User talk:Fanx/Archive 2

by-elections

I've found another by-election in 1860 - Northern Division (New Zealand electorate). You will have seen that I've previously amended the new table in your user space. Shall we work on this together? Having Scholefield certainly helps with adding the dates and referencing things properly. Schwede66 04:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NZ Parlbox

Hi Fanx, nice idea about Template:NZ parlbox allegiance, much better than the previous status quo of just using two lines. Mattlore (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. A very good and clever amendment. Schwede66 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a great improvement.-gadfium 22:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks team! The italics & colon was a good call too Mattlore ... I felt something was missing and didn't get past thinking I should include |align=center| before lack of sleep caught up with me.FanN | talk 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fanx, wasn't sure if it would work or not so glad you liked the changes. Mattlore (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Change of party allegiance

Hi Fanx, regarding your recent edit of the Hutt electorate, where Thomas Mason Wilford's party allegiance changed, I suggest that this is a better way of presenting this. You can reply here if you wish to discuss. Schwede66 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that's better - continuity is unambiguous and allegiance spelled out in the body of the text is good too. I'd seen a few too many pages that ignored the history of United and just have a last gasp of Liberal. Hopefully all 27 United MPs (1928 election) pages will reflect the reformation of the old Liberal as the new United, also 19 MP records in 1931, then 19 Coalition with change of allegiance to Coalition at 1935 election and post-election to National. BTW, I have a problem squaring 1928 with data at New Zealand election study - 1928 (NZ elections 1905-43.xls) shows 28 Reform, 5 Independent when everything else shows 27 Ref., 6 Ind. Checking the spreadsheet against our electorate pages still gives 28 Reform. FanN | talk 09:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken Reflists

I don't know what it was in your edits that did it, but the reflists for both 48th New Zealand Parliament and New Zealand general election, 2005 have broken after your edit. They are both giving a Cite error at the bottom of the page. Silverseren^C 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Another editor has tried to put a {{reflist}} on the template that is behind both those pages and that was causing all refs below the template to break.. I have removed it, and it works fine now - I'll put a norefs note on the template. FanN | talk 07:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured out that I had done that afterwards. :P The issue was that otherwise you then have a Cite error on the template. Maybe this is why templates shouldn't have references. :/ Silverseren^C 07:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't know you could noref a template like that. Noted for future use. Silverseren^C 07:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I was prepared to leave a cite error on the template, knowing it wouldn't affect the article - didn't count on it flagging so much attention though. I've found a way around - {{Template reference list}} seems to be the answer, though I'm still playing with it ... <noinclude> still produces hidden category pages with no references. FanN | talk 07:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A considerable number of users, including myself, routinely go through Category:Pages with missing references list and fix the pages listed there. The Template kept popping up in the backlog, which is why it got so much attention. Silverseren^C 07:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

East Coast (New Zealand electorate)

Your first edit today to East Coast (New Zealand electorate) removed all the leading sections, which I have restored, and the tables of 2005 and 2008 election results. Unless there's been a decision that I'm not aware of to remove these tables, could you restore them, please.-gadfium 20:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The referencing system has changed, too, and needs to be tweaked. It used to be 'Notes' for the shortened footnotes, and the list of references was in the section 'References'. What's there now are the footnotes only under a 'References' heading, so the book references need to be put back, too.

While I'm here, I might as well comment on Oamaru (New Zealand electorate). In updating the tables (great work!), you've omitted the level 3 headings. The discontinuity of representation is now a lot harder to see. I believe the sub-headings are useful. We should have a broader discussion about these before you take them out, as they appear on numerous electorate pages like this. Schwede66 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In answer to the first two points - I had a browser lock-up (several actually) last night while in the middle of editing East Coast, after several hours and several attempts to save my edits I opened the article in another browser to finish the editing and didn't notice "the dog ate my homework" in removing the top and bottom of the article, leaving just the section I'd been editing.FanN | talk 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There was little internal consistency in the way electorate summaries were displayed with separate electorates included as a rename, variable party color positioning (MPs have party allegiance, elections shouldn't), history mixed in with summaries and multiple elections sharing the same row space. We did touch on this in this discussion (bottom of section), although we didn't continue the discussion to the point of establishing any definitive approach. From that point I took it upon myself as a minor project, and as I often came across tables with a |colspan=3| break in continuity I assumed that as a standard - subject to certain factors. Presumably a change from multi-member electorate to single member needed a section break, electorate renaming needed noting (see Central Otago/Otago Central) and I hope [this edit of Oamaru] addresses electorate changes where there is a territorial or incumbent continuity.

That said, I don't feel that splitting a discontinuous electorate into several sections aids readability - rationale for changes etc. should be left to a History section, along with incidental deaths and defeats etc. My other changes are stripping out party affiliations in parenthesis for each MP in favour of a Key to party colours above the table, and a fixed-with approach to table layout so all my edits begin as the example below (variables coloured): FanN | talk 01:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Key
{{Party index link|Political party}} {{Party index link|Political party}}
 {| class=wikitable
 |-
 !width=100| Election
 !width=175 colspan=2| Winner
 |-
 |{{NZ election link|YYYY}}
 |width=5 rowspan=n bgcolor={{Political party/meta/color}}|
 |rowspan=n | [[Joe Bloggs]]
 |-

You are doing great work. The latest additions to Oamaru are a good way of conveying the discontinuity. I'm in support of everything that you are saying above. Schwede66 05:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Seddon

Hi Fanx, why did you remove the categorization of him as an Anglican? Eddaido (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation by religion is supposed to be for persons who were noted for their religious activity, not just by where they went on Sundays. I fixed several dozen such categorisations on the same day ... all by one person who cat-spammed any notable politician that had ever spent time in a church/temple/mosque. FanN | talk 23:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, is there some way I might have learnt this requirement without troubling someone such as yourself? Eddaido (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT). For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." FanN | talk 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I looked there was a century-old monument over his body, why do you lecture me about BLP? Eddaido (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked where you might find this information, and I provided it. I don't understand why you would think my quoting a section of BLP would amount to lecturing, nor what the age or the fact of Richard Seddon's statue, nor his burial place has to do with anything. FanN | talk 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:NZ election box begin

Hi Fanx, not sure whether Template talk:NZ election box begin is on your watchlist. In case it's not, I've posted a query there. Schwede66 19:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

These aren't the results, they're the candidates lists pre-election.
Both this template and its analogous {{MMP election box begin}} have the same link in their headers, with this one currently being used in the 2011 candidates by electorate list. A ref that resolves to the current page will show as plain text, and in this case forms part of the title.
The MMP templates are also used in Scottish Assembly and in German Federal elections, where both states organise their MMP systems within multi-member regional electorates and it is conceivable that the several electorate results may be included within the larger regional electorate page - the templates were designed to be useful in a variety of applications. In naming this one NZ election I purposely limited it as I felt it was a prototype. FanN | talk 20:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New MP pages

If you have time before Friday evening, your help with this politics task force collaboration would be much appreciated! If you have questions, please ask them there. Schwede66 07:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Electorate disambiguation

Hi Fanx, you mentioned the other day that you thought it would be a good idea to have all the electorate articles disambiguated. I haven't commented on this, but it's certainly not in line with rules on disambiguation. I see that you've now started doing this and think that it would be a good idea to get some consensus on this first. Schwede66 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a need for disambiguation for Auckland Central, Christchurch Central and Wellington Central to avoid confusion with Central Auckland etc. Wellington Central already suffers from some confusion with the electorate and the inner city area - as you have already noted. Disambiguation is also advisable for Tāmaki Makaurau - apart from the electorate it is also the Māori name for Auckland. There were inconsistencies in Dunedin North and Dunedin South - one had a full electorate name, one didn't. As I said on Talk:Ōhariu all "New Zealand electorates this should be globally recognisable for what [they are]". There should also be internal consistency - see Category:Electoral divisions of Australia, Category:Electoral districts in Sri Lanka & Category:Parliamentary constituencies in London

This was discussed in May 2008 - but that discussion went nowhere. Random non-NZ editor decides what's good for us, we moan about it then do nothing. See also discussion on the First three provinces where project members (you included) discussed reverting to correct names - again nothing was done (with that in mind I renamed electorate pages and intend doing original provinces next). Owing to our historical inability to act on consensus I vote - Just do it! FanN | talk 04:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

While on this subject, can you please not move the pages by copying and pasting? That loses the page contributor history and is apparently a violation of the licence under which contributions are made. If there is something stopping you from just moving a page can you please get an admin to do it. Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Morning Fanx, it appears you are quite upset about the page moves having been reverted. I can understand that, given that you do an incredible amount of work, you've obviously got a strong opinion on how things are to be done, and if you then run into a situation where somebody reverts the results of your hard labour, that must piss you off. So you've got my full sympathy.

Your moves were of a rather bold nature and whilst that approach does get results most of the time, sometimes it causes a strong reaction (especially when you go outside policy, as with cut and paste moves) and that's unavoidable. With article names, my personal approach is to put up a formal move request rather than just go ahead if there is any doubt about the most appropriate name. In this case, it would obviously be best to put up a multi-move request and have the whole lot discussed at once. As I've indicated above, I don't see that the suggestion is a good one, but then I haven't had all the arguments laid out before me, and I'm well capable of changing my mind if the arguments stack up. And even if I don't change my mind, others might agree that the suggestion is a good one, and I've seen Daveosaurus comment on another user's page that he doesn't disagree with the moves in principle. So why not start a formal move request discussion? These things go for 7 to 10 days and this will give page names a lot more stability in the long run.

I would certainly be disappointed if the politics task force lost your valuable contributions over this matter. As I say, I can understand that you are upset at this point in time. Maybe give it a couple of sleeps and then have another look at the situation. If you'd like to discuss this in private, please feel free to contact me via WP email. Schwede66 17:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not perform cut-and-paste moves.

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Te Tai Tokerau a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

Also, please review the article naming and disambiguation guidelines which show pre-emptive disambiguation is not required.

--MegaSloth (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it is not possible to perform a simple move to an existing pagename - including redirects, and that it is also impossible to undo a previous page move when there have been intermediate edits. The article was not renamed - it was reverted to its previous name, along with several other pages in the same category. Other work within this wikiproject means these pages need a consistent naming policy to avoid redirects. Thank you for pointing me to procedures to fix the histories, I'll flag pages needing {{histmerge}}s and take future page moves to admins when needed. FanN | talk 10:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is always possible to move pages. Some need to be done by admins. You can always request a page move at WP:RM. Please do not do any more cut-and-paste moves. If you do so you are likely to be blocked to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia further (blocks are not punitive. I will not carry out the block as I am not an admin). If you need further details please see the links in the message I posted above. Thank you. --MegaSloth (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible yes, but not under the suggested move by someone who isn't an admin (like me). I see you've reverted my renamings anyway so the work will have to be done admin-style by someone else - again not me as I won't be making any more wiki-edits of any kind. And of course blocks are punitive, whether they're meant to be or not. FanN | talk 10:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye. --MegaSloth (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)