Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Australian collaboration of the fortnight

As ScottDavis is unavailable, I took it upon myself to update the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight from 1967 in Australia to Harold Holt. I think I've done most of it, but I just need an admin to update Template:Collab-australian to point to Harold Holt, thanks!

1967 in Australia was ACOTF from 9 December 2007 to 30 December 2007:

  • 9 contributors made 165 edits
  • The article increased from 6,811 bytes to 26,694 bytes - nearly 4 times longer
  • See how it changed

--Canley (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Canley and Spebi for filling in :-), and thankyou everyone else who contributed to the articles. Happy New Year everyone. --Scott Davis Talk 10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009

Has there been any discussion of putting together a Wikimania bid for an Australian city? Looking at the nominations so far (Kathmandu, Bogota and Toronto), I'm not particularly impressed with any of them. I'm thinking that Brisbane would be a pretty good location, insofar as everything we need is there, it's slightly "exotic" (compared to Sydney or Melbourne), and I'm sure international attendees would appreciate the climate and the close proximity to the Gold Coast and Noosa.

I've put together a rough bid page at meta:Wikimania_2009/Bids/Brisbane, anyone who is interested is invited to hop on over and take a look. Lankiveil (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

You may wish to take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia (easily accessible via http://www.wikimedia.org.au ) before assembling a bid. We don't want to be seen as putting forward two different proposals. I encourage anyone interested to check that page and add their name to the list, and also join the wikimedia-au mailing list (linked from there). I believe the plan is something like:
  1. Get Wikimedia Australia up and running (2008)
  2. Organise and host an Australasian Mini-Wikimania style meetup (organise 2008/host 2009)
  3. Bid for and host a full Wikimania (bid in 2009/host in 2010)

But not 100% on that, I admit I haven't been paying attention as much as I should have recently :P -- Chuq (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a brief look at that to make sure nobody else was doing anything concrete. 2009 is probably a longshot, but once we get a chapter together, 2010 is a more realistic proposition I think. Lankiveil (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Update on Chuq comments we are all but ready need to finalise the constitution(IRC meeting 6 Jan), get approval from the Foundation and then its matter of submitting registration paperwork. This shouldnt preclude anyone helping with a bid as there is a big learning curve for everybody to go through in putting one together. As Brissy already under way lets just support that instead of dividing resources, IMHO a Brissy bid complicates travel issues for those of us on the west coast. Gnangarra 12:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What are specific details for the IRC meeting? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
All details are here - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia/Meeting_7 -- Chuq (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are going to be travel problems no matter where you are. Brisbane is going to provide less problems than Kathmandu or Toronto, I trust. MichelleG (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to the concerns expressed, I have de-formalised the Brisbane bid for now; I'll try and get it polished up (in addition to obtaining more concrete info on the cost of the proposed venue) before re-submitting it so that it looks like a serious bid. If nothing else, this can be a "practice bid", so that we can be best prepared for 2010. Lankiveil (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
The main thing that came out of other successful bids was volunteers on the ground. How many people are available and willing to help in each place? That's one reason I've never seen Perth as a serious contender despite our facilities and location - we're all great content editors and do a lot of work - all 7-9 of us, many of whom would not have the free time necessary to volunteer. I think Melbourne would be better simply as it has that critical mass to draw on, but I can be swayed. :) Orderinchaos 06:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The only Brisbane editors I know of are Lanki above, E, and myself. I'm underage, poor, etc. etc. so groundwork isn't my thing. Oh, and lazy ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As much as Brisbane or Perth would be cool places to host it, I think we need to stick with Melbourne or Sydney to ensure we have enough people on the ground. If the first "Wikimania Australia/Australasia" (or whatever it is called!) is successful enough to be worth repeating, there is no reason the location couldn't be rotated in future. -- Chuq (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
To update for those interested, I am currently teeing up a meeting with Trish Levey, the sales manager for international conferences at the BCEC to discuss the requirements. Also, Brisbane Marketing ([1]), an initiative of the metro council, also seems to be interested in assisting with the bid, which could potentially be a huge boon to the bid. Lankiveil (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

Commonwealth Gazette

Hi, would any Australians be willing to help me get the text of two particular Gazettes? I am looking for the ones referenced in http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Civil%20Air%20Ensign.htm, namely:

  • 6 June 1935 № 30
  • 4 March 1948 № 39 (get this one if you can't get two)

The topic is the Civil Air Ensign's specifications so I can create an exact image. I can't get Australia Gazettes from where I live. Thanks, ButterStick (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm not sure if you can access this page, but it has a bunch of CoA Gazettes scanned in, including No 39 - dated May 17, 1915. This may require a little extra legwork to sort things out. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking the page up! However, I think the numbering is repeated across years... the 1915 one might not be as useful :D :D. The Gazette website only goes back as far as 2002 (afaik). I tried my university libraries but they only have the 90s onward. I think this might be a task for someone who has access to some state or university library... ButterStick (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That would seem to make sense, although we'll have to be careful when citing it. I've sent an email to the National Library, so I'll hopefully have a reply in a week or so. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Danny Corcoran

The article Thomas Daniel Corcoran (Danny Corcoran) has been submitted recently. The article name as it stands is not well formed and a more appropriate name would be Danny Corcoran. However, as you can see that is the name of an article about a ranger in Newfoundland who died tragically. A disambiguation term is therefore needed but for the life of me I can't seem to think of an elegant term. Danny Corcoran (sports administrator) covers his role but is ugly and Danny Corcoran (athletics) covers only part of his notable background. There is of course the easy option of moving the existing article to Danny Corcoran (ranger) to free up the name for the new article. Any ideas? -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest sports administrator, noting that this seems moderately well established in other articles (for example here, here and here). While Corcoran himself was originally an athlete, I agree that "athletics" doesn't do justice to the football administration for which most people know him. I'd also support moving the other article to Danny Corcoran (ranger) and creating a disambiguation page. Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Danny Corcoran (sports administrator) seems appropriate. The cute mum/dad/siblings references in the article should be deleted. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'd go with Danny Corcoran (footballer) as essentially all his work is in that area...Moving the Canadian guy's article is also an option (and then possibly having a dab page). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Seeing the precendent for sports administrator, I think that is the best option. I also liked the idea of creating the {{hndis}} page as well. The footballer disambig is neater, but I can't find any evidence he was a footballer (unless I am missing something really obvious?). Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 03:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FA/GA report

Well at the end of 2007, WP:AUS has successfully met the target of 100GAs. As of January 1, there were 71 Australian FAs and 106 GAs......Thanks for all the success and hard work. Hopefully 100 FAs this year and 200, maybe even 250 GAs .....YellowAssessmentMonkey (bananabucket) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfc: Institute of Public Affairs

See Talk:Institute of Public Affairs. Slac speak up! 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume you mean Talk:Institute of Public Affairs. --Stormie (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Slac speak up! 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sid Barnes - FAC

Hi. The FAC of Sid Barnes, a real Aussie character, is somewhat stalled. I'd appreciate feedback whether you know lots about cricket or nothing at all; in fact, if you know little or nothing that's actually preferable. Please do contribute. The FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid Barnes Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The above was originally posted at WT:AUS. I have copied it here where hopefully it will reach a few more eyeballs. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 12:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention (places) - renewed discussion - towards a single convention

A discussion titled Naming convention (places) - renewed discussion - towards a single convention has commenced here and all editors are invited to provide their input.--VS talk 10:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

LGA Portals

Portals have just been created for all the LGAs in Sydney. To me this seems way too much, as most, if not all, LGAs don't have anywhere near enough material to support a portal. Any comments? JPD (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bankstown looks OK; the North Sydney one, not quite there yet. I reckon the creator can find enough content to get started, but I doubt that anyone will have the time or interest to maintain them. Perhaps we should ask him about his plans. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be better to start with Portal:Sydney (which currently redirects to Portal:Australia) and only create portals on parts of the city once it becomes clear that there are editors interested in using the portal and working on those topics - maintaining a portal is a lot of work and they're only worthwhile if there's a critical mass of interested people. The editor who created these portals seems to have a strong interest in articles on the Bankstown area, so Portal:City of Bankstown seems viable for at least as long as he remains active on Wikipedia - and possibly longer given its high quality. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I was planning on working on the whole lot and coming back for the occasional update every now and then, but I am not going to work on the other portals apart from the Bankstown one if there is a chance that they are going to be deleted. If they are going to be deleted I would at least like the Bankstown portal to remain as I will come back and update it maybe a few times a week to at least once a fortnight. It also makes me wonder what kind of a grump the person is that initiated this discussion. I also think that the portals should be there to help people find certain articles about there area that they never thought existed. I also think that the portals are there to help people navigate the system and are more helpful than templates. I wont do to much work to the portals until I know that they wont be deleted to soon. I wont be doing to much work until Monday as I have done so much work and burnt myself out on these portals, just look at my contribs for the forth. Also, I will be reverting the template later on. If I had to use the portal template as suggested I would have to add it to every article, if I add it to the template I only have to do it once. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Bankstown one appears to have some potential, but in most cases I'd stick to a Sydney portal. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these areas dont have enough information to support a portal but some do, lets say Sydney or Sutherland Shire would have a lot to add. If it was reduced to a few then that would make it easier to keep up with the updating process, maybe the others could be left on hold for a while but I will still work on them in the mean time. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk)

Wont be doing much work until Monday though, I will be away from my computer for long periods. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With the Bankstown portal, the most that I could do to that in future is change the pics, update the news, swap the bio's around and add new selected articles. Every time a new article comes along I could add it to the list of topics, there is still quite a fair bit to add about transport and there might be quite a few other articles that I have left out. I also think it would be best for the casual reader to find this portal before they find the actual bankstown articles, as this will help them navigate the system and find more article about the area. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that many people use portals to navigate around Wikipedia - they use the search functions (which generally don't return portals as a result) and internal links within articles. The portal I've had a lot to do with, Portal:Military of Australia is a featured portal, but its content is rarely edited, which suggests that few people look at it and, frankly, I don't think that it's been worth the effort. Portals can be a good way of highlighting articles on a common topic, but they need a lot of ongoing work to be more than the sum of the links and categories which are in the articles anyway. Wikiprojects are a much easier way to co-ordinate groups of editors and share common interests and can be used to measure interest in creating a portal. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the Western Australian portal is poorly maintained (I admit some fault in that) and the lack of complaints about its poor maintenance suggests to me it was fairly weak to begin with. I'd suggest these portals (the LGA ones) are a bit ridiculous. Orderinchaos 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ditto - I think they're a waste of time. The efforts would better spent improving the topics themselves, with the possibility of a WikiProject if necessary for collaboration. Rebecca (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will mark them all for deletion just to end this discussion but I would like to keep the City of Bankstown Portal and thats it. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

With the Australian Military portal, well I think its a case of people not knowing how to find it or not knowing about its existance. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have had all the portals deleted except for the Bankstown portal which I would like to keep and work on. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced these LGA portals are a good idea. Keeping Bankstown will only justify the re-creation of the others in time.
Portals aren't that useful...
  • They go stale quickly and are rarely updated beyond creation.
  • No method to measure how successful or unsuccessful they are. A simple visitor counter would do.
  • They rank poorly in search engines
  • Portal links in articlespace introduce cross-name space links, breaking Wikipedia mirror sites
I say we delete them all (the Sydney LGA portals are gone, only Bankstown remains), then look at how useful the remainder of the Australian state portals actually are? The news section at the Bankstown portal is a direct cut and paste job from the source also. That needs fixing if it is to stay. -- Longhair\talk 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like you have some kind of a grudge03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted almost 200 pages of the stuff. Call it a grudge. I call it a waste of yours and my time. How on earth were you (or anyone) going to maintain them all?-- Longhair\talk 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I informally proposed deletion of the WA portal a little while ago, and a number of people leapt into action, promising to keep it fresh. I don't know to what extent this has been followed through on, but it is clear that people are fond of their portals. I don't think your proposal will get a lot of support, Longhair. Hesperian 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to re-propose that... I know I'm not the only one in the WA project with limited time, and limited time tends to be directed towards productive outcomes in which its use can be maximised, the portal was always something of a luxury item in my view. Orderinchaos 10:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. The average Joe on the street doesn't even know what a portal is. They're hardly going to search for one. Search for Bankstown and see what the results are. -- Longhair\talk 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If the links are made noticeable on the main page and other related articles they will click onto it out of curiosity. This portal that I spent time on isn't hearting anyone by being there and help other people to find other related artcles. 03:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I am here just about every day, the news section I can fix or that part of the portal can be removed as there is no need for new in bankstown. I can work on the did you know, selected articles and bios03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I bet London to a brick that it won't be maintained for more than two months. Longhair, I suggest you sit tight until then; if it is stale then, I'm sure you'll find plenty of admins rouge enough to speedily delete it, if you aren't willing to yourself. Adam, if it does go stale and get deleted, you'll only have yourself to blame. Hesperian 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Even with the way that it is would still be usefull for navigation, even without being updated, but I will do my best to look after this. I bet they will be waiting like vultures to delete my work. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A key problem with a portal on a narrow topic like a LGA is that everything in the portal should already be linked from the main article on the area (eg, the perfect article on City of Bankstown would include links to everything which is notable in the area either in the article itself or in sub-articles (eg, History of Bankstown) as appropriate). I agree that Portal:City of Bankstown is worth keeping now it's been created, but it probably isn't going to repay the effort you've clearly put into it. As a sidenote, arguing that content should remain only because "it's useful" is generally considered to be an invalid justification by itself in deletion discussions. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the subject, I don' t believe that a key redirect page should be funelled to a portal [2]. I've reverted it twice and would now like to seek input from others to ascertain a consensus view either way. --Melburnian (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this essay appears to cover it. Orderinchaos 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This editor has a habit of adding unnecessary links to articles he created - which is why many of the articles on suburbs in the Bankstown area inlcude a 'See also' section with a link to Bankstown Bunker (which is a bunker in Bankstown which doesn't have anything to do with, say, the suburb of Birrong). --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Popular sports in Australia

Could fellow Aussie Wikipedians' please head over to Talk:National_sport#cricket.3F.3F.3F? There are a couple of editors who claim to know what sports are popular but from their contributions they appear to have never lived or even visited here. -- Chuq (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, AFL does have the numbers...but on the other hand, we barely get it up here (compared to NRL, etc.). I think that's Cricket's strong point (nationwide circulation) but I'm interested to see what others say. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook help needed

I just moved Eric John Underwood to main space need help with a catchy hook any suggestions would be appreciated. Gnangarra 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion i put Stephens one up. Gnangarra 12:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, anyone got any ideas for Condor Laucke? --Stormie (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If he had been Governor of SA rather than Lt Governor, I would maybe mention the fact that he had served in a state parliament, the federal parliament and in a vice-regal capacity? That was the only "hook" that stood out for me, and still applies I guess, as he would have represented the Queen at some time during his Lieutenant Governorship when filling in for the Governor. --Canley (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Planned Melbourne meetup 7-10th Feb

Hi to any Melburnites, if you are interested in attending a meetup during this period, please provide input on Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 9. thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I recommend that it occurs before the 9th due to the commencement sacred festivities from the 9th. Gnangarra 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Gawd what has become these people? - legends go from the deep dark past that anything that is not related to the sacred events simply cannot happen on the same day - SatuSuro 14:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
NAB cup? NAB cup?! Round 1 I could understand... :P --pfctdayelise (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New ACOTF: Brisbane

Hi. Harold Holt was Australian collaboration from 30 December 2007 to 13 January 2008.

  • 7 contributors made 12 edits
  • The article increased from 40989 bytes to 41,859 bytes
  • See how it changed

The new collaboration is Brisbane. Please help to improve the article in any way you can. Nomination comments included:

  1. It's quite close to GA standard, I think - it just needs more sourcing and a bit of copyediting. I think two weeks of focus would surely get it over the line. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. See Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#List of Australian capital cities as a Featured Topic for discussion on this topic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Probably the worst of the capital articles, but shouldn't take much work to get it to GA. Lankiveil (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

--Scott Davis Talk 14:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Now would be as good a time as any to really try to get this over the GA/FA line, and keep up the FT push. Let's do this! Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tourism in India

This article Tourism in India is full of Pov and needs to be cleaned up. This needs to be looked into becuase its very un-encyclopedic. It also sound as though it was copied directly from somewhere. . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Tidied link above). Hi Adam. Can I suggest a better place to raise this is at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. This noticeboard, with some minor exceptions, is generally reserved for Australia-related topics. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'll look into it when I get the chance. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

I've proposed a Sydney meetup for Monday 28th January (the long weekend). Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2008 for details. Angela. 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Column 8

They want to delete Column 8!!!!! - 220.237.96.135 (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Australia

The page on meta at m:Wikimedia Australia has been modified to draw attention to current plans to form Wikimedia Australia Inc. The plan is to incorporate in the State of Victoria. Rules are being developed and we hope to approve them at an IRC meeting on January 25. There are links from that meta page to two different proposed rules. There is also discussion on the Wikimediaau-l list. Please join in the debate on meta or on the list, so we have ideas and support from all Australian Wikipedians. --Bduke (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC meet to discuss the Rules is this coming Friday at 8.30 Melbourne/Sydney time. --Bduke (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian films

Just thought that the community would like to know that WikiProject Films has a established an Australian cinema task force. Interested editors are encouraged to join onboard! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australia articles by quality log

I am finding myself using this page more and more for various things and would like to see it updated more often. Does this need to be run by User:WP 1.0 bot or can we find a dedicated bot for this process ourselves. With WP 1.0 bot having many projects to update, I would rather find another resource than hit it up to update more often. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot (formerly User:Mathbot) has proven very reliable, but due to the sheer volume of work it is doing, it does takes a while for the bot to come back around to the Australia project. A clone of the bot dedicated to the Australia task is a good idea IMHO. Oleg Alexandrov, the bot's author may be able to set us up with such a clone. Just out of curiosity, what types of things are you using the log for? -- Longhair\talk 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A few things, monitoring article assessment (new GA and FA articles etc, mainly curiosity), checking for clearing inappropriate assessments (self awarded GAs and the like). Naming and renaming of articles, especially towns and geographic features where our requirements are confusing for new Wikipedians. Talk page vandalism or careless editing that removes tags altogether. Mostly however, as a guide to articles that may have recently improved and may be worth a read. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much the same reasons I find the log useful myself. It's also a great way to track Australian articles that have been speedy deleted without our knowledge (the Tim Tam article was one such deletion...). Rather than an exact clone of the bot trimmed down for Australian purposes, are there any other features we'd like to see a bot perform for the project that aren't currently being taken care of? The current bot doesn't support list assessments for example, whereas the project itself does. -- Longhair\talk 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Logging assestment of lists and categories would be one feature straight off the bat. Updating Articles for Attention would also be a useful feature (i.e. articles that have been marked as {{unreferenced}}, {{wikify}} etc.) is another. Updating project statistics such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australia articles by quality statistics and sub-projects is yet another. Additions to sub-projects (is this overkill?) Any others? Mattinbgn\talk 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One editor's overkill is another editor's much used feature didn't you know ;) How did you want sub-projects to be presented? They already have their own assessment log if you already weren't aware... A summary of articles tagged with the various cleanup notices is a good idea. I've dropped a note to Oleg Alexandrov to let him know of this discussion. -- Longhair\talk 06:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oleg is a busy man, however he has allowed me to run a clone of the bot for our purposes. Once that's up and running I don't see why we cannot customise it to our project needs over time. -- Longhair\talk 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. A very quick response! -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html - you can prompt the bot to parse any category (eg. Australia articles) at any time (it takes ages though). Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ACOTF template

At the risk of provoking suggestions of canvassing, I would like to draw attention to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight#ACOTF Template. To be fair, those wanting to move away from the status quo have a strong case, but I remain irked at the attempt to change long standing precedent without so much as a "by your leave". -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regional names disambiguation

Hi - just to let people know that following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia, Regional names should be disambiguated with brackets where needed rather than commas. I have been going through and starting to move some articles in NSW (where both dab styles were used for regions). Just so people aren't surprised. We have had the discussion before so I don't believe the topic needs to be revisited - but if I have got it wrong, please let me know. There will be quite a lot of redirects arising from some regions eg Central Coast of NSW. --Matilda talk 05:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How do categories fit into this? Can we speedy rename them? -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I almost thought the previous comma format for cities, towns and suburbs had been changed. It appears this convention is still in use and the bracket disambiguation is for geographical features and regions. Just mentioning it here in case anyone else misunderstands the statement above! -- Chuq (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane and Adelaide meetups being planned

Just to let everyone know, there are meetups being planned in Brisbane and Adelaide for the near future. Wikipedians old and new are invited to join in a few hours of geek-chat. You know you want to! ~ Riana ⁂ 13:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: Planning
Last: 23 Apr 2007
This box: view • talk • edit
Riverside Precinct Brisbane Meetup
Next: Planning
Last: Never happened
This box: view • talk • edit
I can understand why the last Brissy meet never happened, if the adelaide convention centre is the most convenient location to use. :-) Gnangarra 11:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha - should be OK now ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Grr. Don't tell Wikimania 09 about our funding shortage! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perth Meetup

 Perth Meetup
Next: TBA
Last: 13/02/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

now under discussion, please join the discussion. Gnangarra 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On a Perth related question, we're having a discussion at Talk:Perth, Western Australia on how to differentiate the city and suburb called Perth. Perth's kind of a weird case - I've made a quick image to demonstrate the definitional problem we have at Image:Perth boundaries.png. Orderinchaos 07:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray Williams article

Ray Williams, described by newspapers as a "corporate criminal", was released from jail last week for his involvement in the HIH insurance collapse. The newspaper articles unanimously despise him. However, there appears to be a concerted effort to make his Wiki article look positive, and turn the convicted criminal into a pretty nice and generous guy. I invite people to take a look at the article: Ray Williams (businessman). Thanks, Lester 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch...I'm thinking a lot of removal will need to be done here. I'll take out the massive quote in the "Judgement by Wood CJ - Williams has good character" section for a start - that can't be NPOV abiding. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, 'Dihydrogen Monoxide', you fixed it up. There have been a number of single purpose users adding glorious content to the Ray Williams article. It might be worth keeping a watch on for a while. Thanks, Lester 01:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's on my watchlist. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Champion page deletion

Hi, the page for emerging Australia author Tom Champion was deleted for reasons of notability.. by a Welsh woman User:Deb. I was wondering if it could be reviewed. Tom Champion is part of a literary family of D'Arcy Niland, Ruth Park, Kilmeny Niland, Deborah Niland and Rafe Champion, and I feel his upcoming first book release is relevant to Australian literature. The article was cited and sourced, and I just want to make sure everything's correct, I already wrote to Deb and she ignored me. So any help that could be provided would be greatly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jegeskave (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Given he has not yet published a book, I can't see anything from the deleted article that establishes notability.--Matilda talk 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have taken a look at the article and at this stage I would not be willing to restore the article. While his family are certainly notable, this notability does not necessarily cascade down to him. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hillary for another (and now topical discussion on this issue).
Also, having not yet released his first book, I would suggest that any article at this stage is likely to fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia's policy on future events. We should not assume that the author will become notable,; that is meet WP:BIO for creative professionals but instead wait until the facts bear this out. When the book is released and is either a critical or commercial success or achieves some level of notoriety, then the article can be recreated. If you wish, the article can be restored in your userspace so you continue to work on it while waiting for the book to be released. Let us know here and either I or another admin will do this for you. Don't be disheartened, there is plenty of work that could be done on the other members of the family for a start, if you were so inclined. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, I have to say, looking at the deleted article, I would have gone along with the CSD A7 nomination too. The article basically says he's a uni student, whose parents and grandparents are writers, and who has a not-yet-published first book that is supposed to be coming out later this year. Best just to mention in Kilmeny Niland and Rafe Champion that their son is a writer whose first book etc. etc. --Stormie (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the fact that we know it was a Welsh woman who did it! Perfidious sort, no doubt. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you write a version in your userspace and have an admin (or me, if you like) take a look at it before recreating the article? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Casey Vs Ron Casey Vs Normie Rowe

Who is Ron Casey? This has caused a lot of confusion in many Wikipedia articles.
There are 2 Australian TV/radio Ron Caseys:

I found quite a few articles that were linking to the wrong Ron (or should that be wrong Won)? Just to add the confusion, there's an American Ron Casey (editor). Would it be best for the Melbourne identity to get a name change, to allow for a disambiguation page? Lester 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page at Ron Casey would be best, with a rename for the Melbourne Ron Casey to something along the lines of Ron Casey (sports broadcaster). Incidentally, wasn't it was Rowe who hit Casey? -- Mattinbgn\talk —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Depends on how you define "hit". Rowe strode over to Casey and pushed him hard so that he fell back into his chair. Casey jumped up and swung a round-arm punch at Rowe. Exciting stuff to watch, but the only things bruised were egos. WWGB (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The really confusing bit about these "2 Ronnies" is that they are (or were) both Australian, both radio, TV and sports presenters, and I think they both may have worked for Channel 9's sports shows, one in Melbourne, the other in Sydney.Lester 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I just did a search of YouTube, and unfortunately the famous punch-up is not there.Lester 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd use Ron Casey (Melbourne broadcaster) (vs Ron Casey (Sydney broadcaster)) as their locations distinguish them the most, given their ovelapping career paths. --Melburnian (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bizarre thing is, the same confusion is paralleled with the World Of Sport TV program. There is:

and even a category Category:Nine's Wide World of Sport & disambiguation page World of Sport that the others don't link to. And we haven't even got to the many versions of Wide World of Sports. No wonder for the confusion.Lester 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to start on the disambiguation now using the name suggested by Melburnian. Give me a few minutes to do this please. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - see Ron Casey, now for the back links. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattinbgn. What about all those World of Sports? Is the one called "Nine's Wide World of Sport" (isn't it just called "Wide World of Sport"?) a different show to the "World of Sport (Sydney, Australia TV series)? Are these shows different or one and the same thing? Lester 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Nine's Wide World of Sport appears to be about the brand that Nine use to wrap their sports coverage. The 80s show called Wide World of Sports is included in the article but does not appear to have an article of its own. The Ron Casey (Sydney) show in the 70s was a different show to the 80s variety that was hosted by Mike Gibson and Ian Chappell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Carol Martin

Indigenous politician in WA, most of her article appears to be copyvio[3]. I haven't time to fix it, but could someone take a look? I haven't removed the copyvio as it will cease to be a problem once the mid-section is rewritten. (The intro I just wrote for it is slack too, more a product of sleep deprivation than anything else :P) Orderinchaos 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC Meeting for the Australian Chapter this evening!

It's a little late to let everyone know, but there's a very important meeting on IRC this evening, for the establishment of the Australian Chapter. Please be there a little early, so we can start on time. We will be going over the rules, and finalise any loose ends. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What a lousy day for my project to wind up after four years, necessitating a lengthy afternoon stay down the pub! I'll try to overcome IRCphobia and be there. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
We've started. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

16-year-old party kid

For discussions relating to the topic, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Courtesy blanking request and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Corey Delaney.

This "story" is on the front page of The Courier Mail's website: Party boy Corey Delaney denied entry on Wikipedia

Shame that they mangled your name, DHMO, otherwise I've a feeling you'd be getting offered gigs as a party promoter encyclopædia editor right now. If it makes you feel better, a co-worker of mine who doesn't edit here agrees 100% with your point of view.

Seriously though, is this worth contacting the press over to clarify exactly how our deletion process and BLP1E works? Lankiveil (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. If Wikimedia Australia was up and running this would be right up their alley. I come across as a boring spoilsport unlike the party-lovin' DHMO :-) As an aside, due to the press coverage I have courtesy blanked the AfD (despite my fame!) and my actions are the subject of a discussion at WP:AN/I. It's hard being famous. :-( -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I love how they suggest it was a conflict of interest without even checking where DHMO was based :P Orderinchaos 08:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What a totally bitchy article. Methinks the journalist who wrote it has been moonlighting as a Wikipedian; when thwarted here, he takes his whinge there. How else can you explain the long-winded whiny rant about all the obscure topics Wikipedia (rightly) thinks is more notable than Delaney? There's certainly nothing even remotely journalistic about it. Hesperian 08:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

ComCom knows about this, as does all Foundation people (via their subscription to a mailing list discussing the issue). I emailed News.com.au asking for them to correct one factual inaccuracy relating to the time the article existed, but other than that I think anything that needs to be said should come either informally from a contributor (who clearly states they aren't speaking on behalf of the Foundation) or someone from the Foundation speaking officially. Daniel (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, they could write out my full name, eh? Aside from that, I think we made the right decision in the AfD closure, etc. etc. Now let's party! Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish that I'd come up with something more memorable to say so I could have been quoted ;-) --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, you never get quoted if you want it. It's all about not being power/fame hungry. *evil laugh* Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I reckon they just failed to dig up anything interesting from his Myspace or Facebook page, next trawl is for Wikipedia. pfctdayelise (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For his sake (if nothing else) I really hope they don't have his MySpace/Facebook details... Dihydrogen Monoxide 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
(from their comments section): "Wikipedia may not write about every d***head but the Courier Mail certainly does. Can someone please write a decent article concerning news?". Cha-ching! MichelleG (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the person has been charged and there is a ban on publishing his name, should there be a conscientious effort to expunge his name on WP? There has been a similar issue in Canada involving Facebook. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sane. I've started off by renaming this section. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what the Courier Mail is going to do about that article. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but our laws are different: we can't talk about this person in connectioni with the proceedings before the court, but there is no problem with reporting what happened outside the court, especially if it has already been published in newspapers. To give an example: "John Doe's lawyer today introduced evidence to show that he was not at the scene of crime" would be problematic, but "John Doe attended That Street Party", based on already published sources, would not be, because it makes no reference to the court proceedings. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what the legal position is, but even if we are legally allowed to discuss this person that doesn't mean we should. There is an ethical dimension in dealing with articles and the like about living subjects. I would argue that, with minors, our obligations to be fair and do no harm are especially relevant. BLP recognises this and where possible we should act within the spirit of this policy, not only for legal reasons but because it is the decent thing to do. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted some information here about what we can publish about these sorts of cases in Australia. The info is all from Australian journalism textbooks listed at the bottom of the page. Sarah 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, the Curious Mail. Covering the big issues as usual. Slac speak up! 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am so a big issue. And agree with Matt, we should even if we don't have to by law. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This was one of the most popular stories today at www.news.com.au (it's currently #7 but was #1 at 9am). According to some of the home-grown definitions of WP:N which are floating about that makes you all potential candidates for articles ;-) --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems if anyone wants to write an article about me. I've been far more notable than this kid. I still come as the first of 240,000 results in a google search. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...it's been proposed we invite a Courier Mail journo to the Brisbane meetup. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
May I ask what the purpose of inviting the media to a Wikimedia meetup might be? Personally, I think it is a really bad idea which could majorly backfire on us and I would advise against it. I could understand if Jimmy or Florence (Anthere) or someone like that was going to be there but I really can't imagine the media having an interest in a meetup with a small group of editors unless there is something else going on that I'm not aware of...I mean, what's the story hook? What would be the angle for the media? Are you going to be discussing anything noteworthy or of interest to non-Wikipedians? Does anyone in the Queensland have any media or journalism training? Just wondering, because as Gnangarra said elsewhere, inviting a journalist to a WMA meeting could have major implications for WMA across the board. I certainly hope you don't have WMA business or anything else we wouldn't want published in national newspapers on the meeting's agenda. Sarah 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
My thought is more that this was seen as a way to get some personal mileage out of the recent publications, in which case you could be seen as official representatives of Wikipedia in Queensland, thats something you arent. Given that the Courier would only be interested if they could get a story to follow up the previous article. Additionally attendees would need to be careful that they didnt make public comments that could result in legal proceedings. Gnangarra 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the meetups I've been to have all been informal affairs where some stuff we might not want aired in the media can be discussed freely. The Melbourne one had some formal WMA business but once that was over it was all pretty laidback. Orderinchaos 13:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Gnang and OIC would recall that some media turned up at the Perth meetup the time before the time before last, presumably mainly as the Godking came along. If anything, it stifled open discussion. The Fourth Estate should be avoided, whenever possible. —Moondyne 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I recall us having to have a mini-meetup out of view after the real one at a second location. Orderinchaos 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be late to the party (sorry, pun not initended), but I think the article about the AfD is a good thing. It gives a glimpse as to how wikipedia works, and show s that we aren't myspace/facebook. Andjam (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we put some info on the suburb page where this happened? Sure, a separate article is not warranted, but notability would be better addressed if there was a brief mention on the suburb page? JRG (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're best waiting until the media droolfest has died down so we can evaluate what is worth writing in the cold light of day. Orderinchaos 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

abc.net.au

I'm not too sure about this myself, but does anyone think the website in and of itself deserves its own article (currently a redirect)? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends, is there any coverage of the website itself, as opposed to the ABC as a whole? My initial feeling is "no", but I could be swayed. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
I tend to agree that the website is not yet sufficiently notable in its own right. Even cnn.com redirects to CNN. WWGB (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The ABC website is aparantly the most popular Australian website, so there should be enough material for an article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be a decent section of an article on the ABC generally, as it's not in any way divorced from their broader operations. Orderinchaos 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Alexa has it at #36. WWGB (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with OIC, ABC News Online does provide a good service, by providing news without using Wire services like other big Australian news sites, so it should at least be included in the "Services" section of the main Australian Broadcasting Corporation article. On the other hand, does the site meet any of the WP:WEB criteria? Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
For a start it meets criteria 2 - awards. A quick look through the AIMIA site has frequent mentions of various ABC sites. [4] is the nominations for 2008. Last year they won the Best News, Media or Reference award for "50 Years of ABC TV News and Current Affairs" [5]. ABC Innovations' ABC Now (which is brilliant) is up for an award this year (not that nominations count, just thought I'd throw in a mention for ABC Now). It isn't just ABC News Online either; the whole abc.net.au family including triplej, rage, ABC Parenting...it's huge. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's notable. It's a popular website in its own right, and there should be a fair few decent sources on it, especially in light of the controversy over its rumored (but never eventuated) privatisation under the Howard government. Rebecca (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the proposed commercialisation of the ABC website. Scary.Lester 11:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Borderline notability is my specialty :) I'll get around to it one of these days; thanks for the comments guys. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Geographical coordinates

The changes to the Mapit-AUS-suburbscale and other related templates are currently being discussed at WT:EL under "Links to map services". It's a shame that the debate has become so factionalised. :/ Orderinchaos 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any point in even contributing to that debate. It's already dominated by "developers" with too much time on their hands. As usual there will be no chance for the ordinary Wikipedian to even have their opinion considered. JRG (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Strange part is neither of the two individuals involved are admins or developers. Orderinchaos 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What's happening with the Mapit-Aus-suburbscale changes? JRG (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It and the other templates like it are to be abolished and replaced with references to {{coord}}. Orderinchaos 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the discussion at the template talk page where consensus (apart from developers) leant towards keeping them and the links? JRG (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think consensus got thrown out the window and trampled on weeks ago. Orderinchaos 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Melb meetup #9: Sunday 10th Feb, 3pm

Wikimedia Melbourne Meetup

Next: In planning?
Previous: Sunday 20th April, 3pm
This box: view • talk • edit

At Computerbank. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 9. Please come or User:Witty lama will think we are bad hosts! :) --pfctdayelise (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Laming

Just a request for neutral admins and editors to watchlist this one. We have someone on varying IP addresses trying to add assertions in about a seemingly uninvolved party (who now happens to be the opposition leader in Queensland). I have reason to suspect the IP editor has an offline conflict of interest and may be using Wikipedia to further an agenda. If anyone needs the relevant text from the media article in question, let me know. Orderinchaos 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee Kernaghan

The article on the new Australian of the Year is presently terrible, consisting mostly of a long list of unimportant nominations for minor awards. The bio section seems to have been lifted in part from his official website. At present it has a cleanup sign and is in need of a thorough re-write. Harro5 07:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: This article is still tagged for cleanup. Harro5 06:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SS Gothenburg

An editor has proposed a deletion of a section of this article, but I can't find any formal notification under AfD that it has been done. So far the only discussion is on the talk page of the article. Are the correct proceedures being followed here? Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any formal process for deleting a section of an article. Editors should seek to achieve a consensus on what what is appropriate to be included in an article.--Grahame (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, AfD is only for deleting whole articles. The talk page of the article is indeed the place to resolve it. If you think the process on that page is not going anywhere or the consensus is too small to be balanced, feel free to ask here (as you can see above, I often do :P) for uninvolved editors to review the section under dispute. Should we fail, there's always dispute resolution, but that should really be kept for when things have fallen in a heap. Orderinchaos 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Of the very few australian editors whom i have had any sight of in categories - please prick your ears and perhaps you can explain -.

I have just watched another editor put extra category tags on assessment category pages - so australian history becomes part of the separate history project - in assessment I think it will stuff things up but I am not a template tweaker so I am not very sure there - and would appreciate a rational explanation there

I think the other editor is thinking of article pages - not category pages - I was under the impression that category pages - specially assessment pages are not double tagged due to the bots/templates and tweaking issues, and belonging to a single project - which is in itself related to be the larger project - as is always the case in well made project pages that have full disclosure of relationships with other projects - 'above' and 'below' - ie parent and subsidiary.

As so few editors have a handle on categories - it would be good for someone with experience with bots/tweaks/ and project setup to see this issue as a serious one - otherwise the australian project may well have somes issues to deal with. SatuSuro 11:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The question has been raised also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Sub-categorisation_of_WikiProject_article_pages as it affects other projects. Paul foord (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It must be emphasised that I took issue with seeing that a specific project - Australian History - assessment pages were being tagged with History project tags - I see no reason why a category assessment page needs to belong to any other project for any reason at all. Article pages that show identification with broader and subsidiary categories at the same time - I have serious problems with - on the basis that the subsidiary category should be a sub category of the larger - Hopefully independent and experienced category taggers/ bot tweakers might help us all on this obscure matter SatuSuro 12:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like a bit of clarification here. I think what is being discussed, I think, is that the assessment category talk pages were being given the History WikiProject banner? Like, maybe, Category:FA-Class Australian history articles? If that is the case, then what may have happened is this. The History Project had already considered several "continental" work groups, like European History, etc. It found an extant Australian history project, and thought that the History Project might be another logical "parent" project of that group, in addition to the Australia project. The History WikiProject is a comparatively new group, so it probably did happen just recently, but there is a valid concern that history articles of any area might benefit from having some assistance in the greater area of general "history" from editors familiar with the subject, particularly in terms of maybe style guidelines and any content related to areas of the world other than the obvious one. Like I said above, there are already several daughter projects relating to the broader area of "History", and I think they will probably all appear in both the geographical and history sections of the new Project Directory I'm working on. I personally think it may have been an unintentional error on the part of the tagger, but that there almost certainly wasn't any attempt to "take over" the content, just probably trying to determine what was already there. I hope that makes a little sense, anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the question, but I think I'm following what's being raised here. If I'm off the mark I'll try again at a more reasonable hour... (post sleep!). First of all, lets not confuse anyone by speaking of "assessments" when referring to categories. Categories tagged with WikiProject banners *are not assessed* in any way per the WP 1.0 assessment scale. Adding a WikiProject banner to a category talk page merely labels the category as a category, and that's all. Bots ignore category tags. The template itself does all the work related to categories. I'm unsure what's being referred to as "double tagged". Have you got an example?

Creating a hierarchy of categories as described above isn't that far different from what's already being done, for example articles relating to both the Melbourne and Geelong WikiProjects are being categorised as children of the Victoria WikiProject (example below). You could extend this pattern of thought even further if one wishes and have the Melbourne and Geelong WikiProjects as children of the Australian Places WikiProject and so on...

[–] WikiProject Victoria articles
[+] Victoria articles by importance
[+] Victoria articles by quality
[+] WikiProject Geelong articles
[+] WikiProject Melbourne articles

and a look at how the WikiProject History category structure currently stands...

[–] WikiProject History articles
[+] History articles by importance
[+] History articles needing attention
[+] History articles by quality
[+] WikiProject Australian history articles

I don't see a problem with Australian history articles being categorised as children of both the History project and the parent Australia project either. If more people interested in History (via the History WikiProject) have potential eyes on content related to Australian history, one would hope the outcome would be the eventual expansion of said Australian history articles. In other words, I don't think there's any harm being done, but there's possible benefits... -- Longhair\talk 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both for taking time out for the explanations - and also the pointing out of the possibly confusions in the original question. And it is from the two editors whom I respect their understanding in this area, seeing they have been in the thick of it for a while. Perhaps there is no harm in the process - It just seemed difficult to perceive as being beneficial at the time it was happening. Perhaps there is a need for the currently changing larger History project to actually spell out its relationships with subsidiary projects such as the australian one - to explain where such a 'mix' might benefit. Thanks again SatuSuro 15:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Generations sexual abuse

An editor, OzWoden, seems intent on removing reference to sexual abuse in the Bringing them Home report in the Stolen Generations article, claiming that it is "falsely sourced". His/her reverts are marked "minor" and consist of deleting the paragraph. [6] [7] [8] The user wants to discuss the matter on the articles talk page and I have left some comments on the user's talk page. The source given is the online at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/stolen/stolen08.html and seems perfectly sound. Comments? Is the deletion of this material in the best interests of the article? Wm (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The user does seem to have a point, in that its problematic to extrapolate that "all" children were abused given the relatively small sample size used in the report. With that said, the way that the user is responding on the talk pages and using the minor edit box when making what is obviously a controversial change is pretty unnecessary. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
I've not looked at the diffs in detail, but I must say that removing all mention of sexual abuse on that article is not the right thing to do, because, regardless of the sample size and accuracy of the current source being used, the plain truth is that it did happen. The not-so-black/white issue is exactly what happened, and that can be discussed, but blanket removal is a backwards step. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia 2020 Summit

I'm not quite sure what to put here (even which categories...), so any help appreciated. cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Eamon Sullivan

Can people put this on their watchlist. The 50m world record holder in swimming. A new user keeps on inserting a copyvio. I have quickly put in a short bio off the top of my head and will expand soon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Joey (marsupial)

I'm not sure if this has come up before. Someone has suggested that the above article be merged with Marsupial. It just seems to me that Joey would warrant its own separate article (afterall, Kitten has its own lengthy article). It's minor in the scheme of things, but if none of you were aware, I thought you might be interested in knowing. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 06:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the size of the article, I think a merge seems reasonable along with a redirect. Kitten is a much larger article which stands alone in its own right. WP:OTHERSTUFF comes to mind. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Media mention

7:30 Report tonight -

JOHN SILVESTER: For example, there is the name of particular protected witness. If I was to mention that name now, I suspect I would go to jail. I would probably end up being the toy-boy to a very angry drug dealer, which would be unpleasant for both of us. However, that name that I can't mention, if you Google it, there are seven and a half thousand references to it. He has his own Wikipedia site.

Interesting... Orderinchaos 13:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there haven't been (m)any injunctions against wikipedia so far. Let's hope that the Victorian government doesn't swap notes with Pakistan! (Pulling the plug on teh u-tubes? OMGWTFBBQ!) Andjam (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Why bother with that when Senator Conroy's internet filter can just block the whole of Wikipedia for the children's our own protection? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_4#Corey_Worthington is now open. Orderinchaos 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That debate seems to have been closed with the deletion overturned, which has led to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington (2nd nomination). I thought that we'd seen the last of this when the first AfD was speedy closed and the article salted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What a pathetic mess. I'm currently (weakly) of the opinion that it should be kept (disagreeing with most people here, I know), but honestly I'd prefer it if we could just let this die for a few months and revisit. Seems much more sane than going from AfD to DRV to MfD to ANI to DRV to AfD...there's bound to be RfAR and other such joys eventually. Yuck. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a very messy situation. I am of the strong opinion that the deletion should never have been overturned in the first place, and I'm more worried about the way policy has been trampled over than I am over the fact the little brat will likely get his very own Wikipedia page. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 11:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
I admit there was a lot of policy-trampling; that said I do think that (to some extent at least) some of the re-creation was valid. There's certainly more information now than before and I don't think we should be basing our current actions on what happened in the initial AfD. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I share Lankiveil's views on this one. Orderinchaos 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We're back in the news over this: [9]. According to some of the arguments which are being put forward in the AfD, Mattinbgn has now received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg, his name has been mentioned twice in the media in articles on other topics) and is a suitable canditate for an article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just been re-deleted. Hopefully that's the end of this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully (yes, I said keep, but meh). Now to write an article for Mattinbgn? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never been so tempted to make a WP:POINT violation ;-). Lankiveil (complaints) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
It'd only be a WP:POINT if we took Matt through AfD, DRV, MfD, AfD, DRV, ABC, XYZ, 123, and so on. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that an invite? If I get in trouble, can I say "DHMO made me do it!"? The question also remains, does Mattinbgn look good in a pair of cheap $2 sunnies from Crazy Clark's? Lankiveil (complaints) 11:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If you do something I tell you, you automatically take full responsibility for any consequence. As for the glasses...I've been offered >$50 to wear something similar (+singlet and boardies) to my school formal, so they must be cool. Right? Obligatory serious comment: Please don't create an article for Mattinbgn. Please. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No I look very ordinary, glasses or not! -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you post a link on MySpace to this discussion? If not, I'm afraid that it's no article for you Mister Mattinbgn! Lankiveil (complaints) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
Needs more 'tude. Orderinchaos 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
...and now User:JoshuaZ is talking about taking it to DRV, again. Splendid! How many times do we have to delete this damn thing? Lankiveil (complaints) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
Yeah, and Maxim is threatening to block admins. Good times. What's the likelihood of my RfAr prediction coming true? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's insane. All this over a pesky kid who doesn't know how to behave during a non-ratings period and a writers' strike. Orderinchaos 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see much BLP harm from creating an article, and I can't see much harm to wikipedia from not having an article. Those who want to squabble about it through AfD and DRV etc - let 'em do so. Andjam (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The harm is that we're taking transient interest by newspapers and turning it into a permanent record of a 16yr old's 15-minutes of infamy. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 13#Corey Worthington is now open. Don't you love process for process sake? -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And on that note, User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Mattinbgn article is also up. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's brilliant. The sad thing is that those two newspaper hits might mean that a trimmed down version of the article could survive an AfD - some people would vote in favour of keeping it... --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the photo link to it. Overseas coverage! :) Orderinchaos 08:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In response to Nick, I suggest you do so. Admins are never de-sysopped for creating hoaxes ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't laugh... until I got to the stub tag. Nice work! Lankiveil (complaints) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
Very good! I love the categories. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bureaucrat by trade, and even I think that this process is ridiculous. The worst thing about it is that it's long-established editors who are now pushing for this article on procedural grounds rather than newbies who don't know any better. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For your information, there is a lot of support for keeping this article, and everyone here that does not support keeping should know better. To close an AfD after two days is just bad process and everyone who supported that should be ashamed of themselves. JRG (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, boo hoo. Take your sour grapes and tell someone who cares. WWGB (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I feel so ashamed that I'd now support recreation of this article provided that somebody writes an article on me. I was mentioned in the national media for months and the international media for at least five years. Or my grandfather, who is so notable that he has been mentioned in school texts for at least 20 years that I know of. Actually scrap the grandfather. He's notable because people know his name but don't know who he is. If he had his own Wikipedia article he'd no longer be notable and his article would be deleted. But then he'd be notable again. Oh, the paradox. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think these reactions demonstrate how bad Wikipedia can be. JRG (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran for office once, had a page 2 feature (with a rather unflattering photo of me) about my transport platform during that campaign, have appeared on TV with John Howard, been interviewed on the ABC and have been described by name by my state's alternative weekend newspaper as "a vociferous critic of daylight saving". My blog also got quoted extensively by two Queensland local newspapers who used some of my election analysis with permission. Strangely, I don't actually meet notability guidelines, but this suggests to me the notability guidelines are in fact sensible, as I am not notable and it shows they can't be gamed to get me an article. Oh, and one of my friends once addressed crowds of 5,000 in Forrest Place and was also interviewed on the ABC, got feature articles in every community newspaper in the Perth metropolitan area and was pilloried by religious leaders by name, while another friend got a senior job in a Canadian federal government department and has been reported on in his local area for joining and being active in a left wing party while his dad is one of the richest industrialists in his province. Orderinchaos 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think world-wide coverage of the incident is in a slightly different league though to your examples :-) and that was the case with the subject of the deleted article. To me this case was more akin to the Runaway bride case though there was even more frenzy in that case. --Matilda talk 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you created an article with all those links I'd give it a 60% chance of surviving an AfD. The level of referencing many editors require is very, very low. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have removed links to this article from a few others, such as Text messaging and A Current Affair. In some cases I have removed references to him completely. -- Chuq (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As expected there was a backlash, only on one article so far - Leila McKinnon. Could people keep an eye on this one? -- Chuq (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

While I don't particularly care for the 16 year old in question, this issue raises the point that popular television like A Current Affair does seem to invoke people to look for more info on Wikipedia. This gives me a dilemma: I'll be appearing on ACA shortly, yet I haven't created a page for myself (other than my "User:" page). Google gives over 10,000 hits for my name, and I've been interviewed and featured in many newspapers and magazines. Should I be creating a page for myself to pre-empt such searches, or is my "User:" page sufficient? Ian Fieggen (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you Ian, but Google runs out of unique articles about you after about 418 hits, not 10 000. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Autobiography provides some guidance on this issue. In general, it is a bad idea to write an article about yourself. Although it is not expressly forbidden, it is strongly discouraged. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Create as many articles as you have alternate last names and see what happens! --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick, it's best not to suggest WP:POINT violations to those not as well versed in policy as...erm...us. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
FTR, someone undid the close, the DRV is open again. Orderinchaos 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

( Just in passing: I saw a promo. last night for a TV programme, in which some voice-over bimbo was yelling, "Tell us who's your favourite celebrity!", as a block of photos were shown of various familiar faces and among them was....the kid. Retarius | Talk 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC) )

Do we get prizes for guessing what programme it was? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikitruth have for some odd reason added the 'uncensored' article to their collections. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Closed as deletion endorsed ... but for how long? WWGB (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely until someone decides to take it to DRV again, but if that were to happen now, I'm sure the consensus would be fairly clear. I can see how relisting this at DRV in three months time or so would be a reasonable thing to do, although until then, it'll stay deleted. Spebi 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ACOTF (at last!)

Hi everyone. Sorry for the delay, real life got in the way for a bit. But I've finally turned over the Australian Collaboration of the fortnight.

Cricket Australia was the ACOTF from 27 January 2008 to 22 February 2008 (well over a fortnight)

  • About 9 contributors made about 38 edits
  • The article increased from 4,096 bytes to 13,253 bytes - over three times longer
  • See how it changed

The new collaboration is Ash Wednesday fires. I'm sorry I didn't turn it over early enough for it to have actually been the ACOTF on the 25th anniversary. Like many others, that day is still in my memory.

I've changed the ACOTF on a Friday night, so have updated the date to be next Sunday, but dropped the time back to midday so it can be turned during Sunday afternoons instead of having to wait until evening.

--Scott Davis Talk 09:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth changing the ACOTF to the ACOTM (of the month)? That way more effort can be put into the collaboration and more work can be done on each article. JRG (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The effort tends to have dropped off by the end of a fortnight. What it needs is either for me to be less busy at changeover time, or for there to be a pool of people who are prepared to roll it over every fortnight. The last content edit of Cricket Australia was on 6 February, only ten days after the start of its time. Ash Wednesday fires had 55 edits (so far), all in the first four days it was the collaboration. The problem was that real life got in the way and the next article took too long to replace it. --Scott Davis Talk 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Locality

Hello, I'm trying to fix up the links to the Disambiguation page for locality. Is locality used in a specific meaning when talking about areas of Australia? Its linked on many articles about neighborhoods. In Sweden its Tätort which they translate as locality...so I was wondering if there was a place I could link it to, or if I can go ahead and de-wikilink the word? THANK YOU! Legotech (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can probably delink the word on Australian articles. It doesn't really have a meaning relevant to any articles listed there. That is subjective, though... dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no formal meaning attached to the word in Australian English. -- 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)
"Locality" has a specific meaning in local government in Australia, being a division of an urban area somewhat under a "suburb", usually used to denote historical locations or abolished suburbs. We don't have an article for this concept yet though, so delinking is probably the way to go for now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

Thank you all so much, I appreciate the help (And education!) Legotech (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a confusing one. The use of locality and the use of suburb in Australia in some cases mean the same and in some cases (as Lankiveil notes) are a two-level hierarchy. In WA, a locality and a suburb are the same thing, although localities can exist outside of metropolitan areas whereas suburbs can only exist within metropolitan areas and towns. Orderinchaos 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think in South Australia the term "locality" is a bit like "hamlet" in England. It's a named place, but too small or insignificant to be considered a town or village. --Scott Davis Talk 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Googling turns up some Australian court decisions on the matter. For example Fraser v. Mt Barker in 2003 where the judge stated I determine that the locality definition in this matter, on the traditional approach followed by this Court and the Supreme Court, is far wider than defined by Mr Meline, perhaps for 80 to 100 metres or more to the west, north, east, south-east and south-west. - not quite sure how that hels the definition - he seems to have been arguing on the facts in this instance. Similarly I am none the wiser after reading another SA judgment that alos deals with locality definition [10] .
  • In Tasmania locality boundaries are apparently defined [11] and seem to be of equivalent status to suburbs : The prime objective has been to formally define the extent of established suburbs and localities in a way which reflects the current understanding and wishes of residents, whilst at the same time being geographically consistent with the aspect and access of those properties. Localities were initially compiled using a number of reference sources of address information in order to achieve the above objective. In urban areas boundaries will generally follow the back fence of property boundaries so properties sharing the same street address will be in the same locality. In rural areas a similar approach has been made with regard to parcel access points. Where possible the whole of a property is included in a locality. Details of the process leading to formal definition are available from the custodian. Locality Boundaries generally align to The LIST Boundary Segments and share the same Data Quality attributes, however in some instances other features will form the basis for a boundary such as a road centrelines, watercourses and watersheds.
  • In Queensland, a Telstra presentation by the Telstra Address custodian talks about locality as part of address as follows : Authoritative sources //•Department of Natural Resources and Mines supplies Parcel and Bounded Locality data //•Parcel information is supplied to Telstra via e-mail on a daily basis //•Bounded Locality information is supplied to Telstra once gazettal has taken place //•Telstra only uses Bounded Locality Names as they have distinct gazetted boundaries. This increases the accuracy when needing to refer to specific geographic areas. //•Telstra does not utilise Unbounded Locality/City/Town/Township/Place Names as these do not have gazetted boundaries, which can lead to ambiguities //•Local Government Authorities supply Street Name and Property Number data ...
  • In NSW that paragon of a town planning area, Wollongong, has referenced locality definitions at [12] saying The Geographical Names Board of NSW has, with Council, been endeavouring for some time to rationalise suburb and locality boundaries within the Wollongong LGA. It is considered to be of significant benefit to the Council, community and commerce for such boundaries to be clearly defined and appropriately sign-posted. In response for a request for a ruling the WCC stated Where there are no formally defined suburb/locality boundaries, the locality shown on Deposited Plans (DP’s) and Certificates of Title (CT’s) are indicative only. There are many instances where the locality shown on a DP of CT will differ from accepted address.
  • More significant seems to be a piece by the property officer in North Sydney council on the matter of Kurraba Point at [13]. Australia Post cannot use localities in place of suburbs. Classifying an area as a locality also poses administrative difficulties for Council as Authority does not have the ability to recognise localities. //Given the above, it would seem that reclassifying Kurraba Point as a locality will not achieve the outcome desired by the Precinct when they made the original request that Council reclassify Kurraba Point as a locality. //An alternative would be to reclassify Kurraba Point as a suburb. If this is done, residents of the approximately 900 households within the Kurraba Point area will have to change their address from Neutral Bay to Kurraba Point.
  • At the Federal government level locality is an equivalent level of suburb and town for some purposes eg [14] but I don't think that helps the definition.
  • I don't think the article on Location (geography) gives an adequate Australian sense. The section Town#Australia gives the hierarchy of LGA status types which in no case seem to include localities - ie some states have towns but others don't and none includes localities (or for that matter suburbs) within their defined hierarchy. The ABS definition of a Census Collection District doesn't help much as it is insufficiently categorical.
  • Perhaps we can expand the Australian section of the Town article to explain how a locality is different to a town in at least some states.--Matilda talk 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think their main purpose is postal adresses. "An adress locality is a division of the landscape that has defined limits-a suburb in urban areas or a locality in rural areas. It is the legal name that is used as the last line of address with the postcode." [15] According to [16] localities have been formally defined and gazetted in the last ten years across the country. Maps here show all the localities in Victoria --Astrokey44 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Have now started Suburbs and localities (Australia), hope this helps --Astrokey44 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done, a great stub with plenty of information. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Queensland LG amalgamations

The Queensland LG amalgamations will take place following the elections on 15 March 2008. Is there any ideas on what the process may be to convert all the LG articles to former LGAs and the change the towns LGA description to the new LGA where appropriate. Also is an article on the current Queensland LGA election and amalgamation process a good idea? -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm!! A minimalist option might be to:
i. rapidly work through the list on Category:Local Government Areas of Queensland, removing old local government's categorisation and placing a simple italised note at the top of all the existing Queensland local government articles .. something to the effect

"As at 15 March 2008, this local government ceased to exist. See Local Government Areas of Queensland"

ii. upgrade existing Local Government Areas of Queensland article with a new local government area map, a concise 'history' of the 2007-2008 local government amalgamations detailing and linking (as it does already) which local government areas were 'amalgamated' where
iii. possibly place an equivalent of a 'merge' template, or 'stub' template on the old local government pages advising "this article remains on Wikipedia as a matter of historical interest only, please help Wikipedia by merging it with ...."
iv. then let the organic, progressive (?) Wikipedia editing processes create/fill/grow all the existing ('new') local government's .. with editors dealing with and making decisions about the old ('historical') local government articles as they go along.
v. perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Queensland could be tasked with monitoring 'merge stubs' (see suggested above), and also invited to collaborate in searching through uses of the old local government names, removing/deleting or amending references where appropriate
I suggest the above in my own personal endeavour to think of a 'minimalist' approach .. the main point being to be as immediately comprehensive and minimal as possible. I'm sure others might be able to think of even quicker, more effecient options?!!
In thinking about the above, I must note, as an aside, some lingering sense of George Orwell's 1984, with this proposed/effective re-writing history to reflect the present .. but, I guess, no coercive intent here?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the LGAs are merging, the articles should not. The new LGAs are new creations, factual information such as population, area, date of establishment, council seat, surrounding LGAs, maps etc will all be different for the new LGAs. The old LGA articles should be maintained alongside the newly created articles as a historical record. For Victoria (and also elsewhere), Orderinchaos single-handedly created many former-LGA articles from scratch as the mergers were back in the pre-Wikipedia 90's. For Queensland, we have the former LGA articles "ready made" (just change tenses and categories). Here's an example of a former LGA article in Victoria: City of Williamstown.--Melburnian (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the old LGA articles should be maintained but the articles should be moved to a new category, Former Local Government Areas of Queensland (as we've done with Victoria and Western Australia), and the towns/suburbs should be repositioned into the new LGAs. Orderinchaos 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments about the required changes above and my question, while inelegantly phrased, was more about the process of making these changes. Is this a job that a bot can do or is AWB a better tool? What about the 1,000 or so Queensland locality articles that require updating? Ideas and suggestions will be gratefully received as the task looks a little daunting. There is also the task of updating the Local Government Areas of Queensland and Local Government Reform Commission articles and the {{Local Government Areas of Queensland}} template. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattinbgn brings up an excellent point, there is no way really to sort out localities and suburbs in LGAs that are not going to be merged, from those that are. Unless you somehow leverage "What Links Here" for articles on the old LGA, but that could be a bit hit and miss. Perhaps a bot could be set up to identify likely targets for a change, and then we could go through them all and adjust any that need adjusting by hand? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
A while ago, I was involved in something similar. Last year in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, some of the districts (roughly equivalent to LGAs in some respects) were amalgamted - see article. Articles on now defunct-districts were kept (eg. Anhalt-Zerbst) and articles about districts that had retained their name but undergone some changes were duly noted (eg. Wittenberg (district)). The infobox used for these articles was modified to allow for a "disestablishment date" field: this made it clearly visible in the article that the district was no more, and it shifted the article from Category:Districts of Saxony-Anhalt to Category:Former districts of Saxony-Anhalt. Locations within these districts were then modified - this step is not complete, but then not all locations in Germany have proper articles yet (a work in progress). Hope that helps. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Staying minimalist .. it may not be entirely necessary to immediately relocate Queensland localities into their new local government areas? It may be
a) editors of new local government articles will themselves make the necessary changes (relocating localities into their new local government areas) as those articles grow
b) a project group (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Queensland) might be requested/tasked with watching and encouraging editors of the new local government articles to make the necessary changes for 'localities' falling eithin the new local government areas
Otherwise - one further matter. If articles on 'former' local goverments are to be kept, on principle, .. then what about the 'former former local governments', and, possibly the 'former former former local goverments' .. is each to be kept, and how far back does Wikipedia go?!! ..
By way of example of the above, for Cairns, Wikipedia will have articles for Cairns Regional Council, former Cairns City Council, and former former City of Cairns Council to negotiate through .. and the equally significant former former Mulgrave Shire Council previously amalgamated into Cairns City Council doesn't rate an article .. Perhaps, in some cases, it may suffice for new local government articles to include a 'history' identifying it's previous incarnations back to their beginnings (only 150 years or so in most of Queensland)?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
All former local governments are simply "former" - but note that not all (in fact only a few) will merit articles. Broadly speaking, the councils in existence as of now all merit one. But older entities might not. A good example from WA - the City of Stirling - we do not have articles for the Perth Road Board/District or the Shire of Perth which were earlier entities in the same area. They're simply covered in the Stirling one. If a mass amalgamation was to abolish or split up Stirling, that would still be the situation. As for relocating localities into new LGAs - I think it would be confusing if we didn't adopt an all or nothing approach - eg one entity might be in Pine Rivers the other in Moreton and one might incorrectly assume one still exists and there is a boundary between them. Should be noted WP:QLD is basically me and a couple of others at the moment, and I'm not even a local, and am also a full time student ... so a bot-driven or AWB-driven approach may actually be more rather than less efficient on project resources.
Also - need to check acts - but should they be Council or City of/Shire of... in Queensland? The Council is the governing entity while the Shire/City is the area it governs. I understand with the new ones, they actually are "Regional Councils" as districts, but yeah - this argument comes up all the time. I know for example that Torres is legally constituted as the "Shire of Torres" as I have the gazettal here. Orderinchaos 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wikimedia Australia Incorporated"

Some fantastic news, guys. We've made a huge step in the process of setting up an Australian chapter. The Board of Trustees has approved our application. The Resolution is here, but the guts of it is "The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia Australia Incorporated as a Wikimedia Chapter." Congratulations all, this is really fantastic news and thank you to everyone who worked on and supported WMA. We still have a way to go but this is a truly awesome milestone. Cheers, Sarah 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

mail:wikimediaau-l, for those who aren't already subscribed, is where most discussion takes place, and anyone interested is welcome to subscribe. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and for anyone who hasn't jumped on the wagon yet, now would be an excellent time to get on board. And anyone who isn't subscribed to the WMA mailing list yet is most welcome (including non-Aussie supporters :)). Sarah 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Been there, done that. I'd like to congratulate the entire team that made this happen, you guys deserve many barnstars! I'm a sysop here on the English Wikipedia if you ever need anything done. -James — E talk 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Melbourne Meetup

Next: In planning?
Previous: Sunday 20th April, 3pm
This box: view • talk • edit

Please check out when you might be able to attend the incorporation meeting at m:Wikimedia Australia/Incorporation. At this stage April 13 or 20 both seem equally likely. cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia - Pyne quote

I doubt Timeshift and I are going to come to any agreement on this so I am raising it here before it gets all out of hand like the John Howard article. My view is expressed on the linked talk page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattinbgn is showing no spirit of consensus, he is insisting on his way and his way alone, by thinking it is ok for wikipedia to contain some points of view but not other points of view within the Liberal Party. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he's showing the spirit of consensus by bringing it up here for wider discussion. Please be civil and refrain from unjustifiable accusations. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think where it is, it is problematic, but there's no problem with it being somewhere (probably later) in the article. The section deals with broad philosophy so it doesn't really belong there. (A useful quote, and probably a more worthy one, would be that of Alex Hawke saying there is no room in the party for those of a more liberal mindset - especially given he's now got himself a safe seat - or relating to Greg Barns's detailed critique of the party and its current position in his book "What's Wrong with the Liberal Party?", which while advancing an argument is actually peer-reviewed and extensively referenced.) Orderinchaos 11:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of quotes, if Pyne has a Wikiquote page it could potentially be added there. Just a general suggestion for quotes, rather than throwing them straight onto articles. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardys Bay, New South Wales

Someone who knows more about the Central Coast of NSW than myself want to have a look at this? It seems like a local residents' action group has edited the article - it may well be quite OK but it looks a bit loaded to me. Orderinchaos 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought you were referring to the intro:
A long standing tradition in Hardy's Bay, the Yum Yum trees stand across from the main intersection of Hardys Bay and across from the local liquor/grocery store. At evening time when the weather is clement, the men of the area congregate around the Yum Yum trees and consume their beverages and socialise. Not wanting to be left out, the women of the area also started their own tradition of occupying the wooden benches along the bay for their own socialising.
I liked the sound of that (don't get to see the word "clement" too often these days) even though it probably doesn't belong here.
Regarding the stuff about the development, the language and use of italics is indeed rather loaded. As for the case itself, just another example of Sydney's continuing sprawl I guess - the Central Coast of today is not the one that I grew up with (and i'm not that old). - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha that quote is classic! And yes, that was my impression (i.e. this set of affairs is probably not unusual) but thought I'd run it by people - thanks for that. Orderinchaos 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up a little bit, but it might need a second pass. The content is valid, just the editorialistic nature of its presentation needed to be toned back. As for the intro, I can't bring myself to doing anything about that... - 52 Pickup (deal) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Being an ex-Central Coast resident, I'll have a look at this and see what stands out as complete bullshit :) Daniel (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll only believe that when I see a reference, and even then, I probably still won't believe it. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If that passage was used for a location a bit further north, then I'd have no trouble at all believing it. Gettin' all homesick now... - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a basis of truth behind the colourfully-phrased paragraph, the following is from a council report:
"2 Embellishment of the area known as the “Yum Yum Tree”. Popular, and well documented, as a traditional meeting place for locals every evening. In addition the area is a popular ‘two-up’ location on Anzac Day (this year’s attendance estimated at approximately 400). The three Erythrina (Coral Trees) are in a state of decline and need to be replaced." --Melburnian (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ACOTF: Ash Wednesday to Gundagai

Hi everyone. I've been a bit more prompt this week. Ash Wednesday fires was Australian collaboration of the fortnight for a bit over two weeks. It has now been replaced by Gundagai, New South Wales. Please help to improve it in any way you can, and vote for or nominate other articles at WP:ACOTF.

Ash Wednesday fires was ACOTF from 22 February 2008 to 9 March 2008

  • Over 10 contributors made 62 edits
  • The article increased from 11,690 bytes to 16,720 bytes
  • See how it changed

Thankyou all. --Scott Davis Talk 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article is semi-protected, I guess... Orderinchaos 09:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong section, OIC? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Always pays to read your history. :) Orderinchaos 10:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that guy. See, that's why I need to work on these articles more :S dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Was that really over a year ago? Golly-gosh. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC).
Well, when I made that comment I was thinking about Ned Kelly, and that's more than a year ago, I hope. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that they're digging his bones up right now for the third time, I hope it was more than a year ago! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC).
Guy? Some think girl... See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors for what I assume OiC is referring to. -- Longhair\talk 10:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...I was thinking about this guy...*shuffles off* dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
And by that, I don't actually mean Ned Kelly, I mean [guys]. Gosh, I need sleep. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
We're probably both wrong, but we're both now aware of potential situations hey :) -- Longhair\talk 10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I was meaning the ArbCom case. Orderinchaos 11:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they got the message, but they do resurface from time to time. Easily spotted. Generally potty-mouthed, never signs, you'll know it when you see it. -- Longhair\talk 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ash Wednesday fires

Was the ACOTF until...a few hours ago. Looking pretty close to GA, I think. Anyone have any comments on a potential nom there (and onwards to FAC)? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Some in-line references are needed, particularly for the El Nino section, the first para of Aftermath and the last sentence of Early fire season.--Grahame (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that it's a bit short of GA. The lead is too short. There's no mention of the ignition point of the fires (I mention this as many of them may have been recorded as deliberately lit). Perhaps mention of the reaction overseas ( I remember news in England reporting that over 400 people had died). There are some good books on the subject that will help to fill in bits - The Bureau of Meteorologies report from 1984 Severe Fire Weather. A Case Study of Ash Wednesday, Paul Collins' 2006 book Burn: The Epic Story of Bushfire in Australia. Also The health and social impact of the Ash Wednesday bushfires : a survey of the twelve months following the bushfires of February 1983, the Herald and Weekly times glossy Ash Wednesday 1983 bushfires and various other books would be good. I can't help feeling that for such a major event, the article cannot be broad enough as it's drawing on too limited source material. That said I didn't help... it's looking good at the moment - Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Long live Aussie FAs

User:Blnguyen/WMA Petition. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Noting of course that WMA and WikiProject Australia on en are quite separate entities with quite different aims... Orderinchaos 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Much-Needed Sydney Photo Requests

Hi everyone - it's time for my not-so-regular request for photos on specific places in Sydney. These two are quite important as the places are closing down (one is in the middle of demolition) so a photo would be good. My first request is the Patricks Container Terminal at Barangaroo (Millers Point). The sheds are in the middle of being knocked down, so a photo in the next week would be excellent - or a past photo if anyone has one. The other request is for Hoxton Park Airport. If anyone lives out near Hoxton Park (or is able to go there) and is able to take a photo of the airport before it closes later this year it would be greatly appreciated. (And as usual the Railway station page has gaps). JRG (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be at Barangaroo in three weeks, I'l get a photo then. Not going past Hoxton Park any time soon, alas. Euryalus (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what i can do about Hoxton Park. Its not that far away from where i live but i have never been there so i dont know what kind of picture i can take. If fuel was cheaper i would definitely go there and everywhere else. Give me time and i'll be able to get it done, i guess before the end of the year:) Maybe someone else can snap some pics sooner. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweat of brow copyright and Australia

Is there currently a good description of the status of Sweat of the brow copyright in Australia (and international treaties, if applicable)? There's some uncertainty about how much Ernie Awards content we can take from 1000 terrible things Australian men have said about women. Andjam (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the U.S., Australia has rejected the sweat of the brow principle, but that is neither here nor there because the material you're talking about is much more than a sweat of the brow work. The sweat of the brow principle refers to works that took a lot of effort to create but didn't require any creativity at all, such as the compilation of a telephone directory. It does not apply to works that required creativity to compile, such as selective lists where somebody has made a creative decision on what merits inclusion and what does not. Hesperian 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to selectivity on the part of the Ernie Awards judging process, or selectivity on the part of the authors of the book? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Selectivity on the part of whoever decided which quotes should be included in the list. I don't know enough about the content matter to attribute this to any particular person or group. But I do know that lists like this one require editorial selectivity, and that is copyrightable. Hesperian 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lalor

Some IPs etc fighting with each other at Lalor, Victoria about whether it's pronounced "LAYlaw" or "LAWluh". Any informed takers? Orderinchaos 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Got a source - the Traditional pronunciation is "LAWluh" (After peter Lalor, namesake of the electorate) but the people in the suburb use "LAYlaw" - Added the reference to the article - any bets on how long till it's reverted ? - Peripitus (Talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
4hrs 46 minutes - Peripitus (Talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ABC Television Programme Dimensions/George Negus Tonight

George Negus Tonight and its original format Dimensions are not covered by articles and I was wondering whether anyone would support creating an article with the title ABC Television Programme Dimensions/George Negus Tonight covering the whole series with an appropriate listing on the disambiguation page for "Dimension" and a redirect for "George Negus Tonight". I think this might be justifiable as a complement to the article on George Negus and perhaps as a related article on the history of the ABC. Dimensions was a controversial part of the Jonathan Shier era and was described as a "last stand" for Shier's programming innovations (ABC staff nicknamed it Dementia). Retarius | Talk 06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, except that ABC Television Programm Dimensions/George Negus Tonight is a horrible title. I suggest George Negus Tonight. Hesperian 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not confident on naming conventions and I know that title's cumbersome but I thought something like that might be required. Apart from reducing the title to George Negus Tonight is my disambig. idea for the title Dimensions OK? Retarius | Talk 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of visitors to the title Dimensions would be looking for article Dimension rather than article George Negus Tonight, so it would probably be better to leave it as a redirect, and add a hatline to the top of Dimension:
"Dimensions" redirects here. For the Australian television show, see George Negus Tonight.
Hesperian 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the ticket! Many thanks. Retarius | Talk 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, don't add anything to the Dimension article. That article already has a pointer to the Dimension (disambiguation) page at the top. All you need to do is add Negus' show to the list of entries at Dimension (disambiguation). Peter Ballard (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's the ticket!! (I tawt I taw a disambig. page somewhere.) Thanks. Retarius | Talk 04:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But the show is Dimensions, not Dimension. Hesperian 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But Dimensions redirects to Dimension, and Dimension (disambiguation) already contains other uses of the word "Dimensions". Peter Ballard (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, okay. I've updated the hatnote at Dimension to direct both terms to the disambig page. Hesperian 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started the article George Negus Tonight. --Canley (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane up for GAR

FYI...Brisbane is been put up for Good-Article-Review due to the identity of the GA passer -> Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brisbane/1 - Peripitus (Talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot tagging WP:AUS

Moondyne has created a list of cats that are recursive subcats of Category:Australia and removed the false positives and duplicates. It is at User:Moondyne/AU categories. So it will now be ready for SatyrBot to tag the articles in the cats with {{WP Australia}}. Does anybody have any concerns or objections? 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs)

Only confusion as to why you would bother. Oh, and I want to know whether you're going to tag Category:Category-Class Australia articles into Category:Category-Class Australia articles. Oh shit, it already is. Hesperian 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of articles that are in Australian categories are not tagged with {{WP Australia}}. eg Vinod Kambli is in a cricket player cat, but did not have {{WP Cricket}}, so SatyrBot put the cricket tag on it. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I thought you were going to tag the categories. My bad. Hesperian 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No concerns here. Daniel (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel replaced, but go for it. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Feeling redundant here also, but let the bot run. It's a good thing. On a similar note, how do others feel about helping sort through the category Category:B-Class_Australia_articles to determine how many of the 1,300 articles within could either be a) promoted to GA class with a touch up or two b), confirm the B class status or c) dropped back to Start class... it's well overdue IMHO. -- Longhair\talk 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We'd still have to assess the articles once they were tagged as Aus. I predict there will be about 30,000 articles uncovered. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
All we need are 30,000 more stubs to assess, now that we are making progress with the last lot.--Grahame (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a Longhair kind of job ;) Seriously though, I do occasionally look through the x-Class Australian music articles to improve articles/fix ratings/whatever. Not to keen on the big cat. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Longhair has too many jobs. Parent, wikiaddict, recently moved from a 1/4 acre suburban block to a cattle station and working in 40+ degree heat. Not now... Want to inflate your edit count. Here's your opportunity :) -- Longhair\talk 08:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey some of us quietly have tried confusing the issue by going in and finding un tagged cats - but one small problem is some were done with class-cat and earlier ones were Class NA - some were done when h20 was still giggy :) - more power to any bot that can sort issues that otherwise take any one individual editors life away :| SatuSuro 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_24#Script_wanted_for_measuring_article_sizes_within_a_cat. I used a script that can calculate the mean and median size of a list of articles. I wanted to see if some projects were more lenient with themselves and gave themselves inflated ratings. The results seem to show that interpretations vary, so a chat on what is a B class might be useful. (The script only can process about 150 articles at a time) In some cases the variations are quite significant

For B-class

  • Vietnamese B class articles - Mean about 28.15kb, median about 20.85kb
  • Bangladesh B class articles - Mean about 15.3kb, median about 12.kb
  • Australia - Only about teh first 500 sampled.... Mean about 21kb
  • India - about 27.2 kb mean
  • Pakistan, mean about 26.8kb, median 20.1kb.

I did see a few 3k length B class articles out there, so it might be useful to work out what the standard is supposed to be. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment#Quality_scale
B-class articles...
Have several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.
Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
That should start some discussion should anyone disagree or have ideas to improve the criteria of above... -- Longhair\talk 07:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO B-class should also have some form of referencing or sources preferably multiple sources. Gnangarra 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A B-class that doesn't have sufficient referencing would be a rare case indeed IMO - they should go down to Start if any exist. Orderinchaos 08:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
<smiles knowningly>While its only an early sample the majority do lack sources, one doesnt IMHO even have enough independence via WP:RS to assert notability, though common sense says it should meet notability. Gnangarra 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Might have to go through them and decide if any should be either improved or demoted. Orderinchaos 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of creating a lot of extra work, has anyone here considered the B-class criteria used by WP:MILHIST? Each banner has a 5-point checklist which must be satisfied to pass B-class. For example, see Talk:100th Air Refueling Wing. Nice idea, but a lot of work involved. 52 Pickup (deal) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding what is a valid WP Australia article

At the risk of derailing this discussion, I stumbled across Category:Number-one singles in Australia which contains many songs which are not necessarily Australian. For example, the German classic 99 Luftballons (didn't you love the 80s?!). Is it correct to be tagging such articles with {{WP Australia}}? —Moondyne click! 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The citeria for the project - it was a hit in australia - that is the category - if you want an idea - some articles in the south east asia project have 5 separate country tags on their talk page - and they somehow survive without crashing the system so to speak SatuSuro 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This is actually an extremely common problem. The vast majority of articles don't actually belong to all their ancestor categories. For example, every single article in and under Category:Western Australia is necessarily also under Category:States and territories of Australia, but as far as I'm aware, only one of them, Western Australia, is in fact a state and territory of Australia. Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if we created Wikipedia:WikiProject States and territories of Western Australia, and tagged into it every descendent article of its corresponding category? Therefore I think it a very bad idea to indiscriminately tag every ancestor article of Category:Australia into WP Australia. There will be exceptions that must be rooted out, of which Moondyne's example is one. Don't tag it! Hesperian 05:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Explanation understood - and well reasoned - please ignore my comment above - in the light of that - I think as always I have confused the issue slightly SatuSuro 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Serious answer: Yeah, those that charted in Aus aren't necessarily WP Aus articles.
Not so serious answer: This is a valid WP Aus article.
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably the variant (not so serious) answer should go into Great Moments on Australian WikipediaSatuSuro 06:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually a WP notice is pretty much a "maintained by", and members of WP Australia would be in the best position to maintain a charting list from Australia. Categories such as Hesperian highlights are somewhat of a different matter though. Orderinchaos 08:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Should Timor Leste Defence Force, currently at FAC be tagged WPA?--Grahame (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO, no. I can't see a strong argument for it. —Moondyne click! 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1st possible GA

I've started working through the articles so far 1 was really a start, the rest have been B with 1956 Summer Olympics the first that could go to GA all it needs is sourcing. Full list of article is available here I'm striking and leaving a quick note there to keep track of whats been done. Gnangarra 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2003 Canberra bushfires needs very little attention, mostly a lead and standardisation of references. Gnangarra 12:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

John Monash

...lived a very interesting life! Who knew?! -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said truth is stranger than fiction obviously didn't have a Wikipedia watchlist --Melburnian (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot, again

As a follow-up on #SatyrBot_tagging_WP:AUS, sort of. I just saw [17]. A few things; 1) Is Flea considered part of WP:AUS? 2) Were those template issues a one-off? 3) Can the bot get an article rating based on other WikiProjects? For Longhair's sake? :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Flea was born in Australia, and so is under the project's scope. Spebi (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was born here. No, that doesn't necessarily put him in our scope, IMO. I mean, Anh Do (to take a random example) doesn't fall under WP:VIET (after a fair bit of discussion re. that, and a final verdict...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But WP:VIET isn't WP:AUS. A lot of people have been born in Australia but in their recent career have had pretty much nothing to do with the country, yet they are still apart of the project because they were born here (e.g., actors who went on to be huge in the U.S.). Spebi (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that most of the Australian actors were trained in Australian arts academies and such. Same for footballers, we would still say that Harry Kewell is WP:AUS even though he bludges most Socceroos matches. The other thing about VIET is that one guy was tagging any ethnic Viet as WPVN even though most of them have never been active inside VN or fled VN when they were kids. This would be the same thing here for Flea. He shouldn't really be in Australian musicians since none of his music education was even in Aus. However, with Category:People from Melbourne and the like, that would generate a few false positives anyway, for child emigrants who became notable for unrelated things later in life. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you said, however, Flea moved to the U.S. when he was 5. I don't think he really deserves a place in this project, personally. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Orderinchaos 09:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You learn something new every day (ie: Flea being born here), but I concur that "born here" is a bit of a stretch to put him in our WikiProject. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC).
The bot seems to have had some errors putting banners in articlespace, so I'm going to have to do some debugging before I restart this project. And it *should* have been auto-tagging the "class", so I'll look in to that as well. Finally, if Flea is in the assorted Australian categories (ie: Category:Australian Americans, Category:Australian rock bass guitarists, Category:People from Melbourne, Category:Australian male singers, Category:Australian rock singers, and Category:Australian film actors) then it's likely he'll get tagged next time I run the bot :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Use {{nobots|deny=SatyrBot}} for the false positives. It works. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...anyone have any ideas on what to do about these cats, re. this bot running again? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to be covered by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Residence which states that "People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, in the form People from Foo.... The place of birth is rarely notable." (I don't agree, actually, but I'm not interested in arguing about it at the moment.) Hesperian 00:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Vast amounts of time energy and space on talk pages have been consumed as to whether birth/residence while a child/residence for a short time - have any import as to whether a person is from somewhere or somewhere else - save us the space - viz hesperian above - let the bot go and maybe special cases will need attention down the line SatuSuro 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks and religion - third opinion desired

There's some discussion about the verifiability and relevance of some statements made about Hicks in the media. Some fresh eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ACOTF template discussion at WP:AN

FYI... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Australian_Collaboration_of_the_Fortnight -- Longhair\talk 10:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Do others agree with me that there was no conclusion or consensus out of that discussion? --Matilda talk 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing one, but I think we're both a bit biased! In any case, they seem to have let it drop, which is probably a good thing. Now let's get back to actually collaborating! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I freely admit my bias :-) Should we constructively escalate elsewhere to try to gain a community consensus?--Matilda talk 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's worth it. I suggested at AN a few times that that really shouldn't have been there, and while a few people acknowledged it, those really involved in the debate didn't. I get the feeling that the response would be similar regardless of where we went (ie. same people saying the same things), so IMO it's better to just let it drop unless they want to keep bringing it up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the matter has been raised several times and we only get to two divided camps discussing the issue. I have decided to start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Collaborations#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page--Matilda talk 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In the spirit of cooperation, now at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page - slightly gritted teeth as I don't actually quite agree and would really appreciate some civility but .... --Matilda talk 01:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that "Collaborations" seems like a more appropriate place for the discussion than "template namespace", but I guess it doesn't matter too much since a pointer to the conversation has been left. I did a bit of a survey of a few other collaborations (not conclusive - I had to go to work), and there was high correlation between active collaboration projects and ones that have a notice on the article page in my sample. I left a note at one of them to point out the discussion. What are the guidelines about notifying potential participants about an RFC? --Scott Davis Talk 12:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think it should be regarded as canvassing as it is an issue they would be interested in and would bind them. If not notified then they would be bound by a discussion they weren't aware of which would mean either it had to be reopened or it would be perceived as unfair. I did notify those who had been against the template being on the article page of the RfC. --Matilda talk 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Geelong, Victoria

This was nominated for GA by a user who has not since looked at it. Anyways, there's a pretty long GA review at Talk:Geelong,_Victoria#GA_review, if anyone's interested. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Notorious" is a strong word to use under the circumstances. That same editor has spent many a day expanding that very article, thought it was up to GA standard, submitted it for review, then got two or more weeks worth of work back in return for his efforts. Give him a barnstar, but not criticism. -- Longhair\talk 06:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right - I was making a generalisation (having seen that user before at GAN) which wasn't appropriate for this article. I've reworded it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just realised we're probably talking about different people. Kaypoh nominated the article (here) while you're probably talking about Wongm. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies in that case. Being a Geelong lad, I watch the article and thought it was coming along nicely since Mr Wong jumped in. I myself assumed he'd submitted it since he's put so much effort in of late improving it. -- Longhair\talk 06:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Having revealed yourself to be a Geelong lad, I suppose it's your duty to fix the GAN issues, right? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I left. Hopefully the place will slide into Corio Bay and we can all move on. :) -- Longhair\talk 06:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone can remember the Miami, Queensland GA saga -- now that guy (RIP) was "Notorious".  :) -- Longhair\talk 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Third (?) person nominations always fail at FAC, unless the main editor or editors address issues raised. It would be a pity if these useful comments were not addessed.--Grahame (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty-please image request :)

For 1999 Sydney hailstorm; see talk. This looks good to be today's featured article on April 14, so if we could finish it off by then with another picture or two, it'd be great. I've already asked at Wikiproject Sydney as well as once before on this noticeboard (link), but don't see the harm in trying again! :)

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Gundagai replaced by Azaria, who disappeared

Gundagai, New South Wales was Australian Collaboration from 9 March 2008 to 23 March 2008

  • 8 contributors made 54 edits
  • The article increased from 23,393 bytes to 32,619 bytes - 39% longer
  • See how it changed

The new collaboration is over Azaria Chamberlain disappearance. Please help to improve it in any way you can. If you haven't already, please also have a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page if you have an opinion on whether we should continue to mark our current collaboration with a banner at the top of the article. The banner has recently been adapted to be less garish and more in line with other maintenance tags. --Scott Davis Talk 14:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten

An apparent single-purpose account humbly calling itself Wikifactsright (talk · contribs) has appeared at the biography Geoffrey Edelsten (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and shows every sign of attempting a whitewash. Those editors who know something about the subject ought to keep an eye on things. --Calton | Talk 10:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from WT:AUS, as this seems like a noticeboard sort of thing. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Much as I think I'd dislike him, I think there are some BLP issues with the article. Andjam (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hate to say it but I wonder which one he is... Orderinchaos 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been another "attack" on this page by Wikifactsright (talk · contribs). Material that was removed was supported by third-party references. It seems that a "whitewash" is intended, removing any reference to unfavourable past events. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortuantely the editor is breaching WP:NPA - see his talk page history - can somebody else watch as I am unable to be of any help from now --Matilda talk 06:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lindsay pamphlet scandal

A question has arisen over the phrase "The scandal disrupted the election campaign of Prime Minister John Howard." in this article. It is a tough one, and there's probably no single correct answer (although I'd hazard a guess that several would be more correct than the above). If you can think of a better way to word or scope it your feedback would be much welcomed :) Orderinchaos 12:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Something that's been bothering me for several months is the tendency by the media to treat elections as if they are US-style presidential election campaigns. I don't have anything against direct elections, but I do have a problem with accuracy being sacrificed to fit a narrative - something that probably causes as much, or more, bad reportage as bias does. Andjam (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article at news.com.au

There's an interesting article at news.com.au today that claims Wikipedia is outranking MySpace for fans seeking information about their favourite bands. WWGB (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes me feel useful! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly that was my very first reason for using it way back in 03/04! Orderinchaos 09:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice article that may bring in a new wave of music fans. One glaring error however is the paragraph "Anyone can contribute to a given article on Wikipedia, but their contributions must first be checked by team of volunteer editors with a particular passion about the subject before the text appears live." -- Longhair\talk 09:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
WMAU-press, anyone? :) Daniel (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To Longhair, check the Comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Please don't start writing about yourself on Wikipedia. Please. (me) In reply to "Alex of Cyberspace", there's no strict policy against it per se, although Wikipedia does urge caution and restraint. The guideline can be viewed at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest>. (Daniel). Hopefully that clears things up! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
yeah but maybe it'll reduce the attraction to some of the more problematic editors Gnangarra 09:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to watchlist

Australian Wikipedians, please consider doing me a huge favour and watchlisting Lindy Morrison and reverting any unsourced dubious additions. Of particular concern is unsourced, apparently-false information about election results and previous employment. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Local Government

As some of you may know I've been working in the background on QLD and VIC local governments (mostly former ones). I'm now trying to get some general articles moving to try and bring it all together. I know this was an ACOTF earlier in the year or maybe last year, but if anyone's keen to help me (especially looking up libraries for how other states' LG systems came together - particularly SA and TAS as I have *nothing* on those) I'd be most grateful. Orderinchaos 07:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot, III

Can anybody see a case for Category:Australian Open champions, such as Billie Jean King being included in WPA?--Grahame (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that here earlier today and meant to get back to it as well. No, there is no case for inclusion and they should be removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That was an oversight not by the bot. I can roll'em back. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

confusing and overlapping pair of articles

Hello, it has just come to my attention that "Black Australian" redirects to African Australian but "Black Australians" goes to ... Black Australians. These two are separate articles, and it seems confusing to me (in this context, very much the average Wikipedia reader as opposed to the obsessive editor I can also be; never been to Australia, interested but not knowledgeable) and while there has been some discussion on the talk pages, I thought it deserved more Australian eyes on this odd arrangement, hence I bring it up here. I do realise that not all Africans are black, and not all black people are African, but nonetheless the two articles are largely overlapping, to the extent that someone who had read one might not go to the other, and thus miss a chunk of relevant info. And the singular/plural redirect is weird! I am used to project pages but yours directed me here; I haven't used a noticeboard in this manner before, so hope this is an acceptable use of it. I leave you to make what decisions you feel best. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even sure Black Australian should go to African Australian, as the African Australian article purposefully encompasses white South Africans as well as the others. Thanks for raising this, should be an interesting discussion as to what to do with it :) Orderinchaos 08:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not like the terms at all, but Black Australians and Black Australian should both redirect to Indigenous Australians, because that is the more common use of "black" in this country. The content in the existing Black Australians article should be merged into African Australian. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Peter. --Scott Davis Talk 12:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and, so, still never cease to be amazed at the nature, breadth, and reach of some of Wikipedia's coverage!!
I now find that, as well as the above referred article on African Australians, Wikipeida has other articles on other Australian peoples identified by continents of origin eg Asian Australians, & American Australians .. but NOT European Australians
I also find there is a very large (but not comprehensive) set of groupings of Australians identified largely by their nation of origin .. (see :Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin)
Surprisingly, what I did NOT find was a simple an article on Australians (currently only a redirect to Australia) ... I recall that song "we are one, we are all Australians"?? ..
In relation to the above query and discussion, might I suggest we remove the current redirect, and create/expeand a simple overview article describing the nature of Australia's citizenship, and the diversity of continents and nations represented within Australia's population ... into which many/most of the above groupings can be linked or merged ?
Finally, I did the a search on White Australians .. and finding no such article .. suggest Australian citzens and the Australian population ought not be grouped/described by their colour .. and, as such, the current Black Australians article is best merged into the African Australians article .. which might be in turn linked into a single, all encompassing article on Australians as a group of people!!
(Regarding Peter and ors comments above, I don't think African Australian's can properly be considered idigenous to this country .. so current Black Australian and African Australian articles can not and ought not be merged into Indigenous Australians article
I should not, of course, bring up the difficulties of determining whether an Australian who has two parents, four grandparents, and eight grandparents .. all potentially from different nations (existing and bygone) .. are one or all of Irish, Italian, Chinese, German etc Australians?? I guess it is done (ideally) by sourcing secondary/verifiable records documenting how people identify themselves ??!! Bruceanthro (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was actually wondering whether I should identify myself as English Australian or maybe Irish Austrralian or even Welsh Australian. My kids could add Polish Australian or even Related to the last Pope Australian. Personally I think this whole "<insert country that you've probaly never been to> <insert country you were born in>" method of identification is ridiculous, divisive, confusing and unhelpful. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we're talking about an identification so much as a history. For example, as an ethnic polyglot with Scottish, Irish, Austrian, Czech, Slovenian and Jewish ancestry, it would be a bit silly for me to identify as any particular "X-Australian". However, there are many Vietnamese Australians, or Italian Australians, or Greek Australians etc for whom that link is far more important, defining even, and of which an encyclopaedic and entirely interesting history could be written. Italian Australians in particular had a very interesting shared history in coming to Australia in several "waves" over time related to conditions in their home country, and there are divisions even today within that community based on which part of Italy and which time they came across. So speaking of a people, a group, yes, we should - but I personally disagree with categories that aren't ascribed to through a reliable source by the person themselves. Orderinchaos 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. Both articles need serious work anyway. For example, African Australian talks about immigration from Africa to Australia but includes, in the list of notable "Afro-Australians", people such as Marcia Hines who was actually born in the USA and her daughter Deni, who was born in Sydney. In fact, in the music section only 3 people are actually listed as being from the African continent and one of those is Egyptian. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO Black Australian was/is a racist term referring to Indigenous Australians if there is any use of the term then it should disambiguate the difference between the usages rather than being a redirect to one. While we are at it maybe Yellow Australian, Red Australian, Green Australian should also be created Gnangarra 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I like Gnangarra's suggestion. Perhaps the dab page could even note that the term is now considered racist. That would be better than a redirect, so that anyone clicking through "Black Australians" would see why the term shouldn't be used. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Peter Ballard's suggestion above. A disambig page with something along the lines of "the term Black Australian is sometimes considered derogatory" would seem the best way to go. Note that Africans and Aborigines aren't the only groups that are called that, when I was growing up, my close Fijian Indian friends self-identified as black (to the point of even declaring me, who identifies as Irish Australian, an "honourary black man"). I also know Aboriginal and South Sea Islander people who identify as either "black" or "blackfellas", so it wouldn't be accurate to say it's always offensive all of the time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC).
Further looking into the term Black Australian, I agree it isnt necessarily always racist( sorry my RL experiences were used for the initial comment), University of Queensland has a "Balck Australian Literature" course and "Black Australian Nurses' Stories" published by Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses (CATSIN) are two very eliquent
No need to apologise, I understood exactly what you were getting at =). Agreed that sometimes it is offensive, but the word seems to have been "reclaimed" to a large degree. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
Incidentally, isn't "black" inaccurate anyway for the most part? Very Dark Brown Australians would probably make more factual sense. Orderinchaos 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind you black Africans are not black either and some are darker brown than others (I've spent a few years in west Africa).--Grahame (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I was more meaning (slightly tongue-in-cheek) that *nobody* is actually "black" or "white". "Peachy Cream With An Occasional Burst Of Red Australians" would probably be dismissed as PC gone mad. :) Orderinchaos 07:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The category Category:Black Australians needs also to be considered. Inclusion is based as far as I can see on original research and not on reliable sources. The wikipedian who created the cat (User:Koavf) is not Australian and was cleaning up after Unknown789 (talk · contribs) using AWB[18]. Unknown789 created the article and the cat. --Matilda talk 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've turned Black Australians into a disambiguation page, and Black Australian as a redirrect to that page. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that Afro-Australian has just been created. Because, you know, this case wasn't complicated enough as-is =). Thoughts? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't see the point. It's effectively a cut and past from African Australian with a new introduction and a few changes here and there. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see HERE for a category discussion involving some of these categories. Your inputs would be welcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Behemoths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Government_schools_in_New_South_Wales exists - I am wondering at a national level, why and how such items slip through the cracks, and no one has tackled this particular item by probably most Wikipedia polices, practices, and acceptable means of collating information. Rather than taking it straight to Afd I would be intrigued to see what an average Australian editor who reads this noticeboard might react to such an item. If it continues to grow at this rate - will other states be able to follow suit? If so, then ignore all rules will have a precedent for the largest list in the history of wikipedia perhaps? SatuSuro 00:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Wikipedia is not paper. It's not doing any harm existing as a page. Maybe add an expanded intro to it and fix it up, but there's no reason to delete it. JRG (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Whats wrong? - I have seen fellow australian project editors and others go apopleptic over lists that size - unless there is a new policy somewhere that I havent seen - there surely are numbers of policies that are being challenged by such a list that size - maybe regional separations or breakdowns, categories, - there are lots of possible ways to disperse or decentralise an otherwise oversized list which is still under construction (sic) - SatuSuro 01:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note I am not in total disagreement with the Education project enthusiasts from making lists per se - but I wonder if this one is not just a little longer than might normally be acceptable - as it is still in process - surely there is a need to review if not establish at a project wide level some standard as to the size of such lists - and whether a reader of an online encyclopedia (which it is being produced for) might get lost a little with such a list? SatuSuro 01:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - classic case of "WP is not toilet paper" in my mind. --Merbabu (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Most lists are in some ways dubious, but this is ludicrous. Of what value is it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable and significant subkjects, not a directory for everything that ever existed. That's what the whitepages is for. What's next? A list of service stations and their addresses? Macdonalds stores? Should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. It's long, yeah, but it appears to be more or less complete. And it contains information that a category or other structure couldn't easily duplicate. There might be an argument for splitting it up, but into what? Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
That said, if someone can come up with a better way of divvying up the list that makes sense, I'll be all for it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
Electorate/Suburb/Postcode Ranges? — E talk 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think electorate is a good idea, as the borders frequently change dramatically, so it would introduce an ongoing maintenance headache to the whole process. Suburb is way too low a level, as most suburbs will only have one or two schools, and some country schools will not even be in a suburb. Postcode ranges, unless Australia Post groups them in some way that I'm unaware of are also too low-level, and any grouping that we come up with ourselves will be arbitary at best. There would also be the significant problem of working out which school is in which postcode/suburb (and the existance of public schools that have one or more campuses in different suburbs or postcodes would introduce even more ambiguity and complications to the process!). Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
The NSW DET website provides a search by postcode option so that may be a possibility but personally, I find that clumsy. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we could subdivide alphabetically? List_of_Government_schools_in_New_South_Wales (A-D), etc? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
What value does the list serve?....as for splitting K-6...7-12...K-12...None in general terms schools in K-6 group arent notable anyway removing them form the list is also an alternative. Gnangarra 04:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Some K-6 schools are notable so you'd end up with a partial list and partial lists can be worse than no list at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Some equals what 90%? 70%? 30%?, from my experience with AfD's the figure for Primary schools is a some where down below 1%. As for the comment about about how big, within 10 minutes drive of my house there have been 7 schools(inc 2 high Schools) built in the last 6 years, I know of two more in this area where land has been reserved for future developements. Gnangarra 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Very very few indeed - most primary schools and for want of a better word newish (1980s->) Christian schools have failed to pass AfD per WP:N and WP:RS when they've gone there (on the contrary, public high schools have almost universally passed). Often only self published sources/information are available from which to construct the article, which is not encyclopaedic as a result. Only the exceptional one seems to get past this - one in Brunswick in Victoria comes to mind. A small section within its suburb article would do much better to indicate its presence, size, location and anything useful about its history. Orderinchaos 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had cause to access this list a number of times this year for several reasons. I've found it enormously useful and was very thankful to find that it existed. As for getting larger, I don't think that will happen. There are only so many schools. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe but I do not think any WP project should support such a list without it being seriously challenged and questioned and interrogated as to whether the project wants to be seen as carrying such a list - and to whether it sets a standard by which some enthusiast for lists who hasnt read all the WP essays and policies that seriously discourage such lists - goes off an invests a large amount of time creating one which has dubious qualities that might contravene general policy - it sets a very dangerous precedent and I hope someone has the courage to say that maybe enough is enough - perhaps a size quotient needs to be established? SatuSuro 06:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I find Facebook useful for tracking down old friends, my UBD is great for finding streets in large cities, and I find the Bureau of Meterology's site to be excellent for the weather - does that mean I should argue for this detailed information to be included in wikipedia? Of course not, and in the same way that wikipedia (an encyclopedia) should not be a directory of every school in New South Wales. It's just not what an encyclopedia is for. Think notability/significance, not convenience/phonebook. regards --Merbabu (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than debate how to split the list up, I think the actual existence of the information itself needs to be justified. Why does every school in NSW need a mention on wikipedia? And I'm not just talking about those that don't have articles; I'm sure if we delved into the schools with articles then many would be not notable, in fact most I suggest. As for breaking the list up, a category would be fine - that's what cats are for.--Merbabu (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally tend to agree. High schools I think probably do need a list as it's intended most of them will have articles, but the rest is simply a meaningless somewhat indiscriminate collection of information that makes little or no sense to most Wikipedians, even those interested in the topic - I look at it and my eyes glaze over. Additionally these lists sometimes become a bit of a cruft magnet. Additionally the phone book, Schools Online state websites etc do a better job as they're forever opening new ones or adding new bits or renaming or closing or rescoping old ones, and most of these lists are in a very poor state of repair indeed. Orderinchaos 21:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to this discussion has been made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#List_articles. Paul foord (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the list could be divided up by LGA, and then merged with the various LGA articles. The information would be more relevant and more manageable there. --bainer (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the existence of the list, or a collection of lists with the same information, is fine - a list doesn't have to have articles for every item on it, and it can be verified with fewer sources than individual articles would, meaning that the notability issue isn't as important (for example, take the infamous "List of (TV show) episodes" articles - individual episodes are almost never notable enough for an article now, but the lists allow basic information about them to be collected in one place). Given that most of the information can be gleaned from state government websites, I'd certainly be fighting for the "keep" side if it went to AfD. Splitting them up is trickier, since there doesn't seem to be a division of states that is large enough to not be ridiculous (e.g. suburbs which are likely to only have a couple of schools in them) but stable enough to not have to worry about a school flip-flopping between two or more every couple of months (e.g. council boundaries). I guess LGA would satisfy (a), and at the very least is closer to satisfying (b) than state electorates. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Schools have areas in which they compete for things like athletics or debating but I am not sure how to source those. NSW public schools are organised according to regions - see map of regions - those regions don't necessarily correspond identically to other NSW regions but could be a basis for breakdown - there are 11 regions and they do seem to correspond to regions we have on wikipedia - eg the Riverina but we would need to understand the NSW education department boundary definition and incorporate that in the lead to explain the criteria for inclusion in the list. --Matilda talk 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

From WT:AUS:

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Australian rock music for a project to deal with that subject that has gotten 6 members. Would the members of this project be interested in adjusting the project banner to accomodate this new group?

I'm not convinced the need is there for one - see my comments at the proposal. Orderinchaos 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot again

I notice that SatyrBot tagged Battle of Arras (1917) and it is now listed as a WPA FA article (also Battle of Amiens, GA). SatyrBot also tagged Flea (musician), subsequently deemed to be not WPA, correctly in my opinion. This does raise an issue of when a foreign battle with several participants falls into our bailiwick.--Grahame (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Arras says at 160,000 British Empire troops were casualities, and so that would mean probably 10,000+ Australians. The Amiens article says 5 Aus divisions, so that would be a very large part of the able bodied Australian male population at the time, so it should stay I think. Given that there are now 4 times as many Australians, an estimate of 40,000 dead in today's numbers means that it must have affected Australian society quite a lot. So those two battles should stay at the least. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In general I would think that if Australia was more than 20% of the battle, then it is probably notable enough. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. SatyrBot has also been tagging fictional Australians such as Don Kent (wrestler) (GA), Al Costello (GA), Roo, Randall Shire and Robert Chase (not to mention numerous fictional characters from Home and Away, which should be deleted, but that is another story). It has also tagged Natasha Bedingfield (GA), who recorded for Hillsong in London, but appears to have no direct connection with Australia.--Grahame (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well there's a bit of a problem. Maybe we should tag \Bedingfield with {{nobots|deny=SatyrBot}} as a false positive as well. Costello actually appears to be a real Australian citizen. Teh fictionals probably need to be turfed off although the Home and Away characters should be kept because they basically count as Australian film/literautre creations. I should have probably double checked Moondyne's selections...woopsies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I did flag this as being a potential problem above and had expected that some more tidying would have been done before the bot started. —Moondyne click! 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that fictional Australians from Australian culture qualify, what I meant about Home and Away is that we have a great number of unsourced and low value articles that we don't need.--Grahame (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Book Show mention

A discussion between Nicholson Baker (User:Wageless) and Ramona Koval on the Book Show gave Wikipedia a bit of a plug this morning, but also seemed to endorse "creative" vandalism.--Grahame (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Burrunjor

I haven't heard of this rumoured monster before, but there are some ghits. Is this a sophisticated hoax or a legitimate piece of popular or indigenous culture?--Grahame (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I was a little suspicious, especially when I saw Rex Gilroy's name mentioned. The creation date is a little too coincidental for my liking. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) online catalogue (Mura) holds no entries for Burrunjor, though there is a Bawinanga Rock Art recording project in central Arnhem land involving Burarra-Djinang language speakers.
What-ever the case may be, it is difficult to 'second-guess', verify and seek to authenticate claims about Aboriginal belief when there are no reliable, AIATSIS type referencing .. and no detail as to which groups and which individuals speaking which language where have used this spelling.
It is also uncomfortable to have an encyclopedic article asserting as fact about Aboriginal beliefs etc .. categorised in the same company as Drop bears.
Perhaps some of 'matter of factness' of the article can be written out, and a new narrative substituted more accurately describing the feild and the range/kind of people cited and found on Google as believing a Burrunjor may exist in or around Arnhem land?? Bruceanthro (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering the lack of third party refs (surely its a vanity article?) - and the crypto stuff (and google is the last place id look for this - mirrors of the stuff that perpetuate linking material as credible) - the burrunjor connection with arnhem land seems too loose unless a genuine specific 'other ref' arrives - it is not credible, and the benefit of doubt seems too generous SatuSuro 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I see there is a project dedicated to producing these articles.--Grahame (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Suprised it hasnt been done at their friends list or alerts SatuSuro 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says "some Tribes" yet Arnhem Land is home to only the Yolngu, the animal is said to live in the Australian Desert yet Arnhem Land is Tropical wetlands. What we need here is the same application that pseudo-sciences get. I suppose next it'll be the only predator of the cane toad Gnangarra 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above, I'm going to agree that it's either a hoax or a non-notable piece of cryptozoology. Anyone for AfD? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

Record equalling seven FAs in March

Clem Hill, Holden, Bernard Fanning, Odyssey Number Five, HMAS Melbourne (R21), Ernie Toshack and Silverchair. Equals the seven in November 2007. Pity that Don Tallon was a day late. Well done folks! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By the by, with Don Tallon now promoted, WP:AUS now has 99 featured articles/lists with one list currently at FAC. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Lindström

The above article may need a few people taking a look over and keeping an eye on to ensure it fits within BLP policies. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now listed at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Lindström. -- Longhair\talk 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New article: Australian-Paraguayan relations

Proof that you can find enough reliable sources for an article on just about anything? ;-) --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost report

WikiProject Australia will be featuring in next week's signpost wikiproject report. I'll get the questions up in a few hours. Rudget. 11:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-31/WikiProject report. Rudget. 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have responded to two question but don't want to be alone! Is the date right - do we have a week before we go live?--Matilda talk 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect we have until this evening AUS time, although it generally isn't published until some time tomorrow (again AUS time). Daniel (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The GA/FA graphs are coming! :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
YM, go and reserve which question(s) you will answer so we don't end up doubling up :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Who is authorised to talk? I myself do have some rather strong opinions as everyone knows. I'll definitely talke about the FA/GA drive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess anyone who is an established contributor, partakes in a lot of Australia-related jobs, etc. is "authorised" to talk. If needed I'll also give a response on a question if you think your response is a tad too editorial. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just answered Q6. Last week's report on WP:VG had multiple people answering the same question in some cases, and I see no reason why we can't do the same. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems a good way to do it. I've answered a few of them, a few other (alternate?) views would be welcome! Orderinchaos 02:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I wasn't too jingoist or nationalistic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your subtle attack on an WikiProject-not-to-be-named amused be greatly. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, nice work answering people. 'Twas a good read and gives a good sense of community too I think. --pfctdayelise (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Facebook pictures in public domain?

Stephanie Rice Nick D'Arcy The tabloids pulled this off the MySpace of a few australian swimmers before the privacy levels were raised. Was this done on the premise of those pics being PD? Can we pillage MySpace pictures of Australian swimmers? I doubt it, but I'd like to be surprised Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Imagine this being on Eamon Sullivan. the tabloid's caption is wrong though. The female in teh police hat on the left is Commonwealth 200m record holdre Bronte Barratt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"Was this done on the premise of those pics being PD?" I think that is the rationale. (I remember a similar thing happening after some public tragedy. Perhaps it was Kovco's death.) The Facebook terms of use, here, say:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.

It seems to me that by uploading photos you authorise Facebook to use them anyway they like, but you retain ownership and all associated intellectual rights. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 02:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Those images would surely have been used under fair use. Daniel (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Hesperian 06:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

image copyright query

Wikisource would like to make use of Image:HHRichardson.jpg for s:Author:Henry Handel Richardson, but in order to move it to commons, we need to be sure it is really truely PD. I've not spent much time looking at images and Australian copyright law, so I would appreciate some assistance here. The naa.gov.au link on the image page doesnt work for me. Is this image owned by the govt, which would mean it needs to have been published more than 50 years ago? If so, how do we know this image was published more than 50 years ago if it doesnt provide details about the source it was published in? John Vandenberg (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrghh! PD-Aust vs PD-US, images taken prior to 01 Jan 1955 are PD in Australia but under URAA#Copyright_restorations picture taken between 1 Jan 1946 and 1 Jan 1955 arent PD in the US as the US automatically restored rights to these image in the US which are then subject to the term of US copyright law. Thats the very simple version, it far more complex in general the image your talking about was taken in 1945 so didnt have copyright restored under Uruguay Round Agreements Act Gnangarra 13:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Bloody edit conflicts. What Gnangarra said.
That this image dates to 1945 is confirmed here. Australian copyright law pre-AUSFTA provided for copyright in photographs to subsist for 50 years after the photo was taken (taken not published). So this photo has been in the public domain in Australia since 1995. The changes to copyright law brought in by the AUSFTA greatly extended duration of copyright on photographs, but this was not retroactive. As you know from the Scriptorium discussion in February, works that were in the public domain in their country of origin on 1 January 1996 are in the public domain in the U.S. Therefore this image is in the public domain in both Australia and the U.S.
Hesperian 13:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The link you provide takes me to a page that displays "Part of RecordSearch unavailable". A manual search pulls up the record, which is great, but it says nothing about ownership or provenance. How did this image come to be in the naa if the govt doesnt own it, and doesnt know how it came to have the image? {{PD-Australia}} says that if it is owned by the govt, it is 50 years after publication. The enlarged picture on naa.gov.au has a caption and what appears to be a credit line, but I cant read it. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that - deeplinking must be broken.
Well {{PD-Australia}} is wrong then. For government-owned works, the magic cut-off date is 1 May 1969. Government-owned photographs made before that date are in copyright for 50 years from when first made. Government-owned photographs made after that date are in copyright for 50 years from when first published. But don't take my word for it: here is a link to an information sheet on duration of copyright, put out by the Australian Copyright Council. Check out Table 2.
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, this photograph was taken in 1945, which means that it was in the public domain in Australia on 1 January 1996, irrespective of whether copyright resided with the government or a private individual. By virtue of having been in the public domain in its country of origin before the URAA cutoff date, this photograph is also in the public domain in the U.S.
Hesperian 03:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

After a quick skim of the discussion, I might be repeating someone, but Commons requires it to be free in Australia AND the US. Does it meet both? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian 03:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, don't mind me then. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And on that note, moved to Commons. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ev) Looking at the credit line on the NAA image again, I can see that it does say "Photo by Howard and Joan Coster", and it appears in the list of photos by Howard Coster (1885-1959). also the NAA record does confirm the year being 1945. I'm happy to consider this a closed case, however I am still concerned about the ownership/provenance. The photo is in series A1200, which is described as "Established in the late 1940s as a general series when news and information was part of the function of the Department of Information..", which could mean this photo found its way into NAA because it was a work-for-hire of a govt department. The series indexes, which I presume give more detail about the ownership, are not online. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no Ethel Richardson lived in the UK from 1912/13 until her death in 1946, Howard Coster the photographer worked in the UK. My WP:OR indicates that this was probably taken in the UK and as such UK copyright may be applicable rather than Australian Copyright, even though its in an Australian Collection. Unless someone else is certain about the ownership of the image(inc copyright) being Australian, this may take a few days of research to be sure of its status. Gnangarra 08:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
My first indication in UK copyright is that it may not be PD until 1-Jan-2010, but then US rights have been restored by URAA so it may be even longer Gnangarra 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rufus betong

Does anybody know of the scientific name of this or whether it is the same thing as Rufous Hare-wallaby.--Grahame (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Aepyprymnus rufescens - Rufous Rat-kangaroo --Melburnian (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Emily Seebohm article mentioned in Herald Sun, on TV

Hi all. Just a heads up about this article mentioned here. Quote from the article: "The bullying allegations against Seebohm - daughter of Glenelg 300-game Hall of Fame SANFL player John Seebohm - came to light after an entry appeared on information-sharing website Wikipedia." -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay for us. This time they haven't linked to oldid revisions; if they do, we may have to consider a delete-restore. I've semi-protected it due to constant readdition of the fact by IP's without a consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's probably the other kid or her parents...For swimming on WP, it's pretty nn and unlikely that anybody would care. Way less notable than Nick D'Arcy who is still waiting for his article....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Netball

I've started the ball rolling (should that be made the centre pass?) on creating a Wikiproject for Netball. If you would particiapte in this, please indicate your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Netball dramatic (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian version

An equivalent list or article similar to List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States by decade does not appear to have happened for Australia - unless I have missed something in trying to find anything - or if it is under a very different title or area - it could easily be started utilising the info page 3 of todays australian carrying the AAP source - of the 2002 - 2008 period - anyone? SatuSuro 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Netball

A few of us are trying to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Netball going, as there's been a bit of interest in netball articles lately, and there's a heck of a lot of work to do to catch up to other sports. If anyone's interested, please drop over - we could certainly use some help. Rebecca (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sedition (australian band)

This went to AfD in December 2007 without reference to WPA and it was apparently agreed to delete it and Simon Polhill, but in fact it was not actually deleted. Presumably it could be speedily deleted.--Grahame (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, appears to have overlooked. —Moondyne click! 08:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Music of Australia controversial?

Can anyone tell me if I was wrong in doing this? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No. That template was added way back on February 8, 2006. There appears to be no ongoing edit war at the article. No harm done as I see it. -- Longhair\talk 04:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)