleakcomb

Hectares

I don't think it's the MoS so much as its supposedly SI practice. I remember some other editor saying as much somewhere a long time ago. However, this link suggests otherwise.

Yes, what you found and shared pretty much supports my opinion (well, it's not an opinion anymore, is it?) that it's better to use hectares for land parcels >1 km². I'm pretty sure it was Bobblewik ... that was his thing ("A request" on his talk page seems to have been what precipitated his departure. His listing at WP:MW suggests as much). He actually inspired me to do a lot of drive-by metric additions. But he could be very dogmatic about this, and I guess he didn't care to do anything else and was forced to back down. Didn't realize it was so long ago (and it doesn't surprise me, either). Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Less than, as my edits should make clear. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd think, here in the US, that square miles would be used above a certain amount of acres for land parcels, but no, they aren't. The Adirondack Park's area here in New York State is given as six million acres, and the state uses that in its promotional material. Square miles seem to be preferred only for the areas of political entities. Also, I can't remember what the number of acres per square mile is ... OK, working it out with a calculator it comes to about 640. I can see going to km² after a hundred hectares as very rational; I can't say the same about the 640 cutoff point. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, that >1 km² thing was a personal compromise I came up with as a way of accomodating Bobblewik and his incessant insistence on getting rid of hectares everywhere. I would cede him anything above a whole number, but point out that land-area figures like "0.02 km²" are really difficult to envision and counterproductive, and much better to say "2 ha". The funny thing is it actually fits with doing acreages as 1 km²=250 acres, a much easier figure to work with than 1 square mile=640 acres.

I think the rationale for not using hectares was that (this may have been according to Bobblewik again) really strict scientific SI goes in increments of a thousandfold ... you are supposed to use either cm or km for length (I recall learning, in high school, to use the exponential value for c as 3.0 X 10¹⁴ cm in scientific notation for use in equations) but not good old meters. Likewise, area jumps from m² to km², again with nothing in between (like hectares) supposedly permitted. You are offering more persuasive evidence for the use of hectares across the board (something I really had no argument with, that I thought was standard practice under the metric system until Bobblewik got us all convinced we should use square km). I mean, I don't have a problem giving the area of the Slide Mountain Wilderness Area, one of my favorite nearby hiking and backpacking spots, as 47,500 acres. So 19,000 ha wouldn't be a problem either.

We should probably try to get something formally about this in the MoS and end this confusion.

BTW, the only place where I gave the area of a non-political unit in square miles was Hudson River Historic District, also here in New York and the largest National Historic Landmark District in the U.S. Since it sprawls through several communities and two counties, I thought square miles made the point better than acres. I think Butte-Anaconda Historic District in Montana, the next largest NHLD, did the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of pipeline trails

For the time being, there aren't enough examples of trails following pipeline easements to warrant a separate article, so they a few examples are included in List of rail trails. Eventually there may be a List of pipeline trails. Also a List of canal trails. Also a List of converted fishing piers.

Today I came across by chance Syndal Heatherdale Pipe Reserve Trail, and so that I don't lose track of it I have added it the List of rail trails. The McKinley Bridge also be crossreferenced there.

What do you think? Tabletop (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Drummoyne

hey, sorry about that I made about 150 edits to articles linking to gaelic, these went to Gaels,Irish language,Gaelic Ireland,Gaelic culture & Scottish Gaelic. I was bound to make at least one mistake. It being in Australia, I didn't see the Scottish link. Bogger (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Northern Suburbs Sydney

Hi J Bar, you said on Tourombah's talk that you would like to get this right and get more input from WP Sydney. I wouldn't mind having two cents worth in a wider forum. I support your reversions of Tourombah's AGF edits until some consistency and notability have been established. I might also draw your attention to Tourombah's edits of Lower North Shore (Sydney). In general there might be two needs to be met. One is a popular, colloquial, ill-defined notion of regions (eg Lower North Shore) and the other being regions defined on ABS statistical regions of Sydney which could form the basis of many good (perhaps even featured) articles of the demographics of Sydney based on easily verifiable data from the ABS, not a mish-mash. Again we should get this right, because it has been mucked up so far. Many thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You make some good points. The Lower North Shore articles certainly needs some work, especially since it drifts between describing the region Lower North Shore or Lower Northern Sydney. I'll address this when I get a chance. With some of these regions, often these terms are general and not finite, so it's really hard to define them in these articles. We have had quite a few discussions about these regions overthe last couple of years and the Northern regions seem to cause the biuggest problems. For example, people have argued that there is no such region as Upper North Shore or where Upper and Lower begin and end or which suburbs should be included in the Hills District and which belong in the Greater Western Sydney. Anyway, we also have to deal with the fact that some suburbs can belong in two regions or that some regions can encompass other smaller regions. For example, the St George district is also part of Southern Sydney along with Sutherland Shire. Many of the South-eastern suburbs of Sydney are also part of the Eastern Suburbs although people who live there might argue for their exclusion. Anyway, if people can provide references of these regional terms being used, then the region names can be included as separate articles. That's how Upper North Shore was included. There were businesses who described themselves as located in the Upper North Shore, the local newspaper had many references and the local councils also used the term on their website. So we should scrutinise any other 'new' regions in the same way. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the comments on Tourombah's talk page by JRG [1] and also what has already been discussed by many others on the subject od Sydney regions over the past two years.[2] Cheers. J Bar (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lane Cove National Park, Parks, Infoboxes, Hectares

Replying to User talk:Bleakcomb#Lane Cove National Park, Parks, Infoboxes, Hectares

Projects giving love and attention to Australian esp. NSW National Parks, I'm not sure but you might try some of these.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Parks and gardens
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne/Parks and gardens
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales

No I hadn't seen {{Geobox/type/nature}} but what you've got in your sandpit looks good. I don't mind if you replace the infobox with the geobox. I don't believe that there is any Wikiconvention you'd be breaking, in fact I get the feeling that the geoboxes are meant to be replacing the infoboxes (... I s'pose geoboxes are infoboxes but you know what I mean). I could be mistaken best to check the templates' talk pages.

There is no mention of any depreciation hectares on the Manual of Style ... no mention of hectares at all. Nor does the MoS depreciate non-SI metric units in general nor should it since that would leave us with cubic decimetres instead of litres. Bobblewik did vanish abruptly. He's a good bloke, well-intentioned, but the crusade against hectares lacked the weight of consensus then and still does now (as I read it, anyhow). In fact, if it is the case, as you mention, that "most park administrators (NSWPWS, Victoria, SA, etc) list hectares and would be used as source for many articles", then their inclusion in the article would be the norm. This proposal might be of interest.

You'll notice that I included a few parameters not mentioned in the documentation of {{Infobox park}}. These are new parameters which I added to the template this morning they let you automatically convert between square metres & square feet, hectares & acres, and square kilometres & square miles. The parameters are {{{size_m2}}}, {{{size_ha}}}, {{{size_km2}}}, {{{size_sqft}}}, {{{size_acre}}} and {{{size_sqmi}}}). I really have to get around to updating the doc page. But it looks as if the geobox does autoconversions too. JЇѦρ 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of conversions

I've changed the accuracy of the conversions on New Mill, Cross in Hand back to two decimal places. As the imperial measurements are given to a inch, using 1 decimal place in not appropriate as that gives an accuracy of about 4 inches. Another reason is that the Dutch Molendatabase uses 2 decimal places for measurements quoted (see example) which will enable a direct comparison to be made between mills. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kings Canyon National Park

Don't you think the "History" section should be before "Geography" section in this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the other articles. Most of them mention the history first, so I have made the change. Cheers. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tidying convert template parameters

Hi Bleakcomb, yes the Pennsylvania state park acres are known at least to the ones place (single digit) in almost all cases. I had noticed the sig fig error on areas that were even hundreds or thousands, but had not caught it for even tens - thanks for catching my mistake. In most (but not all) cases the areas are given in the official park website (bottom of the Geobox, which also uses hectares). For those where the area is not given, we have print sources for the area. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on Pennsylvania State Parks and their units - I still need to work on the parks between R. B. Winter State Park and Upper Pine Bottom State Park (removing square kilometers, etc.). Would you rather do them yourself or should I work on them and you can catch my slipups? ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dincher did most of the work on the 120 Pennsylvania State Park articles. I helped and have just switched Upper Pine Bottom over. I will work backwards from there as I am able. I am not sure I knew the exact size of a Gigaliter before, but it works for me ;-) thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Palace Hotel On 1st St and Cook Ave. in New Mexico

Hi,Im new to this so please bear with me. I've seen your name on the discussion list and was wondering if you care to assist me in any way.Please understand that I take no offense if this is not possible.

I am looking for information on the Palace Hotel located in the Historical District in Raton. It is listed as number 23 and is located on the corner of 1st street and Cook ave. Between 1975-77. I was a teenager and live and worked there. I am now researching the building's history and appreciate anything you can provide.

Thank you in advance.

--Susanjxp (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wow! If only I knew that {{Census 2006 AUS}} existed! You have just made my life a whole lot easier. Thanks, И i m b u s a n i a talk 05:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Do you want me to go back a change all the articles I edited before? И i m b u s a n i a talk 05:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Convert template

There is no problem with the conversion template. The lower height limit for overflying Lasham Airfield is defined in UK AIP as 3,000ft above ground level. The metric height is not relevant to British pilots who all fly with altimeters calibrated in feet. I therefore put the metric height in parentheses, though it is debatable whether it should be there at all. JMcC (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did not look at your edits thoroughly. For some reason I thought you were blindly replacing feet with metres. I could have sworn that is what you did, but looking back at the history, I can now see you didn't. Sorry about the confusion. JMcC (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Redundant" unit conversion

I understand your concern with regard to "redundant" unit conversion, being that square miles are an imperial unit, as are acres. But it would appear to me that using a larger unit is easier to understand (example: 1,000,000 acres is 1562 sq mi; billions of miles translate better into AU). Is it not possible to have square miles AND hectares in the article? However, it also appears that editors far more knowledgeable and important than myself have decided otherwise. Moreover, I am obviously late to the discussion and will surrender at this point. My only suggestion is that perhaps there should be a User Preference for units -- though I'm sure that would take an act of God -- because I do not use metric units. Acres are almost meaningless to me and hectares are completely meaningless. Thanks.  :) Globe199 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

LGAs

Yep, I'm planning to do all of them - there is sort of a plan in place, I started them in March last year but for all sorts of reasons it stalled, and I recently brought it out of the deep freeze. No real point in starting a Wikiproject on it as I spent so much time collecting data for it back in 2008 that I have all the stuff here (historic populations, genealogies etc). As for the "Council" thing - in Queensland at least, one cannot live in a "council", one lives in a "shire", a "region", a "city" or a "town" (although no towns are presently identified due to the recent amalgamation of Dalby, Roma and Goondiwindi, but the Act leaves it open for a future LGA to be declared such). This is identified by section 18(2) of the Act and, once the 1993 Act lapses, section 8(4)(e) (note section 33 (1993) which I think you are referencing names the council itself and explicitly states this is *not* the name of the LGA). The Council purely relates to the elected body, and it's a common enough misconception (and sadly one that has rather pervaded Wiki's coverage of the topic). Careful inspection of all manner of formal documents reveals every last one of the Queensland ones is defined in such terms - although what is confusing is some are referred to as ___ Shire/City while all of the rest are referred to as Shire of/City of ____. During a trip to the archives in Victoria I discovered Redland City, Logan City and Gold Coast City had been gazetted that way, and of course all the regions have been (there are no "Region of...").

Same situation exists for Victorian LGAs where Surf Coast and a few others are ___ Shire whilst the rest are Shire of ___. New South Wales is a particularly odd case as their Act *specifically* allows the use of "Council" for amalgamated or new entities since 1993, but left existing ones that had already been gazetted alone. Tasmania I think may be in the same boat, although I haven't read their LG Act. South Australia specifically has "District Council of" as an area, and both the ABS and other formal literature make this entirely clear. Western Australia has possibly the cleanest and clearest nomenclature in Australia in terms of what the Act specifies and allows for, and it's been rigidly adhered to since 1961 there. Orderinchaos 13:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

From DGER

Thanks for the advice. The double dash instead of an en dash is a curious thing. When I first started editing my software automatically coverted the two dashs to an en dash. I started noticing (with my poor eyesight) that it is no longer happening. I will try to fix these up in the future.

Good eyes spotting the Black Bear error. I fixed it. 2 kg doesn't seem very big for a bear but 200 g is the correct conversion. I don't like the {convert} function because it doesn't always spell the units correctly. Usually I don't make a mistake with the conversions.

I am quite familar with the SI system, especially as practized in Canada. The correct abbreviation for mass is m not M. M is moment of force. Is that what you were referring to? M is only used for mass when doing "dimensional analysis".

Cheers DGERobertson (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding abbreviations for quantities, such as m for mass, P for power, p for linear momentum etc., these are part of the "metric" system although they may not be included in the BIPM. They are part of "metric practice". I found many of them in the "Canadian Metric Practice Guide". They are generally accepted internationally. Notice that these "quantity symbols" are supposed to be in italics, whereas the unit symbols are to be in "normal" font.

With regards the {convert} function, yes it is the American spellings that annoy. This is one reason I try to use abbreviations, that way the spellings are the same in the USA and the rest of the world. In the USA they spell centimetres, centimeters, and litres, liters.

I found an excellent reference for the symbols for quantities. It looks like I got angular (L) and linear momentum p) reversed. DGERobertson (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.iupac.org/publications/books/gbook/green_book_2ed.pdf

Re: Convert

That may be your opinion, but it may not be that of others. Do not delete comments of others unless it is blatant vandalism. If you have a problem with something that is said, leave a note on that editor's talk page expressing your concerns. I see another admin has reverted you again, so this should tell you something. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First thing first, don't ever apologise for being bold. That's a whole part of Wikipedia. You thought you were doing the right thing, so nothing wrong there. To be perfectly honest, I've never seen WP:TPG before, which on one hand is surprising since I've been here since 2004, though on the other I'm not surprised given the vast number of guidelines and essays that are floating around out there. Nor have I before encountered the {{inappropriate comment}} template, which is not surprising considering it's used on less than 50 pages. In the future, I would suggest moving the comments to the person's talk page along with a note explaining why you did so, though I would suggest not doing it in this case given that two folks have disagreed with the removal, and no one else has even commented about it. Seem reasonable? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

South West Tas

Hi there - http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=south+west+tasmania - not sure where you are looking there is a huge literature on the subject of the south west wilderness - and I remain very 50 50 on merging the articles - there are issues that could expand both articles considerably if the work is done. Also the definition of the area is very specific - see http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=391 SatuSuro 07:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just get the feeling that there are approximately 2 subjects and 3 articles at the moment. There is Southwest National Park, South West Wilderness and South West Tasmania. There is a lot of overlap of the content between Southwest National Park and South West Wilderness. I have concerns about articles on regions where the boundaries are poorly defined. They often are just tourism promotion synonyms for previously defined regions. The second link you give above is for the Tasmanian Wilderness at the Tas National Parks website, not the South West Wilderness. There may be a good definition of South West Wilderness, but it is not in the article as it stands.

Notability should be established in the lede. Currently it contains ephemeral peacockery and mention of tourism promotion for its notability. Not inspiring. My thought was it might be easier for the South West Tasmania article to talk about the wilderness qualities of the area, perhaps? Bleakcomb (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

After leaving that comment I have thought about it quite a bit - it could really end up in one article really if it was done well - this wasnt tourism - this was what the tasmanian wilderness society was based on before it current embroglilios - to make sure the south west got preserved - I would have no problem in any modification - there would be at least 10 to 15 articles as yet unwritten to do with the vast literature and issues that relate to the area- its features, and what and how all the process of reserving and getting the world heritage status - but as you point out the language and the lack of th refs sticks out horribly - the tasmanian project is horribly under numbered and I suspect that any improvement by you would be much appreciated SatuSuro 05:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Road distances

Hi Bleakcomb,

Did you have any reaction from Orderinchaos about your comment on using crow distances instead of road distances?

Greetings,

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.40.98 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rob,

Thanks for keeping in touch on this topic. No, Orderinchaos hasn't got back and I probably don't expect him to - he appears to be on a recent extended wikibreak. I feel quite strongly about the subject, though not sure that I want a protracted, fruitless argument with members of the Australian Place wikiproject. I make infrequent changes to Australian place articles in accordance with great circle distances rather than road distances. See recent changes to Bigga, New South Wales. I suspect Orderinchaos may watch my user page (and talk), so there might be a reversion of that change I just mentioned! I might get my arguments in order next week and try again on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places. Are you interested in helping? Bleakcomb (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Use of convert template

I did not revert blindly, I am accustomed to WP:MOSNUM. We have a project consensus (idk where to find it, this project is old) in which since convert templates do not model the conversions by the National Hurricane Center, which is official for that region (rounded to the nearest 5, and even then they might be off). So, you did the right thing because you followed WP rules, but project guidelines do overrule some WP rules. Darren23^Edits|Mail 00:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, the problem with the templates is that they have no way of taking into account the fact that the figures for maximum sustained winds and maximum estimated gusts are already rounded to the nearest multiple of five. As a result, when they apply the conversion, they treat it as an exact quantity, which a) gives the appearance of more precision than there actually is, and b) removes accuracy in the measurement. As such, they are not used for windspeed estimates; they may be used for windspeed measurements. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite correct, the template, when used incorrectly, may give misleading and needlessly precise conversions. I spend much of my editing time removing needless precision in unit conversions. The convert template has been modified in response to requests from a storm related project (I can't recall the exact one) to optionally round its output to the nearest 5. I used this option once in my original edit. It was still quickly reverted.

I can't see how a conversion can affect the accuracy of the original measurement. I think it is understood that a conversion of units is an approximation of the measured value and most knowing users of the convert template understand this and are careful not to imply needless precision. If an unknowing editor does use convert to give unnecessary precision, then modify the parameters to adjust the precision. If you don't know how to use the template properly, ASK! My main issue with the reversion of my edits was that among other changes I was correcting a rather glaring error in the text. In the editor's zeal to do away with the convert template, they restored the glaring error. Hence, I restate, please read others edits before reverting blindly. Thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not blidny revret it either. At this time, it is project policy not to use convert template, espically for the NHC AOR. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. This edit of yours which includes reversion of my edit also includes the glaring error 35 mph (55 mph). Titoxd, above, extols the lofty aims of accuracy and precision, can you explain how this was a useful edit? So, can you please assume some good faith when non-owners make edits to your articles. There is a responsibility incumbent upon editors to do an at least cursory check of their edits before committing them. It might give greater returns then worrying about whether the quite functional convert template is used or not. Thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

. . . for putting those conversion templates into the Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad article, which I created last week. My focus is on creating good, solid content with reliable sources, but I find the conversion templates a bit confusing. I appreciate editors like you who come along and improve what I was not able to do myself. Textorus (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected areas/NP's etc

If you havent been - thanks for your national park tweaking for WA - its always good to see such persistent fixes happening across a project - have a good christmas! SatuSuro 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SatuSuro. You have a good one too! Bleakcomb (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Miles Instead of Air Miles

In the WLOS article, I don't want to cause confusion, but in television, there is a difference between miles and air miles (that is an actual term and can be visualized). Broadcast signals do not travel the same distance as vehicles or people. From a point on Lookout Mountain, Tennessee to a point on Roosevelt Mountain at Rockwood, Tennessee is 70.19 miles by vehicle. In air miles, which is straight-line distance with no detours, it is exactly 62.46 miles (there is a microwave signal transmitting that direction as we speak, and the Federal Communications Commission uses air miles in its licensing terminology at the microwave station). When speaking of the distance between two fixed objects in radio-television transmission, if you can come up with a better term than air miles, it needs to be used in those descriptions.Csneed (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Csneed. Thanks for you comment. I think "air miles" is not a common expression, and has proved to be confusing. I had never heard it used before. I accept that it may have particular usage and meaning by the FCC. The issue has arisen because another otherwise well-meaning editor has interpreted "air miles" to mean "nautical miles" and added or modified {{convert}} templates to show nautical miles in a moderate batch of articles. Most of these changes, and I assume the changes to the couple(?) of articles related to TV broadcasters that you monitor, the "miles" in "air miles" are actually "statute miles" not "nautical". My edits were to change the nautical mile assumption to statute miles.

Personally, I believe that all long distances mentioned without qualification in articles should be the shortest distance, either straight line or great circle distance. "Miles" should not imply road distance unless I suppose you are talking about a road or a road journey. If the context is distance between two transmitters the assumption is a straight line, probably. If readers or editors actually report confusion then a footnote could clarify, if you want to avoid the overhead of a clarifying sentence or phrase in article text. If clarification in text was deemed necessary, something like "...the straight-line distance to tower X is 20 miles (32 km)." Another way of putting is to clarify the object being measured and then provide plain units for the measurement of that distance. But, I believe such clarification in this context shouldn't be necessary. My two cents. Bleakcomb (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's OK.. I just didn't want anyone to confuse what they would normally think as miles, versus what the FCC writes on a broadcast station license, since the facts are all that's important. The FCC uses "air miles" and also "line of sight" on license descriptions. The difference with actual miles might come up if somebody puts two and two together, but if they don't, that's fine. Your edits are usually good ones, and I didn't want this one to confuse anybody Csneed (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Air miles

I am the author of the article on William George Wilson. My original text stated Mr. Wilson had traveled more than two million air miles to film major sporting events (in the United States.) Subsequent editorial changes, by well-meaning (I have to assume) persons have changed the accuracy of the original facts. One editor changed the distance to nautical miles and Bleakcomb has changed it in such a way that it no longer reflects the miles traveled were by air. By the way, in American English air miles do not denote travel over Great Circle routes. They merely indicate the travel was via aircraft. Trust me on this. I am a former naval aviator and presently work as a crew-member for a major airline.

Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.140.254 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob. A couple of corrections and clarifications. I (Bleakcomb) changed the text and the dependent unit conversion from nautical miles to miles (statute), that's all. Another editor (not me) had previously and unhelpfully changed the text from air miles to nautical miles being confused by the expression "air miles". This other editor had made many semi-automated changes to articles changing "air miles" to mean nautical miles. My reference to great circle distances in my edit summary was a generic comment related to the many unhelpful edits that I corrected or reverted, not just William George Wilson. If that caused confusion, I apologise. Edit summaries are not part of the article text and anything said in summaries doesn't change the meaning of the article text.

Just on the subject of "air miles" - there appeared to be a range of confusion over the meaning of the phrase in articles. It is not as clear as you suggest. The most common interpretation was in fact "great circle or straight-line distance in statute miles". Another was "straight-line distance in statute miles", uncommonly, "nautical miles", together with the meaning in William George Wilson of "distance covered while flying". You might want to consider in the William George Wilson article to say "Wilson criss-crossed the nation, flying more than 2,000,000 miles, filming major sporting events including...", if that captures the desired meaning.

Also if you are user:W3BIG, try to remember to login before make edits anywhere on Wikipedia. It makes it easier to respond to. Also sign your talk page entries with ~~~~. Also leave meaningful edit summaries, it makes it easier to track what is going on. Hope that clears some things up. Bleakcomb (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Potaski article

Hi, I have re-edited the Joseph Potaski article, and was wondering if you had any further advice about it? Thanks. 143.238.0.177 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

American vs. British spelling

Please do not change the spelling of articles from American English to British English, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, as you for instance did here. For instance, NSB El 18 is written in American English, and uses term such as "center". By removing the |sp=us you are removing the internal spelling consistency in the article and also removing the existing variety, both with are core parts of the Manual of Style. Thanks for your understanding, Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing 'Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton'. It was a range and the format permutations of ranges makes them a bit of a nightmare compared with non-range instances of 'digits+unitname. I didn't spot that one for a few days and you'd already sorted it. Thanks for picking it up! Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox distances

I can't find a link but I am confident that a discussion was held many years ago about whether the distances used in {{Infobox Australian place}} should be by road or "as the crow flies" and it was decided that by road - where possible - was to be preferred. I am not sure that the "great circle" distance is any more useful than the distance by road and I think it has the potential to mislead. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Matt. Yeah, I know there was a discussion, if you call it that. My recollection was a fairly shrill attack on an editor, where none of my arguments were considered or discussed. I don't think consensus comes from such exchanges where points of view are not discussed in good faith. Your experience with discussing the correctness of renaming placename articles to remove unnecessary disambiguation seemed familiar, in parts. I could restate all my points of view again but I'll start with what I see as misleading in the infobox. Putting road distances under the subheading Location is misleading. Location should contain basic geolocation information ie great circle distances to give context to the map image that is either directly above the distances in the infobox or accessed via the coords template globe in the infobox or in the title bar. If the distances are to be road distances, the subheading should say exactly that. The current deception is misleading. I maintain that road distance information without any context is travel guide information and its inclusion in place articles and in particular, place article infoboxes is contrary to WP:TRAVELGUIDE. Where a place is doesn't mean how far it is from another place by road. Location ≠ Distance by road. If there were a suggestion to rename the heading to Road Distance I would vigorously contest that based on the not travelguide policy. In summary:

• Place name articles should first geolocate the subject. Giving coords and map links contributes. Some great circle distances gives context to map images close by and aid forming a mental image of where the place is.
• Road distance information without context is travel guide info and has no place in a wikipedia article. Please forgive my cynicism, but perhaps we should should include accommodation and restaurants in the infobox as well?
• There was a argument put forward by Orderinchaos, if I recall, that many Australian places suffer a tyranny of distance and therefore road distances must be the only distances shown. (Having just keyed that in, it makes less sense than I was going to give it credit for.) I was going to say that where there is very indirect road access causing significant disparity between road and great circle distance, this is on-topic for the place article, but there would need to be sources to say that the place has suffered the tyranny. Even so, we shouldn't give the road distance info without first giving basic geolocation info. I think most people get that roads are usually less direct than the great circle between two places. I can't see how many inner ring capital city suburbs have suffered the tyranny of distance and hence wonder why we must give road distances from the CBD (normally) in their articles.
• Great circle distances are simple, basic geolocation info that is easily referred to a reliable source (Geoscience Australia) in almost all cases. How many times have I corrected unreferenced, absolute crap distance information in place infoboxes. If you are going to get in wrong, do so by at least 20%, appears to be the maxim. I have seen some guesses almost twice an actual distance by road, let alone the great circle. We can do better.
• To be understood, the route taken for the measured road distance should be given. For stubs and shorter articles, this is too much detail. Again we should be focussing on the basics first when building Australian place articles. Again, a route description is travelguide info.
• There is an almost incessant focus on roads and driving in Aus place articles that smacks of a parochial cultural bias. Most readers aren't going to drive any of the road distances given in these articles. The information is given for the self interest of Australian contributors without much consideration for the information needs of readers worldwide, including those those don't have a car and or don't drive and would have difficulty contextualising Driving distances. I despair two sentence stubs that include '... is located on the Black Stump Highway.' and very little else; no history, no other geography.
• I believe the focus on road route distances comes from the novelty, 'gee whizz' factor that has followed from the availability of road route distance information on websites such as whereis and Google maps. It's fun, cool and clever so lets stick it in all the WP place articles, rather than basics first.

I have usually edited Aus place articles to include great circle distances both before and after the 'discussion' we both alluded to. Usually with references, mind. It has been a long time since I have had my edits queried or reverted. I also take that as a significant indication of consensus. I would be lying if I said I would be happy to take the discussion to another forum if it becomes another uncivil exchange. I'll have to think about that one. Here endeth the sermon. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mildly disagree with most your points above and I think your dismissal of the use of road distances as "travel guide info", "novelty" and "gee whiz" is a touch glib, perhaps. Straight line or great circle distances appear to me to be exercises in geometry than meaningful (to humans at least) indicators of proximity, especially when a map is one click away. "Road distance information without context is travel guide info" is not the whole story, it is more than that - two places close by as the crow flies can be a fair distance apart by road and this is often an indication of "social" distance (for lack of a better term). The use of road distances are not added (at least by me and I reckon I have added a fair amount of these) as travel guide info but an attempt to provide more information about the locality's distance from regional and state social and economic hubs. Anyway, having reflected on this for a few days, while I mildly disagree with your approach I won't revert any changes you make to the infobox in the future - I am not really excited about the prospect of huge discussion either. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't and won't make widespread campaign style changes. I generally only do it when there are glaring discrepancies. And I undertake to make such changes obvious (I think I already do). Not wanting to harp on too much, but I am not sure you understand what I have tried to say above. You say ""Road distance information without context is travel guide info" is not the whole story, it is more than that", and then continue to describe the contextual information that I am talking about. I think we are saying similar things here. If we have a reason to talk about road distances (ie a context) let's talk about 'em. If there really isn't a good reason to use the road distance, it is just travel guide info and its inclusion in articles should take a low priority. But please lets flesh out "social distance". It is a noteworthy concept and if the road distance is much more than great circle, that is noteworthy too and it should be discussed in the text with sources. But this is not always the case (I would even say not often the case) and so, I don't think it should be the standard for the infobox. I gathered from things that were on your user page that you are not from a metropolitan area. I have spent a not insignificant part of my life in a regional town and know what it is like to be driven 50 km on a Saturday morning to play in a junior cricket match. I do sincerely get the "social distance" thing. Though, I think we are overloading a section in the infobox marked "location" to convey the "social distance" concept to others. You get it; I get it; but is it being a bit coy for most readers. "Location" means "summary of oppressive social distance"; a long bow to draw. Again, if there is meaning to be conveyed and it's noteworthy, let have it explicitly in the text. Also if someplace is isolated what is the point of mandating road distances over great circle. Is it because road distance will be a bit longer and will exaggerte or overstate that claim? If the hamlet of Black Stump really is isolated usually the great circle distance will demonstrate that adequately.

• "great circle distances appear to me to be exercises in geometry ". True. Absolutely true. But road route distances are even more so. All geodetic software (GPS in all forms; in-car navigators, Google Maps, Google Earth, Travelmate, whatever) use great circle distance calculations to determine distance between coordinates on an estimated model of the earth's surface. "Cocky Flies" at GA uses only two points. Route mapping software use multiple points and then sum the distances. Bear in mind that they may use hundreds or thousands or even millions of points and the great circle distances between them to arrive at the road distance. Quite an exquisitely complex exercise in "geometry". I believe we need a good reason to mandate that we use the more complex information before the simpler. If there is the context, let's have it in the text, but let's keep the infoboxes simple and straightforward.
• An aside. I was listening to a radio program last night and a caller was trying to explain to the announcer and listeners from where he was calling. "I'm in Woolomin.". "Where's that?" "Thirty k's southeast of Tamworth". I had a small chuckle. Great circle distance between Woolomin and Tamworth: 31.8 km. Road distance 36.0 km. If people want to quickly communicate location to enable others to have a useful mental image (or understanding), they do actually use simple great circle distances. I think this has great relevance to the purpose of an infobox and what we should put in them in place articles to achieve those purposes. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

Hi, I got your name from this list, and thought you might be interested in a meetup in Sydney at the Alexandria Hotel tomorrow. I hope you can join us. Sorry for the late notice. --99of9 (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Cahokia

Hello, Bleakcomb. You have new messages at Talk:Cahokia#Clarify units.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heiro 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lismore NSW

Hi,

On the notable people section you removed an addition, reference to the singer and song writer Candice Casagrande. The singer is well known in many areas, especially in christian music. It is also worth noting that the Casagrande family are historically important in Lismore, especially with regaqrd to italian settlers there. I do not understand why the inclusion of this person was reverted. Could you elaborate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lismore,_New_South_Wales

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.29.24 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC) oops... posted without signing in... Yendor of yinn (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yendor, I removed the entry because the section, as in most place articles on Wikipedia, is for notable people associated with the place that the article is about. The normal method for demonstrating notability of associated people is by linking to the Wikipedia article for that person. There will be exceptions whereby notability is established by other means. Ms Casagrande doesn't have an article of her own and there weren't adequate sources cited to demonstrate notability. Looking at the notability guidelines for musicians and doing a search on her name doesn't seem to generate enough to meet the guidelines and thus an article about her would appear unsustainable. If there is something I am missing let me know, but the normal course would be to look at the notability guidelines and work towards creating an article for her. Notability is not inherited; if the family is notable let's have an article on them. Individual members need to be notable in their own right. Bleakcomb (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Olive Fitzhardinge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatsworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Olive Fitzhardinge

Hi, Bleakcomb. I'm wondering about your current take on Olive Fitzhardinge. Erictimewell (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

removeal of Historic video from Colac twon stub

what is wrong with the video link? I don't know how to add something the rare or of historical importance to the wiki page. I manged to track down the person whom converted the video, and considering the condition it was in and the work involved to "clean it up" so to speak, the video is of great quality not low as you specified. I didn't even know that something like this existed and I as trying to make people aware of the video. If someone chooses to purchase the video for themselves, that is their choice, not yours. I personally don't see any problems with the link or the video content. I personally think the video should be freely available but it is protected under copyright laws, which both you and I cant do anything about. If you have any creative helpful suggestions on how I should proceed with this rare historic video, please let me know, otherwise I'll undo your actions. thanks Fred