Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 34

FAR notice for Kylie Minogue

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Add the term walkabout

Add the term "walkabout" or "gone walkabout" to the language collected from Aboriginal Australians. While it isn't an Aboriginal word the concept is definitely drawn from Aboriginal culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.12.49 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rannes, Queensland

Would anyone be able to tell me what the postcode is for Rannes, Queensland? Australia Post, the ABS and the AEC all refuse to acknowledge the town's existence. This is quite strange as while it is small, it is more than a mere crossroads. Very strange. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Very strange, I couldn't find anything either. Might need a Banana bender to answer us. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Matt, for what it's worth Wowan 10-12kms to the north and Woolein 10-12 kms to the south are both post coded as 4702. (see here --VS ^talk 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

4702 according to DEST (and some other lesser sources). It seems a whole lot of places come under the one postcode, as per VirtualSteve. - Bilby (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[EC] Also Dululu, Jambin and Smoky Creek all surrounding Rannes. :)--VS ^talk 10:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Very helpful. 4702 it is. Still puzzled about Rannes's omission from all the above. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Walhallow

I have tagged Walhallow for speedy deletion as an unambiguous copyright infringement. However, the topic is clearly of encyclopedic value and of no little interest, IMO. Anyone who wishes to rescue it would be quite welcome. It may need deletion however before this can happen to remove the copyright infringing versions. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have recreated the article at Walhallow, New South Wales using the sources provided by the creating editor. In the process of writing the article I have realised that we don not have an article on the Community Development Employment Program aka CDEP. Any takers? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Add to the list "permissive occupancy". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugg boots

There seems to have been a long-term edit war at Ugg boots, and I see signs of impending intensification. I've occasionally been there over the months to help the article along a bit, but somebody might claim that I've been a participant rather than dispassionate observer. (Odd how much [under-/non-sourced] passion such boots can bring; I've never even thought of buying a pair myself.) I'm mightily tempted to revert the latest, sweeping set of edits; but instead could one or two others look over the article, its history, and its talk page? -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that Middlemarch2256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account who has no understanding on WP:MOS or has not regard with the policy. Bidgee (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics at FAR

Just a heads up - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Australia at the Winter Olympics/archive1. Rebecca (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty saveable. All roads lead to Gordon's book. The official AOC website is by him too. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't have much time to help out at the minute. When I have some time I'll nominate Joel Selwood for FAC. It may not pass but will be better for the run. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions needed on whether a few things violate undue weight. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideas needed on the article structure please YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They got rid of all mention of Smiggin Holes 2010 and of The Ice Dream. What spoilsports! (Only kidding - I'm sad to see it go but I don't strongly object) Andjam (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Skiing in Australia‎

A new editor Ozhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created Skiing in Australia‎ however the article needs a clean-up and citing reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Query on a couple of articles - vanity?

While clening up some of my watchlist articles after a month's holiday, I discovered that a couple of articles had been created in this time that I feel may be vanity pieces and part of a walled garden. Captain Trevor Jackson and Simon Mitchell are articles on a pair of wreck divers, whose major "claim to fame" appears to be a dive on the shipwreck believed to be the hospital ship AHS Centaur but later proven (partly by these diver's efforts) to be the lime freighter MV Kyogle. Other articles include OZTek Technical Diver of the Year (an award won by Jackson whose article was created around the same time), and Esperance Star (Jackson's ship, created back in 2006 but more-or-less untouched since).

The main source cited for these articles is a Lulu-published book by Jackson; a book co-authored by Mitchell is also cited in his article, and both diver articles use a selection of sources either authored by Jackson, or describing Centaur and not mentioning either of the divers by name. The only wikilinks into these articles appear to be from other articles in the set, AHS Centaur, and false positives due to common names.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how best to deal with these? -- saberwyn 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Colony of Tasmania

Given that we have articles on Tasmania, History of Tasmania and Van Diemen's Land, does anyone feel that this article is a little bit of overkill? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, especially as it consists solely of an infobox containing information already found in the articles listed above. The edit summary at its creation notes more detail will follow, though if so it might have been preferable for this to have been created in userspace first.

I've invited the article creator to comment on what the upcoming content might be, to help determine how unique a resource this article could be compared to the existing ones. Otherwise, it might more usefully be a redirect to History of Tasmania, with an expanded section there on the colonial period. Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologise for leaving the article with just the infobox - I had something else urgent to attend to, and didn't think anybody would be onto it so quickly! My intent here is fairly simple. I have created the Colony of Tasmania article to create a seperate article about the political state that was the self-governing British Colony from 1856-1901. I intended for the current Tasmania article, to then be soley about the Australian state of Tasmania, and the Van Diemen's Land article to be about the colony from invasion in 1803 until it gains responsible self-government in 1856. History of Tasmania should cover all three of these periods and Tasmanian pre-history. I also created Tasmania (disambiguation) to discuss the different uses more clearly. I intend to do a Tasmania (island) article as well, to discuss purely the geographic feature that is the 334 islands of Tasmania. Some editors may feel this might be overkill and the whole topic could be covered within the Tasmania article. However I would point out the precedence in other places such as the different articles on Britain. Great Britain is an article about the single island that is Great Britain. British Isles is about the archipelago of islands. United Kingdom is about the modern political state (further complicated by Home Nations issue, but that is not relevant here). Then you have: Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Great Britain, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to discuss previous political states that no longer exist is greater detail relevant to that period. As a historian, I feel it is important to differentiate these periods clearly here, and I think there is a large unawareness of the previous political independence of the six Australian colonies that would be well-served by having individual articles for the colonies that currently do not exist. Whilst I realise there is some editing to do here, I think this is a worthwhile project. I am starting with Tasmania, as it is where i am from, and I have a strong knowledge of the Colony of Tasmania - will look at the other five Australian colonies, unless there are any strong objections? 42° South (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Should just be a redirect imho despite the pleadings and explanation above - it should have gone - first - to this space and the tasmania project noticeboard for the record - (indeed one of australia's quiter news boards) despite the good intentions) - it is going well out of what the Australian project has for other states - and really - unless somebody out there really still believes the adage 'be bold' - should have been explained before rather than after the fact - there are ramifications for all australian state projects - and their potential for each state project capacity or editors willing to join in to follow or be different - I suspect thwe imbalance is gonna show up very quick. This is in no way reflecting on the editor who has started the new arts - but whether the australian notice board should be the place that such an issue us brought up and whether the process that used to occur in the past is still a viable way for the creation of new ranges of articles can actually be considered here - or if enough participating editors are prepared to chip in and offer insight into the issues of multiple articles where up until now one had existed for most states SatuSuro 11:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

End of transportation, Withdrawal of British forces, Boer War, Federation, Government, Economy and Demographics still don't have text. Why can't we just merge them all together and have a well referenced B-class article? Let's focus on developing Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania and Hobart articles and get them to GA before worrying about all other jargon. 42° South idea would be a good one but the Tasmanian article isn't great yet. His time and effort would be better spent helping out the history sections in the Tasmanian article. BTW this editor has done some fantastic work on City of Clarence and I'm not sure why he doesn't ref the article and go for GAN but anyway. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia–India relations

A POV pusher is working very hard at the above article. If his version of the article was to stand you would think there were troops lined on the borders! Is there some source of balancing material for inclusion available? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Made a comment on the talk page, although this thing is very common on Wikipedia. In that part of Wikipedia, some admins are total POV pushers. One even encouraged extremists to RV for them because they didn't have the balls to do their own dirty work and later tried started moralising about behaviour to have the guy banned for bad conduct even though they had praised them and gave them barnstars, and consorted with socks. Same for posting unsourced allegations of war crimes on BLP. And pruned some rubbish. The among Gangulyisms that occurs there is astounding, frankly. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Locked in the wrong version, 1-3. This is nonsense YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Military History - GLAM Wiki Challenge

As many of you are aware Wikimedia-au is running a Challenge as part of the up coming GLAM Wiki in Canberra at the Australian War Memorial on the 6-7 th August, the AWM has just provided WM-au with further prizes to hand out as part of the Challenge.

• A Unique Flight - The Historic Aircraft Collection of the AWM
• Moments in Time - Dioramas at the Australian War Memorial
• Wartime Magazine

Since we are nearing the end of the challenge 31st July, we'll extend the challenge until 5 August to get these prizes preference will be given to an article that has a connection with AWM collection Gnangarra 06:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What does connection with AWM collection mean? Rebecca (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume it means the challenge submission must have as its theme the Australian War Memorial or object(s) in the museum's collection. -- saberwyn 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Connection with the Australian War Memorials collection like say using the image USS Maryland or referring to the war diary of 1st Australian Light Horse Brigade or the diary or service record of Lyall Howard anything is possible. Gnangarra 02:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Four Mile uranium mine

Does this warrant an article yet? There is no mine at present, merely approval to operate.[1]

First new mine in decades - I'd say it definitely does. Rebecca (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if it gets blocked it is notable anyway, as more uranium affects the military balance to say the least. I would put it at the same level as a arms deal or defence white paper whether it ends up digging anything or not YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No (or very little at least) digging will be done at that site, it is an in-situ leach operation. Will get to writing it shortly. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Article now created. Does anyone have any ideas about how to find coordinates for the project? All I can find is lot and plan details. Reaction to the approval of the mine also needs adding. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the coordinates for the midpoint between the Four Mile East and Four Mile West deposits by visual reference to Figure 1 of this report. Melburnian (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to do something similar myself but I am a little geographically challenged at the best of times. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, to my surprise, I could not find an article on the three-mine policy. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a bit on that now at Uranium_mining_in_Australia#Government_policy. Article rewritten also. –Moondyne 16:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RAN ensigns - battle infoboxes

Not sure where this should go - but I've noticed that a number of WWII battle infoboxes use the anachronistic Australian White Ensign to represent the Royal Australian Navy, despite the fact that the flag was not in use at that time. How can this be fixed? Slac speak up! 02:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By editing the articles one-by-one to replace the RAN ensign with the correct one. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian Chesterman ridiculous successful prod

Ever seen anything more ridiculous? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen worse ;) None of the references is displaying correctly at the moment by the way. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like AnomieBOT's reference filler is broken so I have to manually re-add the full refs :( YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rugby league player category up for renaming

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 28, "Propose renaming Category:Australian rugby league players to Category:Australian rugby league footballers". I have no opinion on the issue but thought I'd post it here in case anyone else did. Orderinchaos 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Towns/settlements again

It's at CFD, this time for coastal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_29#Category:Coastal_towns. Category:Coastal towns in Australia are in the structure but the category itself is not proposed for renaming/merging with Coastal cities (although I suspect that is next if this one goes through). Orderinchaos 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kyle Sandilands

Might not hurt to watchlist this - I notice it's the 15th most accessed article in the entire Australia project for the month to date. Orderinchaos 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoe depressing people want to read about such things YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! I'll put it in my watchlist (and get the hospital strength disinfectant out!). Bidgee (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Northern Territory Govenment

Looks like the Northern Territory could see an early election[2] but I feel that some article may need some watching for vandalism, POV editing or attacks. Bidgee (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole topic is probably worth including in the events section of 2009 in Australia, although as the implications are still playing out, writing a brief item is a little awkward without indulging in speculation. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Canberra Meetup

I thought this was going to be spammed earlier by someone else, so apologies for the late notice. As well as a meetup in Sydney tonight, there will be a number of Australian and international Wikimedians, along with possibly some other guests, meeting at King O'Malley's pub tomorrow night (August 5th) at 6pm, as a precursor to the GLAM-WIKI conference later in the week. Details here. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

August Melbourne Meetup

A new Melbourne Meetup is being organised for Sunday 9 August, 2009. The chief programs officer for the Wikimedia Foundation, Jennifer Riggs will be in town and is looking forward to meeting some of the local wikipedians. So, please check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 14 and sign up if you can make it. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Stadium

Some sources say the stadium cost $460 million ([3], [4], [5]), while others say $450 million including the website ([6], [7], [8], [9]. I'd usually take the website word but not sure now as many other articles and even a book says $460 million. Does any Melbournian know the exact figure? Or anyone have a suggestion on which one I use. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about saying "around $450 million" until you can get a more reliable cost? Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep that's what I was thinking thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne metro

Do any Victorian editors know anything about the topic of this article, which is claimed to be a "a planned metropolitan rail tunnel travelling from South Kensington (north west of the Melbourne CBD) to Caulfield (in the south east)" and announced in "December 2009"? The article is unsourced and appears speculative. I suspect that it may have also been copied and pasted from somewhere. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It was one of the recommendations from the Eddington report, see here -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on the report! Eddington Transport Report, Victoria. (Don't know why the disambiguation is there, but) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But wait there's more! Victorian Transport Plan, released 9 December 2008 -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Arthur Upfield

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which does not currently meet the GA criteria, which you can see at Talk:Arthur Upfield/GA1. There appear to be no active editors associated with this article so I am posting this here as the project template appears on the talk page. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Kokoda light plane crash

The recent crash killing 13 people has generated enough headlines to warrant an article. Has anyone kicked one off? I have added paragraphs to Kokoda and Kokoda Track. Nomadtales (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have answered my own question, see Airlines PNG Flight CG4684. Nomadtales (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The West Australian

In case you missed it the The West Australian has moved from thewest,com,au to au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/ after a quick check it appears that all links to stories are now broken. Gnangarra 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

cross posted to WT:WA Gnangarra 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot for Wikiproject tagging

Can we revive this again? The last bot that did it, died halfway through IIRC. eg, I see that a lot of RAAF squadrons are untagged, and it saves people from doing too much work. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Adelaide Sunday newspaper?

This may be a little obscure but does anyone know what the old Sunday Adelaide newspaper (prior to the Sunday Mail in 1953) was called? Cheers. --Roisterer (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the NLA ([10]), The Mail became The S.A. Sunday Mail in Feb 1954. Kevin (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fred Basset (greyhound)

Is this article worth de-prodding? youngamerican (wtf?) 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. Unless the dog has received substantial coverage from sources other than the radio show he's not notable. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hazel moon

This seems like a rather inoffensive hoax. Has anybody heard of this?--Grahame (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Holsworthy Barracks

Is there an article on the terror plot yet? I think one shoudl be created YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll would hold off until a little more details about the plot are released, I know that some of it has been released but I'm not going to stop you. Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

agree with Bidgee, WP:NOT#NEWS this needs time reliable inforation to be released...how about a Wikinews article Gnangarra 02:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean the alleged attack plans don't you? I don't think it is appropriate now. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's 2009 Sydney suicide attack, which is currently being prodded. I'm planning on kicking it up to AFD. Andjam (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We now also have 2005 Sydney terrorism plot along with 8 Blacks prayer hall and Preston Mosque. The last tow seem of marginal notability to me, at least. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The second one seems like an informal place of religious worship, like a house temple by people who don't have enough supporters and therefore funding to build. The latter is the largest in Melbourne I think, and would be notable. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Australasia (Australia and New Zealand)

An interesting new article. Based on the notion of Australasia = Australia + New Zealand. No such evidence has been provided. In my opinion, the article is based on a combination of synthesis and info that is a re-hash of info in Australia, New Zealand, and Australia-New Zealand relations. there was discussion on Talk:Australia about what to do about it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

150 FAs

Well done folks YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And 8 for the month, a new record YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Dalby Regional Council

Joining Scenic Rim (formerly Beaudesert) and Maranoa (formerly Roma) is Dalby Regional Council, which appears according to its website to now be known as Western Downs Regional Council. This new name seems to me to be a little strange as Dalby and most of the LGA is on the Darling Downs rather than the Western Downs, which to me has always meant Roma and surrounds.

Anyway, can Queenslanders shed any light on this name change so we can reference the change and then move the article> Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan ...

I have written an article on the poem "Said Hanrahan" which includes the above line. As most here will know, this line is commonly used to gently mock pessimists and pessimistic thought. While I can find plenty of online material that include the phrase (and even a reference to the poem), it is much more difficult to find sources that actually discuss the poem in its own right. Can anyone help at all? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

News Corporation operations

Considering announcements by Rupert Murdoch that he intends to place numerous news websites behind a paid firewall, should we now avoid using online newspapers owned by his company as references when others are available? Or should we continue to use them anyway and wait to see if websites hide articles and charge for viewing them. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be a good idea at this point to make sure that any references to Murdoch papers include a full cite, and not just a weblink, since if we have that, we can easily verify them through paid databases. Apart from that, no need to stop using them - we cite a lot of sources that aren't freely available online. Rebecca (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Though if there is a free reliable and verifiable source available that should be used IMO. Bidgee (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There was talk of using webcitation.org, and such like, and having a bot convert links for sources that were about to disappear, such as geocities. This might fall in the same camp. --Stephen 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue by "archiving" as such would be that citied news articles (Whether you use www.webcitation.org or any other free citation sites) could become a copyright violation and linking to copyvio's is a no no per WP:EXTERNAL and reliability could be questioned (If the article no longer exists on the News Corps News Network's website(s)). Bidgee (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rebecca - News Corp sources are still OK, but the full citations need to be given as it can't be assumed that the URLs will be around for ever (the same applies to all news websites, of course). Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

New subscription-based statistics product - TableBuilder

Just a heads-up that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is about to roll out TableBuilder, which is basically a more powerful subscription-based version of the currently free CDATA Online. With TableBuilder you can create a large number of different tables of data from the Census of Population and Housing at several geographic levels. A subscription costs $1,655 which covers only 2006 Census data (and a future release might incorporate previous Censuses as well) but remains valid for the life of the product, and is a single-user only service, so it's *probably* not going to be massively useful for most WP editors but if you're planning on updating a lot of geographic/demographic info in articles and have a huge pile of loose change it could be worth a look. And, if you only use it as a way of extracting data that is available in a less accessible form on CDATA, then it should all be CC-BY and therefore distributable. This is the kind of thing I think it would be nifty to have a grant for, but I'm not sure how that would best be accomplished. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of institutions including, I assume, universities will acquire licenses... Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

True. I think they get some kind of special deal, too (or at least they get to tick an extra box on the Memo of Understanding). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernie Banton

An IP attempted to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Banton, but didn't list it at WP:AfD. I removed the tag as certain to fail, but maybe it should be listed anyway.--Grahame (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought being a Member of the Order of Australia would've conferred notability on him.The Hack 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having an AM automatically grants one notability for inclusion, but I do think Banton is notable enough as an asbestosis campaigner. He is mentioned in quite a number of sources, and is well known for his role in campaigning for recognition and compensation for asbestosis related diseases. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it was really a question about procedure in how to deal with attempted AfDs. I've no doubt he is notable.--Grahame (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre. There's about three million sources on him, he had TV programs dedicated especially to him, and Kevin Rudd all but dedicated his 2007 election win to Banton on election night. Rebecca (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! He is widely notable with his campaign for compensation and his fight with Hardy's CEO along with him being part of the Labor election campaigns. Bidgee (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I'd rather cover the issue rather than the person. Andjam (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Frederick McCubbin and the Kit Kat ad

Some people here may remember a Kit Kat advertisement from 15-20 years ago (some others may not!) that used an animated version of a Frederick McCubbin painting. I always thought it was On the wallaby track and this source agrees with me. However, this one claims it was Down on his luck and another one claims it was The pioneer. Can anyone shed some light on this one please? Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 10:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There were at least two ads made. They used Down on his luck and On the wallaby track. Not sure about The pioneer. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube confirms that at one ad used On the wallaby track. I seem to recall one using The Pioneer, but that was a long time ago. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was off by just a little bit, it was nearly 30 years ago! The pioneer would be a good fit as the subjects in the centre panel are in the process of "having a break". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article in Fairfax media

Editors do battle over Wikipedia's soul. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tomfoolery at Gold Coast United FC

It would be appreciated if people could keep an eye on this article, which has been the target of quite a bit of anon vandalism lately. Of particular concern is that some of it has targeted Clive Palmer, who I understand has a reputation of being somewhat litigious; this is a man we don't want to get annoyed at us. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Tim Holding

Given this morning's news can editors please keep an eye on the Tim Holding article so that rumours, predictions etc. don't overwhelm the article. Mattinbgn\^talk 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Townsville's population (Not the LGA)

At the moment there is a disagreement between myself and ROxBo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the Townsville article. ROxBo keeps on inserting the LGA into the article and as the adding statistical district population (which covers an area larger then the LGA as it's the ABS's own region) with the removal of the Urban/Locality population[11]. Bidgee (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is actually not true, most certainly not adding LGA data (!), but the above comment represents what is wrong with Bidgee's approach. I don't wish to presume the above comment was a deliberate error on Bidgee's part. Please see the discussion page first. Bidgee and I have both been warned today, and yet Bidgee continued to flaunt the three revert rule. [12].

Annnnyway, would welcome any comments about use of Townsville's population data in Talk:Townsville, QueenslandROxBo (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"and yet Bidgee continued to flaunt the three revert rule." I suggest that you get your facts right, You kept moving my comments (Never move someone's comments if it's in replies to their previous edit but you continued) however you were the one who flaunted the 3RR[13].

I also suggest that you read up on the WP:MOS as you edits failed (in the Townsville article). For those who would like to know though I have retried as I'm sick of having to deal with editors such as ROxBo who continue to push their view. Hell my view has been we should use the SD or LGA population for Wagga but after doing so once and being told thats not what we use, I began using the (Urban Centre/Locality) populations were possible but I also know it has been discussed no doubt on this notice broad many times (Though I'm not going to be looking thought the archive).

Problem is we have editors wanting to use the bigger populations so they can make there home town/city look bigger then it's neighbours, add promo type content to promote the location, add negativity (such as pointless or in some cases removing balanced content) in neighbouring or in other cities but I could go on. People need to let go over there state or location pride and contribute neutral, balanced and cited content for the project to work smoothly saddly I do not see that happening in the near future. I am retiring from Wikipedia as I've began to lose interest with all the pointless dramas started by other users thats over completely nothing. In the my comment here I've not check the spelling as I'm speaking my mind. Bidgee (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a further note. ROxBo changed Wagga's Poprank[14] from 28 to 29 however it depends on what list you look at as Urban (Which the editor is unwilling to use in the Townsville article) it's 29th but if you look at the SD it has 28th (which should remain until it has been sorted). Bidgee (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga, New South Wales currently uses the UCL figure so ROxBo's edit was appropriate as it is the 29th largest UCL according to List of cities in Australia by population. The population figure and ranking are related so they should compliment each other. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No (whether it uses SD, LGA or UCL) if ROxBo says that Townsville should use SD population then every other location in Australia should be the same. Seems rather silly to have article's having mixed populations and statistics. Point is I'm sure it was agreed in the Anb (this noticeboard) that we should use UCL but if unavailable use SD or LGA. Bidgee (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What ROxBo says about Townsville is irrelevant to which ranking should be used for Wagga, or anywhere else for that matter. If the article uses the UCL population it should use the UCL ranking. If it uses the SD population it should use the SD ranking. Figures need to be consistent with each other in the same article. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend. I have written several times to you that each article should use what makes most sense/logical/applicable for the particular page. Hence Perth, Western Australia or Hobart, Tasmania, and Sydney, New South Wales use SD. But not Wagga Wagga - and that's fine. There is not logic in saying (I quote you) : "No ... if ROxBo says that Townsville should use SD population then every other location in Australia should be the same". (Firstly, no need to put words in my mouth please - if you want a blanket rule then say, I think we should use....). Many editors have found either method is acceptable to use. I would suggest it is better not to be so proscriptive. Please, other editors, see Talk:Townsville, Queensland for rationale for SD for Townsville if you can bear it.ROxBo (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's no problem in having different measures so long as it's clear. The sad fact is our main source is an agency (ABS) which is itself internally inconsistent in terms of its application of SD and UCL to different metropolitan areas. What works perfectly for Newcastle or Mandurah doesn't work at all for Townsville or Cairns. Exactly the reverse is true too. Bunbury's strange as the UCL and SD are very similar in shape. Like I've said elsewhere the capital cities are a unique exception as their MSR's are not defined by the ABS but by the state governments (except Sydney which I think remains defined in a number of conflicting ways). Orderinchaos 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Afro Australian sportspeople

Category:Afro Australian sportspeople was recently created. Just wondering if, one, this is appropriate and two, if there was a better title.The Hack 13:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

African Australian, to match up with our article African Australian, perhaps? (assuming that's what is meant by the category). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Australia to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting figures there, particularly Liam Hemsworth being the #13 most viewed page, with over a hundred thousand views! To be honest, I'd never heard of him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Richard Pratt (Australian businessman)

A lot of IP editing has been taking place over at Richard Pratt (Australian businessman). Interested editors may like to keep an eye on it to make sure neutrality is maintained. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know much about Pratt but is some of this POV pushing? Aaroncrick (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the POV-pusing Anon. 120.16.232.248 (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Perth Meetup

Its been a while since there was a meetup in Perth. If anyone is interested in a meetup so I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Perth/6. If your going to be over this way and would like to meet some wikilocals join the discussion. Gnangarra 03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Tovey

Can someone please revert User talk:77.86.17.34 edits. As I've run out of reverts. Just added a ref to back up the claim, even though its probably not the most reliable source, thanks Aaroncrick (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The article now reflects the citation. I am a bit puzzled about this edit though. I can't believe I just edited a Home and Away article. I feel so dirty. I need a shower. Of course, if anyone ever needs proof of my ability to remain neutral..... --AussieLegend (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha :) Yeah I'm puzzled as well. :S I was intending to remove her H&W site profile as it was quick to be deleted once she left. But obviously I deleted more than that.. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a good, honourable dirty, though. That's what I tell myself.  florrie  11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories and geo coordinates

For Hydroelectric power stations I've put in the geogrouptemplate so anyone browsing that category can see a map of the power stations automatically. I've also done it for all the other power station categories. However is there a way to see a map of all power stations - that is it would recurse down the subcategories and grab the coordinates for each page?

Is there a standardized way of doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.97.169 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in 1948 articles nominated for deletion

The entire series of 17 articles on members of the Australian cricket team during the 1948 'Invincibles' tour which User:YellowMonkey and other editors have been working on have been nominated for deletion. Editors who would like to comment on this nomination may do so at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be kept but I kind of suspect someone will want to make a name for themselves by being adventurous. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

TfD of enormous interest

Alice Springs
City
Alice Springs from Anzac Hill
Alice Springs Location in Australia
Coordinates: 23°42′0″S 133°52′12″E
Country	Australia
Territory	Northern Territory
Region	Central Australia
LGA	Alice Springs Town Council
Federal Division	Lingiari
State Electoral Districts	Araluen, Braitling, Greatorex, Stuart
Established	1872
Government
• Mayor	Damien Ryan
Area
• Total	148 km2 (57 sq mi)
Population  (2006)
• Total	27,481
• Density	178/km2 (460/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+9:30 (ACST)
Postcode	0870-0872
Location	1499 km (931 mi) from Darwin 1532 km (952 mi) from Adelaide
Max. temperature	28.7 °C (84 °F)
Min. temperature	13.2 °C (56 °F)
Annual rainfall	279.2 mm (11 in)
Website	Official site

Template:Infobox Australian Place has been nominated for deletion. No, I'm not joking. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Australian Place --AussieLegend (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can decipher the grounds on which deletion is being proposed, please feel free to let me know. It is stream of consciousness stuff. Orderinchaos 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be seen as some sort of attack on your project. The proposal is to convert to standard like on the right in which people unfamiliar with your templates can freely operate them and understand how they work... Himalayan 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why people would find this an easier template to use. The existing template has unique names that anyone editing the articles should be able to understand and the template is well documented. Of course you can't do anything about people who completely miss the pin location map instructions. The existing template has fixed field names which enforces standardisation between articles. People don't have to make up things as they go along. This proposed template seems very limited in its scope where it needs to be flexible and too flexible where it needs to be limited. Where is the surrounding suburbs map and the inbuilt automatic temperature and distance conversions? What field do I use to put in distances and directions to nearby places? Does "image_skyline" mean I have to hire a plane so I can get an image of the skyline for One Mile, New South Wales? If not, why is the field called "image_skyline"? These are all issues that don't exist in the existing template. That's the problem with making a "one size fits all" template. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I should probably also point out that the proposed template isn't as simple as you've shown here. {{Infobox settlement}} has an enormous number of fields that are completely redundant to Australia. That just adds complexity and makes standardisation across Australia articles much harder to enforce. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The template as it used here is misleading. The locality of Alice Springs is not necessarily the same as the City of Alice Springs local government area and thus use of fields such as Mayor, area etc. can be misleading. This becomes more clear when you look at cities like Melbourne or Sydney. IAP takes this into account, Infobox Settlement does not. Trying to impose a North American model where it does not fit is quite frankly bizarre, but sadly not unusual nowadays. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

From Template talk:Infobox settlement, it is quite clear that there is an organised campaign to remove all region-specific locality infoboxes and replace them with the bloated {{infobox settlement}} regardless of whether it is an improvement or otherwise. There does not seem to have been any attempt to determine if the move to one template is supported by consensus (or indeed, if IS works better than IAP or other regional infoboxes). I suggest that those pushing for standardisation have put the cart in front of the horse. They would be better off firstly determining consensus, then if consensus is for a move arranging a migration program and only then deleting the deprecated template. This method of seeking deletion will cause chaos in the short term as over 6,000 articles will lose their infoboxes until such time as someone gets around to putting IS on them (It is most definitely a job I would not want to leave to a bot). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is hubris. A few self-appointed template bullies have a cozy little meeting on Template talk:Infobox settlement, decide what is best for the rest of us, and how best to ram it down our throats. The answer to the latter, apparently, is to go straight to TfD, without entering into any discussion whatsoever. After all, what could we possible have to offer? The bullies have already figured out exactly what must be done, and how best to do it. Whatever we have to say will merely waste their precious time. Hesperian 12:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Utter FUD,. There is absolutely no way that articles will loose their infoboxes; that is not what is proposed, and not what happens when similar infoboxes have been deprecated in favour of {{Infobox settlement}}. And, once again, please do not fragment discussion; make your points on the TfD page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for wider discussion on this topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Standardisation on Infobox settlement. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A peace offering. Sorry to come into conflict. Enjoy! Himalayan 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I've withdrawn the nomination and I now hope we can work together to sort the mapping issue out. Sorry for not posting here first, see my comments to User:Orderinchaos for what my intentions actually are/were. Himalayan 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You should not have closed the nomination yourself (as a related party) and you certainly should hot have closed it as "non consensus". My reading of the debate was a clear "keep". I suggest reopening the debate and allowing an uninvolved editor to make the close. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Around the same time you were writing the above, I was modifying the closure. I don't have a problem with someone withdrawing their nomination, but declaring a bogus result that flatters your position is not on. Hesperian 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremely disappointed with Hesperian's response over this, I did the decent thing and withdrew my nomination and withdraw my comments to avoid conflict and then I find Hesperian overided what I had done and reported me at ANI for trying to end the conflict and work with you. I think it demonstrated clear bad faith and lack of understanding and was completely unnecessary given that I had withdrawn my nomination and cited the reasons why. I believe "no consensus to delete" was the correct way of saying keep. I'd have been completely happy to change to strong keep. Obviously I wasn't trying to be flattering, I genuinely wanted to end the conflict but Hesperian's response and shown clear lack of good faith and understanding and has inflamed ill feeling further when it had been settled yesterday. I had intended to withdraw my nomination, as a the result was clearly strong keep. Himalayan 08:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of points on this. Firstly, you shouldn't have deleted all of your comments as you did. After having made comments in a discussion you shouldn't change or delete them after people have replied to you (See WP:REDACT) Secondly, as a participant you shouldn't have closed the debate. Thirdly, you're continuing to do the wrong thing by deleting the comments of other editors, in ths case a sysop who closed the debate properly.[15] And, to top that off, your edit summary summary claims that you didn't close the debate when, in fact, that's exactly what you did. It's therefore more than a little hypocritical to express disappointment about Hesperian's response when you've made so many mistakes yourself, all of which could have been avoided simply by opening a discussion here instead of heading straight to TfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I've acknowledged that the right thing to do was to come here, please see my posts to Orderinchaos. I've apologised for not respecting more of your concerns earlier, but at least I had the ability to apologise and try to resurrect the situation. I tried to close the nomination by myself yesertday to avoid a prolonged heated discussiion and the very reaosn I withdrew all my comments was precisely because a lot of them wer enot heloping the situation and detracted from my good faith intentions which I'm now discussing rationally with Orderinchaos. I have a right to withdraw my own nomination which is what I actually tried to do initially. The actions since has inflmaed what I had tried to put to rest myself yesterday and I was overidden on a closed debate that I started and I had ended. You just misinterpreted my closure. What I emant to say with Nomination withdrawn. Resounding strong keep I tried hard to appease the situation yesterday and end the conflict but this has further stirred up trouble unnecessarily. I actually wasn't aware with how many people were happy or connected with the template otherwise I would have spoken here first. Again I have apologised for not consulting you first but please assume good faith. This ongoing ill feeling is not helping anybody, despite the fact I respected your concerns by swiftly trying to withdraw my nomination. I don't know what I have to say for you to understand I actually mean well and would actually simply like to see good quality maps in your articles and actually try to help improve things rather than degrade them. Orderinchaos can see that actually I would like to move on discuss things constructively as I should have done initially and I've acknowledged this, why can't you? Please just accept that I withdrew my nomination with an obvious strong keep in the debate and would now like to work and discuss things with you without conflict. The template was swiftly kept, now we should discuss what should have been discussed before the antagonizing TFD. Himalayan 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just incase there might not be a lot of viewers over at the history wikiproject:

Please see this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_history#Richmond_River_Massacres_and_Richmond_River_massacre and hopefully someone with more knowledge would be able to know what to do.Calaka (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move now fixed. Somno (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Help requested at City of Ryde - anon editor causing trouble. I've reached 3RR. Frickeg (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a clause in WP:BLP which says 3RR doesn't apply when you're reverting BLP crap like labelling someone a "Traitor". Rolled back and semi-protected for a week. Hesperian 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Geo-coding Australian electoral divisions - controversial?

I'd be interested in reader's thoughts on whether or not it is reasonable to add geographic coordinates to Australian electoral divisions, so as to provide a link on the page enabling users to traverse to a map centred on the Division,and so that the division turns up on maps which have a Wikipedia layer, such as google.

Elsewhere, User:Orderinchaos has asserted that there is something unreliable about pointing to the location of a Division, and that doing so somehow "erodes the credibility of Wikipedia in the wider world". She/he cites the changing boundaries of Divisions over time; the fact that some are now historic.

There seems to be no such controversy in other countries: 211 UK Parliamentary constituencies have geographic coordinates, without apparent ill effect. Personally I'm finding it very difficult to understand the demerit of adding a link to a map showing the rough location of the Division. What do you think? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Australian electoral divisions can cover a wide area (mostly in the rural and regional areas) and having Geo-coding would be inaccurate as it only shows a location not an area. Bidgee (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also the rather significant fact that electoral redistributions occur on a regular basis and there can be significant movement of electoral boundaries, especially in regional areas. This makes any coordinate data suspect. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The same arguments apply to most areas. Cities grow. Lakes shrink. Are you suggesting that coding of anything other than a point source is sufficiently unreliable that we should not be doing it? Are we better just leaving users to guess these things? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cities, towns and lakes don't shrink as much as an Australian electoral division which covers a much larger area then a city in a rural and regional area and then in most capitals covers a suburb or three. An area/district is total different to a city or a lake. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How would this work in effect? To use the most extreme example, how would the Division of Kalgoorlie (map) be handled? Moreover, this would need to be maintained as the boundaries of electoral divisions are reviewed every few years and can be tweaked a bit even when the changes aren't huge. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I don't see the same problems with geocoding electorates, local government areas etc. as some of the other contributors here and I can see some benefits. Will it be perfect, no, but I don't think that is not able to be overcome. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why size is important. Maps can scale. Is Division of Kalgoorlie more useful with or without the coord I've added? One click takes you to a rough location. It does not seek to define the boundaries, it merely gives you the general area. Absent that coord, at best, you have to traverse to some other page, such as Kalgoorlie, Western Australia or Western Australia (which oddly does have a coordinate). It still makes no sense to me. What is so special about these Divisions that they behave differently to every other large area coorded in wikipedia? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Geo-coords maybe ok with say Division of Solomon but not ok with Division of Lingiari as it does cover most of the Northern Territory but also covers the Islands way off the NW Coast of Australia. This map shows how big the current divisions are with some of them rather complex (Such as the Division of Farrer). Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Boundary changes are more pronounced in Australia because of our low population outside of the capital cities and major regional centres, which is most of Australia. I don't see any real benefit in providing coordinate data without knowing the electorate boundaries. All that coordinate data is going to tell you is that particular point was within the electorate at the time the data was added. Maps are more useful. As an example here are the coordinates of the office of the member for Port Stephens:32°45.7922′S 151°44.4032′E Now, tell me which of the following coordinates are in the electorate:

1. 32°45.6722′S 151°44.7392′E
2. 32°45.566′S 151°45.0495′E
3. 32°45.4606′S 151°45.3417′E --AussieLegend (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Picking up on AussieLegend's point, I concur that coordinates are more useful when accompanied by boundary maps, such as we see in the Berwick-upon-Tweed (UK Parliament constituency) article. But for me, in the absence of a map, coordinates are helpful. (Meanwhile, I haven't a clue which of the example coords is in the division - that's the whole point of getting a reliable set of coordinates added, so that I don't have to endure such guessing games. Clearly part of the solution is to get maps on the division articles. Why, though, would we wait to add coordinates? One or other will come first, but I see no argument for decrying the good in the hope that the best will come along. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Having done a trawl of a half dozen or more Division articles ... some have maps, many do not. Of the maps, there are at least three different styles from three distinct authors. Would some concerted action to standardise maps and ensure every article has one be out of the question? If maps are provided, does the utility of a coordinate taking the user to the rough centre point of a division make any more sense to you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that you were unable to determine which of the coordinates was in the electorate demonstrates the pointlessness of providing coordinate data without maps. For the record, all four of the coordinates provided were in a straight line with the endpoints less than 1.6km from each other. The description of the electorate at Electoral district of Port Stephens should have allowed you to determine, with reference to the electorate information (including a map) that's linked from within the article, that one of the coordinates provided is not in the electorate. It's not one of the endpoints by the way. Clearly the coordinates weren't as helpful as you indicate.

The big problem with providing maps is that most are copyrighted. As the boundaries are subject to periodic change, sometimes within a short period (Division of Newcastle changed before the last election and is likely to change again before the next!) the most practical solution is to provide a link to the official website, as that always contains the most current information. I concede this isn't done in a lot of electorates. Adding the links should be a priority over adding coordinate data as referring to the official website is normally the first step in determining appropriate coordinate information, which isn't always a simple thing to do. Of course, all this depends on the availability and willingness of editors to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as Frickeg and I have already discussed seperately, all of Adam Carr's images are public domain. He has individual electorate maps up. It's just uploading them one by one would take a while and nobody seems too interested in doing it. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use those maps as some are not correct. For example, the Paterson and Newcastle maps yjay are labelled as 2004 maps actually show the boundaries established for the 2007 election. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to generally concur with the consensus, the geodata adds little if anything to the pages, and maps would be fantastic - if anyone has the time to upload all 150. Anyone know the copyright status of the AEC maps? Frickeg (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the AEC maps are usable for copyright reasons, but I think the best solution would be to put together SVG maps instead (based on Adam Carr's images, perhaps). That way they can be adjusted easily enough when boundary changes do occur. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

I should make it clear to AussieLegend that I did not humour his guessing game enough to play it. His aha! conclusions are thus void.

It is a nonsense on stilts to suggest that here is an article on a geographic area (and sorry guys, that is what it is), which usefully supports a map or two of the boundaries of the area, a link to the canonical source of information about the entity, but that we would deny users the ability to click through to a commonplace map to enable them to relate their understanding of the area gleaned from the article to the features displayed on the map. We do not purport with a single coordinate to define the boundaries of the area. Which of our users, do you think, is stupid enough to think we would, and so misconstrue such a link?

Wikipedia has just slightly more than 500,000 coordinates. I give you my assurance that a good half of them relate to areas, some smaller than your districts, some larger, but all areas, having boundaries, which are as often as not subject to change. What on earth is so different about these areas that they be treated differently?

And to the other weak argument: we more than have the capacity to change the link after a boundary change. A maximum frequency of once every five years is not exactly challenging. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of what you frivolously call a guessing game was to demonstrate how useless coordinate data is without maps. That you decided not to take the example seriously does not negate the fact that the example was a valid demonstration. It does, however, demonstrate your fixed mindset on this issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

One point you failed to address is not how we change the coordinates (mind you - who is going to do it? the AusPol project is understaffed and overworked already) but which ones we should use. Simply using the last or most current ones is chronically misleading to readers if the major events in that seat relate to a different incarnation of it which may have been in quite a different location. Orderinchaos 08:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Divisions should have no geo-coding. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is what matters here. Cities have an official, gazetted, nominal location, irrespective of their sprawl. Electoral divisions do not. You can verify these two facts, and many more, at the Gazetteer of Australia Online. The inevitable conclusion: if an areal geographic feature has a nominal position according to the Gazetteer of Australia, you may give that position; if it doesn't, you may not, per WP:OR. Hesperian 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course such areas should be geocoded, as should any other area or point which can be shown on a map. There is clearly consensus across Wikipedia to do this (over half-a-million instances; including electoral districts of one sort or another in many different countries), and a single local project cannot override such consensus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure verifiability trumps the lot. If it has a gazetted position, I agree it should be geocoded. But if no reliable source gives a nominal point position for an areal feature, how are we to decide upon one. I'm absolutely certain that any attempt by us to arbitrarily boil an areal feature down to a point position suitable for geocoding, would have us running afoul of WP:OR. Hesperian 13:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Side note, since a couple of people have asked the question: the standard for geocoding areas to a nominal point is to give the centroid. Not that it especially matters for WP purposes, since calculating the centroid would still be OR, but just in case anybody was curious. --GenericBob (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the centroid changes every few years with electorates - in fact some have changed as many as 20 times - which one do we use? Secondly, how would said centroid be calculated from the electoral maps provided by the various Electoral Commissions? They don't give latitude coordinates for points. Orderinchaos 08:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. If you want to calculate the centroid of an electorate, you need more precise information (which does exist, it just isn't as readily accessible or user-friendly), and you need to do a bit of calculation (unless your geo software is nice enough to do it for you). As I've already noted, this certainly wouldn't meet WP sourcing standards - I mentioned it because commenters above seemed to be confused by the idea of assigning a point identifier to an area.

While lack of sourcing is a reasonable objection to geocoding electorates here, changeability doesn't hold water. After all, the incumbent for the Division of Swan has changed (or changed parties) 19 times since the seat was created, but nobody seems to view that as a reason not to list them. It's not that hard to put an "as of $DATE" note next to such information and let readers form their own judgements. --GenericBob (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Psephos and electoral results

Does anybody know where the root source of the stats can be found? It is being questioned at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brian Booth/archive1 for being reliable and it would be easier to simply know where the historical electoral results are kept on paper or elsewhere. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Psephos is run by retired long-time Wikipedia contributor Adam Carr. Why don't you drop him an email? Hesperian 01:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that these are available in past parliamentary handbooks; I've been through some of the ones at the National Library to find designations for some of the micro-parties that Psephos omits. So my guess is that's where they're from. Frickeg (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Most are from Parliamentary Handbooks and the rest are from the publication series "Election statistics" and its predecessors (see eg [16], [17]), which is calculated to booth level back to 1984, and "subdivision" level prior to that time. 1993 onwards are available on CD-ROM free from the AEC, though 2004 and 2007 are basically the website on CD and not useful for bulk analytical purposes. Orderinchaos 08:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide get-together with GLAM sector; Wikimedians invited

Hi all,

Jessica Coates and Brian Fitzgerald from Creative Commons Australia will be in Adelaide for an Opening Australia's Archives workshop event this Thursday (ie. 17 September). I'm going to have drinks and dinner with them in the evening after their event is finished, along with other members of the GLAM sector. If any Wikimedians from Adelaide would be interested in coming, please feel free to join me - it will certainly be an interesting series of discussions and more opinions are always good.

Pru and myself were planning on organising a meetup for when they were here, but unfortunately we only got the notice that they were coming late last week, and it was far too late to organise anything of substance. My apologies for the lack of notice with regards to this, and hopefully we can organise a meetup-proper for sometime in October.

Details

SA meetup with Jessica and Brian from Creative Commons Australia

Date: Thursday 17 September 2009

TIme: 5.30pm for drinks; stay on for a meal after 6pm

Place: Belgian Beer Cafe, 265 - 276 Ebenezer Place, Rundle Street, Adelaide

If you're interesting in coming along, please email me to let me know (dbwiki@gmail.com).

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the obscenely short notice, the turn-out was fantastic; Jessica in particular was most impressed. A lot of good came out of it :) Thanks to everyone who came. Daniel (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

David Tweed

It looks like there is a POV pusher on the David Tweed article. If any Australians would like to review the changes (see here) and note if there are any badly POV bits, that would be great. However, I reverted as I cannot see what they are specifically objecting to. The editor in question made his wholesale changes some time ago (made changes like altering the section title "Investment history" to "Investment strategy"), and is trying to revert back to them without any discussion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sydney

[18] Yes it was nominated for deletion. I reverted this edit as vandalism... Is that correct? Aaroncrick (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked [19] -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

City of Brimbank

Appears to be a BLP trainwreck waiting to happen. Can someone look into this? (I would but I am not well atm.) Orderinchaos 08:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The LGA article looks okay at the moment (although there has been quite a bit of to-and-fro in recent days), but Brimbank Council dismissal, 2009 is another page that probably needs to be watched closely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

The largest island of all Torres Strait Islands

Hi, there's two articles about Torres Strait Islands which say

• Prince of Wales Island (Queensland): With an area of 204.6 km², Prince of Wales Island is the largest of the Torres Strait Islands.
• Moa_Island,_Queensland: This island is one of the Torres Strait Islands and is the largest of all Torres Strait Islands.

I guess there's some confussion there as the largest island is defenetly only one of them. Abarinov (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This gives Prince of Wales as the largest. --Stephen 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Moa is the largest island in its group, and may have the largest population as a whole, but PoW Island is the largest in terms of area. I've updated the article to reflect this. Of a little more concern to me is that some of the sentences in the article are very similar to those found on this page: http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/info/ind/footprints/community/missions/tsi/i-m#moa], could be a copyvio, but which way? The possibly infringing text has been a part of the article since its creation in 2006, whereas the SLQ page only has a 2009 copyright on it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC).

Stimulus package?

This school has been brought to you by the Rudd Government ...

I went looking for an article on the stimulus package and could not find one. The Americans have an article and so do the European Union but we seem to have been overlooked (except for a small mention here.)

Do we need an article? It has been one of the biggest news items of the year. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be justified; it's worth something like $70 billion and has received acres of media coverage. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We also have a mention at Late 2000s recession in Australasia#First Commonwealth Government stimulus package --Stephen 02:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia

another troll article YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good ol Times of India mistakenly thinks Epping is in eastern Melbourne YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Ferguson

Well, he's moved back into Wikipedia. I've recreated the Dennis Ferguson article, which has previously been created and deleted many times before. Despite what we may think of Ferguson, I think I'm on solid ground to say that he's notable and an article is warranted. Previous articles, over many years, have been moved away from the 'Dennis Ferguson' title, as it was said that other articles about persons by the same name were about to be created. After many years, those other articles never materialised. Therefore, this article should not be moved, until sometime in the future when an article about a different Dennis Ferguson materialises, and a disambiguation page can be created.

On previous times when this article was created, those articles descended into chaos after they got filled with uncited and legally libellous claims about Ferguson, and slanderous opinion. I think a close eye needs to be kept on this article to stop the same thing occurring. It is currently fully referenced, and I propose that any unreferenced material that gets inserted into the article should be reverted. --Lester 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, as per before. It will be messy, though, as it will be heavily targeted over time. It is good to see that the recreation was done well. - Bilby (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Australia state or territory up for deletion

{{Australia state or territory}} is up for deletion. Bidgee (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to starting a centralised discussion about Infobox settlement? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Out with the dust it seems. I'm getting rather sick of the deletion listings going behind our back! The only way I knew about the deletion was when I was undoing an edit on the NSW article! Bidgee (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the cries of CANVASS will be heard, but you wont hear a mention of the organised campaign at IS to get rid of these templates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It was lovely of them to consult with us or at least let us know that this nomination was going to be made, especially after the fiasco last time! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

I want access to his source there's what a couple of thousand Australian service personnel and Police officers in Timor Leste and the Solomons that could come home given the nominator is able to assert that there is no more provinces/states/regions envisaged, gee it could solve a lot the tension in these countries and possibly many others. Maybe we should raising him and his source a pedestal rather then questioning his nominations. Gnangarra 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne

A couple of editors are trying to push Infobox settlement into Melbourne. Need I say more. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Melbourne#IAP. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bass Strait Triangle

I'm not convinced that this is a subject deserving an article, although the term does appear to have been used in one book.--Grahame (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yuk - that is like suggesting we all go back to those old arguments about keeping in popular culture sections in scientific articles - I would suggest it is better to keep it separate from the main article - and it has been mentione in more than just one book as a mention - also because there are nautical conservation zones that use the terms and names of features around Tasmania including bass strait - I would argue strongly to keep the article separate, rather than cluttering other articles with the content of the article being referred to SatuSuro 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was fully referenced and expanded .... Aaroncrick (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Australia state or territory

Hi all,
I first edit the Australian state/territory infobox on 25/09 (that is, today) thinking that, in the same way for the many others I edited (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Austria) my changes were going to be uncontroversial. It was then that an user reverted the template to the previous version, pointing me to this page for further discussion. I can only say in my defence that I didn't think a simple template could engender such heated debate…

you can see my revision of the template as it would normally appear here.

My reasons to prefer the new revision:

• it's undoubtedly easier to edit
• allows for more precision when dealing with time zones, especially useful considering their variety within Australia (some states use DST, some don't, etc...)
• automatically generates figures for density, based on area and population data
• plainly states, just below the name, whether the subdivision is a state or a territory
• nicknames and mottos are somewhat readable again
• automatically fills the ISO 3166-2 and the "website" field using the postal abbreviation
• this new layout looks better than the old one ;)

--93.45.59.26 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after a couple of unpleasant incidences, the idea of changing these templates is a bit touchy at the moment. With that said, at a glance, I like the way yours looks, and it addresses many of the serious problems that using infobox settlement directly has. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

Yet another proposed deletion

{{Australia-botanical-garden-stub}} is up for proposed deletion with the nom also removing the template from some articles. Bidgee (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed more from non-stub articles, this has way too little use to be a stub type. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lee Kernaghan

Lee Kernaghan is in desperate need of expansion. I just jettisoned a ton of poorly formatted copyvio, and it's now a two sentence stub without sources. He has two notable awards, so there must be sources. Anyone wanna take it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The text was added in this edit. Also see this edit by LeeKernaghan (talk · contribs), the subject of the article. I don't really like any of the iterations of the history section I've found so far. Wikipedia biographies are not meant to be mirrors of official websites. Graham87 16:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanna take a crack at expanding it? He's obviously notable but I don't know where to find sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's very late here, but some reliable Australian news sources are The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. They should have plenty of articles about Lee Kernaghan. Graham87 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Melbourne

Just a notice that you may want to keep an eye on this page. A user has recently performed some weird move vandalism on it [20]. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Gazetteer of Australia

The Gazetteer of Australia Online has changed its format, making it difficult to link to individual records. The old ?rec= format used by {{Gazetteer of Australia}} is still working, but it is no longer possible to obtain a "rec" value from a record URL. Furthermore, the search page links to records using the POST request method, meaning that once one has found the desired page, one cannot even copy and paste the URL. After fiddling around for a while, I figured out that the GET method is also supported, so URLs of the form http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/PlaceDetails.jsp?submit1=WA100032232 work, where "WA100032232" is whatever is listed as the "Feature Number" of the record.

The main issue that arises from this is the necessity of updating the citation template so that new citations can be made; and this implies updating all the template instantiations to use the new URL format.

Hesperian 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the web pages called up by our old links are slightly different from the web pages called up by a new search, the latter have greater precision in the coordinates. Melburnian (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Means I have to remember to go to ga.gov.au/place-name instead of ga.gov.au/map/names each time I look one up too :P Orderinchaos 07:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The AFL Draft is coming...

Someone stated in this AFD that the AFL draft is coming up soon. Since every year this ends up leading to massive amounts of unpleasant drama with articles on new draftees being created, only to be deleted a couple of months later for failing WP:ATHLETE because they don't get a game, I thought we might be a bit proactive this year and try to come to some sort of arrangement before the deletion requests are filed. I know that there may be people who create these articles anyway, but hopefully with a bit of forward planning we can minimise the amount of ill feeling that is generated by the creation/cleanup process. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

The idea that springs to my mind is a single list for all draftees (List of draftees for the 2010 Australian Football League season or a more appropriate title). I assume that anybody drafted will have enough content about them generated by the newspapers' sports sections to support a paragraph or two in a list-type article. Any new articles on draftees can be merged/redirected here.

Once it is established who is playing and who isn't, the players can be split out and {{main}}-linked to form their own Notability:Athelete-compliant articles, while the rest remain in the list (which is kept or deleted as verifiability and the general notability guideline demand). -- saberwyn 06:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That somebody was me, the list already exists at 2009 AFL Draft#2009 National Draft and the table could be expanded to add a notes or comments column to house some description of the player - not that I think you need to do so. The main thing that EVERYONE needs to realise and ACCCEPT is that non-WP:ATHLETE guideline players can still exist if there are sufficient significant, reliable, third party sources for their article to exist - ie they satisfy the general notability guidelines. Look at last years bunch - Watts, Natainui, Hill, Rich etc survived their AFDs, the lower draft picks didn't. A feature article in The Age is reliable and significant, a mention on the club webpage as a new draftee is not. I agree we don't want a hundred "Bill Smith rocks and is gonna be the next Chris Judd" type of stubs, but you shouldn't rule out the rest if they have suitable references and are well written. The other thing that the WP:AFL project sort of agreed on is that players who are delisted without playing a game would be redirected to their club's "list of all players" article... but only Freo, Geelong, Port and Brisbane (I think) really have those articles up and running to date. This idea seems to have been ignored in the latest AFD listed above.The-Pope (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonthaggi desalination plant

Soapy article which probably needs a rewrite from the ground up. I gave it a major prune several months ago but many of the deleted paragraphs have since worked their way back in. I have no interest in this whatever except wanting to see a balanced and factual article. Some more eyes would be appreciated. –Moondyne 10:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cadastral divisions

I added this comment over at WP:AUSTPLACES but there's not a very big audience there so...

I just noticed someone has added information and a few articles about the cadastral (property/allotment) divisions in Australia. See Cadastral divisions of Australia. I think this falls under the scope of this project and probably should be mentioned here. Also, it would be nice to see project members have a look at these articles in an effort to standardise them and make them more accessible/useful (I never knew they existed).

This came about because a guy in the army was shot in the head last night in a training exercise ("Commando shot dead before third Afghan tour". ABC News Online. 2009-10-21.) at a place called Cultana and I couldn't find it on Wikipedia. Finally I found it is the name of a hundred (parish) in South Australia. There is an airstrip and army base of some sort there apparently. Consequently I created Cultana, South Australia (which, on reflection, is probably misnamed but that was what the link from Cadastral divisions of South Australia prescribed to turn the red link blue). Feel free to edit, move, merge to other.

What do you think about these hundreds. Do we need an article on each hundred/parish? Each county? I would like to be able to make some consensus-based decisions on these. Or please point me to the spot, if already done. Donama (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is (noting the differences in uses between states) the counties should have articles generally but the parishes only should if a specific use can be found for them (this one being a very good example). The great majority of parishes/hundreds are utterly non-notable. A good example of a county article can be found at Camden County, New South Wales which includes Camden plus the Illawarra and Southern Highlands regions. A few parish articles are linked from there, but not many. Parishes are strange as they take no account of population, so in very remote areas there may be just as many of them as in an urban area. Orderinchaos 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Second what OIC says above - the unofficial consensus so far seems to have been that counties are inherently notable, but parishes/hundreds only so when there's actually something notable about them. Some parishes in Western Queensland, for instance, have populations of zero; it's hard to see how we could justify an article for them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

When magpies attack

Drop bears

I just noticed a series of new articles that could do with some attention.

• Animal attacks in Australia
• Crocodile attacks in Australia
• Dingo attacks in Australia
• Kangaroo attacks in Australia
• Shark attacks in Australia
• Snake attacks in Australia
• Spider attacks in Australia
• Stingray attacks in Australia

And yes, the first article does have a section on magpies. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly the category has good links to other similar articles - SatuSuro 06:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Speciesist issue arises from the titles of the articles - there is a whole extensive category tree that specifically deals with Human Death- as I will perhaps not be online for a while, I trust the more experienced and knowledgable editors might offer their insights on category and article title issues where the ambiguity of animal attack might be considered with some carefull deliberation SatuSuro 07:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The vast majority of snake bites occur because the human harassed the snake. Snake "attacks"? "Spider attacks" is even worse. I never heard of a spider attacking a human before. People get bitten by spiders because they accidentally put their hand, or their backside, on one. Hesperian 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally ignore the anthropocentric bias found in our articles, I've assumed that our audience only belong to that species, but these examples may be cause for greater concern. Without looking at the pages (which would be cheating) I immediately recall those sensationalist TV pseudo-documentaries with close-ups of 'attacking' spiders leaping toward camera. The word attack is entirely subjective:

sharks and crocs are usually trying to eat 'us' (though this is usually tourists, not Australians), the same may be said of those packs of mongrel dingoes;

for spiders and snakes it is as H has described;

the roos would usually be defending themselves, a fact I recently saw noted in a pamphlet from 1834;

proffering a view on humans and stingrays is possibly distasteful and leaves the utterers, no matter how germane the comment, open to attack.

This leaves our erstwhile adversaries, the Magpies, which I must concede do have some grounds for maintaining a grudge; there is some bad blood there! Whilst relations between the species are now generally civil, 'some of my friends' are magpies, I still find myself being subjected to an unprovoked attack by those who are strangers to me. What's up with that! ... their eggs don't even taste very nice, nobody ever goes back for seconds. cygnis insignis 13:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My other concern is that these articles are pretty much just lists of attacks. It's hard to see stuff like Stingray_attacks_in_Australia#Non-fatal_attacks as tremendously notable. There are also citation issues where they're described as 'unprovoked' attacks; a lot of the cases listed don't have enough information available to confirm that. (And honestly, IMHO, swimming in croc waters while being made of meat is provocation in my book.) --GenericBob (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is most concerning is that the creator has admitted to have created truncated titles to the articles. The potential for the project to carry out of context articles that are not tied in with articles in other projects with adequate context - is to make the Australian project look like a bunch of bloody idiots - I strongly suggest changing all the articles to what they should be so that we dont get ourselves into knots trying to explain away such stupid titles or to try to understand what we are trying to improve SatuSuro 19:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Deaths due to animal attacks appears to be part of the villain - of which it really should be - Human deaths due to animal attacks - lets not get shy - someone who has access to internet that doesnt cost a euro every x minutes - should go ahead and change them with no embarrassment - it will be embarrassing if we leave them as they are!SatuSuro 19:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think 'attack' is particularly inappropriate where referring to stonefish or jellies. The only harm done by these creatures is to people who run into them; we might as well talk about 'rusty nail attacks in Australia'. I've moved the jellyfish/man-o-war articles from 'attack' to 'sting', but the category still needs to be fixed. --GenericBob (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I have not seen other comments arrive - this exercise should be a very good one in illustrating why shortening titles for no apparently really good reason, and placing ambiguous titles is simply more problematic than just not creating the articles in the first place. The context and clarification of what is attacking what (if they are indeed attacking) is all important - the photos are the last thing you need. SatuSuro 06:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting choice of titles, maybe they could be included with Terrorist attacks in Australia  :) the government could even run a new version of "be alert not alarmed" watch out for "Kanga's with cameras". Enough joking the ABS uses the term Causes of Deaths that is at least the only reliable source so far that covers the topics, suggest Deaths caused by Crocodiles in Australia though clearly this is more likely to be the saltwater rather than the freshwater crocs. The ABS also doesnt destinguish between specific non domestic species of mamals, it refers to Snakes and Lizards as a group it does separate spiders from other bug like crawlies. It doesnt distinguish marine creatures other than sharks. In effect we dont have accurate data source to refer to. for exact numbers of these subjects we only have anitdotal newspaper reports. All of the article look like they have WP:SYNTH concerns I'd suggest they all get merged back into to terrorist article. Gnangarra 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Got to watch those damn stingrays sneaking into our country, they look harmless but they could be carrying weapons of mass destruction. :) Orderinchaos 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but Remember, it's all about those vile stingray smugglers, not illegal sting rays trying to jump the queue to rest on the sandbar. But, if we lock the sting rays up in holding pens away from the sandbar, other potential illegal sandbar sitting sting rays will take note that we are tough on sand bar control and will chose not to make the perilous journey to the sandbar with those vile stingray smugglers. --Merbabu (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Koala attacks in Australia has recently been created. I think that this is getting a bit silly. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was getting silly 8 days ago when I started with this but really, Koala attacks in Australia#Drop bears? WTF? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jokes aside the additions continue so when is somebody going to bight the bullet and suggest the whole attack collection will end up making the Australian project the laughing stock project for carrying such ridiculous speciesist and absurd titles SatuSuro 21:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that right now: These articles are ridiculous and should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of further articles have been created: Stonefish stings in Australia and Octopus attacks in Australia. I note that the koala article is now at AfD. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a pattern establishing itself on wikipedia lately. I've found most annoying, however, is "-subject a- in -subject b-" appearing more and more in catagories. "21st-century heads of government in Oceania" in Kevin Rudd is one of my pet peeves. Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make it very clear I have nothing against the editor as such or most of the subject(s) being collectively dealt with in an article somewhere - it is the ambiguity issue - such titles were deliberate (as admitted by the creator - who made no apologies for creating the short titles) - my understanding is the specific issues might be dealt with where (1) the creator of the articles is led (again) through what wikipedia is about - and how one article with a better title might serve the purpose. (2) I am concerned that the editor has an idea that a few photographs and an odd reference might seem to look like a valid article - even worse might consistute a defendable article. (3) Moving component parts of a larger issue into smaller articles work perhaps where there is already a well documented and referenced over sized larger article - this seems a reverse logic working - small lighty referenced phenomenon that should be in one article that has a different title. All this reminds me of the old joke from very long time ago during the cold war - if a tree falls will the CIA or NSA know about it? Every animal "attacking another" is a gross global phenomenon that happens billions of times every day - to be fixated upon the very isolated other end of the food chain or statistical scale to do with humans is a fundamental error to justify articles in wikipedia - one article better titled perhaps would be sufficient.SatuSuro (cannot find the damned thingos on this turkish kezboard) 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the best thing is to take on a case-by-case basis with merge templates, for ones with some possibility of notability. They should be listed here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Proposed Emu attacks in Australia to be merged into Emu, discuss at Talk:Emu#Merge_discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Octopus attacks in Australia has been proposed to be merged back into Blue-ringed octopus, discuss at Talk:Blue-ringed_octopus#merge_with_Octopus_attacks_in_Australia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I held off proposing Magpie attacks in Australia be merged back into Australian Magpie, but the removal of text did (I feel) changed the meaning of segments of text in the parent article, so I have reverted the subtraction back. There is a whole book on the subject of magpie attacks (and many studies), so the daughter article could feasibly be expanded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There's going to be a new article shortly, called Wikipedia editor attacks in Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• LOL AussieLegend :D Just thought I'd write here to note that I nominated Kangaroo attacks in Australia for deletion. Orderinchaos 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stonefish need I say more? --GenericBob (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You should probably have said Talk:Synanceia#Merger proposal. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would have broken with a long tradition of getting my links wrong ;-) (Fixed now.) --GenericBob (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jackson Jive

I don't known exactly how native Australians feel about the racial controversy, so I would love to see outside perspectives on on the article to make sure that I presented this fairly and neutrally. The Squicks (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks alright to me at first glance, but I think you need to put a little more emphasis (probably best in the "The Sketch" section) that the Hey Hey episode was the second of two reunion specials after being off the air for ten years, and that the Jackson Jive had performed on Red Faces during the show's original run (although I don't know when off the top of my head). It may also be worth emphasising that Connick was a recurring guest during the show's original run and was brought back for the special because of this. For completeness, it might be worth adding Red Symons's score and reaction, with the disclaimer that Red was the recurring judge for the segment (the other two were usually guests) and was infamous for low scores. -- saberwyn 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The original performance was 20 years ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this really pass WP:NOT#NEWS? It was a bit of a one week wonder (at most) in the news. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd lean towards not being sufficiently notable for it's own article, (but it does warrant the mention on Hey Hey It's Saturday). - Bilby (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to concur with Nick and Bilby. Orderinchaos 10:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, I would support a deletion if nominated. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this easily comes under WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the "At one point, a cartoon suddenly flashes on screen with the words "Where's Kamahl?"" - it isn't clear from the wording that this form of random cartoon commentary was the norm for Hey Hey. Orderinchaos 10:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Invincibles FT

As some people might know, half of this would-be featured topic was nominated for deletion recently. In any case, the three remaining articles not at GA/FA level, Australian cricket team in England in 1948, Sam Loxton and Lindsay Hassett are at GAN, but may be stuck there 3-4 months in the queue, so I decided to ask here in case so that hopefully the waiting time will not be around 3 months. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from the other side of the world

Hello there. I wondered if anyone here could access this document, and email it to me? It would be a big help in improving Dick Turpin, an article on which I started work today. If its of any help, I have full access to all these services, and don't mind returning the favour. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The document is onsite access only, so this request can only be serviced by one of you Canberrans. Hesperian 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D is the man. Thank-you very much, this user's help has made an invaluable addition to the article. Have a virtual cup of tea :) Parrot of Doom 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More eyes requested

Someone has been creating cut and paste articles about daylight savings referenda in Western Australia. Western Australian daylight savings referendum, 1992 needs a double check: the introduction describes a 1975 referendum instead of the 1992 referendum. Probably a mistake in the cut and paste. Durova³⁶⁰ 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a mistake in the date. [21] confirms 4 April 1992 was the date. I'd actually like to fill these out properly (they were on my list to create but someone beat me to it) but I'm buried in full time studies until probably mid-December. Orderinchaos 22:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

St Paul's College pro-rape group

Is it appropriate to add a sentence or two to St. Paul's College, Sydney about the pro-rape group started by students mostly from that college[22]? Donama (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Students of that age do inane things all the time and very, very few of them are notable. If (trying to think of a case where it might work) the principal was promoting it and signing up the students in newsletters, that might be a different story. Orderinchaos 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Got to agree with OIC here - university age students are not often renowned for their maturity. If it were widespread perhaps a note in one of the other related, articles though - Peripitus (Talk) 03:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

One must then ask the question, by what measure is an inane act notable or non-notable? Is it decided by what a Wikipedian thinks, or do we look outside of Wikipedia at the outside media to define what is or isn't notable? Look at the following facts, and let us know the criteria for which they are notable:

• Sundays and Wednesdays are the busiest nights at the St Paul's college drinking bar.
• The St Paul's wine cellar stocks a large collection of stored vintages
• At the St Paul's end-of-year formal, attendees enjoying a 3 course feast
• Sometimes at the St Paul's formal, men take motorbike rides around the oval
• In November, 2009, St Paul's College was involved in a national scandal, with students running a pro-rape group and website. The group was part of a broader culture that demeans women in a sexist and often sexually violent way, according to experts.
  

So are we saying that the first 4 points are notable, while the 5th point is non-notable and therefore cannot be included in the article? What is the criteria for this assessment? --Lester 04:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

None are notable, in fact, most educational institution articles are stupid. Uni articles tend not to be, but residential colleges and high schools are invariably filled with nn patter since how many 3rd party historians or journos write about them, with proper investigation? Because they are small fry, teh journos just trust the official school material that is fed to them, eg, that the fee is only the $200 odd baseline from teh state goverment, among other things YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with YellowMonkey. Having actually worked on a number of articles related to educational institutions, they often contain much that is truly bizarre. WP:SCFT makes interesting reading here. Orderinchaos 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with YellowMonkey and Orderinchaos here - none of those are notable in terms of St Paul's. I had wondered if the website should be included when the news broke, and the thing is that the news isn't about St Paul's college. It is simply that some people who go to St Paul's have created a rather nasty facebook group - unless something emerges that strongly connects it to the college, such as something about the college that promotes this culture, or if it has a significant impact on the college in some way, (which I guess is possible, but there's nothing demonstrating that this will happen yet), I don't see how it would warrant mention in the college article. - Bilby (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to have a story about the college (and we're probably stuck with it) this should definitely be included - it is a widely reported scandal involving the college. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the SMF article points to a wider context more related to St Pauls - but I'm still inclined to tread carefully. - Bilby (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, nobody has given any reasonable explanation as to why the utter trivia that makes up the bulk of the St Pauls article should remain, while the college's history of violence towards women should be deleted. The current news of the pro-rape group is not the first time that the issue of misogamy and violence against women has been raised in the media in relation to the culture at St Pauls college. It also surprises me that some people here interpret it as inane, non-notable patter, or just actions by students not noted for their maturity.--Lester 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

nobody is saying it should remain. This argument is misleading YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Lester's take on this. A pro-rape group is hardly an inane prank. It's much more serious. Having read all the comments here, I would support adding a comment about the pro-rape news items connected with St Paul's to the article. Donama (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Any objective historian writing a history of the college two decades from now would spend a paragraph on it, surely. Hesperian 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a small 2-sentence addition to the article. Critiques, etc, welcome. Donama (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Donama, though I'd support its expansion. There's a lot of material to support it, dating back over a decade.--Lester 08:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

There's an edit war going on at Australian federal election, 2007 - apart from the fact I'm just about to head out, I'm an involved editor, so am not the one to be brokering the peace on this. Some assistance would be great. My personal opinion is that it's "retrofitting" an article about a 2007 election with comments and events that occurred or were alleged to have occurred much later and bear little relevance to the campaign, but I'm happy to go with consensus if it contradicts me on that. Orderinchaos 05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Has either side of the discussion tried using the article's talk page? Andjam (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are occasions when one has to stand back, look at what is in dispute, and think, "Is a civil, friendly discussion on a talk page likely to resolve this or is this a case of OR vs Wikipedia policy doing clear-cut battle with only one logical outcome?" Orderinchaos 14:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

HealthConnect delete?

I started this article ages ago but like the records system itself it hasn't gone far. It has hardly been edited and not once in the last 18 months. It was basically a few limited hospital trials. Finding sources is problematic, official government websites are marked as archived and are not being updated. The system has been superseded or plans have changed by the Rudd Government. Should it be deleted or maybe merged into Health care in Australia under an electronic records section with updated information? - Shiftchange (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered just redirecting it? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Britney

I know it's a bit of a trivial topic, but I was amazed to discover last night (after it being pointed out by a non-wiki Canadian friend of mine) that neither the Spears article nor the tour article made any mention of the massive controversy currently being played out in national and international media over her Australian performances. I've done a Factiva search and the level of coverage of these aspects, while not new, is certainly unprecedented in its scale. Is this something we should address? Orderinchaos 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Who? what controversy? --Merbabu (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason portions of the media are shocked she is miming or using recorded music at concerts. Personally I'd be shocked if she played completely live - it would be a very poor outcome for listeners. It seems to have attracted enough attention for notice on at least the tour article though (I am assuming there is one on the current tour). - Peripitus (Talk) 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, same. The tour article is at The Circus Starring: Britney Spears. The friends I have who went (strangely enough, I was at the $49 Birds of Tokyo gig about 200m away at Burswood Theatre at the time) agreed more with the "boring and stiff" / "dot on the screen" / "lacklustre" descriptions that appeared in places like The Age, Sunday Times and, of all places, CNN. Orderinchaos 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My daughter has several Britney DVDs that she got around the time we got a new, super-dooper surround sound DVD player back in 2000. We noticed then that she mimed at a lot of her concerts and the claim that it would be a very poor outcome if she didn't mime is an understatement. A lot of singers mime at least some of their songs during concerts so I don't see what the fuss is. That said, there has been some controversy, with people selling their tickets for a substantial loss on eBay. (Maybe they had a WWE match to go to?) I'm not sure it's encyclopaedic though, unless it's in Britney fan attacks in Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol; don't go there again. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay for a pop concert. On Paris by Night they don't ever bother to put a mike as a prop sometimes and sometimes on a long note they don't even pretend to be singing. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in the article on the tour. Some media reports are claiming that large numbers of people are leaving the concerts early due to their low quality. I'd add something, but I don't want to mess up my edit history with changes to Britney-related articles ;) Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps though though we are afflicted by recent–ism. I can't see any period in her career without news articles talking about/criticizing her miming. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is doomed to have an article on her tour (which I guess meets WP:N, though routine tours by musicians hardly seem encyclopedic), it may as well include that her performances got bad reviews. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Greg Sheridan eyes needed

Article said that he was dead on Oct 20 and stayed 25 days YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wishful thinking perhaps? I've blocked the vandal responsible as being a vandalism only account as well. Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

When animals attack, again!

Once more, Animal attacks in Australia and its offshoot pages... the original creator has added rating templates to these articles. I won't link to them all individually, but they can be found via Special:Contributions/James4750.

I think most of these ratings are excessively high - Magpie attacks in Australia gets C/Mid and Animal attacks in Australia got B/Top, although I've changed that one. I've suggested to the editor that he might want to look at existing articles to get a better feel for how the ratings work; additional feedback would be welcome. I'm not sure whether a lot of them should be classified as 'start' or 'C'; while some have a fair bit of material, I don't think they have nearly enough structure or sourcing (other than documentation of specific incidents). --GenericBob (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the kangaroo article has been recreated as well, despite being deleted in its AfD discussion. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I merged Octopus attacks in Australia into Blue-ringed octopus per almost unanimous agreement on talk page (article creator is sole-dissenter). Note the content is identical in Animal attacks in Australia - is it more appropriate to redirect to here?

Btw, I note a great deal of latitude away from otherwise largely consistent community opinion has been given to this editor. --Merbabu (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I redeleted the kangaroo one and rerated what articles had not already been rated to Start/Low. Agreed with Merbabu - I think it's a case of one gets a couple of chances, one blows them, then one gets dealt with - this guy is rapidly approaching that point. Orderinchaos 03:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if Animal attacks in Australia ought to be kept. I've held off from nominating it for deletion because I think it's a topic that could be the subject of a worthwhile (if minor) WP article, but I haven't seen it moving in that direction. At present it just reads like a scrapbook, which seems to me like the sort of thing WP:INDISCRIMINATE attempts to discourage. --GenericBob (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally of the view it should go, as should most (if not all) of the others, and would support a collective AfD but I'd rather hear what other editors have to say first. Orderinchaos 13:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My instinct was this should be kept as notable, and the easiest way to demonstrate notability would be to demonstrate the existence of a book on the subject. To that end I searched Libraries Australia, and came up with absolutely nothing. My instinct was wrong then. Hesperian 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for AfD too. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've let the article creator know that these articles are headed for AFD if nothing improves. I'll give it a few days and see what happens before posting an AFD. --GenericBob (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed!

I am working on a project with my AP Biology class. Our assignment is to take a stub article and transform it into a FA. My group is actively working on perfecting the pudu deer article, and I noticed this project organization has pudu deer on its list of articles to improve. We would greatly appreciate additions/critiques to the article. Thanks! Lisa Anne893 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pudú was mistagged as WP Australia. Good luck with your assignment. –Moondyne 03:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Universities COTM Nomination

Hello Australian Wikipedians. I just wanted to let you all know that a university handled by WikiProject Australia, James Cook University, has been nominated for next month's WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month. If you'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, be sure to vote for the university. While you're there, consider helping improve one of our current Collaborations of the Month.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Queensland Places

http://queenslandplaces.com.au/ - it "contains a record of all places in Queensland. It has over 1100 entries, 5000 illustrations, and 500,000 words on Queensland towns researched over the last seven years. It was developed by a team led by Professor Peter Spearritt at the Centre for the Government of Queensland at the University of Queensland." (from the Slattery's Watch newsletter)

I'm not sure if this would be good enough to use as a source, but it could at least be used to spot any holes in WP coverage. --pfctdayelise (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! It is probably of as much value of many, if not most, of the sources used in articles on small towns in Aust. such as tourism sites, Local Government sites etc. Very handy to fill some of the holes in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Localities. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It even includes areas in metropolitan Brisbane - reminds me a lot of the old Australian Places site at Monash which covered Victoria and was taken down a few years back. Orderinchaos 07:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a few omissions that I can see, but what is there seems very useful; thanks for bringing this to my attention! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Using old materials held by libraries

Hi all. I've been looking through the flickr collection of the state library of south australia. They are doing the usual library thing and claiming copyright over all images in their collection, really regardless of the age. I want to use some of the images but am avoiding just grabbing them and slapping the legitimate PD tag on them; keeping someone who controls such a collection onside is a good thing. Has anyone been through this and has some advice on the best way forwards ?. From what I can see the library is not seeking any revenue but just wants recognition. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been some approaches made to the Library, but I don't know the results. As I understand it they don't claim copyright of the image, but ownership of the scan and physical photos. My attitude has been not to use the library's scans, but to make my own, as many of the images come from postcards and similar which I've been able to track down when needed. Admittedly, though, some can't be found elsewhere, and that's always disappointing, so a better solution would be great, and maybe that will be possible with the Flickr images. I'll ask around at my end and see if anyone knows how to proceed. - Bilby (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The approach I've taken with the Queensland Museum with my discussions with them, is to get them to release the "scan" portion under CC-BY-SA or similar. They're usually happy to acknowledge that the original is public domain, and usually all they're after is enforced recognition, which the licencing gives them. It's not the best solution, but it has worked in my case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks folks, I might go and talk to them as email is a bit impersonal. Will see if I can convince them that their collection will get more recognition (and use) if they give permission to use the images. Without access to good copies of the originals we unfortunately end up with poor quality reproductions like File:First tramrun adelaide nov1908.jpg - Peripitus (Talk) 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kristina Keneally

In light of recent developments in New South Wales, the Kristina Keneally article might need some attention...Hack (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Been "attended" to death I think actually. I did some of it. Plus ALSO,

• Nathan Rees,
• Australian Labor Party,
• New South Wales Ministry,
• Premiers of New South Wales
• List of Premiers of New South Wales by time in office
• Women in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly ?
• New South Wales state election, 2011
• Electoral district of Heffron
• And the Ministries or other changes when announced & any related articles. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian Australians

Does anybody here speak Norwegian? I think the creator of this article might need some help - Norwegian_Australian#History in particular looks like it's been created by running a Norwegian version through Google Translate. The editor also seems to have misinterpreted a couple of sources, possibly due to language problems. --GenericBob (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Living Treasure, anyone?

I just stumbled into this situation, but Wikipedia seems to have been trumpeting a fake Oz "living treasure" since March 2008. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Barricade your windows... they're coming to get you.

Looks like User:James4750 has been reading up on referencing. Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009 and Kangaroo attacks appeared yesterday. The Canberra one to me borders on WP:NOTNEWS territory, but he'll counter that with the effect on the cull. But 800 words of prose in 13 sections and with 25 references is a bit of overkill. I'll leave it to others if you want to return to AFD territory. The talk page on the general attacks page has the following comment from him (unsigned):

This article is greatly improved from when it was first nominated for deletion when it was little more than a short list:6k with 13 references, now it has more than 80 references. Since the last discussion there was another kangaroo attack reported in Victoria. [23]

So are they different enough from the versions previously deleted, or not?The-Pope (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a case of trying to take the Australian project to the limits of WP:NOT and back - just waiting for camel attacks, bee attacks and fly attacks at any moment SatuSuro 00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've AfDed the Canberra article (the claim that the 'attack' lead to a cull is not supported by the reference given) and I think that the Kangaroo attacks article may be speedy deletable by an uninvolved admin per CSD G4 as it appears to be nothing more than an enlarged version of the article which was deleted. I think that editing restrictions on this editor may be long overdue. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wish he'd read up on Wikilinking. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now nominated Kangaroo attacks for speedy deletion as per GSD G4 as suggested. While there are extra references and some expansion, a review of the AFD shows the article still fails for most of the reasons listed there. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

and deleted - there was no substantive difference between this and the version of the deleted article, just prior to closure of the Afd - Peripitus (Talk) 06:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

and they just copied it to their user space. I've deleted the house layout they had up on the grounds of the layout being copyrighted which may now also apply to other layouts (Post 1955) of buildings. Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Did we ever reach a conclusion what to do on the various Category:Animal attacks in Australia entries? Orderinchaos 11:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Magpie attacks in Australia should be deleted as it is a misleading article (Majority swoop not attack [I've explained below], there are other species of birds that use the work Magpie and I could go on) and most relevant content already (or did) exist in the Australian Magpie article. Only a very small percentage (1 - 5% [depending on what figures you look at with different Gov Depts]) of swooping magpies attack where as the rest just swoop to scare rather than attack. Bidgee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of em' all. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

...except for Drop Bear attacks in Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Those damn drop bears. Gotta watch em. Orderinchaos 04:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Azaria Chamberlain disappearance seems to be the only article in that category worth keeping. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it predates this particular issue. Orderinchaos 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No strong opinion on the dingo and shark articles (I think those could be turned into worthwhile articles, if they can get away from the 'list of incidents' format). All the rest ought to be deleted. --GenericBob (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting list

My bot has stopped functioning at the moment, sorry about that. I cannot fix it right now but hopefully will soon. This means that the list of AfDs on this page is no longer updated and will need updating manually. I can send you my code if you want to fix it and run it yourself. -- maelgwn - talk 11:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

New article: Criticism of Australia

The country, not the movie or geographic feature (at least for now). I think that this is a hopelessly vague topic for an article, as demonstrated by the first example actually being a criticism of the Howard Government. The intended scope of the article "criticism or sentiment against the history, people or government polices of Australia") is extraordinarily broad. Thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If such pages exist, then it can stay, assuming it meets all wikipedia guidelines. However, when I look for "Criticism of -country-", I can't find any except for Criticism of the United States which redirects to anti-americanism, something rather different. Can anyone find Criticism of -country- articles? If not, then no it shouldn't stay. Timeshift (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything similar. The title is so vague it could cover almost everything. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the page - User:Shipamong joined at 14:26 on the 16th, and created the article 30 minutes later. Sole purpose account, anyone?Johnmc (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's pure original research. An inherently POV laundry list in NPOV clothes. Like Criticism of Islam, for example, it's just a convenient place for people to dump criticism without limit and pretend to be NPOV. For notability, an article topic must have been written on previously as a coherent topic. There is no coherency between "East Timor's oil" and Taj El-Din Hilaly's comparisons on convicts have no link that is not OR. Topic is WP:SYN. The article (and Criticism of Islam for that matter), needs binning straight away. --Merbabu (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support its deletion. Orderinchaos 10:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Binned. Orderinchaos 11:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

as in "boned"? --Merbabu (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. That would probably be "Criticism of Channel 9" :) Orderinchaos 11:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bored, watching the christmas lights go blip in the dark?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_%28Australia%29 - the alex new article bot has a serious amount of backlog crap posing as new articles for the australian project .

It is astonishing what seems to be getting through unchecked.

Any help or advice in identifying the rubbish from the valid - would be appreciated SatuSuro 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I use the botlist as filtered down new articles patrol list. Each day you get 20-50 new articles that the bot thinks are Australia related (unless someone's gone crazy and bulk uploaded a bunch of ship/location/plant articles), of which 5 or so are probable completely unrelated to Australia (the bot gets tricked by any mention of Australia in the intro, including in references), a few have probably already been CSDed/prodded/AFDed by the other new page patrol methods and a few are decent articles. The rest I review and tag as appropriate. Probably takes 10-20 minutes each day. I probably should add the WP:Aus tag to their talk pages more often... is that what you are concerned about? Otherwise, the bot removes the page from the list after about 4 or 5 days (seems to add to page in the morning Aust time and remove the old pages in the afternoon. Watchlist the User page list linked above directly and you can see when it is updated, rather than having to look at the new articles page. The-Pope (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the trouble to explain - the tag issue seems to be an acquired taste around here :) - It is reassuring to think that someone in the project is in fact checking SatuSuro 05:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory internet censorship

Conroy's announced all RC content must be filtered, User:Cyde/Weird pictures (has pictures of bondage, amongst other potentially RC material) is currently on the ACMA list so we're looking at another Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia incident. TRS-80 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm - noting it is an item yet to be introduced to parliament - many readers may well think it is happening now - perhaps a reminder that it is mooted legislation - not an instant implementation needs to be noted somewhere SatuSuro 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this legislation, if passed, having a real impact on Wikimedia projects given their core philosophy of avoiding censorship of material. Perhaps a topic to raise with Wikimedia Australia? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's horrible legislation, but I can't see it having too much effect on Wikipedia itself. There's only the one page on the blacklist that I know of, and presumably any block will just affect that page. If it ever hit the project as a whole, I suspect the resulting media outcry would have Conroy running for the hills in quite the hurry... Rebecca (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the architecture they employ: as I recall, in the UK example, one page on WP was blacklisted. As a result, all requests for Wikipedia URLs from the UK were routed through a particular proxy, and therefore seemed to share the same IP for our purposes. So when that IP was blocked due to vandalism, a good chunk of the UK was blocked as well. :) In this case I'm still not inclined to panic over the legislation, as I don't think they'll have the support in the senate, but I'm still worried. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Government is hugely unlikely to block Wikipedia (can you imagine the public outcry?) - the fact that an individual user page rather than Wikipedia itself is/was on the blacklist should be enough to lay those concerns to rest. That said, this is an awful proposal. I rather like this suggestion of how to cause the government the most grief over the issue though. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Neverthesless I do hope someone on wikimedia australia is keeping tabs of the issue and has some means of informing australian editors of the issue from the perspective of the wikipedian australian editors SatuSuro 09:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I couldn't see anything about this on Wikimedia Australia's website. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(To Nick-D) The problem is that some filtering models (eg the UK) will only block one page in Wikipedia. But for the block to work, they isolate all requests for en.wikipedia.org and send them to a proxy, which then determines whether or not the specific request is for the blocked page, or for a page which isn't on the black list. If the latter, the proxy requests the page, meaning that the one URL handles the request. That said, I have no diea if that's the model proposed here - I should learn more about this. :) - 12:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely any due diligence assessment of mandatory filtering will already have identified the Internet Watch Foundation incident as a key case study.... not that I see any evidence of due diligence here. :-( Hesperian 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Enex report into the "Live" Pilot notes

However, in situations where there is a potential for very high traffic sites, such as YouTube, to have pages on the filtering list, this could result in significantly higher traffic rates passing through the filter, even though the specific pages being accessed are not those on the blacklist. This could cause additional load on the filtering infrastructure and subsequent performance bottlenecks.

To support peaks in traffic, vendors recommend allowing additional network capacity of approximately four times the estimated traffic at the filter.

so does anyone know how much traffic Wikipedia does to Australia? TRS-80 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only one user page at the moment, but you can bet if this passed Bondage (sexual) will be added, as bondage is not suitable for X18+ hence is RC: "Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, ‘golden showers’, bondage, spanking or fisting are not permitted." These are the video guidelines, but Internet pages are classified with them. TRS-80 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Candle wax? Even soft-core faux-porn like Basic Instinct gets away with candle-wax. There must be more to it than this quote. Hesperian 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Horne would probably be off the air too. Orderinchaos 06:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently R18+ faux-porn can include things not allowed in X18+ real porn. Yeah, it makes no sense to me either. TRS-80 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Furry porn? Orderinchaos 18:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... we may strike some problems with some false positives. Melburnian (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, furry porn *drool* :) Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of Wikipedia by the People's Republic of China ... interesting. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 12:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ATO and Wikipedia

"Australian Tax Office relied on Wikipedia reference" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, interesting comments about the reliability of Wikipedia. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to protect private equity too many joke edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory internet censorship

Conroy's announced all RC content must be filtered, User:Cyde/Weird pictures (has pictures of bondage, amongst other potentially RC material) is currently on the ACMA list so we're looking at another Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia incident. TRS-80 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm - noting it is an item yet to be introduced to parliament - many readers may well think it is happening now - perhaps a reminder that it is mooted legislation - not an instant implementation needs to be noted somewhere SatuSuro 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this legislation, if passed, having a real impact on Wikimedia projects given their core philosophy of avoiding censorship of material. Perhaps a topic to raise with Wikimedia Australia? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's horrible legislation, but I can't see it having too much effect on Wikipedia itself. There's only the one page on the blacklist that I know of, and presumably any block will just affect that page. If it ever hit the project as a whole, I suspect the resulting media outcry would have Conroy running for the hills in quite the hurry... Rebecca (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the architecture they employ: as I recall, in the UK example, one page on WP was blacklisted. As a result, all requests for Wikipedia URLs from the UK were routed through a particular proxy, and therefore seemed to share the same IP for our purposes. So when that IP was blocked due to vandalism, a good chunk of the UK was blocked as well. :) In this case I'm still not inclined to panic over the legislation, as I don't think they'll have the support in the senate, but I'm still worried. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Government is hugely unlikely to block Wikipedia (can you imagine the public outcry?) - the fact that an individual user page rather than Wikipedia itself is/was on the blacklist should be enough to lay those concerns to rest. That said, this is an awful proposal. I rather like this suggestion of how to cause the government the most grief over the issue though. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Neverthesless I do hope someone on wikimedia australia is keeping tabs of the issue and has some means of informing australian editors of the issue from the perspective of the wikipedian australian editors SatuSuro 09:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I couldn't see anything about this on Wikimedia Australia's website. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(To Nick-D) The problem is that some filtering models (eg the UK) will only block one page in Wikipedia. But for the block to work, they isolate all requests for en.wikipedia.org and send them to a proxy, which then determines whether or not the specific request is for the blocked page, or for a page which isn't on the black list. If the latter, the proxy requests the page, meaning that the one URL handles the request. That said, I have no diea if that's the model proposed here - I should learn more about this. :) - 12:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely any due diligence assessment of mandatory filtering will already have identified the Internet Watch Foundation incident as a key case study.... not that I see any evidence of due diligence here. :-( Hesperian 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Enex report into the "Live" Pilot notes

However, in situations where there is a potential for very high traffic sites, such as YouTube, to have pages on the filtering list, this could result in significantly higher traffic rates passing through the filter, even though the specific pages being accessed are not those on the blacklist. This could cause additional load on the filtering infrastructure and subsequent performance bottlenecks.

To support peaks in traffic, vendors recommend allowing additional network capacity of approximately four times the estimated traffic at the filter.

so does anyone know how much traffic Wikipedia does to Australia? TRS-80 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only one user page at the moment, but you can bet if this passed Bondage (sexual) will be added, as bondage is not suitable for X18+ hence is RC: "Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, ‘golden showers’, bondage, spanking or fisting are not permitted." These are the video guidelines, but Internet pages are classified with them. TRS-80 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Candle wax? Even soft-core faux-porn like Basic Instinct gets away with candle-wax. There must be more to it than this quote. Hesperian 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Horne would probably be off the air too. Orderinchaos 06:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently R18+ faux-porn can include things not allowed in X18+ real porn. Yeah, it makes no sense to me either. TRS-80 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Furry porn? Orderinchaos 18:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... we may strike some problems with some false positives. Melburnian (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, furry porn *drool* :) Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of Wikipedia by the People's Republic of China ... interesting. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 12:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ATO and Wikipedia

"Australian Tax Office relied on Wikipedia reference" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, interesting comments about the reliability of Wikipedia. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to protect private equity too many joke edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This has relevance to the Australian project

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_18 - 1 December 18 People by school in New Zealand SatuSuro 02:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to nominate a tidy up of "former students of X" categories? I would support it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in responding - not sure of the outcome yet - or the elements of the debate there - as to which way we should go here on the Australian project SatuSuro 03:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable people

Is a list of Notable people people from a particular city/town relevant to an article? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that these are just a form of trivia section, because there is often little intersection between where a person lives and their claim to fame (and if there was, it should be mentioned in the prose describing the location's history). That said, I rarely involve myself in location articles, and probably wouldn't go around removing such lists if I did (I leave the regular editors of those subjects to sort out the status quo). -- saberwyn 04:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm removing them from Tas arts, anyone with objections make yourselves heard. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are hundeds of articles which contain a section on Notable Citizens. This would suggest that many editors find the section to be relevant. I find the information in these sections to can be very interesting, which is why I have contributed a section to to many of my local articles. If you do not have a good reason for deletion I suggest you do not impose your view on the work of other editors. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be important enough to include when a particular town has poor/low demographic values associated with it. The Queensland town of Cherbourg is a good example. I would not support a blanket removal of notable people from city/town articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it should be done on the basis of sourcing. If it can be proven, I have no problem with it. If (as is far more often the case) no reliable source states it, we should remove it per WP:V/WP:OR. Orderinchaos 09:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to list notable people from a small country town, as small country towns hang their hat on that sort of thing. But it is mostly silly to list notable people from Sydney, Melbourne, etc.

I agree with Orderinchaos about sourcing, with the proviso that the sources should be locality-oriented. An reliable source about Heath Ledger that says he was born in Perth is justification for adding this information to Heath Ledger, but not to Perth, Western Australia. In order to add it to the latter article you would have to show me a reliable source about Perth, which lists Ledger as a "favourite son" or whatnot. Hesperian 14:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say don't remove lists of notable people unless the list becomes a ridiculous size. In Tasmania you could expect that Hobart would have too many to mention, but a suburb may not. Of course as Orderinchaos says it must be supportable by a reference. You will notice that there will be a serious bias to the present with current sporting personalities and actors being mentioned, but hardly any from 30 years ago. It would be even better to have them appearing in a sentence to say how they contribute to the history of the place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section on Launceston, Tasmania. David Boon and Ricky Ponting are already mentioned in the sports section anyhow. They are probably the most recognisable, even if you don't follow cricket. I'll let the other state editors do what that want however, there is already a List of Tasmanians ... Also see this cat. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It generally associates cruft. Also some guys like Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs) write autobios and link themselves from every suburb they lived in YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Such lists are very crufty. A notable person living in a suburb is really of no consequence or import to the suburb. What about people who have died 50, 100 years ago? Thus, it's also very recentish. --Merbabu (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the source for notability. If you read a book on a place/suburb and a person is discussed as a resident, in context, then there is a good case for inclusion. Just including someone because they lived there is a bit original-researchy as it lends importance to the relationship that is unsupported. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no great objection to such lists, and have added to them where they exist, but in my opinion one of the problems with these lists and categories is how do you define where the subjects are "from"? Born there, lived there as a child, live there now? Particularly when it gets down to the suburb level, the listed place of birth may refer to the hospital where they were born, or their childhood home. On the other hand, the advantage of such a list over a category or infobox listing is that the list can define how the subject is from that place (born there, educated there, etc.) --Canley (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This section began with a question about the relevance of a section on Notable people in a town article. After one reply (implying it was trivia) the editor decided to remove the section from Tasmanian articles. I reverted his edits, but another regular member of the Noticeboard cabal reverted my edit. A couple of other regular members of this Board have made generalised statements that it is cruft and recentish.. It is also history. Here is a section I wrote for Prahran. See any recentism here, or a list of historical and notable citizens. Is it any wonder that Wikipedia has a problem retaining editors when their work is dismissed on the opinion of a couple of editors. What happened to the idea of improving an article rather than just deleting. I sometimes wonder why I bother editing. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see two problems with the Prahan list. Were those listed as being born in Prahan actually delivered in a home/hospital there and lived there or somewhere else? Are you a notable citizen of a place if you lived a good deal of your life elsewhere? Is it really encyclopaedic to know where Medhurst/Judd/Boyle/Safran/BT/Taylor-Cotter live/worked? How do you know if they move? And if it is all such a good and notable section, why are there no references. I think that if someone is notable enough to have been strongly associated with a place, then it should be written in prose, not a list, such as Rolf Harris in Bassendean, or the Boon/Ponting examples above. It's the same as trivia lists - if you can't work it into the prose then it probably isn't worth including. The-Pope (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not claim that it was a good example of a notable section, only that it was an example which did not suffer from the critism of recentism. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A most strange AfD

Heads up - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia. Orderinchaos 01:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DoS may be useful for plundering, but this particularly article has a strong Chairman Rudd/Keating tone about it. Makes Fitzgibbon look Sinophobic YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Georgi Ermolenko

Should we have an article on this guy? I was doing some reading of 1974 newspapers for an unrelated purpose and Ermolenko, a young Russian violinist who attempted to defect at Perth Airport in that year, was major news. Orderinchaos 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting one. Rebecca (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Political Chronicle had to say about it: "The International Society of Music Education Conference held in Perth in August concluded with a request by the Russian cellist Georgi Ermolenko (18) to take up residence in Australia. The request was initially made to Commonwealth police at the airport shortly before the Russians were due to depart. After four days of diplomatic and other bungling Ermolenko, who had been handed back to the Russians only 24 hours after his request to remain in Australia, was flown out of Australia by the RAAF together with seven other members of the Russian party. In the meantime, various attempts had been made by legal, student and union groups to prevent Ermolenko being taken back to Russia against his will. All that is clear is that it is not possible to know whether or not Ermolenko finally wished to remain in Australia nor what kinds of pressures were exerted on him and that the responsibility for his uncertainty lies with the Foreign Affairs Department's inept handling of the situation." There's almost half a page about it in the same edition of the AJPH under their regular foreign policy review. Orderinchaos 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly it seems that despite the trouble of 1974, he emigrated in 1975 with his family and returned several times in the late 70s to perform at the Perth Festival[24][[25]] Hack (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

South Australian towns

A friendly and well meaning Canadian editor Kyle1278 (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of South Australian town articles, all of which look exactly like Yeelanna, South Australia.

I am not sure how helpful these articles really are but given they exist they probably should be improved a little - infobox, population, LGA and distance to Adelaide added to at least give the article some depth. Any willing assistance would be welcome. Some resources can be found at User:Mattinbgn/Resources#Places links. A list of the articles requiring expanding is here and working backward through his/her edit history. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I love filling out these details from the ABS, BoM, AEC, etc. so I'll do as many as I can. I'm working on Yahl at the moment in case anyone else is interested. --Canley (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and deleted a whole bunch that didn't appear anywhere (ABS, AEC, looked carefully on Google Maps to gauge the likely scope for an article and isolated if I was unsure). There'll be a few misfires here and there, as Mattinbgn has pointed out to me (I restored two, Yeelanna and Corny Point). I also have a list I wasn't sure about but kept anyway - it is as follows. Most of these didn't appear anywhere either, but at least looked like they were or might have been something on Google Maps.

Brentwood, Bruce, Cockatoo Valley, Cooltong, Culburra, Dawesley, Dutton, Greenways, Gulnare, Koolunga, Louth Bay, Loveday, Manna Hill, Manoora, Marrabel, Morchard, Mundoora, Narrung, Perponda, Point Pearce, Rudall, Sanderston, Warooka, Wharminda, Whyte Yarcowie. Orderinchaos 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about creating any that were not notable i really did mean well i will be sure that id I create more I will make sure to find more sources. I admit i was rushing through creating a lot without properly looking at the reference. I just have one request is that if you delete anymore just to notify me because it was a surprise going through my list and seeing a lot of red links. Cheers. Kyle1278 04:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Some help from a friendly administrator please ...

Can a friendly admin please move the following, unnecessary disambiguated, articles to their correct article names please:

• Bulimba Creek (Queensland) --> Bulimba Creek
• Lockyer Creek (Queensland) --> Lockyer Creek
• Oxley Creek (Queensland) --> Oxley Creek
• Walter Taylor Bridge, Brisbane --> Walter Taylor Bridge
• Story Bridge, Brisbane --> Story Bridge

Our (unnecessary IMO) policy of compulsory disambiguation for settlement names sometimes (mis)leads editors into believing that all Australian geographical names need disambiguating. See here for another, now fixed, example. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. --Canley (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but there are several Lockyer Creeks and several Oxley Creeks. Hesperian 23:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If and when articles are created, then it will be necessary to disambiguate. I am pretty sure there is more than person called Ian Thorpe in the world but until another article is created, it seems pointless to me to disambiguate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian 23:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

GA drive

No GA drive this year! Just when I join the party ... always next year :( Aaroncrick (talk) Review me!

I'm far too busy at the moment and seems to that my break will be short lived meaning I'll have little or no time or Wiki and Commons in the coming weeks, so that rules out the rest of 2009 (whats left of it) and also 2010. :( Bidgee (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also pretty busy, and my four or five logical choices of article to get there are require a lot of work and are actually quite low priorities. I contributed two to the last one. Orderinchaos 11:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've probably got the time to take a crack at it if people are willing to have a drive. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not feeling overly fond of the GA process at the moment, but I could probably get a couple through. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong Bilby? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Frustration over a couple of recent passes. I'll get over it. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Federal by-election drive

I'd support a List of Australian federal by-elections drive but that's just me :) Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be up for hitting up the by-elections list. How about it Timeshift? Rebecca (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a snowball effect - many hands make light work. I bet Frickeg would join in. Others please apply! By-elections are already done up to 1981 and about a dozen more scattered previous to then. Depending on the response i'm in :) Timeshift (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can help. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It'd be great to finally get these done. Some of the results tables (for NSW and some of Victoria) may already be in the election results pages, so that could make it easier too. Frickeg (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particularly good page you'd recommend to use as an exemplar? - Bilby (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends how comprehensive the articles would be. Werriwa by-election, 2005 is a great example, but I very much doubt that anything like that much information would be available for most of them. The basic structure is intro, results, references; it's handy to have a candidates list describing anything notable about them somewhere too. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'm in. That makes 4 so far! I've added a note to wikiproject ozpol to get more attention here. I assume we'll just see what the response is and then divvy them up equally? As for which is a good page to follow, the remaining by-elections are all pre-1981, so just follow any basic by-election page, ie: Boothby by-election, 1981. Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Count me in, I started a few of the federal by-election articles so I'm certainly interested in doing further research to bring the existing ones up to GA standard and fill out the older ones which don't have the results on the AEC website. --Canley (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind looking at state ones for exemplars, Rebecca and I came to some agreement some time ago over Murdoch state by-election, 2008, a fairly basic one with limited press coverage. South Coast state by-election, 1988 is different (Digestible and I worked on that one), but similar circumstances. I keep meaning to finish Mundingburra state by-election, 1996 so it can be nominated too, although I doubt any byelection will ever get the coverage that one did. Orderinchaos 12:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and if it's post-1955, let me know - I can send you the relevant Political Chronicles by email. Orderinchaos 12:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel like doing a bit extra, it's usually fairly easy to find some basic info on the candidates too, or at least which other elections they've contested. Gwydir by-election, 1989 is an example. Frickeg (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a section at the bottom of WP:AUSGA where targeted articles were listed last year YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ANZAC --> Anzac?

Just in passing, a move discussion has started on an iconic topic, here. Posting this to the noticeboard as we don't seem to have a listing in the page header for move discussions, and there'll no doubt be Australian and Kiwi editors with opinions to share. Euryalus (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you know....

we're stockpiling oz hooks for Australia Day (see Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Australia_Day.3F) at T:TDYK, and there are a shortage of hooks at the moment....so now is the time for new or fivefold expanded stubs.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Stadium naming

A few days back Perth Oval was changed to ME Bank Stadium. Just wanted to confirm that that the consensus was still that Australian stadiums should be referred to by their non-commercial names as per this discussion and this discussion. Hack (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Rebecca (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved back. WWGB (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Toodyay bushfire

I've added a section for the Toodyay, Western Australia bushfire in the Toodyay article. Have left all the sources I can find there... there'll be one more when Climate Data Online updates for Tue 29th, the relevant BOM location is Northam. For the most part I've simply summarised what is known (I have ABC local radio on at the moment but it stops updating in 8 minutes) and found articles which give more detail, but I'd appreciate it if our regular editors familiar with disaster reporting could help out. Orderinchaos 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to either give its own article, or create an article for the 2009-10 fire season - it's undue weight in the Toodyay article. Rebecca (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I only put it there as there isn't presently a container, nor is there yet quite enough information to get a new article in place. Probably by later today that situation will have changed. However, this fire may prove to be to Toodyay what Black Saturday was to Kinglake and Marysville, so it would also belong in Toodyay to the extent that it affects the town and its residents. Orderinchaos 04:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? 2009–10 Australian bushfire season has existed for ages, and the entry at Toodyay is not undue weight - also Toodyay has had some devastating fires in the last decade - the fires there need a section. As for a separate article - disagree as well - the season and Toodyay articles are fine for the moment SatuSuro 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - I have listed the latest ABC report (Natural Disaster declared) and the two articles where the info has gone so far - 2009–10 Australian bushfire season and Toodyay, Western Australia at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia - for any johnny come laters who might wonder what and where. As to whether it is really a AWNB item any further is doubtful. The Wa project does exist SatuSuro 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Canberra attacks!

What is it with the Canberoo errr Kangaroo attacks that James4750 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a fixation with! He has created an article based mostly on the deleted Kangaroo attack article at Canberra Kangaroos. Bidgee (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think he is acting in bad faith - there's a pattern of waiting a couple of weeks until the dust "blows over", then coming back and trying to sneak in an article under a new name. As it seems this is the sole purpose of his account, I have blocked him. Orderinchaos 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this block - the editor has been given a large number of chances and yet has kept recreating these articles. I'd also support an unblock on the strict condition that they con't create further articles on animal attacks. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, clearly a SPA. IMO for an unblocking there should be strict rules and conditions set and ban them from creating any article relating to animal attacks. Bidgee (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Animal_attacks - exists - maybe there should be more thought if this continues in some way - what is the Australian project going to do with line in the sand demarcation? - the deleted articles have existed - and there are many other life forms out there that have nuisance value - (1 billion billion australian flies cannot be wrong... or something) - one thing to try to eduate a SPA - but what is the project going to come up with to cope with this in the future? SatuSuro 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a good time to clean those articles up. I've just converted Magpie attacks in Australia to a redirect to Australian Magpie#Swooping and prodded Bluebottle stings in Australia, Stingray attacks in Australia and Shorten v Grafton District Golf Club. There also seems to be a good case for merging some of Stonefish stings in Australia with the Synanceia article, which could do with more content. The other articles, which cover predatory and/or genuinely dangerous animals, may be viable. I've also added Koala attacks in Australia to WP:FREAKY ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh - no one has tried Fly attacks in Australia? SatuSuro 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

...yet Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What! no Bee attacks in Australia? ;) Bidgee (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As anyone who saw me almost freeze solid in Canberra at GLAM-WIKI can attest, perhaps we need Weather attacks in Australia? Or maybe Politician attacks in Australia, between Mark Latham, Wilson Tuckey, and Belinda Neal there ought to be plenty of material! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

I'm calling WP:BEANS, before the insanity takes us too far. -- saberwyn 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly no flies on that one - air conditioned comfort somewhere? SatuSuro 07:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Beans attacks - complete with picture of Heinz baked beans in a shopping aisle falling on someone with caption "Beans attack in Australia? Yes they can." Orderinchaos 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Yes they can" pun intended, hey? ;) :P Bidgee (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha I was wondering who would be the first to get it. :P (I admit it was a pretty lame one.) Orderinchaos 08:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

James4750 attacks on wikipedia? --Merbabu (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction when I saw this in the watchlist was that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with James4750 and must actually be something serious. Well, there's my mistake for 2010 out of the way fairly early. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)