Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
Archive 22

Contents

Altona Gate Shopping Centre

This article has been prod'ed for deletion. Do we care? It is my local shopping centre and it is certainly not as large as many others. --Bduke 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't, on the evidence provided. Is there anything vaguely notable about another shopping center? I don't think so. --Robert Merkel 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
We could probably blame the abundance of redlinks here for the regular appearance of non-notable shopping centre articles like this one. If the centres aren't notable, is this list? What makes a shopping centre notable anyway? Take Chadstone Shopping Centre for example. It's only bigger than the rest, and still nothing important imho. -- Longhair 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
However, the current policy with respect to schools is that they should be allowed to have an article, isn't it? If we're keeping all schools, I don't see why we shouldn't keep all shopping centres, as long as the article is reasonably written. enochlau (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
they seem worth keeping when they have info on the history, but the ones which just list the stores dont look great. perhaps merge the stubs into the locality article, but keep the articles? Altona North, Victoria is only a couple sentences, it could easily be merged there --Astrokey44 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca has removed the prod saying "Nyet. Take it to AfD (and lose)" in the edit summary. Lets see how it goes. I'm inclined to see it go and do what A Y Arktos suggests. --Bduke 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, I originally prodded Altona Gate Shopping Centre and gave the reasons as 'non-notable' and 'I don't think the stub can reasonably be expanded into an article'. I'm a relative newcomer and it seems that I've either:
1) Unknowingly stepped into an ongoing debate about the general notability of certain general categories (schools and malls), or
2) Unwittingly stepped on the toes of the Aussie Cabal...um...you do have an Aussie Cabal don't you? If not, you should :)

While I'm a fanatic about preserving useful information I tend to think that stubs which can't be improved into decent articles should be deleted. Based on what I've read here, and after considering additional comments from Bduke and Rebecca I think I will nom it for deletion. However, I won't do so before 2006-07-01 because I'm interested in seeing if there's anymore discussion. I'm always in favor of working towards consensus and since many of you here are familiar with the subject, it seems like a good place to start. --Doc Tropics 03:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also describe myself as an inclusionist. I'd never thrive at AfD. That being said, the idea of having an article for every shopping centre bothers me. Wikipedia isn't meant to function as the yellow pages. By all means, list the major shopping centres in an article about suburb or city X, but the shopping centres themselves are largely homogenous places that all look the same because they're driven almost exclusively by shopping and not by anything that is intrinsic to its location. Certainly, there's nothing to be said about most shopping centres that isn't already written in the article about their parent suburbs. I think we have to be really choosy as to what commercial entities deserve articles. There are already guidelines to determine if a company is notable. Shopping centres really just don't cut it. If there is a case where a particular shopping centre is especially unique in a cultural or historic context (not a commercial context) then an article could be justified. — Donama 06:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Often suburbs are notable as much because of their shopping strip as anything else. It seems to me that the modern shopping centre took over from the old shopping strip idea decades ago. So, it could be argued that shopping centres have as much notability as some suburbs (the main difference being that one is privately owned and covered, and the other isn't). All of Canberra's suburbs have articles on them, and I am confident many of those are less notable than Altona Gate. Lastly, big shopping centres, like Highpoint West, often start defining the broader area around them, so that everyone within a couple of drop kicks starts calling their business Highpoint this or that. I am not sure if this has really been thought out enough. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point about shopping centres being as notable as suburbs. Some shopping centres even have their own postcode these days. -- Longhair 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be simpler to merge this into, say, list of major shopping centres in Melbourne, or something. Perhaps a table with major stores, location, that sort of thing. Pippu and others make some excellent points (places like Chadstone have a massive impact), but at the moment I don't think we'd miss anything by not having a separate article. If it gets long enough then it can be spun out into its own article, of course. I'd be happy to get the list started if anyone thinks that would be a good idea. --bainer (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made some comments over at Talk:List of shopping centres in Australia about this issue. One thing I'm uneasy about is that Australian shopping centre articles show up on AFD regularly, and whether they survive or not seems to be somewhat arbitary, with little reflection on the actual notability of the centre or even the detail within the article. I think it would be good if we came to some sort of consensus on what shopping centres should have articles (and what should be in those articles), and what ones should simply be covered within the surburb's article.--Mako 00:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian article assessment

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australian crime-related articles by quality statistics

I've gained an interest in Wikipedia 1.0 and been fidding with article assessments of late. The table here over to the right provides participants of the Australian crime WikiProject that I maintain with a daily progress report towards the 1.0 goal. The table is updated automatically by Mathbot and transcluded onto the project page. Assessing an article is as easy as tagging the talk page with a template containing a grade relevant to the quality of the article. A blank template classes the article as unassessed. A few other reports are available as well. The system also supports article importance tagging, though I've not enabled that as yet. I'm pretty happy with how the system works.

What I imagine would be very useful to most Australian editors would be such a table covering the entire Australian article namepace. An Australia-wide table similar to the one at right would be handy positioned on the Australian Wikipedian's Noticeboard, Portal, and similar high profile places. It'd give us an instant update on the amount of Australian Featured Articles, Good Articles, and the progress of those on the way up the quality scale. It's a big job, but I'm up for it if others agree it's a worthwhile idea to pursue. Perhaps a bot could assist with tagging (at least into an unassessed status) if anybody operates one capable?

It's not something I'd rush into without first gaining some community approval, and there's probably a lot of questions and answers that need to be thrashed out before any work begins. It's early stages still. What do others think? I'm also willing to give other WikiProjects a hand to implement the system if they're interested. Drop me a note on my talk page if you need any assistance and wish to grade your own projects. -- Longhair 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I don't think it should be on the noticeboard. Perhaps it is finally time to create Wikiproject Australia. Snottygobble 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that. When this started, it used to do a fair bit of organising article creation and such, but it hasn't really filled that role in a while. Rebecca 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Japan has already implemented the idea on a natiowide scale. They're a lot smaller than us though. Perhaps the largest project using the scheme is WikiProject Military history. They gone even further and categorised their project into smaller projects and made custom changes to suit their needs. -- Longhair 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Australian name space is big. Perhaps Wikiproject Australia could sum up the efforts of subsidiary projects identified at Portal:Australia/Projects. I note we have nothing on history in general and there are probably a few other gaps that could be picked up by the overarching Australia project. The Australia-wide table proposed by Longhair would only be useful if broken down into constituent parts. Fo example, something like the mock up at User:AYArktos/sandbox/stats table mockup. I know it is 22 columns wide and one has to scroll sideways but I think the breakdown will be helpful in understanding where more effort may be required.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Can the system support a hierarchy of wikiprojects, so that Australian crime WikiProject articles don't need to also be tagged as Wikiproject Australia articles, and the various city projects can be aggregated into the Australian places WikiProject and so on? I think it's a good idea anyway, but aggregation reduces the amount of tagging required, and ensures that if the status is changed for one project, they all get the same status change. I think that this noticeboard is a good place to put the summary, even if we also created a wikiproject. On This Day could move to the portal once the entire year is populated well enough. (Edit conflicted three times) - It looks like my hierarchy question might have been addressed by the Military history people. I agree with AYArktos. --Scott Davis Talk 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(Few edit conflicts here). An Australia wide table would summarise the lot. It'd be big, but it'd be interesting also. I love your table idea AYArktos but thats a fair way off I'd assume, but a goal worth aiming for. If specced out thoroughly at the start it'd be a pushover in the right hands. Assigning all Australian articles under the one project to begin with would give us an easily managable base group of articles to start with, kind of like how categories evolved at Wikipedia. Initially, and I mean years ago, there would have been only Category:Australia, but now that's branched into many specialised subcatories. This project could work the same. (I spend a lot of time categorising and see this as an easy analogy, I'm sure there's anothers). Articles can still be broken down into smaller projects, as the Military history WikiProject has already done. One problem I saw with a nationwide project was the potential of talk page clutter, with many templates at work if the article is assigned to more than one project. -- Longhair 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If we have a heirarchy that goes

  • Australia
    • Places
      • Melbourne
      • Sydney
      • and other city / place projects
    • Sport
      • AFL
      • V8
      • other Australian sports projects and non Australian sports projects with Australian articles in - eg Cricket
    • Other (maybe better name such as humanities ...)
      • Crime
      • Law
      • Politics

Perhaps we can assess at the second level of the heirarchy, rather than the 3rd given so many projects and likelihood of overlap eg crime/law--A Y Arktos\talk 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality could be inherited but importance couldn't. e.g. West Coast Eagles would be high importance for Wikiproject AFL, but low for Wikiproject Australia. Snottygobble 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Snottygobble, importance to my mind is way too subjective anyway, I would rather drop that parameter and focus on quality. Importance is a matter of missing articles and the subsidiary projects can pick that up with to-do lists.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If we divide it, we need to make sure everything is covered. This would be my divisions:

  • Geography (places, geology etc.)
  • Culture (sports, history etc.)
  • Humanities (politics, law etc.)
  • Natural history (flora, fauna etc.)

I can't think of anything else, but if someone does, please add to this list in red font. --liquidGhoul 02:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We should probably move this discussion and planning elsewhere before it grows. Any ideas as to a suitable destination for a move? I'm offline now until Tuesday as I need to leave town again, so I thought I'd throw this idea into the air to see what develops in the meantime. It seems most of you are keen. Bring the ideas on. It can only develop into something beneficial to the project as a whole. -- Longhair 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've had a bit more of a tinker with what I've described above, and managed to get a custom Australian version of the talk page template functioning ok with support for most descendant Australian WikiProjects. I should have them all supported by this afternoon. A lot of the backend pertaining to this system runs via a bot, so I'll find out true results shortly once the bots completes its run. All I've basically done is grabbed the code being used over at the military history project and customised accordingly. I've also ripped most of their project pages, leaving the obvious unrequired bits behind, as their ideas and layout seemed to fit us nicely. I'm technically inclined and a former programmer, but my time is limited to look into the sysyem AYArktos proposes above, but it's very possible with time and effort.
Perhaps a working group towards this goal would be an option? We need now to break down the Australian namespace into smaller sub-sections as hinted at above. Smaller projects have already subdivided somewhat, but if we could come up with basic top level categories, I think we'll see something functioning before the weeks out.
Currently the tag and parameters is configured as per the usage instructions listed at {{WP Australia}}, which at firt glance can look complex, but trust me, it's a breeze.
As you'll note, the system also supports tagging for other purposes, which I found interesting, and it works well for a large project, so I don't see why it couldn't work for us. This is all very early stages here, feel free to pick the system to bits and recommened changes. We don't need an exact carbon copy of the military history system, but now is the time to speak up and steer this in the direction you'd like to see it. -- Longhair 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Grabbing ABS stats

I'm replicating a conversation between Jnothman and myself here, because we'd like input on a proposal to extract statistics automatically from ABS .xls files to avoid the pain of having to navigate their website. Any suggestions on what stats to include or leave out are appreciated.

If I were to make a script to extract relevant statistics from the chunky ABS census data, what should it include? jnothman talk 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it would be a great idea if you were to do this. The ABS' site is a mess and if would be nice if we could automatically dive in and extract the stats we want. If you're just talking about suburb statistics to start off with, I figure at the bare minimum you should retrieve the population, area, pop density, percentage of aboriginals/torres strait islanders and maybe the three most common nationalities/places of origin/whatever they call it. Perhaps average income as well. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 09:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm in the middle of downloading 2024 excel spreadsheets. For some reason there's no suburb data for Qld or ACT...? But what there is, I might as well do the whole lot in one go. Let's list the sheets and the data we want to extract:

  • B01 - Population, area, pop density. So is ATSI percentage.
  • B03 - top (two?) age brackets
  • B05 - is this where you wanted me to extract most common nationalities from? ancestry based on parent? I'm a little confused about how to understand these tables: just use the last column? When I calculate percentages, does it include "not stated"? Does "most common" mean top 5, or all those above a certain percentage?
  • B06 - or did you want me to extract nationalities from here?
  • B07 - or is this where I should take nationality from??
  • B10 - get the top few religions- top by perccentage, or top 4? Count Christianity as one group or as individual sects, or both?
  • B18 - dwelling structure? percentage totals?
  • B22 - unemployment rate
  • B23 - non-school qualifications? percentages?
  • B33 - median weekly household income? median weekly individual income? mean household size?

If you could let me know what you think of the need for each of these statistics, and in complex situations how they should be calculated, that would be fantastic. jnothman talk 00:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • B01 - Population, area, pop density. So is ATSI percentage.
All four.
  • B03 - top (two?) age brackets
Probably just the under-15 and over-65 figures. Those are the ones I see in national statistics most often.
  • B05 - is this where you wanted me to extract most common nationalities from? ancestry based on parent? I'm a little confused about how to understand these tables: just use the last column? When I calculate percentages, does it include "not stated"? Does "most common" mean top 5, or all those above a certain percentage?
This one has figures for both parents. That probably makes it too complicated for an infobox.
  • B06 - or did you want me to extract nationalities from here?
I'd use this, just listing the top three or four nationalities by percentage (I don't know how hard that will be to calculate). Don't forget B08. The top three languages would be useful as well.
  • B07 - or is this where I should take nationality from??
  • B10 - get the top few religions- top by perccentage, or top 4? Count Christianity as one group or as individual sects, or both?
This might be getting too complex to include. But maybe Christianity with the three largest subsets, then the three next biggest faiths (including 'no religion').
  • B18 - dwelling structure? percentage totals?
  • B22 - unemployment rate
  • B23 - non-school qualifications? percentages?
  • B33 - median weekly household income? median weekly individual income? mean household size?
I wouldn't bother about the rest to start. I'm going to take this to the AWNB to get more opinions as well. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a link to a sample .xls file please? enochlau (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that ACT suburbs are considered to be Statistical Local Areas. Capitalistroadster 07:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Be careful guys. I believe the ABS's statistics are copyrighted. Someone should look into this. Dmharvey 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
See this - you can reproduce up to 500 cells of data from the website. However, will a bigger problem be the fact that we can't stick this stuff up onto Wikipedia, as doing so would imply that it's under the GFDL? Of course, we can do this personally, and just post up the scripts that generate whatever data we want for our articles. enochlau (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Grrr. So basically we can't use their data? Is there any way around it? We don't want to present the figures, only percentages =) jnothman talk 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we can use their data if we present it in another format, because then we're not copying off them, just using them as a reference. For example, a bot dumped a whole lot of US census data into prose format about tiny little towns that no one would have written about. enochlau (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Rambot used alot of material from US Government sources, but all works of the US Government are in the public domain, as opposed to the ABS stuff which is copyrighted. That limited licence (unlimited use in original form of less than 500 cells of data) may or may not be equivalent to free licence, but of course it's probably better to simply reference rather than copy the data anyway, as we would with any other source. --bainer (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

New ACOTF is History of Australia
This article is part of a series on the
History of Australia
Chronological
Prehistory
Before 1788
1788-1850
1851-1900
1901-1945
Since 1945
Timeline
Topical
Exploration
Constitution | Federation
Economic | Railway
Immigration
Military | Diplomatic
States, Territories and cities
New South Wales | Sydney
Victoria | Melbourne
Queensland | Brisbane
Western Australia | Perth
South Australia | Adelaide
Tasmania | Hobart
Australian Capital Territory | Canberra
Northern Territory | Darwin
This box: view • talk • edit

Thanks to Rebecca for noticing and changing the banner.

Census in Australia was the Australian collaboration of the fortnight. It increased from a 1 kb stub to 13 kb of information. Well done to those involved.

  • 9 contributors made 40 edits
  • The article increased from 1 kb to 13 kb - 13 times longer
  • See how it changed

This fortnight's collaboration is the entire History of Australia series. Please note either here or on Talk:History of Australia any subordinate articles that are modified as part of the collaboration.

--Scott Davis Talk 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom Wills

Can someone please take a look at Talk:Tom Wills Tintin (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Melanesian mythology

This article was nominated for speedy deletion as an empty article. It had a category and nothing else. I have added a few sentences but would be grateful if anyone else could add something more. Capitalistroadster 03:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rove McManus

Can we have a few more eyes on the Rove McManus article please. It's being hit (again) by very sneaky and persistant vandals who have access to a large pool of ips. -- Longhair 17:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Related ip's and accounts

I've now got the page on my watchlist, and have given it a cleanup. Harro5 23:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just gone through the article, and it seems nice and NPOV. Harro must have done a good job :). I have also added it to my watchlist. --liquidGhoul 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Australian federal by-elections

Hey everyone. I think it's unlikely in this list that any (forget about all) of the red links leading to articles on specific by-elections are ever going to be written. I'm wondering if someone could think of a quick way ("replace all" in Word wouldn't work) to change all the links to this standard: eg. [[Werriwa by-election, 2005|Werriwa]] → [[Division of Werriwa|Werriwa]]. This at least adds relevant and existing links from the article. Thanks in advance if anyone cracks this conundrum. Harro5 10:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. The fact that we lack articles on by-elections is a problem, not a solution. Wikipedia has a series of excellent articles about by-elections in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and I see absolutely no reason why we should not have the same. This will not happen if they're not actually linked from anywhere, and if nothing else, I'll get to writing them eventually. Rebecca 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, it is something that we can get around to filling in. A number of by-elections have been signs of changes in political mood such as the Bass by-election in 1975 and the Canberra by-election in 1995. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Croatian-Australian soccer players

Is it correct to list there names under the Croatian spellings with diacritics etc,. because they are for the most part, notable in Australia - and in the countries in which they ply their club football - and none of them at the moment are playing in Croatia or other balkan countries but elsewhere - (Jason Culina in Netherlands, Zeljko Kalac in Italy, Mile Sterjovski in Switzerland), so are generally not known by their Croatian spelling. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think we should have the primary article title without diacritics, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Redirects from the diacritic-enabled names are probably appropriate though. --Robert Merkel 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Disputed issues:
There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus.
I support the status quo; let's not get into a move war over this. Snottygobble 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, after all, redirects are cheap: the "complete" version (with diacritics) can be the actual page name, while links to the diacritic-less version can be used in text where diacritics would be out of place, if necessary. --bainer (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that categorization by ethnicity and occupation eg Category:foo-foo fooers was generally frowned on, I certainly think its quite useless, but I can't find where I read about the guidelines.--Peta 02:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a category here, it's just a discussion about the people who meet the description. --bainer (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right - that was an odd tangent on my part.--Peta 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania

I just noticed that the possibility of making an Australian bid to host the 2007 Wikimania conference was raised at the Melbourne Wikimeet the other day. Would there be much interest among the rest of you in doing something like this? If people are keen, it might be nice to start looking at doing some early planning. Rebecca 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So long as there are enough of us to organise things, then definitely. Do we just provide the venue and WMF people do the rest, or are us Aussies going to be able to be actively involved in organising? I guess we will need some sort of Wikimedia Australia chapter?
I would prefer bidding to host a Wikimania conference rather than our own one. -- Chuq 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If Australia are to host this, there is a lot more to it than just providing the venue. The locations of the previous two have been heavily based on the number of local volunteers willing to deal with the venue, accommodation aspects, programme, organising speakers and events, technical set-up, etc, etc. There are no "WMF people" to do this. It's really up to the location chosen to arrange these things themselves. Angela. 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Conference organisation is a bit of a nightmare in my limited experience, we have no local chapter or local funds to use to do the organising and airfares to this side of the world would be prohibitive for many European and US attendees which would limit numbers. I'm assuming that registrations are used to finance the conference organisation - so unless you had enough people willing to pay to come to make sure that it paid for itself - there would be no way to do it.--Peta 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sponsorship also covers some of the costs. Angela. 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This was something Angela came up with. She'd be perfect to lead the organisation around it, and since she won't be tied up with WMF work from now on it's certainly something to consider. The idea of our own Australian Wikimania (Wikimania Down Under?) was raised as a secondary idea, in case travelling to the ends of the earth is not realistic for enough people to make having the real Wikimania here viable. This would be the ideal new project for the proposed Wikimedia Australia, which is progressing nicely towards getting off the ground. --bainer (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What if we told Morris Iemma that Steve Bracks is secretly wanting to host it in Melbourne, and say similar things to Bracks and Beattie? Actually, given the competition between the states for biotech and IT conferences, this might be vaguely plausible... Andjam 11:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been any precedent for a country, or multiple cities bidding for Wikimania, but I can see some merit in Sydney and Melbourne jointly hosting it. Firstly, we'd save all the squabbling that would ensue if we chose one over the other, and secondly, both are great cities with much to offer, and if people are flying in from some distant lands, why not make them visit both? But I think to warm up, and to see how well the WMA machinery works, I would think that a local conference would be highly recommended first. enochlau (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

do you propose for ppl to fly between sydney and melbourne? or for some ppl to go to sydney and others to melbourne? who are you going to claim the airline ticket back from? --Sumple (Talk) 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think keep it simple. Choose a single city and stick with it. Or do what the pollies did, and hold it in Canberra (note that neither the 2005 one was, or 2006 one will be, in a huge city) -- Chuq 12:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but how would it work? Angela. 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Flying back and forth would be unviable, in terms of time and money. If it were to be done that way, I'd say that it would be important to find some kind of split in the program - for example, the pre-conference activities (hacking days, etc.), and the formal part of the proceedings (talks, workshops, etc.) could be done in separate cities. Furthermore, having the infrastructure already there in a city would allow us to conveniently arrange for broadcasts of the workshops and talks from the other city. enochlau (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Realistically, I think splitting between cities (considering the distances involved) would be unviable, adding at least a couple of hundred dollars onto the already substantial travel expenses involved. I would imagine that Melbourne would be the most feasible location, on the basis that a significant portion of our active Wikipedians (plus Angela) live there, as compared to notably fewer in Sydney. Canberra could be a possibility (close to both) and has quite a few people, but probably none keen enough to do the necessary groundwork. I'm also not convinced that we need to host a more local conference first - firstly, we'd have the combined experience of the Germans and Americans from Wikimania 2005 and Wikimania 2006, and secondly, neither the Americans nor the Europeans held a local conference before holding Wikimania. Rebecca 13:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
For the purpose of argument, suppose we have the main stuff down in Melbourne. Most people are only going to attend the talks, workshops etc. But if we have some other activities in Sydney, the added expense to a few people is worth the engagement with a wider pool of people, who can't make it to Melbourne. enochlau (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Having been involved in many conferences and vowing after each one to never do it again, I urge some caution, but I'm probably a grumpy old man on this. Wikipedians are not rich and they are not employed by someone who will cover their costs. I suggest an Australasian one first (hoping we can attract some people from over the Tasman, and also from the Tok Pisin Wikipedia). I suggest Melbourne, not because I am there, but because Angela is. --Bduke 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't necessarily be in Melbourne by the time of Wikimania 2007 (maybe moving to Sydney). Anyway, there are plenty of people in Melbourne (and I possibly enough in Sydney too) to handle this if enough of them are interested. Remember that by 2007, Wikimedia will be that much larger, so even if you don't feel there are enough people now, there may well be by then. I'm still wondering if having a Wikimania Australia first would be a better option though, though Rebecca does give good reasons as to why we wouldn't need that. Angela. 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest speaking with the local tourist authorities who can help with suggested venues and things to do. They will be of significant help especially if you are talking about an international conference especially if it was an international meeting. Capitalistroadster 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
And also local universities. Harvard has been a huge help in the arrangements for this year's one. Angela.

Agree with Capitalistroadster - I suggest contacting one of the many conference/convention organising companies - they do this sort of thing all the time. Other things we need to consider first of all:

  • How do we organise ourselves (officially) to present to outside organisations - is an Australian Wikimedia chapter required?
  • Would the WMF be happy in principle to a Wikimania held in Australia?
  • Which city? We all have to agree on one - infighting won't help the cause. My vote goes to Melbourne.

-- Chuq 14:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with using conference/convention organising companies is that they're very expensive. It's not the Foundation who decides, but I'm not aware of any of the Board having any objection in principle to Wikimania being held anywhere. Angela. 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should have some kind of organisation that people can relate to - it would present a much more unified face to the bidding, and I would imagine that some things would be neater (we can book venues in WMA's name instead of having it with half a dozen people etc). As for a city, I think a more in-depth analysis of venues, costs, events etc need to be considered, as well as people. This isn't something a straw poll could resolve. enochlau (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be a good idea to move this discussion to a subpage of the WikiProject, so we could look at these issues in a bit more detail? Rebecca 23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Having the discussion on meta would be a better idea. enochlau (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If we did bid, the bid itself would have to go on meta, but while we're just discussing general feasibility, I think it might be better to keep it on en, where people can watchlist the discussion. Rebecca 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I got all excited and started a page at Wikimedia Australia/Wikimania 2007. Discussion doesn't have to move there straight away, of course, but it would be better in the end since there are quite a few people not on en.wiki who would probably be interested in this too. Plus there's the advantage of keeping all discussion on the one wiki. --bainer (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I also found m:Wikimedia_chapters#Planned_chapters which has links to existing discussion on meta, a mailing list, and an IRC channel. -- Chuq 04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for all the existing Australia-specific chapter discussion see m:Wikimedia Australia. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Who said we have to hold it in either Sydney or Melbourne. Why cant we be bold and do something different? - 202.173.184.57Cartman02au 06:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Network Against Prohibition

I came across this article when I looked at what linked to petrol sniffing. Is it a notable organisation whose article needs a big cleanup, or should it be deleted? Thanks, Andjam 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say they're notable. They ran candidates in several seats in the 2005 Northern Territory election, and were one of the only minor parties to do so (I remember them from when I was writing an NT series at the time). It could do with a bit of decrufting, though. Rebecca 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Our boys

Good to see our former fellow upstanding Australian Wikipedians, Darren Ray and Ben Cass, getting such good press from The Age today. They of course never tried to bully, harass, trick oor use legal threats against us? No, never. Harro5 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a wikipedian from the other side of the Tasman is currently on bail on very serious charges. Andjam 05:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

Last night, I removed several external links from Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, and it was restored by Vanrozenheim, an editor who predominantly writes about GLBT nationalism. The user believes that all the external links should remain, including the yahoo groups one.

I fear that, given my luck / track record on GLBT issues, if I discuss the issue further with Vanrozenheim, it'll go disastrously. Would anyone be willing to handle the issue? Thanks, Andjam 11:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version, and I'll keep an eye on the article. Rebecca 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think that the article should be merged with the relevant article on the Coral Sea Islands given that the so-called kingdom doesn't have any inhabitants. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Australia

How come I can't find any references or links to the new wikiproject here. You would think there would be a very strong link between the noticeboard and the wikiproject. Xtra 04:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia.
But seriously, setting up the project has taken a lot of work, and it has been done almost singlehandedly by Longhair. There's no link here because he hasn't got around to it yet. Judging by the thorough job he's done so far, he will eventually. Snottygobble 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't added any links anywhere as yet. Others may have, I've not checked. My reason being is I consider project to be still very much in its infancy and thought it best not to overlink for now to avoid taking up too much of time answering questions that may very well end up answering themselves. .
I'm in the 'fiddling stages' of editing a copy of the current template to hopefully achieve what we want it to do with the entire Australia namespace in regards to statistics on quality. A problem I'm facing is that I don't want to mirror the exact same category structure we have in the article namespace, as I don't see the point in doing so. We may as well use the already established article space as a counter if that's the case. Anyway, that's discussion best had at the project pages itself.
The Australia Portal, this noticebaord, and the project itself compliment each other I agree. The project has high visibility on article talk pages for now, which seems to be doing a good job in letting people know where to find more information if they require it. Failing that, I can help explain anything I'm up to if others are in search of further information which isn't already online. If anybody wishes to help out, feel free. I'm away again for the next few days, and might not be online for a few weeks this time. Don't let the project stop simply because I'm not around. -- Longhair 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Upgraded Australian Route Shields, Plus Additions.

I was bored yesterday and decided to get Inkscape out, and fully upgrade all Highway/Freeway articles with Quality SVG Reproductions of National Route, National Highway & State Highway Shields, as well as categorising the said shields. I will continue the work this week and set out to create a template for those new Alphanumeric routes that Victoria, Tasmania & South Australia currently use for use on each states highway articles.

If you intend on creating a road article that happens to need a route shield that I have not created, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page - Boochan 05:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange blocking

Is anyone else being warned about being blocked, on an on and off basis? I'm constantly receiving

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by [[User:|User:]] for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Your IP address is 202.164.206.x (x = removed for privacy reasons).

Strange. I can still edit however, as this post shows. The block message isn't naming the blocker, if any, making it hard to determine what's going on. -- Longhair 06:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On another computer, I often get a blocked message. I don't read it, all I have to do is press edit again, and I can edit the page. I had a problem on that computer when I first signed up, as the IP was blocked and I couldn't edit. I got it unblocked, but I am unsure whether it has been blocked since, and I assume it is due to the IP blocking. --liquidGhoul 06:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I rarely edit from another ip. I sometimes use another computer though. The site as a whole has been acting weird today. Redlinks are now blue (I hope others are seeing this and I'm not crazy yet). It may just be website blues related. -- Longhair 06:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The blocking procedure was recently updated (like, yesterday) by Tim Starling, maybe the error messages haven't been correspondingly updated yet? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • When blocking now, the blocking admin can check boxes Block anonymous users only and Prevent account creation - very nifty if it works and may solve a whole lot of problems. As per Pfctdayelise, it may account for the messages received by Longhair and LiquidGhoul - ie your IP was blocked but since you weren't anons, you weren't affected.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian Potter & Ian Potter Foundation

I was pretty amazed to find I was the first editor on Ian Potter and as yet there's no Ian Potter Foundation. If anyone feels like starting/fleshing out either of these that would be great. I'm not too hot on writing bio's but I put some good links at the bottom of the article. Ta. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Could interested Australians please vote on a page move at Talk:Wollemia.--Peta 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Australia IRC meeting

Wikimedia Australia Meeting 4 will be held today at 7pm (AEST) in the #wikimedia-au IRC channel. Please see the page on meta for details and the agenda. Angela. 18:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Large climate graphs appearing in Aust city articles.

Large climate diagrams have begun appearing at the Brisbane, Townsville and Cairns articles. In my opinion these are too large and are difficult to read. While I'm not opposed to climate graphs being included, I'm not sure that the quality of these particular climate graphs contributes positively to the articles. I would appreciate comments from others either here or on the respective talk pages. Should they be included? -- Adz|talk 04:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The graphs would be more useful if they were split apart and displayed individually, rather than all in one lump. When displayed as a thumbnail it's far too hard to read the text and understand the graphs. If they were displayed separately then each could have their own caption. --bainer (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There are now also two new charts at Hinchinbrook Island. I left a note on Auriong's talk page but it seems to have been ignored. I removed the graph on the Cairns page but it has reappeared. What's the best thing to do without getting into an edit war? to an edit war. -- Adz|talk 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, they're huge and ugly. Lankiveil 05:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
They've now also started appearing at Melbourne, Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria (Australia), Hobart, Sydney. Peta has removed the ones on the Queensland page and I think most of the rest should follow as they add little value in their present form. I'd like to encourage Auriong to reformat them along the lines suggested by Bainer (above), but Auriong has ignored my message on his/her talk page. Should we just take the rest of the graphs down? -- Adz|talk 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should remove them from state pages, some could stay on city pages, but they are too cluttered to read in the thumb.--Peta 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
While they're encyclopaedic, I agree that they're too cluttered. Perhaps changing the inline image to a text link would be in order? Lankiveil 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
They are terrible. Some climate graphs on city pages are a good idea, but not that many on a city page, as opposed to a Climate of *City* page, and not anywhere in that format. JPD (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Another history collaboration

After a flurry of history activity reorganising the History of Australia series, particularly the chronological sequence, we have another history article to collaborate on this fortnight, Military history of Australia during World War II. --Scott Davis Talk 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy Charlton

Hello everybody. Just a quick note that after almost 45 days of inactivity on the writing front due to attempting to clear all of WP's deletion backlogs which appeared to be neglected, I have decided to go on deletion strike and get back to writing articles. And this failed candidate for WP:ACOTF has now been created. Although I saw books which compare him to Phar Lap and Sir Donald Bradman, I didn't include this part - although as Rebecca thought it was a major hole in WP:AUS, perhaps someone would like to add a section on his effect on the Australian psyche. Also, with this and David Theile, Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming now only has two red links out of 134, and will hopefully be relaunched for FLC in the near future. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well done, Blnguyen. It was on my to do list so I am glad that you used your round tuit before I did. Capitalistroadster 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's actually only one red link now, we had a page on Leslie Boardman although the link was "Les Boardman" (I've fixed the link and there's now a redirect). The only article missing now is the Kiwi, Malcolm Champion. --bainer (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh I hadn't noticed that I stuffed up my own Boardman article. So that makes one. It shouldn't take that long as he only won medals as part of a relay, and so there is typically only a small amount of info on him available.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Working on a stub now from what little is available on the internet. --bainer (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Malcolml Champion now exists. So no more redlinks! Blnguyen | rant-line 05:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Gotta love that irony. You mean Malcolm Champion now exists :) You beat me to it to create the stub, but I've expanded it a little. --bainer (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

seeking an opinion on external links

Could people please offer opinions on external links added in these edits. The pictures are very pretty and possibly encyclopedic, but I think it skates a fine line it terms of being a commercial website. - What do you think? -- Adz|talk 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding links from one website to a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles with no other content-adding edits? Looks like linkspam to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They seem clearly commercial to me. The front page (at least from the link in the Broome article) contains items for sale. I would remove them all, along with any other commercial links already there. Kevin 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am removing and will leave a message on talk page of IP--A Y Arktos\talk 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem with Tasmanian Tiger image

I came across Image:Tasmanian tiger.gif (also uploaded as commons:Image:Tasmanian tiger.gif), a black and white photo of a Tasmanian Tiger. The copyright status given is that it is public domain, as it appears on a web page of the US National Institutes of Health. But I have the distinct feeling the NIH didn't take this picture.

If the picture were taken in Australia, it wouldn't be a problem, because they have been camera-shy since 1936. But there's the possibility that it was taken outside Australia (one of the other pictures in the commons is of one in a US zoo), in which case the copyright may not have expired.

Does anyone know whether or not this picture/film was taken in Australia or not? Andjam 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that is a stuffed Tasmanian Tiger, and it may still be in whatever museum it is in. --liquidGhoul 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In which case copyright may well have not expired? Andjam 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If it is from a museum, then there is a good chance it hasn't expired, but also, it means it is still probably at a museum somewhere, and someone could go a photograph it. If it isn't then I would have no idea. I have read an article about Tasmanian Tiger photos, and will read it again once I go back to the library (probably Monday). It may shed some light. --liquidGhoul 11:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article didn't mention this photo. --liquidGhoul 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Palm Islands

The following entries appear under "To expand" on the Australian Wikipedians complete to-do list: Brisk Island, Curacoa Island, Eclipse Island, Esk Island, Falcon Island, Orpheus Island, and Pelorus Island. All these islands - plus Palm Island and Havannah Island form part of the Palm Islands, most of which are uninhabited. Since these articles (with the exception of Palm Island, Queensland) are unlikely to be expanded beyond much is already there, should they all be merged into the one article: say, Palm Islands, Queensland? Thoughts? QazPlm 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why that would be necessary. THey're fine as is for now. Rebecca 03:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps create an 'infobox', or whatever the correct term is, to group them together at the base of each article? --Steve 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Like this? --Steve 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
v • d • e
Great Palm Island group, Queensland


I still think it is unnecessary to have individual articles on every speck of land off the Queensland coast. But I'll leave it alone for now. I'll go ahead and add Steve's template to the articles though. BTW, there is another Esk Island off the Queensland coast, in the Whitsunday Islands. QazPlm 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reorganising Qld Geo stubs - advice please

Could somebody who is familiar with reorgaising categories possibly take a look at Category:Queensland geography stubs and advise how it could be broken up. Some articles such at Carseldine, Queensland have bothe Qld Geo stub tage aas well as Brisbane stub tags. Should these could be replaced with "Brisbane suburb stubs". And if we create a "Brisbane suburb stub" tag, which categories should it sit under? Qld geography, or Category:Brisbane? Thanks -- Adz|talk 03:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting first. Any time I've ever seen the need for a new stub type and gone ahead and created it, this project decides to delete it. It might pay to work with them when proposing any new stubs. -- Longhair 04:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Longhair. I'll put a proposal up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. There is also a conversation about this topic going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brisbane if anybody is interested. -- Adz|talk 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Underpopulated Australia categories

Just a heads up on the new category created last night, Underpopulated Australia categories and it's intended usage. As you can see it currently contains quite a lot of useful categories on Australian topics which are currently in need of articles to be assigned to them. On the other hands it also contains a lot of musical album related categories containing very few articles. I plan to propose deletion of many of these album categories with only 1 or 2 entires in a week or so and would appreciate if anybody working in the music area could help to populate those in need. Once a category contains 5 articles or so, feel free to remove the underpopulated notice. -- Longhair 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What happens with categories that probably have fewer than 5 potential articles, for example Uzbekistani Australians or Australian skeleton athletes? Do they get deleted or merged or something? Andjam 07:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats a good question. Categories on band releases are easily verified, and if the band is a one or two hit wonder there's no good reason for its' own unique category. Ethnic categories are harder to verify and I'm overlooking them for now in the hope we can populate them with useful biographical articles in time, however if they remain mostly empty for a long time, as most of them have, I don't see any need for them to exist at all. I'm focusing on cleaning up the music side of things for now but as you've seen, there's a lot to sort through to see if their creation is justifed. I'm not suggesting the categories are pointless. I am saying there's little point categorising one article into a category of it's own. What do other's think? -- Longhair 07:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity cats

Looking at the categories there, what's the difference between subcategories of Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin and subcategories of Category:Immigrants to Australia? Should these categories be merged? --Scott Davis Talk 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The former is intended for people born in Australia, the latter for people not born in Australia. However I have no idea whether this distinction is used in practice when categorising the articles. --bainer (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The former covers the later and should be merged into it.--Peta 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm hijacking a conversation here - I'm happy for the page to be refactored to make a separate thread.
Are there guidelines on how to use these? Do people lose their "ethnic or national origin" after a certain number of years or generations? There is not a Category:Australian Australians for people of Australian origin (I don't mean indigenous/Aboriginal), who no longer identify with the countries that ancestors migrated from over a hundred years ago.
Picking a random member, Ziggy Switkowski is categorised as a Polish Australian, but was born in Germany. He is not categorised as either a German Australian or a Polish or German immigrant to Australia. Hans Heysen was born in Germany, but described as an Australian artist, and classified as a German Australian (which is half-true as he was born in the German Empire, but does not distingush him from people born in the modern country of Germany, and I'm not sure what actually made an "Australian" in the period).--Scott Davis Talk 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There in no rule for applying these cats, and in various places over the wiki they are entirely overused and stuck on 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation decendants (sort of like an ethnicity genealogy), who also don't appear to have identified with the ethnicity on any level. I think the simple choice is just not to use them unless the person was actaully born is Scotland and lived their life in Australia.--Peta 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm for Peta's idea. Second generation (and beyond) biographical articles don't require categorisation by ethnicity. Examples like Bilal Skaf and other articles on Australian criminals always seem to raise someone's ire and bring accusations of racism. Born here? Australian person... -- Longhair 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Small cats

Does anyone else have thoughts on categories like Australian skeleton athletes? There are only two who have competed at the Olympics, and the next Winter Olympics is 4 years away. Would they be merely listed as being Australians and skeleton athletes, like the categorisation method of the German wikipedia? Andjam 10:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How are they able to compete at the elite level if they are so anorexic? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Skeleton sport in Australia says ten have competed internationally. It doesn't say how they did or who they are, but that would be enough to justify a category, however it should be called "Australian skeleton competitors" as in Australian English, athletes compete in athletics (ie track and field), not any other sport. --Scott Davis Talk 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Except for cases like Faisal Faisal, unsuccessful attempts at qualifying for the Olympics are a bit borderline in notability, for a sport where the Olympics is the main highlight of international competition. Andjam 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Television schedules

I recently found 2006 Australian network television schedule. Expecting it may be nominated for deletion, I had a look in one of its categories Category:TV schedules to see if there were any others, and there are 85 United States ones going back to the 50s - and they have survived AfD. Does anyone want to work on these for Australian television - or perhaps merge the schedules with the ratings articles (eg. List of Australian television ratings for 2006) for more generic articles such as 2006 in Australian television ? -- Chuq 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It sounds like an interesting idea but would take a lot of work. Perhaps a future Australian collaboration of the fortnight. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian articles get a mention in The Australian

From this weekend (wikilinks added):

Australian entries seem well researched, well written and reasonably up to date.

Prime Minister John Howard's entry is a comprehensive account of his political career with nothing that stands out as inaccurate or biased.

The latest round of Howard's leadership stoush with Treasurer Peter Costello is included, which demonstrates that a local Wikipedian has been at work over the past fortnight.

It's almost disappointing to find no traces of possible interference from a Howard staffer - or detractor.

Singer Kylie Minogue warrants as much space as Howard and her entry has been updated recently to mention her interview about battling breast cancer, aired during the week.

The entry for Australian Rules football doesn't appear to have been updated since last season, with the exception of an entry on St Kilda legend Darrel Baldock.

Kerry Packer's entry is comprehensive, from his time in an iron lung at the age of eight right up until his death at Christmas and state memorial service last February, and looks to be quite accurate.

Searches for Australian towns such as Daylesford in Victoria and Gunnedah in NSW are surprisingly comprehensive and informative.

Pretty positive, but it seems like this guy just did an hour's browsing to add a local angle to this Times article, and I don't think you'd find anything too worrying (a la Seigenthaler, wrong dates or blatant falsehoods) unless you were an expert in a particular field, or spent a long time analysing a page's history. (especially if that page was John Howard) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Isnt there a talk page template to notify others an article has been mentioned in mainstream media? I looked about but couldn't locate anything of the type. -- Longhair 03:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Only {{Notable citation}} which is used if the article has been used as a source or mentioned in peer review journals etc. You might want to suggest the article to the signpost, they have a column on wikipeida in the media.--Peta 03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is already covered in the current signpost. Snottygobble 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That's where I got it from. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As Peta said, the talk page template is only for significant and specific uses of an article, although for recording general media mentions there is Wikipedia:Press coverage. --bainer (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On a vaguely related note, the (British version of the) article which mentioned the Australian wiki articles has itself generated a wiki entry on the author of said article - Ben MacIntyre. It includes a critique of the article which originaly appeared in the Times. I think it missed the mark and added a comment to that effect on the Ben MacIntyre talk page. I'm not sure that it even belong in a wiki article but I thought I'd point it out in case anybody was interested in the article in question. -- Adz|talk 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of references to Wikipedia in the media, I got a laugh out of this Onion article. Cnwb 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Innaloo

This article has been propsed for deletion. It's similar the case of the Altona Gate Shopping Centre. As this shopping centre is important for the people living in Innaloo. However I think this shopping centre is notable to others. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Geo coords

I've just recently got on the bandwagon of geographic coordinates and Google Maps and thus I'd like to share the love. Here's how: I have a "test" wiki set up at http://www.brunsbug.dreamhosters.com/testing/ . It has the m:Google Maps Extension installed with maps set to "default" at the inner northern suburbs of Melbourne. Go in to edit a page, above the edit box is a link that says "show map". Navigate to find your location (Melbourne coverage seems excellent now), click on the map to create a marker. Click on the marker to make its hover box come up, and one of the links in it will say "add point here". Click on it and the longitude & latitude of your point will appear in the edit box... wa-la.

Then on the corresponing Wikipedia article, under "External links", put {{Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale|long=[LONG]|lat=[LAT]}} (reverse them from their order in the edit box). All done! And plus you get a spiffy map (or I do, at least :)).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfctdayelise (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 July 2006

What's the difference between this and {{Mapit-AUS-suburbscale}}?--cj | talk 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just realised the latter had been renamed. I feel this template should be standard for all articles on Australian places. --cj | talk 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly a hell of a lot easier than deciphering the whole "coor" template thing. I'm using it for buildings and train stations, and the accuracy seems appropriate. In fact probably too accurate for an actual suburb. I don't know what you'd use for cities, but I hope someone else has already done them. So perhaps this should be renamed plain {{Geolinks-AUS}}? (or {{geolinks aus}}, I don't go much on haphazard capitalisation) pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, why does {{Infobox_Australian_Town}} have the lat&long as part of the template? I think it would be better to have them in the standard position in the top right hand corner with the article title. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Law citations

This blog post was interesting. It outlines some places where Wikipedia has actually been cited in law decisions, both US and Australian, although the australian ones are almost all from the Refugee Review Tribunal. Ansell 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

They shouldn't use wikipedia. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that wikis are not a reliable source, and I'd hope that law courts would have as stringent (or preferably more stringent) standards for reliability. (But I'm quoting wikipedia project space to support my argument - what kind of hypocrite does that make me?) Andjam 11:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't necessarily such a bad idea. A judge needs to be able to source definitions of various things, and for certain relatively recent developments (often social phenomena or technical issues), Wikipedia provides an up-to-date, uncontroversial and useful summary - it is these circumstances in which Wikipedia has been cited. Doing it in any context where the Wikipedia article referred to could be called into question would be immensely stupid, and that's why it hasn't happened. Rebecca 11:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The majority of such references cite maybe the lead sentence or a couple of sentences from the lede, and are usually from recent memes or phenonema, as Rebecca said. They're using the articles to draw out succint definitions of a concept that may otherwise be unfamiliar, and are not relying on any great level of detail. --bainer (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Grassland

Does anyone have any pictures of native grassland in NT, SA or WA?--Peta 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Trouble brewing at article

There are a fair few edits by anon IPs and new users who have been making dodgy claims in Sydney gang rapes. Anyone feel like getting involved in this squabble? Andjam 03:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this article, which is covered by others in the talk page, so I won't go over it here, but seeing that this forms part of Wikiproject Australia, I would like to compare the opening para of this article with another article:
  • The Sydney gang rapes were a series of brutal racially motivated gang rape attacks by a gang of fourteen Lebanese Australian Muslim rapists against young non-Muslim women in Sydney, Australia in 2000. These horrific hate crimes shocked the nation...
and
  • Peter Dupas (b. 6 July 1953) is an Australian serial killer, currently serving two life sentences for multiple murder and rape. His signature or stamp was to remove the breasts of his victims.
I see here two different approaches to two quite horrific crimes. One is worthy of an encyclopaedic entry, the other definitely is not. How do we feel about having that one as part of Wikiproject Australia? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You got me a little confused sorry. Which article of the two isn't worthy of an encyclopaedic entry? I agree the Sydney gang rape article has some POV issues, but it's been tagged accordingly and has undergone some improvement earlier today. -- Longhair 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've copied the opening para as it currently stands. Both crimes are horrific - but one reads like it belongs in an encyclopedia, and the other doesn't. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The article has undergone an edit since your paste above. Words like brutal and horrific have been cleaned up. It still has some way to go however to conform to WP:NPOV. I mostly authored the article on Dupas, and hardly touched the former. -- Longhair 08:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I was holding up the Dupas article as a benchmark for the other one. I am making the point that it is possible to retain an encyclopaedic tone despite the scale of the crime involved. To be honest, I am having trouble at the moment seeing how the other one can be salvaged as a quality article - beginning with its title and its intended direction. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind response to my post Pippu. With regards to salvaging the article - how about banning the newbies who've been mucking it up? Also, in some ways the crime of the gang rapes is more horrifying than the serial killer - the serial killer is just plain nuts, but the gang rapists are comparitively sane people who happen to think raping certain people is ok. Fourteen insane people wouldn't be capable of collaborating with each other. Andjam 09:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (Comment retracted by Andjam 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
Andjam - even if I think your analysis has merit, you know better than I that it can't drive the tone of the article. It seems to me that the reported facts of the case speak for themselves and need no further embellishment or colourful language. Looking at the Peter Dupas opener again, it is written in a completely detatched manner and yet comes across as being completely revealing about what a gruesome case it was. I'm not saying that is an easy thing to achieve, if it were, I'd be there now and not here, and yes, I can certainly be accused of taking the easy way out in that respect. On the other hand, I think you did the right thing coming here because it needs plenty of input. For starters, we need a new title - surely we have it in us to come up with a unique title that doesn't make it sound like this was the first time a gang rape had ever taken place in Sydney. Then I remain extremely uncomfortable about the racial descriptors - and that is definitely a discussion worth having in this forum because it could help inform so many other articles. I have great respect for anyone working on this - it's a tough gig! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the article could be a candidate for collaboration?--cj | talk 10:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I like this quote from WP:NPOV:
Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
Snottygobble 11:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've retracted the comment I made comparing how horrificn the two crimes were. Sorry about that, but I wasn't meaning to suggest NPOV be ignored for the article. Andjam 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've been through the article and removed most of the POV-based weasel words, done a little cleanup and made sure the references already cited actually support the material in the article. See the talk page. I think there is plenty of room for improvement here, besides the news sources there is a solid amount of academic work available, based on some quick searches. This could be much more than just another polemic on the subject. --bainer (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

On the title, perhaps Sydney gang rapes should become a disambiguation page, directing readers to both the current article, and also Ashfield gang rapes. -- Longhair 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This must happen as soon as possible. These two groups of pack rape attack hate crimes should be grouped together for sure. They fit together for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.102.224 (talk • contribs)

There have been a few very dubious See Also links added to the Lebanese Australian article. I've expressed my concerns on the talk page but 203.208.102.224 has chosen to ignore them. I can't make any more edits without braking 3RR, so I was wondering if some other people could keep an eye on it, or at least check out the talk page. Thanks. -- Adz|talk 13:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The history page shows a revert war being waged by 203.208.102.224, who has rewritten the article to be about "Lebanese Muslim hate crimes". The user is also having trouble with the citation formatting in a failed attempt to link a newspaper opinion piece as a source. Tale 14:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to what I think is the best NPOV version before POV vandalism, but 203.208.102.224 says on the talk page: "So, the debate will no doubt continue but I am never going to give up. Never". Tale 15:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tale revert like 25 edits that were by multiple users not just me, edits which even added new references from newspapers which took effort to find, and grammatical errors that were corrected. The article was not rewritten to be about "lebanese hate crimes" the intro was simply expanded to include the WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN and WHY, it did not previously include the WHY so i simply added that, the reason why these crimes occured can be understood when it is acknowledged that it was infact a hate crime. And Tale, regarding "The user is also having trouble with the citation formatting in a failed attempt to link a newspaper opinion piece as a source" if you are such a good wikipedian why didnt you simply fix the error in the code making up the reference system, i am new and i dont understand it, so either revert my efforts mercilessly like you did, or take 30 seconds to fix the reference code, which one would be more wikipedian of you? and by the way its not opinion piece sir, its a hard news story, know the difference. And no, I am not goiing to give up ever. Whats wrong with that? Thanks for the warm welcome to Wikipedia--203.208.102.224 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the reverted edits were by 203.208.102.224, apart from a few polite attempts to fix parts of the POV problems and typos, most of which 203.208.102.224 then reverted. There is an edit dated "07:01, 30 July 2006 203.208.102.224 (Talk) (Minor Edit see discussion)" which actually reverts to a disputed version that had been removed several times before by other Wikipedians for POV reasons. Subsequent edits were then based on that. All I did was revert to the version before that. Tale 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I dispute this totally. You have reverted beyond the addition of new sources from newspapers. This is ridiculous. You cannot and will not revert beyond my input to this article it is simply not possible. This is attempt to discriminate against my input. All I have done is change the intro and stated why in detail. Is it not interesting that Tale has not written a single comment on the talk page explaining why he has a POV issue? he just reverts? i have stated the reasons for my changes to the intro... that it must a WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE AND WHY and that WHY is the hate crime acknowledglement. That is all.--203.208.102.224 16:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check the article's talk page again. I have previously made several comments about POV on it. Tale 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus Tale reverted beyond my adding a quote in the (→SMS used as tool) section which was deleted by a user a day ago or so, but in fact did need to be put pack, and i also added a reference for this quote. There is absolutely no justification for Tale to be reverting beyond this as he clearly did.--203.208.102.224 16:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The disputed POV insertion of "hate crime" by 203.208.102.224 now extends to related articles, e.g. Bilal Skaf. His explanation for doing so can be found on the article's talk page. Tale 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And where is your explanation of your position on the insertion of hate crime Tale? I am a valid user just like you. I attempt to have a dialog with you on the talk pages and you ignore me, and instead, actually visit the talk page, edit it, but dont write anything except for signing my edits for me, thanks mate for signing a newbies edits ill be sure do it in future, to make an anonymous edit officially anonymous for you if its so important mate, but suffice to say I have on the Skaf brothers talk page and on the Rapes talk page stated my case for the inclusion of hate crime and you have never stated your reasons against it mate. So continue to act like a dobbing little girl and keep being a phantom lurking about signing my edits but never commenting on the talk page when we could have a useful dialog as fellow editors of the article. I wrote most of the article as it stands compare my rewriting (cur) (last) 03:11, 15 July 2006 203.208.88.138 (Talk) (cur) to when it was requested to be wikified (last) 07:16, 12 July 2006 Ansell (Talk | contribs) (article needs wikifying, tagging so) I rewrote the whole article and outlined the days and dates and clarified much of conjecture. So dont you hide in the shadows and denounce my input. I try and have dialog with you and you hide in the shadows and edit my edits and sign my IP to them when i forget, that means you were right there! cursor blinking...able to put down your reason Tale why you have a POV issue... you did nothing of the sort. This is shared IP address so youre not identifying anoyone. That guy who said he posted to my talk page is lying go and prove it yourself if youve got so much time to see what ive been doing and no time to write some input of your own regarding a real argument--203.208.102.224 16:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this dispute at the article and off the notice board.--cj | talk 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling: Organization or organisation

Should Category:Organizations based in Australia with royal patronage and List of Australian organizations with royal patronage be renamed with "organisations" instead of "organizations"? The UK page has an 's', the NZ page was renamed from 'z' to 's' on 30 May. The Canada page has a 'z'. I spell the word with an 's', but don't know which is most widely used in Australia. Both parent categories use 's'. --Scott Davis Talk 06:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

S. michael talk 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the list and requested for the category to be renamed. Harro5 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Naming convention for geographic places

Folks, you might have noticed that we have no convention for naming articles on geographic places in Australia, with the exception of towns. If we take rivers as an example, some Wikipedians use Example River, others Example River, State and others Example River (State); some routinely pre-disambiguate article titles, while others disambiguate only when necessary.

There is currently a discussion about this issue under way at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places#Lakes, rivers and mountains. If you have a stake in articles about Australian places, we would appreciate your input.

Snottygobble 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Lets not create a new thread here, okay? I'd like to keep the discussion all together over there. Snottygobble 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian Young Labor

Can someone else watch this? It's getting tedious. Slac speak up! 05:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania get-togethers in Australia?

Is anyone planning a local get-together to coincide with Wikimania[1]? It's on August 4-6, i.e. this coming weekend, starting Friday night.

It would be interesting to get together to talk about it; and also get involved in Wikimania online. (We can follow and get involved in Wikimania online on our own as well, but it will be more interesting with other actual humans to talk with and bounce ideas off).

One of my particular interests is this: There will be also sessions focused on non-Wikimedia projects, such as... related projects in the developing world.

I'm in Homebush, Sydney, and am willing to travel within the wider Sydney region. I'll also post something on Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney.

Times: I believe Boston has daylight saving, making it 14 hours behind... so the 9a.m. opening of the conference, their time, is 11 pm Friday 4 August, for us. Of course discussions are likely to go on before during and after the conference. --Singkong2005 talk 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)