Jump to content

User talk:Rangasyd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaxBrowne (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 2 May 2018 (→‎Never use a preposition to end a sentence with: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Stop immediately

Surname lists are not dab pages. Why the hell are you making mass edits without knowing that? —Xezbeth (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:DABNAME before editing any other name articles. In addition, human name disambiguations do not need the standard dab template, so I've reverted those too. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xezbeth. Thanks for that. I was doing a cleanup of a long list of names from New Pages Feed and was not aware of the distinction between human name disambiguations and the standard dab template. Thanks for alerting me to my oversight. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Rangasyd, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Post-nom fomatting

Hi Rangasyd! Please have have a look at MOS:POSTNOM as some of your recent edits to post-nomnials have been going against the usually standard. For example, when small post-noms are used (which is when there are 3/4+ post-noms) then commas aren't used. On the other hand, if there are few post-noms, you can have them at 100% and separated by commas. It is also the case that in infoboxes the size is set to 100% (due to accessibility issues with the default small size combining with the built in small size of the honorific-prefix/suffix parameters) and commas are not used. You may have been getting your guidance from Template:Post-nominals, which didn't actually reflect MOS, so I have updated it. I hope this is clear but I've happy to go over it again if its not. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Thanks. Got it now. :-) 09:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. One more issue though: the tiles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are a special case, as per MOS:HONOURIFIC. Some of your changes to Anthony Buzzard, 2nd Baronet where therefore incorrect: the article should be returned to Sir Anthony Buzzard, 2nd Baronet, "sir" is bolded with the rest of the name, and "sir" included in the name parameter of the infobox rather than the pre-nominals parameter. The tiles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are treated as if they are part of the persons name. I hope you don't mind me pointing you in the right direction, I'd rather do it this way than revert your edits and possibly have an argument via edit summaries. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realised that just after I did the move. Doh! It needs to be moved back and I don't have permission to do so. Thanks again. 14:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries, if you've got any questions I'm happy to help. It's let me move the page, its now back to how it was. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Financial Ombudsman Service (Australia) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Financial Ombudsman Service (Australia). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Mary O'Kane

I have removed content you added to the above article back in 2016. You stated that the source web page is released under a CC-by-SA 3.0 license, but it's not; it's actually released under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which is not a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa 🍁. Thanks for the correction and pick up. Gratefully appreciated. Rangasyd (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: St Mark's Church, Darling Point has been accepted

St Mark's Church, Darling Point, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales State Heritage Register - starting to work on an article generator

@The Drover's Wife: I've had to clear a backlog of other things I promised to do for various people, but I started work yesterday on generating articles from the NSW State Heritage Register by web-scraping. I started with the program I used for the Queensland Heritage Register and am progressively adapting it to the vagaries NSW SHR. As with so many things, all states of Australia appear to find it necessary to adopt delightfully different ways to do more-or-less the same thing, sigh! I picked a random heritage site, the Denison Bridge, to use as my initial test bunny. You can see the NSWHR entry for it here and my Wikipedia version of it in my sandbox. As it happens, there is already an article on that topic on Wikipedia called Denison Bridge, so this generated article will never "go live". Now there is a lot still NOT done on this generated article. At the moment, it is wikifying (adding wikilinks) using my Qld wikifier and my architectural elements wikifier. That is why you are not seeing many wikilinks and some of the ones you are seeing are wrong (e.g. George Street links to the one in Brisbane not the one in Sydney). You are seeing some architectural elements correctly wikilinking but even there we do have different architectural styles between the two states and hence there may need to be further development on the wikifier for architectural elements. I haven't yet included the significance statments by criteria but I do have the narrative preamble in place but it needs the last few sentences trimmed (Qld does not have a narrative preamble for significance). The template for NSW SHR citations isn't written yet but will be more-or-less identical with the Qld one -- the NSW SHR uses 2 identifiers (like the pre-2015 QHR did), one for the official registration number (which is just window dressing for our purposes) and one for the database entry number (which is used to construct the URL to the relevant webpage). I also need to construct the CC attribution template but again it will be similar to the Qld one but I will probably parameterise with the 2 numbers (which provides us with some future-proofing against database changes in the NSW SHR).

I am getting to the point of needing "many eyes" to compare what's on the NSW SHR website with what I am generating. Is there important information I am failing to include? Am I picking up rubbish that I could easily exclude/fix (if you read the first sentence of the lede, you see a good example of "garbage in, garbage out" which isn't something I can probably do too much about)? Since when has a bridge been a festival activity?! So I would appreciate any comments you have about this -- might be easier via email (as you can more easily include any screenshots to point out things) - I think you both have my email address (if not, ask).

I am not sure what to do about the citations as the NSW SHR uses parentheses for them (Barker, 1995, 34) but also uses parentheses for other purposes (1900-1920). The QHR mostly used [] for citations which made my life easier. As always with a generated article, a human has to go through and tidy up the things the generator could not figure out. In this case, no machine is likely to figure out what the obvious citation (HO and DUAP, 1996, 88) refers to -- there's nothing in their table of references that matches and indeed, even as a human, I have no idea what this might be refering to.

In this example, there are subheadings present in the History section. Now my generator is actually smart enough to guess these - it warns me when it executes when it sees very short paragraphs as these are often sub-headings. In this case, it said: 

Warning: short para Aboriginal people and colonisation.
Warning: short para Bathurst:
Warning: short para Bridging the Macquarie River:
Warning: short para HISTORICAL NOTES ON KEY INDIVIDUALS

but missed what appears to be a subheading about "The Russell brothers and P. N. Russell and Co: " because it is presented as a run-in heading (these are almost impossible to distinguish from normal sentences). My experience is the generator is more likely to be right than wrong about sub-headings, so I might change the generator to emit the suspected subheadings. The human user can always restore them to normal paragraphs if it's the wrong call.

I have not worked out what to do about the images. I did them manually for the QHR using the Upload Wizard on Commons. There may be a better way but I don't know it. Anyhow, that's where I am at. Feedback welcome, indeed wanted. Note the version in the Sandbox may change as I go along so it may not reflect exactly what I write above. Kerry (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond and The Drover's Wife: Firstly, WOW! A huge thank you for putting in the time and effort on how to start this mammoth task. I started doing manual entries but realised that it was beyond the scope of possibility to achieve in a realistic timeframe. Secondly, I hear you about vagaries of each state register. The NSW SHR website repeats a lot of information and some information that is valuable is not included in the places where you would expect it. Thirdly, you chose a great subject to start with. I have walked, run, cycled and driven across the Denison and even swam under it when I was a lad. I knew Theo Barker (cited author) who was, prior to his passing, a local historian. I'm not sure that I have your email address. Although, I'm happy to exchange to facilitate productive discussion. HO = Heritage Office. DUAP = Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (now, Planning NSW). The template for NSW SHR is at {{cite NSW SHR}}; unless you're thinking of creating an {{infobox NSW SHR}}. Oh, a personal preference, I do prefer use of the relief map as much as possible. Rangasyd (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kerry Raymond: oh wow, this is fantastic! Looking at the SHR article and your sandbox, it'd be good to have the condition information somewhere (though I figure probably hard to do with a bot if there's no infobox field). We might have to take the citations on a case-by-case basis: include the footnotes if we can work out what they mean (I was about to have a crack at tracking that one down and Rangasyd beat me to the punch) but if not just cite the SHR directly as is the case in many of the QHR ones IIRC. It seems like the SHR ones might need a bit more manual editing than the QHR did but that's manageable. Everything else looks good (apart from the obvious things you've highlighted). I very much look forward to seeing this get rolled out! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me at the existing template, Rangasyd. So long as the infobox supports the relief map option (I have not checked), it is no problem to generate it. Yes, it is unrealistic to write all the NSW HR articles manually. I also started doing it manually for the QHR and realised I probably wouldn't get the job finished in a lifetime unless I found a better way to do it. While I should be able to get the generated articles a bit better than what you see so far (I have already implemented a couple of the items I previously mentioned e.g. detection of probable sub-headings, and I am actively working on the NSW Wikifier at the moment. TDW, there are lots of fields in the infobox that I didn't use in the QHR articles plus a few you can redefine to suit yourself. So things like the condition may be possible to include there (so long as they are short). Otherwise the condition can go into the body of the article in some suitable place (perhaps with a subheading). I guess my immediate question are what other information to include form the NSW HR web site. Just looking at Denison Bridge, I see the alternate addresses, owner, physical condition, modifications, themes, other heritage listings, which might be candidates for inclusion. I don't think the procedure/exemptions are worth including. Plus, there is the mysterious "further information" which might be worth including but not knowing exactly what one might find in such a field makes it hard to know where to put it in the final article. My immediate goal is to get Denison Bridge to the best we think we can do it to, and then I'll start generating other articles from the NSW HR (which may have different kinds/volumes of information which may make us re-think some decisions we already took). As a general principle, if I can put information from the NSW HR into the generated article, I probably should (it's easier for the human to delete something that isn't interesting than it is to include it). So I think I'd only exclude stuff that it's hard to imagine as ever being relevant to a Wikipedia article (like the procedures/exemptions). In the same vein, I can't see what I might usefully do with the "Type" field of the References. At the moment, I am generating cite-web templates if there is a URL present, or cite-book if there isn't. I have no idea what I would do with "tourism" vs "written" type. I am guessing that the NSW HR means "written" to be "reliable source" and "tourism" to mean "puffery" in Wikipedia-speak, but whether that's a basis for inclusion, I dunno. Kerry (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Kerry, the {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox bridge}}, {{Infobox dam}}, etc., supports relief maps and generally I've been using the NSW map for non-greater Sydney locations and the greater Sydney map for locations that fall within that map's scope. I use the parameter |map_type=Australia New South Wales; |map_relief=yes; etc. Please refer to Denison Bridge as an example; or Sydney Opera House as a variant where options exist to select map location in Sydney, in NSW, and in Australia. Also, I'm not too sure what you did with the QHR coords, yet is there an Australian MOS preference for decimal over dms coordinates? I'm an old skool person myself, so I prefer dms; but, if not already in place, we should gain consensus on which is used for all Australian geographic features. It's a bit hard to assess the "tourism" source, as the links are dead and my search of Bathurst Regional Council website yielded no tangible results for 'Denison'. The written sources appear, on face value, to be reliable. Rangasyd (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relief map - done. Most of the weekend was spent on the NSW wikifier. The article in User:Kerry Raymond/sandbox is now using the NSW wikifier (instead of the Qld one) and the architectural elements wikifier (as before). It is doing an OK job at wikifying the article but there are a couple of errors, the link to John Russell is to an artist rather than to an engineer as you might expect (because there is no article for the mentioned engineer) and a mention of Berry Park is linking to the town Berry. Wikifying is an imperfect task. It is looking at stream of words comparing them against a set of article titles (or aliases for them) and trying to see what it can link. It works with "words"; it does not understand their meanings. Mostly the wikifier is working with proper names (of places, of people, of organisations). The "Berry" example is a typical example of what can go wrong, single words tend to get more wikilinking errors. The wikifier is case-sensitive so, it would not have wikilinked "They ate a berry pie" but it would cheerfully wikilink "Berry pies are served in the cafe" to the town of Berry article. There about about 45,000 articles in the NSW wikifier (but probably it won't link to most of them ever). As I say, the wikifier will always be inherently imperfect, *but* we can improve its performance by altering its rules. As I have it set up, it will wikilink to any exact article title match OR an alias. The current set of aliases are sort-of machine/hand generated. Any article disambiguated with ", New South Wales" or "(New South Wales)" can be matched against its undisambiguated name, e.g. "Berry, New South Wales" will link to that town as will plain "Berry". We can add articles and/or aliases to the wikifiers list (which was initially constructed from the set of all articles directly or indirectly in the Category New South Wales). This will cause it to wikilink more things (rightly or wrongly). If it is constantly adding a wikilink we don't want, we can take away the article or alias to stop that behaviour (e.g. we could remove Berry as an alias for that town). I had to stop "Howard" as an alias for the town of Howardin Queensland, because it seemed that almost every QHR article mentioned a man called Howard Something which was wrongly linked to the town. It was less work for me to add the wiklink manually when the word Howard really refers to the town than to remove it most of the time. So, as we progress with rolling out the NSW SHR articles, we can modify the wikifier if it seems to be frequently not linking something it should or frequently linking something it shouldn't. If problems occurs onlyoccasionally, we fix it by hand in the individual articles. The aim is to get the wikifier good enough to minimise human work of fixing it when it gets it wrong. I'll now try to add in some other material found in the NSW SHR entry, e.g. condition. Kerry (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still chugging away with the generator (Easter, Commonwealth Games, and other things having delayed things a bit). As we speak, I am making the first attempt to generate an article for the approx 2000 NSW State Heritage Register entries; the generator is up to SHRNo 1908 as I write this. Now this is not saying the job is done, but (fingers crossed) it will be the first time the generator has been able to generate all the articles without hitting a fatal error (previous attempts found plenty of fatal errors, caused either by a bug in my code or my inadequate grasp of just how bizarre some of the contents of the NSW SHR entries actually is!). There are still some sections in the NSW SHR entries that I am not including into the article, but I think they should not be too difficult (famous last words). The harder problems remain the citations in the entries and the photos. I think I may be able to make some progress with the citations (at least for ones that use the common formats). Photos are likely to remain in the "too hard basket" (not all of them are covered by the CC-BY licensing due to being taken by 3rd parties). Kerry (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, one thing that has become apparent to me is that there seems to be some confusion between the New South Wales State Heritage Register (about 2000 sites) and the NSW heritage database which contains many thousands of entries including the State Heritage Register sites but also including many others, some of which are local government entries (or other organisations) and some of which appear to be heritage application/assessments since the entry does not list any heritage listing by any organisation. Glover cottages is an example of the problem. It is a City of Sydney local government heritage listing and not a State Heritage Register listing, but the infobox refers to the designation of New South Wales Heritage Register (which isn't well-defined), there is a citation using Template:Cite NSW SHR whose name and some (but not all) of the documentation suggests it is for State Heritage Register sites, and a Category:Houses listed on the New South Wales State Heritage Register (which is quite definitely incorrect). I think we need to unscramble this omelette. What I think we need to do is to rename the existing template to be something like Template:Cite NSW HD which enables us to cite anything in the NSW Heritage Database and does not imply any heritage listing (so slightly alter what the template emits and the documentation). Then create a new Template:Cite NSW SHR which is only used for State Heritage Register sites and includes the State Heritage Register number as a field (in addition to the the Heritage Database number). This template could include as part of it to automatically apply the category. I think we need to go back to the designation registration and replace the ill-defined New South Wales Heritage Register with the precise New South Wales State Heritage Register so the infobox box designation is precise. I suspect the reason that this confusion came about is because the NSW designation and template is copying from the Queensland equivalents. But in Queensland, the Qld Govt's heritage database only records state heritage listings. The local governments etc record their local heritage in various ways, but not in the state heritage database. Thus there is no need to distinguish between the Qld Heritage Register (and no need for the term Queensland State Heritage Register) and the Qld Heritage Database as the state database only contains the state register. This is not the case in NSW. So, I think we need to sort this out, as I need to know precisely what designation, what template and what category I generate for NSW State Heritage Register entries. At some later time, we could go back and created designations/templates/categories for the various NSW LGAs (and any other heritage registers) and tidy up the articles like Glover's Cottage that whose heritage register status is a bit misleading with the current template, but none of that affect my article generation so it's not on the critical path for me for generating NSW SHR articles. Kerry (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Royal Naval College, Osborne

On 29 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Royal Naval College, Osborne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the spymaster and cricketer J. C. Masterman trained at the Royal Naval College, Osborne? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Naval College, Osborne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Royal Naval College, Osborne), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Rangasyd, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Loch McGurk

FYI. Ron Mecich found guilty! Updated here. 220 of Borg 07:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@220 of Borg: Thanks. Just some minor tweaks to lede and close. It's taken forever. Can't see why the first jury did not succeed! Should Ron Medich now get his own article, given links here and also at Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald? Rangasyd (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis done @ Ron Medich. Rangasyd (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! But, it has already been 'vandalised'! See here
Maybe Michael Loch McGurk should now be moved to Murder of Michael McGurk? How notable was he 'outside' his murder? 220 of Borg 07:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re McGurk. He was not notable before, unlike Donald McKay, John Newman (politician), etc. I will get to it later. His infobox should then be "event" and not "person". Rangasyd (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion to take place at Talk:Murder of Michael McGurk.

late night editing

I have looked close at the diffs - I didnt see the edit actually removed anything... JarrahTree 15:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but hey - I have looked at diffs sometimes and they have tricks... JarrahTree 15:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bed time for me. Thanks. Zzzzzzz. Rangasyd (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
safely - there's a jungle out there JarrahTree 15:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never use a preposition to end a sentence with

Re this edit summary, there is absolutely no such rule in English. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rangasyd&oldid=839225983"