User talk:Thuringowacityrep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1. 2006

[edit] Summer clean up

My apologies for not consulting with you on that one, I was trying to avoid contentious edits while doing a general clean up, as you have pointed out in the past the Townsville article is not up to scratch.

I thought that by identifying the location by suburb rather than city it would avoid future disputes as the suburb is easily identifiable as being in one city or the other without constantly referring back to LGAs. The City of Townsville and City of Thuringowa articles give a good opportunity to promote Dairy Farmers and Riverway and whatever else as being within one or the other LGA, so I thought that would lead to avoidance of unnecessary disputes in the Townsville, Queensland article.

If you need to, I won't object to you changing that one back to Thuringowa although we really do need to sort this out for the long term because the Townsville article needs a lot of work to get it up to a higher standard and I doesn’t want to go 20 rounds each time something in Thuringowa is mentioned in the article. It doesn't look like the arbitration thing is going anywhere which is unfortunate. Anyway thank you for fixing the broken link I didn't see it, and have a happy New Year. Alec 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

your welcome mate i see what you are saying and i will leave it as you have it Because if someone clicks on the link ot Kirwan it will tell them that it is in Thuringowa on that page. i hope to have a happy new year and i hope your is to Thuringowacityrep 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TCR, don't worry I'm not taking it personally, and when I did start to I took the recomended step of dis-engaging from Wikipedia for a while. Just want to come to some resolution for this dispute so we can concentrate on more productive things. I had a good New Years thanks, wish I had of stayed in the ville for it though, Cairns is all hype and no substance. Alec 07:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Suburbs of Townsville/Thuringowa

Hi TCR, before I start inserting this template at the bottom of suburbs such as Kirwan, etc. later this week, do you have an any objection to the wording within this template? Thanks, Alec 10:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

hi mate.. it looks good im very happy the only thing i might change is at the top you have Townsville/Thuringowa but it may look better as Townsville and Thuringowa ...but it is ok the way you have it so i will leave it up to you. thanks for asking me for my thoughts Thuringowacityrep 11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate... Thanks for your comments and good faith flexibility. I think the {Townsville/Thuringowa v Townsville and Thuringowa} issue is (and always has been) the crux of our dispute.

Firstly the main or parent article for the template is Suburbs of Townsville, I wrote that article some time before writing the Template.

When I made the parent article (it was a little while ago) I hadn't conceptualised in my own head the exact difference between the twin cities of Townsville and Thuringowa and the urban centre of Townsville/Thuringowa otherwise referred to as Townsville. The first has a population of 164K and the second has a population of 149K as I wrote in the Townsville, Queensland article.

When I divided the list into Urban Townsville & Thuringowa on the left and other relevant areas on the right (which does include a couple of islands outside of the Tvl and Thur. LGAs) I was trying to define where the urban centre (subject of Townsville, Queensland) finishes and the surrounding rural district in all directions starts. I haven't done enough research yet to find out which suburbs the ABS defines as being within the Townsville Statistical District, but when we do find that out I propose we move those suburbs to the left column and all the other suburbs and islands be moved to the right column so there is a clear distinction of which suburbs are part of land which is the subject of the Townsville, Queensland article.

As for the Template, I just imported the list of suburbs from the parent directory and categorised it into postcodes so it would be less controversial. I think that if we re-title the Template as Suburbs of Townsville and Thuringowa, than we will need to remove Palm Island from the list as it is not within the two LGAs (although it is obviously linked very closely to the urban centre of Townsville/Thuringowa being part of the Townsville Electorate and a part of Townsville City Council's boarders until it became an Aboriginal Shire). Whereas if it is left as Townsville/Thuringowa referring to the urban entity then the intro sentence at the top should probably be changed to Suburbs of Townsville/Thuringowa and the surrounding region.

Sorry if I'm not making myself completely clear, I was hoping that the arbitration process would result in a clearer line being drawn for us between Townsville (or Townsville/Thuringowa) as an urban centre and the combined 'twin cities' of Townsville and Thuringowa. But since I don't see that going anywhere we should try again to come to a consensus, especially considering we've both cooled off a fair bit over the past couple of weeks. I hope that at the very least you can see where I'm coming from, I know that I have benefited from having to understand your perspectives through all this. What are your thoughts on my comments in the previous paragraphs? Alec 13:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Townsville (disambiguation)

I have no idea sorry, you will need to look into the Wikipedia policy about Disambiguation pages or ask someone like Adz who has more experience with that stuff. Thanks, Alec 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of medical facilities in Townsville

hi mate just seen your new article and was wanting to know if you plan to list Thuringowa in it, seeing as you list the Kirwan health campus on it and this is in Thuringowa, I ask because I am working on a few new articles to add the Thuringowa page and it will look funny when my articles says that the Kirwan health campus is in Thuringowa and your page says Townsville also I will be adding all the Medical centre's in Thuringowa to the Thuringowa page this might be something you can add to the Townsville page thanks Thuringowacityrep 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

hi TCR, the list of medical facilities article is not developed at this stage, but it is my intention to define the article as including all health infrastructure in greater Townsville or Townsville/Thuringowa as defined in Townsville, Queensland, otherwise it would be titled 'list of medical facilities in the City of Townsville'. I see no conflict or problem in your creating an article along the same lines as the List of schools in the City of Thuringowa article you created and we can link the two articles together to save any confusion. List of medical facilities in Townsville has been created as a sub article to the Townsville, Queensland article because I wanted to avoid the development of a huge list of medical facilities in the main article, the sub article would be based on the same population base as the main article. Good luck with your edits and new articles, I look forward to seeing them, as you've probably seen I've had a bit of time these last few weeks to start putting in a bit of work into wikipedia, please feel free to add new content to these articles, although, of course, I don't want to go back into the same old dispute. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 08:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

no probs mate if i have any info that would suit your articles i will add it and you would be welcome to edit it as you wish i dont want to go back to how it was before it was not fun so i hope we are still cool thanks again and keep up the great work Thuringowacityrep 08:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You too TCR, one thing about your edit last night at City of Thuringowa, local government does not have any Health responsibility, they can only lobby the other levels of government and private health investors. The public health system is run by the State Government and the private health system is mostly regulated by the Federal Government. Hope this helps. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paluma

Hi mate, I think what you've done is great and unless there is another Paluma somewhere else in the world there shouldn't be a problem with its location, but if there is anothere Paluma you will probably need to move the article to Paluma, Queensland. I will also change the Suburbs of Townsville article for you. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To insert the {{Suburbs of Townsville/Thuringowa}} Template into your newly created article just insert the words "Template:Suburbs of Townsville/Thuringowa" inside these kind of brackets: {{}}. By the way congratulations on the wicked wiki-table in City of Thuringowa :D Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 10:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Case

Hello Thuringowacityrep,

Hey, do you still need an intervention here? I've opened the case, but things seem to have greatly improved since the case was filed. Best,--Amerique^dialectics 04:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm by no means an expert in the issues you're negotiating, all I can really do is try to assist you all in determining what would work best under Wikipedia policy WP:NUT, if WP policy at all factors into the debates you've been having. Could you tell me what items or issues seem most pressing and I will see if I can recommend any policy positions on it? Best,--Amerique^dialectics 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the WP:MOS seems to be in your favor. As it reads here in WP:MOS#Slashes:

"Avoid joining two words by a slash, as it suggests that the two are related, but does not specify how. It is often also unclear how the construct would be read aloud. Spell things out, to avoid uncertainties."

Do you want me to bring this up with the others or would you rather? While the personally-directed comments in the electoral district section of your user page were mildly uncivil, I would advise letting them pass as you all seem to have gotten over it to work well together on other areas. Best,--Amerique^dialectics 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, some idiot is currently developing multiple sock impersonators of my account. I probably shouldn't try directly advocating for you at this time because this could be interfered with. In the meantime, check the page history if anyone posts anything under my sig on the pages you are concerned with to determine if it is authentic. If not, please let me know. Thanks and sorry about this.--Amerique^dialectics 01:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as soon as this issue of my fans impersonating me is over and done with I'll do that. In the meantime, watch out for anything like this: Ameriquə (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) If anyone posts anything under my signature on any pages you are concerned with, I can tell you right now it definitely won't be me;-( Amerique^dialectics 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Thuringowacityrep,

Ok, the episode with my sockpuppet impersonators seems to have passed. They can start up again at anytime, though, so if I ever seem to be saying things that are insulting or otherwise unprofessional it's not me. The main issue in your case as I see it is that the "/" or "-" should be replaced with "and" in all applicable articles, a point on which WP policy agrees with you. The other issue of the broader references to "the Townsville and Thuringowa urban centre" in particular articles is more subjective. I personally think the broader references add some relevant context to the subject of the main articles, and as they don't seem excessive or biased against the subject they don't violate the WP:NPOV#Bias or WP:NPOV#Undue_weight clauses, which is about the only way you could argue against this information under policy. I don't think it would be effective to argue against this information, but I am willing to help broach the subject of bringing the stylistic issues of the associated articles inline with the WP:MOS with your "mates," as it were. Best, Amerique^dialectics 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post a message to Alec later tonight. Best,-- Amerique^dialectics 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thuringowacityrep and Amerique - Firstly thank you Amerique for taking an interest, this matter has been pending for some time now... and also thank you TCR for being so civil lately. Also, of what I've seen of it, I have been very impressed with the work you've been doing over the past month, the edits have been real contributions to wikipedia and I thank you for that.

In relation to this discussion, I have to agree that "/" or "-" while commonly used locally is not the optimal phrasing in wikipedia, however I have been using that phrasing since this dispute as a compromise to Thuringowacityrep. It is my view that the appropriate word is Townsville to be used when describe the urban centre. This is the common name when the urban centre (not including the surrounding rural area North, West and South) is the topic for discussion. The phrasing: Townsville/Thuringowa or Townsville-Thuringowa are only really alternatively used as a courtesy to Thuringowa City Council locally, those phrases are not used commonly outside of North Queensland. The phrase; Townsville and Thuringowa is used to describe the two LGAs as Local Government entities or to refer to the land which is encompassed within the boundaries of the two LGAs, this area goes about an hour's (highway) drive North and a half hour South and could not be described accurately as part of the urban centre which is the topic of Townsville, Queensland and most of the articles under dispute.

Anyway, I think the appropriate wording in all these articles would be just Townsville and wikilinking it to Townsville, Queensland (unless the topic of discussion is somehow related to LGAs or to Thuringowa City itself). I realise Thuringowacityrep would strongly object to this even more than the use of "Townsville/Thuringowa", but the only way this could be incorrect/inappropriate wording is if the premise of the article Townsville, Queensland itself is completely inaccurate. A position that Thuringowacityrep originally advocated, however he was unable to gain support for a consensus for his position at the discussion page.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the above points. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alec,

Thanks for responding to both our talk pages. If it is ok with you and Thuringowacityrep, I will keep my replies concentrated on this page.

What I see as a potential problem in the solution you are describing, that of using Townsville exclusively as a reference for this greater urban area, is that it would seem to overstep Thuringowa or render it's existence non-transparent to non-local people reading the article. It seems to me that, to the extent Thuringowa and Townsville are entities mutually exclusive of each other, articles on individual topics pertaining to them would not necessarily have to mention the other municipality, except as elements of context or in describing any actual conflicts between the two. However, to the extent this greater urban area actually encompasses two local governments, it would not only be more politic, but more accurate to mention this in Wikipedia. If most Australians tend to refer to this greater area encompassing both simply as Townsville, that could also be mentioned if there are good references for it, but it wouldn't seem to be strictly factual per the existence of this other government, is what I am concerned about. Perhaps references to the greater urban area can lead with the Wiki formating "Thuringowa and Townsville," and follow with a brief discussion of how the political relations between the two work and how the greater area is defined locally, in all articles mentioning both subjects. Including a referenced statement saying "Some use the term "Townsville" exclusively when referring to the greater urban centre encompassing both municipalities" wherever appropriate would not be inaccurate, and would not lead to the problem of Wikipedia suggesting only one government exists there. How does this sound? Best regards to all,-- Amerique^dialectics 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In response I agree that it does need defining along the lines you've stated, but that info is only relevant to the Townsville, Queensland, City of Townsville and City of Thuringowa articles, not every time it is referred to... Townsville should not be broadly defined by it's local government area arraignments any more than any other city. If we applied the above proposal, would the same standard apply to articles relating to other cities which have more than one Local Government Area? eg. Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Western Australia, Hobart, Hong Kong, Paris, London... etc. Why is greater Townsville in special need to be defined by it's Local Governance arrangements?

OK, the local governance system in Australia and these other cities is different than what I am used to. I was going to say that the various cities and towns comprising the "greater LA area" in Southern California are not referred to as "within" or "a part of" LA in the Los Angeles article, or do they directly affect or have a vote in the internal politics of LA, but that may not be applicable here. If Thuringowa's local government answered to or was in any way subjected to or obligatorily supportive of Townsville's, I would say that could be used to justify a single reference in this case, but their direct relationship is unclear to me. Actually, I was reading the Thuringowa article, and it says:

In 1918, much of Thuringowa's urban area was transferred to Townsville.

My question is, how did this happen? Is this historic transfer a source of current debate? Amerique^dialectics 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also say that I think that I have only mentioned Townsville in the Electoral district of Thuringowa to place it in the context of the greater urban area as I think you have indicated above would be appropriate. I have made very clear in that article that it is located in the City of Thuringowa and only refer to Townsville to provide context. The same goes for the other Electoral district articles. Would you agree with this point?

I personally have no problem with that as far as WP policy is concerned. Amerique^dialectics 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that Thuringowacityreps arguments and edits are not for the sake of accuracy but with the intention of trying to disassociate Thuringowa from the greater urban centre of Townsville. This would be a hard sell for anyone to make and members of Wikiproject Australia (which all these articles are maintained by) have supported me in this on various talk pages. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a vast difference between "disassociation" and making things "distinct." Everyone, that I can tell, seems to be acting in utmost good faith with the highest regard for truth and accuracy. Amerique^dialectics 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that section, WP:MOS#Slashes, also says this: "Is it intended that the same person is both parent and instructor? (Then use an en dash, or perhaps a hyphen: "the parent–instructor".)" I guess the question is if any references to the "Thuringowa-Townsville urban centre" are mutually inclusive or not.-- Amerique^dialectics 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you would define as mutually inclusive when it comes to urban centres. TCR would argue that they are not, I would argue that it is. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This leads back to our first question re: the political relationship between these two cities. TCR, per a recent message to my talk page, argues that the two are at least distinct if not disassociated as you say. I think this association or disassociation would depend on if either municipality had a vote or some other direct say in the other's politics. If not, I would think that would support TCR's view, and thus the use of "and" in connecting the two would be appropriate in references to the "greater urban area" comprising these two cities.

Have you guys tried querying the Australian WikiProject or constructing a WP:POLL or WP:RFC on this? That might be useful towards gathering more input. Beyond that, pending more information establishing any actual and concrete political relationship between these two municipalities, there is not much more I can say on this. Amerique^dialectics 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Amerique, thank you for the very constructive input, I will reframe from any accusations of bad faith on TCR's part from now on and I appologise. I am more than happy to go to a WP:POLL or WP:RFC on this issue although obviously I would prefer a Poll as I feel I already have consensus support at Wikiproject Australia.

To answer your questions and for your clarification: Thuringowa and Townsville are distinct in local government terms, they have their own Councils although the Councils do share a lot of facilities and responsibilities in the interests of practicality. When I refer to greater Townsville (or just Townsville, population 148,767) the reference is to the urban centre included in the "Townsville Statistical District" which does not include the vast amounts of rural land which falls within the jurisdictions of both Townsville City Council (pop 102,936) and Thuringowa City Council (pop 61,072).

So "greater Townsville" does not necessarily include Thuringowa's jurisdiction, then? This is how using this reference liberally to include both cities is confusing to me.-- Amerique^dialectics 07:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It includes part of Thuringowa's jurisdiction and part of Townsville's, the distinction would be between the 'twin cities' which is the sum of both jurisdictions a very large amount of land and greater Townsville, Townsville/Thuringowa or Townsville Statistical District. Greater Townsville (which is the subject matter of the Townsville, Queensland article) encompasses only the urban section of both jurisdictions. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 07:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it seem to me that, per what you are telling me here, any reference to "greater Townsville" would have to be as precisely spelled out. I personally don't understand how the urban/commercial districting is working here. To what municipality do the businesses in this contested urban section pay taxes to?-- Amerique^dialectics 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All business taxes, income taxes, and "Goods and Services" taxes are paid to the Federal Government which then distributes a proportion of that revenue to the State Governments. Local Government generates income from two sources (other than commercial sources) 1. they are entitled to charge 'rates' to land holders within their Local Government Area, rates are determined as a percentage of land value. 2. the majority of revenue for Councils are grants given to them for specific service delivery purposes by the State and Federal Governments. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RE our system of Government: Under the Australian system Local Government has no Constitutional recognition, therefore all powers of local government are delegated and defined at the whim of the State Government and is completely under their discretion (The Qld Local Government Minister can sack Councils, and the Qld Government can change the boarders and force amalgamations). Originally Townsville City Council encompassed the urban centre and Thuringowa Shire Council represented the surrounding region, as the city grew the State Government expanded Townsville City Council's boarders. This continued until the 1980s. In a controversial decision Thuringowa was transformed from a shire into a city by the Queensland National Party Government and the boarders between the two became static, as the greater urban centre expands, Thuringowa grows in population.

A regional map of this area would be useful. It sounds to me, from what I can tell from the Thuringowa article, that Townsville is near or at the centre of this larger urban area, and has no further room to expand, but Thuringowa does being on the outskirts... Still, more power to them, I would say.-- Amerique^dialectics 07:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This map may help, also [1][2][3][4] and maybe [5] for a huge amount of analysis. Land within the Townsville City boundaries has rural land to the South, Thuringowa City has rural space North and West. The natural expansion of the city has always been West, however there are two developments which are in the works one North (spread over both LGAs land) and the other South (in Townsville LGA land) of about 50 000 people each, but to this point expansion has been west into Thuringowa land. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alec mcc (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok, Thanks Alec, these maps are a tremendous help to me.-- Amerique^dialectics 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The CBD that TCR refers to is just a normal shopping centre (or mall as Americans would call them). Down the road from this shopping centre is the administrative building for Thuringowa City Council. Other than that there are various suburban shops and utilities but nothing that would make it a distinct entity physically from Townsville.

But it would still seem to qualify as a distinct political entity, I would say. The dozens of cities comprising "the greater LA area" are physically indistinct from LA, nonetheless they are counted as their own cities, even though people from these cities tend to say they are from LA or live in LA.-- Amerique^dialectics 07:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That point was only in response to TCR's assertion that Thuringowa has a CBD and that supports it's distinction from greater Townsville. I don't think that CBDs are in any way a qualification of what is a separate urban entity. Additionally I don't think LA is a very good comparative model, considering it is an urban conglomerate of tens of millions. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 08:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with all these points.-- Amerique^dialectics 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The historical transfer of land from Thuringowa to Townsville is not in my experience a source of current debate (although now it has been brought to my attention through Wikipedia I find it very interesting myself and would love to know more!), TCR is the first person I have ever come across who seems to feel that the borders should have remained where they were one hundred years ago. I'm a fairly avid consumer of local news and current affairs and certainly local leaders do not seem to make an issue of this publicly. In my experience there is still a huge amount of controversy about whether Thuringowa should be a separate city or if it should be amalgamated with Townsville as several other councils in the state have been, for example the Townsville Bulletin's recent readers survey found that 67% of respondents were in favour of amalgamation. This debate aside it is standard in Australia to call metropolitan cities by the one common name (the name of their Statistical District or Division) and so I'd have complete confidence taking this either to Aust. Wikiproject or a poll for a final informed determination as this decision will effect all the other cities in Australia with multiple LGAs. Cheers, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's not go so far into TCR's politics here. But all of this underlining Thuringowa and Townsville's politics would have to be clearly delineated, I think, and the fact that there is an actual real world debate here would seem to depend on there being distinct political entities, which I think probably should be respectively identified in reference to the area comprising them, if the parameters of this debate are to be made clear at all. So far as Thuringowa and Townsville do have separate electoral districts, it seems to me that, per your own reasoning, the need for this distinction when referring to their land areas in a collective sense is affirmed.

From what I can tell from your edits neither of you seem to be against this, perhaps the debate here is mainly over the manner in which this distinction is made? The initial question, that of replacing "/" or "-" with "and" is a pretty petty distinction, after all. I am most in support of "and" because it seems most in line with the WP:MOS and because "-" would seem to imply overlapping jurisdiction between the two cities, but I think the concrete basis for these debates should be written out somewhere with appropriate references for the issues here to be clearly understood.

That being said, I wouldn't mind helping to construct a WP:POLL just on the "-" substitution issue, but I think this matter could be better handled with more research clarifying the relationship between these two cities. Best regards to all,-- Amerique^dialectics 07:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My whole original point is that local government jurisdiction is not relevant when it comes to discussion/referring to Townsville as the greater urban center (eg. Media in Townsville) I don't deny that Thuringowa exists, I'm just saying where local Government is not involved the urban center should either be referred to as "Townsville" or less favorably "Townsville/Thuringowa" as the city is sometimes referred to as locally. "Townsville and Thuringowa" locally referrers to either the sum of the Local Government Areas, which is a huge track of land at least five or six times larger than the urban center itself or it refers to the two Councils. Neither the huge track of land nor the two local government authorities are relevant to most of the articles that are under dispute. I really don't want to dig my heals in here and I know it would look like that's what I'm doing but the "and" really does refer to a different thing both conceptually and physically to the subject matter of Townsville, Queensland. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Alec. You've been a tremendous help in clarifying what these issues are for me. It seems to me that, no matter what construction is used, exactly what each construction refers to will have to be concisely but precisely explained in the context of each article's main subject matter, for all articles. Does everyone agree on this?-- Amerique^dialectics 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

this is why I asked for help he wont even listen to you... now this comment is incorrect "TCR is the first person I have ever come across who seems to feel that the borders should have remained where they were one hundred years ago" I never said that is how it should stay but I did say that Townsville and Thuringowa should NOT become one city,plus why bring that up it has nothing to do with what this is about... and the survey in the Townsville Bulletin is not something that I ever seen but I am aware of a survey the Townsville city council did that found 67% of respondents were in favour of amalgamation and of course they would, that is what Townsville people want. I know Alec wont agree to this but hey I have to ask ...why do I make the changes that I feel is needed you both have a look at them and Amerique can make up his mind if my edits are correct and if not Alec can change them back ...sound fair.... oh one more thing this comment "the urban center should either be referred to as "Townsville" or less favorably "Townsville/Thuringowa" as the city is sometimes referred to as locally" that should be RARELY referred to the most common term used is "the Twin Cities" or "Townsville and Thuringowa" so i will leave it there for now Thuringowacityrep 10:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

relax TCR, I was only trying to give him the background on local history/politics that he asked for, you can be fully assured that I am listening to both Amerique and yourself, I respect the third party council that he is bringing to this debate and I think I am responding to each of his concerns, if you disagree then say so without the attacks.

The Townsville City Council survey you refer to [6] had a result of 59.7% in favour of amalgamation and 22.2$ against. The survey I was talking about above was the Townsville Bulletin readers survey [7] the results of which were published 10 January, it had responses at 67 per cent for (increase of 2% on the previous year) and 26 per cent against.

If I mistook what you have said in the past I apologise but you certainly have given the impression to me that you feel that the land currently under Townsville LGA should still be within the Thuringowa Local Government Area... but anyway all I was trying to do was give Amerique the background he requested, I'm very sorry for causing offence by it. I agree with both of you that most of it is not directly relevant to this process but the local history and politics is useful to provide a context for the origins of this dispute. I've got no probs with you disagreeing with me but please stop personalising the debate. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem if Amerique wants to do what TCR has suggested, as long as I have the opportunity to comment on each edit. Although I think we both have a pretty good idea what you want to do from your edit history. Also in the interests of fairness I presume you would have no objection to me having the same opportunity of editing everything on the Thuringowian pages I think need fixing, you're not the only one who has been holding themselves back patiently while waiting for someone to take this case on...

I will be taking tomorrow off wikipedia as I have a project in the real world I need to get into, I look forward to talking to you both tomorrow night. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

hi Alec sorry about the Townsville City Council survey and the bully one I wasn't sure of the figures ...thanks for clearing that up...don't go by my edit history I will make the very small changes I feel are needed and in no way will it affect the high quality of your work, and you know that you can edit the Thuringowa page if you feel it needed something done on it as you can on any of my pages as long as it isn't misleading, false , POV or running down Thuringowa because I wont be doing that to the pages I edit, any how you have a good day tomorrow hope it not to wet for you and will talk again later oh I wont be making any edits yet Thuringowacityrep 13:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I view this arrangement as ok. Thank you both for cooperating and trying to develop an amicable solution to this. Let's go ahead with precise, context-sensitive edits for now. Best,-- Amerique^dialectics 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

hi i will make the edits sometime today and then i will let you both know when i have done them so you can have a look and give you view, again if there is a problem just let me know and i will see what i can do thank you both Thuringowacityrep 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to edits

Hi guys, sorry if this seems harsh but this is my response to todays edits:

Edit one:
I object to the first and last para’s of this edit which infers that the subject matter of the article is not one urban centre but two, it is misleading. The article is not about the Townsville area, it is about the urban conglomerate, I would accept “Townsville is within the boundaries of two separate Local Government Areas” or maybe “Townsville is divided by two Local Government Areas”. I find the first edit misleading as it tries to change the subject matter of the article. The changing of the wording infers that Thuringowa is a neighbouring urban centre within the general vicinity of Townsville, which it is not.
Last para: Saying Townsville and Thuringowa changes the boundaries mid article when the scope of the article is clearly defined in the introduction of the article, why all of a sudden do the boundaries need to be expanded from greater Townsville to the whole of the twin cities, particularly when it makes no actual difference to the content as there are no health campuses within the two LGAs but outside the urban centre.

Edit two:
"Shopping Centres in the Townsville and Thuringowa urban area" is tolerable, "List of Shopping Centres in Townsville and Thuringowa" is not as any local would presume that it is talking about a list which includes Alligator Creek and the Northern Beaches, which is not within the physical scope of the article, as it is a sub article of Townsville, Queensland and thus has the same scope as it. I would suggest that in all these sub articles the phrasing “Townsville and Thuringowa urban centre” might be a compromise we can reach for all references to greater Townsville (I do not include the parent article in that which obviously goes into the full scope distinction and just “Townsville” is appropriate there otherwise it would be a huge waist of words to repeat a five word title throughout the article).

Edit three:
I have no objection to this edit even though it is treating as equals two areas of land which in fact overlap (the urban suburbs of Thuringowa fall within the scope of both Townsville, Queensland and City of Thuringowa but it's a minor point. Thuringowa (nor Palm Island for that matter), as an LGA, does not warrant three separate mentions in an article which has nothing to do with LGAs!

Edit four (the first):
Your trying to tell me that the Townsville Bulletin has two focuses? anyone who has read the Bulletin would see that it's primary focus is on Townsville and the rural surrounding area of both LGAs plays a distant second (or more like fourth if you include Brisbane and Canberra), in fact not even the urban part of Thuringowa could really be considered a focus of the Townsville Bulletin on any matter other than it's reportage of local government issues and relations, even then Thuringowa is treated as secondary. The paper's name alone should give a third party without any knowledge of the region a hint...
CityLife is not distributed to any businesses outside of the urban centre, therefore greater Townsville would be the more appropriate term as "Townsville and Thuringowa" infers a business distribution of a huge amount of North Queensland, whereas in reality it would not distribute anywhere that is further than twenty minutes drive from the CBD. {or “Townsville and Thuringowa urban centre” as suggested above might be a compromise}

Edit four (the second):
same objections as above, this yet again puts the LGA's into a context that they do not belong (unless the LGA boundaries are actually being used as the scope of the article why are they mentioned? The reference point of the article is greater Townsville, rural Thuringowa like the Islands which are included just falls under "the surrounding area". If we are to define the geographic context of the article by LGAs then we would need to do so by include Palm Island in the heading and removing "and the surrounding area" reference, which would make it half way between a sub article of Townsville, Queensland and a sub article of North Queensland (or if you removed Palm Island from the article it would become a sub article of the combination of the City of Thuringowa and City of Townsville articles).

Edit five:
factually incorrect as parts of the Electoral district of Hinchinbrook covers Thuringowa. Thuringowa is a clearly defined body of land which goes quite a fair way North, greater Townsville is also a clearly defined body of land (which happens to overlap both City of Townsville and City of Thuringowa land) and there are only four Electoral districts which cover that land and "Townsville" is generally referred to as having four State electoral districts, Two Local Government districts and one Federal Division, this is very standard electoral language, but the main point is that greater Townsville is not defined by the electoral boarders of any one of the three levels of Australian governance, it is a urban centre based on facts (urbanisation as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics) not politics.

Edit six:
No objection, I agree fully with the language there and have always stated that that should be the language. I didn't write that original prose (QazPlm did), I only reverted TCRs edits because they were trying to remove all reference to greater Townsville which has huge contextual value to this article.

Edit seven:
same objection as edit five

Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

hi that you for your views I have fixed up where I think I needed to but I want to wait until Amerique has his say on the matter but what I will add is,

edit 1:
you said "there are no health campuses within the two LGAs but outside the urban centre" you have lost me here because the Kirwan Health Centre is in Thuringowa city and Thuringowa is a LGA so that makes it within one of the LGA's and is not outside of the urban area.

Edit 2:
again you say "any local would presume that it is talking about a list which includes Alligator Creek and the Northern Beaches" well there is a large shopping centre at the Northern Beaches as Woodlands is a part of the Northern Beachers area of Thuringowa so I can't see how this is misleading.

Edit 4:
now you lost me with the (first) and (second) I only made 1 edit ...but when you say "Your trying to tell me that the Townsville Bulletin has two focuses? anyone who has read the Bulletin would see that it's primary focus is on Townsville and the rural surrounding area of both LGAs plays a distant second" you are wrong ..Sorry...but I have read a lot of storeys in the Bully about Townsville and Thuringowa I can remember a front page story about Thuringowa some time back plus it looks like you have used your POV in the comments above,as for citylife you say "Townsville would be the more appropriate term as "Townsville and Thuringowa" infers a business distribution of a huge amount of North Queensland" how can that be is says Townsville and Thuringowa, nothing about the rest of the state and if people think that by having it like this it means a huge amount of North Queensland then they have a problem.

Edit 5 and 7
I'm not going there yet because everything you have said makes no sense, edit 5 was about the electoral district of Mundingburra

I would like to wait now until Amerique has his say but I would like to thank you again for your views Thuringowacityrep 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mates, sorry I'm kind of busy right now but I promise I'll look over these and comment or possibly try some minor editing of these areas tonight. (I've also been reading up on available online materials on Australia's local governance system and Thuringowa's municipal site, which has filled in some gaps for me, but i still don't feel I am entirely getting "the big picture" here, so bear with me please.-- Amerique^dialectics 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks ok....when you can thanks again Thuringowacityrep 00:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi TCR, your first edit number 4 was to Media in Townsville‎ and your second edit number 4 was to List of medical facilities in Townsville‎.

My apologies for the confusion and obviously not explaining my position clearly I consider the following to be factual (and at the heart of our dispute):

All four sections of this map combined are cover by the following titles which have been used in these edits:
"Townsville and Thuringowa" (please note the wikilink goes to City of Townsville and not to Townsville, Queensland); or
"Townsville and Thuringowa Area"; or
"the Twin Cities" (to be discouraged as it has no meaning to those visiting an article who do not have any knowledge of the region); or
"Townsville, Thuringowa" (boarderline); or
"the urban and rural suburbs of Townsville and Thuringowa"; or
"throughout Townsville and Thuringowa"; or
"the Townsville and Thuringowa cities"

Either this map or just the PART As of the previous map are covered by the following titles which have been used in this edit dispute:
"greater Townsville"; or
"Townsville, Queensland; or
"Townsville/Thuringowa"; or
"Townsville Statistical District"; or
"the Townsvilla and Thuringowa urban centre"; or
"greater Townsville urban centre"; or
"Townsville and Thuringowa urban area" (very boarderline as "area" could have more than one meaning and also it is using two wikilinks which are not consistent with each other, they overlap in their scope); or
"the Townsville–Thuringowa urban centre"

These names obviously need to be standardised as Amerique suggested. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

opps sorry i must have used 4 twice and never noticed sorry about that. lets just see what Amerique thoughts are on everything else Thuringowacityrep 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits to Townsville Bulletin and Media in Townsville

Hi Thuringowacityrep, changing a reference from "Townsville/Thuringowa" to "Townsville, Thuringowa" is not fixing an error as you've said in the edit summery, you know damn well that all these titles describing Townsville and Thuringowa are under dispute right here. Yes it is frustrating that Amerique seems to have disappeared, but can we please just put contentious edits on hold until this arbitration process is over. I'm sure he'll come back some time soon...

Thank you for the good new info about the Sun, it's great and a real contribution to the article. I don't think The Express warrants mentioning as it is a business promotional publication, it is not a journalistic publication, please let me know if you disagree, I'm very open to discussion on this point. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

hi sorry about changing a reference from "Townsville/Thuringowa" to "Townsville, Thuringowa" as I thought that is what I was told to do by Amerique so yes I "know damn well" that all these titles describing Townsville and Thuringowa are under dispute, I was on the understanding that yourself and Amerique where going to have a look at the edits I do and put in your views (like you did on my talk page) as for The Express I feel that it does warrant mentioning as it is a business promotional publication like you said but it does have news stories about new business's etc and lifestyle articles like Plan you Wedding, around the House and garden as so on. I did some checking before I added it and was told that journalists do some interviews, I added it due to the fact that it contains info that the residents of the 2 cities would need to know ( I have found info in here on shops that I didn't know about) if you like you can re-word it and thank you for your views and im glad you liked the info about the sun. thanks again Thuringowacityrep 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a thousand special interest publications, the majority of which are business orientated. Who were you told by? you really need to stop making edits based on secondary sources, particularly on info from e-mails from the Thuringowa Mayor who is not a primary source of info (facts need to be verifiable by other wikipedians). info about shops are not 'need to know' journalism, it's fluff. I really don't think it is appropriate to be mentioned at all, all the other publications in this article are main stream publications which are published and edited independently, this kind of publication is not in the same league. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 06:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

here we go again....do you think im a dick head? the info came from the Express, here is the phone number 47888188 so you can give them a call to see if I am full of shit or not( a young Male answered the phone, i called about 3 weeks ago), I don't get all my info from the Thuringowa mayor like you say I do I know a lot more people than him. and for your info the Mayor IS a primary source of info for Thuringowa as is the Thuringowa Website, im sorry I tried to improve your article. You say "info about shops are not 'need to know' journalism, it's fluff" that your POV and I thought you didn't like POV's plus I never make edits based on secondary sources that's you POV again. I will remove it now for you as it is a Thuringowa business anyway so I guess it doesn't belong on a Townsville article Thuringowacityrep 07:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Info from the Mayor is not independent nor is it verifiable by others. POV needs to be avoided in articles, there isn't a problem with POVs being on talk pages, most talk pages are completely POV that's how you find out what the issues are: not that I accept that it is my point of view that publications need to be independently published and edited, I would have thought this was pretty standard. I'm not saying that the info is incorrect (or full of shit as you put it), I'm saying that it doesn't warrant a mention just like all the other special interest publications in Townsville don't need to be mentioned in a Media in Townsville article, just because a minor fact gives you the opportunity to insert the name Thuringowa two or three times into an article does not make it worthy of mentioning. Ta, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While not wishing to take any side in the debate, I'd have to agree that information that is personally provided can't constitute a reliable source. What I would suggest doing is using what the person provides to assist in locating sources which say basically the same thing but meet Wikipedia's standards. Depending on what the exact information is and in what article it's going to, a council publication (for less controversial stuff) or government/statistical report or a couple of newspaper articles (for more controversial stuff) would generally be OK. Orderinchaos78 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your incivil language

Thuringowacityrep, I apologise if I have offended you but you have no excuse to loose it every time we disagree, you have been told repeatedly not to make personal attacks. I'm not going to post your filth here, but this edit: [8] is completely inappropriate and I will be removing it from my talk page in a couple of days. I realise this is a topic that you feel strongly about but you need to control yourself and accept that I legitimately disagree with you, this isn't personal. Feel free to ask other Wikipedians if the original research that you are doing is appropriate, don't just try to attack me until I submit. I look forward to your apology. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For your info: Verifiability policy, No original research policy, Civility policy & Neutral point of view policy

This was the first time I had seen the Tvl Bulletin or Media edits, two days is not 'over a week' and your trying to hide the edit by calling it 'fix error' is the main thing I object to. I'm sick of this, unless we hear back from Amerique within the next week I will be reverting all the unsourced and bias edits (which do not comply with the above official Wikipedia policies), which is the great majority of the edits you have done to this point. Until then I ask you to stop making contentious edits and not to attack me personally just because I disagree with you. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 10:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dairy Farmers Stadium

Hi there, I reverted the edits because they had no relevance to the stadium itself. Just because something occurred there, it does not mean that it is a big enough event that it warrants a mention on the stadium's page. I should have been clearer with my edit summary - I was bulk reverting similar edits to other pages such as Telstra Dome, Suncorp Stadium, etc. -- Chuq 10:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

If both you and Alec are agreeable, as a fellow AMA member, I would be happy to try and assist in brokering some kind of peace and looking over edits on the articles while Amerique is away. I just had a look over the discussion on your talk page and I definitely don't think it's beyond mutually acceptable resolution. Orderinchaos78 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

yes please any help would be great like i said before i done what i was asked to do and i got told off by Alec, it was all going well until yesterday. thank you for your offer. Thuringowacityrep 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

TCR you were not told by anyone to continue changing pages, we were at the stage of the arbitration where Amerique was going to consider what had been said so far and to do further research for himself about cities in Australia, we were to wait for his further communication (granted that was a week ago). Now I'm happy to forget about yesterday, but you need to understand that what really boiled my blood was you going back to your practice of making controversial edits and hiding them by calling them 'minor changes' or 'fix errors' or whatever, they may be errors in your view but you know very well that they are the subject of a dispute. When you do that I have to go through each and every edit you make to make sure your not being deceptive and trying to gain ground in this dispute without anyone noticing, this is behaviour I have told you repeatedly is not acceptable, it's wasting my time and to be frank I don't want to be your nanny.

Thank you for your offer Orderinchaos, unless Amerique comes back and objects I would be delighted for this dispute resolution to go back to a formal process. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

this is what is writen above and it is what i was doing and when i did the edit on the Bully it was due to me not doing it back on the 7th... sorry... so i was told and i was NOT trying to hide the edits plus i don't need a nanny so lay off with that sort of talk please,

"I view this arrangement as ok. Thank you both for cooperating and trying to develop an amicable solution to this. Let's go ahead with precise, context-sensitive edits for now. Best,-- Ameriquedialectics 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

hi i will make the edits sometime today and then i will let you both know when i have done them so you can have a look and give you view, again if there is a problem just let me know and i will see what i can do thank you both Thuringowacityrep 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)"

Hi TCR, those comments were made on 7 February and referred to edits of that day, and even then you clearly identified those edits as being part of the dispute resolution process. Your edit made on 13 February had no indication that they were included in the same bunch, all it had was 'fix error' in the summery, by that stage we had long moved on from you demonstrating to Amerique what kind of edits you felt were appropriate. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think looking at these things unemotionally as much as possible is going to be critical to resolving this. This is a few pages on an encyclopaedia, after all - while it's important to make sure that different points of view are heard and that Wikipedia policies are maintained, it's just not worth getting that emotionally invested in. Is there any pages or specific edits that anyone wants me to have a look at to start with? Orderinchaos78 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong Thuginowacityrep, but I think the central issue is what to call the urban centre which is the subject of Townsville, Queensland as opposed to what to call the collective "twin cities" of the City of Townsville and the City of Thuringowa and if there is a difference between the two. Pretty much all pages which have anything to do with the urban centre as a whole have had editing wars on this subject, most but not all between Thuringowacityrep and myself. I take your point about not getting emotionally invested. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy disputed at City of Thuringowa

Hi TCR, I have already removed the objection tag from the article, it looks fine to me. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 08:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that Thuringowacityrep 08:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock music Wikiproject invitation

Hello WikiProject Metal member.
WikiProject Metal music is important in expanding encyclopedic coverage of the metal. It brings attention to the lesser-known bands, and significantly improves the quality of the famous ones. Five Featured articles and two formers is proof of that.
This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently resurrected WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and embrace the links between metal and rock music in general.
Rock on.
-- Reaper X 05:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palm Island, Queensland

Hi TCR, thanks for pointing out my error, because it was anonymous and had no edit summery I mistook the editor for this one. Thanks again! Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

I've proposed the two list Restaurants in the City of Thuringowa and List of Health Services in the City of Thuringowa for deletion as Wikipedia is not a directory. --Tikiwont 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you disagree, I will put this up for discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Health Services in the City of Thuringowa and Restaurants in the City of Thuringowa. --Tikiwont 14:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the most appropriate place to respond... Firstly, don't take article deletion the wrong way. You haven't been here very long yet, chances are you will see quite a few articles at least nominated for deletion.

Any logged in contributor can create an article. But articles need to meet criteria to survive the AfD process.

Do these articles adhere to WP:LIST is the main question to consider. I personally feel that they don't, which is why I have listed them for deletion. Pretty much, List of specialty shops in some town should be a list of specialty shops in some town, each of which has an article. Where that's not the case, it should be because although nobody knows any of the individual shops - the collection themself is notable. Such is the case for Norton Street - the street is pretty much a minor road, but as a collection of shops and restaurants it is notable. However, almost none of the individual businesses are mentioned. In which case, the article won't be a directory of stores - it will be an encyclopedic article, explaining why the specialty shops in this town are notable.

Take a look at WP:CORP and identify if any of the shops, resterants or medical centres meet the standard required to have an independent article. When you're done there, have a look at WP:LOCAL. It will help you make sure the topic will stand as an independant article withouth getting merge !votes at an WP:AfD. If the subject passes both WP:CORP and WP:LOCAL, compile your sources and create the article. If you have sufficient references independant of the subject of the article, I am sure it will survive the AfD process.

Believe me - it takes quite a bit of understanding and familiarity with the policies and practices around here to throw an article together without having the sources first, and not have the article dissapear almost as quickly as you have written it.

I hope I have explained my rationale sufficiently. BTW. IF you are worried about the list of (schools, shops, resterants, medical centres) growing too much - identify some form of criteria on the talk page to meet. Anything that doesn't meet the criteria, remove from the list within the main article. This is the process I am following at Westfield Group.

PS. Yes, I have a lot to say. You asked for it!

Garrie 11:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Paluma dam A.jpg

I think you don't quite understand image tagging. As this image is currently tagged then it is as though you personally, have uploaded the image and granted permission for anyone else to copy, distribute and/or modify the image. Such modification would quite easily include, removing the acknowledgement of NQ Water as the source of the photo.

I think this is more likely to be a fair use photo, and in using fair use images you need to ensure that using a fair use image is in accordance with the policies covering fair use. Pretty much that includes things like using a corporate logo, in an article about the corporation. It includes using a scanned image of a book or CD cover in an article about the book or CD. But it does not include, a gallery of all Elvis Presley's CD covers in an article about Elvis Presley.

Having said all that - I don't know if using the image is within fair use policy on the article Paluma or not, but I do know you have put the wrong tag on it and images with the wrong tag on them are often speedily deleted.

I'm not an adimistrator and I haven't changed the tag or commented on the image talk page, I'm just mentioning it so you can correct any errors.Garrie 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe a solution

Hi TCR, I don't know if you would be interested in this or not but I thought I might mention it. You've said repeatedly that the lists you have created on City of Thuringowa and the list articles are there for the purpose of providing info for people travelling to Thuringowa. Maybe an easy solution would be for you to create a Wikitravel article for Thuringowa to compliment the Townsville article. I don't think you would have any problems there with your content, in fact they seem to encourage useful lists for people visiting the place under discussion. Anyway will leave it up to you how you want to handle it. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 12:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Wikipedia isn't really meant to promote anything or to provide information to tourists or prospective residents, it's meant to be mainly about telling the facts. I still believe that can be achieved in this case - working on a solution atm. Orderinchaos78 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another quick one

Are there any edits that have been made on Townsville or Thuringowa articles which you wish to have looked at in this process? If so please let me know the name of the article and date of any change, or just link to the diff (eg [9]). Cheers Orderinchaos78 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cultural issue

Hi TCR, I don't know if you have much experience in Indigenous issues (I know a vast majority of Australians are not very culturally competent through no fault of their own) but since you were nice enough to ask for my opinion in your restaurants/health complex dispute I figured it'll be worth asking. If you have any cultural experience or training could you please help out at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Cultural_Sensitivity_vs_Accuracy.2FClarity Policy Village pump. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 15:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thuringowa edits 2

Hi TCR, from what I've seen of the debate I think people have been objecting to tourism information (eg. places to see and things to do) being added which they think is not encyclopedic. However information about tourism in Thuringowa would be encyclopedic (eg. on the Cairns article, although I think that has been changed this afternoon to include a whole heap of spam links... but that has probably been reverted by now). However I think we've got it pretty much covered by the recreation info I've moved up from the culture section. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

cool thanks....i have been working on some toourism stuff for the Wikitravel page but if i make some changes to it i may be able to use it on the city of Thuringowa page, thanks heaps for your input Thuringowacityrep 07:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox on City of Thuringowa

Hello, you recently re-added the removed "navbox" to the City of Thuringowa article. What kind of purpose does the box serve if it's (1) hidden by default, (2) contains no links, and (3) cannot be used in other articles? Hell, if it doesn't contain links, then it's not even a "navigation box", it's just a list in a box.

Naturally you're welcome to make it useful in the future, but if it's not functional in its current state, we might as well do without it (you can always restore it from the edit history so that's not a problem). -- intgr 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[cross-posted from User talk:intgr]

hi it used to be in a list form on the page but after getting the new rating, the editer said that i should put it in a templet or on it own page...well i put it on its own page only to have it deleted from other editers so i looked around some other pages and found that some had used this type of box to list things, so i made one up and put it on the Thuringowa page and if you look back at the history i said it was only until i can find something else but i have a life outside of Wiki and once i have the time to get on to it i will. I will add some links to it today to keep you happy adn maybe you could offer some other ideas that i could use, that would be helpful thanks Thuringowacityrep 03:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you sure that those entries are notable in the first place? I'm doubtful of the encyclopedic value of this list; if anyone wanted to know which health institutions are present in the city, they're better off looking at the yellow pages anyway. -- intgr 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If they were hospitals rather than small medical practices it'd be quite a different story. I think that's what the above comment was getting at. If such lists are in other cities' articles, they should really be removed from those articles. Orderinchaos78 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muttaburra Airport

I noticed a couple of minor problems with your article on Muttaburra airport:

1. I think the article should be moved to Muttaburra airport
2. According to WP:MOS, Muttaburra Airport should be in bold in the first sentence
3. "it is also used by ... some of the local property owners that don't have there own airstrip or plane" - if they don't have their own plane then how do they use the airstrip?
4. I know it's listed as a stub - but could you please put references in articles when they are first created, to help ensure you are complying with WP:ATT.
5. It's in Australia so the length should be there in metric.

I thought this would be better on your talk page not on the article talk page, in helping you contribute better when you are creating stub articles. It is good to see articles on regional Australian airports. Garrie 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Muttaburra Airport vs Muttaburra airport - the first implies "Airport" is part of the name of the place. It isn't - it's just the airport at Muttaburra - hence, it should be Muttaburra airport. It's another WP:MOS thing - specifically, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles You can use google reliably for conversion from feet to metres: 5 000 feet = 1 524 meters You can use it for "most" metric <-> imperial conversion.

Remember: if your reference is in imperial - cite your reference, don't gou out of your way to make it look like you are citing the metric figure - and when converting 5000 ft you are probably converting "50 x 100 ft", not "5000 x 1 ft" so the conversion should probably come out as 1500 m

hey, I didn't even really think about renting a cesna the way I'd rent a truck but I'm sure there are plenty of non airplane owning pilots around (it just hadn't occurred to me!) Again, rather talk to you so you understand the policies / conventions rather than simply change all your work in line with the procedures. It's a nice change from the number of prod's I've been doing looking at Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)... that bot shows up too much crap (vandalism, spam, outright rubbish)...

Cheerio, Garrie 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well - looking at Category:Airports in Australia - I'd leave the title as it is... but it seems to not comply with the MOS thing above.

I almost fell off my chair when I was shown how to get google to do conversions.... as someone who has made excel spreasheets of the stupid things (megalitres/day to litres/second, km/hr to metres/sec) - it just seems too easy so it shouldn't work... ;)

Garrie 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thuringowa city suburb map.JPG

I would strongly suggest using a fair use rationale to avoid this image being deleted. Something like: {{Fair use in|City of Thuringowa}} i.e. it cannot be used outside that article, and no free alternative exists. (If I have time in a few weeks I might draw a new one for you that would be freely usable under the GFDL so as to avoid this problem, I'm pretty good with scalable vector maps) Orderinchaos78 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Qldmap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Qldmap.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GTR-X.jpg listed for deletion

Next time, please upload the image only after you have adequate licensing information; it is against policy to upload images under a restricted license. If you have any more questions about this, please visit WP:COPYREQ. Thanks, – riana_dzasta 02:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth & Aramac Airport

It's no longer necessary to have the coor title to get the Google Earth link. It used to be that way but you can try it for yourself. Go to 69 06 29N 105 08 18W using Google Earth and to Cambridge Bay Airport. If you check the history (it's not too long) you can see for yourself that I only ever used the infobox coordinates. One thing you might want to do is update the airport coordinates before Google Earth gets them, it's the official ones but it's off. I also noted the coordinates for Aramac, Queensland are off and you might want to fix them too. The the next time Google Earth updates it will get a better location. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aramac Airport

I just noticed this edit. Sorry about that, I was of course trying to remove "Category:Airports in Australia". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk page

Sorry about that. I have no idea what I just did. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] delete discussion

If you wish to remove from this very public forum the reference to your condition I would have no objection to you deleting or editing your most recent edit or if you wish deleting the entire section of the talk page (what we wrote today) that's up to you, just thought you might not like that left there for anyone/everyone to read.

Once again I apologise for going too far and not having much patients, it happens that quite a bit of crap in the real world put me into a fowl mood today in the first place and it sucks that I reacted differently than I usually would. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, it is by mutual consent and that is allowed. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 01:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Qldmap.jpg

I deleted the image because there was no copyright tag on it. If it is in fact your own image, then feel free to upload it again, only make sure to add in the proper copyright tag under the licensing section (such as PD-self if it's your pic).--Wizardman 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found the problem.

1. 23:20, March 16, 2007 . . Thuringowacityrep (Talk | contribs | block)
2. 21:45, March 16, 2007 . . Thuringowacityrep (Talk | contribs | block) (i think this is ok now but please let me know if not.)

In the 21:45 edit, you had the PD tag and the rationale, which was good. In the 23:20 edit, you removed the tag and asked "can someone delete this please", which made the deletion kinda clear. Like I said though, if you actualyl do want the image up, go ahead and re-upload it.--Wizardman 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suburbs

Hi TCR, I've taken a some pics in Thuringowa on the weekend and am adding them to some of the articles, let me know what you think, would like your input. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great thanks, I have some more (here) of Bushland Beach but wasn't sure which one to use, with the article being so small at the moment it would very much clutter it up putting 3 or 4 pics on it, would appreciate your input on that. I thought the T/T might be an issue, if it helps even things up I'll put a link to Thuringowa on the Townsville Suburb infoboxes. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, but as long as they produce a viable alternative I don't mind if Template:Three other uses is deleted. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)