Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →

Contents

need a sane disambiguation policy

following on from a discussion on thortful's talk page, i agree with xoddam's position with not overdisambiguating every town with (town), (state). , it seems silly to move all articles to (town), (state) automatically, especially with larger town/cities like Wollongong. Wollongong should not be further disambiguated, just as Sydney is not further disambiguated. it irritates me no end that in the us articles that Chicago is actually located at Chicago, Illinois when 99.99% of the time that's what somebody wants to link to when wikilinking Chicago. also non-anglo or aboriginal names are less likely to require disambiguation. for smaller centres and especially anglo names, then, yes disambiguation makes sense. further discussion is on wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney#local government areas vs suburbs.

i propose that if a town, city or suburb is unique within both australia and the world, remains at the unqualified name (e.g. that would include Adelaide, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga). this especially makes sense for non-Anglo names. clarkk 11:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aha! I have allies. There has been a lengthy, and as yet unresolved discusion on getting a policy together (or perhaps maybe sticking with the normal policy) over here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city_names)#Naming convention for Australia (take 2). I agree with you, unique titles should be sung from the mountaintop.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, the usual policy is to not defensively disambiguate, and only disambig once it's required. I don't know why it's different for cities. Shane King 01:09, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I find it easier if I know that every town or suburb is going to exist at "suburb, state" this means you don't have to check if it has been disambiguated before creating a link. Then a redirect can be made from the non-disambiguated name if no disambiguation page exists. I can see that larger cities of international importance (that don't conflict) should probably exist at their non-disambiguated name. Martyman 02:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You won't have to check, unless you're anal (in which case you'll be checking anyway "just in case"). IF we leave at "simple works best" — your [[City]] link will either link to the [[City]] article or to a diambiguation page that will go to [[City, State]]. With less typing. IF someone later finds out it is a disambiguation page, or you do yourself, you can create a piped link.
If you think it is at [[City, State]], you will still have to "check", in case somebody has innocuosly created it under [[City]] for not knowing that Australia has a special policy. It also means if you want to link to a state you have to laboriously type [[Cloncurry, Queensland|Cloncurry]], [[Queensland]]. I'm still at a loss as to how a non-psychically broadcast consensus idea will solve the problem of misdirected wikilinks.--ZayZayEM 00:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What we really need is a consensus as to what cities should be dismabiguated to (1)[[City, State]]; (2)[[City, Australia]]; or (3)[[City (Australia)]].. As well as a last line solution for two cities with the same name in the same state. Once we have this sorted out we can return to the issue of overdisambuation. (Personally I think we wil find everyone dropping there differences to choose City, State ). AS for last line, I'm inclined for [[Suburb, City, State]] and [[City, Area, State]] (Area being Central Queensland, Sunshine Coast etc. OR shire council)--ZayZayEM 00:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any agreement/new vote set up occuring soon.--ZayZayEM 03:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Australian musicians

Thanks to Ambi, Revenge, and others who have helped with the Triple J Hottest 100 yearly articles. I have gone through and collected all the redlinked artists - some of them are not Australian, but many of them are. Some major ones are missing, like The Fauves and Rebecca's Empire, as well as many smaller ones that no-one has heard of. But if anyone wants to work on any, check them here -> Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Musicians -- Chuq 08:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for this - it really highlights some obvious names that are missing. I'll have to get to work on it. Ambi 09:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for making up that list. There are a few names there I'll make a mental note to write about some time in the future. Shane King 10:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Fixed a few misnamed/mispunctuated ones. —Stormie 00:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out guys. I've edited the page a little (including moving it to the AWNB To-do list) -- Chuq 02:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ACOTW Policy

I've proposed a vote here. What do you think? Alphax (talk) 13:47, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Image Copyright

Okay, I'm moving into the exciting Wikipedia World of images. The site that I want to use images from has the following copyright message:

"Material on this site is protected by copyright. The copyright owner is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. You may not make alterations or additions to the material on this site, sell it, or misappropriate it. The Commission permits and encourages reproduction provided it is accurate and acknowledged. "

So does that mean I can use the images in Wikipedia articles, without asking them, as long as I attribute it to them? - Borofkin 03:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but my interpretation would be only under fair use provisions. The restriction on being able to sell it means the license isn't GFDL compatible. Shane King 03:56, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but you you need to include this template
Copyrighted This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that reason
NOTE: The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives.
Details about the above note...

If the image requires attribution, use {{Attribution}} instead.

and that text as the reason - on the image page. Wikimedia wouldn't be able to use it for anything, but it gives people an idea about what you're talking about nixie

Hmm... Okay, a slight clarification, HREOC say anyone can use the images, as long as they include the caption: "Photographs obtained from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention : reproduced from website http://www.humanrights.gov.au/". Which I've done, on the image page on Wikimedia Commons. However when I reference the image in my article, it displays the image, but the link points to the image page on Wikipedia, which doesn't exist. Have a look, anyway: Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre
You do eventually get to this page which describes the copyright. I think in the image's caption, yuo should state courtesy of HREOC. Also your reason is not "for any purpose", the picture may not be altered, sold or misappropriated, it may only be used if free, accurate and acknowledged. I am changing both of these.--ZayZayEM 09:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sigh. I've had this issue with Jimbo already. We apparently can't use Australian government images, however what I did discover is that when we upload the images to the U.S. site after receiving permission to be able to use the image on Wikipedia I think the copyright changes to fair use. In those cases I have attributed the image with both the Australian copyright and the fairuse copyright, under seperate headings. Check out the Cyclone Tracy image. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Commission permits and encourages reproduction provided it is accurate and acknowledged. This statements mean we can use the iage without request, as long as the copyright tag remains, and we don't edit the picture (and we don't say the picture is something it isn't). The source must be acknowledged every time it is used. I think if taht is followed we don't recquire permission.--ZayZayEM 03:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Errrm. I don't really understand. Do I have to remove the image? The copyrighted template is different on Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia. Should I upload the article to Wikipedia instead? - Borofkin 04:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robbie Buck on VFD!

Triple J listeners, come and help save him! -- Chuq 23:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Parliament diagrams

Tasmanian House of Assembly, 1996-1998
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Tasmanian House of Assembly, 1998-2002
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

What do people think of the diagrams to the right, so far as parliament diagrams go?

The bold O represents the centre of the house. (ie. seat needed for a majority by one of the major parties)

Might be difficult to do for larger houses - 150 O's in a row may not fit very well! (Could use the letter I instead!)

More at Talk:Tasmanian House of Assembly -- Chuq 02:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


the U.S. senate and house both have diagrams, if you want to model off them Xtra 03:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the u.s. house got rid of their's. to see it go to an old version. Xtra 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the pendulum style would be better if possible. Having them in a line is a) odd, and b) only usable for the Tasmanian, Northern Territory and ACT Legislative Assemblies (although it would be quite useful in the case of the ACT). Ambi 03:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
as i said, see the set up on the american ones Xtra 03:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Australian House of Representatives, 2004-2007
↓

Ok. I've done some House of Reps style diagrams with influence from the American style, and the standard pendulum style. As good as can be done with ASCII tables. (The Bluey-green ones are Nationals, btw) The arrow is supposed to point to the middle of the house - hopefully it does in all fonts/browsers. Alternate versions of this table are at Talk:Australian House of Representatives A utility that could take input figures and generate house images on the fly would be fantastic. But, as we don't have one for maps yet, I doubt we will get one for parliament pendulum diagrams for a while :-/ -- Chuq 04:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the second table at Talk:Australian House of Representatives, the one without the O's and the borders. I think a colour key might be neccessary though, as it's not obvious to non-Australians which party is what colour. Also prehaps a <small> note stating that each square represents one seat? Though that's fairly clear in itself. T.PK 06:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've replaced the table at right with a smaller version of the one you are talking about, as it is my favourite too. I'll include a colour key, etc. with any versions of these tables which make it to articles! Strangely, the colours look different on my home PC - the colour I described before (National) is light-blue and the Liberal squares look more purpley-blue. -- Chuq 07:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that doing it this way is an inappropriate use of HTML tables, and an image would be a better solution. Shane King 06:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Australian House of Representatives, 2004-2007
↓
Australian Senate, 2005-2008
↓
At the moment, tables are easily editable without additional software, visible to probably slightly more web browsers that images are, fast to load, and versatile. A pendulum/curved layout would look better - if anyone wants to draw up a template, go for it. -- Chuq 07:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd do it if I wasn't the worst artist in the world. Sorry to critique but not be able to help. :) Shane King 07:24, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
i like diagram 2 best. is there any chance of having the nats in green (that is their recognised colour). also html is the form used on other like articles. Xtra 07:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Will do. Is there an offical list of colours associated with parties? I've probably got some of the other shades wrong too. -- Chuq 07:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The point is taken, but it does seem odd that green wouldn't represent the Greens. Ambi 08:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not in a historical sense--nixie 08:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Colours adjusted, see tables. Dark green for Nationals, "No Dams" sticker coloured yellow-green for Greens! -- Chuq 08:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Look what I found - http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/items/200407/s1162235.htm . Also, the Senate figures (I think from the relevant wikipedia article) don't differentiate libs/nats in the senate, so they are all blue in my diagram -- Chuq 09:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pendulum diagrams are entirely possible, but one needs to do a lot of calculations to make sure the diagram is representative. The work that needs to be done to get a truly representative pendulum diagram somewhat outweighs the work in actually drawing the diagrams, unfortunately. Dysprosia 11:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Australian Wikireader

Comments from the Foundation mailing list:

"I think my next thoughts will be oriented toward what French call "fracture numérique", ie, the great gap currently widening between those who have access to the net versus those who do not (or have a very limited net access). We might think about what we are *currently* doing : we are certainly improving the amount and quality of information of those who already have access to information. But we are not bringing information to those who do not really have access to information."

On that note, have we ever considered creating an Australian Wikireader? A PDF document that could be downloaded, printed out, and distributed for free? - Borofkin 22:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think we may have plenty of work left to do with the articles online before we can create a decent Wikireader, in my opinion. Something for the horizon. T.PK 23:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's definitely plenty more work to do, but I suspect there will always be plenty more to do. We would start small, say with an Australian media or Australian military history wikireader. I suppose it would need someone with enough interest in a certain topic. - Borofkin 23:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that would actually be harder to do, as it would require more depth in a particular area. But nevertheless, we're not really ready for this yet. We've improved a lot over the last few months, but it'll be a few months yet before many of our articles - particularly in the areas of society and history, are up to scratch. Ambi 10:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well what I've found with my work on the Shakespeare WikiReader, is that it is kinda like a longer term COTW. If we got together the pages that we wanted in the WikiReader now, it would give us a systematic approach to improving the aussie articles. Just because we start it now doesnt mean we have to finish it within the next two weeks. Instead (as Jimbo has pointed out), it would be like a little bit of wikipedia 1.0 that got here early. It might also show us holes in our coverage of Australia, that we had no idea even existed. The bellman 11:44, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to specialise if we're to have any hope of making this workable. Our coverage of most of the humanities, for example, is wretched, as is our coverage of geography. We're not in a position, IMHO, to even start on such a project yet. On the other hand, something more specific, such as current Australian politics (where we have a decent set of articles already), I don't think would be out of the question. Ambi 12:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary of Australian biography

Thanks to Dysprosia, we now have a list on here of all the people in this reference, who all probably need articles here, at /Complete to-do/Australian Dictionary of Political Biography. We can't use the material itself, as it's still copyrighted in the US, and it may also not be the best source, but they still need articles. I'll go through and wikify them soon. Ambi 08:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the mundys

To whom this may concern

I am writting here today on the twenty-fith of november 2004 i recently found out some interesting family history my name is Mark Cleaver i always knew i was of aboriginal decent and i knew wich aboriginal ancestor we came from on my mothers side her maiden name is mundy and untill today i found a bizzare twist in my story the aboriginal decendant of ours is the one and only Truganini i always knew the name and what happened to her but never knew her story was famous and that she was a living legend i knowwhat im saying is hard to believe but we have a photograph of her in our family album and more of her with our aunty who lives in tasmania both my parents come from tasmania but it was on my mothers side comes our historical back ground if you would like to con tact me my email address is markcares at hotmail dot com please get in contact with me i would like to know more as im sure you would.

sincerely yours, Mark Cleaver

Sounds great. Do you want to get involved in wikipedia? Do you have scanned in versions of the pictures? The bellman 11:18, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Unstubbing Regional info

So I'm trying to expand some of the information on my local region Central Queensland and in particular the Capricorn Coast. The problem is all the coastal townships are basically interconnected history-wise and its very hard writing an article about Yeppoon that just deals with just Yeppoon. Should surrounding smaller townships be absorbed into either the Yeppoon article, or the Capricorn Coast article (INITIALLY, with individual articles being the eventual goal). Any suggestions on how to deal with this. Thanks.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's obviously going to be some duplication of material, but I think it works to have them seperate, as long as each article comes at the material from a different angle. Central Queensland and Capricorn Coast could cover the development of the respective areas, Yeppoon could cover the development of the town as a whole, and Smaller township could cover just the details relevant to that little piece. Ambi 02:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WikiReader

Anybody interested in the idea of creating an aussie WikiReader? The bellman 05:37, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Erm, read up three topics on this page. ;) Ambi 05:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Shit, sorry, havent been keeping up to date with the notice board. The bellman 11:33, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Another ACOTW tie

The title pretty much sums it up. A three-way tie.

Voting lines will close around 8pm tomorrow AEST (if noone else monitors it more likely 10pm, after the new Coupling series on ABC).

The choices are:

Please go to the WP:ACOTW page to place your votes. --ZayZayEM 11:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again on Disambiguation

Okay. Can we have a clear vote on this. Noone else seemed to be setting a new one up.

Option One

All Australian town/city/suburb articles [[Town, State]] no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and prefferentially made [[City]]

  1. Ambi 06:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Chuq 05:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Given these four options, this is the one I prefer, but I would also prefer capitals to be at [[City]] if non-ambiguous.
  3. Martyman 06:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) A redirect or disambiguation page should be placed at [[Suburb]].
    • This is NOT merely dealing with suburbs. Just thought I'd be clear on that.--ZayZayEM 05:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Dysprosia 06:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Normally I support disambiguation-until-necessary, but since there are already a lot of conflicts, this creates for us a pseudo-namespace, which will makes things easier for us.
  5. Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (haven't been here in a while, but putting my $0.02 in. No accounting for inflation.) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Tookr 09:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. older≠wiser 14:48, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) (assuming one doesn't have to be from down under to vote on this) -- I have some reservations about using preemptively disambiguated names for large world-class cities, but as a general rule, it is much easier all around if there is a consistent naming schema.
  8. Camerong 01:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. T.PK 03:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. a bit late, but may as well "vote" anyway Xtra 12:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Option Two

All Australian town/city/suburb articles will be titled [[Town]], where no question of ambiguity arises. If there is a question of ambiguity, articles will be titled [[Town, State]]

  1. ZayZayEM 05:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Shane King 05:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. clarkk 09:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Geoff/Gsl 21:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. The bellman 03:21, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Option Three

As option one; but suburb articles will be titled [[Suburb, City]]

Option Four

All town and city articles will be preferrentially made [[City]], but Suburb articles will be [[Suburb, State]]

Option Five

All town and city articles will be preferrentially made [[City]], but Suburb articles will be [[Suburb, City]]

Option Six

All Australian town/city/suburb articles [[Town, State]] no matter what their status of ambiguity is.

Option Seven

All Australian town/city/suburb articles [[Town, State]] no matter what their status of ambiguity is. All Cities larger than Darwin, the smallest state capital, will be excepted from this rule and prefferentially made [[City]]

Option Eight

(Compromise between Option One and Two)

Untill such a time as ambiguity is found, all Australian cities (As legally defined in Australia (If memory serves - a settlement with more than 50 000 people)) would be at [[city]]. All suburbs and towns would be at [[Town, state initials]] or [[Suburb, city/town]]. All council areas, shires, municipalities, etc would be at [[foo council/shire/municipality]].

Examples:

cities - [[Perth]], [[Orange, NSW]], [[Alice Springs]]
towns - [[Yackandandah, VIC]]
suburbs - [[Hurstville, Sydney]], [[Sutherland, Sydney]]
council areas - [[Hurstville Municipality]], [[Sutherland Shire]]
[[Perth, WA]] or [[Perth, Tas]]? Also, VIC isn't an acronym so it wouldn't be all capitals. -- Chuq 10:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. The bellman 03:14, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Comments and Notes

  • At present can we ignore the possibility of dual cities/towns being present in the same State. The method of secondary disambiguation can be dealt with after this is agreed upon.--ZayZayEM 05:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I find it a bit strange that the present consensus regarding suburbs (specifically having them at Suburb, State) isn't an option. Ambi 05:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Isn't that option one? Shane King 06:04, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • That is option one, have added option five to cater for this within option two's parameters.--ZayZayEM 06:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe I've missed something somewhere, but what would be wrong with [[Suburb, City, Australia]]? It provides a good idea that you're looking at a local area of a larger city, and differentiates between other cities with the same name. So you have Sydney at [[Sydney, Australia]] and Manly at [[Manly, Sydney, Australia]]. Suburbs or localities of regional centres can be dealt with similarly (ie. [[Suburb, Town, State]].) Is that too long-winded? Would there be problems with border areas? Tookr 09:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The trouble with that is it is starting to get a bit too long to type in. Quite a few people already think [[suburb, state]] is too long. Martyman 10:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This will likely receive stiff opposition, mainly because its Sydney, New South Wales. If you would like to add an option eight and nine, go ahead.--ZayZayEM 02:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Re: option ONE. Would it be Wagga, NSW or Wagga, New South Wales. I prefer the abriviation system, because its so much shorter, however i still think its a bit silly to be trying to avoid ambiguity with aboriganal town names. Youre as likely to find another Wagga or Canberra or didjabringabeeralong as you are to find an honest politician. The bellman 02:43, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
    • Actual articles should never use abbreviations. Abbreviations should redirect to simplest, full name. I'll concede I've lost out to option one to a bunch of "normally I don't support unnecessary disambiguation folks", but using abbreviations would be evil.The tribe has spoken, but I'm gonna wait till the weekend before I bring up the suggestion of who is going to be responsible for moving all the current unambigious articles, ensuring redirects and monitoring New Articles.--ZayZayEM 07:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm entirely willing to do this, if it's okay with you. I'd be lax if I voted for the option and then didn't put in the time to see it through. Ambi 08:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Re Option Eight: No, no, no. We're an international encyclopedia - this would be disastrous for anyone from overseas. There's a reason the American articles use California instead of the abbreviation CA - as much as many Americans would prefer that. Ambi 10:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • hmmm... you might have a point there. The bellman 09:45, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Complete todo layout

Would anyone object if I modified the layout of the complete todo list akin to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion pages. Each category would be a {{template}} set further done the page (which some already are). With major categories being People (Actors, Musicians, Politicians, Footballers etc.), Places (by state, || or cities, towns, suburbs, parks, waterways monuments), Organisations (govt, companies, charities, misc), Events (annual events, crime, history). and a Misc, Image Request, Review Request. --ZayZayEM 05:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about doing a mockup in your user space first? I'm not sure it's necessary. Ambi 05:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The thing is, because of how the system works, that would rather much more difficult to set up. I'd have to recreate a lot of templates already set up. I just think it would amke it easier editing, and the list does need a bit of further organisation.--ZayZayEM 06:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What about just doing an example template for one category? Ambi 06:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Ambi on this one. I think that ZZM's idea is probably a good one. Let's see what he comes up with, I think it could be useful! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say I was against it! Just not sure - I'd like to see a partial example first. Ambi 06:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is more work than I thought it would be. Currently working on a People example in User:ZayZayEM/evil_usage, it might take a while. I think I am going to have to work the whole thing in my workspace first anyway.--ZayZayEM 02:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good thing I have done a rough one first. I think I'm insted just going for a rewrite of the list witha lot of organisation. Some categories need to be changed/added/tweaked a bit. Will do a rough in my space first (User:ZayZayEM/Sandbox) and then present--ZayZayEM 14:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Before you get too far - I've made a recent (unfinished) attempt to do exactly the same thing here, by forming a list along the same lines as the UK one. I'm just trying to find where I put it - I'd added heaps of new material. I hope you won't mind merging mine in - I put a fair bit of work into digging up new stuff that needed articles, particularly in the areas of sport, the media and geography (and I was starting on actors and actresses, too). :) Ambi 07:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)