Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 38

< Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Fortescue Metals Group

Land rights negotiations with FMG and an aboriginal group have broken down and it now appears both sides have come to Wikipedia to push their POV. Crikey has today picked this up.[1] Grateful for more eyes. Moondyne (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten some info in NPOV and I will also keep my eye on it until things calm down. -- d'oh! [talk] 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
While that Crikey article is quite good, given that one of Crikey's senior writers was deliberately vandalising articles on Australian politicians a couple of years ago in order to write an article showing that this could be done (shock!), they're not on very thick ice here ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Crikey is as useful as toilet paper! Most of its writers have severe POVs (and people think POV Wiki is bad). I wonder what the next article will be, OMG politician staff edit articles? ;) Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what happen to journalists who wrote objective and unbiased items. The item did say they "contacted" him and he "confirmed" it but if they have done this before, got to assume they did it this time. -- d'oh! [talk] 11:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I had been watching that user, because it was quite obvious they were a corporate PR shill. So Crikey (which I think is wonderful), did a good job there confirming that, at least. Worth listing this at WP:COIN in case Morse comes back? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC).
Oops, I waded into this without seeing this post. In any event I would be highly surprised if he returns for another round (on that account, anyway). bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, what you wrote there is pretty much what I would have done, except more elegant. So no need for any "oops" ;-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

Bob Katter

Katter has distant Lebanese heritage and occasionally a new editor will come along and add it in to the very beginning of the article. I would have no problem with this except that ethnicity and race are not scientific thus are not hard facts and this has been well discussed in various places all over Wikipedia. The general consensus is that in a biography of a living person unless the person self-identifies as such and such an ethnicity or race, then it should not be included. An example of this I've seen is the discussion around whether UK Labor leader, Ed Miliband, is Jewish and whether it should be included in the article. The complicating factor in that of course is that it indicates religion as well depending on how to interpret the word.

Can I ask some of you to go over to the Katter article and put your opinion on whether Katter's Lebanese heritage should be included in the article and, if so, where/how in the context of the overall article. thanks. Donama (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

FNQ earthquake

May want to keep an eye on the articles (and for any new articles as well), about 15 minutes ago a 5.2 Mb hit near Townsville. Bidgee (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Instant-runoff voting

Instant-runoff voting has been proposed to be renamed Alternative Vote (apparently, the British term), see Talk:Instant-runoff voting. "Preferential Voting" is indicated to be the Australian term. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have our own infobox for cities?

There's nothing in the Australian infobox I can see that isn't in the basic City infobox. In my opinion, the other one used on other cities is much more aesthetically pleasing, so can someone explain why we need a different one? Though, as you can probably tell from my contribution history, I'm just a lurker, so do editors know something I don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.72.248 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can read all about it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6#Template:Infobox Australian Place. Cheers and happy lurking! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The "basic City infobox" is a bloated behemoth that is hard to use and doesn't suit our purposes. Infobox Australian place is small, customised for Australia, easy to use and is not limited to just "settlements" but can be, and is, used for virtually any type of Australian place including suburbs, towns, cities, local government areas and even whole regions. One modification even has it working for something completely different. Infobox Australian place was nominated for deletion in 2009 but the considerable opposition resulted in the nominator withdrawing his nomination. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It's mainly that the other one is bloated, difficult to code/use, impossible to maintain consistently at a national/project level, and lacks things that ours contains. Some of these are due to peculiarities of Australia - we for instance have a fairly rigid definition for suburbs as bounded regions; South Africa, the NZ and the UK have similar but not as rigid systems while the rest of the world regards them as informal unbounded neighbourhoods and uses our equivalent of LGAs for suburbs. Where there's been positives in the other template, we have been able to copy them - eg the location maps. There are some situations for which it's better to go our own way - this is one of them. Orderinchaos 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
So in summary, the standard template blows and the Aussie one rocks. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
To give you the tiniest bit of support, I'm with you on it being more aesthetically pleasing. But, as others have said, the Australian place infobox is more suited. In the end, it's about what one gives the best information, not which one looks the best (though when done badly, infobox settlement can look rather ugly, whereas the Australian place infobox is very consistent). Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll just throw another thing at you. I've actually experimented with making an infobox for Sydney with infobox settlement. I think it looks pretty good. BUT, a hell of a lot of code is wasted because it doesn't apply to Australian cities, and certain things just don't fit in. Not to mention, as brought up in the deletion discussion, there isn't the surround feature at the bottom. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
One size fit all is wonderful until you need to use it, though I must admit the only thing that the "basic City infobox" lacks is taxo navigation surely they could have added that in there as well. Gnangarra 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Basically, the consensus is, as you can see, that the Australian community regards the infobox settlement as a bloated, horrific monstrosity, and don't want anything to do with it. The actions of a few users in trying to force it on Australian articles didn't exactly help their case either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

Editorial dispute

I am presently involved in an editorial dispute that has been brushing on both edges of three-revert and after seeking a Third Opinion I'm exploring some other options. An IP editor is removing content from Template:Gold Coast Sports Teams and related templates (for example: Template:Brisbane Sports Teams) with a justification that does not reflect the purpose of the template and refuses to take part in discussion, preferring to use insults to make their point. I was looking for further advice on what to do. --Falcadore (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look at a few of the articles and they don't seem to say anything in them about the teams being Gold Coast-based. You would have a much better case by adding the information to the article, probably the info and referencing it. I had a look at the Stone Brothers Racing official site, it states here that "Brothers Ross and Jimmy Stone, New Zealanders born and bred, operate the team from the Gold Coast in Queensland". Add it to the article, I would say, to prove your point. If the IP removes it then, its vandalism, currently its just a dispute of opinion. Calistemon (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've worked to improve the articles along the lines of your suggestions, and the suggestions of others at the talk page involved. The editor involved however did continue to remove, and to not involve themselves in the discussion, but ceased entirely the moment someone other than myself involved themselves and asked them to participate. Could be co-incidence, could be the Easter weekend, but it could also be the editor involved was making a personal effort against me because of another editorial issue that this editor made no attempt to be involved in any form of discussion. I'm continuing to improve the articles in question, and I think I have answered every question put towards the issue. We'll know by the end of the week if the issue was personally motivated I suspect. --Falcadore (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Australian country music and Indigenous Australian music have been merged into Australian folk and indigenous music

User:Jaedit has boldly merged Australian country music and Indigenous Australian music into Australian folk and indigenous music, this seems to me to loose lose more than it gains. Paul foord (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC) -- fixed typo

Bizarre merge. Rebecca (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much about either topic, but this doesn't seem very sensible. I'd suggest de-merging them. Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I know a fair bit about both, and the merge makes no sense at all to me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've undone the change - it was bold, I've reverted, time to discuss. :) The two genres are very distinct, and make reasonable separate articles. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Jaedit here..

Hi! I've had to revert your changes, as they didn't seem well justified - the two styles are quite distinct, and the Australian Country Music scene is well established in its own right, so I can't see why it would need to be merged with the indigenous music scene, which is also valid as a topic in its own right. You're welcome, of course, to seek other opinions - perhaps the discussion at Talk:Indigenous Australian music#Merging of country and indigenous music will find consensus for the merger. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add that there's a good process at Wikipedia:Merging which goes into how you can approach such changes. I've found that useful in the past. Importantly, there are a few steps to do with edit summaries and tagging the merged article which are needed to properly meet the attribution requirement of the CC licensing employed here. - Bilby (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)''

How so, how is it bizarre to merge? You cant just not argue the point and simply say how is it not sensible - explain why it doesn't make sense, how they are very distinct, despite them being so indistinct.

This seems to loose more than it gains..loose? - this doesn't make any sense, please elaborate.

Sufficient commonalities for it to be one - that is Folk music as defined for instance on the American folk music as well as Country music pages. Its the same thing - the only difference you seem to be claiming is it made by different peoples, which of course is not entirely true.

False distinction, it is. According to government, I am correct in labelling them as a part of Australian folk music, which includes country and folk and indigenous musics, as they draw from each other..see here - http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-folk-music..and - http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-country-music..mentions Country music, a derivative of folk music..also note Stylistic origins on the country music page...Folk mentioned as the inspiration, considered apart of wider folk music style.

Perhaps separate pages could exist, but have them all on the folk music page..lets hear your rebuttle then..


What?
I'm sorry, but I cannot understand that post. Any chance you could rewrite it, not as an attack on another poster (which is what it seems to be) but a simple explanation of your view on the matter? Part of the problem with your merge is that you provided no justification. Feel free to provide one now. Simple sentences, with one point per sentence, please. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The merging editor is a total loose cannon. It's like trying to merge Native American music with Shania Twain. What's not to understand? WWGB (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Jaedit - Im not a loose cannon. I am not trying to merge those, this is a different matter, nothing to do with either.

I wrote clearly enough for you to understand - don't have to rewrite what Ive said, I have edited it to make it more clear for you, though. Also I wont do so, because its not an attack, all I did was provide a view and citations - you've misunderstood me, I am not attacking anyone, just engaging in a debate and seeking others to respond to the view.

I have wrote an argument and provided evidence to support my views, which was not done by anyone yet - Im just asking for further discussion and citations to support their counterarguments.

I understand that I did that, now I am addressing that problem of not providing justification. My sentences are brief enough, and there is no need to write just one point per sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedit (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-music - another citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedit (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/performing_arts.html - heres another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedit (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_folk_music - also here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedit (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with the merger. There certainly may be some overlap between Australian folk, country and indigenous music, but they are very distinct genres—in particular the indigenous music article which covers a broad range of traditional, folk and contemporary areas. The fact that the merged article was titled "Australian folk and indigenous music" seems to indicate that there is no overarching term or genre which can adequately cover these, nor is there sufficient overlapping content in the articles to justify a merger. Jaedit, I'm afraid I too don't understand your rationale for merging those articles either. I'm not sure what the australia.gov.au links are supposed to demonstrate. Presumably the fact that country music was omitted from the merged article title you are proposing that country music is a sub-genre of folk music?
Musical genres and their application have been a contentious issue on Wikipedia, and music writing in general, for a long time. I think there would be a better justification for a merger if the articles were very short (i.e. stubs) or contained significant overlap—they don't, they are in a reasonably mature state and size, and if anything could be split and expanded, for example the indigenous article could be split into the three areas I mentioned above. This is what I think Paul foord is referring to above about losing more than is gained (and yes, he just made a typo, but I think it's pretty obvious what he meant).--Canley (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Young LNP‎

 

The article Young LNP‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Not seeing any evidence of notability, and didn't turn up any on gBooks or in the first few pages of Google. Anyone have any objections to deletion? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
What search terms did you use? I searched "Young LNP" and several reliable sources appeared on the first page... Hack (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Deletion seems a bit too heavy, but I have redirected the article to Liberal National Party of Queensland for now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC).

Candidates for deletion box at top of this page

Propose to remove this and replace with a link in the announcements box to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia. I just removed a heap of stale entries which indiactes its not being maintained (or possibly not widely watched). A single place to add an entry is better than 2 I think. Comments? Moondyne (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussed at least once previously. Moondyne (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. Personally didn't even know there was a candidates for deletion box. Seems simpler to only have to list in one place and the deletion sorting subpage appears to be much more heavily used. Jenks24 (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Maelgwnbot (talk · contribs) was updating this box until December 2009, adding the new entries from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia. There was originally no need to make two entries because of this automatic updating but as the box now requires manual updating it is worse than useless. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
See this edit from two weeks ago. It does not look like the bot will be up and running again soon. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. It hasn't been maintained for months.--Grahame (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done Moondyne (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Australia

Why is the text green? Has it always been that way? Moondyne (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The green comes from Portal:Australia/box-header2 for the boxes - it's been that way for at least a year. It is pretty jarring though. On an unrelated note, I wonder how much that portal gets used by readers? bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Australia averages around 3000 page hits per month - see [2]. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Higher than I expected - thanks! (and it looks much better now) bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
A lot of portals get fairly high numbers of page views, though not many editors work on them (for instance, Portal:Military_of_Australia gets 800-900 views a month). Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Color. Moondyne (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:AustraliaLargestCities

Template:AustraliaLargestCities was created a short time ago and has been added to articles. Do we really need this new template, given that the "|poprank=" field in {{Infobox Australian place}} already links to List of cities in Australia by population and we already have {{Cities of Australia}} and {{Largest cities of Australia}}? {{AustraliaLargestCities}} just seems to duplicate existing templates, especially {{Largest cities of Australia}}, which nobody has seen the need to expand, but could easily be expanded if need be. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have an ants and honey attraction - pity about that SatuSuro 02:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggest tag as {{db-t3}} -- dupliaction of {{Largest cities of Australia}}. Moondyne (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hayley Smith

The usage of Hayley Smith is under discussion, see Talk:Hayley Smith (American Dad!). This is a character in "American Dad" and "Home and Away" (see Hayley Smith (Home and Away)). 65.93.12.8 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Troublemakers at Bernard Finnigan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Archiving to try to consolidate discussion. The goal in bringing the issue to this noticeboard has been achieved - the article got some more eyes on it. We're now discussing the article's content issue, and that discussion should continue on the article's talk page, not here. Apologies for letting it devolve to this point. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A little help please... Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on the article's talk page raises a number of interesting issues, but in this case I think that the horse has well and truly bolted. It's a bit odd that I can read the details of this case, including names, in my local newspaper but it's being censored from the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Though I don't have any ready examples, i'm sure i've seen it before that if there's some form of suppression in the place where the BLP subject is from that it is treated as if it were part of the suppression. I would really appreciate admins' view on this. If it's officially said that there's no issue and admins endorse it, and consensus can be formed, then I wouldn't object. Timeshift (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The names of juniors seem to be normally suppressed, but I'm not aware of any general policy for adults. Nothing in WP:BLP is particularly useful in instances such as this. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This AN thread is probably relevant to some degree. It seems the outcome was that there's no policy about suppressions apart from the usual BLP requirements for reliable sources. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
So are you saying that neither wikipedia nor an individual editor to wikipedia is capable of breaching the terms of a suppression order and additionally could not be pursued by any authority? Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just linking to an AN thread where a similar issue was discussed and trying to summarise it in one sentence. I'm not trying to opine on legal questions - I'm a computer scientist, not a lawyer. :) (in fact out of an abundance of caution, if I were a South Australian editor I wouldn't even be getting involved) bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall that some time ago there was a case where an article was protected in order to avoid including information regarding a UK court case. It came to light after the protection was lifted, mostly because no one noticed that it happened at the time, as there wasn't any associated on-wiki discussion. There were the usual "notcensored" arguments after the event. In regard to the second issue, I think that Australian editors would need to be cautious - South Australian editors particularly so. Tthe police are willing to pursue people for edits on Wikipedia, in spite of the location of the servers, although I'm not aware of this occurring in regard to suppression orders. - Bilby (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I think Australian editors need to take care with anything which has been suppressed by suppression order(s), as you can open yourself up to legal issues. Bidgee (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
So a) where is the line for wikipedia and editting, b) is it uniform to all editors or not, and c) can these comments please be added to the article's talk page in the interests of getting somewhere with it. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why would the police go after Wikipedia editors when five Australian newspapers have published the same material? That's just silly. Wikipedia is not bound by foreign law, and in this case Australia is foreign. Individual editors may have to take care if they are in South Australia, but Wikipedia editors not in South Australia can legally name Bernard Finnigan as the MP charged with child porn offences. So can journalists outside South Australia, and they have already done so. ShipFan (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The media have ways around reporting when suppression orders are in place, I could give some examples but unsure if the suppression orders are still in place. Editors are bound by laws in their state/territory and country, even if the servers are overseas, police have ways of finding who people are even if they post anonymously. Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That right there is an issue for Australian editors, and apparently them alone. There is still no ruling stating that the rest of the world has to follow anything more than the guidelines for biographies of living persons. Human.v2.0 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Just in reply to ShipFan, the requirements for newspapers is that they don't publish the material so that it is accessible in South Australia. This is why you aren't typically able to go to the official newspaper websites to get the material, but have to turn to archives of the print editions - and in the case of the print editions, versions sent to South Australia won't name the people concerned. If an Australian editor was to be in trouble, it wouldn't be posting the material that was a problem, but posting it in a way that was accessible in South Australia. All of that assumes that anyone would actually care to go after a Wikipedian editor, although, for various reasons, I think we might see test cases as WP's influence becomes more apparent. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The only troublemakers are the ones who have appointed themselves to keep removing material that has already been widely reported by Australian media. ShipFan (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • From the outside I see one very telling fact the four sources used are all Fairfax media and the wording of the stories are near identical, which leads me to perceive them as a single source and not multiple independent sources. BLP is clear Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.<emphasis added> WP:WELLKNOWN is clear in that if an incident is notable, relevant and well documented its should be included. IMHO as the sole source is fairfax media it fails the well documented part of the equation and that even without considering the suppression order it dubious that the allegations should be included. If one considers the existence of a suppression order and the conditions of BLP the situation is clear that inclusion of the allegations clearly fails WP:BLP requirements. I'd also note that there's is a possibility that much of the discussion over the matter may itself need to be subject to some form oversight/courtesy blanking. I'd suggest that editors be careful how they word future discussion, even those outside of SA especially the more definitive commentary Gnangarra 15:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Book access?

Could anyone please look and see if they've got access to the following book?

  • de la Ville, Valérie-Inés; Durup, Laurent (2009). "Achieving a Global Reach on Children's Cultural Markets: Managing the Stakes of Inter-Textuality in Digital Cultures". In Willett, Rebekah; Robinson, Muriel; Marsh, Jackie (eds.). Play, creativity and digital cultures. Routledge. pp. 45–47. ISBN 9780415963114.

Trove lists it as being held at fifteen libraries in Australia, none of which I have access to. I would very much like to have those three pages for the article on fan service, which is a semi-controversial article - a Japanese term for "gratuitious titillation" through pin-up style artwork, gratuitous violence, and injokes. Most sources that are currently in the article focus on cheesecake, but this one seems to focus on the injokes, which would be helpful in developing the article. Any help on this would be much appreciated, thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can access it, but it is on loan until the 25th. If no-one has better access let me know and I'll try to grab it when it comes in. - Bilby (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I can get a scan in the next couple of days, but it would be best if you posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. It's a centralized noticeboard for these types of requests. GabrielF (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that place existed. --Malkinann (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe Loncke

Im inclined to believe that the editor who has created this new page on Louis-Philippe Loncke is the subject himself. Im also not convinced he qualifies as an entry in European Exploration of Australia. But perhaps my view that he is a modern-day adventurer rather than explorer isn't very well thought through anyway. Hopefully some more experienced editors could have a look. I raised the possible COI on the talk page, and got a long polite email outlining Lonke's achievements trekking in Australia, but no answer to my question. Nickm57 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ljubo Miličević

Seems in ip is deleting referenced statements in this soccer player's article, with some potential WP:COI concerns raised in that talk page. Seems the ip is claiming misinformation, the ip is not offering any contrary WP:RS/WP:V sourcing, or some explanation as to why existing sourcing such as SBS and SMH are unreliable/invalid. Or maybe I'm missing some BLP aspects on this. Dl2000 (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "Controversy" section because, to be honest, just reporting comments the subject has made does not make a controversy. Some of the quotes (about searching for "good football") would find a better home in the appropriate parts of the career section, but some of the other claims were unsourced and therefore had BLP problems. If we reported every phrase a subject had uttered that was reported by the media then I would fear for the sanity of editors working on the Kevin Rudd article. I've also left a quick note on the IP's talk page along these lines. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Kim Duthie

Hi there, an article has been created on 'St Kilda school girl', Kim Duthie. I'm pretty cautious about BLP, so I've raised this at WP:BLPN, where I would appreciate some comments from Australian editors. If the article is kept, could some people also watchlist it, because it could be a pretty big vandalism magnet. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer but as far as I'm aware, Fairfax media & the ABC don't refer to her by name and I'd be very concerned about having such an article on a minor. Roisterer (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The West Australian had her name and clear, unblurred photo on the backpage today, so think identifying her is now a non-issue. Notability of her vs the scandal(s) is now the issue. The-Pope (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Fairfax Media (like News Limited in the Herald Sun) has repeatedly named her in both The Age and the SMH. I don't understand why wikipedia should be censoring on the basis of an ABC editorial decision. Hack (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Not meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion does not equal censorship. The criteria for inclusion in media sources like the HS and The Age are significantly different than Wikipedia because they have hugely different purposes than us. Newspapers are in the business of providing news and are interested in selling papers. Wikipedia is not selling anything and we quite clearly state that we are not a newspaper. What the HS and the Age do is entirely irrelevant. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd argue she's not notable for inclusion and that this is almost a textbook example of the sort of situation WP:BLP anticipates. Orderinchaos 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I feel that it is also WP:ONEEVENT. Bidgee (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, it isn't a case of censorship, as the content is already in Wikipedia. The question is whether or not it needs to be grouped into an article about her. Censorship would only be a potential issue if the concern regarded removing discussion of the event altogether. - Bilby (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

It seems likely this article will be deleted. What do people think about creating some sort of page detailing the scandal/s? Hack (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the consensus is likely to be delete and not move, I'd say no to that. The substantive content would be the same as the current article. But no doubt someone will test the waters at some point and we'll go through this all again. Moondyne (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Of the delete votes, about half are suggesting some sort of redirect or summary elsewhere. Hack (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Selection of Top Importance articles

I'm curious as to how Top Importance articles are selected.

I note that Makybe Diva, AC/DC and (lord help us) Neighbours are all Top Importance articles, but the High Court of Australia, Edmund Barton and Royal Australian Air Force are not. Surely the apex of our judicial system and our founding Prime Minister are as fundamental to understanding Australia as a soap opera, a heavy metal band and a racehorse? (and I note that even Phar Lap isn't Top Importance)

It seems to this Aussie outsider to the project that there is an unconscious recentism/pop culture bias at work in the selection of Top Importance articles. I'm happy to help in correcting this if the project is interested. RichardH (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just looking the importance scale has shifted from when most of the articles were assessed, even according to current methodology High Court and Edmund Barton still arent top. Where as AC\DC, Makybe Diva and Neighbours all meet the top requirements. Even under the previous format they would have been as top was consider as gateway articles into the subject area for people not familiar with the subject. Gnangarra 09:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so whether or not the subject is crucial to understanding Australia is not relevant to whether an article is Top Importance, but whether or not it has appeared on British Television *is* relevant. In other words, it's notoriety rather than notability that is important in the assessment process. Well, if that's the criterion, then it's dumb and IMHO not a worthy methodology for an encyclopedia. Using that criterion, Kim Kardashian would be a Top Importance US article, but Robert E. Lee would not. It should change, or we should change the name of Wikipedia to Whoweeklypedia.
btw - the Royal Australian Air Force became famous in Britain during the second world war. But it hasn't had a catchy theme song on BBC2, so I guess it just isn't that important. RichardH (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The importance ratings are pretty arbitrary - editors tend to select an importance level without paying much attention to the guidance on this, and it's all very subjective. A lot of Wikiprojects don't use as they're basically meaningless. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I know popularity <> importance, but to get really depressed at what are we actually achieving here, look at the list of the most popular pages here. Who the hell is Chris Hemsworth? The-Pope (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Your holelyness, Chris is the brother of Liam both are actors Chris is in Home and Away and Liam is in Neighbours, next thing you'll say you havent heard of Kevin, John, Tony and Julia Gnangarra 05:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I belive that the importance rankings are partly used in the scoring system and selection criteria for WP:1.0. See [3]. Moondyne (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a few scholarly objects which ought to be Top rated for Australia. Australian Labor Party, Australian labour movement, Industrial award, and Compulsory arbitration off the top of my head. They're core international concepts unique to Australia. Interestingly the articles I just noted have a spread across the entire quality range. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • These topics should not be top rated, perhaps high importance instead. We have to think about the highest 1% in readership and importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • That is the main problem. As I have little interest in politics or the labour movement, I also wouldn't consider any of them top importance. It is near impossible to separate interest or popularity from importance. Looking at the popularity list, there are about 47 Top level articles in the list of the top 500 most popular WP:AUST articles - there appears to be over 110 Top level articles in total - so half of our top rated articles makeup 10% of our most viewed articles. The lowest viewed Top level article that made the top 500 had 563 views per day on average (Outback, if you are interested, but some like Australian Capital Territory are outside the top 500). There are still some top rated articles that are around the 100 views/day range. And I just found some in the 70s - ranked in the 3500s. The-Pope (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stanhope

Jon Stanhope has announced his intention to resign as Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory later this week. I'd appreciate some eyes on the related articles to make sure we're not getting ahead of ourselves anointing people as Chief Minister before the Assembly votes on Monday next week. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Black Caviar at Doomben on Saturday

If anyone in Brisbane is going to the races at Doomben to catch a look at Black Caviar tomorrow, a few photos would be appreciated. In particular a close up (head shot). Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Frank Walsh

The usage of Francis Walsh is under discussion, see Talk:Francis Walsh (bishop). 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos of Premiers

We could really do with photos of three incumbent premiers - Lara Giddings (Tasmania), Paul Henderson (politician) (NT), Katy Gallagher (ACT). A quick free image search didn't turn up anything useful, except 5 billion images of the ice hockey player Paul Henderson. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Template replacement

Please read this if you are interested in possible changes concerning {{Infobox protected area of Australia}}. –droll [chat] 04:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Women's sport in Australia

I created a bunch of articles about women's sport in Australia including:

These articles are mostly stubs, though some are better than other. They were all created today. I'd really love to see some of them improved. If anyone could help improve some of them enough to get to be did you knows, that would be awesome. --LauraHale (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Great to see, though it's a bit embarrassing that these didn't already exist... Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree this was a noble effort, but the articles should really be "Beginnings of ..." as they portray nothing of the 20th (and 21st) century achievements in those sports. WWGB (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
So go and add that!  :-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC).
I created them as stub articles. :) I don't know as much about the modern stuff to create a number of stubs in a few days. Easier to start creating them with an older book that covers their early history. :) But any help improving them and adding more current information would be great. It could possibly a great way to build links to other Australian women's articles that don't have many internal links to them, such as biographies about Olympians, information on clubs that have women, female sport competitions, etc. --LauraHale (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good effort so far, however a general Women's sport in Australia article should be created (it's currently a redirect to the category, but should be converted to an article). Similar general information seemed to be duplicated across many individual sport articles e.g. the paragraph beginning "Australian women's sports had an advantage over many other women's sport organisations around the world" was found in Women's golf in Australia, Women's cycling in Australia, Women's tennis in Australia and perhaps more. That could be moved up to support a commons Australian women's sports article, while each sport's article would mostly focus on the particular sport. Dl2000 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of general copy paste for bits and pieces that fit into multiple articles. I just did a fact dump with the hope that long term (short term?) some one could use that information, make it more summary style and read as directly relevant to the article. Will try to work on creating a Women's sport in Australia article soon unless you want to stub it out? --LauraHale (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Serious Wp:COI issues here, I would think, particularly as the user name of the contributor would suggest that he/she may be a woman!! Back to helpful, when did footy clubs in the rural areas become Football/Netball clubs?? (with concomitant social disruption); first woman jockey? (not possible, as we only have one dunny, as I recall) Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

<undent> Serious Wp:COI issues here, <-- That comment is a joke right? Hard to tell these things on the Internet. I am under the impression, though I have no sourcing to support it, that the merger of netball clubs and footy clubs in rural areas is something that has started happening in the last 20 years or so because of two issues: Lack of money and volunteers. I don't have any sources to support that regarding the merger though. First woman jockey should probably be on there. Some topics are covered better than others with sources. Cricket and bowls and horse racing seem to be three of the biggest ones in terms of available sourcing. Australian women's sport at the Olympics is probably another one but outside the Olympics and biographies, general development of the sports can be hard to find.--LauraHale (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Government of New South Wales

Eyes needed. An editor in Maryland USA has 'updated' this page. Hard (for me) to tell about the info, but they have mucked up the table and removed pictures. Anyone up on politics might like to have a look? Nb. It appears that this article had no references, or {{Reflist}} which ïs how I was drawn to the article, via a "Cite Error", when a reference was added. Regards, 220.101 talk\Contribs 10:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change due to it messing up the formatting (and talking about somewhere called "News South Wales"), but the Cabinet list there is woefully out of date, and still has all the Labor ministers in there. I'm sure that one of our politically minded editors would love to take a few minutes to update that :-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
Doing it now. LordVetinari (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks, Lankiveil. I would have reverted but I wasn't sure if the changed data was correct. The edits do appear to be totally good faith (as you noted), as the editor (or an editor) on the IP admitted they didn't know what they were doing and asked for help at wp:New contributors' help page/questions Thanks User:LordVetinari too! I strongly suggest a refernces section be added!   - 220.101 talk\Contribs 10:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the data that was added looks to be correct (although I'm no expert on NSW politics), so it was definitely a good faith change. I reckon what happened is that the user copy-pasted to a Word document, updated all the info, and then re-copied the unformatted text back and hit save. Definitely good faith, and definitely someone worth nurturing as a new contributor! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
Done. I'm sure there's more adjustments to be made (e.g. putting photos directly beside names, or combining similar rows) but it's past midnight here and I'm off to bed. Please see my further comments at Talk:Government of New South Wales/Archive 1#Update. Night all. LordVetinari (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dame Nellie Melba

She turned 150 years old yesterday. Her article is rather a mess, so I hope some of you might be interested in working on it. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Aphrodite World Tour

Kylie Minogue is making the international rounds until July. Her tour article could use a bit of extra watching as some revert patterns were seen this month, and there's always potential for cruft, fandalism and other such shenanigans. Dl2000 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Australia topic

Hello, I'm just letting you folks at WikiProject Australia know that I've just made an Australia topic template in the style of Template:Europe topic; that is, a navbar which can be adjusted to suit various categories of articles such as "Politics in...", "Geography of...", "List of red-headed actors who once performed in..." and so on. I've started adding it to articles but it'll be easier all round if others know its available. LordVetinari (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

looks ok but Tasmania is an island its not part of the Mainland. Gnangarra 09:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I used the word mainland as I can't think of an alternative term for that part of Australia excluding the external territories. "Internal Australia" is unheard of and "States and internal territories" is far too cumbersome. If someone can think of an alternative, feel free to change it. LordVetinari (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Does Jervis Bay deserve that much weight? I didn't think they had their own senators or house members, and was under the impression that they were mostly considered part of the ACT? --LauraHale (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Tough one. JBT is administered as a separate Territory to ACT, although residents are included within Fraser (ACT) in the Reps and ACT in the Senate. Having said that, I'd vote to turn a blind eye to that anomaly and treat it as a part of ACT in the Template, in order to avoid confusion. RichardH (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Jervis Bay is an administrative anomaly and not worth highlighting in that way (particularly given its tiny size and population) Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Sport wise, I don't think they have their own representive side to compete in interstate sporting competitions. Confusing place and not sure where to stick. Norfolk Island probably has similar weirdness in relation to parts of that template. --LauraHale (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I doubt JBT could have its own sub articles (e.g. Geology and Geography for example). Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Geology or history is quite possible for JBT. NI is good in the second row. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I made JBT separate for the purposes of geography and fauna and similar articles (or potential articles) where it couldn't be included with ACT. For whatever other articles where JBT should be included with ACT, a redirect from "XYZ of Jervis Bay Territory" to the relevant article should suffice.
Notwithstanding, if I make the templates first section ("Mainland")excludable as the second section currently is, the invisible third section can then be used to list only the relevant articles. This will be useful in cases such as "Beaches of..." which blatantly cannot apply to ACT but may apply in the case of JBT. LordVetinari (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
..."Beaches of..." which blatantly cannot apply to ACT.... You've obviously never gone skinny dipping at Pine Island or the Cotter! Rivers can have beaches too. Surf is a little harder to come by. RichardH (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, look at that, the ACT does have beaches. We live and we learn. And no, I've never gone skinny dipping at Pine Island or the Cotter but I do skinny dip at Maslins Beach. LordVetinari (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, considering no Australian states or territories have an article on their beaches, the point is irrelevant! :) btw the template sounds like a good idea. IgnorantArmies 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually Sunnyside North Beach and few other small beahces around Beaches in Port Phillip, and some Western Australian beaches like Eighty Mile Beach do exist but realistically the number of beaches around Australia would make a template bigger than the infobox settlement instruction guide. Gnangarra 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I meant like List of beaches in Western Australia. Most of the beaches in the categories are just suburbs and localities with "beach" in their name. I would've thought at least Cottesloe Beach or Scarborough Beach had a separate article. Oh well, more stuff to create :) IgnorantArmies 03:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've just made some changes to the above template, notably, splitting states and from territories nad adding an extra optional row. I'll probably go through and review them myself, but there is quite a lot. Therefore, if anyone here has added the navbar with the original group3/list3 parameters, please can you go back and check it is ok.

Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move discussion - Toomelah Station

The discussion at Talk:Toomelah Station#Requested move may be of interest to editors here. I think the manner in which we name articles about indigenous communities needs some examination. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Closed as page move. Dl2000 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of infobox additions of real estate values

Have just noticed in my watchlist that a new user has added a bunch of real estate values to articles linking to the site realestateview.com.au (most likely in good faith - the site seems to be part of Bigpond from what I can tell). It's unclear from [4] whether the site is a reliable source; even so, this information is temporal and gets out of date pretty quickly. (I personally think RE values shouldn't be in infoboxes at all for that very reason, but I recognise this is a personal opinion that others may not share.) I don't have further time to look into this one, but if someone has time, I'd be most grateful. Orderinchaos 17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Two days ago a different new user changed the documentation for {{Infobox Australian place}} so that it specified this same website as as source for property values instead of domain.com.au.[5] I reverted as there was no consensus for this change but the biggest problem, as I see it, is that the site only covers NSW, Vic and SA, while domain.com.au covers the whole country. Using one source is obviously more consistent, notwithstanding the very valid concerns raised by OIC. I can't really speak to the site's reliability. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related tangent, what's the consensus on Home Price Guide? When I started citing that site in preference to domain, I was under the impression that it had somehow superseded domain or was the source of domain's data. But now I'm not sure how they relate to each other.

Incidentally, regarding Orderinchaos' comments above about removing property data: I agree that property data goes out of date too fast for us to keep up and, if it came to a vote, I'd support removing such data from infoboxes and not even mentioning it in-text unless it's notable. However, it could be argued that property price data acts as a socioeconomic indicator for a region. But then, census data would be more reliable an indicator and updates more regularly and reliably. What are other people's thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordVetinari (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone on the record before with my opposition to include real estate price values in infoboxes for much the same reasons that User:LordVetinari does above. Yes, it's a valid socioeconomic indicator, but there are better indicators available, like data provided by the ABS (as opposed to a for-profit company that has a vested interest in keeping the real estate market hot). I'd certainly be strongly in favour of removing that field from the infobox altogether. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC).
The main issue here is that our infobox property values are an unreliable source for readers, because they randomly give prices that vary from current to 5 years old. Melburnian (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia itself is not regarded as a reliable source. When I add or update or property values I always provided a citation because they are so variable. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a problem of reliability due to verifiability, it's a problem of reliability due to the inconsistency of the currency of information across infoboxes. Melburnian (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a problem that we're always going to see everywhere, even for basic information, like population. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a general consistency in infobox population figures as the 2006 ABS figure is used in the majority of cases. Melburnian (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The bigger issues I see are that when sources of statistical information are changed so too can be the methodology that under pins those figures so just changing a number can be misleading. As for being a socioeconomicl indicator they are meaningless because without boarder comparative information its just a figure. IF the inclusion of the figures for are that purpose then it needs to be in prose because socioeconomic indicators are affected by more than average.medium.mean housing prices for a given region. Gnangarra 05:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As an exercise I added a temporary category to {{Infobox Australian place}}. As of right now, of the 7,310 articles using {{Infobox Australian place}}, only 1,204 articles (16.5%) include property values. You can draw your own conclusions as to the perceived usefulness of |propval=. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It may be of more historic value to have a table of values against year. Perhaps the table could include median and highest price for each year. But this should not be in the infobox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm mistaken, the general opinion here suggests in favour of removing |propval= from infoboxes. Is it too early to put it to a vote? Some further discussion wouldn't hurt but I can't think of any arguments that haven't already been mentioned. LordVetinari (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion/vote at Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Propval parameter. Please feel free to join in. LordVetinari (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Discussing rename of prejudicial term "Chink" to more appropriate article title06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs)

Requests for comment for National Broadband Network

Talk:National Broadband Network#RFC: Content dispute for National Broadband Network and Talk:National Broadband Network#RFC: Working draft for National Broadband Network. All comments are welcomed. —[d'oh] 08:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian Memory of the World

Hello Australians. I've just created the article UK Memory of the World Register. I have to admit that one week ago I hadn't heard of any "UK Memory of the World Register", but then something that interests me won it.

Right now I fear that the British, sorry, the Youkay Memory of the World register is the only national one to get an article in en:WP, which seems a great pity. Would anybody here like to turn Australian Memory of the World or Australian Memory of the World Register from red to blue? For yes, such a thing exists; here's its site. -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A worthy cause indeed. I've raised this on the Wikimedia Australia members' noticeboard, so we might be lucky. I'm not in a position to start such a page, but I could certainly assist in copy-editing it. Tony (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinions requested

I would appreciate the opinions of others on these edits.[6][7] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First diff: is that claim in the reference, or is it common knowledge? Second diff: please remove the dot after "Mr". Tony (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 4,861 (as of 15:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). Many Aussies helped out to completely eliminate Australian UBLPs from the list. We are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP. Thanks for any help you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Last month I gnomed through a huge number of Australian TV and film actor articles. I added the BLP refimprove tag to quite a few, where I could be bothered. Can I say what a disgraceful load of articles most of them are. There's blatant self-promotion (or promotion by friends/family), spin, and trivia. There are more underwhelming stubs than you can poke a stick at. IMO, we need a working party to sift through them and get serious about referencing and notability. Tony (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunshine Coast

I'm planning to rework the basic stub format for Sunshine Coast, much as I did for Melbourne early in my time as an editor and Central Coast/Newcastle in 2007. I use a database to generate these, and normally "X is a suburb of Y, located Z km from the central business district" works. However, with it not being a centralised metropolis, and with its local government now having been merged (it was formerly the LGAs of Noosa (upper north), Caloundra (south) and Maroochy (the rest)), what's the best way to describe a location? It's not the last time this problem will come up as there's other such areas, so I thought I'd bring it here. Orderinchaos 03:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How about: "[X] is a [suburb/town/locality] [in/of] the Sunshine Coast Region local government area. It is located [Z]km from [nearest metropolitan area within LGA] and [M] km from Brisbane"
Alternatively, towns and suburbs may be treated differently:
  • "[X] is a suburb of [relevant metropolitan area], in the Sunshine Coast Region local government area. It is located [Z]km from [CBD of relevant metro area]"
  • "[X] is a [coastal/inland/rural/tourist etc.] town in the Sunshine Coast Region local government area. It is located [Z]km from [nearest metropolitan area within LGA] and [M] km from Brisbane"
Is that sort of what you had in mind? LordVetinari (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I might actually just use those :) I'm just looking for something nice and simple which works, and this is an odd situation where the usual formulation doesn't work. Orderinchaos 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hope it was helpful. With the (relatively) recent amalgamations both in Qld and in other states and territories, I suspect the Sunshine Coast won't be the only place needing this. LordVetinari (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The word "located" adds nothing to any of the formulas above, and can therefore be omitted. (Not "It is located [Z]km from [wherever]" but "It is [Z]km from [wherever]".) -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "located" and "situated" are pests that need to be zapped in this context. Please ensure that WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM guidelines are followed: "kilometre" should be spelt out, at least on first appearance, and of course value and unit need to be separated. In this template, one might even bother to put a nbsp between them to stop wrapping (recommended, but not mandatory). Tony (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The above was summary form for comment so I didn't bother with the article formatting. Orderinchaos 08:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Reginald Brooks and Dallas Brooks

This merge was proposed in October 2010 on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Current requests on the grounds that they are about the same person, one on his role as Governor of Victoria and one on his role as a cricketer. There appears to be no discussion of this. If they are indeed the same person, clearly this merge should be done ASAP. Anyone got any information? The Australian Dictionary of Biography mentions cricket but not playing for a County, so I am still not sure, although it seems likely that they are the same person. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Seems likely that they are the same person"? If the information in both articles is correct, it would be an incredible coincidence if they weren't. Date and place of birth, date and place of death, triple banger name, Navy service... - all the same. Must be the same person. It's funny. My dad was a Mason, so I heard lots about how wonderful a man Dallas Brooks was back in the 1950s and 60s, but he hated English cricketers, so even if he had known, probably wouldn't have mentioned that part of Brooks' life to me. What an interesting person, having two distinct, totally independent reasons for earning Wikipedia articles. And I wonder why the change in the name he was known by as he moved through life? A merge is obviously appropriate. But which name do use for the article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Reginald Alexander Dallas Brooks as both articles use that full name or perhaps Reginald Dallas Brooks? Both are redirects to Dallas Brooks. It would be a incredible coincidence if they were different people, but I am just being careful as we have so many cricket experts and people who know their GGs abd Gs, that I am surprised nobody has commented over the last 9 months. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Reginald Alexander Dallas Brooks Australian Dictionary of Biography matches up with the details given for Reginald Brooks as well, so they're pretty clearly the same person. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wyangala Dam earthquake (Anon disruption)

An Anon IP keeps adding Wyangala Dam earthquake a minor event (as stated by the cited source they have used) which is really not notable and is a one event which had no lasting effects. The Anon also interprets "We have a dam safety emergency plan, so as soon as it was confirmed a tremor had taken place, we checked the structure with a visual inspection and our instruments, both at Wyangala and Carcoar Dams" as "The tremor was felt widely around the region and caused emergency services to respond to fears of failure at both Wyangala and Carcoar Dams." when the source doesn't even state that, I totally give up with the disruptive Anon. Bidgee (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree it's probably best if you bow out now. If not already, you're risking 3RR. I'll watch the article and see how it can be dealt with. A brief look at the talk page and article history suggests the IP may not be aware of the technical meaning we apply to such terms as POV, OR etc. But, that's just a rough opinion. Like I said, I'll look into it. Worst case scenario, the fact that multiple editors are contending with one IP will make a stronger case at RFC or ANI. But let's hope it doesn't get to that. LordVetinari 05:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Further comments are at Talk:Wyangala Dam. LordVetinari 07:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Meeting with the ABC

Next week on Tuesday myself alongside Leigh Blackall (User:Leighblackall from Uni of Canberra), Andrew Garrett (user:werdna dev from the WMF) Jutta (User:Juttavd from Cancer Council Aust) and Jessica Coates (formerly with Creative Commons Aust) will all be visiting the ABC headquarters in Sydney to have a meeting with managers of different departments as well as a lunchtime presentation to a larger group of staff.

As has sometimes been discussed here and elsewhere, the possibilities of Wikipedia/Wikimedia working with the ABC abound but we've never really been able to make headway in having an actual relationship. Whilst it's not expected that this meeting will immediately result in the ABC making their media archive PD, we do hope that this will be the start of, as they said in Casablanca, "a beautiful friendship"...

The meeting will no-doubt be wideranging but there are a couple of ideas that I specifically want to raise with the ABC. 1) I'd like to show them how Al Jazeera is publishing some of their footage under cc-by and see whether ABC could feasibly do the same http://cc.aljazeera.net/ 2) I'd like to see if the ABC News website would like to add in Wikipedia Citation template code to its pages, to make it easier for people to footnote Australian news stories in WP. I'll be showing them how the National Library of Australia already does this with their digitised newspaper collection (e.g. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/628050 - click on the "cite" button near the top left). 3) Point out to them how they can, if they want, use Wikinews content even more freely that Wikipedia because it is CC-BY.

There are of course, no shortage of other potential things that the ABC and Wikimedia could do, so if you've got something that you really want "put on the table" please tell us.

(p.s. I've crossposted this to the Australian Wikimedians mailinglist) Witty lama (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ABC Radio often covers areas which aren't covered adequately by commercial media. In particular ABC radio does a better job in regional, rural and remote areas. Don't forget to mention the full spectrum of ABC's media output as being of interest in terms of the potential collaborations that would benefit the ABC and a free encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's feasible here, but releasing photos under Wikipedia-friendly CC licenses would be great; our collections of photos of notable living Australians is pretty disappointing, and the ABC will have photos and/or stills of most of them. As for a two-way relationship, is there a feasible way of a win-win concerning the ABC Shop? This is a very important source of revenue to the ABC, and if they can provide something of value to us which in turn leads to increased sales through the ABC shop we'd both be better off. Stills from TV series, samples from music and the like might be a possibility here. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Nick-D raises a good point. The release of exemplars or screenshots of products that the ABC owns copyright for, and sells, would make the wikipedia illustration of the ABC's products better, and thus throw a better light on the ABC's products (or rather, a truer light in higher quality). We need to provide something for the ABC too that meets their mission, and the ABC may have ideas about that which Wikipedia may not have encountered in past collaborations. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The ABC Charter is obviously very relevant to that as it's what guides the ABC (and seems to be taken very seriously). Sections a) and b) of this seem quite relevant to Wikipedia - we're a way in which the ABC can broadcast content to a large domestic and international audience, albeit with the big proviso that they wouldn't have any editorial control over the content once its donated. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good luck Liam. There might be an opportunity here to somehow evangelise Wikipedia to the news journos. When Wikipedia gets press its often negative and then mostly on the theme of accuracy. I think the ABC is not as bad as most, but like all non-print media it has to deliver 30-60 second news grabs. If journos had a better understanding of how our self-checking system works, perhaps those news grabs would be more positive, and that there is more to say than just what we got wrong. Moondyne (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Sounds interesting I've been working with ABC Open since the Busselton trip on a couple of collaborative ventures, WM-au was aware of these. For those that don't know ABC Open and ABC Pool a lot of the content is under cc-by-3.0. Gnangarra 01:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I successfully asked the ABC to help me find the text of a talk given on the ABC in 1945. This was part of some genealogy research I was doing --- The ABC librarian was able to tell me they had transferred the transcript to the nation archives..... most helpful. I think there are lots of things to do which could mutually benefit the ABC and Wikipedia.

Make their library/archives more visible
Illustrate their contribution to Australian culture / history
Articles on their major programs, for instance '4 corners'.

Go Liam!! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Featured Sounds would be overjoyed if you were able to get the ABC to license some interesting sound files under a commons friendly license. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask for a photo to put on & improve the Wikipedia pages of current ABC personalities/presenters, under some type of suitable free-content license? Some examples of bio pages for ABC presenters without photos:

Also logos or title screen captures for all ABC-originated TV series would be handy too. Examples:

(in fact, only a few, such as Foreign Correspondent, do have logos/screencaps, most have text only).

Also it would be good if all of the series broadcast by the ABC had a Wikipedia page (i.e. nice if recurring items on http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/ had articles). Most of TV series do (I was pleasantly surprised), but there are handful that don't seem to, especially kids or arts programs, such as:

Good luck Liam! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

While both would benefit from their releasing material to us, there is also the argument that they presumably have a remit to promote Australia on the world stage, and that releasing content to us is a very effective way to do so. Also I don't know how much publicity ABC gives to Australian's influence on Wikipedia, but there is a big story for them there, not least the way your GLAM work is changing Wikipedia and reshaping the volunteer community that maintains and improves it. ϢereSpielChequers 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You can talk about the Open Beelden (Open Images) project. In this project Dutch broadcasters release clips under a free license to stimulate creative reuse. Most of these clips are copied to Wikimedia Commons and in use at a lot of articles. multichill (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How did this meeting go? Can we have a followup post with a summary? Or is it happening tomorrow? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Puyehue eruption flight disruptions

I was wondering whether a Air travel disruption after the 2011 Puyehue eruption article for the 2011 Puyehue eruption should be created? This would be analogous to the Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption article.

Please discuss at: Talk:2011 Puyehue eruption

65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

John Dawkins

The article for the former treasurer John Dawkins refers in the lead to John Sydney "Jo" Dawkins. Where does the Jo come from? It doesn't appear in any references I can see. Hack (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This diff from 2008 changed it from Joe to Jo, but I must say I've never heard him referred to as Joe either. This is where it was first introduced. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If it helps this link from the introducing editor's userpage suggests he may have known what he was talking about. Then again, sources would still be useful. LordVetinari 05:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Not seeing anything on his site other then a photo of a NY bus captioned as "Improved public transport services to Adelaide". Bidgee (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the other John Dawkins... Hack (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it's legit and it should be Joe.[8] Hack (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dogwood Crossing WikiAcademy

Wikimedia Australia and the State Library of Queensland have organised a regional WikiAcademy on June 20 in Miles, Queensland. They will be bringing people who have content and want to learn how to add it. We'll be bringing Wikipedians who can help them learn the ropes.

Anyone in the region (Wikipedians and people Wikipedians know who want to learn) are invited to come, however registration is required for the Monday.

Wikimedia Australia has organised a bus to transport people from Dalby to Miles and back on the Monday. Cars are going from Armidale and Brisbane on Sunday. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a IRC meeting in #wikimedia-au connect at 5PM AEST today, where we can discuss this and other potential projects. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
and a meetup back in Brisbane on the following weekend. See Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Brisbane#late June?. --John Vandenberg (chat) 09:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There will be 17 attendees from regional GLAMs and historical societies, two from SLQ, Craig and myself, and one other Wikipedian from Brisbane.(total:22) We would really like to see more Wikipedians coming along, as each GLAM attendee will be bringing text for a new article to be created during the workshop, and we need Wikipedians there to hold their hand. Please, if you can make it, let Craig or I know, preferably today so that we can bump the number up for catering purposes. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

At 1pm we'll start creating articles (as userspace drafts) using WP:WIZARD, and noting them on the talk page of the meetup. Feel free to clean them up and drop them into mainspace if they are good enough. We'll come back and look at these articles around 2:30pm. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a list of the articles at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Dogwood Crossing.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be hesitant to move anything into mainspace without cited sources, but at the moment, User:Cecilson/Electricity Supply in South West Queensland History‎ and User:Jneil29/Miles Historical Village‎ look like the basis of solid articles with notable topics. -- saberwyn 04:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much. The participants were thrilled to see the changes, and it emphasised the fact that there is a bigger community available at the other end of the wires. Cecilson says he can add a lot more, and can identify the references. He will need a bit of hand-holding with syntax. Jneil29 typed up that article on the spot in the space of 10 mins; he is a natural! John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to second what John said above, it was really exciting to see the participants in the workshop getting excited at seeing their articles being edited and improved. A big thanks, especially to User:Saberwyn and User:99of9 for their assistance! Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
You're welcome, I figured it was worth making at least a token contribution to all of them, even though some of the articles were first attempts and unlikely to go to mainspace. User:Shiftchange and User:Ariconte also deserve the credit. 99of9 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Any and all photographs of Miles and surrounds (and Dalby, Chinchilla, Roma etc. etc.) are welcome. The more the merrrier, so long as they meet Commons criteria. Buildings, pubs, post offices, farmhouses, houses, offices, parks, war memorials, churches, court houses, banks, shops etc. Not to mention sporting events (rural rugby league from Queensland would be great), parades, agricultural shows, rodeos, etc. Also: farms, cattle, sheep, sheds, farm equipment, fences, trees, etc. Don't forget local rivers, creeks, bridges, wildlife, birds, hills, valleys etc. etc. etc. The only modern photographs of the town of Miles itself (other than the aerial photograph) at this stage are ones I took in the pouring rain!! I see some great photographs of the historical village though. I can't promise every photograph will be used in an article but all will be valued. More please!! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In particular I went looking for pics of the article subjects and was disappointed: Dalby Bore Baths‎, Chinaman's Lagoon‎, the Condamine Bell‎, Myall Park Botanical Gardens‎. With a picture and a few references, all of those could easily go into mainspace (either stand-alone or merged into the locality). Thanks to the Dogwood Crossing crowd for showing us some local points of interest. --99of9 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Creating a criteria for Australian Afds - using TROVE as an essential search item

It is very noticeable that a lot of peoples time is being wasted on Australian AFDs that are tested by the famous GNG reliable sources test, when Trove and Australian State Library catalogues show that some subjects and articles are not only fact notable and source-able (when GNG and google checks come up with little substance) but significantly above borderline notability in the universal sense.

Is there any feeling that GNG Only Afds should be ignored, unless they show that trove has been searched as well? It would certainly improve the quality of Australian articles, the level of discourse in the Afd discussions (which is not exactly improved by the current state of the general ignoring of Trove), and save a lot of angst for a whole range of editors, if the Trove test had precedence over the other.

It would not necessarily save the obviously not notable, but it would clarify a procedure that would provide nominators with a clear guideline to work with SatuSuro 00:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are exceptions where neither google or Trove have sufficient items where certain subjects do require other rules of thumb, but they are rare SatuSuro 00:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be a little wary of establishing broad principles based around what is in the end the idiosyncratic view of one editor about the infallibility of Google and its universal applicability in deletion discussions. A better approach would be to focus on the source of the problem - and that is not the AfD process or GNG. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If this was spurred by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hirschberg, I don't understand why editors went and got some useful material from trove, but only put it in the AFD discussion, not the article? I have no idea who this rugby player is, but I'm off to do some editing. --99of9 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(just found this page) thanks. it was almost 3am and I was tired by the time I finished - got carried away reading other articles in the 1900s newspapers (& jetlag). so I didn't get time to put them in the article. plus I was sort of waiting to see if it got deleted or not (ie so I didn't waste effort). other reseach I've put them into the article too. if you don't get a chance I can do this. (though I think I'm better at researching than writing too, so it would be good if someone else could write something) Kathodonnell (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough Kath. I didn't really mean to be critical of you, just the process/culture whereby 6 editors can investigate a subject without the article gaining a single citation. I didn't write much, but I think our readers appreciate any tidbit of info if they're actually interested in these short obscure articles. Maybe we should even cut out the guy's picture from your first link and pop it into Commons. --99of9 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks I think you've improved the article a lot! good idea. I'm not sure how to do the images. are Trove images copyrighted? or the original papers (I'm not sure of time limits on these). maybe this discussion should move to the articles talk page? Kathodonnell (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats just one of a number of similar nominations by the same editor all resolved by checking trove, I agree with Matt the problem editor needs to be addressed rather than adding another search dependency. Gnangarra 01:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
put it this way if I see further Australian afds put up with gng test only - I would have to assume the nominator is not putting the nomination up in good faith? or out of ignorance of another partial and incomplete resource to match against another - which is what it might provide? SatuSuro 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I am happy to consider trove. my nominations are not bad faith. so let's keep this to improving the encyclopaedia. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
And thats no better then the nomination itself, failing to meet WP:GNG is a valid reason to nominate just address the concern. If you see what you believe is a disruptive/trollish/bad faith nominations not bite just raise it WP:AN let others decide Gnangarra 02:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

apologies Bidgee... just a mix up! LibStar (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Mattinbgn. I'm inexperienced here but feel the real problem is with editors who consistently ignore existing guidelines. WP:BEFORE is the most obvious example, especially the points about reading and understanding the article and making a reasonable attempt at finding sources. I've seen cases where it seems entirely obvious that the nominating editor hasn't even read the existing sources, and still claims nothing can be found. Adding another requirement to the ones already ignored and abused will make no difference at all. In my opinion it would probably make matters worse, since it would allow an editor to say that he or she has followed the letter of the 'law', but wouldn't do anything at all about making them comply with the spirit of it. ¶ In response to SatuSuro: when all of this amounts to a pattern of behaviour it's extraordinarily difficult to assume good faith – actions, as they say, speak louder than words – but it seems that we have to do so, regardless. BlueThird (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I read existing sources. if they are insufficient in terms of being primary sources or just passing mentions then more needs to be done to demonstrate notability. using words like "hell" in comments is hardly WP:CIVIL.LibStar (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
But as I've told you before, your reliance on ghits shows a lack of understanding of the intent of the topic specific notability guidelines. Because google/trove/online is not complete or comprehensive, if you can prove from a reliable source that the person meets a community agreeded minimum standard, then GNG does not have to met right away. It should be marked for ref improvement or stub,but it shouldn't be deleted.The-Pope (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I often target articles that have had longstanding refimprove tags or have no references. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Which is part of the problem. If they have a reference, external link or a WP:BEFORE check that indicates that they fall into one of the categories listed at a topic specific notability guideline, then they shouldn't be nominated. Counting ghits alone isn't enough.The-Pope (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
An introductory flourish, used purely for emphasis and with no intention of offending anyone. Deleted, with my apologies. BlueThird (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • perhaps a dumb question, but how are people deciding on the articles to nominate for AfD? is it from a list somewhere here (then finding no/limited results so flagging them with AfD), or missing reference sections or a random search of Aus category or something else? I'm wondering if it's from a list if we could see the list and then we might have time to work on the articles (e.g. set aside some of our WP time for these tasks). I noticed in the unreferenced BLPs section above it looks like the Aus project did a great job sorting through these and there's none left for Aus. I suppose the AfD process is one of these lists anyway, but it seems almost a rush to do these searches before the end of the AfD. I'm new to this section/project and not really sure what if anything I could/should be working on. (+ I'd like to get back to some music articles too :) thanks. also, I agree with comments above, I think it's great to use Trove, but it needs to be in conjunction with other searches too & can depend on the topic as each has its own specific places for more 'expert' info. but yes, I think it would be great if people could do a google, bing, Trove search to start with and see where they lead. also if there was a site with more recent Aus newspapers (as Trove doesn't cover all years yet unfortunately). I've noticed searching at some of the actual newspaper sites doesn't always give all results either, so not sure if they all keep great archives/indexed. there's also a site which you can search academic postgrad thesis' which can be handy too for certain topics. I also try google books, questia (& sometimes ebooks sites depending on topics) as they're sometimes good for books (though often I have to go to the library to photocopy/read the book if the pages are missing on google books. Kathodonnell (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There are over 24000 articles (28%) currently listed on the project's cleanup list. Obviously (to most of us) almost all of these articles need improvement, not deletion, but some people take a harsher/to the letter of the law approach and may be using portions of lists like those to identify candidates for deletion. see also WP:DELETIONIST. The-Pope (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks, I'll take a look and see if there's any here I can work on (wasn't familiar with toolserver before this thread). I think I'm tending more towards inclusionist. though I think there's some that might need deletion, but majority could just need more work. perhaps some are made by new people - there's a lot to learn when you start so it's easy to do something wrong without realising Kathodonnell (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The bot for wolter (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Cleanup_listing ) is dead, but tedder and alexnew - are at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Australia) - but
http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListing.php?project=Australia

is still running SatuSuro 05:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


There seems to have been a misinterpretation of the issue, as if it was focused upon one individuals unfortunate over use of one kind source, who in turn has chosen to bring their personal issues to this discussion - the methods of nominating articles from Wikipedia by that individual was not the intent of this section.

This posting was not intending to ask for grandstanding - but asking for an improvement in process within the Australian Project, let me make that very clear. If anyone was serious about the issue - there is always backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Australia) and a substantial number of the trash that shows up there that remains unprodded and unworked on, showing that some energies should perhaps focus there. Some years ago when the Project had monthly projects and more active and willing members, that would have been a good model to go by - a month where Australian editors offer to cleanup/prod/ or afd the backlog of new articles that otherwise never get looked at SatuSuro 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Norma Whalley

I came across a new article on an actress called Norma Whalley yesterday. I am having a few issues locating reliable sources that confirm details of her life. According to contemporary media, she was the daughter of Henry Octavius Whalley, apparently a doctor working out of either Melbourne or Sydney. An American media report claims that she was married three times by the time she had married what appears to be her final husband. I am also having difficulty working out how long the marriage to final husband, a noted jurist, lasted. So I have two questions, how do I find out where she was born; and how do I work out whether the father was actually a doctor. Hack (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think she was born in NSW. [9] 99of9 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This says she is English by birth. --99of9 (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made some edits, but now I'm thoroughly confused. Other sources are adamant that she's [10] a native of Australia. Feel free to revert if you can figure it out better. --99of9 (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Could this be a Frankenstein article? -- saberwyn 02:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Certainly possible, that's why I've passed the hot potato back :). However, I trust NSW BDM that she wasn't born to Henry (or Octavius) in Sydney, so I think it may be that one of the newspapers have got their info wrong. --99of9 (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This may or may not help: a discussion of someone else's confusion on the subject. BlueThird (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
What the references say:
  • 1900 - English-born Norma Whalley, a showgirl turned vaudeville performer had been engaged to Walter Jones - Billboard
  • 1902 - photo held in NLA - according to metadata "born in Sydney", appeared on stage in NY and London - National Library of Australia
  • 1904 - English-born actress Norma Whalley divorces "comedian" Sherrie Matthews to marry EP Clarke (son of Sir Edward Clarke) in London. Has been in the US for "several years". - The Evening Telegraph
  • 1904 - Norma Whalley, daughter of Sydney physician, marries Percival Clarke (son of Sir Edward Clarke). Had first acted in "the land of her birth" - Sydney Morning Herald
  • 1904 - Norma Whalley, a young Australian actress, daughter of the late Henry Octavius Whalley, a well known physician in Sydney. For some years a "comedienne" in Sydney. The Advertiser (Adelaide)
  • 1905 - Norma Whalley, former wife of Charles Verner and Sherrie Mathews now married to Edwin Clark - Chicago Daily Tribune (behind pay wall)
  • 1936 - Sir Percival Clarke obit, mentions 1904 marriage to Norma Whalley, daughter of Sydney doctor - Courier-Mail
  • 1938 - "Lady Percival Clarke" visits Australia, comments on non-tipping culture - Courier-Mail
  • early 20C - Australian actress. Photo: Miller and Lang
  • c1942 - Well known British screen actress. Hulton Photography Archive
  • 1946 - former actress Norma Whalley, now Lady Clarke, reunites with former colleagues - British Pathe Hack (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A possible lead for further research about her place and date of birth? The seventh edition of Arthur Charles Fox-Davies' delightful book Armorial Families: A Directory of Gentlemen of Coat-Armour (Volume 1) has Henry Octavius as an MD of Melbourne rather than Sydney. It's badly scanned, but also suggests what might be where Percival Clarke and Norma Whalley lived in the UK: Eastrop Farm House, Upper Nately. BlueThird (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Something of breakthrough! According to a report in the British Journal of Nursing, she was retraining as a nurse in 1915 and expected to go to France as part of the war effort. It also notes her beauty, that one of her operettas was tuneful but not very good, and that she was American-born. Start with the last para, and then go to the next page. BlueThird (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A breakthrough?? Now we have 3 countries of birth!! Seriously though, it's cool that she retrained as a nurse. Something productive ;). --99of9 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

She was back in films by the 1920s, though. Various bits and bobs: the San Francisco Call (7 July 1900) was just as convinced as Billboard that she was British (and rather verbose about her relationship with Walter Jones, too); Getty Images regards her as British, Stock Photo Pro as Australian; the British Pathé link says that she was Lady Clarke in 1946, which suggests to me that she was still married to Percival Clarke when he died in 1936; she may have been living in Maryland in 1940 (see Social News – as a result of her nursing?) and a member of the VFW Auxiliary, which seems to be an entirely American organisation (see Social News); London's National Portrait Gallery says that she died in 1954. Oh yes, and she seems to have had a parrot called Sphinx, sometime before 1906. Google Books looks as if it would be a useful source, if so much of it weren't in snippet view. BlueThird (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A few more snippets: her mother was Mary J Rayson; we can almost certainly rule out the possibility that the press report from Maryland refers to the same Norma Whalley; and there's a frustrating amount of information behind paywalls. Man of Letters on Warpath sounds particularly interesting. If you follow the link you don't get to the article (since there's a paywall) but you do get to a summary that hints at a murder somewhere in her story. BlueThird (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have access to some of those Chicago articles. Was there an article you had in mind? Hack (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New articles on the handling of dangerous materials

In the last couple of weeks the following five articles have been created by five new editors (as their first contribution):

The first article might be encyclopedic and notable, but I've nominated the other four for prod deletion as they don't appear to be on notable topics. Does anyone know what's going on here? Given the obscure but non-commercial topics and multiple accounts, I suspect it's some kind of TAFE or university project, but that's only a guess. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Very weird. I'd agree it looks like some sort of university project, possibly from some sort of science communications course given the topic and the methodical way the articles were created - edited offline, pasted to a sandbox (and the sandbox linked on user pages), copy-paste moved to mainspace. The only thing I can add is that one of them appears to have gone on a good-faith copyvio spree on Commons. I've tagged them there, but I don't know enough about Commons policy to know if that was right or not. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The very similar NSW OHS Regulation 2001 - Chapter 3 - Workplace Consultation was posted yesterday (again as a new editor's first contribution) and has been nominated for prod deletion by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs). The prod deletion of Australian Dangerous Goods Code Class 7 - Radioactive Materials was contested by an IP account, so I've taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Dangerous Goods Code Class 7 - Radioactive Materials and AS/NZ 2243.10 Australian Standard - Storage of Chemicals‎ is now marked as being a copyright violation via a report that came in from ORTS. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've left messages on all the editors' talk pages asking them about the articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Plagiarism in a university project? Well I never! ;-) I'm not sure if the new one is related, it doesn't seem to have been created in a sandbox like the others were. The IP that contested the prod is a UTS address (I won't link it directly since it's probably outing the page creator's account), and a little bit of Facebook searching (wonders of the internet!) based on usernames and UTS confirms they're probably first or second-year UTS students. Don't know whether it's worth chasing any further to get in touch with whoever set the project. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well done! Hopefully the messages on the talk pages will lead to this being fed back to whoever is running the course/project. It's not listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects, though I think that only a minority of school and university projects ever are. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You missed Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 Chapter 2 Risk Management. What an exciting read that was. Also my removal of the excessive detail in the only possibly notable article - Australian Dangerous Goods Code was undone by another IP from UTS. Is there a WP:SCHOOLPROJECT page? Ah, there it is WP:SUP. Might pay to post a notice on each student's page telling the teacher to read that page. The-Pope (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deprodded Australian Dangerous Goods Code (ADG) Class 1: Explosives and instead marked it for merging into the Australian Dangerous Goods Code article. I've also recommended merging the Class 7 article there at the AfD. Although there is too much detail in both, there is encyclopaedic material there that should be summarised in the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be best if you just merge the Australian Dangerous Goods Code (ADG) Class 1: Explosives article to demonstrate what you think is worth keeping :) Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it a day or so to give anyone the chance to object if they want before I do it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah: the creator of the new Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) Act 2000 article has stated that this was started as a university assignment. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also nominated the new AS/NZS 2243.9 - Fume Cupboards for prod deletion on notability grounds. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That one got through NPP without even a question, good lord. At least it's now the end of semester for most universities, so hopefully they've stopped... bou·le·var·dier (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more:

I'm actually concerned there may be two different projects going on here - a chemistry project w.r.t. dangerous goods, and some other project about OH&S? bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is looking like a good example of what happens when well meaning university projects go wrong - it's great that Wikipedia has been selected as a way of delivering a course, but the execution of this hasn't taken into account the relevant notability standards and there's been no attempt to 'fit' the articles into the general structure of articles on these topics (eg, Wikilinks, categories and writing in a summary style). It would be good to make contact with whoever is running this course, but I can't see any clues to this in the articles. Hopefully they post here. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The prod nomination for AS/NZS 2243.9 - Fume Cupboards was disputed, so I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS/NZS 2243.9 - Fume Cupboards Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The prod for AS 3780-2008: the storage and handling of corrosive substances was also disputed, and it's now at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS 3780-2008: the storage and handling of corrosive substances Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are even more:

My head now hurts. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts at the relevant AfDs. My main concern, though, is that the students may be using Wikipedia as a free web host. Or perhaps I just don't understand how publishing an assignment online is supposed to aid its presentation. LordVetinari (talk)

I've proposed the following four AfDs:

bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame that we're disappointing (?) so many potential editors this way, but this really is a textbook example of how to NOT use Wikipedia to aid the delivery of a course. There seems to have been no effort put into ensuring that the articles are on the kind of topics Wikipedia covers or are written in an appropriate style and none of the editors are responding when messages are left for them. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been noticing quite a number of these floating around at AFC, I think I have declined at least one, if not more, a few weeks ago. Some though appear to have made it to the mainspace regardless. I just went ahead and declined the AFC above. It is sad to see such an astonishing number of these page. Altogether, a very wasted oppertunity and a real shame this couldn't have been handled better from the onset. Nevertheless these article simply do not warrant inclusion on any level. France3470 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be mostly resolved now - the remaining articles are all, I think, notable - but I'm tagging this so the discussion stays here a bit longer in case anyone comes out of the woodwork around university end-of-semester marking time. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of Googling, I suspect that this is the course responsible. The lecturer isn't identified online, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah: "Assessment Item 3: Assignment 2: Wikipedia Assignment Weighting: 20%" Orderinchaos 11:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted (here to save other editors from searching). Do we have any UTS students here who can find out who the lecturer is? It would be nice to explain to her or him why the articles were deleted and how to avoid this if this assessment is used again. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Nicely done. This page lists the lecturer as Alison Beavis, whose details are here. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very very curious about the lecturer's intention. All the articles looked copy and pastes, was this some way of webhosting students' assignments. I would hardly see this as constructive and fear this will recur once this subject is run again. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest assuming good faith. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
if you look above a number of editors have expressed similar concern to me. Perhaps you should contact the lecturer in good faith and offer to help? Thanks LibStar (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As Mattinbgn suggests I would not be so fast to jump to conclusions. The articles looked like summaries of their topics, pretty typical university science assignments actually. As we speculated above I would be extremely surprised if this is anything other than a good faith attempt to set a university assignment that benefits the wider community - in this case by trying to expand Wikipedia in an obscure area that is never-the-less notable and important to many. While we do have guidelines in place for school projects they are admittedly hard to find, and it does take a reasonably detailed understanding of our policies to be clear on the sort of content we accept (if WP:N was clear as crystal, WP:AFD would be redundant!). I suggest all that needs to be done is a friendly dialogue with the lecturer to point out that a) we welcome contributions like this but b) we do have some rules about the sorts of content we want, and that we would be more than happy to help with explaining how we work. The worst possible outcome of this incident would be if this lecturer decided the whole thing is more trouble than it's worth and not to set a Wikipedia assignment again, because we would lose valuable contributions and (more importantly) valuable contributors that are (sort of) experts in their topic area. Anything we can reasonably do to avoid that happening is a good thing, and assuming some sort of malice is not helpful. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree there are some potential contributors from this but I think the lecturer in trying to teach has not understood that the articles would be deleted. I would like to see some positive out of this, so think that Mattinbgn as a polite good faith editor could assist this lecturer and her students. Thanks LibStar (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made established contact with the uni. It sounds hopeful - like others have said, assuming good faith is key here. We know how we work, but most of the world doesn't and makes a variety of seemingly reasonable assumptions, some of which turn out to be unsound. Keep in mind to many people we're simply a very big website, perhaps in some people's minds even too ubiquitous to have a community and community norms and etc. (Think of the "free for all" that is Yahoo Answers or the way we use Google or Facebook as just a few examples.) So it comes down to educating the educators and establishing a framework for collaboration. I'm sure this is something the local Wikimedia Australia chapter may be able to help with (I and at least one other contributor in this section are members, anyone else who wishes to be should note we have an early bird special for joining until 30 June :P ) Orderinchaos 13:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so people here know, the Dean of the faculty concerned is now dealing with it. He's taken considerable interest (of his own accord after reading the debates at my invitation) in WP:SUP and is looking to educate his lecturers on appropriate use of Wikipedia. I've also provided the chapter contacts, as it occurred to me this might be an opportunity in the wings if people are willing to engage with us. Orderinchaos 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. It would be great something good comes out of what must have been a (very) negative experience for the students in this class. There's certainly a lot of scope to use Wikipedia for topics such as this and university projects have in the past had significant benefits for both Wikipedia and the university involved. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
wow the Dean got involved. this has certainly been an interesting exercise. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Integration with Portal

As others may have seen, some WikiProjects and Portals have begun to integrate through page header tabs and similar methods. For example, see P:Right. What are other people's thoughts on this. Does anyone foresee any difficulties with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and Portal:Australia being thus integrated? LordVetinari 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that most of the Australian portals are all but abandoned, although I can't claim to be an expert. Orderinchaos 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary of Sydney has new freely licensed content

Hi all,

as you may or may not know, a couple of years ago I was working with the "Dictionary of Sydney" [DoS] - a digital history project to get recognised experts to write about all aspects of the Sydney region's history/people/places/events etc. Whilst I was there one of the things I was particularly involved with was ensuring that each contributing author had the option of licensing their content under CC-by-SA, and I'm pleased to say that the vast majority did so.

This week saw a new update to the website with a variety of new articles to add to the existing collection - as described in their blogpost. You can see the hundreds of articles that are freely-licensed by going here and clicking on the "sort by license type" button at the top.

As you can see these articles can be of huge value to WP content about Sydney - some are also expert peer reviewed and published in UTS's Sydney Journal. Because they're stable articles by named authors in a government-research-grant funded publication they are a reliable source in their own right, as well as providing many good footnotes within the articles to primary sources. Of course, being CC-by-SA, they are also able to be copied directly into Wikipedia and Wikified (something I've previously done with Sydney artists' camps, Glebe Island and Hugo Alpen.

Is there anyone here who has the time and technical knowledge and would like to:

  1. make a neat attribution template for when content is copy/pasted into WP from the DoS, e.g. the way we do with Template:Catholic Encyclopedia? You can see the text I've written manually to provide attribution at the end of the articles mentioned just above.
  2. relatedly, make a specific source template for when we wish to use DoS articles as a citation (to add to the collection of other Australian source templates!)?
  3. If it's possible, create some kind of checklist where we can mark off which articles have been imported and integrated, which ones have been used for footnotes only, and which have done neither?

If people in Sydney are interested perhaps we could ask the folks at DoS or their partners the StateLibrary if they would like to host an "editathon" where we can spend some time working on this in person? Anyone interested?

Next time I get a chance I'm going to try and merge their article on Bungaree into our article though if anyone wants to beat me to it, go right ahead!

I'm also crossposting this to the Wikimediaau-l mailing list. Sincerely, Witty Lama 19:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

External links - Stonefield (band)

Hi all. I have removed the Facebook links etc. at Stonefield (band) in line with my interpretation of WP:EL. On consideration, I may have been a little too rigid as the policy appears to allow some leeway as pointed out here. The thoughts of others would be much appreciated. If you like you can provide some advice on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stonefield (band) too. Many thanks. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that several social media sites have their own WP templates (eg Template:Facebook) I think it is OK to have them as external links. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
fwiw I do that too, especially if there's myspace, facebook, twitter as these are not allowed, and it says not to use any external links that you need to login to access (though some of these are readable if not logged in). I paste the section / links I removed into the article's talk page with a comment. but so far people haven't moved them back. I write something like, "removing external links as per WP:EL. keeping official site as per WP:ELOFFICIAL" - if they have an official site. I figure people can google/search for this. it helps keep it a bit less promotional. I've noticed some pages just have a link to the bio which is useful also. Kathodonnell (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is good to be strict about removing external links because if people get to Wikipedia via goggling then they can search for other sites and click on a search result just as easily. I'm regularly removing tourist and accommodation links from Queensland geography articles. We are here to provide knowledge within the wikipedia.org domain, not to direct readers to other sites. This is why I only add external links a couple of times every 1000 edits. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
If memory serves correct, this has been discussed before about other subjects and what it came down to was one link is fine, if there is no official site then an official myspace link is fine. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Soccer v Football

There is a discussion at WP:CFDALL concerning the naming of Soccer v Football in Australian categories. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To be slightly more specific, the discussion is occurring at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#Category:Australian football (soccer) players. Jenks24 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There's also a bunch of speedy rename nominations at WP:CFDS, so the CFDALL page will show both sets. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Murdered Australian tourists

Hello folks. I was wondering if I could get some Australian input to this article - Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject English

Wikipedia:WikiProject English has been nominated for deletion. As this project was proposed for maintaining national varieties of English on how articles are written/formatted/spelled, you may be interested. (essentially, maintaing WP:ENGVAR compliance on articles) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Help in locating two old Brisbane schools

Does anyone know where Domestic Science High School (1924-1962, girls) and State Commercial High School (1926-1963, boys) were located? I imagine they would have been somewhere in central Brisbane, but Google searching isn't teasing out anything more specific. (Incidentally, if anyone has time and resources to complete the task, they both should have articles - they seem to have had a rather important role in state secondary education in Queensland.) Orderinchaos 19:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Ipswich --- "TECHNICAL TRAINING". The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864-1933). Qld.: National Library of Australia. 29 July 1924. p. 8. Retrieved 6 July 2011..
And the State Commercial High School was a rename of a section of another school. "NOW SEPARATE". The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864-1933). Qld.: National Library of Australia. 19 November 1932. p. 13. Retrieved 6 July 2011.. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the original institution it split away from was the Central Technical College, basically an early precursor to the TAFE. Orderinchaos 17:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Broad

Speaking of creating articles --- does anyone want to expand User:Ariconte/Paul A. Broad? I'm OK / good at ref finding but not inclined to expand the composition very much..... feel free to add to it. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Another blast from the past part 83

Trivia removal is currently occurring.. longer time editors might remember the various events in the history of popular culture and trivia sections, and the eventual creation of the project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Popular_Culture with the aim of

(1) WikiProject Popular Culture aims to preserve "In popular culture" and "Trivia"-type information in Wikipedia in a manner that does not compromise Wikipedia's core principles or its quality. - and noting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Popular_Culture#Information_salvage.

why all this? I take issue with the edit summary and removal of section at Cyclone Tracy - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyclone_Tracy&action=historysubmit&diff=438195052&oldid=435914834. I believe it might be well intentioned but it misses the mark, there was and still is quite a large component of Australian popular culture issues about the cyclone - and they are notable and valid - and as important to understanding Darwin and its seasons... SatuSuro 08:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources that talk about how the cyclone has had a wide impact on popular culture? If so then the article likely needs a section describing the cultural significance of the storm. But if all there are are a collection of disjointed pop-culture references e.g. "It appeared in this song. It appeared in this episode of this TV show. Bill Clinton wore a t-shirt with a picture of the storm.", then such a section isn't warranted. No real encyclopedia contains random lists of trivia like this. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
And even if there are sources that describe it's broader cultural impact, that doesn't mean a list of trivial references should go in the article. If there are enough of them, they should go in a List of pop-culture references to Cyclone Tracy article. If there are only a handful, they just don't belong on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of factoids. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Happy to see it removed in one way, since I've never liked "popular in culture" sections. "Santa Never made it into Darwin" could be re-added into the article since it was used as a fund raiser and would fit into a section call "Response", "Cyclone Tracy" mini-series could be added but not sure where and the metal band is just not notable. Bidgee (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi, just wondering if we could get some input from members of this project at Talk:Electoral district of Ivanhoe (Victoria)#Move?. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Association football in Australia

A Requested move has been initiated for the article Association football in Australia. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

RMs seem to be popular these days...

Opinions welcome at Talk:Ian Collins (Australian)#Requested move. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cencus data

Where I get population of Australian aborigens of various census? --Kaiyr (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Best place is probably the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census site. You should be aware that Census statistics often lump Australian Aborigines (which seems to be your interest) and Torres Strait Islanders into the single classification of "Indigenous Australians". Hope this helps. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Carbon tax

Perhaps my search skills need a bit of work but I cannot seem to find an article about the new carbon tax (or price - take your pick). There is a detailed article on the CPRS but nothing I can find on the new scheme. I don't particularly want to make any edits but I do think the PM's speech yesterday should be reflected in 2011 in Australia if someone wants to do the honours. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Income tax in Australia also needs an update. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that a bill will pass through Parliament later this year. Maybe an article about the law and its passing would be best rather than an article about the political agreement announced yesterday. The tax will also be featuring heavily in the 2012 Australian federal budget. In the meantime Carbon tax#Australia could be improved. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
How about a section on Taxation in Australia? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the policy is a little wider than simply taxation. The Clean Energy Future Plan—to use the Government's terminolgy—includes subsidies to green businesses and the creation of a Clean Energy Finance Corporation. See the official website -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Correctly speaking, it isn't a "carbon tax" at all but a "price on carbon" or "carbon pricing", although I don't know how that would translate into an NPOV article title. (This isn't at all a criticism of the OP, every media agency seems to call it the "carbon tax" and the name's caught on widely.) Orderinchaos 02:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I did say "Carbon tax (or price - take your pick)"! :) I would disagree slightly with your wording though. In the initial stages, it is indeed a tax by any definition - although the plan is to move to a pricing system in the long term. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
(Haha, true :) Not quite though - it's a fixed pricing system in its present proposed implementation, with a transition to a market pricing system later on. Orderinchaos 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know where this topic should fit into Wikipedia. So far, no legislation, not even election promises (as some like to point out), just masses of very hot air from pollies of all colours, shock jocks and other interested parties. I wish we could tax all that talk, but trying to write something NPOV and encyclopaedic about what's happened so far would be near impossible. The legislation hitting parliament makes sense, because that would at least be about something concrete. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While I can see your point, people do like to use Wikipedia to come and find a neutral facts-only article, hopefully with solid references on particularly contentious topics, including ones that are VERY current. That there was a detailed national announcement on Sunday to which all major parties and players publicly responded on this topic is a definite fact. Surely we can get something on to Wikipedia about this now, as a concrete proposal, rather than waiting for the concrete legislation!? After all Wikipedia's collection of the information could even inform the discourse and ultimate shape of the legislation. Unencyclopaedic? Not if we're really careful... Neutral and really useful regardless? Absolutely. Donama (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice to have something. Tough policing would be needed. OK, how about the "official" name for an article title, Clean Energy Future Plan - Australia? We could have redirects fromCarbon tax - Australia, Carbon pricing - Australia, while avoiding such redirects as Juliar's Big New Tax. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
We could always try Julia Gillard attacks in Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I LOLed for real. Well played, good sir! Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL, what happened to that dude anyway? Orderinchaos 10:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it will be quite a challenge to make this NPOV, but it is certainly a topic which needs more coverage on Wikipedia. Some of the articles in Category:Climate change in Australia may be a good start? -- Chuq (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not for those who argue it's not happening ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

NSW transport shake-up

Well its been announced that a number of authorities/departments/bodies will be merged into new authorities/departments/bodies but has yet to pass though parliament so we will need to wait a little[11]. Bidgee (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New national team articles

I've moved three articles about Australian national sport teams off my user space to the main space. These articles are:

If people could improve these to make the eligible for WP:DYK, that would be awesome. Beyond that, could some one edit Template:Australia national teams to include these national teams on the template? It would also be really great, given that the women's world cup is still recent and there has been a general effort to improve disabled sport related articles, if some one could start an article about the Deaf Matildas, the national deaf women's national soccer/football/association football team. There is some information in Women's association football in Australia about the Deaf Matildas but not much. :( --LauraHale (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

New Australian Paralympic articles

I've moved the following pages off my user space and to the main space:

Any help improving these articles and getting them fixed up in the next few days so they could be nominated for WP:DYK would be awesome. The two older ones are a bit harder to find sourcing for, but if anyone pokes through NSIC and sees a source they want either online or off, I can see if you can't be provided with a few pages from that source or an electronic copy if possible. --LauraHale (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Stations of the cross by German sculptor in North Sydney

Hi there, while researching for de:Joseph Dettlinger I've read on [12] that St. Francis Xavier Church owns Stations of the Cross created by him. I would like to know if they're the same as the ones depicted at the bottom of this page. I already emailed the church, but didn't get any response. Is there someone from Sydney, that likes churches and might check this out? Some pictures would be incredible. I could try to translate Dettlinger in English in return, if you want me to. Thanks in advance and best regards from the cloudy Black Forest, --Flominator (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationalisation of Queensland-based WikiProjects

Given the much lower editing on Australian topics in recent years, I think the current state of WikiProjects under the Australian banner relating to Queensland need to be reviewed. The WikiProjects were all created in the editing heyday of 2006–2007 and at that time all of them were very active. My proposal is to maintain WikiProject Queensland, with WikiProject Brisbane becoming a task force of the project (which appears to be the consensus of that project's talk page) and two smaller projects being deleted and merged in.

At present we have:

  • WikiProject Queensland, which is weakly active, and has 3,713 tagged articles.
  • WikiProject Brisbane, which appears to be inactive, and has 989 tagged articles, 138 of which are also tagged by Queensland.
  • WikiProject Gold Coast, which was in effect stillborn, died in 2007, and has no articles and only 2 uses of the project's infobox;
  • WikiProject Townsville, which appears to be long-term inactive, and has 194 tagged articles, 165 of which are also tagged by Queensland. I posted a notice on its talk page on 24 June, it has not yet received any response.

The task force precedent was set by the Western Australians when Perth's wikiproject was converted to one.

Does anyone see any problems with this idea, or want to suggest any alternatives/modifications? Orderinchaos 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(It was mentioned at the Brisbane talk page that Sydney is also very quiet these days, and there's also Geelong, but I don't know if they should be all done at the same time or do one state at a time. Riverina, Adelaide and Melbourne are still active.) Orderinchaos 18:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the Goldie and Townsville ones should be deleted. Or at least marked as historical if there's something to save. Nightw 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleting the Gold Coast and Townsville WikiProjects and making the Brisbane one a taskforce of WikiProject Queensland would be best. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Orderinchaos' proposal makes sense. I don't see any point to WikiProjects where there is little or no grassroots stimulus. Better for WP:QLD to swallow them up now before they become even less active. Optimistic, perhaps, but having them as taskforces for a while may even stimualte some renewed interest. LordVetinari 05:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Just noting for completeness that following the above discussion and allowing some time to see if there would be any objections, I did the above merge at the weekend. Orderinchaos 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article naming problem - Sydney schools

I'm working on the schools lists for a lot of regions - I finally finished Queensland's regions a week ago, and have moved onto New South Wales.

Sydney has presented a challenge. It's obvious that Sydney will not be able to be united under one article like, say, Brisbane or Perth have been, because the result will be too big. I'm already up to over 750 current state schools and about 130 former ones, and there's still at least 200 to go plus Catholic/independent. As a guide, Perth's and Brisbane's articles are 111 KB each, both have ~400 current state schools and ~80 former. This would suggest a breakup into 3 parts.

If I use the definition for Greater Western Sydney provided in that article, which seems reasonable, the rest divides into northern and central/southern. What names should be applied to these areas? Orderinchaos 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Cherry Ripe (candy bar)

I have been informed that I should seek permission to add your banner to articles. So should Cherry Ripe (candy bar) be bannered with your WikiProject? This is an Australian chocolate bar. 65.94.77.96 (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you may add the project banner to pages like these. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Soccer

Association football has been renamed to soccer for Australia. That leaves cleaning up the category tree (which was recently moved to association football last month, precipitating debate on the naming of the main article Soccer in Australia, just now renamed). So can someone start with the nomination process for renaming the categories? See Category:Soccer in Australia.

Particularly badly named is Expatriate football managers in Australia ... which doesn't indicate which football it is about. And Category:Football Hall of Fame (Australia) inductees suffering from the same.

65.94.77.96 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldest ever Australian Aboriginal

With an eye to creating an article on NAIDOC lifetime achievement award winner Ned Cheedy, I note that he is now 105 [13]. While no doubt other Aboriginals have lived to such an advanced age, I'm guessing that Cheedy could be the oldest ever Aboriginal for which there is authentication of age. Does anyone know of a source proving or disproving my presumption? --Roisterer (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not quite the oldest Aboriginal; Belinda Dann reached the age of 107. Graham87 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Aah, thanks for that. He's going to have to wait a few more years before he takes that title. --Roisterer (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association could use some extra watching; seems there are pov-pushing ips afoot, deleting criticism sections with refs and adding promotion. Dl2000 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Trivia in Cowra article

Hi all,

I was hoping to get some feedback, please. I have been having a slow revert battle with anon editors (several addresses I think, but probably only one editor by the style of edit) about trivia being added to the Cowra article. They add; I remove. Long time frame. They have not discussed their edits. I frankly don't normally go too far out of my way for anon POV pushers. Though, today I have left a message on their ip talk page asking them to stop adding trivia. While I am galloping along on my high horse I was hoping for feedback whether others thought such off-topic trivia has a place in Aussie place articles, before I started to get a bit more stern with the anon, if the polite request fails. I notice one other editor Fozziecowra has also removed the content, but that was his only edit so far. Thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Had a look with what you removed and I think it was a good call on your part :-). Wikipedia is not a place for everyday crime news, no matter how macabre or sensational. And I'm fairly sure that the hacker was not charged with "hacking the internets" ;-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

A category or two that might interest

At least they aren't attacking any more

Koala cuddling.   Facepalm. The-Pope (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The cuddling is just to lull you into a false sense of security and get you close so they can attack. While emus and stonefish hunt down the bystanders. --GenericBob (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The article should come with a health warning. Who wants to cuddle an animal that is threatened with extinction because of STD's? Calistemon (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm tempted to create Wikipedia editor strangling. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

PNG prime minister

Off topic for this board, I know, but can anyone expand the article on the new PM of our nearest neighbour—Peter O'Neill (politician)? It needs a bit of work. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some conflicting press opinions about whether he is the new PM or the new acting PM. The Australian, which seems to have done the most research, judging by their article, says it's the latter.[14] --Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The National and the Post-Courier in PNG are suggesting he has been sworn in by the GG (the Post-Courier has a picture of him with his interim cabinet at Government House for the swearing-in).[15][16] Hack (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Convention Centre

Some local editor opinions would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC) The article could do with some help as well,it is rather bare bones SatuSuro 09:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I have warned the nominator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Most of the nominator's edits seem to be nominating articles for deletion or supporting nominations for deletion based on "I don't like it". --AussieLegend (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion

Move discussion going on over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL on whether the project should be moved to WikiProject Australian rules football, if anyone's interested. IgnorantArmies?! 08:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the wind farms' names

There is a discussion and move request about the names of wind farms in Australia. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gundagai

There is a monologue occurring at Talk:Gundagai. I think there is some history behind this (permabanned editor?) but I don't recall the details. Any ideas? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aah yes, the Gundagai anon. There was one anon who claimed to be an Aboriginal woman who filled the Gundagai talk and article pages with claims of Aboriginal massacres in the area and was less than pleased when we asked for reputable sources to back her claims. I don't know if this is the same poster (the writing style appears to be different) but something seems to draw people to Gundagai. --Roisterer (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
My feeling it is the Gundagai anon (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors), I've left them with a few edits made on the article a few months back since I could verify what they had changed and added but now it seem they are clogging the article's talk page. I was hoping that they had reformed and would be a constructive editor. Bidgee (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Biggest Loser Australia: Couples 2 and another

I think a lot of nonsense and vandalismus. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Article move discussion

Proposed move of the Australian Wood Duck to Maned Duck per International Ornithological Congress. Talk:Australian Wood Duck#Requested move. Bidgee (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Music group grammar

Occasionally, an IP or other editor will "correct" a band article lede e.g. "AC/DC are an Australian rock band" to "AC/DC is ...". Review and feedback is encouraged on the new WP:BANDENG essay, which seeks to educate and clarify about the English variety issues involved. Dl2000 (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Has something changed since I last went to primary school (last Thursday actually)? If the emphasis is on the band (AC/DC) then "is" is correct in Australian English. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Similar, but entirely unrelated, discussion going on Talk: 2011 AFL season regarding the use of "their" vs "its" for football teams, if anyone wants to have a look. IgnorantArmies?! 05:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and my view on bands is pretty much the same as with teams, all caused by unbending primary teachers. A team and a band are singular things. So it's "is". Although I don't think my feelings are as strong for bands. Nobody ever refers to the Beatles in the singular. "The Beatles is....."? No. HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... the "are"/"is" distinction may be strictly a UK issue, then. However, "are" does seem to be in place for numerous band articles such as INXS, Justice Crew, Operator Please, Thirsty Merc. Does singular treatment still apply for a plural-worded band name such as Resin Dogs or The Veronicas? Dl2000 (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This is all explained in the discussion at Talk: 2011 AFL season, specifically, this section. To summarise, even though the name is plural, it's a singular entity. Try saying it like this: "The band's name ..... Resin Dogs", replacing "....." with "is" or "are". "The band's name are Resin Dogs" is clearly not correct as the band is a singular entity and so we use "is". --AussieLegend (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently

.... that an esky has a motor and wheels[17][18]. Guess no wonder why we have so many drink drivers in Australia. Seriously, I have no idea why the editor is trying to make it look as if that is what an esky is and using a story from the UK during a slow news day (I've seen weirder things than an esky on a modified scooter). Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

*start sarcastic comment* May have to head down to the local Esky dealer tomorrow and see if they have any motorised Esky's in stock![19]*end sarcastic comment*. Why does it feel like I'm hitting my head against a bomb proof brick wall? Bidgee (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's probably because all Australians are unable to be neutral on the hot-button issue that is motorised eskies [20]. Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What can I say......[21][22] If people are relying on the media so much, god help me! Bidgee (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There used to be a page called "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" for this sort of stuff. :) Orderinchaos 19:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Does there really need to be an article for esky given it's just a variant name for cooler? Hack (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
My esky has wheels but no motor... was I short changed at point of purchased? Peachey88 (T · C) 05:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RM

Any opinions would be welcome at Talk:Australian Aboriginal flag#Renaming the article. Jenks24 (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal seemed fairly straightforward (flag -> Flag) and is an official title so I moved it. If anyone particularly objects to the move, I'll go with whatever new consensus emerges. Orderinchaos 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Black Caviar

Discussion (re-)started (here) on whether Black Caviar (horse) should be moved to Black Caviar, if anyone's interested. IgnorantArmies?! 08:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Association Football in Australia

A discussion on a possible change from project to taskforce for Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football in Australia is occurring at WikiProject Football. Hack (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the move - although the use of the shortcut WP:FOOTY when discussing Australian "soccer" articles is likely to get the usual suspects riled up. On a more positive note, it should give WP:AUST pause to reflect if we would not be better turning our "child" WikiProjects into task forces. None of our locality-based WikiProjects (with the arguable exception of WP:WA) are self-sustaining and all operate under a common framework. The same could apply to topic-based WikiProjects such as WP:AUSPOL and arguably even WP:AFL. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the AFL and soccer projects aren't particularly active at the moment. I'm not convinced changing the status will change that situation that much. That said, I don't have a problem if someone wants to make the change. Hack (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain how it might be better to convert them into taskforces? I would need a very good reason to support such a move because WikiProject Queensland has been the focus of my work here for a number of years and feel it can be sustained indefinitely. I find the importance assessment useful and would miss that. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
None of the basics will change IMO - we treat the sub-projects as iof they are task forces now anyway, it is terminology more than anything that will change. The sub-projects of WP:AUST already share a common talk page template and share most of the administrative burden. Each task force would retain their own membership and the categorisation by sub-project/task force would continue. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces for the idea behind a task force. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's really only the terminology that will change, is it worth going to the effort of converting them into task forces? Not trying to shoot the idea down, I'm just struggling to see the benefits. Jenks24 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place but can a taskforce have two parent wikiprojects? Hack (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The main difference between task forces and WikiProjects is independent rating systems. A task force is simply a "marker" whereas a WikiProject assesses by both class (quality) and importance. The state projects were more envisaged as containers than work areas anyway, as WP:AUS is unmanageably large from the point of view of having articles coming solely under it, and each of the state projects is fairly large, so I'd support their retention. Orderinchaos 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it applies to this discussion, I ought to inform you that I have carried out the move of the "Association Football in Australia" WikiProject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Australia task force. To User:Mattinbgn, the new page will retain its shortcut link, so WP:FOOTY still links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and WP:FIA, WP:AFIA and WP:FSIA still link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Australia task force. The main benefit of this move is that the Australian soccer task force now shares quality assessment criteria with the main football WikiProject and all articles will now be tagged with {{WikiProject Football}} instead of {{WikiProject Association Football in Australia}} (which will be deleted soon). – PeeJay 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian Paralympic Medalists at the 1960 Paralympics

I created stub articles about every Australian Paralympic medalist at the 1960 Summer Paralympics.

It would be really fantastic if people could improve these articles some more and possibly get them to a place where they could be DYKs. --LauraHale (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Joondalup Family Health Study

Article turned up on a link search I was doing - it's an orphan, and currently almost unchanged from its 2007 original state; however, the study itself seems quite notable (even Nature magazine has reported on it, if anyone can get behind their paywall!) - I had until finding this been intending to AfD it. I'm not a medical or research expert so if someone who is has some time, a look would be appreciated :) Orderinchaos 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside my area of expertise as well, but if anyone wants access to the Nature article, I'd be happy to email it to them. Jenks24 (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this, but as a social researcher a longitudinal study which involves 3,500 people in its pilot stage and 80,000 people when it gets going is absolutely huge, so if this is correct (or even if an extra 0 has been added to each figure) then the study is notable and well worth having an article on. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it is notable, but by its very nature it will be a long time before we have anything interesting to say about it. --Surturz (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I recognised its when I saw the name, even have a recollecion of it being covered by radio media in Perth, its struggling for notability especially wp:V stuff Jenks if you can get the article I suggest at least putting the details as reference cause it wont survive an afd with level of intensive research that is currently reqiured for nominations. Gnangarra 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment

I would appreciate comments from non-involved editors at Talk:Merewether High School#Overlinking. Unfortunately my son was involved in a car accident last night and is in hospital as a result, so I'm a little distracted ATM. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope he is okay... Nightw 21:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
He's broken his Maxilla and has cuts and scratches over his body, and a few deep lacerations on his knee but otherwise seemed okay when we left him at 5:45am. Fortunately it was a single car accident (a pole jumped out and got him) so he was the only human casualty. The pole just shook it off but the Excel didn't fare so well. He's lucky he was only doing 50kmh. Kids! --AussieLegend (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear. Gotta watch out for those poles. Sneaky buggers. Nightw 22:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page update

  Done - I will have going over the main page to day updating it --with codes like {#formatdate:{{FULLDATE}}|dmy}}, there are '''{{nts|{{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:FA-Class Australia articles|R}}+{{PAGESINCATEGORY:FL-Class Australia articles|R}} that will generate some stats. Plus some minor additions to hep newbies navigate the page.Moxy (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for fresh eyes on Ronald Ryan

The article on Ronald Ryan is in poor condition thanks to the ongoing attentions of an SPA editor (originally 'Escapeeyes') who's determined to Right Great Wrongs and prove that Ryan was innocent. We go through a fairly regular cycle of heavily POV editing, fruitless attempts to explain WP policy to the culprit, eventual banning, IP edits, semi-protection, maybe a couple of months of peace, and then a sock shows up to renew the crusade - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Escapeeyes/Archive for record of about a dozen socks plus assorted IP edits.

I'm happy to revert stuff that blatantly breaches WP policy. But they've also added a lot of borderline material - e.g. many cites to a 1992 drama/documentary about Ryan. Without having seen it, it's hard for me to know whether the balance between 'documentary' and 'drama' would make it a reliable source, or whether it's being accurately cited.

I guess I could try heading to a library and tracking down this source (and several others cited) but honestly, I'm already spending more time on this article than I'd like. And I'm not sure just how diligent any WP editor is expected to be in giving the benefit of the doubt to an obsessive who's already shown they're willing to lie for the sake of The Cause. I think the article needs heavy rewriting, and would probably be improved by just reverting/deleting anything that looks like EE's contributions and relies on sources that can't easily be checked - "revert edit by banned user". But I'm already much closer to edit-warring and WP:OWN with this article than I would like to be - I would very much appreciate it if somebody with fresh eyes could look at it and think about what needs doing to fix it up. --GenericBob (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of Ryan's conviction and execution, so I can't help there. However, from a Wikipedia policy point of view removing material added by block evaders isn't considered edit warring and it's highly unlikely that a 'drama/documentary' qualifies as a reliable source. Serious TV documentaries are generally considered unsatisfactory sources as it's hard for other people to check their content, so anything containing dramatisations is probably unacceptable as a RS, particularly on a topic for which high quality written sources exist. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wurrumiyanga, Northern Territory

Could someone check my IPA, pls? I'm not sure which are supposed to be English. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and are the three parts of Koo Wee Rup, Victoria pronounced like three separate words? or is one of them not stressed? — kwami (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Koo Wee Rup is pronounced as three separate words. Can't help you with Wurrumiyanga, though. Jenks24 (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I put stress on all three syllables to reflect that. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
In my experience it is pronounced with the first two words run together, more or less like "Coo-ee Rup" - Nick Thorne talk 05:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Must disagree. I'm from Gippsland and the w is pronounced. Although I don't know IPA, I just had a chat to an English teacher who does and she said that all three words are stressed, which is to be expected because Koo Wee Rup is Aboriginal in origin. Jenks24 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The local pronunciation of Wurrumiyanga can be heard on the video here Melburnian (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem with that is that the formation of the mouth at the end of Koo is virtuallythe same as that used to pronounced the W at the start of Wee. The effect of that is that in normal Australian speech where it is usual to run words together, especially when the words are being used as a single term as in a place name, the W becomes diminished and is barely discernable if at all. That is why I used the particular phrase "more or less" when describing the usual pronunciation. Whilst I have no problem with the concept that all three words should be equally stressed, the way language may be described "correctly" often bares little relationship with how it is actually used. In this case I stand by my statement that the first two words are usually run together and the W is actually not normally pronounced. For most speakers the only way to pronounce the W would be to include a slight pause between the words and I can't say that I have ever heard that from anyone in the Gippsland area. - Nick Thorne talk 10:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ABC archives

For those interested Australian TV in particular the ABC, well have opened up their archives it includes ABC TV first broadcast . Gnangarra 07:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Australian Wheelchair Basketball Players

About 40 to 50 stub articles were added to Category:Paralympic wheelchair basketball players of Australia. It would be really great if people could help improve these articles, possibly get two or three long enough to get up to Did you know length so they could appear on the main page. :) Most of the articles are about players, men and women, from the 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 squads. this link and this linkmay have some sources that could help improve these articles to get them up to DYK length. :) --LauraHale (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External links section at Bundaberg Rum‎

Can some others editors ensure this forum link is not added to the Bundaberg Rum‎ article. I've already removed it twice. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Good source?

I have been given a copy of the very large Chronicle of the 20th Century, published by Chronicles Australia Pty Ltd. Its 1392 pages include a wealth of information about Australia. It's copyright of course, but some of the information could be used (rewritten) and faithfully sourced to the Chronicle. Question is, is the Chronicle a reliable source for Wiki purposes? (One never knows these days). Moriori (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My father has a copy of this, and I have mined it occasionally for Wikipedia material. I think it's fine to cite as a reference, but I did notice a few errors here and there (in a fairly old edition). I used it for "XXXX in Australia" lists, and generally double-checked the date and details with an online search, which I usually ended up using as a cite instead of the Chronicle. --Canley (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:2006 in Australian motorsport

I have proposed that Category:2006 in Australian motorsport be merged into Category:2006 in Australian sport. Please add any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:YYYY in Australian sport

I notice the existence of Category:2006 in Australian sport .. Category:2012 in Australian sport. Is there consensus for all sport-related articles and categories to be moved from "Category:YYYY in Australia" to "Category:YYYY in Australian sport"? DH85868993 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks to be a good idea as there is an adequate population of articles in the categories to make them useful and meaningful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On inane bot notices...

Can someone please remove the speedy on Fremantle (suburb)? The bots aren't letting me do it :P Orderinchaos 11:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) --Canley (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks heaps :) It's minorly annoying for me but one can imagine how a newbie in the same situation might feel. To quote strategy:Editor Trends Study, "Who are the ones leaving? Newbies or Elites? Current result: Non-vandal newbies are the ones leaving." As an experienced editor with automatically patrolled edits, I don't often get to see this place as one of them might. Orderinchaos 12:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography needed

As mentioned above I have redone this projects main page for newbies to understand the projects organization (stats on the page will update automatically) . My next goal for you guys is to make a Bibliography like that at Bibliography of Canada that can be linked, thus the book can be seen and used leading to growth of articles with book refs that never become a dead link. This will take some time - if anyone has books they are aware of pls leave me a note and i will add them to my ongoing list.Moxy (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography of Canada does not belong in mainspace. It should be in userspace or at WikiProject Canada. I'll start a deletion/merge discussion tomorrow when I'm more awake. IgnorantArmies?! 13:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually it was transposed from Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/References. It was done so because Bibliographies have become very common (just non for Australian topics) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. Not sure a deletion of the 100s of bibs at Category:Bibliographies by subject would get that far. This has been tried before to no avail as bibs and lists of books are seen as useful. We even have Template:Satop that is for such things. Moxy (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars. They are based on the RS and belong in mainspace. They are essential for several reasons: a) readers find them essential to doing class projects. b) Critics need to know whether the editors are aware of these books and articles. c) most encyclopedias have them --they are therefore fully legitimate. d) user "Ignorant" perhaps does not want to see them, but they are at the end of the article and he can skip over them easily enough. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ghost towns?

The towns of Wollar in NSW and Acland in Queensland will in the medium term end up having the dragline put through them. Can these be accurately classified as Category:Ghost towns in Australia? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In a broad sense of the term, I would say yes, as the reason for abandonment is secondary to the fact that the settlement has been abandoned. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
And once they no longer exist, and are replaced by a hole in the ground, are they still ghost towns? I guess the whole town could be regarded as a ghost. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think so. We already have Goldsworthy, Western Australia which is a similar situation - once the mining company moved out in 1992, they basically uprooted the whole town. Orderinchaos 10:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Then it should apply to Yallourn, Victoria too? (I have a special attachment to that one.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ghost Towns in Tasmania and Western Australia can end up under water or as dust bowls with nothing left - I think one possible way of interpreting the meaning of ghost town - could be once a town was here - now there isnt - dosnt matter how little remains or is visible... SatuSuro 13:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that most people understand "ghost town" to mean something tangible. I'd say they should be moved to the broader Category:Former populated places in Australia, otherwise the two categories should logically be merged. Nightw 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Night. The ghost town article includes a cited definition "There must be tangible remains of the town for visitors to see". I agree and cant imagine a site of a former town which has completely disappeared would meet most peoples understanding of "ghost town". All that remains at Goldsworthy is a steet grid[23] and so it might be best categorised under Category:Former populated places in Australia. Wollar and Acland could later become Former populated places also. Thats my 2¢. Moondyne (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Not all of the places categorised as ghost towns are unpopulated. Places like Gwalia, Western Australia still have a very small population but are for all intents and purposes ghost towns because of their marked decline in population. Hack (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Night too. Towns which have disappeared are not ghost towns. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems a reasonable conclusion. Areas with no trace of their existence beyond maybe on a satellite map in some cases should be in a "Former" category, while areas which are intact but abandoned should be in "Ghost". Should we get this happening? (Ironically, many "former" towns are still legally gazetted, at least in WA... I have a list somewhere) Orderinchaos 06:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
reading the responses - I have no problem with the separation - I can see the point - and support separation SatuSuro 10:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Urban Planning in Australia

I just want to take the opportunity to share a proposal to add significant content to the Urban Planning in Australia page. This content is being researched and added as part of a university assignment being undertaken by 3 graduate students at Macquarie university in Sydney. We would propose to add content covering: 1> The history of urban planning in Australia; 2> Australian Planning Frameworks; and 3> Australian Urban Planning Challenges with particular focus on: Population Growth and demographic change Sustainability Water Sensitive Urban Design Urban Renewal and consolidation Climate Change Heritage and conservation Community Participation Integrating Land Use and Public Transport

Our intent would be to add this content over the next few days as research is now complete on the topics outlined above. Please let us know if you foresee any issue with this proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdoyle99 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any issues. Similar editing has been occurring at Environmental resources management and possible on the Salinity in Australia article. If you could make sure there are 3 or more incoming links to the new page so it isn't an orphan, preferably use citation templates and ideally add a couple of photos or diagrams, possibly from the Wikicommons that would be appreciated as well. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • also each editor should have their own account, declare that they are associated through the Uni and working collaboratively on the topic from the same research. This will help to stop misinderstandings as to your editing practices. If you need any help just drop a note here. Gnangarra 13:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If you feel that you aren't completely comfortable with the meeting the required standards straight away, feel free to create the articles in your userspace - ie at User:Amdoyle99/History of urban planning in Australia or similar, and then ask here or at any other WP:WikiProjects that you feel are relevant, and when it looks good it can be easily moved across into mainspace. The-Pope (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds great. The suggestions by other editors above are worth following. If you need help with e.g. how to do Wikipedia inline referencing, feel free to drop a line here. (We were all new once :) Orderinchaos 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I will be working with Amdoyle99 on Urban Planning in Australia. We will be completing the article by this weekend and hoping to upload images as well. I read that there is a four-day waiting period for new users for image upload. Is this correct? Also I was planning to use the Harvard referencing style with parenthetical referencing within the text. Is this ok?Beau Dubois 22:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Beau. It's correct that new editors can't upload images until the account has been active for four days and has made ten edits (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). However, I've just used the administrator tools to give Amdoyle99 and yourself this status, so you should be good to go. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you might want to list this project at Wikipedia:School and university projects, and the advice there might also be of interest/use. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Just adding that Harvard referencing style is fine. Jenks24 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your advice and help. Feel free to check out our Urban Planning in Australia site which will still be under construction until tomorrow (our assignments due Monday 26th September)Beau Dubois (talk)11:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with it! Orderinchaos 01:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Great work! Have you considered becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? --99of9 (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_38&oldid=1138376064"