Old discussions are at User talk:Inas/Archive
Hey Inas. I noticed at Talk:Sydney you referred to the sparse content on Melbourne's suburban district articles, that are organised by compass direction rather than cultural/logical groupings. I do agree that these regions are far too large and are really not useful to travellers at all. Are you accustomed to the geography at Melbourne at all, so to be able to contribute a little further? An alternative to the current north/east/west setup that I've barely implemented would be something like Sydney, where the suburbs are divided into similar councils and regions. However, there's been comments on the Melbourne talk page that there are already too many districts for a city like Melbourne. It's just difficult because Melbourne is geographically huge, but tourism-wise quite small. Any thoughts on how it should be split? JamesA >talk 11:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm. City districts. One thing about WV we've never got quite right. I don't pretend to have the solution. The first thought is that there isn't much there, so lets just make it a big region. Then, the region has so little in common that it is difficult to write the logistical sections. People who might write about it don't identify with it, or don't think their park, beach, restaurant, museum or beach is significant enough. American cities tend to be smaller, and have neighbourhoods, and I think better served by the district model. Compare a city like San Francisco that gets entire articles for San Mateo County, with article for each "city" or town within it. They have no more attractions than the suburbs of Melbourne. Parking lots, strip malls, golf courses, restaurants. No interest to the average traveller to SF, but still useful to the traveller who does go there. I agree that the average international tourist in Melbourne won't venture out into the suburbs. City Centre, Phillip Island, GOR, etc are where they will hit. I certainly think that we shouldn't structure the districts around them. --Inas (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Inas. It looks like you reverted the wrong edit  by mistake. So I reverted your revert.
A barnstar for you!
|The Admin's Barnstar|
|In appreciation of your hard work and dedication. INeverCry 22:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)|
- It is a nice train trip. It isn't the quickest or cheapest way from New Zealand to Singapore, but it can get you some of the way. --Inas (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
So whats the beef?
pruning the across australia rail stuff seems just a bit too spare - the fact that it was one hell of an issue getting around earlier would be useful somehwere?
I didn't really prune the across Australia stuff. It is just that we're talking about the history of the trans-australia railway, and that has historically been a route that didn't go via Albury/Melbourne. We're talking changes in Broken Hill, Peterborough, Port Pirie, Kalgoorlie, So, I'm just part way through correcting that. As per your comment "one hell of an issue getting around", well with frequent train services between each of these points and many others in between, I maintain getting around would have been far easier. Right now the IP passes some of these small towns every week. Towns like Peterborough, like Port Augusta, Port Pirie, that really do deserve a day or so of your time, become hopelessly impractical to visit by train. Given me the 1930s over today for train travel in Australia any day! Hopefully this belongs in the history too!
I'd certainly be happy to discuss how we talk about the risks in Australia. In the tropics, you need to we aware of cylones, crocs, stingers. Everywhere we have risk of bushfire, flood. Beach safety, rips, etc. We don't want to write about these in every single article, so I think that we're just best mentioning them in the Australia article, otherwise they will end up with the same or variations of the same advice in thousands of articles. WDYT? --Inas (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well dare I say it, I am of a vintage where I have been on the change of guage trip when I was I child - it was great...
- I think if anything is going to describe the trans australian/indian pacific differences it has to be more elaborate to explain what the differences are
- history of the trans-australia railway, and that has historically been a route that didn't go via Albury/Melbourne. - if talking between sydney and perth, for a start I think trans australia needs to be strictly kept as a term for kalgoorlie to port augusta - and Perth to Sydney old route needs to be explained as having to go to Melbourne...
- I'm happy for as much history as you like to go in the article. It goes without saying that its target audience are train buffs, so I don't think we can overdo it. I'm happy to mention the Melbourne/Albury stuff in context, but we need to make sure it isn't confusing or inaccurate.
The problem with that is it is very easy for misinformation creeping in when we get into the South Australian content which you have been improving so well - we need a map which shows the older routes and the newer ones - have you ever seen anything on commons? Not just Ghan centric info - I am talking perhaps a pre 1955 rail map would be the best as it would possibly show the infor even better...
- As for the risk issue, the assumption that nw and north are safe all year around is something maybe should be linked to one article perhaps... maybe dangers of the north? or perhaps the article 'the outback' to carry the highly variant 'driving in the outback' stuff in one place - which could clear a large number of other articles of all saying the same thing but in very variable ways... about dust road trains and distances... sats (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the information could be contained within Australia in a paragraph.
OK we are going to have to have a difference of opinion here... I suggest we try negotiations on this... I am sure we will get somehwere - you look as though you have respect for differences of opinion... further down you agree that driving in the outback is a good central point for relevant info - I am suggesting that the outback article might also have a centralised set of info that is not necessarily relevant in the driving article, I suggest these two are a more sensible location than the Australia article...
Darwin is a city where major cyclones hit every 30 years or so...'
Sorry - (a) I have lived in Darwin, many old timers move south in cyclone season, every year without fail - it is a bit more complex than you make out (b) I am trying to suggest we are writing about the whole of northern australia - not just urban darwin...
and the Stuart Highway and the railway are rarely closed by flooding. They city is built for it.
I have lived in post Tracy buildings that are as badly designed as before...
Compare to Miami that is at a similar risk, and the only mention of hurricanes is the football team. We have to be conscious of this antipodean danger syndrome, where people love to write at length of poisonous spiders, snakes, etc, and not provide too much of a forum for it.
I totally agree
We need to focus on realistic risks for travellers. I love travelling in the north during the wet. It is cheap, the rain usually isn't too much of a big deal, and the country looks so much better than in the dry. I appreciate that if there is a cyclone, I'm going to be locked in my hotel room for a day, or I'm going to be sent home.
good for you, it is just there is a hell of a lot more than darwin - I was trying to get a sense of the whole north - WA, NT and QLd
- Driving in Australia already expounds at length about remote area driving, road-trains, bull dust, distances.
problem is there are bits and pieces through a whole lot of articles. I think that a systematic cleanup could reduce duplicated bits and pieces and simply refer to the driving article as the main link...
misunderstanding -- I see it everywhere too - my apologies if I didnt express myself right, I think we should reduce the highly varied material in separate articles and link to a central single article.
- Yes - but, do you agree with the idea of concentrating the material into the outback and driving... articles, and reducing what is in effect duplicated stay safe material in many other articles... ? (like I have started at Great Northern Highway) ? It would be good to establish to what extent a link versus some particular text might seem suitable... sats (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry about this , but this edit http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Across_Australia_by_train&diff=next&oldid=2162822 is quite bothering, I may be close to senility but I have never heard of anyone doing Sydney to Broken Hill to South Australia as a passenger in the pre 1969 era, please enlighten me... when I was a kid I did the Perth to Sydney by the route through Melbourne. I think we are possiby going to have a separate section in the article where the description of the current Sydney to Perth route (including Broken Hill) is going to have to be quite separate by the pre-1969 usual passenger route that goes through Melbourne - for clarity sake sats (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
wow its hard to keep up where a piece of talk might be next... I hope my suggestion about info in 'australia', outback, and driving in Australia re cyclones is understandable. If it isnt, I'll try to elaborate further if you require sats (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. Lets talk about risks and cyclones at Talk:Australia --Inas (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thanks for taking the initiative, setting up a bot, and making the thousands of "Contact" --> "Connect" header changes. I think you're the first regular contributor from the old site-who-shall-not-named crowd who has delved into the magic of bot execution, so it will be interesting to see what (if anything) you unleash the Inasbot on next. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)|
Question about redirect
Question about this edit - the redirect now shows up in several categories, so shouldn't the non-redirect text be deleted from the article? Or did you leave it for attribution or some other purpose? -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've normally dealt with redirects of merged content that way, however with our new found focus on categorisation (not an issue before) I'll have to delete the other categories. --Inas (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that you appear to have archived some material from another thread to my current talk page.  Not sure if this was intentional, perhaps you meant to archive it somewhere. Regards, --Neotarf (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the proper procedure, though I agree it is relatively unusual for a Wikimedia site. --Rschen7754 09:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked at User_talk:Saqib#Taxila: "Is Talk:Suzhou#Map_update.3F a problem you could solve?" He is not active at OpenStreetMap and suggested you might be a better person to ask. Pashley (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Upload files, Upload Wizard?
Nice to see you
- Thanks. It's an kinda odd place. I enjoyed it very much, but I'd be reluctant to hype it up too much. Lots of capex, and no opex makes many of the attractions very run-down/broken/overgrown. But very friendly people, and it's not overrun by tourism --Inas (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
English language varieties article
Hey there. I was wondering if you could have a look at the English language varieties article and check if the entries related to Australian English are accurate. I've been keeping track of some of them, but as it's been a few years since I moved out of Australia, I might have forgotten some things. In any case, if you were born and raised in Australia, you most certainly would know Australian English better than I do. The dog2 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey. I'll have a look. Even though my long term preference has been to enforce a non-local English variety in all articles, I'll resist the temptation to subtly sabotage it :-) --Inas (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
"Coast" or "coast"
I noticed that you added to the Understand section of the Braidwood article. After your edit, I made a couple small changes — one of them was that it said "the Coast" and I changed it to "the coast".
However, it's possible that "the Coast" is a particular named region that you're referring to, in which case it would be okay to capitalize it. Was this just a mistake while you were typing fast or is it really supposed to be capitalized? Glad to hear your opinion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah - it was deliberate, because I was using it as an abbreviation for a named region. But really, not much difference. I'm not concerned either way.. --Inas (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)