User talk:Cowdy001/Archive 6

methinks

conservancy and others properties could be done into state categories as well JarrahTree 10:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pekina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page County of Dalhousie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PAW Patrol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adventure Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

not every day I send a thanks and do a corrections 5 years after it was spotted :( JarrahTree 15:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited City of Henley and Grange, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Advertiser and Recorder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not sure

what happened there - whatever it was - good on ya JarrahTree 10:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Appreciate your filling up the assessments of pages - thanks! JarrahTree 12:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for your hard work in the area you have been editing - amazing improvement to the horrifically large numbers and under-touched array of importance and 'completion' of talk page assesssment. Amazing work. Thanks. JarrahTree 13:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree:, I noticed that a number of categories concerning "Unknown-importance Australia articles" are sub-categories of "Category:Unknown-importance articles" which is in "Super Massive" category class as it currently contains 1,924 sub-categories. Should not there be only one Australian category (i.e. "Category:Unknown-importance Australia articles") which is a sub-category of this? Cowdy001 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you are saying, I am not sure why there should be something like that, will need to have a think as to why and how that has happened. JarrahTree 09:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

more looking and thinking, I dont think it matters, the actual set up is ok as far as I can understand so far. JarrahTree 02:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Cowdy - thanks for doing the assessments of some of the pages I've been working on... Just wondering about this one, having just spent hours trying to sort out some of the basics (some bits got complicated, names and dates, etc.) and get it all updated. I can't spend any more time on it now, but not sure whether it should be classed as a list article, or could othewise be upgraded to at least Start or C? Apart from gathering more citations for each year, there's not an awful lot more that can be said about awards! Also, I'm thinking that these awards must surely be at least mid-importance to SA and/or literature, although I'm not sure how those gradings are given. Anyway have a look and see what you think, when you have time please. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laterthanyouthink'

A quick look at similar Australian articles suggests that the article should not be treated as a list. I have upgraded it to 'Start' and think it might be 'C" after some further editing.
Importance - guidance on the page entitled Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment advise that 'importance' refers to "probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic". Therefore, I think 'Low' is appropriate for both Australia and South Australia, and that 'Mid' is appropriate for (Australian) Literature. I have made the latter change.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. Sounds good to me. I have also just learnt quite a lot more I didn't know by looking at that Assessment page - such as that Redirects and other types of pages actually have categories and talk pages with projects on them. I didn't realise that, and have created quite a lot of redirects. So should I be adding the Australia project to them if they're Australian (presumably types mirroring the pages they're redirecting to) and give them categories as well? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I would only add categories to a redirect where the redirect is a potential candidate for a new article. In such a case, I would add the categories and a "R with possibilities" template. The following redirect is an example of this - Cleland Wildlife Park. Also, Wikipedia:Redirect is the relevant official article.Cowdy001 (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Useful to know. (And I may even have a look at that Cleland article one day!) Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oodnadatta

Hi Cowdy001, I have reverted your edit to Oodnadatta (disambiguation) - WP:DABMOS states that piping should not be used to hide the terms used to disambiguate an entry title, such as [[Moment (physics)|Moment]] vs [[Moment (physics)]], but piping is used "when the link is part of the description, rather than the actual entry name" (MOS:DABPIPING and MOS:DABMENTION). Leschnei (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The His

Looking at this edit and similiar, it should be noted that British or Commonwealth warships prefixed with HMS or HMAS etc. do not require an article. It is "HMS Investigator" or "the Investigator" but never "the HMS Investigator". Of course, one may write "the USS Enterprise" and be perfectly correct, but in that case "the United States" makes perfect sense. "The His" is rarely found in English. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Skyring:, thanks for the advice; however did you noticed that I created the article over five years ago. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Biography}} importance tagging

Hi Cowdy001,

Thanks for updating the importance tagging for {{WikiProject Australia}} biographies. You should be aware that {{WikiProject Biography}} does not use the |importance= parameter - instead, each work group has their own priority tagging (e.g. |politician-priority= or |sports-priority=)\. The articles are getting placed into Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement, which has to be cleaned up manually.

Thanks, Harryboyles 00:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he he eh - he always turns up after major stuff ups to explain where we go wrong, silent most of the time, but at that moment, he's there....

Re the Biota - it is expected the whole set of current biota items will have a 3 pass or 3 level edit through checking

1st - just to get basics of assessment on so that there are no 'unknowns' aka donald rumsfeld unknown unknown - however this needs to be done from a number of dimensions, there is an unknown unknown where very clever eds dont even tag at all, or only plants say, and leave the oz and biota off..

2nd - to go through and work out why the hell the original eds didnt identify occurrence ( hmm) or where.. very difficult in parts

3rd - to check for refs and adequate states added to talk page

thats a lot of checking... :( BY that stage oz biota might seem to have a certain level of thoroughness, at this stage, very early days... JarrahTree 22:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JarrahTree: - is there anything else that I should be aware of in respect to 'Importance' assessmnent? Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry about to the diversion about biota - (bigger than a dump truck of shredded parliamentery papers...) may have nothing to do with your general editing of the moment - I have been trying to balance out a range of competing interests and issues relative to the biota work, sorry to have imposed upon you.

You must note that my style of project tagging using rater might not be something that other editors are necessarily in consensus with...

In biota, the tendency is to try to have a default of low importance, so that all articles are clear of 'unknown importance' in the near future

In other Australian sub projects, the main editor I know of who used to spend innumerable hours on all this was user:longhair, from memory he defaulted to 'low' for everything.

In the event of where rater https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Evad37/rater offers a higher class I usually raise if it is found lower than the rater estimation where https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES evaluates and puts it higher than an earlier estimation. But that is class, not importance.

I hope that sort of answers, sorry for complicating things... but thanks a million for your hard work!!! JarrahTree 11:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree:, thanks for the above and finishing what was left in Category:Unknown-importance Adelaide articles. In the near future, I will continue with Category:Unknown-importance Northern Territory articles and then Category:Unknown-importance Australian places articles and so on... RegardsCowdy001 (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

inneresting

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Heritage_South_Australia seems to be ignoring my messages, it might be of interest to reach out to offer help, I have suggested to another south oz daytime ed as well - but hey, maybe there is no interest in understadning the rules and general issues, its hard to tell when those who use institutional names come on board... JarrahTree 05:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has this editor done any edits yet? I would like to see these. regards Cowdy001 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be doing a selfie as well - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Heritage_South_Australia - - sigh... probably doesnt get it even yet... JarrahTree 05:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am watching now. Is it appropriate to add a message to User:Heritage South Australia/sandbox asking them to read their talk page?

Yes - I think they are ignoring it - look at

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Heritage_South_Australia/sandbox - and

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:South_Australian_Heritage_Council

both show no sign of understanding wp:about - interested in more getting it up, suggesting an 'inside job' of employeee or paid ed, who ignores anything that might just go away if they think they are lucky. At one stage there was something like this almost once a month or more frequent last year, earlier this year where bodies/organisations with eds with same name as the article regularly think they are updating a website, they remove anything they think is not 'up to date' and have no interest whatsoever in wp:rs, except their own website for wp:v - pity longhair has basically retired for the moment, he used to shoot this type of editing out of the water for breakfast... JarrahTree 05:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also incorporated User:Donama in the current discussion... JarrahTree 06:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the same approach used on the following articles - Riverland and Murraylands where both articles were flooded with inappropriate &/or useless content. What do you suggest we do?. Cowdy001 (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate issues imho, seeing https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Heritage_South_Australia#September_2019 has happened JarrahTree 07:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the problem has gone away for the time being. Cowdy001 (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree:, does the following editor has a conflict of interest - User:CatherineSAHistory? Cowdy001 (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowdy001:, I’m still a bit of a novice at this, what is it I’ve contributed to that might be a conflict of interest? I work for the History Trust of South Australia, and joined up to get some experience and understanding because we’re currently working with Wikimedia Australia to put our photographic collections into Wikimedia. We don’t have any connection with the Heritate Department or the Heritage Council of South Australia if that’s what this is about. We’re a completely separate organisation though we do of course have some overlapping interests. CatherineSAHistory (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to CatherineSAHistory for that response - if in fact you are actually working with WMAU to put photos into commons, apart from here at a talk page - such a collaboation is well worth mentioning somewhere, as well as clearly indicating such a collaboration exists... JarrahTree 10:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CatherineSAHistory:, Thanks for putting the image on Lobethal Archives and Historical Museum which I found via the article's recent listing on Category:South Australia articles missing geocoordinate data.

When I looked at your user page, the red flag went up after I saw the word "History Trust of South Australia" which I know from personal experience to be a state government agency. To expand on what Jarrah Tree, you should mention the project underway with Wikimedia Australia on your talk page and possibly expand on your interests in order to distinguish them from the project with Wikimedia Australia. The Wikipedia is generally a reasonable place but one will encounter editors (including administrators) who are not.

Anyway, you mentioned your interest in photography and I am wondering if you might be interested in helping with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in South Australia.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

my take on COI

It might be very different, as I try to take an WP:AGF attitude towards new users, and try to cajole rather than act... so that the blocked editor above made no attempt to respond to messages, and also was using a username and editing with organisational links... and the admin who followed me had no reservation about blocking for the reasons given.

I have seen and heard eds in the last 10 years take a similar attitude as mine, if it is not editing something directly related to user name or actually editing an article or section of text specifically referring to the organisation that is being inferred / referred to - then some admins and other eds allow such an item.

I went to school with one notable person in oz, and he totally lacked any comprehension as to the issues why I cannot write about myself I dont know, clearly doesnt understand what anything to do with WP:NOT, WP:ABOUT - or for that matter W:BLP and WP:OR and WP:BIO

Your question about a particular editor above suggests to me (a) she has to be very careful about what she edits (b) should be suggested that she changes her username (c) hasnt really offended under the more 'liberal' understanding of COI, but has to tread a very careful line, if she returns.... (d) some eds and admins would outright refuse a lenient approach and block and insist on re-name.

That is all from personal experience, without re-reading WP:COI - well worth a read, specially the talk pages as to how things in current practices are carried out, if the noticeboard is active - well worth having a look. Unfortunately my edit count is confronting otherwise I would suggest some of the more brazen coi cases that I have tried to deal with (most difficult where I have known people in real life who have no sense of what wikipedis is about and they try to edit their own articles), very much a case of interpretation in some parts, and other parts usually quite obvious. JarrahTree 08:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, being Heisenbergian about all this, I am probably wrong, there is in all likelihood another way of viewing it all JarrahTree 08:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mintabie

A little surprised that you maintained an SA-importance=low at Mintabie; you're far more expert than I am, but given its mining history, unusual lease structure, crime controversies and contentious compulsory closure, that all seems to make it of more interest to readers. Klbrain (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Klbrain:, Guidance on the page entitled Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment advises that 'importance' refers to "probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic". I myself first looked at the article on a Saturday morning in 2018 after reading about Mintabie's imminent closure in the local Adelaide newspaper. I had never heard of Mintabie before. In respect to the four points of interest that you have nominated, there is a lot of mining in the Far North of the state (including at least two other places where opal is mined), I am not sure if the lease is unusual because I can think of several other similar arrangements, crime is not uncommon in Aboriginal areas of the state and I am not sure if the compulsory closure is contentious because the APY people own the land and have the legal right to terminate the arrangement. Anyway, the article needs an upgrade to deal with the change (please refer Mintabie transition). Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant news coverage does increase the likelihood of the average reader wanting to look it up. It might be WP:RECENTISM, but the August 2019 landline documentary suggests that the transition timeline is dragging out and will also attract readers; I was following the page, but noticed the documentary (seemingly) independently; I'm based in the UK. There is no doubt that the APY people own the land and have the legal right to terminate the arrangement; that doesn't mean that those who live in the town, or who might empathize with them, might wonder about the reasonableness of that decision. Regardless, I agree that updating the page, when there is news that the town has actually been closed, is more important. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mintabie page views, in case it's of interest; spiking with news coverage in Feb and August, understandably. Klbrain (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Klbrain:, I have started upgrading the article; in addition to being outdated, it needs to be rewritten in parts. I found the following report online which provides more information about the situation than what was in the ABC Landline TV segment - 2017 Review of the Mintabie Lease and Mintabie Township Lease Agreement. Thanks for the Mintabie page views - I used the tool to check on articles of geographical relevance to Mintabie and found the following for the period from 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2019:

Mintabie had 7,579 views
Marla had 10,291 views
APY lands had 21,516 views
Alice Springs had 294, 158 views
Coober Pedy had 203, 092 views and
Adelaide had 677, 535 views.

Cowdy001 (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Not affecting your current edits, but if you werent cognisant of the issues -

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_51#Revisiting_cadastral_divisions

worth having a look anyways - a NSW 'parish enthusiast' sock has just been blocked, so worth knowing about the issues at least :) JarrahTree 11:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rough idea

of the task at this point

Unknown importance as at 24 September 2019

antarctic 1671

Biota 2592

canberra 810

Crime 534

demographics 82

Education 749

Exploration 208

Geelong 146

History 642

Indigenous 836

Law 1259

Maritime history 697

Melbourne 251

Anz military 1135

Motorsport 175

Music 964

NT 746

NSW 1859

Places 2327

Politics 5423

Queensland. 2156

SA 1

sports 11,921

sydney 1040

Tasmania 1621

Television 5557

Victoria 4,689

Wa 0

Ungrouped 19,299

there well could be errors in there, its a jungle... JarrahTree 09:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think politics sport and tv are the biggest problem, with victoria being higher priority JarrahTree 10:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it might be my undergraduate geography training coming out strangely

but i have a real problem about lga's of any size actually constituting a 'place' regardless of definitions or scope statements anywhere - any thoughts ? city/shire - are larger than a suburb/town settlement, and actually incorporate multiple 'places'... JarrahTree 06:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree:, Thanks for the message. I have been having some thoughts along the same lines. I have the following comments:

I agree with your views re LGAs.
I think that roads, railway lines and rivers are definitely not places, particularly as they all start in one place finish end in another place while passing through a number of places on the way from start to finish.
I think that pastoral leases, cattle/sheep stations and protected areas are best considered as a land use rather than a place. This is because there are numerous examples of pastoral leases being re-designated as protected areas, i.e. the land use changes over time. I do know of at least one protected area in SA that was abolished and was converted back to a parcel of regular crown land. Important Bird Areas (IBAs) which usually overlap protected areas either operated by government or by private individuals/organisations should not be considered to be places.
Lighthouses, railway stations, airports and so on are best considered as buildings and/or infrastructure rather than places. I would think that this approach would also apply to ports and harbours.
I particularly dislike the use of Outback as a place descriptor for three reasons. Firstly, it is more a philosophical concept rather a geographical concept. Secondly, it has an extremely large area and lacks boundaries making it relatively useless as a descriptor. Thirdly, I think that there are better terms to use than "Outback".
I would suggest working through the following document and select those designations that work best as places - NSW Glossary of designation values in the Geographical Names Register

Sometimes, I think that there are too many projects (and sub-projects). In the case of WikiProject Australia’, the better way around the above is not to add “|place=yes” on any articles, particularly if the article is of interest to other project.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5 - same as my dislike of the 'bush' term ever being used.

as for your sometimes... - I have a very much more complex response... but most of what you say I concur with... JarrahTree 13:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - all the states and territories should be like that, great work ! JarrahTree 22:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nsw parishes

I am of the opinion that most nsw parish creations by the blocked user need to be merged/nuked or something. But it might require raising the dead (metaphorically) editors who no longer engage or edit - the issue of the validity of a large number of parish articles is very open to question imho. Most were created by the 2x blocked user/sock JarrahTree 11:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

however - you ok with them ? JarrahTree 11:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree:, I agree with you. My comments and views follow. In SA and the NT, the cadastral systems consists of counties and hundreds (i.e. terms such as shires and parishes are foreign to me). In SA, this system was created originally as a system of regions, then as a way of selling crown land and then as the basis of the local government system, i.e. each hundred would have a principal town which would be the seat of local government.

I think writing articles about hundreds is pointless in most cases because the articles will most likely be 'stubs' as there is very little reliable source material (i.e. proclamations in the SA Government Gazette, maps of the hundreds on the State Library of SA website and one may find suitable newspaper articles from Trove of which the majority tends to be about trivia such as picnic days and inter-hundred football matches etc) and because there is nearly 500 of them! Lots of articles means higher risk of disputes about notability and more time spent on maintenance. Also, the land occupying the full extent of a number of hundreds has in recent years (i.e. the last 20 years) been gazetted as localities with the same name and boundaries as the hundred which reflects both historical and contemporary (i.e. an example is Hardy, South Australia). Therefore, it is usually better write about the locality because it is a contemporary administrative arrangement which may have more meaning to the reader.

I have put some effort in writing articles about counties (which there are 48 in SA) because the constituent hundreds can be listed there along with other useful and relevant about the county (i.e. an example is the County of Kimberley). Also, articles are about counties in rural parts of SA is a useful vehicle to discuss local geography which is difficult with regions (because of size and the existence of several groups of official and unofficial regions ) and local government areas (because LGAs are subject to regular change in name and extent, and because LGA articles usually do not included any discussion about the geography of the land within the LGA)

Prior to doing something with NSW parishes, I would suggest a trial using the NT hundreds. In the case of the NT, I would suggest using the format I used on the County of Kimberley, where pertinent content about the Hundreds goes in the article about the relevant County and the existing articles about Hundreds be converted into redirects to the article about the county so that editors can use simple links when discussing a hundred in an article rather using a piped link.

Anyway, I will continue to rate NSW Parish articles as having 'low' importance.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e.c. deletion

wow that's a beauty - I'd leave it myself - the links are a bit smelly, but i have seen a lot more things that are deletable than that, I would tend to the let sleeping canines slumber on that one myself... JarrahTree 10:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

un tagged

then there is the range of items (in biota there are quite a few unknowns) and project areas where the tags were for the subject and they left out oz project tag - I suspect there quite a few - but hopefully will have some identifying feature that will make catching relatively easy - where items about ranges of oz subjects have never had oz added as project, or state (and is identifiable from content to be about a state or subject ) covered by one of the sub projects :) JarrahTree 10:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one redeeming feature of sports/politics/ and tv is many of those are simple edits of just adding xxx-importance=low, I hope... JarrahTree 10:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand your edit history - you are finding items that weren't tagged for biota ? JarrahTree 00:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree:, Yes, I am. Generally, I have decided to assess non-biographical articles first which I have done for both the ACT and Tasmania. Currently, I am going through "Category:Unknown-importance Australia articles" and looking for articles that have a Species description name or a Common name, and articles associated with ships(or shipwrecks). When I finished this search, I will pick another two subject areas and then search for these in the category. I find this approach to be easier and more efficient.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essington Lewis

Hi Cowdy, sorry for the delay. Here are some references: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article167452574 and http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article122404395 Regards Lukeoz (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkly Australian Football League

Hi, is it possible to change a page title. The Barkly Australian Football League page is titled Barkly & District Football League but has never been known as that. Wyngrn (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyngrn:, article renamed. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

safe and sound

trust your festive season has gone well and will continue so - best wishes and thanks beyond thanks for your efforts this year JarrahTree 10:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]