User talk:MJK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi MJK, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 17:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject NBL

Hey mate,

I noticed that you have an interest of Basketball and would like you to join WikiProject NBL|WikiProject NBL. Please drop me a line on my talk page and also add your name to the members list if interested.

Cheers

Jasrocks

[edit] Image:Charlton from klunders.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Charlton from klunders.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. WinHunter (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of North Central Victoria

I have nominated North Central Victoria, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Central Victoria. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mattinbgn\talk 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buloke

"even the shire refers to itself as..." - This is the exact problem. The shire is its electors and the land they live on, not the council, so when referring to itself, it is quite accurately calling itself the Buloke Shire Council. However, the land, or the shire if you will, is called the Shire of Buloke. Have a look at some of these links:

  • Health Services (Prescribed Regions) Regulations 2004 issued by the Executive Council on behalf of the Governor for the Health Minister. According to this (and *many* other documents) all Shires in Victoria with the clear exceptions of Alpine Shire, Surf Coast Shire and Golden Plains Shire, are in the form "Shire of".
  • RACV/VicRoads Country Street Directory of Victoria (6th edition), which cites VicRoads Land Information and Survey, clearly displays "Shire of Buloke" on maps 18 and 28. It also notes the above three exceptions and Bass Coast Shire. (Inside cover print: "VicRoads Land Information and Survey recognises that users of this directory rely on the accuracy and consistency of the information which has been collected for this publication.")
  • Numerous Victorian Government Gazettes, Victorian Hansard and Commonwealth Hansard examples. Some refer to the "Municipal District of the Shire of Buloke", which appears to be the formal title, abbreviated to "Shire of Buloke".

None of the usages I could find for "Buloke Shire" which related to the land area (which were few in number) were presented as a formal name - many were in narrative only. That was the basis on which I moved - I've only moved ones that I've actually manually checked to this level, as I realised that common usage and formal (i.e. correct) usage are somewhat out of step (and as we've seen, four of Victoria's 79 councils do use a different form). Orderinchaos 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that "Australia" is the shortened legal name for the "Commonwealth of Australia" - for instance, for use in trade, foreign affairs and at the United Nations. Wikipedia's no original research policy means we can't assume what is commonly used or believed to be the case, only what has actually been asserted - and the "various websites" quoted above are about as authoritative as one can get on the topic, given they represent most Government agencies that would have cause to formally deal with a range of councils (health, water, environment, various revenue bodies, land etc). The title of the article should be the legal name of the entity, with any clarification in the lead. More than likely it would be preferable (and the reliable sources support this) that one would note the entity is the Shire of Buloke and it is governed by the Buloke Shire Council. In non-titular usage one might then proceed to use "Buloke" or "The Shire" as the subject has been made clear. Orderinchaos 17:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The council's website is not the most authoritative source, as the council does not exist by its own authority, but by the Local Government Act 1989. As such, the council area is gazetted by the Victorian Government. I have confirmed that on 20 January 1995, the Shire of Buloke was created, with the Buloke Shire Council appointed to run it. This is, as you say, the council, and the region it serves. It really doesn't make any difference what particular local usage holds to be the case, because without the gazettal, the shire, and the council, do not legally exist. It makes a lot of sense to use the gazetted names for things - that's the way in which we've solved every conflict to date on the Australian Places project, by strict reference to the Gazetteer of Australia, which tells us, among other things, which suburbs are gazetted and which are unofficial and therefore not to be used as subjects. For this reason we have an article on Port Melbourne, Victoria, but not on Fishermens Bend, Victoria, even though I'm sure the latter is in common usage in the area to which it (unofficially) applies. Orderinchaos 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway - I think we've established that we hold different opinions on this matter. I'm unlikely to sway you, you're unlikely to sway me, we both have reasonably solid backing for our own views, so it's become a rather silly argument by virtue of its pointlessness and I'd much rather get into what I planned to do which is to roll out the old (pre-amalgamation) LGAs. Among about 22 others I'll be putting up a Shire of Charlton article tomorrow, it will be similar to others I've done such as Shire of Nathalia. If you know of any resources which may be of use I would be most grateful. Orderinchaos 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. And that was always the intention (the shire council's name is the correct gazetted name for the elected council and its staff). Most country shires in Victoria are barely stubs atm and I'm looking to roll out a standard format for them, much as I did for WA's 144 a year or so back. Orderinchaos 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)