Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Warning to Jason

See here. Please let me know on my talk page if he does it again and I don't see it; if I'm not about, I encourage other administrators to take my lead and block him for disruption in my absence. Daniel (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is completely unnecessary, as nothing he did was disruptive. I think you should look over both sides of the argument more carefully and retract this threat because you have at least one of the facts wrong in the message you left. These are not Australian articles, they are Australian region articles that cover the bodies of water that surround your country. I think you all should reread Cyclonebiscuit's message above because he is right - changes that will make articles inconsistent should be discussed first. I don't like the way this has been handled. There have been lots of rude accusations from members of this board. Potapych (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If he continues to revert-war against the consensus for this article, then he is being disruptive, and he will be blocked. The distinction between Australia proper and the Australian region is irrelevant and an attempt to draw attention away from his disruption: for the purposes of the manual of style, this is an Australian article. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he has not disrupted the consensus of the article because the revert war happened before anyone tried to reach one. There were other parties involved, and there seems to be a bit of tag-teaming here because you haven't warned any of them. I should point out again that no one country's MOS takes precedence over others because we try not to get involved in international disputes. The distinction is very important because we do not want to get into disputes when articles affect US, or Canada, or Bermuda (or all of the above). Therefore, you should provide notice to WTCP first before you change the format. Otherwise most people will revert it. Potapych (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Again the Australian region that this article covers uses DD/MM/YYYY. Its not my fault that the MOS in the Australian cyclone article has not been followed in the past. I know find it interesting that mph and USD is now being used in the templates within the article with the only use of km/h only being used in the section templates. I don't have issues seeing mph and USD as long as we have km/h and local currency (IE: the Country it affects.).Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"no one country's MOS takes precedence over others because we try not to get involved in international disputes." So why is the US one taking precedence considering a minority of countries (and none in this region) use MDY? That sounds like stating a neutral case in the line of supporting one particular side of a debate. In the North American region, given the dominance of the US and Canada, a different consensus would apply. Orderinchaos 05:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Potapych, you say the articles are about the bodies of water around Australia? That's fine, but why is that justification for US date style, rather than international style? --Merbabu (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a justification to keep the status quo until we can all agree on something without causing a civil war. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What is? (I don't know who this is directed at). Bidgee (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Merbabu, who said "That's fine, but why is that justification for US date style, rather than international style". That was in reference to Potapych's comments. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was but I wasn't sure thats all. Bidgee (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the get consensus-before-change argument in this case means a veto on any changes to bring in line with MOS. Nice. --Merbabu (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm personally fine with such a change, as long as it is thoroughly discussed and thought out. Enough with the fucking drama, though. What is it exactly that the Australians want? DMY date format? Metric units before imperial? AUS damage figures? Is there anything else I'm missing? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you're the one fostering "fucking drama" as you so "undramatically" put it. If you support the actual change, then woudln't it be less "dramatic" to no longer draw out discussion on a simple matter any more than it has to be, and to stop giving support to someone who's edits you don't actually agree with. It's all very simple, really. I suspect that consensus is being misunderstood for veto, but please explain if I'm wrong, otherwise this issue appears resolved. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, Hurricanehink has no part in this content dispute; his only role here is to stand by a mate who he thinks is getting picked on a bit. That's fair dinkum. I say we make him an honorary Aussie, shout him a beer, and get on with whatever we were getting on with. Hesperian 05:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I think USD for damage figures is acceptable, because Australian currency is only used in Australia and we want to be comprehensible to the greatest number of likely readers, given these are articles applying mainly to oceans and seas rather than to a given country. The metric and DMY issues are big ones though as only the US uses imperial and only a handful of countries use MDY, none of whom (apart from the Philippines and Taiwan) are in our climatic region. Orderinchaos 05:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I want the USD to stay in the template with the option of adding a local currency which would be below the USD. Bidgee (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard, not a discussion page. Take this to the relevant article talk page or project talk page and leave the obscenities there too please.The-Pope (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting edits on a biography

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_edits_on_a_biography. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian property bubble

Is there anyone who is either looking for a new wiki task and/or in a grumpy mood and needs to take it out with a brutal copy edit? I'm neither at the moment, but I see that Australian property bubble needs a good copy edit. While there is some useable and well-referenced info in there lines such as the following are cause for concern:

With a property price multiple of 7 times average annual income, many claim Australian property prices to be a joke." [yes, actually linked to the 'joke' article]
There can be no other explanation for the two government inquiries set up to examine the phenomena of housing unaffordability.

Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a new name as well: there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of Australian property bubbles. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tender Mercies

This film is currently a Featured article candidates and tagged as WikiProject Australia. I'm somewhat doubtful that anything connected with Bruce Beresford automatically qualifies.--Grahame (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR notification for Dietrich v The Queen

I have nominated Dietrich v The Queen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: our ongoing Universe Daily spam problem

For several years, there's been an ongoing problem with a prolific spammer in Queensland. Among other things, this is the same guy that notoriously set up the fake Bindi Irwin web site within hours of her father's death. To date, he's used approximately 100 IPs and sockpuppet accounts to add hundreds of links to 105 domains across this and several dozen other Wikimedia projects (other Wikipedias in other languages, Wikiquote, Commons, etc.)

90+% of his links are added to Australia-related topics, especially politics and celebrities. Frequently this takes the form of "official sites" such as kevinmichaelrudd.com -- it was listed as the Prime Minister's personal site in our Prime Minister of Australia article since it was added by Captainkink in June 2008. Domains like this redirect the reader to totally unrelated sites, often about space travel. His other patterns and quirks are listed at:

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily#Modus operandi

He supposedly has dozens more domains registered that we don't know of and there will be plenty more links added. Please keep an eye out for new problems and report them as you think you see them at:

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily

Thanks,
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions here:

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy ceremonial entrance to Sydney

Twenty one RAN warships will be anchored in Sydney Harbour tomorrow, and will presumably be in port over the weekend. This is obviously a great opportunity to improve Wikipedia/WikiCommons holdings of photos of RAN warships. Photos of the smaller and less glamorous ships would be particularly valuable. The SMH has a good story on this here. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help with Cyclone Hamish (2009)

This article is much to big for me to handle on my own as the Chemical/Fuel Spill has gotten very bad. Any and all help with expanding the article is much appreciated, especially with the environmental impacts of the spill. If any editors live around the area impacted by Hamish, pictures would also be greatly appreciated, especially ones of the oil spill. Thanks, Cyclone biskit 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Media mention: Blake Dawson article

Hi all, not sure of the correct procedure for this, but the article Blake Dawson was discussed in the Australian Financial Review today (13 March 2008) in the Hearsay column ("Testing times as law firms lose weight") in the Legal Affairs section. AFR doesn't do free online content, but the article even quotes edit summaries for its material. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also covered in Crikey. --Roisterer (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding naming of sexual assault accusers

A rugby league player has been charged with ~~rape~~ sexual assault, and I'm suspecting that people may try to name the accuser in Wikipedia, as happened during the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Has the Wikimedia foundation weighed up whether it's legally obligated not to allow the name the accuser to be in Wikipedia?

Also, how can we police against an article being done on the accuser, as we can't watchlist for someone whose name we don't know (apart from patrolling new pages)? Andjam (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brett Stewart has been charged with sexual assault, not "rape". I doubt you will ever see the victim's name in print, as she is 17 years old. Her identity would be impossible to WP:VERIFY. WWGB (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Associates of the people in question will know the identity of the accuser and those who may be interested in creating an article on the accuser are not likely to consider Wikipedia policy before any such creation. As it won't meet WP:V and would be an outrageous breach of WP:BLP1E, the article could be deleted on sight, of course. The other question is, if we don't know the name of the accuser, how can we take action to prevent the creation of an article. My only suggestion is check "What links here" on the Brett Stewart article as any article on the accuser is likely to link to it. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that any naming of the alleged victim is probably something that is going to be revertible on site per WP:V, but once it's posted, the damage is done. Certainly, if we catch any such thing, the offending edits should be oversighted. It also opens the door to hoaxes and the like which could provde embarassing to us and be harmful to some innocent victim. So, we'll have to keep our eyes peeled.

I might email the foundation and point them to this discussion to see if there's an established policy or requirement on this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

I've added a new article feed for articles mentioning Stewart. I've currently listed it under quality and suitability evaluation. Andjam (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the practice in these cases is for an admin to delete the post(s) where the naming occurred so that they're not visible in the article's history. Its obviously a incredibly serious BLP violation, as well as being something which could potentially get Wikimedia into legal hot water. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the profile of the player involved, it's been quite quiet on the article, with the exception of the odd vulgar comment. Maybe a semi-protect/protect around 7 April when he goes to court might prevent any unwanted additions regarding the accuser. florrie 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe now.diff florrie 04:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian photo taken in 1943 listed for deletion

File:Krait-crew.jpg has recently been listed for deletion, with the nominating editor expressing concern that it might not be PD in the US. My reading and past discussions of the relevant copyright advice here and at Wikicommons indicates that the photo is PD in the US, but other editors may have different views. Comments are invited at: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2009 March 13. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I watch this debate with interest as I had long understood that pre-1955 Australian images were in the PD and have been happily populating articles with them. --Roisterer (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto: the advice seems clear, and previous discussions of this have established that they're PD, even in cases where the source claims copyright (which isn't the case here as the AWM has explicitly labeled the photo as 'public domain' in the database from which it was sourced). Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Roisterer: Australian photographs taken between 1946 and 1955 were still in the public domain in their country of origin on January 1 1996, and thus their copyright was restored by the US as part of the URAA. Because the US doesn't recognise the rule of the shorter term, these images are under copyright in the US even though they have since fallen into the public domain in Australia. Weird, huh?

However, Australian photos taken before 1946 are clearly and unambiguously in the public domain in the US. The only problem with this image is that it didn't contain an explicit claim to that effect. The only license on it was {{PD-Australia}}, which states only that the image is in the public domain in Australia. In order to claim that the image is in the public domain in the US, you need to add {{PD-US-1996}} as well. I have done so.

Hesperian 03:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, although anything even remotely legalistic makes my head hurt. --Roisterer (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Chaser gets a guernsey!

I see that the Chaser's APEC stunts in Sydney are the subject of today's featured article. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class thing

A while ago there was a message around asking for WikiProjects to send a person to the forum on WikiProject assessment. Does anyone here want to volunteer? What is our policy on this? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group (and archives) is where the discussion is happening, and I've been following it. There's definitely no consensus to either abolish or make compulsory A-Class for WikiProjects, and there were various discussions on how to get more people to use it. My view on A-Class is that it needs to be a process that isn't time constrained, eg someone puts a template on the talk page requesting A-Class assessment, then over time other editors (3 was suggested) fill it out saying they've reviewed the article and their comments. The reason I don't participate in the GA or FA processes is they have deadlines, and the time I have to contribute to Wikipedia varies considerably (and I suspect this is true for others), so it's unfair to have a process rely on my timely responses. TRS-80 (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Same reason I don't participate in the GA or FA processes. Although I may in the future. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do occasionally, but I think those processes are backlogged enough as they are without creating a new parallel one. Orderinchaos 09:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone has this on watch?

Red link creep seems to be in action - anyone for a cleanup? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_companies_of_Australia&diff=278019323&oldid=277722801 Satu Suro 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian MoS?

Just wondering if there was a regional WP Manual of Style document for Australian topics hiding around? An example of a regional WP style guide would be WP:MOSSG for Singapore-related articles. Dl2000 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, although it's an interesting point. The only MOS reference to us I know of is this which says we disambiguate gazetted town, city and suburb names using commas regardless of their ambiguity status. Most things are just whatever Australia generally uses - the metric system, AUD, Australian English spelling, Australian dates etc. - and otherwise they don't vary from the norm internationally. Orderinchaos 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If not an MOS, perhaps an FAQ style guide to why we do certain things certain ways. The article Talk:United States has an excellent FAQ section and this idea could be extended to say a country project. I keep meaning to create one for the Indonesia project to succinctly explain conventions used there. --Merbabu (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. There should probably be something about dealing with silence/talk page etiquette. Ottre 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters FAR

I have nominated Sydney Roosters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A very important debate for all Australian editors - please review

Activists are using the article about the Australian Communications and Media Authority in an attempt to bait the authority into taking action against Wikipedia .[1] I suggest that editor add this article to their watch lists. Gnan garra 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well for some strange reason the link was readded[2] by Admin Scarian. I've of sort asked why by saying why the link shouldn't be in the article on there talk page. If the article wasn't used for political purposes I wouldn't have really cared (Even thought I think it's a disgusting link), but when you have had a report such as this and having and editor(s) who are part of this to prove a point is something Wikipedia doesn't need as all it will do is just give Wikipedia a negative view to people when we (the editors of the project [not just the Australians]) who have been working hard to try and get articles with reliable sources, removing spam and POVs ect, but when you have activists trying to prove there point really undoes all of the hard work we have done. Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad the Wikileaks list of blacklisted websites link stayed. I thought the link to the list was very informative and most revealing. It showed me how bad my government's decision to censor the internet is, unlike any other link about it so far. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A very important debate related specifically to wikipedia in Australia commenced here last night and reflects an attempt by activists laying down a challenge to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to block Wikipedia from all Australians. The debate would benefit from further eyes and voices.--VS ^talk 00:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to get involved here (frankly, I'd be interested to see if ACMA calls their bluff), but I'd rather not open myself to fines or other legal consequences by getting too involved in this matter. I'd advise all other Australian editors to be equally careful where they tread on this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Also, is this (the baiting, not the leaking of the list) really an important enough point to include on Portal:Australia/News? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There might be a story on WP on Hack on JJJ at 5.30pm....

Hopefully it won't get bumped (again). Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what it's about? Bidgee (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Listened to the show (I very rarely listen to Triple J) which was about edit warring which also interviewed Wikimedia Australia Vice President, Liam Wyatt. Bidgee (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also had User:Privatemusings and me briefly. Was asked alotta questions :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is Liam Wyatt when he's editing? --Roisterer (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Witty Lama Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Or User:Witty lama even. --Step hen 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Joel Fitzgibbon article

Could other editors please add this article to their watchlists? An editor is currently adding cherry picked negative claims and innuendo about the woman involved and also tried to open a discussion on the talk page about whether she's a spy ([3]). I've removed these as BLP violations, but the more eyes on the article the better. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked the editor for 24 hours for continuing to post innuendo on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of LNP party colours

I have started a discussion on the appropriate party colours to use for the merged National/Liberal entity in Queensland at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Template:Australian_politics.2Fparty_colours.2FLiberal_National_and_others. Input from a wide variety of editors would be welcomed! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Image and public perception of John Howard

A new article I stumbled across - Image and public perception of John Howard. Is this anything but a POV fork? --Merbabu (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirected by User:Jenuk1985. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. It's been placed a few times in JH but I had removed it a it had no references. --Merbabu (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems an unlikely redirect - is anyone actually going to type "Image and public perception of John Howard" into the search box? Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll kill it. Orderinchaos 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mount Warning (Wollumbin)

Could we get some more input on the Mount Warning (Wollumbin) page. Should it be named as such for starters? I don't think it follows the naming conventions we already use. Also should the term Wollumbin be used the way it is in the article? Mentioning that Wollumbin was the Aboriginal term for the mountain is significant enough to mention once but I don't think it should follow every time Mount Warning is written. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mount Warning/Wollumbin is dual assigned so either name is correct but I think that the article should be at the most common name (Mount Warning), with a redirect from Wollumbin, which is what was the case. There is definitely excessive use of Wollumbin on the page, even to the point of changing Mount Warning National Park to Mount Warning (Wollumbin) National Park, one thing that I've corrected. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Living somewhat nearby, I can confirm that the "Mount Warning" name is the one in common use - it's not a situation like with Ayers Rock where the indigenous name has become equally if not more popular than the European name. If the names ever get to a point where they're both equally popular in common use, then a change like this would be justifiable, but not right now. That said, a mention that "Wollumbin" is the indigenous name is certainly needed in the lead of the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Lankiveil - per WP:NAME the title of an article should use the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject. There is also a relevant paragraph at WP:Naming conflict:

An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain, or a non-human entity such as an animal, does not have a name for itself. Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one. Similarly, the English name cobra for a type of snake is just as arbitrary as the Indonesian name "ular tedung", but the English name is used in the English Wikipedia because it is the standard name in the English language.

Wollumbin deserves inclusion in the first sentence as an official alternative name, but not as a dual name throughout the article and certainly not in the article title. Euryalus (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have followed the suggestions above and made the changes to the article. I used past tense to describe the use of the term Wollumbin, but also noted that Wollumbin is an official dual name. I hope I got it correct, but it might be worded more acurately. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey all. It was I who tried to move Mount Warning => Mount Warning (Wollumbin). In my defence, I would like it to be noted that:

I did first check and found that Wikipedia place naming conventions did NOT give clear guidelines or advice on official/formally gazetted place names .. particularly where there may be two such names[4]

On doing quick google search to resolve the matter, I found the following webpage which clearly displays a photo of a National Park sign for the area reading Mount Warning (Wollumbin).

You will of course note that the above rational for moving the article includes two verifiable references/citations justifying the move (1. extract of official names & 2. photo of the use of the Mount Warning (Wollumbin) name) .. which is more that appears to have been used to move the article back again!!

While it may once (pre-January 2006) been accurate and true that most non-Bandjalung people knew the mountain/feature by the name given it by Lt James Cook .. clearly, since January 2006 it is the State/Geographic Names Board of New South Wales intention that the Mountain be known by both its names (dual naming) .. & since January 2006 most visitors to the place will now know it by it's dual name/s .. as would seem appropriate to a significant place over which the Federal Court has determined an orginal native title to co-exist?!!

I wonder if a new Australian based addition to the Wikipedia place naming guidelines might be appropriate .. dealing specifically with formally gazetted/designated dual names for places?!! All in good cheer :-) Bruceanthro (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jobie Dajka

Need eyes on this. Death not yet confirmed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The lunatics have taken over the asylum ...

Category:Australian rules footballers is now, in the main, Category:Australian players of Australian rules football. There is not words to describe such pedantry and stupidity. This follows from Category:Australian doctors renamed as Category:Australian medical doctors in the name of ridding it of ambiguity! (no idea if this category now only contains possessors of an MD or if mere MBBS holders still qualify for membership). I feel there is something deeply, even philosophically wrong, with the approach to category names at CfD but I am not well educated enough to express it as clearly as I like. Nevertheless, it is deeply frustrating to see simple, clear, concise names mangled in the name of "removing ambiguity" and "ensuring consistency", as if these aims can ever be achieved. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with your sentiment until I looked at Category:Players of Australian rules football by nationality and saw 24 valid subcategories. Admittedly many of these subcategories have only one or two members. I still feel this level of categorisation is probably excessive, but I'd say we leave this taxonomy now that it is implemented. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories such as Category:Filipino players of Australian rules football are not valid. Matthew Stokes is an Australian of Filipino ancestry, not a Filipino. In Category:South African players of Australian rules football, both members of the sub-category are not South Africans but Australians of South African ancestry. A few other categories, such as Category:Welsh players of Australian rules football and Category:Tuvaluan players of Australian rules football are empty!

The only sub-categories with any claim to being "valid" are Category:Irish players of Australian rules football and perhaps Category:Papua New Guinean players of Australian rules football. In PNGs case, Mal Michael and James Gwilt are Australians of PNG ancestry but Winis Imbi is the real deal (but marginally notable). There are two separate issues. One is the overcategorisation by supposed nationality which WT:AFL is attempting to deal with. Once that is sorted, the naming issue will be exposed as the brainless decision that it was. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian rules is also a major game in Nauru, but are there any articles on their footballers? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds very similar to the categories which were created within rugby league recently by an editor (using various names). Category:Rugby league players by nationality is now, imo, ridiculously over-categorised with players included based on heritage, not representation or birth. A New Zealander playing in Japan was categorised as a Japanese rugby league player, as well as New Zealand rugby league player and Tongan rugby league player! florrie 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If all those red links means that these cats have been cleared out, then that's a job well done. --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Melbourne archdiocese

This article - Sexual abuse scandal in Melbourne archdiocese - may need some looking over. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-Wiki query

Need some help - IDE drive has partially cacked itself. When I click on certain directories it makes a repeated noise "// // // ~.~.~.~" (4 or 5 times) before asking me to format the drive (?!). It only affects a handful of directories. In case there is a progressive element to this I have moved all accessible data to a SATA drive, but some fairly important directories (my electoral maps for Queensland and Tasmania, and my photos from my 2007 trip over east) are hidden behind this.

Is this the end for my poor directories or is there a way to get them back somehow? Orderinchaos 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Seal it in an antistatic bag and put it in the freezer for a few hours. Once it's cooled down, try PhotoRec. You could also make a copy of the drive using GNU ddrescue then run PhotoRec on the copy. TRS-80 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. Orderinchaos 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Australian mobsters

I feel that Category:Australian mobsters is incorrect. "Mobsters" is more of an overseas term and also a term and name well used in movies and video games but really isn't used here. Category:Australian gang leaders or something else would be better used then Category:Australian mobsters. Bidgee (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That particular category has been deleted twice via CFD (most recently here), and deleted G4 as well once since then. I've deleted it G4 again, since the recreation was more or less the same as when the last version of the article was deleted. I've also salted it, as there doesn't seem to be any reason for a category with that name to exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

Sensitivities in recording Aboriginal MPs death

Sadly, NTs first Aboriginal MP Hyacinth Tungutalum died today [5]. I note that the ABC report doesn't list his first name, presumably out of cultural respect. I also recall that upon Wes Lanhupuy's death, the ABC did not refer to his name at all, callinh him "the former member for Arafura". What do people believe should be the process for listing the deaths of high-profile Aboriginals? --Roisterer (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The first port of call would be WP:CENSOR, right? While I'm reluctant to *not* put the name in, per our censorship policy, I would be equally reluctant to make a gratuitous display of it in the same manner that the anti-Muslim trolls on wikipedia insist on plastering pictures of Muhammad everywhere because "wikipedia is not censored" (ie, pictures of Muhammad are taboo for Muslims). --Merbabu (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mulrunji is how we handled an earlier case. Orderinchaos 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Which goes across WP:CENSOR and is an awful precedent. To go off-topic for a bit, that article is a textbook WP:ONEEVENT and should be redirected to the 2004 Palm Island death in custody article. Hirohito is my preferred model for cases where cultural tradition cuts across wider understanding. While I sympathise that indigenous Australians have their own traditions, I don't see why Wikipedia is bound to follow them, any more than we are bound to follow Christian, Muslim, Buddhist traditions etc. We should not be deliberately offensive, but neither should we be deferential, to any tradition from any culture.-- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed btw. Was just citing that as a particular example rather than commending that particular article. Orderinchaos 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattinbgn - very well put, particularly your last sentence. --Merbabu (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't hesitate to change names where a living person changes them; why should we adopt a different position where a person's name is changed posthumously? Rebecca (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where a living person has changed their name, would we hide the former name? --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't hide it, just de-signify it. That was the point of the Mulrunji link :) Orderinchaos 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't always change the name of the article if someone changes their name; article names are covered by WP:NAME which states "Use the most easily recognized name" and "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists". In the case of a politician, the most recognisable name for a general audience is surely the name they used in their life, not the honorific used in their death.

A bit off-topic, but it would be very nice to get an article on him while there's decent sources around. Rebecca (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Another point, the Content disclaimer includes the following "Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures". It may be polite to use the honorific, and I daresay I would do so in my own writing on my own site (if I had one) but I think it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to make an exception to WP:CENSOR to meet the requirement of one particular cultural group. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur that it's inappropriate to self-censor these articles because some people from some cultural groups may find the use of the full name offensive. I wouldn't be opposed to a warning message at the top of the article about "This article contains names and/or images of recently deceased Aboriginal persons" or something along those lines, but if I recall rightly, last time that came up people started quoting from the "no disclaimers" policy, which I suppose is fair enough.

I also think this is different from the Mulrunji issue, in that that person was not well known before their death, and therefore their name while they were alive never became "common". Tungutalum is a different case in that there is presumably a great deal of sources about him using that name, so that is unquestionably the "common" name that's in use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

This is horribly inconsistent with the stance we take with white people who change their names. If a notable woman is well known under her maiden name and subsequently adopts a married name, we don't keep using the maiden name as primary. The same logic applies here, ignoring the apparent kick some folks here seem to be getting out of riding over cultural sensitivities. Rebecca (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

At a pinch, I can think of Ginger Reyes as an example that goes the opposite way. Either way, the usual procedure with these things has always been to use the name that's in common use. For Mulrunji, that's Mulrunji, for Tungutalum, that's Tungutalum. Lastly, I'm not quite sure I like what you seem to be implying with this comment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

Having lived in the Territory for quite a well, I have a different view of this. I was there when Wes Lanhupuy died and remember that his name was not used for a while (BTW, we should have an article on Wes too). WP is not WikiNews. Since we have not had an article on him before, I think out of respect for the traditions, we should defer writing an article for a month or so. Is that too much to ask? --Bduke (Discussion) 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanting to note that the image at Kevin Rudd of himself and a woman at the apology to the stolen generations, with the aboriginal woman in the background, was removed at the author's request because the aboriginal woman in the background had recently deceased. Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, that was a different issue though. The creator of the photo wished it withdrawn and it was removed for that reason, not because we were worried about causing offense to Aboriginal readers. For the record, I believe that that was the wrong decision to make in the circumstances, as the image was available under a free licence and was appropriate to the page it was being used on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

Change of COTF

Hi -- could an administrator change the ACOTF template to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/To-do as per the voting here?
Australian Matt (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D actioned it. Orderinchaos 09:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A request from our collegues at ru.wiki

What is the pronunciation of Cowangie, Victoria? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be like the NSW placename Cowan which rhymes with "ran", and then a less emphasised "gee" after it, judging from that video. Orderinchaos 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

cow'ANJEE according to an erstwhile resident (who operated the General Store), so that should be conclusive (Epistemos (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Australian politicians

Hello all. Just thought I bring some of your attention to this list here. The missing encyclopedia project aims to make articles that are notable from lists such as this one and once the articles are completed (blue links) they are removed leaving only the unmade articles (red links). Not sure what happened to this page here, but it seems that nearly every article in relation to Australian politicians/politics is created! (c.f. this where nearly everything is red!

So, seeing as this is relevant to Australia, I was hoping if anyone here is willing to have a look at that page and double check that the articles are indeed what they are (and don't lead to a disambig page for example or an article about someone else not related to Australia) and remove the names from that list as appropriate. Then just leave the ones that still need work on or are red links to be eventually created hehe!

Thank you for your time and apologies if this is already on the page somewhere. I will post this to the Australian politics task force as well. Calaka (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

{{pron-en-au}} being removed from articles without any discussion.

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making changes without any discussion. These articles that I've noted that Kwamikagami has changed is Cairns, Canberra and Melbourne. They have even gone so far to change Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). My main issue is that these changes are being made without any discussion (IE Here or the talk pages of the articles) for why the change is needed, it also goes against some of the sources. Next thing we will have is using international spelling (Such as meter) and date formats (IE: 04/14/2009). Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to include both international and local pronunciations of Australian cities, just as we do any other cities. People already mispronounce Melbourne as "mell-born"; by only transcribing it /'melbən/, they're going to end up with "male-bun". People have enough trouble with the IPA without demanding that they learn Australian phonetics in order to figure out that it's "mell-burn" rather than "mell-born". Australian English isn't any different than GA or RP in this regard; special treatment just makes it inaccessible. The transciption used on Australian English phonology isn't even universal with Australian dictionaries, and in any case the differences between it and the generic English IPA are no greater than between half the cities in England, or between Los Angeles and Brooklyn.

As for spelling and date formats, that's not an accessibility issue, and using local standards would be no different for Australian articles than for any other country. A more apt analogy would be to insist that articles on the US only use imperial units, and that metric be banned. I'm American, and am not as comfortable with metric as with imperial, but I expect all US articles to use metric, and to only use imperial when needed, and then in parentheses or footnotes. Local pronunciations of American or British—or Australian—place names should be the same. It's different when there's an actual phonemic difference, such as a syllable not being pronounced, but not when it's just a difference of /e/ being a mid or a low-mid vowel.

BTW, most Australian cities are given in generic English, so, as it is, the reader has to learn two conflicting IPA conventions, encountered arbitrarily depending on who wrote the article. Local pronunciation info is valuable, but so is conveying the basics.

The source concern is no different than for any other article. These seldom exactly follow any particular dictionary, as few dictionaries use the same IPA conventions. The vowel of lane may be transcribed æɪ, ɛɪ, eɪ, eː, or e, depending on the dictionary; we chose eɪ as a middle-of-the-road compromise, and if your dictionary uses one of the other formats, you simply convert, just as you'd convert spelling or a date format. A reader shouldn't be restricted from editing just because they don't have access to a particular dictionary authorized by Wikipedia. kwami (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe it should be IPAEng or PronEng, not pron-en-au. That's what we have on most Australian articles, and it does correctly indicate Australian pronunciation. Kwami knows this stuff inside out, I've relied on him in the past for IPA stuff. Orderinchaos 12:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true now, because Kwami has converted most, if not all, of the Australian pronunciations in Australian articles to the international variant. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

...though this was why we shouldn't have gone with IPA exclusively in the first place. Rebecca (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as an interesting point - as far as geographic names go, we have 38 transclusions of Pron-en/PronEng, 12 of IPAEng (strangely, 5 in the Wollongong area) and 4 of Pron-en-au. One article, Launceston, Tasmania, contains both Pron-en/PronEng and Pron-en-au. Orderinchaos 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great to have Australian pronunciations (that's why I created the pron-en-au template in the first place), but most people are going to be more concerned about how to pronounce the names in general (that is, in their own accent) than in trying to acquire a proper Australian accent. We can have both, of course. But with a choice between two templates, pron-en and pron-en-au, we end up being inconsistent, with some articles directing the reader to the general English IPA key, and some directing them to Australian English phonology. IMO, better to consistently direct them to the general IPA key, and then include additional info on the Australian or local pronunciation (as in the case of Melbourne with its celery-salary merger) by linking directly to Australian English phonology. The pron-en-au template had a brief flurry of interest and then died. It hasn't been used for over a year. kwami (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have both pronunciations (like what Kwami did at Darraweit Guim, where it has both international and local pronunciations in the first line). But, I am now thinking we should perhaps remove all traces of IPA pronunciations, because I'm unsure whether pronunciations should be used in an encyclopaedia. I then suggest that if a reader wanted to know how to pronounce the name of the subject article, then redirect the reader to that subject's entry in Wiktionary, where perhaps pronunciations should be placed. As I recall, I cannot remember whether any professional encyclopaedias actually use pronunciations in their subject entries, if any do please tell me, because I am interested to know? --203.94.135.134 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do, actually. I'd be hard pressed to give you an example offhand, but I have seen pronunciations given, generally for words which you're not likely to find in a dictionary (such as place names). It wouldn't be appropriate for us to give the pronunciation of 'car', but IMO it is appropriate to discuss local pronunciations of 'Melbourne' or how the pronunciation of 16 changes depending on whether you're contrasting it with 13 or with 60.

Other editors have expressed concern with adding pronunciations, and we do go overboard sometimes, but let's face it, there's no way we're going to create Wiktionary entries for every actor listed on the IMDB. I think we'd get pushback if we tried, and Wiktionary can be hostile to inexperienced editors. kwami (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your doing original research. On thing you have incorrect is Cairns since keːnz and kænz are found in dictionaries for Cairns, Queensland were as kɛərnz and kærnz isn't. there fore it's not correct and I've not found any prove that it is correct. Bidgee (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not OR. That's like saying that if a source uses miles, we aren't allowed to convert to km for our readers, because it's OR. But if you won't accept that, how about Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate, which has both pronunciations, or Dictionary.com, which has one of them.[6] kwami (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. kɛərnz and kærnz should have a source since you will have a long list of other editors saying it's something else and shows it's fact (IE: to prove that it's not OR). Also you moved the local pronunciation into the cited ref, which is like changing metre to the US spelling and adding the AU spelling into a source. Local pronunciations should also be with the international pronunciations or you may as well not having any since it's not only international editors/visitors will read the article but also Australians. Bidgee (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you two sources.

Sure, we can put the Aussie IPA in the lede. I was trying to avoid overloading it, and figured that every Australian already knows how to pronounce the name. kwami (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, per an edit that just occurred, and per the MOS, the local pronunciations are usually given in [brackets], since they aren't phonemically distinct from the generic representations in /slashes/. So, for Cairns, "/ˈkɛərnz/, locally [ˈkeːnz]". That is, the phonemes defined at WP:IPA for English as /ˈkɛərnz/ are in Australia pronounced [ˈkeːnz]. This is what we've been doing with other countries. It would be different if the pronunciation were substantially different (say, the s or C were pronounced as an [s]--that is, something which couldn't be predicted given a knowledge of Australian phonology), but in nearly all cases it's just a matter of accent, not distinct phonemes. kwami (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion to decrease the overload in the opening line for an article, which includes multiple pronunciations. To condense those multiple pronunciations into one set of brackets per pronunciation type — if both an international and local pronunciation is used — eg. using the nth Qld city of Cairns as an example:

Original intro line:

Cairns (pronounced /ˈkærnz/ or /ˈkɛərnz/, locally [ˈkænz] or [ˈkeːnz]).

to

New intro line:

Cairns (pronounced /ˈkɛərnz, ˈkærnz/, locally [ˈkeːnz, ˈkænz]).

This method seems to be the standard for dictionaries and I've checked using an example word (ie. either) in the Macquarie Dictionary, Collins Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Ask Oxford and Dictionary.com. And by doing this the number of duplicate links can also be removed. I also think it looks a bit tidier using this method.

BTW there was a disagreement some time back over which was the correct Australian pronunciation for Cairns, /keːnz/ or /kænz/, so to settle it I looked up the Cairns entry in the Macquarie Dictionary and it showed that those two pronunciations being argued over were both acceptable. – Marco 79 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, MW also has both.

BTW, s.o. now claims that these should be "also", because (I assume) the rhotic pronunciations are also used locally. That strikes me as odd. Do we really want to say "locally also"? kwami (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think "also" should be used. All I can say is that Australian dictionaries do not use rhotic pronunciations, and these dictionaries are used as the source material for the Australian pronunciations given in the article, as per policy on using sources.

BTW, I don't have a problem with showing both an international and local pronunciation, which I think is why this discussion began in the first place. – Marco 79 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Some eyes and some input into a discussion that's presently underway on most of Talk:Australia would be appreciated. The discussion deals with the ethnicity figures in the infobox and we're not getting anywhere after two weeks (that's strange - it seems much longer!). --AussieLegend (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconding this request. I don't think this is going to be settled without fresh input; I've already requested mediation, but if we can resolve it by consensus before that process happens, so much the better. --GenericBob (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with media who breach licensing?

Looking for some sources for the Strathfield (retailer) article just to find my image used without an a attribution on LiveNews.com.au (Owned by Macquarie Media Network [Not to be confused with Macquarie Media Group]). All my emails have fallen on death ears since attribution has not been added nor have they replied to my emails. This media org will owe me companstion (Since I feel it's only fair they pay for the non-attribution since the 27th of March) since they're a rather big media organisation since they own two commercial radio stations in Sydney (2GB and 2CH) and they should know better. Now I really don't want to deal with lawers (too costly IMO) and I'm after ways of getting this media organisation to coperate and I'm almost used up my ideas which seem not have worked (Nice emails and then a final notice). Bidgee (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee - thanks for the welcome back message at my talk page. I am not an expert in this area but I wonder if you couldn't do one of two things. Firstly - see if you can find a no-win no-fee lawyer who specialises in breaches such as these. Lawyers in your state can be sourced by speciality here - and letting your fingers do the walking (telephone) in relation to asking whether they will assist on a no-win no-fee basis might be quite easy. You might find that a letter written by a lawyer seeking appropriate compensation and costs within reason else litigation will commence, will reach a successful result. Secondly you might indicate to the Macquarie Media Network that you will be lodging a complaint with the Department of Fair Trading link page here, referring to all previous correspondence unless you receive "x$" compensation within 14 days. I say this as a non-expert in this field but it seems to me that Macquarie Media has breached their "contract" with you because you have offered through wikipedia a general entitlement to Macquarie Media (and all others) to use your image providing correct attribution is made - since that has not occurred you may be able to commence a complaint (free of charge) through the Department. IMHO the first of these possible solutions is the more powerful, and I would suggest that if you are successful that you provide brief details in this thread because I feel that other wikipedians may also like to use similar avenues.--VS ^talk 05:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I will see if I get a response but may have to do that if I have to. Cheers for that. Bidgee (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had at least 2 practising lawyers who inhabit this project? Satu Suro 09:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this important when anybody could of taken a similar photo? Best to change your license to public domain, think less about being compensated and concern yourself with something more significant. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all no other photo exists, secondly I took the photo so why shouldn't I get credit (IE: Reason why most of my images have CC licensing), thirdly copyright breaches are important even if someone else could take a photo of the same store, Fourthly this is significant and I will not be changing the license to public domain and will be seeking to be compensated. Bidgee (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it isn't the first time livenews has done this. They breached cc-by-2.0 here. Timeshift (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They may claim to be using it under fair dealing which is an "exception"al use which doesn't require getting permission, although note the required "sufficient acknowledgement" is missing. From Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Australia: Among the criteria used to determine the fairness of a use are the purpose and character of the dealing, the nature of the work, the possibility of obtaining the work commercially within a reasonable time, the effect of the use on the potential market for the work or on its value, and how much of a work is copied. Just keep this in mind... --pfctdayelise (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They can't make a claim of fair dealing since there is no sufficient acknowledgement (attribution) and permission IS needed for use without sufficient acknowledgement therefore they have breached the Copyright Act and the CC-BY-3.0 license. I'm more understanding to non-profit organisations but this (Macquarie Media Network) is a profit organisation who should know better. Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Old merge discussion what shall we do with Griffith Law School and Griffith University?

Join the fun at Talk:Griffith_University#Merge_Griffith_Law_School_into_this_article, just listing it here as it is 6 months old wioth one comment either way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft MoS/conventions

Just wanted to follow up on this discussion last month regarding whether there was a style or conventions guide for Australia. This draft template text is offered for further evaluation and discussion, if there is interest in developing it further towards an Australian style/conventions/FAQ guide. Dl2000 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great so far. I can't think of anything for those blank headings. Frickeg (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the Mos/Conventions seems to have settled in the past day or so. The text is actually a rough draft on my user space; therefore it seems that the next step should be to start a new page connected to the project, with content as updated per discussions so far. Then there would be another chance for discussions towards consensus and adoption. Before setting that up, what would be the preferred location for the MoS/Conventions page? 1) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Australia-related articles) (following the WP:MOSSG approach), or 2) some projects such as WP:AUTOS prefer to set this up as a subpage (for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions). Dl2000 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions. The discussion only stopped because I was on a 1 day wikibreak, but that does not have to prevent the proposed manual taking it place (deuserfied). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Something about Australian time versus UTC, perhaps, per the recent weather discussions? --Step hen 08:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

With UTC times I feel it should be local dates and times with UTC dates and times in brackets. Bidgee (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another topic for inclusion may be nominal suffixes such as OA. Standards for categories would be a good idea to stop some of those global renaming, such as Category:coastal settlements from using strange terms. Another topic is use of metric or AU Pounds in historical articles. Land was granted in acres for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft MoS now in project space

The latest draft may now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions. Dl2000 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more updates were done onj the draft Conventions. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Australia/Conventions for summary. Dl2000 (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AU$ currency template now available

The {{AU$}} template is now available. It can be used to represent Australian dollar values with an included link to the Australian dollar article. Dl2000 (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The ISO 4217 code for the currency is "AUD", not "AU$" — the standard makes no mention of this latter abbreviation. Is this template not imposing an informal (and incorrect) abbreviation on our articles? I see we have {{CAD}}. The Canadians had a discussion relating to this and resolved to use the ISO 4217 construct. I suggest we defer to the standard also. Djanga 03:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point - WP:$ (main MoS) did give "AU$" as the abbreviation and did not mention "AUD". Also, the abbreviation issue hadn't been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Australia/Conventions, so there seemed to be no objection to AU$ to this point. The abbreviation should be settled at the /Conventions discussion; once that's done, both {{AU$}} and {{AUD}} templates should ideally do the same thing, just like {{US$}} and {{USD}} have the same result. But to do that, {{AUD}} is currently a big box of links on Australian currency and that would need to be renamed (perhaps to something like {{Australian currency}}), which then means changing over numerous articles using that (although that's all in a day's work for a WP:BOT). Dl2000 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree further discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Conventions. I opened a new section there. Djanga 04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on Phar Lap sought

In the last few weeks a New Zealand editor (User:Wallie) started making edits to the article on Phar Lap. His edits have been challenged, which has resulted in an edit war and the article has been protected for a few days. The article lead contains the following references to New Zealand - foaled in NZ ( 2 mentions), the precise place of his foaling , the fact that he was a half brother to a NZ horse Nightmarch and the place in NZ where he was purchased. All these mentions in the lead paragraph are to a horse who NEVER raced in New Zealand, but had 50 race starts in Australia and won 36, most of them major races on the Australian turf. Not a mention of any of this is in the article lead. I am unable at present to devote the time to check all of his edits and I would appreciate some help, and some Australian input on the article at Talk:Phar Lap. Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest an admin have a look at this, please? There appears to be a lot of edit-warring and unresolving disputes that are no benefit to the article what-so-ever. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Steve Price (rugby)

There is currently a move discussion at Talk:Steve Price (rugby) regarding reversing a recent move to this article. More opinions and eyes on the debate would be welcomed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

Michelle Leslie

An editor has taken exception to the info in the Michelle Leslie article. Even going as far as suggesting the editors are sick and should be shot. While citations could be improved, there is decent list of references at the end and the fix to this is not to delete all but one sentence in the article leaving no mention of her arrest. Administrator opinion would be most helpful too. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor has now nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Leslie. --Merbabu (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor appears to have received an appropriate level of warnings for their conduct. I'll keep an eye on this though. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear

I Might be very slow off the mark - but I have just noticed that a google search can now includes items from inside the National Library of Australia catalogue - and apparently from inside individual state library catalogues - I cannot remember seeing this previously - this now means the notion 'googling' in afd arguments in Australian Afd's might have a slightly higher credibility than in the past - please ignore me if it has been raised previously while I have been off wiki Satu Suro 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Category:Universities and colleges in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Conference in Canberra - help needed

As some of you may know, there are plans for a Wikimedia Australia/general Wiki-related conference in Canberra probably around November/early December. However, there are only a couple of people involved in organising it right now, and we need some serious help. I am not exactly the most contactable person right now (laptop has been waiting for a new hard drive for over a month now), but if you are willing to help in any capacity (particularly Treasurer, because it's not a popular job in the first place and it needs someone highly competent to do it) please contact me via Special:Emailuser/ConMan. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 09:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In case it's deterring anyone, I should probably clarify that while being (a) Canberran, and (b) a member of Wikimedia Australia, are both extremely helpful qualities in volunteers, they are not strict requirements and I'm happy to waive them in favour of people who are (c) determined, and (d) competent. Besides, you can move to Canberra and join WMAu closer to the date ;) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine flu outbreak in Australia

I have added in 2009 swine flu outbreak in Australia, however it will need attention on a daily basis to keep the figures up to date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we really *have* a separate article? Sure, there's over 30 references, but is that enough to make an article notable? The article is titled, Swine flue outbreak in Australia, so logically, shouldn't we actually wait till an outbreak occurs? Out of all the countries that have suspected outbreaks, we are the only ones with a separate article. I think we've kinda jumped the gun on this one. Johnmc (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor raised this same question on the article's talk page and I have to agree. At the moment, there are only a few suspected cases with zero confirmed and thankfully no fatalities. A section in the main 2009 swine flu outbreak by country would have been sufficient, in my opinion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the article probably should not have been created until we actually had some confirmed cases, but now that it's here, and given the high likelihood that cases will surface in this country eventually, we might as well keep it around and make sure it's accurate. If this whole swine flu thing blows over and turns out to be a non-event in this country, it can be merged back to 2009 swine flu outbreak by country at some later date. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Stadium naming pt 3

Consensus reached at this archived discussion has seen a few stadium articles in Australia undergo moves to continue the "neutral name" convention.

Chuq provided the following lists:

~~Suncorp Stadium~~ -> Lang Park (done Chuq (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC))
~~AAMI Stadium~~ -> Football Park (done Chuq (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC))
~~Aurora Stadium~~ -> York Park (done Chuq (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC))
~~Skilled Park~~ -> Robina Stadium (done - timsdad ^(talk) 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
~~Dairy Farmers Stadium~~ -> Willows Sports Complex (done - The Windler talk 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
~~EnergyAustralia Stadium~~ -> Newcastle International Sports Centre (done - The Windler talk 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
~~Bluetongue Stadium~~ -> Central Coast Stadium (done by R'n'B - housekeeping)
~~Members Equity Stadium~~ -> Perth Oval (done - The Windler talk 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
~~AMI Stadium~~ -> Lancaster Park (done by SoWhy - housekeeping)
~~CUA Stadium~~ -> Penrith Stadium (done by SoWhy - housekeeping)
~~Toyota Stadium (Cronulla)~~ -> Endeavour Field (done by SoWhy - housekeeping)
~~WIN Jubilee Oval~~ -> Jubilee Oval (done - Florrie 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
~~WIN Stadium~~ -> Wollongong Showground (done - The Windler talk 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm reviving this discussion because after being involved with the discussion at Skilled Park's talk page, I feel these should still all be changed.

--timsdad ^(talk) 07:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good general principle, but it does need to be applied carefully - using the most common name for the actual venue. A contrary example to some of those above would be Challenge Stadium - if you called it by its former name of the Perth Superdrome, I wouldn't have a clue what you were referring to. Rebecca (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sure you'll find most people outside of Brisbane still have no idea what Lang Park is. I think consensus was reached at the discussion I linked above, and other discussions linked in that discussion, to change all of these articles above. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. We've been here before and I know that OKI Jubilee Oval was changed to Jubilee Oval only to be changed again to WIN Jubilee Oval! It isn't as though re-directs won't be available for the commercial names. florrie 07:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The rest above cannot be moved by regular users, require admin assistance. Consensus has been reached, shouldn't be too hard. The Windler talk 08:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the above list has all been done. Please add more stadiums below that you come across and we can agree on them before we add them to the list above to move. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Westpac Stadium

Not too sure about this one (I'm sorry, it's in New Zealand). From what I've read, the stadium has been called Westpac Stadium since it was built, and does not have a non-commercial name. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was called Wellington Stadium when FIFA had a junior tournament there a few years back...[7]The Hack 04:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That might have been what FIFA called it but, according the the history page at the stadium website,[8] the naming rights were sold in December 1995, more than two years before construction commenced on 12 March 1998. It would seem that, in this case, "Westpac Stadium" is the original name for the stadium. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, well I guess it should stay as Westpac Stadium until, at some point, the naming rights are handed to some other corporation. Then would probably be the time to change it to Wellington Stadium. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Something similar occurred with Docklands Stadium. During the design and most of the construction it was known as Victoria Stadium before the rights were sold to Colonial.

Personally I think that Westpac Stadium should stay as it is clearly the most dominant descriptor for the Cake Tin.The Hack 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The aim of the changes was to get away from sponsored names because they change but the article name changes implemented seem to have put the articles at the stadiums' original names, which is quite reasonable as the original names are usually neutral. In this case, the article should probably stay as it is because Westpac Stadium is the original name, even though the name is obviously corporate. It was a smart move by Westpac to buy the naming rights before the stadium was built, rather than after it opened because the Westpac brand is now on it forever. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why we should be adhering strictly to Wikipedia:Use common names rather than attempting to come up with across-the-board policies. There will be cases where the sponsored name is much more heavily used than the "unsponsored names", and it's both confusing for our readers and not very sensible to put the article at a title that no one will connect with the actual place. Rebecca (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of stadiums in text of articles

Now that the moves from commerical names has been settled. What name do we use in the normal text of an article that links the stadium. Eg. Brisbane Broncos 2009?

In my opinion, the name displayed should be the name that the association in charge of organising the competition uses. For example, in the A-League, the FFA uses the sponsored names in its fixtures and results, so we have always displayed the names as the A-League website has displayed them (piping the links to the real name, of course). --timsdad ^(talk) 08:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for re-envigorating this discussion after it fell off my radar for a while! Regarding usage in articles, what would you do about, for example AFL season 2007? Would you use [[Docklands Stadium|Telstra Dome]] (the sponsored name at the time) or [[Docklands Stadium|Etihad Stadium]] (the sponsored name now)? My opinion is that it should still be Docklands Stadium - the non sponsored name was just as valid then as it is now. -- Chuq (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Going again by what I said above, I would probably use [[Docklands Stadium|Telstra Dome]] as this is the name that everyone recognised Docklands Stadium by at the time. My second preference would be just [[Docklands Stadium]], and I definitely don't think [[Docklands Stadium|Etihad Stadium]] should be used. --timsdad ^(talk) 04:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think when a time is established eg. AFL season 2007, the name of the stadium then (i.e. the sponsored name) should be used. But in a more generic eg. AFL, then the non-sponsored name should be used. The Windler talk 08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess this gets into semantics, but the name of the stadium at the time was "Docklands Stadium". The sponsored name is not the renaming of the stadium - it just an agreement to refer to the stadium at all times as a different name, be that signage, fixture lists, media reports, etc. -- Chuq (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad

This Feature Article has been split with a new article Cane toad (Australia) created. I have removed the WP Australia tag from Cane toad. Cane toad (Australia) is not FA class at present.--Grahame (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed they be merged again - discuss here at Talk:Cane_toad#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Australian Defence Force now open

The peer review for Australian Defence Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A CFD with some interesting issues

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Former_students_of_Guildford_Grammar_School

Australian private schools have a very high opinion of themselves - and their students - however the current prod and CFD at Guildford Grammar (Heath Ledger, if anyone didnt know, went there) does link into all the other states private schools as well - there may well be some who might wish to make comment on the ramifications and links of the epynomous school category - and the former students category as they are both under question (again) Satu Suro 14:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

AfDs requiring input from Australian editors

The AfDs for Padres FC and Darwin Dragons SC have recently received a number of comments from what appear to be non-Australian editors in which they're assuming that these amateur soccer teams in Darwin have the same kind of notability as teams in more heavily populated countries (and more suitable climates!) where soccer is the dominant sport. It would be helpful if Australian editors could weigh-in on the status of soccer in Australia and the availability of reliable sources on non-professional teams. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We really need a essay/guideline in Australia to show why it is not notable, especially as NT has less people than a small town in a decenntly populated country. As for the comment about the 7/8th division in England etc, I looked up eg, Harrogate in UK; 160,000 people, and they have two clubs, one in 6th tier and another in 8th tier, but at least both have stadiums about 3,000 with 500 odd seats and are semi-pro. In Australia, 3rd tier soccer teams play in paddocks with no seats, no money etc. Entrance is free, at least the Vietnam Utd v Salisbury Utd one was (at a paddock with no fence/gate). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Convict era of Western Australia

This has been delisted as a GA; the review does not appear to have have been brough to anybody's attention.--Grahame (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA has the option of a quick-fail if the reviewer considers it to be very poor. I guess as some parts of the article were tagged for so long that they assumed that nobody would be interested so as to bother fixing it if a warnign was given. I guess we could go through the list and check for vulnerable GAs and tag them? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A-class articles

Well, we don't have an A-class review system, but in my opinion, as WP:MILHIST does, we might as well just use the results from that in the case of Australian military articles that have already passed. I don't see the point of doubling up on reviews and for the articles in there, it seems unecessary/inappropriate to leave them at B class. I actually do the same at WP:VIET for Vietnamese miltiary articles. What does everyone think? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable for me. MILHIST is pretty thorough and I see no reason why an A-class MILHIST article would not also meet WP:AUST A-class standards (if we had them). Article quality should be assessed on a similar basis across the encyclopedia. I would just go ahead and upgrade the articles to A-class and act on any objections (if they are any). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that classes rated A class by MILHIST are always rated as A class for this project and that no other Australian articles are. This seems reasonable in the absence of any A class reviews for this project.--Grahame (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are a few randomly tagged As and the Aussie MILHIST ones are not auto, eg Category:A-Class_Australian_military_history_articles YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian made logo?

Does anybody know if we have an article (or a section of an article) dealing with the Australian Made logo (i.e. this)? -- saberwyn 07:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't find anything; there seems to be an opening for an article on Australian Made, Australian Grown Campaign. Melburnian (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen an article or section on the logo around here somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything on it now either. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian repeated place names

For the information of members and guests ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ANZAC or Anzac?

Whilst reviewing article on the recent footy match, I noticed that we aren't at all clear on the use of ANZAC and Anzac in page titles (let alone within the articles). A discussion at Talk:Anzac Day#More seemed fairly compelling that ANZAC should only be used for the actual army corps, with Anzac used for all other items, but we have ANZAC biscuit, ANZAC Cove and The ANZAC Day clash, ANZAC Parade, Canberra etc as primary articles with the Anzac equivalents generally redirects. (and thanks to an unhelpful bot adding a "redirect from other capitalisation" category to it, I don't think us mere mortals can do a move over redirect, as the redirect now has two lines of history). The ANZAC Test for the Rugby league Test match only has redirects from ANZAC variants, none from Anzac ones at all. So I've opened up a requested move page at Talk:The ANZAC Day clash, but was surprised that the others exist as ANZAC, rather than Anzac. So before we go and try to standardise them, is Anzac really preferred for all of these items named in honour of the ANZACs, or is it required to maintain the full capitalisation for all, or are there some that should have it and others that don't? If we decide that ANZAC is correct for some, then we should have redirects from Anzac for them, and vice-versa. The-Pope (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Both forms of capitalisation are used and it would be inappropriate to impose a single standard. This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis by considering what capitalisation is used in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the personal preference that the military formation is in all-capitals, and all derivative uses use normal capitalisation. However, I agree with Nick-D in that capitalisation for an article should be decided on a case-by-case study of the relevant sources until and unless we see a massive trend across all subjects and sources leaning one way or the other. -- saberwyn 00:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would a statement about ANZAC/Anzac capitalisation be useful to add to WP:AUSTYLE (still in proposed stage), even if only the military/all-caps usage has consensus at this time? Dl2000 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The derivative uses are treating Anzac as a proper noun cum adjective, not an acronym, so I think that in all uses except the original military one we should prefer Anzac over ANZAC. Donama (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a 200-WikiProject contest

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Article needing attention from knowledgable Australians

Is there anybody who can help with article Peter Foster? It has several issues, mainly POV, reliable sources, tone, and removal of general templates. Some specific issues are discussed on the Talk:Peter_Foster Thanks! Autarch (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is a disgrace YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we revert to this version before Kingcoconut began to tamper with the article, and repair it from there. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I ~~prescribe fire, and lots of it~~concur. Blatant single-purpose account, probable conflict of interest. Anons and single-purpose accounts who persist in adding dubious material to this article should be reminded of WP policy early and often, on their talk pages. --GenericBob (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the best course of action. Thanks to all of you for helping! Autarch (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interview with 2BL about vandalism

Adam Spencer interviewed the Irish student who inserted a false quote into the quotations of Maurice Jarre. Has he interviewed any Wikipedians for their point of view? (Well, I suppose the vandal could be regarded as a Wikipedian, but you know what I mean ...) Andjam (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that I've noticed, though his interview with the Jarre vandal was focused more on what it says about journalism than what the actual source for the false info was. Euryalus (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Articles

250 today with promotion of Australian Army Reserve.--Grahame (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually including Adrian Cole (RAAF officer), Great Barrier Reef and Military career of Keith Miller (all both GA and A class) there are 251, so Military history of Australia during World War I was probably 250th.--Grahame (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Sheean was 250th GA, excluding A class GAs.--Grahame (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, not exactly. There are now 151 articles listed at WP:AUS/GA, though at least ten of those are rated A-Class as well. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

251 I think you mean YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Yep. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there are 253, including Bart vs. Australia, which shouldn't have a WPA tag. I took the tag off Macaroni Penguin again, because we don't normally tag articles in relation to the mythical Australian Antartic Territory.--Grahame (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Queensland - NSW floods

Folks,

I tried searching for an article on the Queensland-NSW floods and was unable to find anything. Can anyone help me? Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't appear to have an article on that. Melburnian (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Parents warned of Wikiporn risk

"Parents have been warned not to let children use the website Wikipedia unsupervised after an entry on a popular children's book was edited to contain pornographic material." [9] WWGB (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is the offending edit. The way the article came across, it was as if a pornographic image was added. Can't say its a particularly offending edit compared to similar vandalism that appears on wikipedia on a daily basis. Timeshift (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Must be a slow news day! That "porn" vandalism was on the 19th! Oh Timeshift9, according to the "pornography" article it is (IE: literature). ;) Bidgee (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is evil! Our Children Are At Risk! The interweb must be censored! Etc. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected it for a week to prevent copycats. If anyone objects strongly I won't mind being reverted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP traces to Mediacom in the US, so we have one media organisation vandalising an article and six weeks later, a different one reporting on it. It's often observed that media professionals are self-obsessed, but this is taking it to an extreme. Euryalus (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism happened 4 days before the media report not six weeks ;). Bidgee (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the guy in the UK who wrote a report where he claimed his or his father's or whatever article contained lies or something, and the whole thing turned out to be at best a mistake or misrecollection and at worst a mistruth. Orderinchaos 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I note also that the "warning:" not to use Wikipedia unsupervised is not attributed to anyone and is not supported by the quotes in the article. So who is actually issuing this warning - the newspaper? How ironic, given this same newspaper was sucked in by the Maurice Jarre sourcing scandal - perhaps its SMH/Sun Herald staff that should stop using Wikipedia while unsupervised. And yes, this is sarcasm but sometimes its irresistable. Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A fairfax staffer also once put a non public figure's mobile phone number on Wikipedia. Andjam (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean six days, rather than six weeks, Euryalus? Also, I doubt that the parent complaining about the vandalism is part of the media. Andjam (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, When I've seen a story about a site's content they always name the parent. Maybe the SMH should be reporting about the media organisation who vandalised the article rather then trying to make out that Wikipedia is all doom and gloom (arr thats right thats all the media does these day). Bidgee (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want the parent named? (Also, who are you agreeing with?) Andjam (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I want them named, I'm saying that the media always names them or if they don't want to be named they say so however the media report doesn't even state that they don't want to be named. I've seen the media do similar things just to put Wikipedia into a negative light and create a story that they want which isn't always based on fact. Also It was a typo. Bidgee (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So you suspect the parent may be part of the media or otherwise may have some agenda? Just exploring that train of thought further, do you think the parent accidentally came across the vandalism, or do you consider it a possibility the parent was searching for vandalism, or was acting in collusion with the vandal? Andjam (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think that "parent" exists. Why was the SMH the only media outlet to report this when mean others (media outlets) have done so in the past?. Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of other sites listed by google news have picked it up, including a UK based site, with a comment from Mike Peel, "UK chair of Wikimedia", a web site in Belgium, and one in Turkish I think (I wonder if they reported on the Taner Akcam scandal?). None of them seem to doubt that the incident occurred. Maybe there's not much coverage because it wasn't viewed as unusual, rather than because they didn't think it happened. Andjam (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

2 of those sites seem to be not really well known and the other is more like a normal forum/blog type of site but all 3 seem to be just using the SMH/AGE (Owned by Fairfax) story. Really the Daily Mail, New York Post, CNN didn't even give this any press when normally they would even if they thought it was common or not! Bidgee (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) You're right on the date - for some reason I read the diff as 19 April instead of May. My point about who is warning whom is that the article header says parents have been warned not to let their children use Wikipedia unsupervised, but the actual quote this seems drawn from (the NSW Parents Council one) instead warns parents not to let their children use the internet unsupervised. Which is good advice but not particularly directed at Wikipedia - there's plenty of nastier and more age-inappropriate places than an online encyclopedia.

So who has issued the Wikipedia-specific warning in the article lead? Presumably the journalist, who is "shocked, shocked to find that ~~gambling~~vandalism is going on in here!". The parents who were warned not to let their children anywhere near that evil interweb were of course being warned by a newspaper which has for days run gory details of a group sex incident involving prominent footballers, and in today's edition also provide ddetails of a child sex offence and a lengthy article on a faulty erection treatment including discussion of rigidity and penis pain. Presumably parents also shouldn't be letting their children read the Herald unsupervised?

Anyway, I've ranted enough. Time to get back to the real world. :) Euryalus (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Laugher's comment as well? Andjam (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with it (though I have no idea who Brianna Laugher is). But this comment is clearly in response to a journalist's question. The original and specific "warning about Wikipedia" didn't come from Laugher. Euryalus (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Brianna Laugher. Apparently she edits infrequently as User:Pfctdayelise. "Wikipedia's Australian representative" is a bit of a stretch. How about that, a news article that's inaccurate. Who woulda thunk it? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianna is the President of Wikimedia Australia so it's not that much of a stretch. WWGB (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey all, indeed I (Brianna) did say I was only a volunteer Wikipedia editor and could not speak for the project, but that's how a soundbite gets summarised! I share some of the feelings expressed above and find it frustrating to see this reported. But 1) giving the impression of being blase about vandalism is not going to go down well (and it's not true: it is something taken very seriously, it's just we're kind of... used to it). And 2) maybe the fact that people still think a story like this is "news" illustrates how far we have to go in terms of communicating how Wikipedia actually works. Because obviously, if you know how Wikipedia works, this is not really newsworthy. Which reminds me, 3) it was the Sunday paper. :) cheers --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the media can be quite varied to work with... I've had discussions with them at times and, while some journalists are excellent and fairly report us, the search for the perfect soundbite ignores a fair summary of what was said (I remember one time you and I were interviewed separately by phone on ABC and we were saying the same thing but were edited to sound like we disagreed). Orderinchaos 18:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If we had flagged revisions, this incident probably wouldn't have happened (unless people think that the incident was staged - I don't). Andjam (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but I also see issues with flagged revisions (Those issues are not relevant to this incident). IMO it was staged and have seen some media organisations stage a story for a number of reasons (Really the reasons are too long to list). Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually, most frauds are done very incompetently (if people thought about how hard it was to pull off, they wouldn't try). The Killian memo used a proportional font when a fixed-width font would have been a much better idea. The Reuters photoshop fraud in Lebanon copied smoke from the same picture, when using one from a different picture would have added a bit of variety. By contrast, if the vandalism incident was wholly staged, they were smart enough to choose an article that had suffered from chronic vandalism, such that the fake vandalism would blend in perfectly. Andjam (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you don't know the media well enough! It doesn't matter how they do it. Bidgee (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pray tell, give examples of my ignorance? Andjam (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Racism in Australia

Racism in Australia is a new article.Can someone please expand/improve it. Thanks : Shyamsunder (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a new article but has been copied from Racism in Oceania. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

deleted copyright violation Gnan garra 03:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion til now. I've cut the Australia section from Racism in Oceania (and I suggest the sections on other countries be excised) as Racism in Oceania is not an established coherent topic - ie, it's a notion cobbled together by wikipedia editors. I re-created Racism in Australia with this info, but the info here is appallingly bad. It's just a collection of incidents and a run down of immigration history (with very little referencing). It seemed to take particular aim at the Howard Government implying it was a racist government. I've removed the worst of the material. What's left (still not good), could perhaps better be suited in Immigration to Australia. --Merbabu (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole article stinks horribly of WP:UNDUE and should be carefully considered as a specific case article - the actual subject has a much larger history and context and is not even explored in the intro. Border line article that needs careful interlinking with at least half a dozen others to provide a reader with a balanced perspective - Satu Suro 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SatuSuro - I agree. That I created a new article is by no means indicative of my support for the content. Rather, the split was purely aimed at watering down the unfounded wikipedia notion that Racism in Oceania is a coherent topic established by reliable sources. I *did* remove some of the worst content from the new article, and support Gnangarra's further removal of content. --Merbabu (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tampa

The article MV Tampa was quite a long article that predominantly dealt with the 2001 controversy about asylum seekers, rather than the ship itself. Per a few comments over the years on Talk:MV Tampa and my own suggestion, I have split this asylum seeker info off into a new article: Tampa affair. There was considerable support on the talk page, but no apparent stated opposition. It would be good if someone went through and copy edited the "new" article. I've also been through the "what links here" page and updated a number of links to the new article. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

There are two Australian FARs currently up. Any help is apprecaited and badly needed in fact. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to keep the 18-month streak without a failed FAR going.... In that time about six old FAs were fixed at FAR and some others were partially-pre-emptively cleaned-up, which is why none have been targeted. I can think of about 12-15 Indian ones [similar sized project] that fell off the perch in the meantime. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Much as it'd be nice to keep the record going, I can't see either of these two being saved. Lake Burley Griffin needs massive amounts of work, both in restructuring what's already there, and in new (partly offline) research to deal with the fact that it near-totally lacks a history section. Cane toad is stuffed because of the merge/split dramas going on concerning its Australian content, which makes it a bit hard to save at present. Rebecca (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You get three months of time if there is steady work YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin won't be going down! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

A CfD on number-one singles in Australia is closing shortly (tomorrow, I believe). Orderinchaos 03:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A few big gaps

The Countries WikiProject is doing a general assessment of some of the gaps in our coverage of each country, and their page on Australia shows up some redlinks which really should be filled.

Anyone want to pick some of these off? Rebecca (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that while Economy of New South Wales is a bluelink, it's pretty poorly written and could definitely use some cleanup work. On the other hand, Economy of Western Australia is excellent and potentially a good template for other economy articles. I'll try to put together a quick Queensland article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Oh they can be forked from the sections in the respective mother articles and capital city and then expanded with info about selective schools and what not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I quickly started at stub on Economy of Tasmania, just a copy from the economy section in the Tasmania article. But then I got this message on my talkpage;

This is a fork from Tasmania, right? If so,

I think you should acknowledge that when creating the article, to comply with GFDL.
You should remove the content from Tasmania! The same content can't be in two places.

Looking at the Tasmania article, that section doesn't seem too long, so I'm not sure there is a benefit to this. I'll wait for your comments. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad

is at FAR YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that a Cane Toad out of all creatures is a FA but Melbourne or Sydney aren't even up to GA standard. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA/FA Drive on australia states/terrorities/capital cities

Last year there was a bit of an informal New Year's resolution on getting the 16 state/territories and capitals back to GA and beyond but this seems to have stalled. Does anyone want to revive it? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe not.... Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Buddina

Does anybody know how to pronounce first and second vowels in a word Buddina? I mean, [a] (like in bud) or [ʊ] (like in put) for "u" and [ɪ] or [ɑe] for "i". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryakov Yuri (talk • contribs) 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned at the start of this video. Melburnian (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

b'DEEN-a ... so [bəˈdiːnə] in IPA (I hope I got that right) Orderinchaos 02:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Lake Burley Griffin

I have nominated Lake Burley Griffin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed at this FAR... I can't think of any ideal structure for this article that is natural.... any ideas appreciated YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lakethe only other FA on a lake and wouldn't say that's any better. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone put an advert at the bottom for a sports club YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Backslash Forwardslash 2‎

Australian editor, wrote FA on Bruce Kingsbury and GA on Australia Day. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep voted just before I saw this, geez haven't really voted on RFA much for a few weeks. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate of Australia

When comparing the article to Climate of India it's not real flash as Australia has a wide range of weather conditions similar to India. Anyone want to help clean it up or will we put this on the backburner while we wait for FAR (on Lake Burley Griffin & the Cane Toad to finish). Anyway I'll start on the Tasmania section. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What FAR? Climate of India isn't on FAR YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was meaning Lake Burley Griffin & the Cane Toad Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

National Library of Australia - search engine

National Library has a new prototype search engine, after a quick run thru tried it on John Curtin see the result for Australian sources here. It appears to be another useful tool to add to your bookmarks. Gnan garra 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really good - thanks for the link Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Chaser

Just noticed that this article hasn't been updated since this latest fiasco broke at all - since it's probably getting a few hits, it would be good if someone could fix it up fairly quickly. Rebecca (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Australia)#June_2009 has been started 5 days into the month - when you create new articles - remember to put em in folks - otherwise this facility is a false reading - please try to put your newbie stubs in - it is worth it! Satu Suro 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't really so necessary anymore since the advent of the new articles bot, which finds all of these articles and more automatically. Hasn't really gotten much use in a long time. Rebecca (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the upper part of the new article page needs more of a guide for new article creators to check the bot log on the lower part of the page Satu Suro 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The sheer amount of backlog or things to do with the bot-caught-articles suggests there should be encouragement to help cleanup/speedy whatever the items in the bot list need doing - there is no sign of anyone doing anything there Satu Suro 07:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh.. didn't know of that! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a list of things to do - it's a list of new articles. It's on a lot of people's watchlists, and anything that needs to be speedied or cleaned up generally gets hit pretty quickly. Rebecca (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult to my watchlist and check it daily. It seems to be updated each morning and I notice quite a few redlinks from others doing cleanup by each evening, when I do most of my mopping up. If you think it's missing articles then you can edit the rules if you want to.The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that new art bots ( I use the Indonesian one ) arent things to do per se - but hell it sure provides the opportunity - Satu Suro 00:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I also skim the lists of new Australian and military history articles every day or so looking for anything which needs to be cleaned up. The lists are normally updated a bit after 00:00 GMT. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian Stock Exchange

Hi all. I wanted to know...do people think that if a company is listed on the ASX, does this imply notability? My personal opinion is yes. But I wanted to guage what others thought. .....Todd^#661 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't this so - lots of obscure companies are listed on the ASX (there were 1986 companies listed in May). It could help establish notability, but coverage in independent reliable sources is needed to meet WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dueling move requests at Latin Australian

There are two suggested moves for this article, "Latino Australian" and "Latin American Australian", and the two nominators and I (randomly) are the only voices being heard. The evidence that's been presented is extremely thin, so more voices familiar with the topic would be helpful. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of the South Sydney Rabbitohs

I have done a GA Reassessment of the South Sydney Rabbitohs article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found several dead links in the article that need to be repaired. I have placed the article on hold for a week. I am notifying all interested projects about this in the hopes that someone will come forward to address this issue. My review can be found here. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on Indians in Australia

created this article by moving content from Indian Australian. pls help improve. --Like I Care 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that article ATM reads a little more like a news story rather then a encyclopaedic article (I'm not saying that it's not notable but just have concerns over the article). Bidgee (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

agree. it also looks to be written from Indian perspective. would be great to have other viewpoints and thus needs help from other editors. --Like I Care 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure a few editors here will help out to fix the article up. ATM I'm sort of busy getting my assignments done as they are due in 2 weeks time, so that rules me out :(. Bidgee (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue has now been included in Racism in Australia. It needs a cleanup and maybe a check of sources (currently only Indian newspapers).--Merbabu (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, some reliable sources call it racism. --Like I Care 02:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look through for punctuation, grammar, spelling, fixed a few citations and have corrected a couple of statements which were not supported by the sources. It does need a fair bit of work though as it is giving a skewed view (although, to be fair, that may be my own perception as I hadn't even heard about these attacks until I checked this page!) florrie 15:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: The article has had a page move and is also up for deletion. --Merbabu (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And watch out for a series of banned editors. I've listed them on teh talk page. Hkelkar has a lot of banned "mates" who like to keep him company YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Zappia (Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks CEO)

The article is sourced but is he really notable as an individual? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, especially considering it's referenced. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Apart from this BLP1E incident - every news reference I can find is "Tony Zappia CEO of... says" - nothing about him at all. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so either. He wasn't notable as a CEO prior to the Cronulla "scandals" and is now notable because of them. The whole article could go into the Cronulla Sharks page, it needs to be updated with all the 2009 stuff anyway. florrie 11:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably worth a shot for WP:AFD (or at least redirect) but I'd wait till the current drama dies down or it's likely to be kept. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd PROD it. It's a really obvious case of WP:BLP1E. Rebecca (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It was prodded, Rebecca, but the originator contested and removed it. Have to be afd (and maybe merged). florrie 12:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just AfD then. I can't really see this one getting kept. Rebecca (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The planets have algined! The hardcore deletionist monkey agrees withe self-proclaimed strong inclusionist! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was the founder of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians back in the day. It's just that standards evolved over the years :P Rebecca (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Interested editors might like to keep an eye on List of rugby league incidents. The same editor keeps adding the Zappia incident depite the lede making it clear that the article is about footballers, not football officials. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd change the lead then. The article title refers to RL incidents, not player incidents.The-Pope (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He was still Cronulla Sharks CEO, so I don't think it's a really obvious case of WP:BLP1E, although I am a fairly strong inclusionist and I don't have strong opinion either way. Do any other AFL/NRL CEOs that haven't played the game have arts? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I'm also a fairly strong inclusionist, but I'm just not seeing notability here; there's very little that we could actually say apart from his involvement in this mini-scandal. Rebecca (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, it should be deleted. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm only aware of Denis Fitzgerald having an article but as well as being a long-serving (and out-spoken) CEO he was formerly a representative level rugby league player. So, notable as an athlete prior to any notability as an administrator and OAM. A huge gulf between Fitzgerald and Zappia as far as notability (or lack of) is concerned. florrie 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Local councils

Should there be a list of local councillors on each local government area page? (Obviously most of them will not be notable, but there could still be an unlinked list). Alternatively there could be a table indicating the number of councillors identifying with each grouping. I think one of these at least is warranted, as currently most of these pages have absolutely nothing about the current makeup of the local council. Frickeg (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea, as long as someone's willing to keep them updated. Rebecca (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think such a list is necessary but nor do I think such a list is inappropriate. I would hate to see a sea of redlinks created however and most Councillors, while locally significant, are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia (COI declaration: I work in local government).

The list would need to be sourced, dated and NPOV (in terms of party or regional affiliation, i.e. being a NPA or ALP party member does not necessarily make one a NPA or ALP councillor. Living in a suburb or town does not make one the representative for that suburb or town in a open ward arrangement). Local government can be surprisingly vicious and personal and adding names to articles may lead to an increase in edit warring etc. but nothing that temporary protection and/or blocking can't fix. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Mattingbn. I'm not suggesting linking any of the councillors. No red links, no potential articles. Just a straight list. No further information about them. They would all be sourced using ONLY the council website and the electoral commission. Frickeg (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No I understand what you mean, I am just clarifying my opinion that these names, if added (and I am not opposed to adding them, although I don't think it adds a lot) should not be redlinks. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I'm also interested in everyone's opinions regarding whether there should be (a) a list of current councillors (and probably a list of all past mayors), not linked; (b) just a table detailing the current numbers in the council, or a note saying that the council does not observe party politics; or (c) both. I'm leaning towards the latter at the moment, but this could be a little excessive. Needless to say there would also be a brief section detailing the method of election (i.e. direct mayoral elections, number of wards, etc.). Frickeg (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Both is good. Rebecca (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars

.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mick Gatto

I just came across the article on Domenic Gatto and have reluctantly deleted a large chunk of it because it made uncited allegations about criminal activity. I don't like doing this because I'm pretty sure there are decent cites for much of this, but WP:BLP is pretty clear about deleting unsourced material that could be considered defamatory. In particular, there was a whole unsourced paragraph insinuating that Gatto murdered Andrew Veniamin; given that Gatto's been acquitted of Veniamin's death, this sort of claim really needs careful sourcing. The only sourced allegation in the article isn't even about Domenic Gatto.

Unfortunately, this means that I've deleted most of the stuff for which Gatto is famous, leaving it as an article about an ex-boxer who owns a construction and a mediation company, who was once accused of murder but got acquitted. (Most of this also unsourced, but at least not likely to constitute defamation.) I hate hacking out content that could probably be salvaged, but I don't have the time to go looking for cites at the moment - if anybody feels up to restoring that material as appropriate with solid cites, I'd be grateful. --GenericBob (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject for the Blue Mountains

I was wondering who here would be interested in a Wikiproject Blue Mountains. Any support?? De Mattia (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you will get much practical action, as the WP on Sydney is already sparse, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be better to try and get something going at Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales. Many of these have been struggling a bit over the last couple of years, though; we haven't been able to get the concerted groups in areas together that wrote so much of our early content on various cities. Rebecca (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can hear what both of you are saying but I still think that it would be a good idea to start the project. De Mattia (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with YM, and considerin Wikproject Tasmania is currently a sleeping giant (Although it is Tassie and we're all a bit slow down here), I can't see how this could work. Stranger things have happened, although do we really need any more wiki projects? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

State oriented projects can support portals and articles relevant to each state and they make sense - however dormant they be is irrelevent as far as overall Australian project maintenance is concerned - sub projects for regions have never succeeded and should be discouraged - if the enthusiasm is there the articles relevant to the subject/region should be improved - regions dont need projects they need editors prepared to put the time in to improve them Geelong, Gold Coast and maybe others are prone to the whims, humanity and foibles of a very small number of editors and really project scrap heaps are not a pleasant sight Satu Suro 08:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. The Riverina WikiProject was one of the most effective I've ever seen. But you need to actually have the people there to make it work - not much point creating a page if you haven't got at least a couple of editors willing to put in the hours. Rebecca (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need a project? Any particular advantage? Given that there are so few editors, the amount of time and effort to set up and maintain project bureaucracy could be much better spent just getting on and improving the articles. --Merbabu (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I will stop thinking about creating the new Wikiproject. I am now working hard on improving articles (mainly stubs) on the Sydney Wikiproject (mainly with referencing). De Mattia (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alfonso Bernard O'Reilly

This article started life as a copyright violation and remained so ever since, that is until today I had no version to revert to and as copy violation it was deleted. I brought it your attention here because source of vio is usable to create a new article from, hopefully someone has the time to do this quickly. I cant do anything in the next week or so as I'm unlikely to have more than just a few passing moments. Gnan garra 08:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia Wikiproject template

With the Australian Wikiproject template (located here), I was think whether or not someone should add-on the part which then brings up the bit that says whether or not the article has been checked for the 5 criteria (like is shown here). I was also wondering if, if we do make the change, if we can make it so that, if the article is start class, it gets 'checked' for C class, rather than all articles being checked for just one class (in the example, B class). De Mattia (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Capalaba, Queensland

Could s.o. check out the IPA at Capalaba, Queensland? I couldn't make out the transcription that was there even with the Aussie phonology article, and what is now there is just my best guess. Thanks, kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's correct (with Matt's vowel change - the "pal" is said with the a in "hat" while the last one is more like "bar"). Am familiar with it thanks to ABC Newsradio who sometimes reference an electoral district in the state parliament named after it. Thanks for fixing that up :) Orderinchaos 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian radio station articles

I have tried to keep these (Too long to list the stations) tidy of unsourced content, remove current schedules (As wiki isn't a guide or a advertising site) but I really give up as fanboi IP's or the stations themselves are adding the content that doesn't meet our policies. Some of the worst I can find are (No doubt more): 2MMM, 3MMM, ABC News (Australia), SAFM, 92.9 (Perth radio station), B105 FM, 2Day FM, C91.3, Edge 96.1, Nova 91.9, 101.7 WSFM, Nova 93.7, Mix 102.3, Nova 96.9, Nova 100, Mix 101.1, Mix 106.3. Bidgee (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

GLAM-WIKI

Dear All,

I just thought I'd inform you all of an upcoming event organised by Wikimedia Australia in Canberra that you might be interested in and perhaps could attend. It is called "GLAM-WIKI:Finding the common ground" and is for the Australia/NZ gallery, library, archive and museum sector (GLAM) to meet with the Wikimedian community so we can discuss ways of working together. You can find more specific details about the event here: glam.wikimedia.org.au

We have very strong interest from the GLAM sector with multiple representatives from each of the national institutions already registered - and that's only after one week! We are very much hoping to have a strong showing from the Wikimedia community so we can demonstrate the variety of interests, skills and backgrounds we represent.

So, if you can attend - please register at the link from that main info page. If you can't attend, that's ok, there'll be an announcement soon I hope about an editing competition in relation to this event with IRL prizes etc.

All the best,

15:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (VP of Wikimedia Australia and convener of GLAM-WIKI)

User:Witty lama: Are Wikipedian's invited to this too, or only members of Wikimedia? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean members of the wikimedia Australia chapter, as by definition, all wikiPedians are also wikiMedians. But yes - all are welcome to attend. Witty Lama 04:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

FAs

Four Aus FAs promoted today: Battle of the Coral Sea, Early life of Keith Miller, Otto Becher and Bill Ponsford; may be a record.--Grahame (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well 7 is the montly record, from Nov 2007 and Mar 2008, although the standards these ones had to put up with are much higher YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

History Wars

Calling attention to the article on History wars. There is a basic problem in that it does not mention the consensus view about the 19th century mass killings on Tasmania. If someone could take a look it would be nice.Likebox (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The request above overstates the issue somewhat. There is a problem with getting agreement on what is the 'consensus' view. Those who think that they represent it have been asked to supply appropriate citations to show that it is the consensus and they seem to think that citing some authors who take that particular position shows that it is the consensus.

Our problem is: What is the group that represents the consensus with regard to the history of colonial Tasmania? Is it everyone in the world, everyone in Australia, everyone who actually knows more about the issue than what they may have read in a sensationalised, tin-pot popular ‘history’ written by a not-particularly-reliable journalist?

Is the consensus that of the international community of historians or a smaller international community of genocide experts/historians? Is it Australian historians or Australian historians who specialise in genocide or in Tasmanian history? Is it people who did their research, such that it was, 60 years ago or should that be updated considering more modern research into such issues as the impact of introduced disease on non-immune populations and more recent anthropological views on the relationships between hunter-gatherer groups and the ‘land’ and its resources, as well as their interactions with colonisers.

But fresh eyes would be welcome. Webley442 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus view that the natives were wiped out by settlers is accepted by all except a small minority in Australia. The current status of all pages on Wikipedia on the topic do not reflect this accepted consensus. It is pointless to argue with these people, so to fix the pages they must be bludgeoned into shape by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We do not "bludgeon pages into shape by force of numbers" here, we act on a model of discussion and consensus. If you are looking for a battleground, I suggest you look elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lake Burley Griffin/archive1‎

Is mostly fixed and needs to be kept. One of the issues that is not so straightforward is a logical structure. Opinions needed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Egg Marketing Board of New South Wales

I found a building while in Junee the other day and came across this building which is located next to the Hay branch line and also near the Licorice and Chocolate Factory. I've found no article so I have no idea on the history of the board nor the building. Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of background in the lower sections of this link. I also note we have an article on the Australian Egg Corporation. Melburnian (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Egg Marketing Board of New South Wales" - wow , what a compelling topic to write about. That people aren't falling over themselves to start it is one of wikipedia's biggest current mysteries. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I blame Poultrypedia for poaching our egg article editors ;) --Melburnian (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Melburnian (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Inspired by the UK Egg Marketing Board perhaps? Lion Mark? "Go to work on an egg"? --Step hen 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Normie Rowe

Already raised on AUSMUSIC but got no response, so...

While looking at this article for unrelated reasons, I discovered much of it was a copyvio (details are on the article's talk page. Can someone with more knowledge/sources than me have a look and attempt to address this? Thanks. Orderinchaos Orderinchaos 04:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listings

I see that after a few months off, Wolterbot is back updating the Projects' cleanup listings. An interesting comparison can be done between the list just done and one done exactly a year ago [10].

The listing is based on a database snapshot of 18 June 2008. It contains all articles flagged for cleanup which are tagged with {{WP Australia}} on their talk page.
Based on that data, 61534 articles are assigned to this project, of which 11614, or 18.9%, are flagged for cleanup.

The listing is based on a database snapshot of 18 June 2009. It contains all articles flagged for cleanup which are tagged with {{WP Australia}} on their talk page.
Based on that data, 70624 articles are assigned to this project, of which 19402, or 27.5%, are flagged for cleanup.

So we've added over 9000 articles in a year, but almost 8000 more articles have a cleanup flag! Maybe it's the stricter tagging on unrefed BLPs or similar, but they aren't good numbers! The AFL sub-project has gone from 3488 articles with 398 (11.4%) tagged to 4820 articles with 627 (13.0%) tagged (so you can't blame the fanboi footballer stubs!). My goal is to get that below 10% in a few weeks. WP:WA is 4929 articles with 897 (18.2%) tagged, up from 2873 articles with 254 (8.8%) tagged with issues last year.

Along with the Article alerts and NewArtBot the clean up list gives you a good set of articles that need to be improved, which I find very useful. The-Pope (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that WA is an odd case as during the time in question it merged in the Perth project. I'm not sure of the status of the Perth articles as at 18 June 2008. Orderinchaos 17:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Roma Regional Council

Can anyone determine for me if Roma Regional Council has actually changed its name to Maranoa Regional Council? The Council website says Roma, the Departmental website says Maranoa] and an electoral commission report has recommended "The commission has determined that the name of the Roma Regional Council be changed to Maranoa Regional Council" but I would be surprised if the commissioner has the authority to make the change (as opposed to recommending a change be made). Do any of our Queensland editors have any clearer idea than me? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. The council website is right up to date, with a newsletter for this month that mentions absolutely nothing about any name change, and refers repeatedly to it as Roma. Department website's probably jumping the gun, short of any other info to suggest a change has happened. Might be worth emailing the department to confirm though. Rebecca (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that that Queensland department has recently been abolished, and while the public servants are probably still there, you might be waiting awhile getting a response from them. The fact that the DLG's website links you to http://www.romaregionalcouncil.qld.gov.au/ would indicate to me that the change has not yet been made, but that it is probably a foregone conclusion that it will. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

I phoned the council. They were renamed on Friday ("around 4 in the afternoon"), possibly effective today. The recorded message said "Roma" but the lady answering answered with "Maranoa". All stationery etc has been changed. So it has gone through - not sure how this would be sourced though. Orderinchaos 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On this basis I moved it, and made only minor changes. If someone wants to improve it, feel free :) Orderinchaos 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, their site says "Maranoa" now, so I think you're fairly safe =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Les Norton

I removed a PROD tag from this article as I felt the subject may be notable. I seem to remember reading somewhere that these books were some of the best selling books in Aust. I am not a big fan of articles about fictional characters and the article is not really worth saving, but given that I have not read the books but was aware of the character, perhaps it does have wider notability. Others thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd torch it. No refs, no particular notability. Would suggest merging into a book or series article, but even that doesn't exist. Rebecca (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well well - all in the same boat - cliff hardy, les patterson and les norton (amongst many) are notable australian icons of particular genres of fiction - the current editor has not an idea about WP:RS or anything else - however that doesnt mean that it is immediately torchable by any means - cripes I hate to think what would happen with dad and dave and mum and dad Satu Suro 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think merge and change to redirect to Robert G. Barrett would be most appropriate. Great holiday reading for blokes - shielas: best to avoid. –Moondyne 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

HM Bark Endeavour

There's an ongoing discussion regarding whether HM Bark Endeavour or HMS Endeavour is the preferred location for the article on Cook's ship. I've asked for more opinions at WP:SHIPS and thought I'd do so here as well. Anyone who likes a free-for-all, please stop by at the talk page and have a say. Euryalus (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations articles

When topics such as Australia–India relations are not deemed worthy of an stand-alone article, then this whole crusade against bilateral relations articles has goen way over-the-top. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the mass-produced bilateral relations articles, but I agree that there are some zealots out there. Some editors have even nominated articles about large countries which share borders for deletion! Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially when there is a large uranium sale in question YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Australian Secret Intelligence Service

I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which are listed at Talk:Australian Secret Intelligence Service/GA1. If these concerns are not addressed in seven days, the article may be delisted. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Delisted content

Created to keep track of things that might be close to GA/FA. Used the cat intersect searcher to make the list YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really interesting. I didn't know that Mark Latham had ever been a FA, but it does explain why the article is a cut above the standard of articles on Australian opposition leaders (compare it to Malcolm Turnbull, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

York Park

Can anyone help with this review? The hardest part is trying to find refs but also need someone who can help summarise the lead better and even a Copy Edit.Thankyou Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GLAM -Challenge

On August 6 & 7 Wikimedia Australia is hosting GLAM-Wiki at the Australian War Memorial supported by the

In lead up to the event some of the GLAM institutions(Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) have donated items to be given away, Wikimedia Australia has organised the GLAM Challenge which will run from 13th July until 23:59UTC on the 19th July. This is open to all registered editors in any Wikimedia project, you dont need to be in Australia to win as prizes will be posted to anywhere in the world. Nominate yourself by the 13th July, see GLAM Challenge for more details. Gnan garra 11:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Entrants have started to trickle in, one of the prizes has been donated by the Powerhouse Museum its the book Then and now: Stories from the commons its a book of photographs from the late 1800's until the early 1900's all PD images which have been uploaded to Flickr this book includes information on all images. It'd be a great book to add to the collection of any Wikipedian that has an interest in writing articles on Australian history with the images readily available think of the articles you could expand with that resource. Gnan garra 12:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanding George Calombaris and Gary Mehigan

Man, I hope we're all enjoying watching Masterchef :) - there have been interviews in the Australian magazine and other places which it'd be good to fill out these articles - DYKs anyone? I have placed an expand tag. Will try to get to it myself but am a bit busy, so all in (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: also [[Sarah Wilson (TV presenter)...hint, hint...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

PPS: And Matt Preston needs more refs...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflation of archives and libraries

Category:State_libraries_and_archives_of_Australia

Category:Archives_in_Australia

Category:Libraries_in_Australia

A new category created yesterday misleadingly conflates state libraries with state archives (they are different institutions with different acts and anyone who uses them will realise they are mutually exclusive institutions)

We now have a small sea of contradictions and overlapping parent and child categories - anyone with any idea what we do with it all? Satu Suro 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominate the state libraries and archives category for deletion? Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a mess. I would start by deleting [:Category:State libraries and archives of Australia]] (good luck at CfD!), correcting the membership of the other two and then creating a new supercat over the top of both along the lines on Category:Record keeping institutions of Australia (no doubt someone can improve on the title.) Inside Category:Libraries in Australia, there would two subcats by type Category:State libraries of Australia and Category:Research libraries of Australia (or something similar) to cover University libraries etc. A further subcat could be en:Municipal libraries of Australia for institutions such as those in the existing Category:Public libraries in Australia (which I would delete). If there was interest, a secondary structure based on geography (i.e. Category:Libraries in Australia by state or territory) could be developed as well. My 2c -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - having worked at one of the academic ones very very long time ago I am astonished at the mess we have got into - state archives and state libraries are often confused and the idea of record keeping institutions (arrghh!) only confuses the issues further! So I basically disagree with most of mats suggestions, on the basis that the 4 different systems are not confused - academic, local, state and archive are all separate systems effectively and should not be tied into each other if possible in any way - hopefully others will join in here :) Satu Suro 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Library" is a general concept for a place that keeps books and there is no point WP:AWNB creating our own definition here. I am not suggesting that the categories are intermingled. My proposal would look like this

Category:Record keeping institutions in Australia (don't get hung up on the name, think of a better one if you don't like it

Category:Libraries in Australia

Category:State libraries in Australia

Category:Research libraries of Australia (Academic if you prefer; I don't)

Category:Municipal libraries of Australia (Public if you prefer, again I don't)

Category:Archives of Australia

Obviously, members of a subcat would not be included in the parent cat. We are swimming against the tide of general understanding of the concept of "Library" if we think that there are huge fundamental differences between State, Municipal and Research libraries. The basic concept is the same and therefore all belong in a supercat. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that - looks good - and thanks for cleaning things up - the insufficient definition of the difference andseparation of the library systems in the categories is a bit like the issues of 20 years ago when government surveys found significant numbers of australians couldnt discriminate between local, state and federal government - :) Satu Suro 02:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Mattinbgn's proposed structure. One question - are the contents of Category:Public libraries in Australia actually notable? I have trouble believing my city council's library system would merit an article on Wiki, and I live in one of the biggest ones in the country. Orderinchaos 03:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that most of those libraries are notable. As a Canberran, I can confirm that there's nothing special about Belconnen Library (its a mid-sized public library in a totally undistinguished building). Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

They're all adverts probably written by council staff, and should be merged into the council articles. The public libraries are on a par with school library, the shelving space is equivalent to a small apartment and most of them are silly books etc etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

See Ingham, Queensland#Libraries for an example of a library advert added by Hinchinbrooklibrary (talk · contribs). Public library staff attend a training course on new media such as blogs and wikis, run back to the office fired with enthusiasm and begin to contribute! I don't have the heart to crush this enthusiasm, knowing a few people who attended similar training with similar ideas. Perhaps we can point them to the GLAM project by WMA? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think that these staff-contributed texts are probably not terribly helpful as they currently stand, I suspect quite a few libraries around the country - quite likely including the Belconnen Library knowing some of the local history - would be notable enough for Wikipedia standards if someone could actually be bothered doing the research. It needs to be judged on a case by case basis. I sure couldn't see my local library here in Perth warranting an article, but I can think of quite a number in places I've lived over the years that probably would. The difference between this and most of the articles in that category, though, is that they seem to be claiming notability on the basis of being a public service (just no) whereas they might have a claim on it from the basis of being a landmark. Rebecca (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Australian baseball task force

There has been a call at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian sports#Australian baseball task force for people who are interested in working on Australian baseball articles. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Theo Theophanous

With the trial now underway, Theo Theophanous may need an extra set of eyes now and again. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dale Begg-Smith spyware allegations and reliability of sources

A couple of seemingly new user accounts have inserted into the article Dale Begg-Smith allegations about his involvement with spyware. Amongst the citations they've provided is Spyware cybersigns point to Begg-Smith and 'Spam man' wins gold. Does anyone know whether any allegations by Fairfax publications have been made in print editions of their newspapers, and if not, whether it indicates that they aren't serious in their allegations? Andjam (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I seem to remember this was in print too, but my memory fails. Perhaps you could just phone Fairfax and ask. Donama (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was just a section of add-ons it might not be notable (eg the Times of India plagiriased a whole set of WP articles for their set of cricketer profiles), but this seems like a serious article, printed or not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This was a serious affair at the time. Begg-Smith got quite annoyed that he wasn't getting the plaudits of others who had achieved Winter Olympics success, in large part due to this mess tarnishing his victory. It used to be in the article back at the start; may have been chopped out along the way if it wasn't referenced, but it should definitely be in there. Rebecca (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was probably the culprit with that, thinking they were allegations that weren't going anywhere. If you (both you and Donama) remember them, then I guess the allegations should be mentioned in the article. Thanks for your input, everyone. Andjam (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Stern Hu

Need expansion of Stern Hu to allow it to be placed on the main page, under the "In the News" section. Help in that direction would be most desired. Kindest regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this article a violation of WP:BLP1E? Shouldn't the information (including information on the non-Australians) either be included in the Rio Tinto Group article or in a Rio Tinto Chinese bribery charges, 2009 (or similar) article?The-Pope (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely, "Cover the event, not the person". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, rename and rewrite? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian Dictionary of Biography

Is anyone else having problems at present with this site. I can see a cached version. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tried FF and IE with no luck in either. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No problems here with IE7 and FF3. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Working now, although I did send a message to the operators of the site earlier. Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 00:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Roland Perry

Looks like the man himself is here, editing his own article. Who else would dig up 20 year old nespaper archives to praise himself YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Who else would look in archives of playboy for information on a cricket historian? Probably the subject himself keeps praise cuttings of himself and dug it up quick YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the content added by the editor is suspiciously positive, it is not difficult to dig up 20 year old newspaper articles if the publications are archived in a database like Factiva. Don't know if that's the case here, but just pointing it out anyway. :) Somno (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article is disrupting it again YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

False information on inside covers of books

I would have expected that inside covers of books ought to tell the truth at least, albeit selectively and POV, but in the case of Roland Perry, the inside covers of his books and his publisher says that he won the UK Cricket Society book of the year in 2006 for Miller's Luck. I presume that it was a typo and meant The Cricket Society.

Now I was surprised that such learned people would not have noticed what David Frith and Ramachandra Guha noticed about the book, but a look at the website shows that someone else won the award and a google search shows that Perry's book was not even in the shortlist. Do inside covers of books tell upfront lies about the CV of the author?? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

River stubs

AlbertHerring (talk · contribs) has created a veritable bucket load of stubs on Australian watercourses using AWB; see Yarrowitch River and Yarramanbah Creek for examples. While I am sure the creating editor meant well, in the state they are in I personally think they are worse than useless. Of what earthly good is an article that basically restates the article name and adds a vague location (i.e. the state it is located in)? A blue link is a promise to a reader that there will be something relevant on the topic, these articles break that promise. Better to not have an article rather than an article that tells the reader precisely nothing.

I went to leave a message on the editor's talk page to this effect but noticed that Grutness has thanked him for creating the NZ river stubs and suggested it is up to the WikiProject to improve them. That made me think that perhaps my views on the inappropriateness of such actions may not be as widely held as I thought.

Given the vast quantity created, getting these articles up to speed will be a task measured in generations! I do not propose deleting them (even though I feel they should not have been created) but what is the view of this project towards such mechanical article creation activities? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, the mass creation of cookie-cutter stubs like this is highly undesirable... but, once created, their mass deletion is equally highly undesirable. Hesperian 00:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the average reader would be a little disappointed following these links and getting nothing more than a restatement of the article title. Microstubs are fine as a cocnept but micro-micro-stubs aren't ideal. They're also discouraged by guides like this.

On the other hand, now they exist there's an incentive for people to expand them. I agree hat would take years - anyone know of a useful online reference so we can get started? Euryalus (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd take the "kill it with fire" approach, as I did when some idiot did this for every single person who ever served in the NSW Parliament a few years ago. These are totally useless, the author wouldn't know half these rivers if he tripped over them, and they need to be deleted. I'd go through and pick the rivers that obviously need articles (why did it take this editor to get an article on the Tuross River?), focus on expanding them, and torch the rest until someone wants to come along and write an actual article. Rebecca (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rebecca :| Aaroncrick (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries included a link to this csv file, which contains the LGA name, gazette date, previous name and coordinates. Perhaps someone could do a data merge. –Moondyne 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather not see these merged. Some of these articles are on rivers that are actually quite notable and deserve proper articles. Merging them discourages the heck out of anyone wanting to write a decent article down the line. It's better for the project if they're just tossed as a bunch and recreated as necessary. Rebecca (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at that CSV earlier as well. It contains a bit more data than was used in the articles - probably enough to make them viable stubs. While I share Rebecca's concern that many of those rivers won't need their own article, with that content the others could be better than they are now. (Although I'm always wary of using single source). - Bilby (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a full list of the articles concerned which I created with the AWB list comparer tool. The list is available for someone (not me) to either do a mass AfD or a merge. –Moondyne 06:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, that's one lengthy list. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And a lot dont have Australian/State project tags on their talk pages either, grrrr - I dont agree with deleting them - but there is a lot of tidying up to do Satu Suro 11:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All the ones I checked didn't have project tags. There are a hell of a lot of articles so it will take a fair amount of time from various editors to get the up to scratch. The particular article where the stubs are linked from will more than likely have more info. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanded one (Buckenbowra River, selected at random from Moondyne's list) from a micro-stub into simply a feeble stub. 333 to go. Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rufus River has some interesting history including the Rufus River Massacre. If I can find any of my old papers/books on it (or anything verifiable online) I'll expand the article. florrie 13:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was named after the red-haired George Macleay by Charles Sturt (CSV and [11]) Melburnian (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! florrie 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference he's used in the articles looks suspiciously identical to the one I used in List of rivers of New South Wales (A-K) and List of rivers of New South Wales (L-Z) when I created them. Those two lists contain significantly more information on each river than the individual articles do, which I felt was the better way to go, since the majority of these rivers aren't notable and I couldn't see anyone putting in the effort required to create the individual articles. I still can't see many of these articles ever being built into anything more useful. It seems far more logical to delete them all now, so they show up as redlinks, and create them again if and when somebody sees the need, rather than hoping that somebody will expand them. It's more likely that nobody will. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed these for some U.S. rivers as well. While I would not object to these being deleted as they are hardly useful, I think the WikiProject Rivers holds that all rivers are notable. Rmhermen (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All gazetted geographic features, including rivers, are ultimately notable, but that doesn't mean that every one must have an article—thats what the Gazetteer is for. But if someone happened put the list up for AfD, I'd be !voting to delete. –Moondyne 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Easier to just keep it there and expand from googlemaps, you can just describe what towns it goes thourgh YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2009/July#Category:New South Wales river stubs -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

North Epping murder

Ajayvius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created North Epping massacre however while it's said to see murder of a family but the article is too early for it to be on Wikipedia (Best suited on WikiNews). Whats your thoughts? Bidgee (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Well now created, its best to be kept as it seems it will be a major article.~~ Geez, I must have been tired. Can't believe I actually thought that, didn't really think. Lets see how things run for a while anyway, barely notable though. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident this will be deleted come the end of next month. The event does not meet the encyclopaedic standard for inclusion. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll get killed unless it turns into a Sef Gonzales type thing. Mind you Gonzales also made a whole elaborate ruse and made self-praise websites with a sockpuppet and then they changed the law when the real estate agent sold the house without saying that it was the site of a massacre YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not seeing a great deal of notability as of yet. I'm tempted to list it for a DR as it's more like a news article, not sourced (the creater hasn't even bothered) and can be undeleted or recreated if it does become notable. Bidgee (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I've ended up listing it for a DR. Bidgee (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gonzales also had a book written about him because of all his demented tricks and attempts to trick the cops and he was turned into some TV dramareenactment-documentary YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The link to being a witness to a previous robbery may make it notable in the long term - but I admit that the link is speculative for now. The-Pope (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Only a claim being made by the media and not the police (infact they haven't release a great deal of information). Bidgee (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)