User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive24

Archives

Jan-Feb07 Mar-Apr07 May-Jun07 Jul-Aug07 Sep-Oct07 Nov-Dec07
Jan-Feb08 Mar-Apr08 May-Jun08 Jul-Aug08 Sep-Oct08 Nov-Dec08
Jan-Feb09 Mar-Apr09 May-Jun09 Jul-Aug09 Sep-Oct09 Nov-Dec09
Jan-Feb10 Mar-Apr10 May-Jun10 Jul-Aug10 Sep-Oct10 Nov-Dec10
Jan-Feb11 Mar-Apr11 May-Jun11 Jul-Aug11 Sep-Oct11 Nov-Dec11

2011-04-16

W. Herbert Phillipps

Me again! Do you have anything on these residences? ... "Lyndhurst" in Somerton (the nearby Tarlton Road and Phillipps Street, Somerton Park may be named for him.) and "Craigmellan" at Gilberton.Doug butler (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not much yet, though when I was looking for stuff about The Briars, I came across page 3 of Heritage Plan Amendment Reports, Walkerville News, April-June 2007, The Corporation of the Town of Walkerville, so it won't be long before I'm looking at Edwin Terrace, Gilberton! Pdfpdf (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Drove past there yesterday, and again today. Very impressive! (A bit like Victoria Ave, Hyde Park, but older and without the traffic.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Urrbrae

Another diversion: Urrbrae, originally Urr Brae, was built by Robert MacGeorge (whose daughter Eliza married F. H. Faulding) sometime before 1850.Doug butler (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Oh dear me. Adelaide is a small town, isn't it ...

(I've been messing around with Oz mathematicians, Essendine and Category:Stuart expedition (1861-1862) this week.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mayors of Toowoomba with fur

Sorry, I meant possum, in German the is same word for possum and opossum. But it is definively no mink, to long hair, other colour of the ground hair than the upper hair. But thank you for help. --Kürschner (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lion Brewing and Malting Company

F A Chapman didn't seem to warrant an article, but have started page on the company he worked for for 50 years, and Oakbank Brewery to which it is related. Quite interesting and a long way to go. Any contribution would be welcome.

OK, I'll have a look. However, as you can see from the top of this page, my list of active articles is becoming unmanageable and now contains articles I haven't touched for months.

BTW Oliver Young was nicknamed "Cocky". Any idea what his deformity might have been? Hunchback perhaps? Doug butler (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything useful - he seems to be rather "low profile". e.g. The only mention of him I have found between his departure from Adelaide and his death, is the family's visit to England. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

6 star rank

Moved to Talk:6 star rank Pdfpdf (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment on your reversion of my edit to to South Australia

Hi Pdfpdf, I see that you have reverted my effort to improve the earlier edit by Shurlocksam86 (which you had also reverted). No skin off my nose really, I was just trying to do the kid a favour by adding the additional reference, based on my experience of having worked for 10 years in the ABS 20-odd years ago (with two years spent in the Publications Section, where I had to proof-read the SA Yearbook as well as all the other State office publications, including Labour Force). I certainly have no interest in trying to write an encyclopaedic article on the economy of South Australia - my interests lie elsewhere and there are too many other calls on my limited time. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Bahudhara. Your improvements are appreciated, but as I have said several times, the raw material (although accurate and well cited) was out of place and out of context. You improved the situation notably by putting the comment in an appropriate section of the article. However, I gather you agree that reporting one quarterly statistic from over a hundred years history, and probably at least 200 quarters of statistics, is not encyclopaedic. It's unfortunate that you don't have the interest to write it - it would appear that you are more than "well qualified" to do so. Perhaps we can ask you to review it if it ever does get written? Again, thanks for your contributions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

George T. Bean

Another change of mind. I reckon this page would be better titled "Bean Brothers" or possibly "Bean Brothers Ltd". If you concur, could you please do the move? Doug butler (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution of South Australia

Hello again. I saw you created the above article and thought you might be interested in this little navbox. Perhaps the basic laws of the various territories could be added (assuming they have any such thing). -- LordVetinari (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

G'day! Thanks for that. I found it hard to believe that "South Australian Constitution" was still a red link, but your navbox provides the explanation!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at LordVetinari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Lavington Bonython

Hi! I've been thinking about the John Lavington Bonython article. At the moment, especially with all the subheadings, the article isn't really about John Lavington Bonython so much as his family - more time is spent discussing each of his children then is spent discussing him. :) This seems a bit off balance, but I'm not sure of the best fix. However, looking at them, it seems that Elizabeth Bonython may be important enough to warrant her own article, especialy as she has a CBE. Do you think it is viable to spin her out into her own article, which would leave just Ada and Katherine as only redirects? Given that neither of them stands out, we could then kill their redirects and reduce the focus on all of the children to just a line on each, drop the subheadings, and let their articles explain their relevant histories? - Bilby (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I should add, Lady Bonython would also warrant her own article. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, especially with all the subheadings, the article isn't really about John Lavington Bonython so much as his family - Agreed. I'm working on expanding it.

At the moment I'm beefing up Keith Wilson - I have at last found a brief bio at http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4925297

This seems a bit off balance - Agreed. I'm working on expanding it.

it seems that Elizabeth Bonython may be important enough to warrant her own article, especialy as she has a CBE. - Yes, either that or a joint article with Keith Wilson - I think I prefer two articles, but I'll get Keith finished first.

which would leave just Ada and Katherine as only redirects? - No, Lady Jean is still a redirect, too.

Given that neither of them stands out - Given that they were Bonythons, I wouldn't be to surprised to find them worthy of their own articles, so let's hold off on them until we've got the other four kids and Lady Jean sorted out.

I should add, Lady Bonython would also warrant her own article. :) - Perhaps two! (She was as least as active as Lady Wilson) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Parsons

Thanks for helping with the Herbert Angas Parsons page, I felt that it was long overdue for him and his father to get articles.Bodrugan (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Anybody who "spent many hours at the Adelaide Club, preferring its convivial atmosphere to his wife's Methodism" can't be all bad ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move

I admit it - I'm confused ...

Hi. Regarding your move

• (Move log); 17:47 . . Bearcat (Talk | contribs) moved Sortname2 to User:Pdfpdf/Sortname2 [redirect suppressed] (sandbox pages belong in sandbox space)
  

I thought that had already been done. i.e.

• 22:59, 24 March 2011 (diff | hist) N User:Pdfpdf/Sortname2 ‎ (sandbox)
• (Deletion log); 23:16 . . JohnCD (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:Sortname2" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)

I can't work out what's going on. Can you? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The page I moved wasn't sitting at the title Template:Sortname2 — it was at Sortname2 with no prefix. Bearcat (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Riiight. So now I'm even more confused. How/when did Sortname2 get created? There's nothing in my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pdfpdf referring to Sortname2 ... Pdfpdf (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

When a page gets moved, all of the edits to that page in your contribution history "move" to the new page title too. According to the edit histories, though, you created the deleted template at 12:25, then db-tagged it at 12:28, and then created the page I moved at 12:29 — so my best guess would be that most likely you intended to create it in sandbox space but something went wrong and it got saved at the plain title "sortname2" for some reason. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's logical. Thanks for sorting that out. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Military ranks template

I'm interested in your POV. If the template is not going to contain every sub-rank of Admiral/General/Air marshal, then to me it seems inconsistent to include LtCol, LCdr, Sub-Lt and 2Lt. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I am not totally against expanding out the star officer ranks but I am happy to go with the consensus which appears to have been against it. The reason why both Lt-Col/Col and Cdr/Lt-Cdr need to be expanded out is because otherwise the generic equivalences would not be clear. I.e. Col = Capt = Gp Capt but Lt-Col != Lt-Capt !=Lt-Gp Capt (fictional ranks used for illustration). It this were the case then the entire Lt-Col, Lt-Capt, Lt-Gp Capt row could be eliminated. Greenshed (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm ambivalent about what's in and what's out, but I'm a little pedantic about consistency. Yes, I agree that an "entire Lt-Col, Lt-Capt, Lt-Gp Capt row could be eliminated". However, although Admiral & General are 4*, Air Marshal is 3*. I guess I should take it up on the talk page. But perhaps not - there are more interesting things to do! Cheers, and thanks for your time, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at LordVetinari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Major and linkspam

Hello Pdfpdf! I don't really care if the link stays or goes, but I don't want someone trying to abuse Wikipedia to achieve his wish. Would you mind to share your thoughts? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Military ranks and insignia of the biggest Armies in the World

Hmmm. A well presented, well argued and convincing line of reasoning. OK. I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, you've made my day :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

AO

I apologize if I was unclear in my edit summary when I cleaned up the AO disambiguation page yesterday. It seems you may have mistook my phrasing to mean that I only intended to remove entries that did not appear to be referred to as "AO", and that the rest of my edits were in error, and you took it upon yourself to undo those latter changes. I assure you that the entirety of my cleanup was to bring the page closer in line with the Manual of Style guideline at WP:MOSDAB, and so I have reinstated my other revisions, unless or until you wish to express disagreement with my application of Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:63.104.174.146#AO Pdfpdf (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry about the ADL ADF mix-up. Thank you for catching it. Jnast1 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yattalunga

Hi. I was wondering if you might be able to help with this. If you can't do you have any suggestions of where else I can search. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Adelaide_suburbs#Yattalunga Pdfpdf (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rear admiral

Lol! You can always trust us Wikipedians to spend more time arguing about titles that content! Actually military practice I gather is to use "Rear Admiral" when referring to an individual and "rear admirals" when referring to them generically or collectively. But of course if the latter begins a sentence you get "Rear admirals are very senior naval officers". Ideally Wikipedia should enable full lower case so that e.g. "Ford" and "ford" were different articles, but that's a big software and cultural change! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You can always trust us Wikipedians to spend more time arguing about titles that content! - I hadn't thought of it that way before. Yes. Well summarised! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

LGAs of SA

I have two questions about this table I'd like to run past you.

• Do you think there should be several tables categorised by region as is currently the case, or should it be only one table with the region being listed in an additional column as I originally had it?
• I'm thinking of combining the Origins and Notes columns as they're both a little sparse at the moment and it would reduce table size. In your view as someone working on former LGAs, do you think that's wise or do you expect both columns will eventually become less arid?

Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends what your goals are. You need to think about that and decide for yourself.

Perhaps you should stop reading, go find a piece of paper, and make some notes for yourself before you continue reading. I don't want you to be "warped" by my POV because, after all, that's all it is - my POV.

So, here's my POV so you can consider it. I won't be highly offended if you ignore it. (Just a little surprised ... ;-)

1) My primary aim would be to maximize what you can fit across a page without it looking too ugly.

(Have a look at List of Australian admirals and commodores - there is at least one editor who prefers form over functionality, and does not like it. I, on the other hand, prefer maximum information, and refuse to sacrifice functionality for beauty. Functionality AND beauty, fantastic! Beauty at the cost of functionality? Well, I'm afraid I don't find dumb-blondes appealing.)

Thus, I would making the columns as narrow as possible. E.g.

LGA Name	Council Seat	Year est.	Area (km2)	Pop. (2006)	Origin and Notes	Map

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! LGA<br>Name<br> || Council<br>Seat<br> || Year<br>est.<br> || Area<br>(km²)<br> || Pop.<br>(2006)<br> || Origin and<br>Notes<br> || Map<br>
|}

and I'd be removing the "km²" from the area measurements in order to reduce column width.

2) My personal preference would be to have the extra column for "Region" and have the whole thing in just one table - this increases the functionality of the sort, and increases the benefits of the sort.

3) I would combine the Origin & the Notes because you're never going to want to sort either, so you're not losing sort functionality, but by combining them you are going to save on table width - particularly as you have been forced to increase table width by adding the "Region" column.

4) Yes, I do expect both the Origin & Notes columns to become less arid, but that doesn't change my POV from what I expressed in 3).

I hope that helps. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I pretty much agree with you. My main concern was that, as I suspect you'll be working with the final table more than me (adding info about former LGAs etc), I wanted to build it in a way that suits the information you'd expect to be adding. Being bold is one thing but considering the end user/s is more important.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the kilometre thing. It's a remnant of when I had both metric and imperial measurements listed. I hadn't gotten around to removing it and just forgot about it. Anyway, thanks again. I value your opinions. LordVetinari (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is both remarkably considerate and very forward-thinking of you. Sadly, such charateristics are rare. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm pleased you value my opinions. Thank you. But don't forget that's all they are - opinions. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reunions

You are an experienced editor so I was very surprised to see that you had created the article now at User:Pdfpdf/Reunions. To save yourself the embarrassment of a deletion discussion, may I request that you copy it to your own website and tag it here with {{db-author}}? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, creating it in the mainspace was not my most shining achievement - obviously my brain was not engaged at the time. Thanks for pointing that out. (Moral: Don't edit after midnight - go to bed and sleep.)

Before I take up your suggestion, can you please explain to me why gathering material in my user space for reference when constructing an article about the subject matter is problematic? Awaiting your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)

Creating article material in user space is of course perfectly OK. But since this material is patently never going to make it into the (article) space, it is tending too much in the direction of using Wikipedia as a free host. Admittedly the source is a bit messy to read, but why must your copy be here? Why not on your own computer? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly: "since this material is patently never going to make it into the (article) space" - Why do you say that? As a matter of fact, I had in mind that "strategic phrases" would be used as verbatim quotes. Hence, sections of this material will indeed appear in the article space. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"it is tending too much in the direction of using Wikipedia as a free host" - I disagree.

"but why must your copy be here? Why not on your own computer?"

Because, if you do your homework, you'll see that the article-under-creation is a collaboration with another wikipedian, and is in the other wikipedian's user space. If you do some more homework and look at my sandboxes, you will also see that most of those sandboxes are also collaborations, and several are in that wikipedian's user space.

Viz: Sandboxes: W. Herbert Phillipps; Adelaide Educational Institution; George Debney; W Everard; W. B. Carr; George Morphett; Stow Smith

Hence it is (at a minimum) "useful" if we both have access to the same data so that we can collaborate. If it were on my computer, the other person would not be able to access it, read my annotations/comments/etc, or edit it and leave me their comments.

May I suggest that you may wish to WP:AGF and ask questions about things you don't understand before you jump to negative conclusions? Surely you must have heard the quote that goes something like "If it's a choice between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, chances are it was a stuff-up"?

Changing subject, I notice in your signature there are two colons. (e.g. [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]]) I've seen one colon used, particularly with categories. What does two colons do?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pdfpdf. I was wondering how to reply to that, but got intimidated by RHaworth's user page. -- Doug butler (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I simply cannot visualise other users coming in and managing to get anything encyclopedic out of User:Pdfpdf/Reunions. But I will not pursue the matter. AGF? I did AGF - I prodded instead of deleting it as a test page! And what is it that I do not understand about a collection of newspaper clippings - seems self-explanatory to me. Aparently two colons are the same as one but any more don't work: talk. My signature is generated with {{SUBST:user1|RHaworth}} - you tell me why it gives double colons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"I simply cannot visualise other users coming in and managing to get anything encyclopedic out of User:Pdfpdf/Reunions." - Neither can I. As I explained above, in excessive and polite detail, it is not, nor ever was, intended to be encyclopedic. To repeat myself, it is intended as a colloborative aid to the construction of User:Doug butler/Adelaide Educational Institution.

"But I will not pursue the matter." - What matter? I don't see that there is any matter to pursue.

"AGF? I did AGF" - Yes, in that respect, you did. Thank you.

And thanks for the other information. Most appreciated.

It seems life is full of puzzles. No, I'm afraid I am unable to tell you why it gives double colons.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

From User talk:LordVetinari

Local Government Areas of South Australia

Sorry mate, I don't want to be a pain, but I really don't like it that you have changed (for example) City of Charles Sturt to Charles Sturt, Town of Gawler to Gawler, and District Council of Ceduna to Ceduna. Those are NOT the names of the LGAs. I was wondering why you changed them thus? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion transferred to Talk:Local Government Areas of South Australia#Names. LordVetinari (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to your questions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Waite

Although I like your notable improvements to the layout and content of the Urrbrae, South Australia page, I believe some of your recent changes are not correct. (However, I may be wrong ... )

I am of the understanding that the Waite Research Precinct includes:

• the University of Adelaide's Waite Campus (and its numerous components)
• the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI)
• the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG)
• CSIRO research laboratories
• SARDI Head Office
• SARDI Plant Research Centre

Certainly, neither CSIRO nor SARDI are part of the University of Adelaide's Waite Campus.

You have removed mention of Urrbrae Agricultural High School, which although not part of the University, and not part of the suburb of Urrbrae, it is most certainly part of the Waite Research Precinct.

Please also review the redirects - certainly the Waite Research Precinct should point to Urrbrae, South Australia, not the University of Adelaide.

I was a bit puzzled about that. I looked for mention of the Waite Research Precinct but couldn't find that particular term in the sources given. In the meantime, I tried to keep to the existing sources, especially this link. I simply assumed that, like the others, AWRI, CSIRO and SARDI were also within the campus. The Adelaide UBD seemed to indicate as much but perhaps I misread it. Feel free to correct it.

Now that you have asked, I can't remember exactly where I got that term from. Certainly, it appears on notice boards and sign posts at the site. (If I used one,) I'll see if I can locate the online source I used. In the meantime: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/rb/arc/research_environment/institutes/waite.html, and click on the "Wine Innovation Cluster" link. The last paragraph newly displayed says: As well as the facilities within the cluster, the partners have access to other facilities and research organisations on the Waite Research Precinct, such as a new plant accelerator facility for phenomics, to be constructed in the near future.

As for the redirects, the use of the term Urrbrae House Historic Precinct on the university website led me to suspect that the similar term Waite Research Precinct was established by and for the university rather than any of the bodies governing the suburb.

I agree that it is highly likely that "any of the bodies governing the suburb" had nothing to do with the naming.

Basically, as the Waite Research Precinct is not exclusive to the suburb,

Agreed.

perhaps now is the time to put it on its own page. LordVetinari (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have to admit that personally, I'm more interested in finding info on, and writing about, the various historic homes. And Miramonte, too.

Regarding the removal of red links, have you read WP:RED?

Fixed. LordVetinari (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the monastery of St Paul's Retreat is in Urrbrae, there is land on the other side of Cross Road which is also part of St Paul's Retreat.

My mistake. Fixed. LordVetinari (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you reread and reconsider the "Notable Locations within Urrbrae" section of this version of the page - note, however, that page may have some errors and ambiguities in it (most of which I think you have already fixed/resolved in your new page.

I wanted to bring the article away from a list format. LordVetinari (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was/is a good idea, and is an improvement to the article. I imagine that you've noticed that I'm over-inclined towards lists. With luck, your good habits will rub off on me.

And if you've got nothing else to do, you might want to have a look at Waite & Urrbrae.

"Someday" I'll review them and update them. They look a bit "overtaken by events".

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the redirects to Peter Waite, I didn't feel they were necessary at the moment as his name in teh article already links to that page. Marking Urrbrae House as a link might mislead people into thinking there is a complete article on the subject. LordVetinari (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair comments. "Someday" I'll create the separate article. (Unless somebody beats me to it ... )

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned above that your main interest in Urrbrae et al is in the historic homes. My purpose, however is to create a moderately uniform structure for suburbs articles and turn stubs into start-class articles. Neither of us appears to have a pressing interest in creating the articles mentioned above and I doubt either of us would be happy with a single paragraph article. In other words, I think a lot of water will flow under the bridge before either of us ever crosses it. Do you think, then, that some of the redirects noted above should be deleted to allow their names to appear as redlinks in Urrbrae and elsewhere? It'll encourage someone else to start the article, until that "someday" arrives when others are free to work on it. Thoughts? LordVetinari (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal - I hadn't considered those aspects. At first glance, that sounds like it could be a good idea. Which links did you have in mind?

To be honest, I hadn't really thought it through that far. I certainly don't want to start a wholesale deletion of redirects, though.

Basically, the main one I had in mind was Urrbrae House. If the current amount of source material is any indication, then it's only a matter of time until someone creates an article on it. But, they may be less likely to if they think the information available is sufficient. Additionally, new users may not know how to overwrite a redirected page. The current Urrbrae House redirect links to Peter Waite but there is already a link in Urrbrae to Peter Waite. However, if you don't think the direct link to Peter Waite is sufficient, then perhaps the link to his philanthropic efforts (currently redirected from Urrbrae House) could be moved to the word "bequeathed" later in that section.

Perhaps Waite Research Precinct could also be a redlink. However, this would mean use of that link in other articles would have to be changed from [[Waite Research Institute]] to [[Urrbrae, South Australia#Waite Research Precinct|Waite Research Precinct]]. The new Waite Research Precinct redlink may then appear in a new opening paragraph in the appropriate section of the Urrbrae article.

LordVetinari (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is starting to sound more complicated than I expected. (Perhaps it might be easier for me to create the articles than to compose a sensible answer to your questions ;-) I'll give it some more thought and get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid I wouldn't communicate it well ;-)

No, no. You communicated it quite well.

If you like, I could blank this page and we could both pretend the discussion never took place? (Discussion? What discussion?!)

Lol! Hmmmm. That proposal has some merits!

Seriously, though, I think I'll step away from Urrbrae now and leave it all in your capable hands.

You are too polite! I'll emphasise that the articles look, and are, much improved thanks to you.

If the articles are created, they're created; if they're not, they're not. As I've remarked elsewhere on Wikpedia, there's no deadlines and, thus, no backlogs. Anyway, happy editing and till next time... LordVetinari (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And to you. No doubt our paths will cross again soon - as they say: "Adelaide is a small town". I've enjoyed collaborating with you. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A possible reservation might be that currently some of those links are pointing to relevant and useful stuff - if you make them red, then a casual passer-by will get no information at all, and a new-article-writer probably will not be aware of the "relevant and useful stuff" that already exists.

Example: Yes, the Waite Research Institute is built on land donated by Waite, but the building itself was able to be constructed because of substantial donations of cold hard cash from the Mortlocks. At the moment, that little gem "pops up" when you follow one of the redirect links. (Which, of course, I can't identify at the moment!) How a new author might otherwise come across that little gem I don't know. "Everybody" knows about the Mortlock Library, but how many people have ever heard of the Ranson Mortlock trust/bequest/(whatever it's correct name is)?

So there are equally valid arguments on both sides.

Being a wikipedia "inclusionist", my personal prejudice is to leave them blue. However, I am very aware that there are other Ps.O.V., and I could probably be convinced otherwise if there was a good reason.

My 2c worth. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Bolivar, South Australia

Hello. I see you removed half the male:female ratio demographic at the above article. Although I see your argument, do you think it would be easier for the reader if we explicitly state a figure rather than leaving them to calculate it for themselves. Not everyone is good at maths and I'm sure some people would just want to read the words without having to work out stuff for themselves. Additionally, although I'm not a fan of political correctness (personal reasons), I think it may avoid any complaints if we mention women as well as men. What are your thoughts? LordVetinari (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What are your thoughts? - Well, I think my edit and its edit comment make my thoughts on the subject pretty clear!

I'm sorry if I upset you. When I asked for your thoughts, I was requesting a response to my immediate comments and questions rather than the subject in general. Anyway, it doesn't matter now as I've adjusted the text. LordVetinari (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry if that implied I was upset - not my intention. No, I'm not at all upset. But thanks for your words. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

However, I'm not going to get even the least little bit upset if you have a sensible reason for doing it differently. I'll leave it to you to decided on, and implement, your preferred end result. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC) (I may, however, make rude and mocking comments ... - Nah, that would be childish. On second thoughts, I won't do that. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

25 April 2011

sortable table

A grand idea! It would be much improved if there were one student per row and an additional column so we could have "First mention" and "Last mention" (loss of intermediate mentions more than compensated for by ease of comprehension). What say I slog away at the raw lists for a few weeks and when the students are assembled you use your formatting skills to whip them into line, then discard my raw data. (Would it help if they were formatted as "Kingston, C. C."?) In the meantime your table would be redundant. Doug butler (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's a good idea.

This answer will be brief - (M$ decided to "improve" my software, and now my machine keeps hanging ... )

What say I slog away at the raw lists ... - Yes, I think your plan is a good one.

Would it help if they were formatted as "Kingston, C. C."? - Good question. The best short answer I have is: Do what's easiest for you. There is no particular format that's "best" for me - once I get the data into a decent editor on my machine, I can handle almost anything. (I'll save this before my m/c hangs.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be much improved if there were one student per row - Agreed.

However, I wasn't sure who was the same as whom. e.g. Babbage. There are nine entries in my table - do they represent six different people, or less than six? If less than six, which is which? (save) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As for columns, we can have whatever you think is most useful. Again, once I have the data in a decent editor, I can do almost anything with it, so, "your wish can be my command".

In the meantime your table would be redundant. - Agreed. (Do with it whatever takes your fancy.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll keep plugging on and standardize names as it becomes evident who's who. May eventually delete "surnames only" entries which can't be pinned down. Doug butler (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Meantime, if I ever get back to the reunions (and if I ever get a stable operating system), I'll try to do the same thing for reunions - I see you had started on that; how far did you get? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of desultory checking of names against raw notables list. Much more systematic with the prizegivings; most of the slog is in getting the Trove work readable. A pity their OCR is from microfilm/fiche not original paper, but it's a magnificent resource. Doug butler (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)