Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36

FAR nom Canberra

I have nominated Canberra for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam

After a four year absence from the FA ranks, Gough Whitlam is at FAC A lot of people have helped out on editing, but it needs reviews. I do not believe any Australian Prime Minister is currently a FA. "It's time" to change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If time is limited, a quick look for comprehensiveness by older Australian editors would be extremely helpful, as I was musing on comprehensiveness. I felt it lacked a little colour and flavour and added the Blue Poles episode - can anyone think of any other key episodes not in the article? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

East Timor seems to be only an afterthought and the Latham thing isn't there much. As far as comprehensiveness goes, I've never agreed with this "too long" fluff, and don't have a problem with 80 or even 100k prose, and while we all have our (strong in comparison to other PMs) opinions on EGW, I don't think anyone will disagree that he had more impact than many modern national leaders of even 8-12 years because of the fact that the likes of him, Menzies, Tom Playford and Don Dunstan weren't namby pamby poll-driven pansies like everywhere nowadays, even if maybe 40% might think that they were vandals or reactionaries. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help on this. I did not really end up liking Whitlam (his tongue is too sharp and ready for me) but I did have a grudging admiration for him. Love to meet him. Now on to finish 1975 Australian constitutional crisis which I hope to get to FAC early next month.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbi numbi

Does anyone know whether this place actually exists, or whether the page could be a three-year-old hoax? I cannot find anything about it except for what might be referring to the article here. Any confirmation of existence, further information, trustable sources and evidence of notability would be welcome. Maias (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

On the same note Bunda cliffs - any ideas on the same line would be appreciated SatuSuro 13:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Found some images on Panoramio, no reliable source can be found online though. Bidgee (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Panoramio reference calls it "Nimbi Nimbi" but that doesn't come up anywhere either. Regardless, it's not notable and the article is unreferenced so I've prodded it. As for Bunda cliffs, I can't find it on any of my maps. The name does appear a lot in Google searches but it's possible that the name is an assumption because the plateau is called Bunda. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Aboriginal legend related to Numby Numby has some coverage in anthropological literature. Hack (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me now as if Numbi Numbi is a genuine but not notable sinkhole, and Bunda cliffs could well be merged into Nullarbor Plain. Thanks for the help. Maias (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of similar features to Numbi Numbi in the NT with some quite interesting history. It's actually quite sad they're not documented somewhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has contested the prod and moved the article to Numby Numby.[1] It now has one reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I contested the prod - there are a few more mentions in reliable sources here, which I would have thought would be the first place that anyone would have checked for evidence, rather than conducting this discussion by guesswork. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was not conducted by guesswork. Before you moved it, the article was at Numbi numbi. The Panoramio reference that was found by somebody looking for evidence showed the name as "Nimbi Nimbi". Neither of those names provided any clues.[2][3] Neither did "Nimby Nimby".[4] The first place to look for placenames in Australia is not Google books but Geoscience Australia and the only Numby Numby/Numbi Numbi/nimbi nimbi result listed is a the parish of Numby Numby in New South Wales which is quite some distance from Borroloola, Northern Territory. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - I would agree with that process - which is why I thought originally that Bunda cliffs was a hoax as it did not show on the geosciences database - the nearest fit being the alternative name for the Nullarbor - but of course if one is doing it really properly - Trove comes up trumps http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=bunda+cliffs - and also http://www.placenames.sa.gov.au - find that they say - bunda, according to tate, is the name given to the cliffs by the aboriginal people. located north and north-west of the great australian bight. (Rack Plan 418 / Royal Geographical Society Proceedings Vol 19 Pg 128) - which makes it a valid usage on the trove find for archived websites - and in the end it could stay as it is. I should have double checked all that before I came here - Tricks for punters as I say SatuSuro 13:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First place I looked was http://www.ntlis.nt.gov.au/placenames/index.jsp Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting it distinguishes between names approved by the Minister and not - its not there in any of the variant spellings SatuSuro 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Graeme Clark (doctor) ‎ -volunteer needed!

Just came across this- the article is a bit of an embarassment for someone who is quite notable (Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).

Jeff Shaw (politician)

Former NSW attorney-general Jeffrey Shaw died overnight, I have updated his article re his death, but the article is a bit basic at the moment and could use expansion. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. Interestingly, the thing he's probably best known for outside NSW was his campaign against Internet porn and his moves to censor it back in 1996, which were opposed strongly by Electronic Frontiers Australia. [5] Rather than filtering it, he was simply looking to prosecute ISPs who allowed offensive material to be seen. Was a big deal at the time, and mobilised pretty much the entire online community (noting that was a MUCH smaller beast than it is today), but largely forgotten since. Orderinchaos 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Orderinchaos. He will probably be more remembered for the 'missing blood sample incident', though there is a mention about the internet in the article now. Possibly needs more expansion so undue weight isn't given to the abrupt end of his Supreme Court service. Happy Editing! :-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia FAR redux

Now a really boring bit....the refs are somewhat unbuffed in places - i.e. some cite webs could do with other fields such as work= (parent website), publisher= or location = , and ditto with some book refs. Some are just straight links and some are dead. This is insanely boring to fix -I am posting in the hope that if some folks just do a few - even 5 or 10 each, then this article is alot closer to being kept at FAR. It really isn't far off keeping but has been there a long time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, deep into injury/stoppage time, the article is further along the road to being kept. Just one unsourced paragraph remains - paragraph 4 of Geography and climate section with some pretty basic geographical bits and pieces - surely someone has these things in a book somewhere? Reader Digest etc? Anyway, we really need to wind it up so all help and comments one last time at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Australia/archive1 much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria (Australian state)

This article has been renamed. Apparently "consensus" was for a rename. I have asked the admin who moved to reconsider however the thoughts of editors here may be different. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move discussion is at Talk:Victoria (Australian state)#Requested move. Views either for or against are sought. Note that templates such as {{Infobox Australian place}} will need modification and the entire category tree under Category:Victoria (Australia) will need renaming to reflect this new "consensus". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mattinbgn and have voted at the RM at Talk:Victoria (Australia) accordingly. Orderinchaos 06:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Australasian ecology and wildlife-related articles

Can't remember if we keep lists like the above. Any thoughts? Misarxist (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention - was Tasbian's latest sock. Orderinchaos 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2010 Western Australian storms

Posting here as I'm too busy to do the necessary work myself, but it shouldn't require much - can someone please look at the new West article and do comparative sourcing (Google News should be sufficient) to ensure the material is added correctly? Thanks Orderinchaos 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Courthouses, Court Houses or courts?

I have stumbled upon some articles in a category Category:Courthouses in Queensland. The articles were written by Theo Georga (talk · contribs) in March 2009. While some of the articles could be seen as having marginal notability, for myself I am satisfied that they all merit inclusion. My question is rather, what should they be called?

At the moment they are called "Courthouse", which appears foreign to me. Category:Courthouses suggests that in English-speaking countries other than the US and Canada, the term "courthouse" is not used, instead the term is "court". I am not so sure. These articles (Ipswich Courthouse excepting) are about buildings, not institutions. "Court" to me is an institution, such as Magistrates Court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The place where the court sits, well, I am not sure ... I lean towards the term "Court House" (as opposed to "Courthouse') and that is the term used at Commons (see Commons:Category:Deniliquin Court House, Commons:Category:Court houses in Victoria, Australia, etc.). Would be interested to know what others thought. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "Court House" is best. I agree "court" is wrong because it refers to the institution not the building. Just looking around it seems Australian sources use "court house" more than "courthouse", eg the big one in Goulburn [6]. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you just got to love when different levels of Government spell it Courthouse or Court House, The Museum of the Riverina uses Court House. "Court House" is the best IMO. Bidgee (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Paul's College, Sydney

A lot of new material is being added without any kind of citations despite requests. Just flagging it for your attention. Donama (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

A Request for Comment on a proposed change to the above guideline has been created at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). The request for comment seeks for views on the following topic:

• Should Australian city/town/suburb articles be listed at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity or should Australian city/town/suburb articles with unique names or that are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name be allowed to use an undisambiguated title?

To ensure discussion is not fragmented, I would encourage editors wishing to comment to do so at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention rather than below. Regards, Mattinbgn\^talk 05:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion will have been open for two weeks on 30 May. The last comment not by the nominator was on 23 May. Are there any objections to me finding someone to close the discussion on Sunday? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Twentieth anniversary of the death of Patrick White is coming up

Next 30 September will mark the 20th anniversary of the death of this great novelist and Australia's only Nobel laureate in literature. I have posted on the discussion page of the article to determine whether there is enough interest to form a team to bring the article up to featured-article standards, with a view to nomination at FAC and subsequent application for main-page exposure on the day. Please put a note on the talk page of PW if you are interested in meeting this challenge. Tony (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Many of the articles on White's novels are also pretty poor, I recently did some minor expansion of The Vivisector but the others could use some love too if you don't want to deal with the FAC minutae. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

Adam Boland

Shouldn't this article be deleted? Adam Boland. Just getting some more eyes looking at it.Lester 01:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For what reason do you think it should be deleted? I would say that he meets some of the requirements of WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, but the article could do definitely with some work on referencing. lepamplemousse ^talk 08:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo needed

Hello, does anybody own a photo of Hawthorn's captain Sam Mitchell? Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Jardine

I see Jardine is at FAC. Raises the issue of whether he is of sufficient interest to Australian history to tag to the project.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, his actions had quite an effect on bilateral relations, per the threat to quit the Commonwealth/Empire and threats to cut off trade, as well as almost provoking a few riots, so one could say that he had more of an effect than most ambassadors. This applies to Larwood too I suppose, who also later immigrated to Australia although he didn't do anything of public interest after he immigrated. It would be fine to add him in there. Jardine certainly had more impact than a foreigner who became coach of an Australian team, Verbeek or Hiddink for instance. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever way, it was an interesting read! I once did some technical work on a documentary about Bodyline so I knew a little about it despite not being a cricket follower, but the article's considerably more detailed in its coverage and sourced analysis. Orderinchaos 03:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the autobiography by Christopher Douglas. Jardine is certainly more than the cartoon villian he is usually portrayed as here in Aus. A fascinating man but a man of his times and mores. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

Torn on this one. On the one hand, his enduring fame (notoriety?) is based on actions he undertook in Australia. On the other hand, it is setting a reasonably low threshold of inclusion as an Australian article. I seem to recall a similar discussion about the Simpson's episode Bart vs. Australia where my argument was that articles should only be tagged for WP:AUS if WP:AUS as a project would consider it reasonable that it would be responsible for its maintenance. I am not sure that this is the case here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well an Australian who follows cricket, or Australian cricket would pay attention to Jardine, as opposed to a fictional cultural reference to Australia. Bodyline was voted the most important event in Australian cricket history by a panel of cricket players/historians etc in 2007 per the main bodyline article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think it isnt within WP:AUS scope unless we want include every sportsman that ever played against or in Australia however remarkable their record. Just in cricket there are many players that have a greater connection but arent included like Ian Botham who played for Queensland, Joel Garner who played for South Australia, Umar Gul and Chris Gayle who played for WA or we can look at the soccer with Robbie Fowler who just signed with Perth Glory at least these guys have a domestic competition connections. I think the line needs to be that the person played domestically in Australia even then it may need further refinement. Gnangarra 05:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't being proposed here because of playing ability/achievement, but his political effect on Australian society, which was unique, and which others could not and cannot achieve in the future (unless they incited riots, trade boycotts etc). At the time, Australians were British subjects, some would say colonised, and he made people want to break away from the empire so to speak. Bodyline was voted the most important event in Australian cricket history by a panel of cricket players/historians etc in 2007, per the main bodyline article. He certainly had more impact than most, if not all high commisioners and ambassadors, who are rourinely tagged under their host nation. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I stand corrected; ambassadors don't seem to be listed under their host nation, but should be YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the ambassadors your response contains the answer his influence on Australia reached beyond his endeavours on the field. But I ask with out looking is Kitchener considered with aus military, aus history scope Gnangarra 05:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Macarthur is tagged as Aus task force of MILHIST, and as WWI involved a large % of Australian people who were killed under his leadership, causing a large % depletion in the Australian population, I would say yes too. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the Bart Simpson case is perfect - not on comparable importance - but because it tends to recognise what project tagging is. It is simply a way to keep track of articles that are likely to of interest and able to be improved by a group of people who are "members" of that project. If this article matches, then add it, if not (and you may consider how many other projects it is already a member of) then don't. I think that it really isn't a big deal. The-Pope (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I untagged the Bart Simpson article but somebody else added it back, and I decided not to have a war over it.--Grahame (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Haven't heard much about Jardine in recent times, but to those Australians who lived through his times he was a major figure. Most of those who did so have now passed away, but as a sixty-something year old myself I can certainly remember plenty of very public hatred. It seems that most people of my parents' generation knew who he was and his role in our relationship with England. One could even speculate that Jardine helped to trigger considerably stronger independence arguments among those people, maybe leading to some of the Republicanism support in Australia. He IS an important figure in Australian history. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the point the questions been ask, when in reality it was probably a be bold approach for editors if you think an article is within the scope of WP:AUS and one of its daughter projects then tag it. Gnangarra 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In any case, it's a fascinating article and I recommend everyone to check it out (I'm not the author) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

• {{Good article}}

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of political candidates

Discussion here, in preparation for the federal election onslaught. Frickeg (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Petersen at AfD. Frickeg (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NB: Frickeg has started a list of electoral candidate incubator articles over at WP:AUP#Election candidates. Donama (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat O'Shane

Just noticed this is a bit of a mess. Any opinions on whether the scandal should be cut down? Misarxist (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A definite case of WP:UNDUE here, and a potentially big WP:BLP issue as well. I suggest crossposting at WP:BLPN, because a lot of the negative coverage is unsourced and needs to be cleaned up. Regrettably, I do not have time to do this myself properly at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

I've stubbed out most of the material in this article, but given O'Shane's media profile, I think it should be reasonably easy for someone familiar with her to rebuild it in a neutral manner. Given the shenanigans that have taken place in the past though, you might have a bit of a fight on your hands keeping it neutral. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Scroggin

Has anyone heard this term used in Australia? Apparently it's what we call trail mix but I'm having trouble finding a reliable Australian source that confirms it. There are US sources, but they also talk about eemoos. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the term, and after some brief Google-fu, have come up with the following not-brilliant-but-alright sources.

• An article from The Australian Coeliac discusses it briefly and states "Scroggin is a trail mix..."
• There an NZ Lonely Planet that mentions it in a sidebar, and a specific LP on tramping (hiking) in NZ shows the term cropping up a couple of times. Shows the term in use in NZ...either the Kiwis stole it from us, or we stole it from them.
• A couple of works on Google Books that mention or cite The scroggin eaters : a history of bushwalking in Victoria, to 1989 by Graeme Wheeler...might be worth further investigation. -- saberwyn 21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have heard of the term too, and used it in the mid-80s. Trail mix is exactly what it is. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Knowing the logarithm utilised by the big name is finely tuned I checked http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=scroggin would suggest the variant surnames, and other usages (see Australian Guides in archived websites for example) of the term is where any one search engine is bound to fail - good etymology/usage search should always use more than one imho - but then http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scroggin offers a whole lot of sexual issues from obvious usa centric usage which I wonder if the Australian Guides would know about? - another search engine such as http://www.dogpile.com/ would see the usage quite various as well SatuSuro 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we used this term even in junior primary school when the class went hiking (in South Australia). And yes, in its native use as I know it, it refers precisely to what is trail mix on Wikipedia. Donama (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary defines it as "trail mix", and suggests the word is possibly of Scottish origin. That's a pretty reliable Australian source, but did you mean a source for usage in Australia? --Canley (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems reliable, but my main concern was for its use in Australia. While watching Eli Stone last night I heard the term "gorp" so I looked it up and found myself at Trail mix which said, "In New Zealand and Australia, trail mix is known as scroggin", which seemed peculiar because I had never heard of this term. Granted, I am only 50 years old and I haven't spent a lot of time in WA or Tasmania so I might have missed it, but I have done a lot of (far too much) hiking, often along trails, and I was in cubs and scouts and we never used the term. That was probably because it didn't exist here then. (see below) Did I mention my Scottish heritage? I know that you can get packaged trail mix under the name "trail mix" in Woolies and Coles but I've never seen a packet of scroggin anywhere. Thanks to the replies here I now know that it is a "real" word and not something that the yanks[7] or poms[8] just assumed we used. (Drop bear syndrome) I'm still not convinced that it's in any widespread use in Australia. Page 5 of the April 2005 edition of Ozwords,[9] which is now used as a reference in Trail mix, only dates it back to the early 1980s in Australia, with a note that the Kiwis have used it since 1940, so it appears we stole it from them. I'm not sure why we would have done that but that still doesn't prove it's in a lot of use here. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was in the Scouts in Victoria in the 80s and amongst my troop (and district, IIRC) "scroggin" was the preferred term. Can't comment for anything wider than that. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be older than most editors here - I have never heard usage in TAS/WA/ or scouts many decades ago - at all SatuSuro 07:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a combination of nuts, sultanas and M&M's that was used as a trail mix for hiking in the hills around Perth by schoolkids but I can't remember the nickname it was given - it wasn't this, though. Orderinchaos 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Scroggin was definitely in use in Scouting and in the Melbourne University Mountaineering Club in the 1960s. (Yes, sadly, I'm old enough to remember.) That second usage could lead me to find some printed material in those "well organised" personal archives of mine by around 2015. As for buying it in a supermarket, sacrilege! Everyone had their own personal recipe and made their own. Trail mix just sounds American to my mature ears. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can ignore those printed archives a little longer! The Melbourne University Mountaineering Club website has come to the rescue. "Scroggin (a mixed bag dried fruit, nuts, chocolate, lollies)..." is from http://www.mumc.org.au/guides/skiing. Some things never change. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In Tasmania scroggin was used in the early 1980s and possibly late 1970s, I seem to remember it as a neologism in late 1970s. (chocolate nuts and sultanas). The Collins dictionary claims it comes from NZ. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is common in use among bushwalkers here now. I rarely ever hear "trail mix". If a reference is still needed to define the term I'm sure I could dig one up in a walking book. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cfd for Category:People by school in Australia

Some uncertainty has been expressed in a Cfd nomination as to what is a preferred term in the Australian context. See here. I thought the members of the project might like to be aware of this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Mattinbgn\^talk 02:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OAMs for notability

At a recent AfD for Don Ritchie, his Order of Australia Medal was used as proof that he passed WP:ANYBIO and, according to some of the editors involved, no further proof of notability was needed, causing the nomination to be withdrawn. Without commenting particularly on the individual AfD, does the OAM count as "a well-known and significant award or honour"? It has been awarded to over 17,000 people since the Order of Australia began in the late 1970s, and I personally think it might be stretching the net a little wide, especially seeing as a lot of these people either fail WP:ONEEVENT or are of only local notability. Frickeg (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. If this guy hadn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, I would not have !voted keep. I don't think the OAM should confer any inherent notability - unless there's significant coverage of a recipient in reliable sources, we can't write a reliable biography.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally know three people with OAMs, none of whom are notable outside of their local area or limited sphere of activity and all of whom would struggle to have sufficient sources (outside the local weekly newspaper - circulation 500) to support an article. The OAM has become a method of acknowledging the great and often unsung work done by very many people in communities across Australia. Personally, I think this is a great thing. However, the idea that is being used in this manner by its very nature concedes that these people are (often) not public people and as such are not notable per the WP:N definition. The awarding of an OAM can be used to support an otherwise marginal claim to significance - but as a de facto claim of inherent notabilty, I don't think so. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

Nobody who receives the OAM fails WP:ONEEVENT because it's not awarded for a single event and it's the highest award that most people ever have a chance of receiving so it is clearly significant. This is born out by the fact that 17,000 people over 35 years is an average of less than 500 people per year or (currently) 0.0022% of the population. Anyone who is awarded an OAM clearly passes WP:ANYBIO but you might notice that the paragraph immediately preceding WP:ANYBIO states that meeting one or more of the criteria in the section does not guarantee that a subject should have their own article. I'd argue that any medal awarded by the nation is significant, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has one or more should have their own article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know one gentleman who has an OAM; he is a volunteer who runs the state maths society and has been teaching problem-solving to teenagers for about 40 years for maths competitions/Olympiads etc. Yes, he contributes much more to Australia than many "notable" people and "leaders" do, but to the best of my knowledge the only coverage he had was a listing and two lines in the university news section on alumni achievements, and there isn't anything to say. Other people who get this kind of thing are often people who volunteered and coordinated a local branch of a charity for a few decades; most of these can't survive AFD YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any disagreement with what you are saying. Frickeg said "a lot of these people either fail WP:ONEEVENT or are of only local notability" (my emphasis). It is certainly significant, I won't disagree. However I don't think, and I think you agree, that being awarded an OAM confers inherent notability. Thelma is a lovely person and has done a lot of work for the local community here but I would be hard-pressed to argue that she is in any way notable outside my local community. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, no. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to AussieLegend. The earlier edit conflict got me a little mixed up. :) Mattinbgn\^talk 06:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

Whilst this predominantly falls within the sphere of WP:ODM, it has an impact on contributors here. I have proposed that Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal be renamed to Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia to reflect the correct title of the medal rather than the literal translation of the post-nominal. Given that referring to it as the Order of Australia Medal is a common mistake, I am also proposing that the old category name remain but with a redirect to the new name. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Orderinchaos 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd CfD

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 19#Populated_riverside_places affects categories relating to towns on the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Darling rivers. Orderinchaos 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony Abbott article, Wikipedia and plagiarism

Yes, I know it is Bolt but it is interesting all the same ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Crikey, Reliable Source?

Would crikey.com.au be a Reliable Source? Hack (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say generally speaking "Yes", but there are some sections (like the blogs) that are a bit less reliable than other sections. Did you have a particular example in mind? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC).
  • Did you have a particular example? Crikey's a difficult one - on one hand, material from its early years, while entertaining, is probably not reliable, and much of their content does tend to be opinionated; on the other hand, for anything from the last few years, it's a fairly high-quality source for what it is. Rebecca (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It depends on the subject and context - it (a point or comment) would need to be specifically identified - I would say no first and then look for a reason why a particular item might be ok as verifiable information - opinionated online info can trap the unwary - I can think of some of the earlier crikey as being nothing but unverifiable dross SatuSuro 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I would count it as a reference to support Notability but not rely exclusively for fact verification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Crikey has improved a lot in recent years, and has some useful articles which collect information which I'm not sure you'd find anywhere else. For the most part, though, if you find something there which is useful, it will usually be sourceable to a reliable source elsewhere - a bit like Wikipedia itself, really. Orderinchaos 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New template replacing {{Cities of Australia}}

Andyman14 has created {{43 most populous cities of Australia}} and has been replacing {{Cities of Australia}} at many articles. It's something that probably should have been discussed first so I thought I'd bring it up here. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see what the editor is trying to do but it is complicated (which a footer template shouldn't be), duplicates the list we have, add towns which are not gazetted as cities and also leaves out other smaller cities. Bidgee (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with having a ranking list like this is that nobody will ever be able to agree on what should be on the list. For instance, I think it's absurd that if we're listing Gold Coast as separate to Brisbane, to not also have Ipswich, Queensland as a separate entry. I'm sure there are other examples. The previous template was not perfect I'll agree, but this also opens a pretty big can of worms.

Why 43? Hack (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There are 43 capital city Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts listed at List of cities in Australia by population. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess my other problem is "since when is La Trobe Valley" a city? It might be convenient for the ABS to group the towns of the area together in that way, but I don't think anyone, including the residents of the area, think of it as one discrete urbanised unit. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC).

Bit like Gold Coast/Tweed Heads and Albury/Wodonga. What also concerns me is that using ABS population stats is a little inaccurate since most twin towns/cities are separated by state borders and gazetted as one place. Also why should other smaller gazetted cities miss out being listed when gazetted towns are listed? Bidgee (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And then there's my old favourite, Newcastle, which is actually not Newcastle at all, the inclusion of which results in 3 gazetted cities, one of which is actually bigger than Newcastle, missing out. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The ABS definition is the appropriate tool in this case. Using past gazettals or Local Government definitions is not a good sloution given their continual change at the whims of state governments. Is Rockhampton, say, still a city now that the City of Rockhampton has been abolished. Why should Swan Hill still be considered a city while the larger Echuca is not? The use of conurbations such as Albury/Wodonga and Newcastle is also more appropriate than splitting into constitient LGAs -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Special education in Australia

Does anyone in this project by any chance have any knowledge of special education in Australia? If so we would very much appreciate some input from an Australian editor on the article on Special education where we currently have no information on the situation in Australia at all. Dahliarose (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd stands down (media reports)

Time to keep an eye on the articles with reports of Kevin Rudd standing down as PM. Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Press conference now. Ballot tomorrow it appears. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party leadership election, 2010? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as I thought, the articles are becoming a war zone! Bidgee (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify for reference - he hasn't stood down, he's declared a spill. He will himself be contesting the ballot. Orderinchaos 13:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I know but just warning of the media reports (or should that have been rumour). Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin semi-protect Julia Gillard, the tide of IP's is becoming unbearable. GJGardner (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WARNING! Media feeding frenzy. Some normally reliable sources becoming quite the opposite! Caution advised. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason for me posting this section was to advice of the inaccurate claims made (IE: keep an eye on all articles) and I think your (HiLo48) should also apply to this morning's ballot. Bidgee (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Bidgee. I reverted List of Prime Ministers of Australia which had Gillard as Prime Minister since 15:37 (UTC). nb. there are about 7 "List of Oz PM" articles to watch! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gillard is in.[10] Action stations. -- saberwyn 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no change in PM until Rudd resigns to the G-G and the G-G swears Gillard in. But I have given up trying to revert the changes to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A real nightmare at the moment with those thinking it is instant PM but it isn't. Bidgee (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the above a little I must say. While formally Gillard is not yet PM, for all practical purposes she is the PM. I am not as opposed to updating pages etc. now rather than waiting a few hours for the formalities. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

She's not the PM officially until she is sworn in by the Governor-General. But she is the new leader of the Labor Party. (We have this situation every time there's a state election or a premier change.) Orderinchaos 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing that, I just wonder what it achieves holding off on all the changes until the magical moment of swearing in occurs. It is going to happen, and fairly soon. I just don't see it as a particularly valuable use of editors' time to continue to revert good faith changes that would be completely legitimate in 90 minutes time. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

According to ?Time she has been sworn in by the GG and swan has been chosen as the deputy. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 04:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard WP Australia importance raised from mid to top per other Prime Ministers. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New Prime Minister?

Reports are coming through, press conference pending, that Kevin Rudd will stand down and Julia Gillard will be PM! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See section above. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just beat me! per previous section post by Bidgee and Mattinbgn. (which wasn't there when I started typing!) --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Qantas headquarters

For those of you in the Sydney area, the Qantas article needs a photograph of the airline's head office in Botany Bay, by the airport. Would someone mind photographing the Qantas Building A in Mascot? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical trivia

With Julia Gillard becoming prime minister, for the first time in history, the people of Sydney have all been led by women:

• Sovereign regnant - The Queen, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
• Governor-General - Quentin Bryce
• Prime minister - Julia Gillard
• Governor - Marie Bashir
• Premier - Kristina Keneally
• Lord Mayor - Clover Moore

Doubtful we will ever see this again. Neuterz (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Queenslanders: Requests for Photos

Today, I've been going though Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Brisbane (A sub category of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Queensland (I will target this perhaps tomorrow)) and finding photos of what I can, Mainly using the Creative Commons search system and NLA's Trove database. We have some really "Omg! why don't we have photos of X" requests in there such as some of the hospitals unfortunately I have no job, a crappy camera and can't really afford to spend money to do these, so are there any Queenslander's willing to help out for those? I'm also less than ideal with our regulations on what is and isn't public domain and all that stuff, so I've created a list at User:Peachey88/Sandbox/Images and can someone look at that and work out what is good and what isn't and what can/can't be used? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 10:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that under Australian copyright law photos taken before 1955 automatically become public domain. So the photo of John Sinclair (mayor) for example, which was taken in 1880, can be placed in the commons and used in the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If I have some time this weekend (and the Lankimobile doesn't give up the ghost), I might wander about the northside and take a few snaps of things. Some of them shouldn't be too hard to get good shots of. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Just adding here that the weather today is unstable and the light is poor, so I haven't gone out. But don't let that stop anyone else! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit warring at Prime Minister of Australia

An edit war is under way at Prime Minister of Australia over the correct capitalisation or "Prime Minister". I was going to request page protection so it can be sorted out on the talk page but am holding off for the moment. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Mathieson

At the risk of being accused of the thought crime of canvassing, the following discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Mathieson is likely of interest to editors who frequent here. My thoughts have been made clear at the discussion but it seems it is verboten for me to mention them here ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Interested editors might also see Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia to which Mathieson has been added. Spouse? WWGB (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Self described as spouse, see "We haven't talked about anything more than being spouses at this stage" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought crime - lol (that did get a chuckle out of me, as I know the type of people who would say that on here. Grr.) Orderinchaos 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's nice that Mattinbgn shows a drop of restraint once in a while, considering that, while he was once an actual editor, his efforts these days seem to mainly consist of trolling people. Rebecca (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You know it is possible to disagree without being personal. I don't think any of Muirhead, Macpherson or Mathieson are notable and that makes me a troll? In fact, aside from my admittedly provocative comment about the PMs dates (which was designed to draw out discussion on where a threshold, if any, should lie) I have been conspicuous by my absence from the AfD discussion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You lately seem to be getting off on nominating articles for deletion that you know are going to piss people off. Rebecca (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you start assuming good faith, stop the personal attack and incivility as it isn't going to get you anywhere. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Rebecca, I don't mean to piss any one off, honestly, but I can see how someone might think that to be the case. If it helps establish my good faith, I turned down a speedy request on Mathieson from another editor before nominating it for AfD and to be fair, Jimbo nominated Macpherson not me - I would not have nominated myself because I knew it would be divisive but once it was nominated ... Sorry if I appear to be argumentative lately but it just happens that a couple of BLP issues (one of my pet peeves with Wikipedia) have arisen and I felt I should have my say. Hopefully we can agree on some other topics soon. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 13:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, Mattinbgn, but why do you want to delete Tim Mathieson because his profession is hairdressing, but you are happy to keep Sonia McMahon who's profession was "socialite"?--Lester 12:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about Sonia MacMahon, nor do I recall ever reading her article. If you are going to verbal me, at least try and be a little bit plausible. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He's getting you confused with Orderinchaos. Rebecca (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm happy Mattinbgn nom'd Tim Mathieson for deletion just so we could have the discussion formally. It wasn't totally clear to me whether or not there should be such an article until I went through the various comments for an against. Now we've got close a pretty strong consensus that the article should remain, and a public record of how and why. So thanks Mattinbgn, it needed to be tested. Donama (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the New Guinea Singing Dog "within the scope of this project"?

The scope of this project is written as "Australia" the country, not "Australia" the continent, which, I suppose, is sometimes synonymous with "Oceania" the continent, and therefore could arguably include New Guinea. So, is that why? Because as I read this page, there is no sign that this project is intended to cover New Guinea things, so it doesn't seem likely. Chrisrus (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Grahame (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Australia and Canberra Survived FAR

Thanks to everyone for helping YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts and coordination Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed project: Motor Vehicles

We need a new overarching project "Motor vehicles in Australia" as it is of high relevance to the whole the Australian population and is of high economic, safety and cultural significance. There is already a project for Australian motorsport which is of lower general relevance and ought be a subcategory of a Motor Vehicles project. (I am happy to use a better name if there is one.)

The economic significance comes as a result of cars reputedly being the second most significant item of expenditure after housing for individuals, the amount spent on running costs and repairs and on modifications and the increasing relevance of climate change and peak oil to the automobile industry.

The safety significance comes from the number of deaths, years of disability, medical expenses and "wasted" GDP caused by road accidents. All pedestrians, passengers and cyclists are potentially going to be affected by the safety characteristics of the cars in which they travel or which hit them (or don't hit them because of higher quality braking systems or better collision avoidance through stability or traction control).

The cultural significance comes from brand enthusiasts, motor sport, vintage car clubs, 4WD clubs, Motoring Associations, the care lavished on cars by many people, the aftermarket modification industry, the blokey mateship culture that often exists around activities based on cars whether it be modifying, tuning, showing, racing, rallying or trialing them. Many older Australians would have done car navigation trials.

An article that ought be included in such a project, perhaps in a sub-project,is The_Dog_&_Lemon_Guide

Could someone help in setting up such a project and suggesting the structure for sub projects including the project for Australian motorsport? (I've learnt not to just rush in an try to set it up myself first) (I also posted this on the discussion page for Australian motorsport) dinghy (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Would not a taskforce of WP Australia not be more suitable for this? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 02:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the best way to go about this and your suggestion might be a great one. I'm just hoping that someone with experience with the Australia project might offer a pathway to follow. dinghy (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tasmania United FC

Hello folks, I don't expect to get a response from the appropriate wikiproject, thus I'm posting here. This article is basically about the bid to have an A-league team in Tassie, so shouldn't it be renamed as such? Canberra A-League Bid, South Coast A-League bid, Geelong A-League Expansion Bid are all articles on future bids and are named accordingly. Aaroncrick ^TALK 05:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious move to me. Although I did get excited about the fact that in its current form it's one of the few Australian soccer club names where the word United actually makes some sense. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Another example would be Tasmanian AFL Bid, therefore I would suggest to go with Tasmanian A-League Bid till the club/bid actually is admited to the league, if ever. Calistemon (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks; I'll go ahead and make the move. I agree about the United part HiLo48 – it does actually make sense, even though it isn't unique. Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Crowned republic

See talk:crowned republic#OR should the article be merged into constitutional monarchy it seems that the phrase is used in Australia a lot more than anywhere else, so perhaps Australian editors will be more interested than most on whether the article should be merged, or whether it is a useful topic in its own right. -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Down?

Has Stephen Conroy pulled the plug? I can't log in. --121.127.207.9 (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Site has been down with server problems for over an hour. Starting to come back up now but very intermittent. Expect a few gremlins. Hesperian 03:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Would Conroy know which plug to pull? HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what plug you're talking about. ;) Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Spyforce

Hi, Does anyone remember Spyforce? It's marked in the infobox as being in the Science Fiction genre, but the article doesn't mention any sci-fi elements. Any opinions? Rojomoke (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It may have been confused with the Max Remy: Superspy childrens' book series by Deborah Abela, which while also Australian, appears to have a more sci-fi bent. The organisation Max works for in the books is called "Spy Force", and looking at Amazon.com, the series seems to be named Spy Force or Max Remy: Spy Force internationally.--Canley (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Worth covering 2010 Australia vegetable poisoning?

I saw in the news[11] about sabotage of vegetable stocks in Australia. Do folks reckon this is a sufficiently notable even in social/econ/ag history to merit an article? The news mentions that similar poisonings have occurred in the past, maybe generalise it to Australia vegetable poisionings or something? Not totally clear on the best title, but it would seem these incidents are large enough to meet notability. Maybe if we agree and get it up quick we can get it into the In the News on the frontpage of Wiki. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that we should have an article about this incident, however atm much of the news content is speculation on its potential effects. We don't have a crystal ball and we aren't here to report the news. If many jobs are lost, certain food supplies dwindle and vegetable prices see a dramatic rise there would be significant, ongoing coverage and an article would be warranted. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The incident itself has generated broad international coverage e.g. Telegraph/UK, CNBC/US, however no reported injuries or deaths other than to the plants. This should be posted at Wikinews anyway, and leave the WP article until such time as any substantial effects appear. Dl2000 (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tough one really, while it may have broad international coverage (a lot of which is copied from Australian media, as the international media are having a slow news day) this is really a one event, even with the media and police hinting it could be linked to past poisonings it really hasn't been proven. I'm with Shiftchange, wait until the effects have surfaced (September - October if the media are correct *cough*). Bidgee (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bureau of Meteorology adjusting forecast districts

In September as part of a number of changes, the forecast districts will be realigned (at long last!) to match with the Rural Fire Service's fire districts. Example is Wagga Wagga which is currently in two forecast districts, Baylis Street and Willans Hill is the border but the whole of Wagga Wagga will be now in the Riverina[12]. Now we need some set districts for all (Not just Governments) rather a line in the sand by a few Government organisations. Bidgee (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds smart. RFS is NSW. Do you know what's happening elsewhere, if anything? HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it is happening on a broader scale, definitely Victoria. The issue was highlighted in Victoria in the past fire season with the new catastrophic fire day warnings that there was no alignment between CFA districts and weather districts (weather warnings were given on BOM zones, yet total fire bans were on CFA's, thereto alignment issues). With regard to Bidgee's comments, Victoria is either there, or mostly there. CFA districts are based on municipalities; Dept of Health has zones based on groups of municipalities, and government departments/agencies were instructed to align, not have regions that didn't adopt groupings/boundaries on a similar basis. On that note, the Royal Commission for Black Saturday is due to be handed down within the next two weeks, and that should be something that we should be looking to address both as an item, and as a news item (IMNSHNSSO) billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Australian

Additional comments at Talk:Australia#Expression would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

semi-automated conversion of American spellings to British spellings

For anyone who is interested, a maintenance script is available to convert the entire contents of a page from American spelling to British spelling, see the documentation here. If you have any queries or feel that the script needs modifying in any way, you know where to find me ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And how does this align with WP:ENGVAR? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 10:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Automatic assessment of stub articles

I am looking at creating a bot to assess stub articles automatically to help clear the unassessed-class articles backlog. Will the WikiProject Australia be interested in this bot? Gezzza _talk 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything to help clear backlogs with thousands of items would be a good thing. How would you define a stub for this wikiproject? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many articles labeled with a stub template that are way beyond this stage. So perhaps the bot should look for a low size and absence of pictures or the like as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Counting references and images can be done too. d'oh! _talk 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I am thinking less then 2000 characters (bytes) long (not including templates, tables, images, HTML code, etc) is a Stub, after looking though a few stub and non-stub articles. d'oh! _talk 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• On another note, User:Xenobot Mk V is a bot that automatically tags articles in a specific cat as being under the project, and it would catch a lot of missing stuff. I think it would be useful YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would the bot also be able to add a stub template (such as {{Australia-stub}}) to the articles it classes as a stub? also could it create a list of things marked as a stub that it believes are past that point? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 01:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you meant xenobot, no. It can set the quality to the same as existing tags on the talk page, or classify the talk tag as stub if there is a stub tag on the article. But the proposed biot by Gezzza seems to be able to count lengths etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Xeno bot, probably should of made that a bit more clearer than just the dot at the start. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 06:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the details of the bots function based on feedback here and others places, you can have a read here. Also there seem to be a consensus on the used of the bot, if that is the case we need to look at a consensus on the criteria the bot will use to mark articles as stubs. The criteria can include number of characters long of prose the article is, the number of references, etc. d'oh! _talk 15:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Murray River crossings

More, please ...

This is a request for assistance from photographers—especially South Aussie-based ones—who may be able to supply photographs for the article List of crossings of the Murray River. Aside from Robinvale, I am only 90 minutes away at worst from the missing Vic/NSW bridges but it will be a while before I am back in South Australia to get pictures of the ferries and bridges there. I had some luck on Flickr yesterday but I still need photographs of the Narrung, Tailem Bend, Purnong, Walkers Flat, Swan Reach, Cadell and Waikerie ferries and the Blanchetown bridge. Any assistance at all would be appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I went across the Narrung ferry a little while back, complete with camera but didn't think to take a photo. --Roisterer (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assistance pls re Felicity Urquhart

I have started the page for Felicity_Urquhart, an Australian Country Music Singer. I am not sure how to add it to Australia project or the relevant sub project and would appreciate help from someone with knowledge of the proper process for doing this. (IE could someone do this pls) dinghy (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done see here The-Pope (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles for bus interchanges, busway stations and ferry wharfs

I did bring this up before with rail stations, and I agree rail stations should have there own articles, since there is a lot of history at each station and a few reliable sources. But I am still worry about bus interchanges, busway stations and ferry wharfs doesn't have enough reliable sources for a full article. What do you think about this? d'oh! _talk 12:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a ferry station? WWGB (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean ferry wharfs. d'oh! _talk 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on a case by case basis tbh, If one has enough it should have it's own if not we could do a "list of ferry wharfs along X" type article. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 01:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think ferry wharfs fall into a similar category to railway stations; at least here in Perth, they would not be hard to research properly. Don't know about bus interchanges and busway stations. I think however that some would likely prove notable, and if you're going to keep some then deleting others is a bit pointless. Rebecca (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this guy really notable?

Is Mike Tyler (council executive) a truly notable local public servant, a coatrack for the poison scandal, or a non-notable local council employee? Don't know enough about the issue or references to make the call.The-Pope (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack. Rebecca (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He turns up on and off in local newspapers, but only in his role as CEO as far as I can tell. Similarly, his name appears here and there in The Age and similar, but again only as his role as CEO. The sources that were being used were either unreliable (VEX news) or very local (The Leader). I'm going with coatrack. - Bilby (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with both of the above views. Orderinchaos 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Deadset coatrack. Entirely non-notable. Not a public figure by any stretch. BLP Prodded as unsourced (as it stands at now). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Nnnn YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• why not just WP:CSD#G10 page created to disparge the subject alternative is WP:CSD#A7 non-notable person see no reason to wait out 10 more days. In fact I'll dong it on the head now as G10. Gnangarra 02:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Nuttall

About a week ago I pretty much rewrote this article as it had significant WP:BLP issues, and added it to the "pending changes" trial. The prior editor has some concerns about the detail; unfortunately, this issue's chosen rather a bad time for me, as I am pretty much going to be inactive on Wikipedia for the best part of the next three weeks due to studies and other commitments. Can others (whether they agree with my actions or not) please keep an eye on the talk page and handle any change requests? I would greatly appreciate this. Orderinchaos 02:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Politicians articles need updating

I've noticed few articles such as Nigel Scullion and Adrian Piccoli are currently out of date and need a expansion and clean-up. I would love to help but I have received some bad news this morning and I'll be offline over the coming days. Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent {{AUD}} currency template change

The {{AUD}} currency abbreviation template was changed last month and now renders as AU$ instead of AUD. This introduced a bit of confusion into WP:AUSTYLE#Currency, as the previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Conventions#Currency abbreviation seemed to agree upon AUD and A$, and not AU$. That template change was explained as an "agreed upon symbol", curiously enough.

Digging further, it seems the ISO currency symbol codes like AUD were pointed to {{dollarsign}}, which in turn is the source of the AU$ (that is, an apparent effort to standardise templates with ISO currency codes). Before requesting an unprotect on {{dollarsign}}, does anyone know of any recent discussion on Australian currency codes outside WT:AUSTYLE? And should AUD in {{dollarsign}} be mapping to AUD or A$ (or now AU$, if there was a new discussion supporting this)? Dl2000 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly unaware of any discussion. I think A$ is probably best if others are being pointed to dollarsign - certainly not seeing any reliable sources supporting AU$. Orderinchaos 04:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I really can't remember when (it was a while ago) but I did see the issue of AU vs AUD in a discussion somewhere and RS supported AUD, so I don't think you'll find any supporting AU. Even the person who supported AU conceded he made an error as I remember. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the previous discussion. Melburnian (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request now made at Template talk:Dollarsign to change AU$ to A$. Also, {{iso4217|AUD}} »» AUD is available to make a linked ISO code if that is desired. Dl2000 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Status update - looks like the MoS will also need to be addressed, especially the reference to AU$ at WP:$, based on some of the discussion so far at Template talk:Dollar sign. Any further input before we bring this into the Thunderdome? Dl2000 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is bullshit really, MoS discussion isn't needed when the fact is AUD = A$. Some editors seem to love giving the Australian project hell and it is about time they stop fucking us around. Bidgee (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The discussion at Talk:Cunnamulla, Queensland#Requested move may be of interest to some readers here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I just made a bold move for Wagga Wagga. I'm hoping to use Wagga Wagga, New South Wales for the suburb of Wagga (matching suburbs [eg. Turvey Park, New South Wales]). Bidgee (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Mungindi, New South Wales#Requested move. Compulsory disambiguation does not work with this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Nambour, Queensland##Requested move. This has recently been moved and moved back. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

EPA Victoria

Hi all, I've been engaged by EPA itself to help develop the Wikipedia article for EPA Victoria. You can find more explanation about this (COI issues, etc.) on my user page.

It'd be great to have some help with this, even if all you do is tell me what I'm doing wrong :)

I do a lot of work with government agencies, helping them use Web 2.0. Hopefully EPA is just the first of many Victorian agencies that will responsibly maintain its own article... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcooperrider (talk • contribs) 07:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson

From memory there's been some discussion of problems with the Mimi Macpherson article here in the past. As it has now been nominated for deletion by Jimbo Wales the deletion discussion is likely to attract a lot of comments from non-Australians. Jimbo's deletion rationale is very interesting in my view. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one - she has easily enough coverage to meet the notability requirements, and Jimbo doesn't seem to have done his research very well. I'd be inclined to argue that she achieved prominence because of her sister, (especially given how she first hit the media), but that she then leveraged that into a career, in business, TV, and as an identity. This really points to the deeper problem - what do we do with people who are clearly notable for something positive, and would arguably warrant an article on our standards for that, but who's achievements are overrun by something negative in their life that would otherwise have remained private. Currently, Andy Muirhead is a good example of someone in the same boat, but who hasn't complained to Jimbo. - Bilby (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've voted delete basically on the grounds that she's a minor celebrity who I don't think is notable enough to be in any encyclopedia as her personal achievements are fairly unimportant, but do see a case for inclusion on the basis of the 'news' stories about her. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as torn as Nick and Bilby . As Jimbo states and I agree, the coverage of Mimi in "news" stories is more about the "sister of Elle" than anything Mimi has actually done in her own right. I guess it comes down to interpretations of WP:V and WP:N. It will be an interesting discussion to drive debate on the topic however. I trust the AfD will be "courtesy blanked" when complete. -- 03:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn some of the celebrity articles that escaped the BLP episode of earlier this year were far less notable than her. I have added a few refs to the article fwiw... Hack (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• It an interesting discussion whos result(especially if its deletion) will have an impact and will need to be considered. I think its time WP:N and WP:BLP were challenged in such a fashion as the policy definitions that suited the earlier years have evolved over time but dont necessarily reflect the practices and intrepretations of the community. Gnangarra 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I guess I'm still concerned that the result on this one will be dependent on Jimbo's involvement as he'd been in contact with the subject, and thus won't have an impact on BLPs in general. But I can hope otherwise. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In the past I have always considered the big problem with BLPs was bad faith editing. i.e. editors actively going out of their way to deliberately and with malice aforethought add content designed to harm others. My views have changed somewhat now. I now think the biggest problem with BLP articles is good faith editors making good faith editing decisions that nevertheless lead to serious issues of harm. The biggest conceit of the Wikipedia project as a whole is that we have the moral and ethical ability and authority to make the sorts of decisions that we do. The "crowdsourcing" of decisions such as these leads to a lack of accountability for the results of the decisions. It is easier to argue for inclusion of material that may cause harm to others as a semi-anonymous member of a self-selected group than it is to make the same decision in your own right knowing that you personally are accountable for the results.

The AfDs on BLPs are an especially unedifying spectacle. The Mimi Macpherson discussion has so far been quite civil with editors avoiding ad-hominem attacks etc. Even so, the tone of these discussions can't help but be judgemental. As a group, with me very definitely included, we appear to weigh a life in the balance and somehow deem it "notable" or "non-notable". I flatter myself I am looking after the subject's interests in my arguments there but even so my basic argument is "She has done nothing of note" - a pretty harsh summary of someone's life. When the subject asked Jimbo to intervene, I am sure she wasn't looking to spark a wide ranging discussion on her merits or otherwise as a person. Whatever our best intentions, the process strips the subject of any dignity. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what Wikipedia as a project can do about this. The concepts of consensus and egalitarian treatment of editors are deeply ingrained into the project and indeed this is, in the main, a strength. With BLPs, I feel these concepts fail us and are found fairly consistently to be an unsuitable tool for the job. I wonder if the project needs an "independent ombudsman" of some sort to rule on these BLP issues in a consistent and dignified manner that respects the rights of our living subjects. I am not sure that the project is ready for that approach however - at least not yet. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty from my perspective is that I can't see how Wikipedia can address these concerns in policy. It is difficult to envision a policy which can handle a person who is clearly notable in terms of our inclusion standards, but in which harm is caused by our coverage of negative aspects of their life: especially when those negative aspects would never have reached public awareness if it wasn't for their public persona. It is an issue of just coverage, rather than due weight, and policy is the wrong vehicle. The ombudsman is a good idea, and either that or an ethics/BLP board would be how this may be handled outside of WP, so I would support the concept, but I can't see how it would be accepted in the current environment.

As an aside, more connected to Mimi, the hassle I have here is one of whether or not protecting her interests would be fair to others who haven't had a defender such as Jimbo. For example, both Robert Hughes and Simone Buchanan are notable enough to warrant an article, but are in much the same boat. Yet neither has had strong enough defender, and I honestly can't see either being deleted at AfD. Is it right to protect some subjects but not others? I'm not saying that it is wrong, either - just that I feel uncomfortable with a model that selectively protects the interests of only a few subjects. - Bilby (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point about no champion on the scale of Jimbo championing the cause of Hughes and Buchanan. The project is very "editor" focused - and because editors are the ones who have been granted power over these decisions - the project tends to act in the interests of editors rather than the subjects of the articles or, for that matter, readers. This isn't the only issue where the needs of editors are prioritised over the wider Wikipedia community either. There could be some consideration to creating some sort of role as a "public defender" of sorts, whose remit is to argue - consistently and on a non-selective basis - on behalf of the living subjects of this encyclopedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a number of people arguing in this way for BLPs currently. I agree there is a need for this. My take is (as always has been) on liberal use of semiprotection for articles such as these, and delete offending material out of hte article history. I do get concerned when we start deleting more obviously notable people based on this - and see it as the start of a slippery slope. I have visions of sleeper editors who will push one way or the other - pro left/pro right etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If I was starting WP - my criteria for inclusion would be much higher. At the moment any soccer player who has played 1 game in the Bulgarian second division or the English 4th division is worthy of an article. Often people who appeared in 3 episodes of a soap opera get an article. In my opinion, and based solely on current practice, Mimi MacPherson has achieved enough by her self to get an article. The number of articles I found on Fairfax and News ltd sites which do not start with "sister of..." supports this. I would be more than happy to change all the criteria for notability but my unsuccessful attempts to delete a soccer player who may or may not have got onto the pitch during a single English 3rd division match indicate it isn't going to happen. Now, for the point of the argument, let's assume MM is notable enough for an article. To censor the page so that it only contains things that are perceived as morally good would destroy the concept of the WP project - you may as well just cut and paste IMDB or MySpace. On the other hand living people deserve some protection against outrageous and harmful statements even if they can be verified through documentation. In my opinion the current process of deletions, page protections and vigilance by editors through watchlists works reasonably well. The most offensive thing on MMs page was already removed when the debate started and the page could be watched and protected to prevent thr reappearance of this material. Porturology (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there should be much more stringent notability requirements. In my opinion, Andy Muirhead and Mimi Macpherson would miss out but I am not sure that the majority would agree with me. However once created, keeping the negative and damaging material out of the articles on these marginally notable and often no-longer-public figures requires someting more than semi-protection. Look at the article on Robert Hughes for example. This subject, out of the public eye for nearly 20 years all of a sudden has damaging and as yet unproven allegations appear in his article in what is one of the most popular webistes in the world. Wikipedia condones and even celebrates this - praising ourselves for our lack of censorship! Semi-protection won't fix the problem - it isn't IPs and newly registered editors maliciously adding this material, it is good faith editors adding material in good faith under the mistaken apprehension that is the right thing to do. It needs a cultural change in the approach of our editors to understand that we should seek where possible to first "do no harm". I can't see this happening in the short term. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to call those views "mistaken" - the inclusion of prejudicial but well-sourced material on a living person will involve extremely subjective value judgements, of which yours is one. I don't pretend to have any answers to this problem: I objected to the current state of Sebastian Ryall as I didn't think it right that a young man who has had charges dropped against him of underage sex offences should have those charges mentioned in his article. But is there a difference between Robert Hughes and Sebastian Ryall? Probably not; it's just my subjective opinion swaying in the wind.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. As I mentioned on Andy Muirhead's deletion. Under the current WP:ENT he is notable (If I ruled WP - he wouldn't be) but while he has not been convicted I would be much happier if the charges weren't mentioned. I feel the same about Robert Hughes. WP is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper and innocent until proven guilty should be the maxim. The sex tape is more complex - it is not illegal to make a sex tape although the way this one was released may have been actionable if not illegal. It is also true that some "celebrities" have been happy to release sex tapes - MM is not. In such a situation when there is documentation that the tape actually exists the only protection at present is a general belief that BLP should not do harm, protection and editing and and at times all of that can be fairly impotent. Perhaps an ombudsperson is the way to go.Porturology (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I find all this talk about not mentioning unfavourable events very worrying indeed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but it is also an encyclopaedia, and where (as in these cases) the unfavourable events have received wide coverage and have often impacted significantly on the subject's career, there can be no reason not to include them - indeed, to omit them is quite frankly reverse censorship. Of course these issues need close watching to ensure that the content is neutral in tone, and they should certainly not be given undue weight. But Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle for airbrushing all the damaging events from a person's life. Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, but the question is one of balance. Using Robert Hughes as an example, he's had a long career as an actor, and there's been enough coverage of that career to say that he is notable. But when we pull everything in reliable sources together, we end up with fairly little to say - it was a long career, but being of marginal notability, we'll find that there isn't that much in reliable sources that we can write. However, the allegations of sexual abuse are a big deal, and, at the time, received massive press coverage. So while everyone meant well in adding them to the article, the result is that the best we can do is write a bit about his career which will - with the best of intentions - be completely overshadowed in our account by recent allegations. No one is doing anything wrong, but he's not famous enough that we can give all aspects of his life the weight that it deserves, so we end up focusing on the sensational material that has published.

A typical, non-WP biography is allowed to pull content from a variety of sources as they rely on original research, so if someone was to write one on Hughes they would be able to try and give a full account of his life, which might place recent allegations into context. With marginally notable people we can't do this, as we can't (correctly) engage in OR, so we're limited to reliable sources. Hence the balance problems that we end up with. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Nick-D = and what is the problem with non-Aussie views? I'm stunned you said that. Part of the purpose of wiki is to get outsider views on things. They often think of valid points insiders don't. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

'Non-Australians' was my attempt to diplomatically refer to the crowd who follows Jimmy Wales/Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) everywhere and argue with one another over his edits based largely on their personal views of Jimbo rather than the merits of the case, particularly when he comments on a Wikipedia policy. Of course non-Australians can, and should, comment on articles concerning Australian topics, and I go out of my way to seek their views when developing articles about Australia to A and FA class. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, perhaps "Jimbo lurkers" would be a more appropo term ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be more blunt in the future ;) cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

null edit to stop auto archiving discussion linked to from elsewhere Gnangarra 05:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted

Just noting the AfD has been closed as delete. Wouldn't be surprised to see it at DRV quite soon. Frickeg (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised but supportive of that close especially the "do no harm" rationale provided for deletion. No doubt DRV will be the next step but it is important that the DRV is not used to rehash the AfD discussion but instead discuss errors in process or interpretation of consensus. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Yes this went to DRV you can read it all here. It has now been closed in light of the outcome some consideration as to WP:GNG and its relation to Notable Australians maybe necessary. Gnangarra 04:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo Request - Port Adelaide

Are there any Wikipedians in Port Adelaide that can obtain a photograph of the C-47 in the South Australia Aviation Museum for use in the List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in the 1980s please? Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got a few - will have to look through the photo album to see if any are good enough to be used. It's hard to get a good angle, and acceptable lighting, on the larger aircraft there. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Strike that, I've been through my photos and have none with more than a bit of the C-47 in shot sorry - Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Position descriptions in historical photographs

I refer in particular to this photograph of Kevin and Nicholas Rudd. When the photo was taken in May 2007 Grace Grace was not an MP and Anna Bligh was not Premier. I consider the caption alluding to those positions to be historically inaccurate.

In attempting to remedy this I changed the caption to report that Anna Bligh was "then Deputy Premier of Queensland" [13]. User:Timeshift9 reverted this, with the statement "we don't refer to leaders/premiers/pm's etc like this on historical articles" [14]. Surely if topical labels such as "then Deputy" or "future MP" are inappropriate, then labelling someone in a position they did not hold at the time is just as inappropriate.

I am interested in the opinion of other editors on this matter. WWGB (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. To describe that photo as "Premier Anna Bligh" is simply wrong - what's wrong with "then Deputy Premier"? Or even just "Deputy Premier"? It's a bit like saying in the text of, say, Division of Griffith that "in 1998 the seat was won by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd". Frickeg (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a good analogy Frickeg. Your example refers to a candidate election so it doesn't work with PM there. But as for a photo, as far as i'm aware, we don't add future/past <position> prefixes to leader articles (seen moreso on the historical leader articles where they do not tend to suffer from these potential WP:RECENTisms). But if there's a guideline or consensus goes to WWGB then so be it. Timeshift (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A caption cannot describe someone as something they were not at the time. Use of the words former or future makes a lot more sense. That Rudd photo caption is just nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On 7 May 2007, Anna Bligh was not Premier of Queensland. A caption describing her as Premier on this date is incorrect and misleading. Melburnian (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A caption must be true for the moment of time of the photograph. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

until the flower opens its called a bud, such a description doesnt prevent it being a flower in the future it just describes it at that point in time. Of course you could just omit all positions and say Labour Day 2007 Anna Bligh, Nicholas Rudd, Kevin Rudd and Grace Grace Gnangarra 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think most people would be liable to interpret "Premier Anna Bligh" in a caption as saying that Bligh was premier in the photo. We could argue over whether my "most people" assertion is right, but certainly I would interpret it that way, and therefore some people would interpret it that way. A caption that is liable to be misinterpreted by some people needs clarifying — surely that is beyond dispute. As far as I can see, the only argument against clarifying the caption is "we don't do it that way"; hardly a compelling rationale. Hesperian 04:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is Hesperian... eg, if we think a guideline is nonsense and we think our way is a better way, then we WP:IAR. If we have been doing something a certain way then it should be stuck to, or, new consensus formed and all uniformly changed. I think Gnangarra has the best solution IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, where's the guideline? WP:CAPTION says nothing on this issue. (I'm not sure I entirely agree with Gnangarra's suggestion, either. Captions are supposed to provide the necessary detail, and to someone unfamiliar with Australian politics simply labelling it "Anna Bligh" - or even worse "Grace Grace" - is not particularly helpful.) Frickeg (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure where it is, I was just assuming the jist of it based on previous/related articles. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal belief is state the date or month or whatever it was taken at the start, and then use the then-correct titles for the people in it. Orderinchaos 00:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move help

Hi, I need help moving the Mosman article to Mosman, New South Wales as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia. The page was incorrectly moved from Mosman, New South Wales to Mosman. I tried to move the article back but it says that Mosman, New South Wales already exists and wont let me change it. Are there any administrators out there that can help with this page move. Thanks ***Adam*** 07:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I just moved the article to that name. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I moved it as well (in the same minute), so we were left with no article for a minute! but now looks OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick and Graeme. Cheers***Adam*** 08:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a discussion is needed about this move rather than the unilateral move and then a unilateral move back. See Talk:Mosman, New South Wales#Requested move. I don't feel there is any consensus about what the current naming guideline should be and until this is clearer these sort of moves back to mandatorily disambiguated names should be avoided. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I for one am not sure that there's much point doing these individually. I mean, this means we now have - what - four of these discussions ongoing? Surely there's somewhere more appropriate where we could discuss the thing as a whole - I know there just was a discussion, but since it achieved little there's clearly more work to be done. As for the move back - since there was no consensus for the move and it appears to have been done in ignorance of the uncertainty, a return to the original name is the place it should be while the discussion takes place. Frickeg (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. We have just had a wide ranging discussion and as a result I feel that, at the very least, there was no consensus for continuing with the existing guideline. Given that there are now five discussions taking place, making any more moves—back and forward—seems to me to give the benefit of the doubt to a naming protocol that no longer enjoys support. I have not moved any articles myself but when there has been a move I do think that given there is some uncertainty, a discussion should take place before any subsequent moves of that same article. I have let Mayumashu (talk · contribs) (the editor doing most of the moves) know about our current disagreement about these names earlier. -- 08:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I did check the relevant guideline before undertaking the move, and thought that it was OK as the guideline states "All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is.(Please note that there is no current consensus that this must be the case: see talk page discussion.)". It hardly seems worth moving it back (particularly as Mosman now automatically redirects to the new name). Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no criticism intended of your move in my comment. I would add that the part in brackets is also relevant, however. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Even so, Mosman is in need of disambiguation even without the guideline as it is a surname, and appears in at least two other Australian placenames (I didn't bother to check its use elsewhere). Orderinchaos 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This CfD item is somewhat related to this topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 1#CfdAustralianCityCategories. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 31#CfdAustralianCityCategories as well. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A moving request

Could an admin please move the marginally more comprehensive though incorrectly capitalised The Glade within the Grove over The Glade Within the Grove? I can't because the later has more than one edit. Thanx Misarxist (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to convert the incorrectly captalised version to a redirect to the correctly named article, which you can do yourself if you like. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to retain the history. But I'll just c&p it for now and see if anyone cares. Misarxist (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

People care, and so should you. When you copy-paste articles, you are violating copyright. Don't do it. More info at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Hesperian 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a CSD G6 db-move template for these sort of non-controversial "move over redirect with multiple edits" cases. It is on tthe twinkle CSD tab.The-Pope (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cocos (Keeling) Islands

The discussion at Talk:Cocos (Keeling) Islands#requested move may be of interest to editors frequenting this board. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re: image at Kevin Rudd

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kevin Rudd#Image regarding what image of the former Prime Minister should be used at the top of the article. Any input is welcome.  -- Lear's Fool 01:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mkativerata at RFA

Regular contributor here on politics/law YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean RfA?  -- Lear's Fool 02:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Continental issues

Last night, a user went on a move/change spree stating that Australia is not a continent. That term is defunct and has been replaced with Oceania. Did I miss the memo? He then stated on my user page that Encyclopedia Brittainica says so![15] Geography isn't my strong suit (well, actually in Trivial Pursuit it was my #2 choice behind sport, but I digress), but is this correct? Has FIFA taken over the continental naming rights, and if so, will Australia the country soon end up in Asia geographically too?!?! The-Pope (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It all sounds a little like the shrinking Southern Ocean saga but with even less evidence and consensus. The term "continent" has many different meanings in geology, geopolitics, sport, biology etc. and imposing one definition at the expense of others is imposing a false consistency over a messy reality (sounds like a discussion above ...) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, whether or not Australia is a continent is a question of earth-shattering importance to some people. This has been going on for years at Talk:Australia (continent). Hesperian 23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's some really odd arguments like that - I seem to recall one on a mad crusade maintaining the Southern Ocean did not exist or somesuch. Orderinchaos 09:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Have no fear that issue still exists - just try checking out Southern Ocean edit history to see the trail of the intransigents SatuSuro 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick look

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_attacks_in_Australia&action=history - I suspect that if you used to have this one on your watch - but let it drop off - there looks like something worth watching. I have very very limited wiki time at the moment, and hope someone else might appraise the vari0ous edits - considering the issues of the past - cheers SatuSuro 11:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the redirect which had been in place for two months. Orderinchaos 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi has re-reverted, and also undone the redirects on five similar articles. I'm not sure from the comments he's made to date that he's even bothered to read the articles or otherwise show any responsibility at all. Orderinchaos 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Automatic assessment of stub articles

See also: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36 § Automatic_assessment_of_stub_articles

EdgarBot was approved for trial edits, and if there is no objection I will use 50 articles out of the backlog for the trial. I will be using less than 1,500 characters as the criteria. d'oh! _talk 03:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussions

The discussions here, here and here may be of interest to other editors here. d'oh! _talk 01:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nanny state

The article is multiply tagged, but the section on Australia was so weak and obviously activist in tone that I removed it entirely. Others here may wish to add a new section for Australia in a way that reflects how it is actually used in the media (as it's used sufficiently in reliable sources to have a section on it IMO). Orderinchaos 11:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (and yet another example of bad editing from anti-internet filter activists). Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One article that needs a rewrite is the Internet censorship in Australia which has been edited by pro and anti-internet filter. One editor was infact a well known activist who is from the Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. I'm against the filter but using Wikipedia to push views shouldn't happen by when you have a group of people it is hard to control. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

Could someone please protect the Montara oil spill article? It has been repeatedly been vandalised for more than a week now. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've turned on pending changes for that article, hopefully that will put a stop to it for awhile. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

Unreferenced BLPs

Back at the beginning of the year, after the great big BLP deletion incident, we managed to reduce the number of Australia related unreferenced BLPs from around 1600 to about 600 in about 2 months. In the 6 months since, we got it down to about 320, but a recent spate of people searching out old unreferenced BLPs has seen that number increase back up to over 400. Other regional projects such as Sweden and Spain have got their numbers down really low... others like Canada have gone up due to more complete tagging of relevant articles. Personally, I don't care if you reference the article, change the tag to {{BLP sources}} or {{unreferenced}}, WP:BLPPROD, WP:PROD, WP:CSD or WP:AFD the article - I'm not a rampant inclusionist who thinks every article deserves to stay - do whatever you think is most appropriate. I just agree that having unreferenced BLPs is a problem (but also think that having BLPs with any cleanup tag is a problem - I'm hoping that once this backlog is substantially reduced (it has approx halved since the beginning of the year) we can use these systems on other cleanup issues.

At the end of one of the WP:BLPRFC (I think we're up to 3 so far this year alone), we proposed a project and staged targets. The first target was under 30,000 by June 1 - and this was achieved. The 2nd target of under 20,000 by Sept 1 is unlikely to be met, mainly due to the tagging or conversion of unref to BLPunref of over 6000 old articles. So, slashing our 400 isn't going to achieve the 6,800 drop that we need in the next two weeks... but every bit helps. Up at the top of this page, at the bottom of the To Do box, there are links to the lists generated automatically each day based on WikiProject/taskforce tagging. There is also the catscan tool to do adhoc list generation using the article categories. So however you can help, in whichever area, Australian or other (there are over 700 projects/groups being tracked daily), it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

List of towns#Australia

Would anyone care to split this section off to its own article? I don't see an existing one. - Ruodyssey (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a List of Australian towns? I am not sure I see the point. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, we do have List of localities in Victoria (Australia), which is quite useful. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be a huge article and I don't see the point either? There are 355 towns in NSW alone, not to mention 2,958 localities and 1,621 suburbs. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the pop. of an average Indian village (3,000 - 5,000) is about the same as a large town in Australia, maybe the Australian section of this article could be left to die out. If NSW has 355 towns then a list could well be useful, but with some additional info. (population, coords, LGA?) so it is not just a list with nothing further. Project for someone? (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)).

I would have thought that this sort of thing is what categories are for. I can't see the point of creating an article for such a list. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists can be better than cats iff you want to do more than just provide a list! Such as tabulate or sort.The-Pope (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Doogler,South Australia, which I am not aware of.--Grahame (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. see List of towns in Australia. –Moondyne 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moondyne. Donama (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that it has been split, what do we do with it? What is its purpose? Is it supposed to be comprehensive? Is it merely a carryover from the early days of Wikipedia? What is the criteria for inclusion? Is List of Towns in Australia the best name for such an article, given that it includes many things not generally considered as towns? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of 'lists' but if we are going to have towns listed then only towns which are gazetted as a town should be included. Bidgee (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it'd be best as just an alternate navigation aid (ie. a list of lists) rather than containing any data itlsef. –Moondyne 06:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in part with Mattinbgn, this "list" isn't useful as an article. Categories should be used instead, since that is what they are made to do. d'oh! _talk 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not a huge fan of lists either, they can explain the vernacular nuances and provide red links to possible future articles where cats can't. (See advantages.) Thanks, Moondyne! - Ruodyssey (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the list can be useful if it is more than just a list. The "list of lists" concept is the best approach, if the sub-lists are something like List of localities in Victoria. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, the current List of towns in Australia NSW section has listed about 170 places, while the Category:Towns in New South Wales has 959 entries. How come there is such a difference? Calistemon (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because nobody's done it yet. :) - Ruodyssey (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is only 355 gazetted towns in NSW, so I have no idea how there is 900+. Bidgee (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the categories "Towns in ..." for each state and territory include all localities that are not either suburbs or cities. Personally, I would like to see this project follow NZ in having one category level for populated places like Category:Populated places in New Zealand (even though I am not a huge fan of the name. Then we wouldn't have the ongoing confusion about what is a town, village, hamlet, locality, city, suburb etc. Pretty sure that I won't get any support for that proposal, however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think your proposal is much better than having places listed in Category:Towns in New South Wales who technically don't belong there. Calistemon (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It can be confusing trying to work out what a place in NSW actually is. There are 172 places registered on the NSW GNR as currently assigned towns. Two more are only listed as "recorded" while another group are variant names for places that may or may not be assigned as towns. For example, "Town of Raymond Terrace" is a variant for Raymond Terrace, a town of 12,500 people that is recorded on the GNR as a suburb. At least it has a variant name that points us in the right direction, unlike Leeton which appears to be a town but is only recorded on the GNR as a locality (ie a rural "suburb"). --AussieLegend (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the NSW GNB database! Bloody silly IMO and most of the double names gazetted need to be look at but that isn't a Wiki issue as such but I can't get over that Leeton isn't gazetted as a town, WTF! Reminds me of the Wamoon gazetting as a village which was removed then regazetted! Bidgee (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think "Populated places in <state>" would be a great idea, or some sort of naming to that extent, Then just move "List of towns.." to "List of populated places in Australia" (or however the category is named). Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 01:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 election new articles

Just want to remind everyone about the articles being incubated for election candidates who are currently not notable but if elected would be: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics#Election_candidates. This is firstly so we have somewhere to point people who create articles based on speculation about their electoral success and secondly so we have some developed stuff to use if and when they are elected. Seems like I'm the only one who's been creating these. Anyone else want to help out? Donama (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, while I commend you on the work you've done here, I'm not sure that there's a huge point putting effort into these now. In about three days, the clear victors of these articles will be moved to mainspace - surely it's easier to create the articles then? None of the sources are going to go away. For the doubtful ones (a lot of the "new blood" in the list, for example), on the other hand, I think they're a good idea, but there's no point putting work into articles we may never need (like Deborah O'Neill, Craig Kelly or Michael McCormack, to pick three). Frickeg (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be creating an article on Michael McCormack in my userspace (already have photos, other candidates have been harder to get photos of!) in the coming day or two. Bidgee (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've held off on creating the article since the seat may not be as safe as it use to be (This time there is a record number of candidates [9] in the Division of Riverina and there is a liberal candidate unlike past elections. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Coalition detail?

perhaps it's timely to consider our coverage of the LNP Coalition (currently the only link at that disambig. page is to the merged party of Queensland) - I suspect many folk may be in the same boat as me as interested in reading about the history, structure, evolution etc. of the coalition. Do we have a specific article? Should we? Privatemusings (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The most we have is Coalition (Australia). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tassie Devil FAR

I have nominated Tasmanian Devil for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Malkinann (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Gov Davey's proclamation-edit2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let WikiProject Australia editors know that File:Gov Davey's proclamation-edit2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 23, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-08-23. As I am not Australian and would like to not misrepresent Australian history, I would appreciate it if someone could check my work and edit the blurb appropriately. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A proclamation board labelled "Governor Davey's Proclamation" painted in Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) about 1830 in the time of Governor Arthur. This was designed to show former Governor Thomas Davey's desire that colonists and aboriginals be seen as equal before the law. Davey's greatest accomplishment was the establishing of Hobart as a free port, but he also attempted to curtail bushranging and encouraged the proper treatment of aborigines. However, the proclamation board, which was distributed through the country during the height of the Black War by being nailed on trees, incorrectly depicted a policy of friendship and equal justice which simply did not exist at the time.Image: Government of Van Diemen's Land from a concept by Surveyor General George Frankland

Featured Picture of Melbourne needing home

File:Yarra Night Panorama, Melbourne - Feb 2005.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That picture is one of a set of two promoted as featured pictures and the "twilight" version always seems to win out over the "night" version in terms of being used in articles. To me the "twilight" version is clearer and more visually appealling as viewed in article space, although the "night" version has the benefit of higher resolution when viewed at full size Melburnian (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eden Whalers

The article Eden Whalers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published works about this football team and only limited web content. Fails WP:N and WP:V

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Battle of Morotai

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Help needed at Battle of Morotai. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

1925-26 bushfire articles merge

Due to similar and minimal content, it is proposed to merge 1925–26 Victorian bushfire season to 1925–26 Australian bushfire season - see/discuss at Talk:1925–26 Australian bushfire season. Generally, I was doing a bit of cleanup on the bushfire articles - more cleanup awaits, though. Dl2000 (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia#Forrest_River_Massacre - an issue that has floated up at a number of project pages - that might interest anyone vis a vis WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS, and inevitably the personalities of a couple of sandgroper writers who have grappled with fudgy figures over mortality at some incidents a long time ago - ideally all stems back to the Black Wars issues and sources - this might be of interest SatuSuro 11:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of centralization the best place for discussion is probably the recently opened RFC on the article talk page. Misarxist (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

RM -- moving forward

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Wikipedia_talk:NCGN#Australian_place_name_convention makes for an interesting read, the discussion is still open(not active) the point drawn form that discussion is that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia no longer has the unilateral support(nee consensus) it once hadnbut abandoning the convention doesnt have sufficient support either. The discussion stalled when it was proposed that the guide be tagged as unclear and that individual articles should go through individual requests for move. As to be expected the accepted edit-revert-discuss process has begun doing just that. Maybe its time to move forward (shit I've heard too many election adds recently) and open a poll to find out where editors really stand on the issues. Continue discussing the merits but keep the poll sections for votes! only, personaly I see merrits in both options and have no preference for either option so I'll remain the neutral observer the voting! is open until the 21st August. please only vote for one option, IP votes will exluded as this is only to guage the balance of opinion of editors. Gnangarra 14:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(Notification posted at previous thread. Hesperian 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

Um, ... voting is evil, right? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that since a numerical claim was made (that "more people supported changing"), that claim is being tested. Frickeg (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then be much easier to go back to the initial discussion and count !votes there. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Straw poll guidelines states that "no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree" which makes the exercise rather pointless, no? Going by the earlier discussion (but not wanting to pre-empt the ballot), the Australian vote will be split roughly 50-50 while editors from elsewhere will overwhelmingly oppose mandatory disambiguation, being faintly bemused that we have such a naming convention in the first place. We already know that the policy Wikipedia:Article titles enjoys widespread general consensus and the proposal for "change" (in reality, a move back into compliance with Wikipedia policy) merely brings Australian places into line with this wide consensus. What needs to be demonstrated are overwhelming and compelling reasons why Australian populated place names require a departure from this encyclopedia-wide consensus and that these reasons and the subsequent modifications to policy as a result have the widespread support of editors. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is no longer the case, even without a vote. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Mattinbgn. Donama (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• yeah voting is evil but I went back to the original discussion and its an absolute dog breakfast, there were a number of calls for admins to close and make a decision but by the time you read through the discussion there wasnt enough clarity in the discussion to even enable meaningful discussion to continue, absolutely no way anyone could close that discussion with any confidence even as "no consensus". So I suggested let the poll run see where people sit on the issue, there nothing to loose remember Wikipedia is never going to be finished, we have all the time we need and consensus does change or not as the case may be. In the mean time why not try restarting the discussion(or creating a new one) and see where it leads maybe it be resolved before 21st August Gnangarra 10:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - the status quo

1. Rebecca (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Frickeg (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
3. The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Calistemon (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
5. ***Adam*** 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Orderinchaos 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Dan arndt (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Sb617 (Talk) 07:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Misarxist (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
11. –Moondyne 09:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
12. So many Australian place names are not unique, and consistency is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

    lengthy discussion moved below Gnangarra 23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

13. AussieLegend (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
14. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Support - changing

1. d'oh! _talk 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Bidgee (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Bleakcomb (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Hesperian 23:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Nick Thorne ^talk 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Melburnian (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
8. WWGB (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Mattinbgn\^talk 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Mayumashu (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Born2cycle (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Night w (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
13. SauliH (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Scottius11 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from sq #12

• So many names of Australian people are not unique, therefore we should use mandatory disambiguate all biographical articles, even those with unique names, in the name of consistency, right? Don't you see how silly this argument looks when you apply the same priniciple elsewhere? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, geographic places, for which we do not compulsorily predisambiguate, are an order of magnitude more likely to be ambiguous than localities, which we do compulsorily predisambiguate.[16] We've suffered nothing from not predisambiguating the more ambiguous class, so the argument for predisambiguating the less ambiguous class simply doesn't hold water. Hesperian 08:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It only looks silly when applied to names because applying it to names is silly. We can disambiguate localities easily and with no confusion, while disambiguating people's names is already a nightmare because there's no consistency. The arguments for a policy in one area can not necessarily be used to justify the same or a similar policy in another area nor is a comparison between two different areas of the encylopaedia always valid, as is the case here. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • But you are not addressing the point made by the initial commenter. He is stating that all place names require disambiguation because many are not unique. I made the point that many names are not unique either, but we don't go about disambiguating all, just because some are unique. No one has yet been able to explain what makes locality names so different from every other topic in the encyclopedia that they require disambiguation, even for unique names. The method of disambiguation is a bit of a red herring and beside the point in this entire discussion. Allowing unique names to be used as article titles does not mean that we cannot continue to mandate our current consistent disambiguation method, i.e. [Town], [State] and use it if, and only if, disambiguation is required. Mattinbgn (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I actually agree with him; consistency is good. Lack of consistency is what causes problems with biographical articles. I really don't see a huge issue with disambiguating. It doesn't prevent a reader from finding an article and it helps editors to maintain them. When I was trying to identify all of the Hunter Region stub articles, selective disambiguation would have resulted in a huge mess when I was building this table. Because I know that almost all of the 794 names were supposed to end in ", New South Wales" it was easy to set the table up with search and replaces. It would have been much harder if I'd had to work out which were disambiguated and which weren't. To be honest, I was going to vote to support change, but the more I look at it, compulsory disambiguation seems a much better idea. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • After the change you can still use your way to find the articles, as the [[Town, State]] will be redirected to the main article. So you still don't have to care about the status of ambiguity, when building tables, etc. d'oh! _talk 09:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If there is a change that's true, but of the 794 names I mentioned, well over half don't currently have articles. In the future, if they are created there's no guarantee there will be [[Town, State]] redirects to the new articles and that makes half of the table potentially useless. As it is now, I can quickly find out if new articles have been created making maintenance easy. That's not the case with optional disambiguation. I can see lots of drawbacks with optional disambiguation but I don't see benefits. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Which is where my idea below comes in, the policy will require the [[Town, State]] redirecting on all new and current articles so there will be [[Town, State]]. There maybe drawbacks but doing this will bring these articles inline with other policies, of which enjoys wider support. d'oh! _talk 10:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
            • But that is not the purpose of titles and we should not make it so. Titles should not be bastardised to be handy sort keys for editors. Titles are there to allow readers to identify the subject—and therefore should use WP:COMMONNAME (hint: that does not include the state appended to the end)—and be precise as needed and concise as possible. If you need some sort of sort key, then some form of metadata like {{persondata}} should be used. If you suggested it would somehow be useful to add "(Australian prime minister)" to the end of every Australian PM article to make them easy to sort, no one else would consider it for a second. Why localities are allowed to violate WP:AT and nothing else is, has never been adequately explained by anyone. WP:AT is policy and if we are going to flout it we need a better reason than that. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Again, using bios as examples is a bad comparison. People are only PM for a short period in their lives so tacking on something like you've suggested wouldn't work. On the other hand, Newcastle, New South Wales won't ever become Newcastle, Tasmania. I still don't see any advantage to not disambiguating. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
                • Actually, the bio thing is neither here nor there. What the proponents of the current schema for Aus place names have yet to understand, or perhaps acknowledge, is that this naming system (placename, state) is a departure from policy. Whether or not this system helps editors is a matter of complete irrelevance. The names of articles are not to provide assistance for editors. Why depart from standard Wikipedia practice, that works for the rest of entire project, of using the most concise name for an article. If the place name is unambiguous, pre-disambiguation is a nonsense and deviates from policy. No one is arguing that dismbiguation should not apply for ambiguous placenames, only that mandating pre-disambiguation for all Australian place nemes is not required, does not follow policy and does not help the reader. Indeed it can be argued that it hinders the reader. If a reader types in "Cloncurry" and lands on "Cloncurry, Queensland" he could be forgiven for asking himself "have I got the right Cloncurry, is there another one that is the one I really want?" The qualifier implies that there may well be other Cloncurries, perhaps a veritable forest of them previously unknown and unsuspected. I repeat, this universal pre-disambiguation is a nonsense and we should instead follow policy. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • WP:IAR is also policy. Can we follow that instead?The-Pope (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                    • How is WP:AT preventing (as opposed to making some rare tasks marginally more difficult) us from maintaining or improving the encyclopedia? I suppose that it is, but it seems like an uphill path to me seeing as every other topic in the encyclopedia manages to cope just fine living within it. Following IAR doesn't equal ignoring policies you don't support. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                    • You should have a read of WP:IAR?, because as what Mattinbgn said WP:IAR doesn't allow you to ignore policies you disagree with. d'oh! _talk 12:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                      • I did read it. I'm Ignoring the Prevent word and concentrating on the other words! I think that I can maintain the encyclopedia a little bit better knowing that when I edit a footballers page that I don't need to check that the town he comes from is at Upper Timbucktoo East, Victoria and not have to do a dab check. Minor things, but it helps - a little. I mainly raised it because Nick was going on about how we should follow policy, end of story. It isn't the end of story, as you can see above. Despite VERY persuasive, well reasoned and generally politely put forward views from both sides, you have almost a perfect 50/50 split, with some of the who's who from WP:AUST on both sides. It's the perfect deadlock. BTW, we've had a much milder version of this over at WT:AFL about whether Aussie rules footballers should be dabbed as (footballers), (Australian footballers) or (Australian rules footballers). I'm not sure if I'm being flexible or hypercritical, but over there I'm favouring the "pick any of the three" view, rather than the "must be (Australian rules football)" view! The-Pope (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                    • I fail to see how you can use WP:IAR to support the case for pre-dismbig for Australian place name articles. The vast bulk of Wikipedia manages without it, so this push to continue to ignore policy for Australian place names simply reduces to a case of special pleading - a well recognised logical fallacy. Either the rest of Wikipedia is wrong or the guideline for Australian place names is wrong. Given the relative size of the two samples, I know which one I'd be backing. If you want to argue that special circumstances require special handling for Australian place names then you are obliged to demonstrate exactly what those special circumstances are and justify them. That is, why are articles on Australian place names so different from all other article in the rest of the encyclopedia that they require special handling. No one has even attempted to do this. Note - minor points of convenience for a few editors performing rarely required tasks does not come anywhere near qualifying as a justification for a special case. As for the issue of consensus and policy I would have thought that the burden of proving consensus clearly lies with those who wish to deviate from or change policy, or as in this case, maintain a deviation from policy. Without a clear consensus to deviate from policy, then policy should prevail. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                • I realise that I am not making any headway, but whether the comparison is to bios or any other subject, the principle is the same: no other topic uses mandatory disambiguation in this manner and no other topic so blatanty ignores the community consensus about article titles set out in WP:AT. Iron will always be a chemical element, Last Exit to Springfield will always be a Simpsons episode and Flame Trees will always be a song. Nonetheless, no one would seriously countenance adding (element) to the end of all articles on elements, (Simpsons episode) to the end of all articles on Simpsons episodes and (song) to the end of all articles on songs, regardless of ambiguity. That is why WP:AT is written the way it is. What makes populated places (and not other geographical features) so different that WP:AT needs to be turned 180 degrees to make it work? Using more complex, less concise, less accurate (the name of the town is "Deniliquin" not "Deniliquin, New South Wales" - we are supposed to care about accuracy) article titles than ncessary is by far a net negative for the encyclopedia and being of some moderate use when apply some sorts once every year or so does not come close to offsetting this. Anyway, I think minds are well and truly made up on this now but it is that hard to consider that if ambiguous name "Sydney" can be at Sydney, that surely the unique name "Deniliquin" can be at Deniliquin? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say leave it. Especially as new suburbs get made all the time and the same types of names get repackaged over and over, except for the few Aboriginal names, and then we would have 10% or so undabbed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

More than 50% of names would be undisambiguated and even if it was only 10%, so? -- 04:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP already has a article naming policy that expresses a broader accepted naming policy. WPAUS should align with that. Naming in other countries is no more different or unique than in Australia. Personally I think when wiki-linking placenames the place and state should have separate links ie Nambour, Queensland, and not Nambour, Queensland. To achieve this now one must type: [[Nambour, Queensland|Nambour]], [[Queensland]]. If a change is made, then the bot that is tasked with renaming and possibly fixing redirect links should reformat links this way ie: [[Nambour, Queensland]] coverts to [[Nambour]], [[Queensland]] by simple text replace. my 2c worth SauliH (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Idea

When the status of ambiguity is in question Australian town/city/suburb articles should be placed at [[Town, State]], otherwise [[Town, State]] should be redirected to [[Town]].

To help reach a consensus, I have come up with the policy above. What does everyone think? d'oh! _talk 08:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's essentially the proposal previously discussed. Frickeg (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Looks very similar to:

Australian town/city/suburb articles that are uniquely named or unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles. Where disambiguation is required, this will take the form of Town, State in the first instance. If further disambiguation is required—such as at Springfield, Victoria—this should be shown in parentheses as follows: Town, State (disambiguation). Local government areas are at their official name.

. This saw the earlier massive discussion. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but my idea is the last part which is when disambiguation is not required, [[Town, State]] is redirected to [[Town]]. This is keep the naming convention going not forcing disambiguation onto articles that doesn't need it. d'oh! _talk 09:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting deleting the redirects ... Frickeg (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. I must admit that, while it wasn't in my proposal, I did think that redirects of that nature would be useful and I proposed to retain them. Anyway, those arguing for mandatory disambiguation aren't concerned about what redirects where - even though the redirects you mention would resolve many of the concerns they have about abandoning compulsory disambiguation (i.e. finding articles). What they are arguing for is to have the name of every article about a Queensland town end in " ,Queensland" (and so on for the other states) regardless of its state of ambiguity, in the name of consistency. What benefit the encyclopedia gains from this consistency (as opposed to the wider consistency of WP:AT is a question best answered by someone else. -- 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My biggest concern is actually about suburbs, not towns. It is worth pointing out that, in an official sense, bounded localities or suburbs are a phenomenon unique to Australia - boundaries are ambiguous and not as strict in the UK, New Zealand and South Africa where they are also used - so there is no problem with Australia forming its own rules on these. Very, very few of them would qualify as primary usage and most of them are ambiguous (Mosman and Manly - which I choose as both have been suggested for renaming during this debate - being cases in point), and not having them disambiguated creates a messy, unprofessional situation where one has to play a game worthy of a year 7 treasure hunt to find the articles. The towns, especially the larger ones, I'm actually less worried about as they are distinct topics and not part of a whole. Orderinchaos 09:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what the proposal is about - always has been. Wagga Wagga is Wagga Wagga - no need to disambiguate. If the article is the prime article in accordance with wp:AT then it shouldn't be unnecessarily disambiguated. If there is any doubt to the primacy of the place name article it probably won't be disambiguated. Can we move past this now? BTW - the boundaries of suburbs in NSW are very much well defined and unambiguous. Bleakcomb (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

They are in every Australian state and territory. But not in any other country - NZ and South Africa both have boundaries but don't bother to legally define them and the end result is a lot of confusion between localities, statistical entities, actual suburbs and of course where the boundary lines actually run. Orderinchaos 03:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still a little lost as to the relevance of SA and NZ suburbs in this discussion. The proposal doesn't deal with suburbs in SA and NZ, only Australia. The proposal doesn't deal with defining what are suburbs and what are not, merely with whether the names should be disambiguated even if they are unique. Nor does it deal with defining the area a suburb covers. The proposal continues to insist on the one method of disambiguation—"[Name], [State]"—regardless of whether it is a city, town, village, suburb, locality or other populated place. The only difference between the current method and the proposal is that unique and unquestionably prime names will not need to be needlessly disambiguated. Everything else about suburbs that you mention is entirely irrelevant to the proposal and I am not sure why they keep returning to the debate. If Manly and Mosman are not unique or PRIME then they will stay at their current names. If other places are unique they will be moved. None of this will have any impact on the content or scope of the article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2010 (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.

closing

Ok thats what I get for suggesting closing at the same time as the federal election, we are as hung as they are in Canberra.
What we have is a clear indication thats there is absolutely no-consensus for either the status-quo or for changing, so where can we go from here;

• Those that want the change will take the position that the status-quo no longer has consensus and therefore we should default to the primary naming convention for guidance rather than WP:AUS guideline.
• Those that want to retain the status-quo will equally argue that there is no consensus to change from the current position.

Yeah I know thats stating the bleeding obvious, that also means we dont have a simple solution which can be banged on the table. Here is what I propose, while it appears to have some complexity the idea is to have a compromise position that will stop the disputes. The basic under lying premise is that of WP:NC with an exception only article names that require disambiguation should be disambiguated, there is no primary topic the rest of the proposal is purely about stopping the disruption while we have no consensus which lets editors get on with writing. Gnangarra 16:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

1. That the current convention is to be left in place until the article quality passes an independent review ie GA/FA, -- that means no wholesale slashing of dabs with AWB or bots and if you want to rename then the article needs to have significant detail, if it doesnt then you need to do that first.
2. where a rename(de-disambiguation) is proposed it should be upto the editors of the article -- its not be the result of some rallying the troops call here or on any other page. In short no posting renaming discussion here.
3. before renaming editor need to ensure that the article is in the category corresponding to the disambiguation
4. That new articles dont require predisambiguation but should be categorised according to the current disambiguation requirement
5. Where disambiguation is required then in all articles, even where theres a clear primary topic aka Perth, Western Australia & Perth, Tasmania are to be disambiguated

Comment Thanks Gnangarra. One comment firstly: This discussion has been reasonably polite and civilised, due mainly to the common sense of all participants. I don't think there is any reason to fear further discussion will lead to unpleasant dispute nor is there any reason to fear editors acting unreasonably regarding mass renamings etc. I suspected deadlock could be the ultimate result of the discussion, and you have my position correct in that in the absence of consensus here, the default WP:AT and WP:DISAMBIG policies that cover the rest of the encyclopedia should apply.

Now for some comments on the proposal itself:

• 1 is a little restrictive. Category:GA-Class Australian places articles contains exactly one article - Wagga Wagga. As someone who was heavily involved in writing that article, I know how difficult writing comprehensive articles on places can be (as opposed to biographies, events etc.) I understand the purpose of trying to stop wholesale and disruptive moves (and improve article quality!) but I would rather rely on the good sense of participants. This point is (almost) tantamount to upholding mandatory disambiguation.
• 2 I agree with this, other than discussions really should be listed at WP:RM. I would go a little further, in the spirit of compromise, and ask that all renames go through WP:RM rather than WP:BOLD moves.
• 3, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that Deniliquin, New South Wales needs to be in Category:Towns in New South Wales before it can be renamed as Deniliquin. If so, that goes without saying. If you are saying that Nunawading, Victoria needs to appear in a category containing the word "Victoria" (as well as Category:Suburbs of Melbourne) then that seems a little unnecessary. Or do you mean something else altogether?
• 4 If you mean that articles created after this discussion has been resolved can be at their straighforward name, i.e. Gooroolba rather than Gooroolba, Queensland - then yes I support this.
• 5 Support this, as long as both places are Australian. I see no reason to force Ballarat to be disambiguated because of the existence of Ballarat, California. This is no different than Brisbane and Brisbane, California. I don't see any real need, however, to try and divine PRIME topics for place names such as Tarrawingee, Maryborough or even Yarrawonga.

I don't think any of the proponents for moving away from mandatory disambiguation are likely to start a mass renaming process. For my part, all I really want to see is places such as Deniliquin and Tocumwal at their common-sense names. Moving slowly back towards communion with the rest of the encyclopedia (rather than a mad rush that makes editors uncomfortable) is a better way of ensuring a orderly process that everyone is comfortable with. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of renaming proposal

Should the titles of the articles on the immediate predecessors of Elizabeth II contain the phrase "of the United Kingdom"? Please see Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom#Requested move and comment there if you wish.--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Qantas 747 Engine 'explosion'

In case anyone hasn't heard. Likely not significant enough for inclusion on Qantas page at Aircraft incidents and accidents, but I'll leave a link a the news report for reference. Also left same on Qantas talk page.

“ "About 15 minutes into the flight, the flight crew picked up on some excessive vibration in the number four engine," a Qantas spokesman told AAP.

The captain shut down the engine and informed San Francisco air traffic control of the problem.

An apparent explosion in the number four engine ripped a hole through its outer shell.

”

"New engine for Qantas plane after blast" Agence France-Presse(AFP) via Yahoo News
220.101 talk^\Contribs 00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian road

There has been a proposal to change {{Infobox Australian road}} to {{Infobox road}} at Template talk:Infobox Australian road#Infobox conversion proposal. The proposer has changed all uses of the template based on zero objections but, as I pointed out, the reason that there have been no objections might be because that template doesn't appear to be on anyone's watchlist. If anyone is interested, they should probably make comment now. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone interested that {{Infobox Australian road}} has now been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I am feeling rather pessimistic but this discussion is a another milestone on the road leading to the death of this WikiProject (and other national WikiProjects). The great bureaucrats of the world have captured the encyclopedia and like bureaucrats everywhere, they value and emphasise the general over the particular, the universal over the local. There is no room for national idiosyncrasies any more, they are mere "untidyness" and "redundancy".

On a pure numbers basis, areas like Australia will not be able to compete with North America and Europe when these universal rules and tools are designed so these universal policies, guidelines. tools, templates, category structures (and in time, permitted varieties of English) will reflect their needs, not ours. There will always be Australian editors maintaining Australian articles, but increasingly it will be done in a manner dictated by those elsewhere. We will have to conform or slowly get pushed to the margins. Gloomy, I know, but it seems an inescapable conclusion. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This *particular* situation isn't a cause for pessimism. I as you know developed IAR based on IAP, and I actually support the general cause of what is happening now. What I don't support is the lack of good faith consultation by the road project - they seem to be yet another enclave of the project crying for power by mowing down anyone in their way and abusing process. If they engage with us, and if we genuinely have input into the decision (which may involve some minor changes to the generic template), the generic template will do a better job than ours did. It's not like the IAP situation where the international version is a Frankenstein's monster. Orderinchaos 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess my point was that this project has always had a reasonable amount of latitude to create its own local rules and guidelines etc. appropriate to our own circumstances. This latitude is slowly being whittled away and the local protocols and concerns are now seen as quaint at best and obstructive at worst by the new powers-that-be. This specific example is not a major turning point on its own but merely another "drip" that has slowly worn away at the WikiProject Australia "rock". No drip has much of an effect on its own but slowly but surely the rock wears away to nothing.

Power on the encyclopedia has moved from editors focused on topics and content creation to editors focused on process and standardisation. This is not all bad, but it means that this WikiProject will become a mere message board (Mop up Vandalism in Aisle 3 ...) rather than a project with any real influence on policy, guidelines and tools in so far as they affect local content. It will become a backwater while the decisions that affect Australian articles will be made elsewhere. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Southeast Australia wild weather

• Have any articles been created about the wild weather this weekend, most notably the Victorian storms. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen anything yet. I think it could cover a lot more than Victoria. Some parts of SA and western NSW got very wet too, and the Birdsville Races were cancelled. Now, that IS notable! HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Victorian floods. Melburnian (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Huge copyvio problem

You may have noticed a note at the top of your watchlists, advising of an impending mass blanking of about 10,000 articles which are likely to be originally generated by a serial copyvio. Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Darius_Dhlomo/Task_explanation explains what they are planning to do. The bottom line is that this will happen, and the only solution is to either:

i) ignore the issue and let others deal with it

ii) as items on your watchlist get blanked, recreate them without any copyvios

iii) Check the list at User:The-Pope/Aussie_DDCCI_list which is an intersection of Category:Australian sportspeople and there to be blanked list, and pre-emptively remove copyvios and rewrite/stubify the articles. The article will still be blanked, but it can then be unblanked immediately (by you or others).

It seems to mainly cover athletes (a bunch of Aussie hockey players) and sporting events, with over 1300 Olympic medalists on the list. Unlike the last kerfuffle about UBLPs, this one at least is to address a real, actual, current problem, not a "there could be a problem hiding in the unreferenced BLPs" potential, like it was last time.The-Pope (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Australia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For my 2c I would suggest excluding:

• All the NRL, AFL, A-League teams (leaving the leagues)
• All the individual albums (leaving the artists)

and including:

• All of the Australian World Heritage sites.
• Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals)
• Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Toowoomba, Bundaberg, Mount Gambier, Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Shepparton. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sydney articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Sydney articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it's worth it.

Since I last mentioned the war on UBLPs, just over a month ago, the number of Aussie ones has almost halved, from 400 down to 250. It would be lower, but some "deep sea trawlers" keep finding old ones, mainly by converting {{unreferenced}} to {{BLP unsourced}}. Just as I'm about to be disillusioned by another night of trying to find references for borderline notable Aussie newsreaders and presenters, soapie "stars" or rugby league players, alongs comes a bio like Linda Jones (Jonesy). How has something like this survived for more than 3 years? Well hidden I guess. Hope she enjoyed her time at the Walkabout Creek, and yokels are significantly under-represented here at Wikipedia... do you believe that Category:Australian yokels is still a redlink!

Seriously, if anyone wants to help out with the final cull on the UBLP list. If the list of remaining Aussies doesn't excite you much, then there are another 600 odd lists that you can choose from, or pick some from the lists sorted by sports, region, music or everything else (art, religion, science etc). Any help would be greatly appreciated.The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bessie Rischbieth

Folks, I came across this one in passing. Anyone care to volunteer to fix the placement of the citations? Having them in blocks at the end of each section isn't standard or helpful. I am guessing that one would need access to the sources to do this. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Patterson's Curse and Echium plantagineum

Is there any particular reason why these articles should not been merged. Certainly I am not sure the current split (if the content requires splitting) is very intuitive. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely should be merged. Amazing two large articles about exactly the same thing can spring up independently like this. Still, I remember wanting to edit the article on soursobs (which I thought would be a widespread, perhaps even global, term for Oxalis pes caprae) but no redirect existed and I found it is called all kinds of other names before soursob around the world. If I'd been lazy enough to not bother checking the species name I would have assumed an article on soursobs didn't exist. Donama (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I will qualify what I've just said. If the Echium plantagineum article becomes too long following a merge I guess they should remain separate articles, but the subarticle should be called "Echium plantagineum as a weed" or "Control of Echium plantagineum" or similar instead of "Patterson's Curse". Donama (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But "Patterson's Curse" is the common name in Australia (more so then Echium plantagineum, Salvation Jane and Riverina Bluebell) which is what the Patterson's Curse article is referring to. Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A look at the history indicates that Patterson's Curse was split out of Echium plantagineum in June this year. Right from the start it was intended to be an article on Echium plantagineum as an invasive species in Australia. Therefore I propose renaming Patterson's Curse to Echium plantagineum in Australia. Hesperian 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to botanical articles? The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the common name of Echium plantagineum? Patterson's Curse? Salvation Jane? Purple Viper's Bugloss? No, Echium plantagineum is definitely at the right title, and sub-articles ought to conform with the main article. To have Echium plantagineum but Patterson's Curse in Australia would only be confusing. Hesperian 12:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A slightly related question (probably more for the Wikipedia 1.0 people above, but maybe someone here knows)... the multiple common name problem as above is easily solved (without most people even noticing) on here by redirects and dab pages (I honestly didn't know about the multiple names... and actually don't care much about plants!), but will all of the redirects and dab pages be included in the DVD version or will it all rely on full text searches? I first thought about this when I saw in the WA list Anigozanthos manglesii... would Kangaroo Paw or Red and Green Kangaroo Paw by included too? The-Pope (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I split the articles since there were two distinct, notable topics - the plant itself and its invasiveness in Australia. I oppose merging on those grounds. I used Patterson's Curse as the article name since that is the Australian name that is in common usage. Articles on plant species usually have the binomial name rather than common name to avoid disambiguation issues. Binomial names are unique whereas plant common names can apply to numerous species. I have been using the common name followed by the country to write article about plant species in a particular country. See Category:Invasive plant species in New Zealand for examples. Patterson's Curse rather than Echium plantagineum in Australia or Patterson's Curse in Australia would be the recommendation per WP:NAME. The former could be a redir and in the latter Australia is redundant since Patterson's Curse is a uniquely Aussie name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that logic. "Patterson's Curse" means E. plantagineum. It may be an Australian name, but it is still a name for E. plantagineum, not "E. plantagineum-in-Australia". The current title grossly mis-scopes the article. This discussion is proof of that: people have assumed a merger is needed here, simply because both titles have the exact same referent. Hesperian 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is that to me -- and I grew up in a rural SA context where this plant was important -- it is not called Patterson's Curse, but Salvation Jane. So where's the proof that this is the most common name in Australia? And what about the plant as an invasive species elsewhere on the planet? Surely this article should be named Echium plantagineum as invasive species or similar. Donama (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In South Australia and western parts of NSW and Vic it was/is referred as Salvation Jane but it is more widely known as Patterson's Curse in Australia. The article (Australian side) we are talking about is the Australian history of when it was introduced into Australia, plus its impact and not the other parts of the World since that is the role of the parent article (Echium plantagineum). Bidgee (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Article names are simplified for brevity. They need not be a full description of the article contents, however that is always a nice goal if it is possible. The article lede, as it does in this case, should give an indication of what the article is about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But I would argue that this goes beyond simplification. This is a misleading title. Hesperian 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

[Posted at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Hesperian 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)]

Perhaps you should list Willow (Salix) as well. Bidgee (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit mystified why it could not simply be accepted that the latin name has precedence and that lead paras always carry AKA verification for endless common name variants - I thought that was accepted practice here on WP - or have I missed something? - From that - where the damned curse (I always thought it went by the Patersons Curse moniker here in WA) has an article about its presence on a particular ecological region should be in the title - which would make sense that the name should be XXXX in Australia , which seems to be common sense- SatuSuro 01:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Having sort of done a landscaping course (did some learning on invasive weeds) in the past, I've found that the Common name followed by the least used commons names used before the Binomial names and I think it should also apply here on Wikipedia.

RE: Patersons Curse, it is noted that Patersons Curse was incorrectly spelt years ago and has stuck is some parts of Australia (more of a region thing then a state), infact Pattersons Curse was sold in Sydney as a garden plant under the name Riverina Bluebell (not very common name though). Bidgee (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have always known it as "Paterson's Curse" (but was aware of names such as "Salvation Jane" and "Riverina Bluebell"). I don't believe I have ever seen "Patterson's Curse" used outside of Wikipedia. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Patterson's Curse is the correct name but the incorrect name has become a bad habit that we can't seem to kill off. Queensland agricultural journal, The agricultural gazette of New South Wales & Horse Sense: The Guide to Horse Care in Australia and New Zealand use Patterson's Curse. Also a quote from Australian Marine College "The seeds of a grass found all across Australia called Patterson’s Curse, or Salvation Jane in South Australia". Bidgee (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If I search for Patterson's Curse or Paterson's Curse (the latter appears to be the spelling used in most reliable sources) I expect to be directed to the main article on the plant and if I require further information specifically on the plant in Australia, I can then seek that through the link within that article to this new article. I support the "x in Australia" model for the new article as suggested above of which we have many precedents for invasive or naturalised species in Australia. For an "x in Australia" article I think we should take "x" as the name of the main article, in this case giving us Echium plantagineum in Australia as proposed by Hesperian above.--Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I guess I am happy with Echium plantagineum in Australia as the article name. Patterson's Curse and Salvation Jane should be redirects to it. We should also get this section linked from the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think part of my confusion is that Paterson's Curse, Salvation Jane and Riverina Bluebell, all Australian terms, all redirect to Echium plantagineum rather than "Patterson's Curse". I tend to agree with Hesp and Melburnian, that if two articles are deemed necessary then Echium plantagineum in Australia (and generous use of redirects) is the way to go, if only to avoid regionalisms. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Patterson's Curse/Paterson's Curse are not regional terms in Australia but Salvation Jane and Riverina Bluebell are. Bidgee (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It should be renamed to Echium plantagineum in Australia. "Patterson's Curse" is the name used in Australia for the plant generally (where ever it's found); but not the name globally used for the plant when it's found in Australia (if you follow my logic). —Pengo 02:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the name Paterson's Curse has been adopted in Oregon, where it has recently become a problem weed.[17] [18] --Melburnian (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a consensus to me. I will move it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes poll

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage appears to be lacking any meaningful Australian input and there's only a few days to go. It relates to whether to extend the pending changes trial. I realise people are pretty divided on the question, and I'd like to see our community represented, whether it supports, opposes or a bit of both, as our project has so many articles technically under its scope (as I keep reminding people we look after 3% of Wikipedia). Orderinchaos 02:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature in PMs' articles

A discussion has arisen at Talk:Julia Gillard about why a signature is included in the infobox for Prime Ministers. I see no point in it being there at all. It's trivia. The only reason the defenders of the practice seem to be able to give is "We've always done it that way, in all the other PM articles". So, I'm here.

Why is it there?

Can we get rid of this trivia?

HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on the Infobox Officeholder discussion page where it was proposed to remove the signature parameter. The proposal did not gain consensus. --Canley (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

=) Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

All I am seeing is "It doesn't do any harm." I suggest that it does. Including trivia trivialises Wikipedia. The compromise discussion at the end of the larger discussion led to the signature being an optional item in the infobox, so I repeat, why include it? HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not trivia at all, and such claims bely your understanding. Graphology is a popular albeit controversial pseudoscience. The fact that there are articles dedicated to Gillard's signature here and here and here indicate its potential interest to WP readers. WWGB (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the interest of WP readers has little to do with what articles newspaper editors decide to include in their respective rags. Those links, far from indicating interest, demonstrate the triviality of the signature. The first includes a single opinion about how Gillard's signature has changed. In reality, a lot of people have two signatures, an everyday scrawl and one for more formal situations. The signatures presented demonstrate that. The second is pure journalistic crap. Maybe she was in a car when she signed the second but that isn't even suggested. And then there's the third. Wow! Somebody got a signature from a politician during an election campaign. STOP THE PRESSES! The inclusion of the signature in an infobox might be valid if there is some encyclopaedic treatment in the prose, even if it is only to mention the opinion of one obscure handwriting analyst. Without encyclopaedic treatment its inclusion is as purely decorative as the images I removed here. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing The Suite Life on Deck? Priceless ..... WWGB (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has to keep Wikipedia encyclopaedic and not full of trivia. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a fair tactic, WWGB. Let's take AussieLegend's opinion on the topic at hand as expressed, regardless of what s/he edits. Donama (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone takes the piss out of my comment, I piss right back! Even Aussie Leg End. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody took the piss out of your comment. I just pointed out the obvious flaws in it. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A signature is an iconic visual image, unique to an individual, and in the case of many officeholders represents a significant amount of power or value. --Canley (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. A couple of real reasons. Thank you. Not sure I agree yet that they are strong enough, but at least I have something to chew on. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the camp that sees it as trivia in BLPs, possibly a self-indulgence of graphologists or graphology-lovers here on Wikipedia. Think about it's weight. It's not relevant enough to the subject, the person, i.e. Julia Gillard, especially as signatures change over lifetimes (just like religion I might add). The links supplied by WWGB are examples of primary sources because they're opinion pieces not based on some other primary source - they don't carry weight. Chances are that others see it the way I do, but it's just not a big enough issue to warrant the time and effort to discuss it. I would also be keen to get rid of the infobox slot for signature, but realise that would be a bigger battle. Donama (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)