Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Relative importance

Hi, I appreciate the work you are doing. I see there are guidelines for schools and places. I came to comment in respect of seeing AWB Limited (an S&P/ASX 200 company) and Angus & Robertson both rated "Mid", but 1997 Thredbo landslide rated high importance. Of the three, to me, AWB is the most important. This is just some I noticed flying through my watchlist. Do I have to justify changing either of these, or just boldly alter them? There does not appear to generally be explanantions of the choices made. --Scott Davis Talk 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be bold and alter the assessment to suit your best judgement. Standards will slowly evolve. I've made a start and suggested some proposed standards on the assessment project page, as you've noticed. One has to be careful though. Are you basing your rating of AWB Limited due to recent news, or do you consider AWB Limited to be of high importance in general? An importance rating should reflect the subject's overall importance to the project, and not be based on recent mainstream news events concerning them. I agree the Thredbo disaster doesn't warrant a high importance rating. -- Longhair 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My relative rating was that AWB is an ASX200 company with nationwide and international operations, not based on current controversy. I would seek guidance on whether this qualifies it as high, or only at the top end of mid. --Scott Davis Talk 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I rated all of those, I think. The problem is, all ratings are very subjective. I don't think AWB is a 'high' importance issue - certainly a mid. I would base this on being a major company in Australia. (I did actually consider it for a High, because of the bribery scandal, but that article doesn't include information on it.) However, there are so many ways people can make valid judgements on the importance of an article. One I took from the Hurricane wikiproject was the level of the article in a sort of descending tree of knowledge, for example;

Top Australia, Australian electoral system, Australian Economy

High Queensland, House of Representatives, Australian Stock Exchange
Mid Brisbane, Department of Foreign Affairs, AWB
Low Victoria Point, Helen Coonan, James Packer

I've been using that, but modified it to include the subjective importance of a subject to Australia, and slightly to the times, because of this in the Assessment description page; "Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia." In that respect, James Packer would be higher, because he is currently the Head of PBL rather than the past leader, and because he is a major subject of debate in Australia, unlike the head of another company in Australia. I don't know if Threadbo was the right article to make high, but it was a big deal in Australia, and so I rated it higher than I would consider its importance in the 'knowledge tree' above.

On the subject of making changes, I don't mind at all that someone would disagree with me. However, I think it would be faster and more accurate for us not to singlehandedly change ratings that have already been made. I think we should all be free to give an article a rating, but if you want to change another editors rating, mainly in importance (class ratings are much easier and will change) you list it for assessment, and we can all discuss it together and then give a final consensus rating. That way, any controversial changes will have the support of all the editors and there won't be any edit-warring of people changing them back and forth, or long talkpage discussions about them. Quick and easy. What do you think? --Iorek85 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You did rate those three, and I would not have commented if they were all the same rating (as they are now), or if AWB was the highest. In my mind, AWB was clearly the most important of the three articles that showed up together on my watchlist, without regard to current controversy. I therefore came to see if there was a guideline that led to the way you had done them. I recognise it's very subjective, and I'm impressed that someone is rating so many articles — don't take it as a criticism.
What the importance scale is lacking is some indication of bucket sizes. For example 10% top, 20% high, 30% mid, 40% low, or 8-12-30-50 or 25-25-25-25 or whatever. That would help to decide which way to tip marginal choices.
Your proposal to not discuss initial assessments but to discuss changes is good. At this early stage it should be here, as part of the decision is the relative merits of different articles, like this, and the need to establish agreed rules of thumb and guidelines. --Scott Davis Talk 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not offended at all. I'm sure theres quite a few people will think need different ratings. Yes, the bucket is a problem. I've sort of being using it in descending order; i.e 5%,15%,30%,50%, again on the whole tree idea, since Fauna of Australia would be the top of all of the Australian Animals below it (I don't think Emu is a Top importance, a high, sure.). However, I have no idea if this is what the scale intended.--Iorek85 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your tree idea, this is an encyclopedia after all and I think general overview articles should rate higher than articles on more specific pieces of knowledge. For that reason I would rate the Australia article, arguably the broadest within the scope of the project, as the most important article (but with only 4 levels of importance, it will have to share its Top rank with many other articles). Pretty much everything branches off it, so using your example above, geographical regions related articles would go something like, states and territories as High, regions and cities as Medium then LGA's and suburbs as Low. If one article is also of international significance it should probably be bumped up a notch, for example, Sydney should probably be high rather than medium, but international significance or news worthy items should not be the only things considered when rating articles. Another example, in terms of companies, again based on your example above, something like
Top: Economy of Australia
High: Australian Stock Exchange, Reserve Bank of Australia etc.
Medium: Large companies like AWB, Australian dollar etc.
Low: Smaller companies like AAPT, Australian coins etc.
would very work well I think. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The proportions are currently running at about 10-18-40-32. But with only 484 out of 3695 rated, I'm sure there would be a bias toward rating the more important articles first.

[edit] Category leaders

I propose to tag as Top-importance the overview article for each category linked in Portal:Australia. These categories have already been identified as the important aspects of Australia. I'd guess that major subarticles of those would then be of high or perhaps medium importance. --Scott Davis Talk 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The following don't seem to have a sensible lead article to cover them:
--Scott Davis Talk 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the purpose of these Assessment tags

How do these tags assist anybody? --WikiCats 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the only answer, but one answer is to help WP:1.0. Also, top or high importance articles with low quality ratings are candidates for urgent improvement. --Scott Davis Talk 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these tags has any place in the talkspace and should be restricted to the project space. They are not useful to anyone outside the project.--Peta 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


These are soul destroying assessments that help nobody. --WikiCats 12:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if you take things too personally. No one is diminishing or belittling the work of others, only categorising the obvious. A 'low importance' article doesn't mean you shouldn't bother, or your work doesn't matter; thats like saying the guy who makes the brake pads on a sportscar shouldn't bother. All the parts add up to make one hell of an encyclopaedia, and all of them are just as vital as another. --Iorek85 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Aside from many writers not understanding why these assessments are turning up on talk pages and potentially taking offence, they have no real purpose for anyone outside the Australia project. Whatsmore I don't think these ranks were ever meant to be used outside the project space, 1.0 does put these ranks on talk pages - but they are the only project that is actually working towards a publishable unit as far as I know, and that is certainly not the case for this project.--Peta 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Further I'm not sure what benefit classifying every article vaguely realted to Australia using these criteria has for anyone.--Peta 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Peta. Further to that, the assessment scale makes no sense. It starts out talking about Featured articles and Good articles, which is a quality assessment. Then it ends talking about stubs and start articles which is about size. And who has the right to decide whether an article is High importance, Middle importance or Low importance?

This Assessment project should be sent to whence it came! --WikiCats 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment is done on two scales - quality and importance are orthogonal. In this context, "Start" and "Stub" are also quality ratings (see this project page), not just about size. There can be excellent article of "low" importance, as well as Top importance articles of very poor quality. Are you concerned about offence on both scales or just one? I'm not trying to be offensive by asking, I was not offended by seeing assessments start to appear, and am trying to understand what the problem is. I doubt anyone would try to dispute that Australia is both a better article and a more important one than Broadmeadows railway station, Adelaide, for example. Is the problem the relative ratings, the (small) number of buckets to rate articles into, or the labels on those buckets? --Scott Davis Talk 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


It's been said quite clearly by Peta and myself.

This project will do immeasurable damage to the encyclopedia.

You have explained that the assessment is about quality. It is a scale from excellence to rubbish. With only a handful of Featured articles and Good articles, which have already had honours heaped upon them, and the thousands of other articles that will now be classed as rubbish.

This a a scheme that has never existed in the encyclopedia before this.

How do you know how new editors will react to a low grading? Iorek has said that if you are discouraged by these ratings then it's your fault.

Any good you expect to come out of these ratings is out weighed by the risked of disheartening editors. --WikiCats 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had one comment from an editor who was (very) upset with the ratings, I'll admit that. A small proportion of people will be offended by the ratings, but I feel, with an explanation, people will realise that the ratings do not reflect upon them personally. After all, you don't own articles. The categories are 'stub' (which are already marked with a 'stub' tag, anyway) 'start', which I don't see as offensive, and B class, which, while it sounds bad, is actually the highest quality article you can get without being peer reviewed and Good Articled or Feature Articled. The importance rankings cause the most offense, and they shouldn't; they aren't based at all on the quality of the article, just on it's subject matter. I'm still at a loss as to explain how people would think that, as Scott Davis said, an article on a suburban railway station is going to be as searched and as important in terms of size as an article on all of Australia. I put a lot of work into the Cleveland, Queensland article, and I had no illusion it was worth any more than a 'low' rating. Still, I see that people can be offended by the rating, I just think that after explaining any concerns people have, they will understand and be fine with it. I'm happy to explain my methodology and reasons to people.
As far as I can tell, the ratings are importantant in determining what articles need the most urget help, and to help with the C.D selection. It means people don't have to read through 1.25million articles to find out which ones should go on a hard copy or C.D version. That importance, to me, outweighs the small number of people who will take offence, and who will have to have it explained to them. --Iorek85 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The simple fact is that these importance and quality ratings do not need to be in the article namespace - they should be kept on a list in the project space where they are actaully useful to project editors. There is also no need to rank every artcile related to Australia - which appears to be the way these ranking are being implemented. Wouldn't the project be better served by compiling a list of high importance article and just focussing on them? In all seriousness what purpose does Category:Low-importance Australia articles serve any editor?--Peta 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
In light of this conversation, I will not tag any more articles with importance=low or class=stub (which is actually a broader label with different definition than those tagged in article-space with stub tags) until a discussion with a wider audience is decided. I have the kind of personality that regards the lower quality ratings as challenges, not put-downs. I apologise to anyone offended. In answer to the question, at least one use of Category:Low-importance Australia articles is to show that the article has been looked at, and to take it out of Category:Unassessed Australia articles Category:Unknown-importance Australia articles. As you can see above, we expect fully half the articles are likely to be "low importance". This is a positive measure of breadth of coverage, not a negative measure of wasted effort! --Scott Davis Talk 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree, the time people have spent tagging articles as low importance etc is wasted time. Really this assessment thing is going at the project arse backwards, 1.0 first compiled a list of articles and then rated them for quality (no importance ratings- I guess that was invented by the military history people). In my opinion a better way to go about producing a quality end product is to select the top 100 article that are very high and high importance for an Australian CD edition, rank them for quality and work on improving those articles.--Peta 23:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Further assessment tags should not be though of as a way to organise all Australian content - which is what you seem to be partically suggesting.--Peta 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Scott (and his attitutude is a good one). I don't think we should go through the 3000 articles that need tagging and leave out the Stubs and Low importance articles just to protect peoples egos, though. Stub tagging is important - it shows where we need to improve the most. Low importance, as you say, doesn't have much importance, but it can be useful. Low importance takes them out of unasessed articles. It'd be nice, too, to match the importance with the rating; Top importance being FA, High importance being A class or Good articles, Mid importance being B class, Low being Start.
As for the project namespace, I agree. It would be better there than on the talk pages; we'd just need an easy way to see the articles and keep the ratings organised. --Iorek85 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is patently obvious that an article about a Sydney railway station or a one time olympic medalist or a suburb of Brisbane are not important subjects to the Australian wikiproject - they don't need to be assesed to establish that. What I am interested in is using the best system to get an end product - this is not it. What we need to do is compile a simple list of the articles key to the project, rank them for quality, and get them to a publishable standard. The system that is being used doesn't do much to achiev that - nor does it even provide a simple overview of the subjects that are most important--Peta 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think both Iorek and I joined this activity, we didn't start it, and Longhair's out of contact at the moment. I think he is the one who arranged the templates and pages. As I understand it, the assessment tagging provides keys in the talk space (not the article space) that allow bots to generate summaries, statistics etc. I expect to eventually be able to find a matrix of importance vs quality, with the count a link to a list. We can then use those lists to identify articles suitable for ACOTF or other targeted activities, new wikiprojects based on Category:Australia articles without a WikiProject, whatever. The "simple overview of the subjects that are most important" is Category:Top-importance Australia articles. --Scott Davis Talk 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Top importance does not provide a summary in any useful way since there in no interaction between the quality and importance categories, for instance I can't easily identify an important article that is also a stub, or gauge the progress on a number of articles. I also fail to see how bot generated statistics will improve the quailty of articles. I should probably add that military history doesn't use stub or low importance ranks at all.--Peta 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Two minor points:
  • The military history project most certainly does use the "Stub-Class" assessment for quality. You're correct in that we've chosen not to use "Low-Importance", however.
  • You guys do realize that the tables you're looking for are being created automatically, right? For example, the current (before tonight's bot run; it might shift around) list of Top-Importance Stub-Class Australia articles is about 4/5ths of the way down on this page.
Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


All I need to say is to point out a statement that was put by your side of the argument:

  • "I've had one comment from an editor who was (very) upset with the ratings, I'll admit that." -Iorek --WikiCats 05:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Would you like me to go it to detail about my reaction when one of these "dam" tags turned up on one the pages I'm working on? --WikiCats 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it you were upset? I've rated over 100 articles, and had one (two, if you count you) complaints. I don't know how other projects have fared. I truly beleive any objections based on hurt feelings are erroneous; they are also unintentional. The only debate is whether it's more important to have quality control and useful project information, or to protect the feelings of the few editors who take objection to having their work rated. There is also the other options of renaming the rankings to prevent offense and still provide a useful classification, or moving the ratings to the project space. --Iorek85 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've rated over 30 odd articles, hadnt got any complaints yet. But I have tagged many more articles unassessed as part of the object. But then again there have to be some ways of gathering the statistics while at the same time try to protect the feelings of the few who object to having their work rated. I am open to debate on how this can be done in the meantime --Arnzy (whats up?) 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! I support moving the ratings to the project space. --WikiCats 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, we've just got to come up with an easy way of keeping the articles and ratings together so that it doesn't screw up the bot which tabulates the data for us. Or we have to do it all manually. --Iorek85 06:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

My origional felling was to send the WikiProject Australia/Assessment to speedy delete. At this stage I'm happy with the compromise of moving the ratings to the project space.

At this point Iorek, Peta and myself seem to support the proposal with Scott curtailing some of his editing until the matter is decided. --WikiCats 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested how to see how it can be done without screwing up the ratings and so forth, if the consensus comes to that. In the meantime, I'll be sitting on the fence for this one. --Arnzy (whats up?) 08:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm with the folks that just don't understand how someone could be offended at an assessment. If you disagree with an assessment, they're hardly clad in gold. Simply leave a note on the page, send a message to the assesser, or bring your objection here for the fastest response. As far as their purpose goes, the article assessments will help the project (once all articles are assessed) with overall progress reports, category progress reports, reports on which articles need the most attention (ie. top stubs and so on), reports on anything we choose really, be it to help guide the project or out of pure curiosity. This can all be done automatically with a bot, but to move assessments to this page turns this into a prohibitivly long manual process. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 09:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
A further comment, the assessments on the talk pages of articles identifies those articles that we think could use improvement to users that might be able to help and then prompt them to do so. "Start class eh? I could help add a bit more info then". (Yes, impersonations are my specialty!! :P) Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Without wishing to be rude, exactly which criterion were you going to use for speedy delete?--A Y Arktos\talk 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I feel very strongly about this problem. Iorek said that he believes that this is only causing a problem with 2 in 100 editors. I believe it to be more common. But let's use Iorek estimate. There are 1,812,314 editors in Wikipedia. At 2%, that's over 36,000 editors getting "upset" or discouraged.

You are creating a huge problem. People respond more positively to encouragement.

Who will volunteer to repair this damage (as Iorek and Scott are having to do right now)? --WikiCats 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well ok, if statistics work like that, then just 3 people on this page out of ... what, 10? says there are many more times as many people who are for the assessments than against. Consensus dictates we keep the assessments. But ofcourse, statistics don't work like that and I think discussion is the best way of dealing with this. I must admit I'm still a bit confused about why an article assessment is offensive. Considering Peta has said that railways station articles would be considered of a lesser importance than the Australia article (to this project), I don't see what else could be the offensive issue. As far as time goes, I think it's fair to say we see it as a positive investment in time, else we wouldn't be doing it. So, can you please enlighten us (or at least me) as to why you think the assessments should be removed from the talk page since either of those two things don't seem to be it? Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While WikiCats might be right about more than 2% of people getting offended, only 300,000 or so of those million plus user accounts have edits, and fewer still put in significant work. Say 5% of all editors get annoyed, or ask for reratings, theres only 3700 articles left to rate - 185 complaints. As I've said, any person doing the ratings is happy to explain why an article was rated the way it is. If you want to make it even easier, we could have some sort of reply template that explains what the assessments mean and why they were given, to save us more time. I don't think it's that much of an issue. One simpler option is to hide the importance rating on the talkpage, so bots can find it, but general editors and readers can't. Anyway, I've stopped rating articles until we decide what to do (theres also the option of renaming them, see below.) --Iorek85 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


No one has the right to make a unilateral judgement about the quality of others work. We have mechanisms to ensure quality without passing judgment in colourful templates. The scale should be about to what degree the article has been completed. Whether it is a stub or half-finished or completed. I would not be offended by that.

Talking about what's important and what's totally unimportant is subjective to the extreme. How can you determine what is important to another person. You have to come up with something else. You could talk about levels rather than importance. Top level, Mid-level or Base level.

These ratings have been put together without regard to how people would take them. There should have been more thought put into this. --WikiCats 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is making a judgement about any one editor's work - please review WP:OWN--A Y Arktos\talk 12:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


If these judgements are going to say that they are low class and totally unimportant to the vast majority of articles, as they will, then what is the point of working on them? --WikiCats 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Completeness. This is an encyclopaedia, first and foremost. If something can be done that helps it improve, we should do it. If we can do it without offending anyone, great. If some people who shouldn't get upset do, then we should explain to them that no offense is intended. But in no way should that stop us from trying to make Wikipedia better. As for 'rights', any contested ratings come here for people to discuss. After that, consensus decides what to rate an article, not one person. As for renaming, I've made some name suggestions below, and I've not a problem with it. However, it would make us different to all the other projects, and would most likely take away the point. --Iorek85 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rated less articles than Iorek, so my percentage complaint rate might be higher, but I find it interesting that the only response I have recieved was on one of the two pages on which I made additional comments. I have only realised this morning that was from WikiCats. In that case, I responded to a specific question on the talk page of whether it was a good article by identifying a few aspects of information missing. I was far more scathing in my only other assessment comment so far, which was deliberately phrased to draw comment, and there has been silence at Talk:Military of Australia.--Scott Davis Talk 01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus (take two)

For the sake of consensus I am prepared to concede on these points:

  • I'm happy to have the Assessment project proceed
  • I'm OK with the ratings being on the Talk page

What I would like to see is Iorek's suggestion of a change in the terminology (or "renaming the rankings to prevent offense").

The terms importance, quality and class are where the problem is.

Rather than people misunderstanding these terms, we need to change them now to what is more suitable for the purpose. --WikiCats 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Foundation, High, General, Detail, Specific" those are the terms I suggested below. The only problem with these is that they rank only on the amount of information and the generality of the article, rather than the 'importance' of the subject matter. (Don Bradman, for instance, would be the same importance as Damien Martyn, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge the same as a causeway that crosses a creek.) I don't mind changing them, but I fear it will affect standardisation with other groups and the 1.0 project.--Iorek85 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I support renaming anything offensive (particularly the template names with -class), however many of those templates are outside the Australia project. I think it is extremely useful to be able to rate on two scales: quality of the current article (i.e. how far from Featured), and importance/significance of the topic (which generally does not change as the article improves). --Scott Davis Talk 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


For your information, this debate has been taken up at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment where these assessments originated. --WikiCats 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to go away on Wikibreak when such discussion takes place. It seems one can never leave for a few days without major change occuring :) Most of the points I was going to raise have mostly been covered and thanks to those who replied in defence of the project in my absence. I can see the point of view in regards to opposition in the use of words such as quality and importance, and to be honest I had my doubts as to whether those words were of any use to the project before it was setup. My first trial with the assessments skipped the importance component entirely, however I activated it for completness sake. I then decided to go with the model being used by the military project and mostly adopted their grading and scales, mostly because it was supported by a bot and didn't force us to manually create massive lists based on article quality. I notice that discussion is now being taken up with the WP1.0 people themselves on a grander scale which is a good thing. Any changes we make here may as well be compatible and standard to Wikipedia as a whole. Talk page spamming is another thing I've been aware of. If we can reduce the size but keep the functionality of the template (even move it to another space entirely?), I'm all for it. -- Longhair 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


A really simple soulution, would be to have two templates. One with assessments that is only used on top and high importance articles - since presumably they are the articles that this project wants to improve, and a second assessment-less template that goes on anything else of interest to the project that isn't a high priority.--Peta 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship between importance and quality

  • As per Peta's point, to my mind the important thing is to identify important topics with articles that require improvement. The present categorisation system does not allow us to do that and hence I think some of the frustration. I appreciate the schema has been adapted from other projects, but I think it has problems if you can't see easily identify an article of higher importance with potential for improvement.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There should be some way of seeing both the class and the importance of the article in a list or table of some kind. I just joined to help, I have no idea how one would go about doing something like that. Perhaps when an article is rated, it is placed in a table? So when you click on 'Top Importance' articles, you are shown a list of the Top importance articles and their classes, similar to this; (stolen from Version 1.0 places )
Contact with WP Mountains
Article Date Assessment Comments
Mount St. Helens April 13, 2006 Featured article FA
Mount Everest April 13, 2006 A Former FA
Mount Rainier April 13, 2006 A
Pikes Peak April 13, 2006 A FA in Project Colorado
Stone Mountain April 13, 2006 A
Arklay Mountains April 13, 2006 B
Cheyenne Mountain April 13, 2006 B
Haleakala April 13, 2006 B
List of peaks by prominence April 13, 2006 B

I think that would be better, but I don't know if it would be difficult to implement non-manually. --Iorek85 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have any Aussie bot writers, except Nickj, but it is my impression that these lists are manually collated, as seems to be the case on the 1.0 core topics page. As AYArktos says this system has been taken from other projects, is there anything to suggest that the talk page notices have been effective in improving participation and article quality?--Peta 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. Having the notice on talkpages is an easy place to keep them, I suppose, and I think stub and start class tags would do more good than harm, encouraging people to get the articles up to GA or FA. The importance ratings are more for the project than the article, as you say, though. Perhaps they could be hidden?. As for doing it manually, I guess we have a lot of work ahead of us.--Iorek85 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for a while now, and in my experience stub tags of any sort to very little to generate content. I like your idea about hiding the tags, since they cre just for project and potentially bot use they really don't need to be visible. Another problem that hasn't been mentioned is updating the tags - in particular quailty tags.--Peta 01:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean just renaming them, or adding a couple of categories? I think we could do with an additional level between Low and Mid, and I suppose we could rename them to something less 'offensive'. Something like Foundation, High, General, Detail, Specific? This, however, would ignore the well known nature of an article, like Echidna or Don Bradman, instead only classing by the level of detail or generality of an article.

Also, I've started the table in Top Importance articles. I don't know if it's the right place for it, and it should probably be sorted by class, not alphabetically, but you get the idea. --Iorek85 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


  • I think the assessment of quality and importance is normally done at the same time and thus could be a single variable. No bots then required, editors looking for to-do items could simply search the cat called something like Australian articles with High-importance_Start-class quality and have a to do list - differing cats - not too many - could give a priority ranking for the to do potential items. Articles assessed as being of low importance would not have their quality ranked.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platypus

Platypus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 13:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] self-including, self-assessing

Is there a problem with dropping the template on "any" article and self-assessing as importance:low, quality:stub (if appropriate) - I DO want to encourage others to visit/view/improve the articles in question. The articles are all related to suburbs of the City of Blacktown, most of which are stubs, most of which are low importance but a few are mid importance and could/should/hopefully will become better (if they ever become FA quality I'll be amazed though!)

Although now I think of it I do work on electoral districts, MP's etc. also.

--Garrie 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's Australian, not at all! In fact, it would be great help - theres thousands that need assessing, and still more that are Australian articles that haven't been tagged as such. The debate over the terminology seems to have ended, from what I can gather. I'm going to start assessing articles again. --Iorek85 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some see articles of low importance and tagging them as a waste of time. I don't. Any article relevant to Australia has potential to reach Featured Status, and can be graded accordingly. Be sure to use the correct parameter when tagging, in this instance, Sydney=yes. -- Longhair 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment comments now live

I've upgraded the WikiProject Australia template to now accept comments when assessing articles. The process of adding comments is pretty straight forward (an explanation is on the template itself). If there's any hiccups, further tweaks needed, or questions, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. -- Longhair 11:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-class

How do others view the usage of A-class? A-class articles in my opinion are articles that have reached Good article status and been confirmed as such, but have not yet been selected or submitted as a Featured Article. They could quite possibly make the FA grade with very little work. Could an article be rated as A-class without first going through the Good article process? I'd like to see some standards delevop here on A-class usage thanks. -- Longhair 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, A-Class is the level below GA - or else it isn't very helpful at all (seeing as GA status is treated seperately by the templates, and if it has reached FA status it isn't a GA anymore). A better path to take, IMO, is to have A-Class being the articles that are probably (or nearly) ready for GA status, but haven't been nominated yet. Rebecca 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to the criteria, it is better than GA, and almost good enough for FA. IIRC, there used to be something about A class not needing GA status. I'd prefer something in between Start and B-class, since that is a massive gap. Iorek85 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That isn't very helpful, then - the whole purpose of GA status is "articles that are nearly ready to FA status". It makes the whole scale rather pointless if three of the categories cover the top 4 or 5 percent of articles and two categories cover the remaining multitude. Rebecca 03:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat with Rebecca here. I don't see A-class as being very useful as is. It makes more sense to slot it in between GA-class and B-class. How this would affect ratings on an overall WP1.0 scale I don't yet know. -- Longhair 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I differ some what in that having reviewed many articles for GA that GA no longer occupies it intended position within wikipedia. It does fit well between A and B class articles as most articles when they attain GA under go extensive rethinks and rewrites before FA. A class is an indication that the editors have resolved the format and information to be addressed. They are currently addressing each FA criteria before nomination. A class should be a tempory position for either articles that are being polished or have just been FARC and are have the concerns from FARC addressed. Articles that have been A class(without nonsense edits) for more then a certain period of time should either be nominated for FA or down graded to B class. GA is now more aligned to an accredited PR review process, but with notible editors protecting a philosophical(sp) positon of GA it remains a seperated review system, hence why GA isnt a requirement for A class. The descriptions for start and B class is the problem not the need for additional levels. B class should be about article being substantive in size for the subject and complying in general WP policies ie Burra, South Australia. Start should be for more essay style/type articles without WP formatting ie the current Quinten Lynch article. Gnangarra 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a lot of debate currently going on over how WP:GA fits into the 1.0 article assessment program. Personally I think GA's whole reason for existence has been co-opted by 1.0 article assessment, resulting in the unfortunate 4-5% situation mentioned by Rebecca above, and both systems will need to adapt somewhat if they are to co-exist. However, one thing that does not seem to be a subject of debate is the widely agreed fact that GA is not, and will never be, a required step on the way to WP:FA. It follows inevitably that GA is not a required step to A-Class.
I disagree with Gnangarra's view of A-class as a temporary classsification. If the one and only, irreplacable, world-leading expert on an obscure subject got an article 99% percent of the way to FA, then quit Wikipedia, I would be happy for that article to remain at A-Class indefinitely. Snottygobble 11:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Steve Irwin

Since the assessment is over, could someone please blank or move the discussion elsewhere. The header for the talk page is quite long and I want it cut down to size. Thanks. - RoyBoy 800 13:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it by moving the comments page into an archive. -- Longhair 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Assessment process is a monumental waste of time

This Assessment process is a monumental waste of time and highly offensive to boot.

The assessment process was started for purposes of the Version 1.0 project. Outside that project assessments serve no purpose at all. It will take one and a half million edits to tag all the articles and another one and a half million edits just to update them once. This will involve millions and millions of edits to place these judgmental comments. Time wasted on Talk pages that could be used to actually improve articles.

Now these judgments can apparently be made by inexperienced people who don't even have the wherewithal to log in. Then this will initiate an extended debate about the merits of decisions made by people who are confused about how to create a log on. More effort wasted that could be put to improving articles.

There seems to be some dream that if lists are created somewhere of articles that need help people will refer to them when they have run out of things to do. The reality is people edit subjects that they have an interest in or some degree of knowledge about.

We already have a stub tag which is placed when the article is created. We have a process for Good articles. And we have peer review for GA.

Beyond the Version 1.0 project, the assessment process serves no purpose other than the cheap thrill someone might get by running down the work of others and wasting hundreds of hours that could be spent improving articles.

The testament to how judgmental these tags are is the use of the words class, quality and importance. --WikiCats 09:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to yourself elsewhere on this matter and directed you here, but for now I'll quickly create a Pro's and Con's section below where others may add their for or against thoughts. I've added a few in favour (and some against) for now. Keep them brief and to the point. It's not a poll btw. I'll add some more later to give some time for others to chip in. -- Longhair\talk 09:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, On September 20, 2006, Wikipedia reached the 100,000 mark for article assessments, with the bulk of the work being done by WikiProjects. See Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#1.0_Assessment. -- Longhair\talk 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking control of the debate Longhair. I've explained in detail what a monumental waste of time is required. And have taken issue with the terms class, quality and importance. I would like a responce to that. --WikiCats 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I adapted those terms from the WP1.0 assessment project (and actually modelled the project on the military history project). This is all covered above. If you don't like the terms, suggest change. I've hardly taken control - you can edit this page and add your own content as freely as I can. Your lack of a willingness to assume good faith recently bothers me somewhat. Please don't remove my comments, they're just as valid an input to this discussion as yours. -- Longhair\talk 10:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Your proposal to initiate a vote on pros and cons is a device to ovoid debate. I might point out that according to the guidelines policy is changed through debate not by majority votes.
Let sort out my first concern. You have pointed out that already 100,000 assessments have been created. That would mean at least half a million edits have been preformed on Talk pages instead of improving articles. --WikiCats 10:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
How people choose to spend their time here at Wikipedia is not your problem. Did you know some editors actually play Chess at Wikipedia - I see that as "a monumental waste of time", but I not over there telling them so. I ignore it, and it works for me. -- Longhair\talk 10:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We had a WikiProject Australia tag that was of value. This new judgmental tag causes more problems than it solves. --WikiCats 10:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me a link to the tag that was of value? I myself created the current tag {{WP Australia}}, and assessments were functional from Day 1. -- Longhair\talk 10:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the pro and con section is not a vote. If it was, I've voted 3-2 already. It's a place to detail where the project is failing, so we can fix it. -- Longhair\talk 11:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Assessments are a valuable tool to eidtors who want to improve the articles they write, they are also valuable to wikipedia as problems with WP:NPOV, WP:V, Fair Use, get high lighted. The Importance scale causes concerns in that editors dont take the necessary time to understand the scale and its relationship to the project assessing the article. I'll continue to assess articles and have articles assessed whether there is a process in place or not, but having a process inplace that gives a good review and acknowledges good articles is preferred. Gnangarra 11:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue that resparked this old debate is worth noting. User:Nathannoblet requested a peer review for Miami, Queensland, an article of low importance, and of stub quality. He's a new inexperienced editor, and I've been helping him out personally for quite a while now, almost 2 or 3 months. Wikipedia can be complex for some editors. He's getting there. I admit at times it was testing, but hey, I perservered. With the assessment system, Nathannoblet can tinker at his preferred article and ask for a re-assessment at any time. Voila! He's given a progress report on the articles quality quickly, rather than a visit to Good Articles or Featured Articles where they'd have slammed the door shut in his face as standards are very high. Nathannoblet's goal of taking the Miami article to FA standard is becoming closer - it's already been assessed to be of Start quality. If anything, that feedback draws an editor in, not drives one away. -- Longhair\talk 11:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pros

  • Editors can see at a glance how many Australia-related articles are of Featured standard
  • Editors can see at a glance how many Australia-related articles are of Good Article standard.
  • Core Australia related topics are grouped into an easily identifiable category
  • Editors take more time to verify their work
  • Wikipedia isnt filled with copyright violations and plagerism.
  • feels good when someone independent likes what been produced

[edit] Cons

  • Adds to talk page clutter
  • Assessments offend some editors
  • good assessments take time

[edit] The compromise

I'm not convinced of the benefit of this scheme. But I'm prepared to make a concession for the sake of consensus.

I propose that the link name on the Talk page template be changed to Assessment scale with the link still going to Quality in the Project and the other link name changed to Priority scale with its link still going to Importance in the Project.

I'd like to see the word class removed and the word importance changed to priority.

This will only affect the wording that appears on the Talk pages. I make no proposal to change anything that would affect how the project operates.

This is how they do in it Computer games: Talk:Half-Life_2:_Lost_Coast --WikiCats 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily make any changes to the project the community agrees on. You do realise however, any change is going to break the WP:1.0 and related bot functions, so you're (again) best off seeking change higher up the chain. -- Longhair\talk 11:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the template? --WikiCats 11:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Found it. --WikiCats 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The template in use on the talk pages concerned is {{WP Australia}}. -- Longhair\talk 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed it, I'm happy.
If it not right maybe you could sort it out. Thanks Longhair. --WikiCats 11:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not right. Not yet. You're the only editor who actually wants to see change occur. Let the discussion develop a little and see where it heads. If your changes are accepted, I won't stand in your way. Perhaps raise the matter at WP:AWNB to bring more eyes to the issue. -- Longhair\talk 11:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "class" is a poor choice of word. However there is a difference between "importance" and "priority". I see priority as a short-term value that is a function of topic importance, current article (lack of) quality and perhaps some other metrics like article length, time since last edit, etc. Importance is the right word here, as the concept is an enduring property of the topic, not a property of the current article. --Scott Davis Talk 11:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh I almost forgot. Go the Broncos. Thanks for your help. --WikiCats 11:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has changed in the Project just what appears on Talk pages. --WikiCats 11:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've see your changes, and somewhat agree with where you're heading, but I'm not yet convinced entirely. I do agree the wording of the template needs work. The project has many members, many who may not even be online at the moment. For now, it's only yourself wanting that change and enabled it as so. What if every other project member disagrees? Give it a day or whatever and see where this heads. - Longhair\talk 12:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Let’s talk about importance. Who has the audacity to determine what is important and what is unimportant. Importance is subjective. There are as many views as to what is important as there are people in the world. Who as you to say to me what I think is important? --WikiCats 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you mis-understand the project goals? Is the Barwon Heads Bridge any more important than John Howard for an Australia-related assessment project? I don't think so. One's an obvious low and one's an obvious high (Top even). -- Longhair\talk 12:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
noone tells you whats important to you, this assessment is based on whats important to the over all project and has been formulated and agreed by most editors who participate in the project Gnangarra 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said, nothing changes in the Project. Just what appears on the Talk pages. If you don't like priority maybe you would like to put forward another word for the Talk pages.--WikiCats 12:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, both importance and priority bug me. That's why (as I mentioned above a few months back), I didn't even activate the importance feature intitally, but did so for completeness sake and for the benefit of others. If you look over my edit history, you'll note I don't ever use the importance tag when assessing articles, and never have. Many do however. -- Longhair\talk 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If your not happy with my compromise, that's fine. Let's address that fact that this assessment process is a monumental waste of time that provides no benefit to the Wikipedia. --WikiCats 12:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I wish you'd stick to one argument at a time and stop flip-flopping about with your views. See above for my reasoning (or this diff). I strongly dislike repeating myself. -- Longhair\talk 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As the scope of the project broadens it dimished the importance of subjects
  • if this project was about the City of Gold Coast, then Miami would rate as High importance
  • if the project was about Queensland then City of GC becomes High, Miami drops to mid
Since this project is about Australia suburb articles dimish in importance again. That said there are exceptions to this where the Suburb has prominance beyond the normal aka Bondi Gnangarra 12:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read above assessment isnt a waste of time its contributions to wikipedia are valuable. Gnangarra
I'm open to any word on the Talk pages that is not judgemental or negative. I propose no changes to the Project.--WikiCats 12:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What if the majority disagree with the changes, it was changed without consultation with the others. I think the template should've been left as is unless if a fair amount of authors agree, because as I read so far (as a contributor) to the assessment project for WP Australia, basically only one author has complained about it, which to his credit had brought up some good points to the debate. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To summarise, I don't disagree, but I'm happy to stick with what's worked so far (here and elsewhere) in the absence of a better suggestion. - Longhair\talk 12:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's still been no explanation how this monumental waste of time benefits Wikipedia. It provides not benefit and uses offencive language to do that. In short, people respond more positively to encouragement that to the attitude that you have taken. --WikiCats 12:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Offensive language" is your view, not mine. From my experiences dealing with Quality Assurance practices in the workplace, I've found some people respond positively to feedback and some don't. I guess you're just one of those who don't. -- Longhair\talk 12:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue here is that this whole Project should be flushed down the toilet where it belongs. I don't care how many people are getting a kick out of passing judgment on the work of others. --WikiCats 13:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Oh and Broncos won 15-8
You're flip-flopping again. I'm close to giving up on this debate as I can hardly tell what your views are they're changing so often. First you want a word change? Then suggest new wording! Now you want the project flushed? What is your problem with the project? You dislike the wording used on templates, or you dislike the project as whole? Choose one for my sanity's sake - please. -- Longhair\talk 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Passing judgment is exactly what you are doing and the language you are using is what indicates that. --WikiCats 13:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Mate can you stick to one view instead of going all over the place and confusing the authors/readers to what point/s you are trying to make. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I had two posts in a row indicating a rejection of my compromise. --WikiCats 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What I see is a tantrum. It's either do it your way, or no way at all. That's not a debate, it's a brute force change or else type of arrangement. -- Longhair\talk 13:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The assessment in its present form is jumping on the contributions of newbies. It just not right. What happens within the project I not care. What I do care about is what newbies read on the Talk pages. Most people have got to go to work tomorrow so maybe we could call it a night. By the way thank you for a vigorous debate, it's what I thrive on. --WikiCats 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Touche for now then mate. We'll take this up tomorrow. I spent seven years debating in a court case for my legal rights. I'm no newbie to mental jousting. Think about it some more please. Like I said, I'm happy for change, just not change for the sake of one. :) - Longhair\talk 13:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There are always the links to the explanation of the system if a newbie wants to know more about the situation, but in some ways I agree there has to be a way for newbies to understand the system. Also in future, can you indent your comments by using the : symbol if you are replying to a comment, as it can be a pain in the arse trying to figure out where the convo is going. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Some projects, such as WikiProject Biography link to their project specific FAQ on their templates (example: {{WPBiography}}). If anything, I'd rather make the Australia project template smaller rather than larger, but would linking to the FAQ directly from the template help newbies understand? There's already an FAQ written, but it's buried amongst the text at the Assessment home page. -- Longhair\talk 14:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Only a very few people have a problem with this (mostly you, Wikicats). The system is a great way of assessing the quality of the encyclopaedia, and the importance (yes, importance) of articles. I like it the way it is, instead of changing it to suit one person. If more people are offended by 'importance', I wouldn't mind (I think I've said this before, the first time you complained) changing the name, but it would still mean the same thing. Some articles, as people have been trying to tell you, are more important than others. I've no problem grading my own article Cleveland, Queensland low importance, because it is. If suddenly Cleveland became the state capital, then it would be more important. I don't see how this fundamental and obvious distinction in any way harms the encylopaedia. And 1.5 million edits? Wikipedia would get through that in what, a couple of weeks? Iorek85 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell?

Maybe it's a problem with my computer, but all of a sudden I can't access the list with all the unassessed articles. Has somebody removed the link? If so, why? Atlantis Hawk 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in a major way to my knowledge. I'm not sure what list you're referring to, but there's a category containing all of the Unassessed Australia articles requiring assessment. You may also be looking for the automatically generated Australia articles by quality worklist. Hope this helps. -- Longhair\talk 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dryness of the Australian Continent

09:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is now. You can add the tag yourself if you like - the instructions are under the FAQ for next time. Iorek85 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment tool

User:Outrigger has created a tool that alters the article heading colour to that of its rating and the sentence underneath from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "xxx class article, from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia". I've been running this for just over a week without any problems, I've found it useful as an aid of the current article. I recommend to anyone who is assessing articles. Follow the instructions on this page User talk:Outriggr/metadata.js. Gnangarra 04:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Outrigger's tool is currently not enabled for use on WP:AUSTRALIA. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 10:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] low importance

Is there a better way of saying 'low importance' - it doesnt look good for any article to be labelled low importance - perhaps mid class should be the bottom? --Astrokey44 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

low importance doesn't mean that it is of no importance, if it had no importance it should be deleted. The vast majority of articles could never be described as more than low importance to most users (and nobody could ever read 2 million articles anyway).--Grahamec 07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horse racing

Should there be so many top importance horse racing articles? These may be top importance to punters, but I don't see that they are top importance to Wikpedia or even WP Aus.--Grahamec 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City parameters

I have recently been assessing some Melbourne articles. In the heading to Category:Low-importance Melbourne articles it states: "Articles are automatically placed in this category when the corresponding rating is given using the WP Australia template;". This is not happening. It seems that the only way that an article appears in this category is if the parameter Melbourne-importance=Low is added. The WP Australia template does not have a parameter of "Melbourne-importance=". There are several thousand articles which do not have a City specific importance parameter included. Could someone with knowledge of Assessments please clarify if it is necessary to include a "City specific importance parameter" and a "City specific class parameter" and where I can find this information. - Cuddy Wifter 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quentin Bryce

Importance raised from mid to high. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

logical change under the circumstances, Gnangarra 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment comments

Over at WikiProject Scottish Islands we had a bug with our assessment comments created by Template:WPSI, our equivalent of Template:WP Australia. The talk page of an article without a comment on the template worked fine. However, for an article with a pre-existing comment clicking on the "edit" button in the WPSI template on the relevant Talk page took you to a "Server not found" error page. The only way to edit the comment was to go to the 'by quality' listings. Thanks to The Transhumanist this has just been fixed using this diff. Not sure how or why, but it seems to work now. I mention it as in looking into the issue you seem to have the same problem at e.g. Talk:Canberra, Talk:Platypus. Regards, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the template talk page. As the assessments themselves are fine, further discussion should be sent there. (BTW, I haven't seen any problem on Talk:Canberra). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup - Canberra is fine now, and thanks for passing the comment on to the right place. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)