Talk:Vacy, New South Wales

Vacy Carnival - citations needed

We have ... 'Each autumn, Vacy holds a village carnival which is famous for its Jack Russell races. The village carnival also showcases local produce and talent and is a major social event for Vacy.' ... I have reinstated and redated these statements requiring citations - would by far to be better to get the sources rather than just delete important information which is verifiable. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's verifiable then citations should be added. The content has been challenged since 2009, that's almost 3 years which is more than enough time and is why it was removed.[1] Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that inline citations be provided for any content that is challenged or likely to be challenged and warns that any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed. Restoring it and changing the date on the {{citation needed}} tags is inappropriate.[2] It's essentially adding false information by misleading readers into believing that it has only been challenged since September 2012 when in fact it has been challenged for much, much longer than that. If you can add citations then restore the content when you add the citations, but don't do so until then. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be a useful thing not to lose information. Do the sensible thing: if you remove info, remove it to the talk page for future reference - now that isnt too hard, is it, unless you are lazy. This way the article has the prospect of being developed and not diminished. So, I suggest you do not be so heavy-handed, cut-throat and insensitive in the way you go about your editing process. Have some respect for others and their efforts; and remember, WP is not about you, your cleverness or your skills. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If there had been a substantial amount of content then moving it to the talk page might have been appropriate but we're talking about 32 words in an article with a very short edit history and with very few editors, so it's not worth moving it to the talk page. I tagged the claims in December 2009 and then waited nearly 3 years before removing the claims. If they had been worth retaining then somebody would have cited it in one of the 22 subsequent edits. The "is famous for its Jack Russell races" claim is clearly untrue and a search of the local newspaper fails to support the claim that these races are "a major social event for Vacy". I found one entry for 25 March 2009 and another listing for tomorrow - 2 events in all that time. It's content not worth keeping. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It may be your perspective as someone who resides in Raymond Terrace, but other people live in Vacy and it is important to them and those in the surrounding region and Hunter Valley, and so is worth keeping. Lesson 1: Wiki content does not revolve around your personal experience or set of rules - I thought that would be obvious to you.

Furthermore, if OR is a reason not to include info in an article or talk page, then your OR is clearly not a reason to exclude it either. Lesson 2: See lesson 1.

Also, can you please direct me to some WP: reference that details how many words constitute an acceptable edit? Also, can you please justify why a certain number of words is or is not worth moving to the talk page? Your requirement of a word count is clearly a special pleading and should be rejected accordingly. Significantly, it is self evident to thinking people that encyclopaedic content is primarily about the meaning embeded in the content, and meaning should not be suppressed by word limitations. Lesson 3: See lesson 2.

And again, are you seriously suggesting that your OR into the validity of "is famous for its Jack Russell races" based on 'a search of the local newspaper' absolutely establishes the value, validity or truthfulness of a claim, as you suggest? Is it possible there are other sources of which you are not aware may support such a claim. Just to show how ridiculously narrow-minded your view is here, consider Australia's ABC OPEN online events listing [3] 'ABC Open will be at the fair from 10am until 3pm, a super day out in the beautiful village of Vacy, featuring the famous Jack Russell Races, as well as stalls, demonstrations, food and drinks' (emphasis mine). So, who is to be believed here - AussieLegend or a national media organisation in the ABC? Lesson 4a: See lesson 3. Lesson 4b: You do not possess all knowledge nor are you able to access it - the knowledge is bigger than you and your limitations, but it is there. Lesson 4c: Just because something isnt in a local newspaper doesnt mean that true/reliable information is not avaliable to those who take the effort to look past the end of their nose.

AussieLegend, again, Wiki is not about you or you special pleadings/set of rules that you chose to impose to justify your editorial bias and actions, nor about your OR. It is precisely your response above that really pisses people off because it is so provincial, parochial and self-serving. May I suggest you get with the big picture of Wiki and loosen up by getting past your own POV, if that is possible.

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What does OR have to do with anything that has been said? The simple fact is that in attempting to verify the claims made about the races, I could find none that supported the claims that the carnival was famous for them, or that it was a major social event. It may well be a major social event for the 547 residents of Vacy, some of whom may think that it is famous, but neither of those claims are verifiable.

"your OR into the validity of "is famous for its Jack Russell races" based on 'a search of the local newspaper'" - Ahh, I see where you got confused. Attempting to verify unverified claims prior to removing them in accordance with WP:V is not WP:OR. My search was not limited to the local newspaper. I tried a number of sources and there were very few references to them. In the local paper, where you'd think there would be significant coverage, I could only find two references in a period of 3.5 years. That indicates they're not as famous as was claimed. Had they been even locally famous, there would have been more coverage.

"can you please direct me to some WP: reference that details how many words constitute an acceptable edit? Also, can you please justify why a certain number of words is or is not worth moving to the talk page?" - You've clearly missed my point, which was that in a very small article with only a short edit history, moving unverifiable claims that nobody has attempted to cite in 3 years is a pointless effort, as is (to this point) wasting 1,136 words on discussing this. The content was unverified after being challenged for nearly 3 years and was removed after being found to be unverifiable, which is supported by WP:V. If you want it back in the article, cite it appropriately or move on. Don't attempt to mislead our readers, and other editors, by changing the challenge date.

"Just to show how ridiculously narrow-minded your view is here, consider Australia's ABC OPEN online events listing" - That source does not verify that the "Vacy Village Country Carnival" is famous for the Jack Russell races, only that it includes the Jack Russell races this year. Nor does it confirm that it's a major social event, only that it's an event that the ABC has chosen to attend. To its credit, the ABC attends a lot of functions but not all are famous. Calling the Jack Russell races famous, almost as an afterthought, in the final sentence does not justify claiming that the fair is famous for them, or that they are actually famous. This source doesn't mention them, which it surely would if the claim was true. This year's entry does mention the races, but doesn't say the fair is famous for them. It mentions Dachshunds as well. Maybe the fair is famous for those too? The point is, the claims aren't verifiable. The carnival's facebook page doesn't support the claim either. Neither does this. Citations need to directly support claims, WP:SYNTH is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning to AussieLegend

AussieLegend, what is the point of this nonsense from you? ... 'and Gareth Johnson who is the man known for the strongest Pommy accent in Australia, and the longest toilet sit in the world.' This is not in the spirit of wikipedia and is totally unconstructive. I believe you can do better. I know you can do better. Please stop such wanton vandalism - it would be a shame to have to report your behaviour. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there. When I removed the content in the above section, that content was somehow restored. Apparently this is a firefox bug that doesn't seem to have been fixed.[4] As you can see, I removed content that had been unsourced for 3 years but somehow the diff immediately prior to mine was ignored of I edited the version prior to Jim1138's removal, so that what should have been effectively this was not. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take responsibility for your edits and not appeal to a third party's (Wikihead's) claim that blames chopage on a fourth party ('usually seems to get blamed on a mysterious happening with mobile-phone and/or Firefox edits'). Appealing to mysterious happenings and blaming the tools doesn't cut it. You know better and have been caught out. So, the lesson here is to realise for all your WP:bravado, WP:self-grandising and WP:Upmyself (User:AussieLegend, you too stuff things up. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Locality is, by definition, rural

Earlier I removed the word "rural" from the introduction, as it's redundant, leaving the first sentences to begin with "Vacy is a locality".[5] "Locality" links to Suburbs and localities (Australia), the second sentence of which says "the name locality is used in rural areas, while the equivalent in urban areas are suburbs". While the next sentence says "sometimes locality is used to refer to both localities and suburbs", this is not supported by a source; the citation at the end of the sentence actually says "An address locality is a division of the landscape that has defined limits–a suburb in urban areas or a locality in rural areas" (emphasis added).[6] Similarly, the third source in the article says "locality is the term used in the rural context".[7] In this article, the NSW Geographical Names Register extract clearly defines Vacy as a "locality",[8] and links to the "Glossary of designation values in the Geographical Names Register", which defines a locality as "a bounded area within the landscape that has a 'Rural' Character". Despite these authoritative sources, Benyoch has reverted the change, twice now.[9][10] Including "rural" is effectively saying, "Vacy is a rural bounded area that has a rural character", it's much the same as saying "ATM machine" or "3 a.m. in the morning", which has no place in an encyclopaedia. -- AussieLegend (✉) 07:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend, stop putting words in my mouth or inventing statements I did not make and applying them to me. I tell you now to desist. Stick to the issue, and stop being a philological bully. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I neither put words in your mouth or invented statements. Did you revert the changes? Clearly the answer is yes,[11][12] so I don't know what your problem is. -- AussieLegend (✉) 08:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)