I'm looking at Nyungar language and find particular piece of information quite disturbing in its inaccuracy because of the source being used and the way in which the source asks the questions. ABS only asks one question and that is "what language spoken at home". It offers 9 predefined options plus other. None of the 9 options are Indigenous languages to record those it requires a person to select other and then write the name of the language down. The default selection was english. So when we say there are 232 speakers we are providing a unrelated figure. Worse still is that when the data was ported over to WikiData it became referred to as "native speakers" ie people who have spoken the language since birth. At this stage we should removing ABS data from the information box and clarifying that what the ABS collects is not actually the number of speakers. Gnangarra15:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the question is worded that way in the census, isn't is worded as "Does the person speak a language other than English at home?"? Then there is another question about how well they speak English (which includes the option "not at all"), so English is not the default of a "language spoken at home" question. Also, I think there are only 6 predefined options. Finally, the Wikidata item is coded as P1098 ("number of speakers", not "native speakers") with the qualifier "primary non-English language spoken at home". --Canley (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You can see the sample 2016 census form (the paper version) here and the specific question and its ways to answer are on page 6 (of the PDF). The question is "Does the person speak a language other than English at home?" The instructions are "Mark one box only. •If more than one language other than English, write the one is spoken most often". The first option is "No, English only", then there are options for Mandarin, Italian, Arabic, Cantonese, Greek, and Vietnamese, followed by "Yes, other (please specify)". The immediate following question asks "How well does the person speak English?". I think Gnangarra has a valid point. A person can really only speak another language at home if there are other speakers of that language at home. Even the presence of a single non-Nyungar speaker in the home may switch them to speak English (or whatever else) at home. The question is whether to change what's written in the article to make clear exactly what the statistic represents or to find a cited statistic for the actual number of Nyungar speakers (not sure where). Kerry (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
According to this ABS webpage, "The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS), a separate statistical collection to the Census, also includes detailed information on languages spoken, but also reports on cultural identification and participation." The last one of these I can find is from 2014-15 and is available at [1]. I went and took a look and found there is a spreadsheet about language but it is only asking how much/well they speak "an" Indigenous language but don't provide any statistics on specific Indigenous languages. So no joy there about the specifics on Nyungar. Kerry (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I had a quick look in ABS TableBuilder, and as far as I can make out the most recent data they have for Nyungar "spoken at home" is 369 (from the 2011 census). I think it is fine to use the ABS/Census figures as long as the qualification is made about the wording of the question, particularly if it is the only estimate available. There is a comment in the article about the "rigour" (or lack thereof) of the ABS figure and says it is "believed to considerably higher"—the citation points to a radio story about Noongarpedia. I haven't listened to the story, but the intro says there are "less than 250 fluent speakers" which is pretty much in line with the 2006 ABS figure. --Canley (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The intro is quoting the ABS so they should be pretty much the same, which is a classical know your sources sources. Following a similar discussion else where the Wikidata item has been changed since I raised this question which would be why there was discrepancy in what I asked and what you read, the item has been refined further to now reflects the ABS question. The issues is the infobox specifically says "speakers" thats not true for the data nor the source. NATSISS survey only covers Indigenous persons, not non indigenous person like myself again that data though an improvement wouldnt be complete either. I know for want of a better source ABS is all we have that doesnt make it appropriate to use those figures as a definitive fact. Gnangarra05:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If the information can't be easily summarised into an infobox field, perhaps just leave it out of the infobox entirely, and explain it in prose with the proper context/clarifications. - Evad37[talk]06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of using statistical information in a way we know is intrinsically different to what it recorded, its at best acknowledging just 1% of fluent speakers is many more orders of magnitude under representing those that partially speak the language. Restoring it and asking for a better source isnt a viable solution under these circumstances, it'd be better to remove the figure altogether and say number of speakers unknown. Gnangarra08:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of reporting obviously misleading information because the ABS reports it and it would be otherwise be convenient - we've had to do this before when the ABS released cooked census districts for the 2011 census, and this discussion is highlighting a bunch of really obvious problems with this data on this point. We can explain the various pieces of information in prose - wildly under-representing speaker numbers does our readers no favours. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth an email to the ABS (to see what they may have that I failed to find) and also to AIATSIS to see what they might know on the matter. Kerry (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No article for Sam (Salvatore) Coffa
I just noticed through a search that there currently is no Wikipedia article for Sam/Salvatore Coffa, long time doyen of weightlifting and Commonwealth games.
The article on Queensland MP Ros Bates could use some attention - there's a slow-motion edit war between someone with a COI attempting to censor negative content and insert puffery and someone with an axe to grind inserting possibly over-the-top negative stuff. It could really use someone to dig through the two and try to find a middle ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Article alerts, and it's a sea of AfDs nominated by a single editor; more than 30 AfDs by the same editor in the past two weeks (18 in one day!), and little or nothing else. He seems to be going after one single editor's articles. Is this normal or even OK? Checking the AU Article Alerts used to be fun and enjoyable, and a good way of supporting Australian articles or cleaning out unworthy ones, but now it's like it's been hijacked. This seems very unfortunate. SunChaser (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion about this above. I continue to feel this is inappropriate and harassment, especially given the existence of discussions like this and this where it is clear that no checking has been done to verify that the subject of the article is notable, and for the continued failure to answer basic questions about how they came across these particular articles. The fact that some of the articles undoubtedly are cruft doesn't detract from the inappropriate way this campaign has been conducted. Lankiveil(speak to me)02:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC).
Certainly a lot of these Newington articles are on subjects of pretty dubious notability; I think it's a good thing that they're being gone through. Unfortunately the mass tagging lacks rigour, leading to discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Cook. I'm mulling over what could be done, but I think it would be best for someone who doesn't have an obvious axe to grind to go through these, rather than what is happening at the moment. Lankiveil(speak to me)04:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC).
This situation is a bit of a mess. I feel like Adsfvdf54gbb should be banned as a single-purpose account aimed at nominating these articles for deletion; however, many of them did deserve to be deleted. As Lankiveil says, checks need to be made by someone who doesn't have an axe to grind: I did my own check through Castlemate's Newington articles and found many that perhaps just barely erred on the side of notability, but nominated two more that've been unanimously supported for deletion, and I didn't go that much further back so I'm sure there's probably more. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree that the account nominating all these is worth blocking, while at the same time agreeing that Castlemate's ongoing drive to create articles could use some redirection. I hope this doesn't drive them away completely, since god knows we need people with this kind of enthusiasm to create articles, but I also really hope this experience leads to a little more consideration of notability guidelines in the future. Frickeg (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not very confident about that: he actively makes deletionists' arguments for them because he still doesn't understand the fundamentals of notability guidelines, and even when they are actually notable he emphasises random trivia that makes them look not-notable. And will edit war if you try and fix it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily saying he's a good editor now, just that he does have the potential makings of one. Although I've been deeply unimpressed by the fake ADB citations you've identified, and you're right that half the time reading his !votes makes me want to !vote delete just because of how off-the-mark they are.
But I really do think we probably need to do a proper, coordinated, neutral audit of these Newington articles. Could we organise something here? There are a lot of them and we want to be careful that notable stuff doesn't get caught up in it. Frickeg (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean the ones that have or haven't been nominated? I don't know if it'd be possible for the ones that have, because so many of them are so borderline that editors are disagreeing. (Like, some of those I saw as among the more notable you voted delete and I think vice versa.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The ones that haven't been (although the SPA seems to be catching a lot of them). Although whatever ends up being kept needs a pretty thorough cleanup as well. Frickeg (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There is something going on here that just doesn't seem right regarding Adsfvdf54gbb. He's a new editor who seems quite comfortable with AfDs? In fact that was his very first edit. Has anyone considered raising this at ANI? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
which pretty much says everything is CC-BY-4.0 (apart for the usual exceptions like trade markka nd material of third parties which they say they will try to identify).
And it's not just the photos, it seems to include digitised (or born-digital) documents etc, everything I've looked at has the CC-BY on it. Obviously double-check before grabbing something, but otherwise go crazy! Kerry (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kerry, That photo says that it's "Copyright State of Queensland", and the copyright page states that "Unless otherwise noted, [emphasis added] all copyright material available on or through this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).", so I'm not sure about this. The NAA has done something similar, where the content of their own website is CC, but the items in its collection remain under copyright except for where this has expired. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The QSA are asserting the State of Queensland is the copyright holder. If they were not the copyright holder, they could not CC license it. I too wondered if the situation was that the catalogue page was CC but not the item described was not CC, but [3] is pretty clear in saying "You are free to use copyright material available on or through this website that is covered by a CC BY licence in line with the licence terms ..." (my emphasis). There are exclusions relating to 3rd party material, but the QSA predominately collects Qld Govt material, e.g the Gorbachev photo has the creator identified as the Qld Govt Department of the Premier and Cabinet (and hence is not a 3rd party). I actually first noticed it on their Flickr page, when I started seeing relatively recent items turning up as Public Domain (not even CC), e.g [4], which made me go look in the catalogue. Kerry (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Why are some article titles bolded on the Article Alerts listings?
Oh, OK thanks Kerry; that was hard to discern since some of the dates are distant but now that I look more closely the distant items have been either deleted or closed or de-prodded very recently. SunChaser (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.
There is currently a backlog of over 1300 drafts (0 very old).
If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading {{subst:WPAFCInvite}} to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!
Editors willing to review a variety of drafts are especially welcome. If you're interested only in reviewing certain topics, that still helps. At least 33 pending drafts relate to Australia (are in the intersection of Category:Pending AfC submissions and Category:Draft-Class Australia articles). Over 2000 pending drafts have not yet had a WikiProject added, so more may be in the scope of this WikiProject. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This could really use some sort of categorisation system. Like a lot of us, I tend to think AfC mainly acts to scare off new editors due to the bite-the-newbies behaviour of the regular reviewers, which makes me not keen on getting involved. That said - if there was a way to just see the Australian stuff, I'd try and help out - but I'm not going to scrawl through pages and pages of nominations just in case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
TDW, you beat me to it. I tried to review AfCs for a short while but I found that I struggled to judge notability in topic spaces outside my interests and, in the absence of an easy way to find drafts within my area of interest, I gave up (the alternative being to "Decline, needs more realiable sources" which seems to be the "default response" at AfC, which drives away the good faith new contributors). However, I will comment that probably anyone who stays for too long in AfC reviewing will be so accustomed to dealing with a never-ending stream of bad faith contributions (there's a truckload of CoI articles flowing in there every day) that it probably explains why it's difficult for AfC reviewers to spot the good-faith articles, particularly in topics outside their own interests. Perhaps we should break up AfC reviewing into a workflow that has a first pass that tags an article with a WikiProject (or categorises it) and use Article Alerts or something like it to draw the attention of members of that WikiProject to those drafts for them to review. I could not imagine doing academic journal/conference reviewing on the basis of allocating random papers to random reviewers and, given that we do quality assessment within WikiProjects, it just seems that (still active) WikiProjects would be a better place to handle the workload of relevant AfC reviewing, as they would be more easily able to detect the rubbish and in a better position to nurture and recruit the good faith contributors. @Worldbruce: Is there any way to trial something like this on a small scale? Kerry (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, The Drover's Wife! There is a draft categorisation system, based on WikiProjects. If you're familiar with petscan, it can quickly tell you which pending drafts have had a particular WikiProject added to their talk page. For example:
On the "Categories" tab, in the "Categories" box, enter Pending AfC submissions
Switch to the "Page properties" tab and within "Namespaces" uncheck the first box (articles) and check the Draft box instead.
Switch to the "Templates&links" tab, and in the "Has any of these templates" box enter WikiProject Australia and check the Use talk pages instead box underneath.
Click Do it!
and in less time than it took to fill out the form you'll have a project-specific list.
The system is far from perfect. It requires more effort to use than clicking a single link. Categorisation by WikiProject can be too broad or too narrow for some reviewers' interests. And someone has to add WikiProjects to the drafts (the "first pass" you mentioned, Kerry). One way project members could help other than by reviewing is by monitoring User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult and adding {{WikiProject Australia}} to drafts that are in the project's scope. Over the years alternative sorting schemes have been talked to death at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. This is what is implemented. I hope you'll find that it's better than scrawling through pages and pages of pending drafts. Try it out and feel free to improve it.
AfC itself is far from perfect, but the larger and more diverse the pool of reviewers, the less cynical and burnt out the regulars get, and the better the whole thing works. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I know and love petscan! For the benefit of others here is the links that you need based on Bruce's options above. Enjoy! Kerry (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Worldbruce:, I gotta say - the AfC process is even more offputting for regular Wikipedia editors wanting to review as it is for the newbies trying to use it due to the hopelessly complicated templates. I'm trying to decline Jason Murakami, and the "reviewer tools" option only gives me the opportunity to explain it to the editor (which I've done), but not to change the heading on the fucking draft. The template is beyond complicated, there's no explanation anywhere, and I can't even install the helper gadget (which all the documentation seems to assume you'll be using) because I haven't begged to be approved on some WikiProject I don't want to participate in just to take care of a few articles in my area of interest.
I was really interested in doing a bit of this in an ongoing basis after seeing a few that were obviously ones to approve, but the farce of trying to decline an article has sapped that right away. I suspect this is pretty obviously why you're finding it so hard to recruit editors. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: Sorry if this is a silly question, but have you enabled the gadget at Preferences > Gadgets and then within the heading Editing, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions, Files for Upload, redirect and category requests" and then Save (lower Left)? Kerry (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not requesting permission to join a WikiProject I don't want to join to be able to use a tool I'd prefer to not need to use in order to just help out a bit with tasks in my area. I'll have another crack at the tool if Worldbruce or someone wants to give me permission to use it, otherwise they can find themselves another editor to work on their backlog. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Gosh, I forgot about this detail! Thanks User:Bilby. I signed up for AfC years ago and I guess my approval was still current so everything worked fine for me. Kerry (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
And I proudly announce that I have accepted St Lucia Presbyterian Church. It was easily notable but the article was a bit of a mess, so I cleaned it up and accepted it. But, and this is the really sad thing, the article was written in 2012 and was sitting as a user draft before someone moved it into the Draft namespace in 2017. I note the same user has another substantial 2012 draft sitting in User:UQ112/Wilson Architects (which is a major architectural firm here in Brisbane with at least 4 generations of major projects, easily notable). Is there any policy reason that I cannot push this into Drafts for AfC review? I doubt the original creator is watching their Talk page after 5 years of inactivity. Kerry (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: I'm sorry the experience was unpleasant for you. Being on the participants list (and thereby being able to use the full functionality of the AfC helper script) is immeasurably easier than using the templates manually. The participants list became fully protected only about six months ago. I didn't think it was a good idea, because no one likes having to go through an extra step, but I think you're the first editor to speak up about being driven away by the need to leave an "I'd like to be added to the participants list" note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Thanks for letting me know that that's a real problem.
My sense is that AfC attracts new reviewers and loses old reviewers at about the same rate it always has. It muddled along for years with a 2-3 week backlog. What has changed is that a year ago we received an average of 23 new drafts per day, but since the advent in October of WP:ACTRIAL (which prohibits users who aren't auto-confirmed from creating new articles) we've received an average of 240 drafts per day. Ten times the workload without a commensurate increase in reviewers is bound to lead to drafts being accepted that should have been kept out of article space, drafts being declined that should have been published, and good faith new contributors being driven away by delays, brusque handling, and the help available to them being spread too thinly. It's an outcome nobody wants, so I invite participation by members of WikiProjects who have a stake in the reviewing being speedy, accurate, and helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Worldbruce: - right now you've got people whose applications have been sitting there for four days. And you've got existing AfC reviewers being as rude to potential new reviewers as they are to newbie editors - in essence, treating it like a mini-RfA. This is not the way to get people to help with a heavy backlog: applying editors are doing the project a favour by helping the AfC process not completely fall apart, the project is not doing the editor a favour by granting some fancy status. I've put my name down, but I'm pretty unimpressed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Because this talk page gets archived sooner or later, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/ArticlesforReview as a permanent list along with its "re-run" link. That is in turn linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia#To do. If anyone wants to make it more pretty, please do. And of course, please sign up for AfC and actually do a review or two. Given the scale of the problem as User:Worldbruce has just described, I think the list for WikiProject Australia is relatively manageable by comparison. If all the regulars here did just one, we'd be done. And folks, please don't set the bar too high on the newbies. This is not a Good Article review, but would it probably survive AfD? If yes, then let's find a way to make it acceptable by sprinkling a few more citations and a serve of MoS magic dust over it and move it into mainspace. Let's befriend and encourage these new contributors and build our numbers. Kerry (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Worldbruce: Am I doing something wrong with the petscan category? I notice that re-running it madethe article I accepted disappeared from the list but the articles that I declined did not. I thought the declined articles moved into a different category and only reappeared after a resubmit. Or is there some lag time before petscan realises they have moved? It certainly feels depressing to not see the list shrinking from my efforts this afternoon. Also, is there a way to actually terminate an AfC process for an article that is never going to meet notability like Draft:Dionisio Pinilla rather than waste everyone's time with an infinite series of Declines? The review workflow diagrams suggests that there is no point at which the draft is deleted, despite there being a human volunteer's time consumed by every review cycle (that seems a serious waste of human resource particularly when there is a backlog). Also, I notice that none of the paths include the exit strategy of suggesting to the article creator that they might want to abandon the pursuit of a their marginally-notable article in favour of adding a section or para into an existing article on a larger topic. That's the advice I often give to people who contact me (I do Wikipedia edit training) about their AfC issues. It's got to be a better option than an endless Decline/Resubmit cycle but not as unkind as a delete (although I think that needs to be an option after a certain time or number of cycles). Kerry (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kerry: I don't have an answer for you regarding petscan and the declined articles, but will look into it. Ping me again if I haven't gotten back to you within 24 hours. "Mergeto" is one of the choices in the decline drop down. The flowchart has that transition if there's an existing article on the topic, but in practice reviewers also use it in the way you suggest, if there's an existing article that encompasses the topic and there isn't enough reliably sourced material to justify a stand alone article. If it's necessary to drive a stake through a draft, it can be taken to WP:MFD. That's outside of AfC, which is probably why it isn't on the flowchart. I find that a detailed and emphatic comment elaborating on the reason for the decline usually suffices. MfD is drastic enough that I reserve it for tendentious WP:IDHT re-submissions of no-hope drafts, but some reviewers are quicker on the MfD trigger. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
By now petscan correctly reflects both the recent acceptances and recent declines related to WikiProject Australia, so I'm guessing what was observed was some kind of short term lag that takes care of itself. We may not be able to rely on petscan for an up-to-the-minute snapshot, but it doesn't look as though it is usually far wrong. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Recruit new editors for your project?
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Lots of Qld locality stub articles
Just to alert people that I am in the process of creating a lot of Queensland locality stub articles at the moment. This is in preparation for 1Lib1Ref in January-February. State Library of Queensland are gearing up for another major effort around 1Lib1Ref in 2018, and they intend to add information about libraries, schools, etc in Queensland (all with citations of course). However, as many of them are new or inexperienced contributors, we don't want them creating the articles themselves, but keep them focussed on adding content with citations to already existing articles. So, while the stubs I am creating may seem randomly chosen, in fact they are localities in which there are/were schools, have libraries, etc. Specifically at the moment I am creating stubs for any redlinked locality listed in List of schools in Queensland's sublists. Just FYI, gazetted places are notable, so they do meet notability. Kerry (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Primary schools rarely are notable even if gazetted, and being High School/Secondary school (WP:NHS) is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standardsGnangarra15:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The project is including information about the schools in the articles about the towns. Kerry just said exactly this. Jumping on people without remotely reading their posts is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
See Milman, Queensland as an example of the kind of information with citation that we will be adding for schools (see History and Education sections). I believe I have now have an article for every Qld suburb/locality that currently has a school. Kerry (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
And I now think I have an article for every Qld suburb/locality that ever had a school to the extent I can establish where the school actually was. Although most schools in Queensland have their place name as part of their name, a lot of former school have place names that are no longer gazetted making it difficult to work out where they were, which is obviously necessary in order to link them to a current place name. Kerry (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Any plant lovers out here?
@Plantdrew: Can anyone give an opinion on whether Draft:C. Maconochiei ssp. Maconochiei passes notability and can therefore be accepted as an article? I don't know much about plants and am unsure if the single citation provided is sufficient for meet notability requirements for plants. Thanks Kerry (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I was also unsure about the title for that one - it doesn't look like what we normally title plants as to me, but I wasn't sure in that case what it should be called. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally for plant articles, the practice is to list subspecies and cultivars in the main plant article, except in the unusual case that the subspecies or cultivar clearly passes the WP:GNG on its own. WP:PLANTS has no specific notability guidelines for individual varieties of plant. Lankiveil(speak to me)03:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC).
New South Wales railway articles hidden behind long titles
Hello,
It seems various train-related articles are hidden behind quite cumbersome titles, making them difficult to find. Here's one example:
"Rail rolling stock in New South Wales". All that basically means is "Trains in New South Wales," or "Rolling stock in New South Wales."
That's not the only example. You would expect the articles detailing Sydney's historic 'Red Rattler' trains to have a fair amount of views. So, what's the daily average views for the article about the standard pre-war Red Rattler trains built from the 1920s to the 1930s? Seven. Only seven. That really compares to a comparable article about a modern train with an average of 70 daily views.
These are some of these endless titles to articles:
"New South Wales Standard suburban carriage stock"
"New South Wales Bradfield suburban carriage stock"
"New South Wales Tulloch suburban carriage stock"
"New South Wales Sputnik suburban carriage stock"
"New South Wales Tulloch double deck carriage stock"
Really, there's nothing wrong with these articles. I have made some efforts to make the "Standard suburban stock" page more visible by adding various suitable redirects and links to the page (and others) that should've already existed. But my theory is that these long titles also deter search engines from indexing the pages as they should, something I hope this improves. I feel the articles are now at least reasonably easy to find. But what do you think, are these reasonable titles, or do these sorts of things risk making an article harder to find? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What about putting NSW at the end, eg Standard suburban carriage stock (New South Wales)? For something like Tulloch or Bradfield, this is going to be the first search term, and the New South Wales (or even New South Wales Government Railway) appendage is an in title disambiguator.James.au (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Good thinking. I wonder if the word "carriage" is needed, too? I mean, its quite clearly an article about trains. The articles for newer train sets (i.e. Sydney Trains S set, K set, C set, T set, M set & A set as well as New South Wales XPT & New South Wales Xplorer don't use that word in the title. But I would certainly agree to those name changes. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
That is debatable but there are some precedents already, at least for locomotives, such as V/Line G class and National Rail NR class for example. Agreed, to me 'suburban carriage stock' is too much. I think it would work for the S, K, C sets etc as these are referred to as such in other forums, but were the Tullochs etc referred to in this way? Or were they Tulloch carriages? I dont think you could drop carriage and keep stock either. Carriage makes sense, stock does not (to a layperson).James.au (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps 'New South Wales' could be changed to 'Sydney' to read 'Sydney [insert type here] suburban carriage stock'? Or just have all of these proposals redirect to the current pages? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No I dont think Sydney would be appropriate. In other rail articles, the operator is usually mentioned in the title. In fact perhaps the best approach is to have "Bradfield suburban carriage stock (New South Wales Government Railways)" or "Bradfield suburban carriage stock (NSWGR)". Also I feel that possibly there is some WP guidance that might tell us the generally accepted way of naming this that neither of us is aware of. James.au (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey all. So, there seems to have been long term problems with the Rosie Batty page, Australian of the Year 2015 and domestic violence campaigner. Problems around vandalism and the page generally not being polished as well as it could be. Have just reached out to the dispute resolution noticeboard.
I've tried to do some edits here and there but am not on Wikipedia all the time and this page really is not my main interest at all.
Maybe someone out there is interested in joining in to help ensure this page has important and relevant information in it and keeping check on the vandalism.
E ribbon toner (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll add it to my watch list. I am on the other side of the planet and don't remember hearing about Rosie Batty, so I may not be informed but I will at least be unbiased! Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey Drovers wife. I posted on the talk page my concerns. Even though Eribbon has made sweeping wholesale changes and inclusions to the article I have not touched their edits. I also have no block history whatsoever. i take your comments as a direct personal attack and will refrain from attacking you.Brownlife (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
And have you any productive comments in regard to content rather than personal attacks in an attempt to discredit other editors. That would be helpful. If you have anything productive to add please do so here Talk:Rosie Batty. If no discussion is made on the talk page I intend to make changes to the article but would like to work with other editors to provide a NPOV in this biased article.Brownlife (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi The Drover's Wife, I saw Brownlife's contributions there as well and am also concerned. They have also done mass deletions to my edits and I'd say general vandalism to the page. They have a special interest in these types of edits to Australian female public figures and seem very emotional and to be honest offended by them. We're discussing the Rosie Batty stuff on the talk page, I'd consider their most recent contributions tendentious
again, and I reckon their recent suggestions are pretty suss too, still trying to assume good faith so will see how it goes. I see people have commented that Brownlife has deleted comments/tags on his talkpage. Has anything been done re reporting the user or page protection? Thanks! E ribbon toner (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
None of that is true. stop bullying your inclusions into the article. Stop making unfounded accusations and assume good faith. be civil and lets work together. You just deleted for no reason a well sourced inclusion. I have not deleted any of your inclusions. stop lying. Strop trying to discredit other editors. Stop harassing me. Stop bullying me. Work constructively with me. Calm down. you are not in control here.Brownlife (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The edits since November last year - mostly by User:Brownlife - have made this article appalling. I'm reluctant to edit stuff like this as it takes way too much energy but I second E ribbon toner's call to arms for this one. Donama (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Some of the discussion here is not civil and includes personal attacks. If there is a content issue, as opposed simply to editors attacking each other, please try Requests for Mediation. The request for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard is about to be declined because it appears that, although there may be a content issue, the level of antagonism appears to be high, and an expert mediator may be needed to cut through the hostility. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I would welcome a mediator to work with us to find a solution which satisfies everyone and is good for Wikipedia.Brownlife (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help! A more expert mediator would be helpful as I also think it is more than a simple content issue and is something that applies to numerous Australian BLP pages over a period of time. How should we proceed? E ribbon toner (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Also apologies to all for speaking very generally about edit history, will provide the specific examples in the mediation and on the talk page, would be good for people to check out edit history thus far and draw conclusions. E ribbon toner (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Eribbon, mediation is just that. And it is important to act in good faith through that process and not to keep going with your edits before we even commenced mediation! As i have stated I disagree with your edits made to the article. That just leads to edit warring.Brownlife (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
As a reminder, this kind of editing falls firmly within the scope of what WP:BLP aims to address. It can be a good idea to alert admins to concerning edits through the various means (WP:BLPN or WP:ANI). Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I try to stay out of contentious areas so I tend to forget which of the various boards is a way to get the right person's attention when a problem arises - in this case I forgot WP:BLPN existed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It is a relief that there is sign of an admin here reminding the 'combatants' the requirements - please take note of what Nick-D is saying JarrahTree12:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
In response to a request, I will try to act as the mediator at DRN. DRN is for simple content disputes that typically take one to two weeks to resolve. If the mediation takes longer, or if it is clear that a stronger mediator is required, I will recommend Requests for Mediation. I will be quick to warn participants if they are becoming uncivil. It is my desire that this can be accomplished without having to make a conduct report to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a local, we know NOT to eat the oysters.
The accurate address for Garden Island is Bevic Road. Enter Bevic Road into your GPS. It is a couple of kilometres from Clarence Point hall and boat ramp so do not follow signs to those. If you go past the war memorial you have missed Bevic Road.
The entrance to garden island is at the sharp bend in Bevic Road which runs from Kelso to Clarence Point Road. There is a n abalone farm on the corner in Bevic Road where you enter garden island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.111.251 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this. I've added the page to my watchlist and I've assessed a few articles, but there are still a few left if others are keen. I will try to pop in occasionally and help where possible. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I'm happy to help also. Can anyone work on this? I couldn't see any entry requirements. Teraplane (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at Violet Town, an article in need of restructuring and sourcing to sound encyclopedic in tone. Additionally, large part of the section Local Attractions appears promotional in a way. Thanks, MT TrainDiscuss16:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I've had a go - that entire "Local Attractions" section went by the wayside, with one or two sentences moved to other parts. Most of the section (poorly) duplicated info from earlier in the article anyway. --Scott DavisTalk01:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
1lib1ref running for the next 3 weeks
The 1lib1ref campaign will be running over the next three weeks, asking librarians to add citations to Wikipedia.
So expect to see a lot of new/newish/occasional users active. In theory, they will be using the #1lib1ref hashtag in their edit summaries, but my past experience of supporting this event is that many of them forget the hashtag, but their edits will generally be characterised by a high level of edits with citations.
State Library of Queensland (SLQ) had a magnificent effort last year with 1028 (as best as we can measure) which was about one quarter of the world’s total. They are planning another big effort again this year. SLQ librarians will probably be mostly editing Queensland content, expect to see a lot of activity around citations for Queensland schools, public libraries, war memorials, and newspapers. Generally they will not be creating new articles (that’s not the goal of 1lib1ref) but inevitably some may do so on the side – you know how it is, see a redlink and be unable to resist starting the article.
If anyone is aware or becomes aware of areas of active interest by other Australian librarians during 1lib1ref, can you post it here so others are aware.
Please remember that, although they are paid editors, for GLAMs it is not a conflict of interest for them to write in relation to their collections. In this regard, I must stress that State Library of Queensland collects the data on public libraries so their edits about public libraries are not about their own institution but form part of their collection (so no COI there). Ditto newspapers. FWIW, I’ve never seen a bad faith edit from a librarian, they do take it all very seriously (information is their core business after all), but like many new users, they can be clumsy or not understand our myriad of policies.
So if you think you spot any librarians in action over the next few weeks, please welcome them on their User Talk or thank them for their edits or *gently* educate/assist them if there is a problem. In general, please be nice and definitely no biting. Kerry (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw a bunch of suspicious-looking edits today, all tagged #1lib1ref, and had forgotten this! All good references. Librarians sure can cite. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
1Lib1Ref is now officially finished but some librarians are enjoying it so much they are still contributing (which is great!). The program led by the State Library of Queensland made over 1000 edits to almost 500 articles (mostly about Queensland topics). You can admire the statistics here. It is not possible to say what the contributions of Australian librarians were overall, as WMF does not provide that breakdown (which is why we use the outreach dashboard to try to track the Qld contributions as best we can). One of the goals ticked off by SLQ was to add information about every public library in Queensland into the Wikipedia article for that town/suburb/locality; it was certainly an eye-opener to me to see just how many public libraries, mobile libraries and Indigenous Knowledge Centres we have in Queensland, even in some very tiny towns. Thank you to those of you who sent welcome messages and "thanks" to our librarians. They do notice and appreciate these things. Kerry (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
As a former employee of SLQ I'm obviously thrilled to see them punching above their weight once again, although it is disappointing that the WMF doesn't seem to see making these metrics available as a priority issue. Lankiveil(speak to me)10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC).
I don't think protection is needed at this stage – the edits seem to originate from a single nuisance individual, and are infrequent and specific enough to be easily spotted. There should also be enough eyes (via watchlists and the @AussieParlEdits Twitter bot) on the article to quickly revert any further occurrences. Finally, the media coverage and supposed parliamentary investigation should hopefully encourage the user to cease their campaign. --Canley (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Allowing them to continue could also lead to the culprit being caught, and losing their internship or whatever. Allow justice to take its course. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata and Australian citizenship in the 19th century
I'm not very good at Wikidata queries, and am not familiar if there is a suitable place over on that project to raise this issue, so I'm starting here.
I have noticed several 19th century politicians with Wikidata entries that assert country of citizenship is Australia (P27:Q408). This feels wrong for anyone who died before 1 January 1901, and maybe even up to 1948. Examples include George Ash (Australian politician) and Samuel Dening Glyde. Is there a definitive time for when "citizen of Australia" should be applied, and what nation (if any) were people citizens of before that? I'm pretty sure they were "British subjects", but I think that is not exactly the same as modern citizenship.
Based on the Wikidata page for "country of citizenship" as defining it as "the object is a country that recognizes the subject as its citizen" and also known as "citizenship, nationality, citizen of, subject of (country), national of" I'd be inclined to jointly tag it as Britain (because "subject of") and the specific colony (out of common sense if nothing else). The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Britain I'd be okay with, but I'm not sure I'd even be comfortable tagging someone as a citizen of a colony unless such a thing actually existed (and I think it didn't). How to they handle the situation in comparable situations, such as colonial Canada and New Zealand? Lankiveil(speak to me)10:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC).
Technically it is incorrect, but I suspect some of it is bulk imports (anyone in an "Australian [something]" category has P27:Q408 applied by a bot or with QuickStatements), and some of it is just common sense pragmatism – the data is more useful and easier to query when you don't have to work out all the different ways someone could be considered "Australian" in a sense other than holding actual citizenship after 1949. --Canley (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I expect that bulk imports can be bulk-corrected, or at least bulk-undone if they can be shown to be wrong. As far as I know, British migrants to South Australia did not need any citizenship process to stand for parliament or own land. At least some of my "German" migrant ancestors underwent naturalisation. This was done under a law of the Province of South Australia to grant all the rights of a natural-born British Subject in the Province (except that an additional five years residency was required before he could sit in Parliament). The qualifications to sit in Parliament appear to have been British Subject and residency in the Province. The wording of the Letters of Naturalization appears to have conferred the rights and capacities of a British Subject only within the Province of South Australia. Prior to that Oath of Allegiance (and possibly afterwards), he was an alien, native of the Province of Brandenberg, Kingdom of Prussia. My ancestors have never sat in Parliament, but Friedrich Krichauff immigrated in 1848 and did sit in South Australian parliament (Wikidata says he was a citizen of Australia) and John Heussler came from Frankfurt in 1852 and sat in Queensland parliament but Wikidata says he is a citizen of Germany (Q183) whereas he would have been a citizen of the German Confederation (Q151624) and/or the Free City of Frankfurt (Q704300). Analysis on Wikidata can only be as good as the quality of the data in it. It seems unhelpful to record things that we know to be wrong just because it is expedient or pragmatic. --Scott DavisTalk13:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This will easily become a can of worms, and I would suggest not to open it. Many European countries, including Italy and Germany, did not have a concept of nationality or citizenship until fairly recently. Still, Dante and Goethe are helpfully categorised as Italian and German, resp. It's not helpful not to categorise Ash, Glyde, William Wentworth or Ethel Pedley as Australian. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I am less concerned about ambiguities in the Wikipedia categories, as there is prose that should explain the situation in more detail. In fact, we generally categorise politicians by the parliament or state, and the state articles cover their previous provincial/colonial history as well. We don't categorise 19th century or earlier people on Wikipedia as Citizens of Australia. --Scott DavisTalk11:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I've linked to this discussion at the Wikidata project chat page. Hopefully some other people will add their expertise on that thread, or here. For what it's worth, I agree with ScottDavis that it is inaccurate to say someone is an Australian citizen before 1901. In Wikipedia we would explain this in their biography through prose and footnotes and categories. But in Wikidata the complexity of this CAN be modelled - probably with a combination of “start date” [and “end date”] qualifier clauses to Statements indicating multiple citizenships; and “has role” statements for their position in the colonial government. Wikidata was designed to be able to handle much more obscure edge cases than this :-) I just don't know what the best practice is for this circumstance. Simplifying the data-model for colonial-citizenship issues, to make it easier for us to edit, would be to do our readers and data-reusers a disservice IMHO. Wittylama13:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I have repeated my comment there that if Wikidata is to be taken seriously as a global source of free machine-readable data, then it must be accurate, and nobody who died before 1901 could have been a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia. I noticed that higher up that page is a long conversation along similar lines about Welsh people, verging into various historic states in Europe. --Scott DavisTalk00:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all in this discussion - this has direct relevance across a number of south east asian countries and subject areas - where earlier formats of what countries were before what they are now (with some colonial regimes) - and how that relates to categories and wikidata - is something that needs to be considered in other contexts as well JarrahTree12:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI: There's an editathon planned on 10 March in Sydenham, Sydney - specifically on the topic of missing biographies of women designers - as part of the Sydney Design Festival.
The coordinator is runciblehon if you're interested in attending or helping (online or in person). There have been occasions in the past when editathons pitched to new editors to redress an imbalance in our existing content have caused problems because the sudden flurry of new articles, written by new editors, on a similar IP address, with less-than-ideal footnoting or notability claims raise 'alarms' for some new page patrollers. So, it might be worthwhile some people here also putting any pages that appear as creations from this event on their own watchlists to ensure that any good-faith-newbies that join us have a pleasant first editing experience :-) All the best, Wittylama16:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Those of you who are doing for Article for Creation reviews may see some very old drafts appearing. I can currently trawling all the abandoned user space drafts (about 42,000 of them!) looking for anything that looks like a viable article that relates to Australia and pushing them into Drafts to get them reviewed. If you see a very old article, check if the user is active (most won't be) so this is a "one shot" to get them accepted. If they aren't accepted, the draft is unlikely to be developed further. So please use the minimal "would probably survive AfD" criteria for acceptance rather than decline for any other reason thinking the user will improve along the lines you suggest. I've already rescued a number of articles myself (bypassing AfC as they were within my topic space so I was confident about notability, or could make them pass notability), so I know there is some good quality material out there. Kerry (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: It's not too late ... it's still there waiting for you. Also, I am compiling a list at User:Kerry Raymond#Assorted To-Do lists of ones that have good content but need work on inline citations that, with work on the citations, might either be viable as stand-alone articles or be useful content for an existing article. Kerry (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It's worth thanking people for their edits on Wikipedia (something easy to do when you are checking your watchlist). I was at a local history society talk during the week and they passed around a paper attendance sheet to fill in. Afterwards a woman who I have never met before stopped me. She had seen my name on the sign-up sheet and recognised it as the name of the person who thanked her for her contributions on Wikipedia. Like many new users, she had experienced the rough end of our welcome but my thanks apparently kept her perservering. I don't know her user name or what articles, but it seems a simple thanks can make a difference. Kerry (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Great story, thanks for the reminder - after a while it becomes too easy to be critical, too hard to remember to thank people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Considering the compartmentalisation of many Australian editors specific focus, and the relatively small watchlists (anecdotally) - wherever possible Thanks are always worth the effort! Whereever you can - it does make a difference JarrahTree04:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that is amazing! Thanks for the story. I'll keep an eye out for good edits -- even small but important ones. PS: You might want to post this on some wider venue on Wikipedia beyond this noticeboard -- I think it's an important message. SunChaser (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been playing a little bit with Wikidata at times. I think I constructed a query to find Wikidata items for things "located in the administrative territory of South Australia" with articles in Wikipedia in other languages but not English. I was surprised to find the count is over 8000!
PREFIX schema: <http://schema.org/>
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?linkcount WHERE {
?item wdt:P131 wd:Q35715.
?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount .
FILTER (?linkcount >= 1) . # only include items with 1 or more sitelinks
FILTER NOT EXISTS {
?article schema:about ?item .
?article schema:inLanguage "en" .
?article schema:isPartOf <https://wiki.riteme.site/>
}
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en,de,es,ar,fr" }
}
GROUP BY ?item ?itemLabel ?linkcount
ORDER BY DESC(?linkcount)
I suspect that many of these articles are essentially boilerplate text generated for things like lakes, mountains or airstrips. I still find it surprising there are so many Australian things with articles in foreign language wikipedias. It looks like a massive job to triage them, write/translate even minimal articles if required or find and merge wikidata items if we have a corresponding article already. I know Wikidata doesn't support links to sections of articles (say if we have a page with a section for each of a group things, but dewiki has a stub for each one of the group), but I don't know if Wikidata can accept redirects to the relevant sections. --Scott DavisTalk13:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Not quite as useful as it seems, I think. They all seem to come from a mass bot dump of Gazetteer data on the Cebuano and Swedish Wikipedias. This gives some background on what happened on the Cebuano one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. There do seem to be some that are also red links in English, so deserve to get articles at some stage. Perhaps sometime I'll try to filter out the ones that only have sv and ceb articles. The ones that show up on German or French might be worthy of followup. The weather charts on the bot-generated articles for places look like they have infromation we do not generally add to our locality stubs, sourced to a NASA dataset. --Scott DavisTalk22:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly what is required, but there are 22 in South Australia with German but not English Wikipedia articles. query. You can try a different state entity in the query helper on the left. Language needs to be changed twice in the query code on the right. I have not attempted to aggregate across all the states, and haven't learned to do transitive queries yet. --Scott DavisTalk00:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Scott needs to be congratulated on the find, very very interesting. Also Drovers Wife needs to be thanked for the link - the whole process of 'dumping' is clearly an issue in a range of contexts.
Using the same query search (and not changing the language as indicated by Scott) for other parts of Australia:
NT 3640
QLD 8237
VIC 3141
NSW 9569
TAS 5275
WA 11002
I strongly recommend anyone else who might be interested post their results (if they tweak the query process further) here so the project as a whole can get a handle on this issue JarrahTree00:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I've had the misfortune to read some of the zillions of place articles that someone generated onto Swedish Wikipedia. Now I generate article content too (so I am not unsympathetic) but at least I generate from some sources with interesting information, and I individually review each article when I uploaded as machine-generation has its challenges. Here's the translation of their article on Bondi (a place you might think Swedes might like to visit when coming to Australia) -- the bold bit is my favourite tidbit of information (similarly bizarre statements about "unusally" things appear in many of these Swedish generated articles):
Bondi is part of a populated place [ a ] in Australia . [ 1 ] It is located in the municipality of Waverley and the state of New South Wales , in the southeastern part of the country, 250 km northeast of the capital Canberra . Bondi is 76 meters above sea level [ 1 ] and the population is 10,373. [ 1 ]
The terrain around Bondi is flat. The sea is near Bondi to the southeast. [ b ] The highest point nearby is 116 meters above sea level, 1.0 km west of Bondi. [ c ] The area is densely populated. The closest major community is Sydney , 6.0 km northwest of Bondi. In the area around Bondi are unusually many named peninsulas, bays and beaches. [ d ]
I don't think we should be too worried if there's an article on Swedish Wikipedia but not on English Wikipedia. But to give a counter-example of where there is much better coverage on a non-English Wikipedia compare Somerset, Queensland with its Ukrainian equivalent (translated here into English).Now there's an example of where it's worth the effort. Similarly German Wikipedia has good coverage of outback roads and places (reflecting their holiday interests I guess), so worth checking there. Kerry (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
If I have read the response correctly - I do think Kerry might be missing a point brought up by Drovers wife link - dumping on wikidata can be a problem - just yesterday an editor on wikidata was pulled up from dumping a whole range of Indonesian places - that were clearly wrong. I do think it might be Kerry's perogative to be not the slightest bit worried about the goings on - but - it is worth having random checks imho - in case the 'wrong data' which named places in totally wrong locations in the Indonesian project is very likely to happen with unchecked Australian items - like I am sure that some editors (it doesnt have to be all) might be offended to find Gin Gin of Queensland located at Gingin in Western Australia by some smart non english speaker somewhere JarrahTree01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a perennial problem with a lot of databases such as Geonames, which have rather poorly validated data. Add into that bot operators who are more concerned with item quantity than with data quality and you've got a recipe for an unfortunate situation like what you describe. Unfortunately, talking about article quality is not as "sexy" for most people as talking about importing exciting new data sets, so I expect it is a problem that will not go away. Lankiveil(speak to me)01:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC).
(edit conflict) The "query" link lurking in the middle of my third post explicitly finds Wikidata items that have German but not English articles - a much more manageable quantity. I've already spotted one that did have English and French articles, but the Wikidata items needed merging (Challenger mine is now linked to German as well). There are quite a few more that need some Wikidata expertise/experience to work out how to match up overlapping topics. For example, German wikipedia seems to have articles about reservoirs that mention the dam that impounds it. English wikipedia has articles about dams that mention the lake behind it. The lake and the dam are two distinct objects and quite rightly have separate wikidata items, and indeed there are Wikidata properties that link them (dam/reservoir created), but it is not obvious to a human reader that they might like to find that other article if they prefer the other language. --Scott DavisTalk01:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Counts of Wikidata items with German but not English wikipedia articles by state/territory:
Just to return to JarrahTree's comment about whether I was missing the point about stuff being dumped into Wikidata. I'm not missing the point; I'm just past caring. I found all these generated Swedish articles because they turned up in lists of inconsistencies on Wikidata. I started trying to resolve these inconsistency but once I realised that the culprit was almost always one of the generated Swedish Wikipedia articles I gave up. As my user talk page on Wikidata attests, I am fed up with Wikidata. It's a great *idea*, but its execution is highly problematic. Conceptually it is attempting to reduce knowledge to simple facts. But as we know from our various discussions of "citizenship", "nationality" and Section 44C of the Australian constitution, even a simple fact like nationality/citizenship ain't simple. Facts are not as obvious and simple as people like to think, but the assumption of Wikidata is that such facts exists and can be hoovered out of Wikipedia infoboxes without regard to nuance, sourcing or whether the article should exist in the first place. As well as the hoovering up infoboxes, they are also hoovering up template uses. For example, there is a template for citations for the Queensland Place Names database. Some bright spark decided that if an article contained one of these, then it meant that the article related to the place being cited in the QPN. Well, that can be true. Many Qld place articles do contain a QPN citation to that same place, but they can also contain QPN citations to things like mountains, railway stations, national parks that are within or nearby that place. Since some bright spark decided that only one QPN ID could apply to one Wikidata entry, this creates an issue when there are multiple QPN citations in a Wikipedia article. Now did anyone come to this noticeboard or contact me (the person who maintains that template) to ask about its semantics before making these invalid assumptions about the role and use of the citation template and then hoovering up "facts" into Wikidata based on those invalid assumption. No, they didn't and now Wikidata is full of crap about Qld places. I was asked to help clean it up but when I saw the problem and figured out the cause, I was disinclined to spend the days/weeks to manually cleaning up the mess. That batch of edits should be mass reverted on Wikidata; end of story. I suspect that this sort of thing is going on in Wikidata all the time. The way they model is based on no standard form of modelling I've ever seen (and I researched meta-modelling for a number of years) and the concrete models are confusing and dependent on an array of strange attributes to distinguish between concepts. So we have a conceptual overconfidence, a make-it-as-you-go-along model, and data hoovered up without understanding its semantics. What else could they do wrong? Oh yes, the tools are unusable by anyone who doesn't find P and Q numbers as meaningful as names. Wikidata remains a great idea but I think I'll wait for Version 2.0. I would strongly encourage that any Wikidata modelling or data collection that relates to Australia should be discussed here first, as generally we have the knowledge of the sources that's needed to understand the data. Indeed, perhaps we as a project need to "own" these Wikidata models and scraping tools in the same way we "own" infoboxes and other templates on Wikipedia. Ditto for other WikiProjects. End of rant! Kerry (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I had a look at some of the QPN ones earlier today. As you say, it looks like the culprit is careless importation of data from templates without understanding what it does. For instance Tiaro shared a QPN identifier with the now defunct Shire of Tiaro. In the shire article, the template is used to quite correctly reference the origin of the name "Tiaro", but that reference has been interpreted by Wikidata's bot operator as the identifier also applying to the shire (which it doesn't). Lankiveil(speak to me)10:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC).
Another group of articles are Australian people that only have articles on non-English Wikipedias. There are over 2000, most of the most common articles appear to be of questionable notability, models, actors etc, but I've found an Olympic medal winner, and an infamous multiple AFD deleted article, Lelo_Sejean. Makes you wonder if WikiData needs to have a field for "has been AFD'd". The query is at tinyurl.com/ya77qo76 (which is a blacklisted link, so we can't link to the query directly). The-Pope (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Some IPs have been adding what they hope are amusing claims at this BLP. I noticed because they broke a template and I have reverted recent additions. Is anyone here able to check the article text which has some red links such as "Sutherland Pirates"? I'm wondering if that is earlier amusement. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paul. To answer your question: To add decent information from the ELs to the Wikipedia article, simply select any significant information that is noteworthy but not yet in the article, and add it in your own words to the article in the appropriate section and chronology, citing it from the specific source you took the information from. You can use the "Cite" templates in the edit bar if you want an easy way to add the citation information. If you use a citation more than once, give it a name as described here: Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once. SunChaser (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Kaya folks, there has been an edit request from the Captain Cook Cruises, Australia to have their article improved the suggested update is on Talk:Captain Cook Cruises, Australia the person is following all the instructions as WP:COI and declared their connection. It would be great if a couple of editors could have a look at the request. Thanks Gnangarra05:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The story mostly looks good, but has no references. It could possibly be completely referenced to the book that the author says they wrote in 1995, but we don't have a full citation for it, nor the ability to confirm the content is there. The whole thing needs more subheadings, more wikilinks, tightening up in the 1990s where it bogs down a bit, and confirming a few ship names (11 or II for example) and italicising them. There were only a few spots that seemed excessively promotional. --Scott DavisTalk10:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The book is available from several venues; all told it would cost AU$20 to purchase it and have it shipped: [5], or that editor could ship you or anyone a free copy of it. SunChaser (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The citation for the book would be:
Goldsack, Robert (1995). Captain Crook Cruises: A Silver Jubilee. Sydney: Fendwave.
It is cited in at least a few travel/tourism/history books: [6]. WorldCat lists holdings by several libraries: [7], and here is the NLA catalogue listing: [8]. The ISBN on the for-sale copies is 9780646221199, but I also get ISBNs of 0646221191 and 0646194127. SunChaser (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do the work if I had a copy of the book. Unfortunately there aren't any library copies here in WA. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You could email User:Robert at Captain Cook (the author) via "Email this user" and ask him to send you a free copy. I doubt that he would refuse, since he wrote that long request for edits on a couple of different talk pages. SunChaser (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Article title: Caboolture vs Caboolture, Queensland
This is a perennial issue though. Some time back there was a hotly contested discussion on whether we ought to remove the state names which came down narrowly in favour of ditching them. I hate to say "I told you so", but I said at the time that this would lead to widespread naming inconsistency given the number of articles involved, and between Goulburn and Caboolture it looks like I was right. Lankiveil(speak to me)05:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC).
Consistency in naming is achieved by bringing Australian place name article titles with the conventions used across the the rest of the encyclopedia (aside from US place names) - i.e. only use disambiguation terms where they are needed. The "inconsistency" arises where the encyclopedia is still working through the legacy of thousands of article names using unnecessary disambiguation terms. Much work has been done on working our way through this legacy but there is still more to be done. Personally, I would prefer us to get on with removing all the superfluous disambiguation terms from all Australian locality titles. This would however have the potential to create some (short to medium term) disruption so the best approach in my mind is the incremental one - rename articles to their succinct and precise title as and when required. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely no consensus for that "much work" on "working our way through the legacy". The guideline doesn't support it. Clearly those of us who disagree have been lax in tolerating your mass moves to the extent we already have: perhaps it is time to make sure each and every one goes to an WP:RM. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Whatever anyone may think about the issue, it is inappropriate to criticise any past action as "sneaky" if it is following the current guideline WP:NCAUST. Kerry (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't authorise bold moving of old article, discussions spoke to this not happening, and the mover knows that the page moves are controversial, having engaged in strenuous argument in many discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NCAUST provides us with guidance for naming articles: "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than [[Sydney, New South Wales]])." For the record, I was one of the people who preferred to consistently name article per the first part of what I quoted but I now agree that we should only use disambiguation when necessary as this is consistent with our naming guidelines for every other article on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Not an ideal discussion, it’s difficult to read what exactly was being talked about, let alone the conclusion. I see I got a !vote in, the one before yours. May I ask you why you changed your mind, from (in my words) supporting consistency in the product received by the reader to consistency, convoluted even, in editing and editors guidelines? Note that personally I find the practice, use comma-city for suburbs, and comma-state for towns, unless internationally recognised as primary, to be more simple and consistent and both perspectives. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the 2010 discussion may have been when the firm use of "town, state" was weakened. From memory (I haven't found the right archive yet), it was agreed and set in place in around 2006. [[9]] shows the beginning of the conversation in 2003. --Scott DavisTalk00:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
On the subject of place titles, it seems that the majority of posters, possibly distinct from the number of posts, support the more recognisable, real-world common, style of naming. Comma-city for suburbs, comma-state for towns. Never ", Australia", the state seems always sufficient, even for the ambiguous state of Victoria. Australia as a weird collection of place names, a mix of aboriginal words, old country names, and old English politicians, with many populated centres sharing a name with other unrelated places. Minimal titling is very reader-unfriendly, it hurts recognition, it forces product level inconsistency, and nobody types urls anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, there has never been any support for comma-city for suburbs in Australia, and there are no suburbs currently using that title format, but otherwise I agree with you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Australians know what state most cities are in, people outside Australia aren't familiar with the states. For example, in the US, Melbourne is "Melbourne, Australia" to distinguish it from Melbourne, Florida; it's almost never "Melbourne, Victoria." "Caboolture, Queensland" is no more informative to most readers than simply "Caboolture" because they don't know where Queensland is. "Queensland" just sounds like a weird colonial placename that would as likely be in Zimbabwe as Australia. South Australia just sounds like the southern part of Australia. People know Sydney, but they don't know New South Wales. Adding the state as a disambiguator serves no purpose. Tasmania might be an exception, thanks to the Tasmanian Devil (the cartoon character, not the animal). Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a bizarre interpretation of what titles are for (like AussieLegend above, I initially supported the "town, state" formulation and came around to limiting disambiguation later). The US uses a different formulation from the rest of the world because it is normal in everyday conversation and those titles can reasonably be called the common name. I have never heard anyone say they're from "Goulburn, New South Wales" or "Caboolture, Queensland" or any other such formulation, even when there are prominent places sharing names from different states. Plus, titles do not need to be informative in and of themselves - that is why they have articles attached to them.
In any case, I suggest that rather than all of us disagreeing here, we look at some sort of formalised discussion if people want to change (or formalise a change) to the way this is dealt with. Frickeg (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
While it is true that in the US, unlike Australia, in ordinary conversation people frequently throw in the state, often abbreviated, I hear it in Australia. It is just less common, because in Australia when talking about a different town, that town is much more likely to be in the same state as the speakers, simply because of the number of states. In the US, from long running personal experience, specifying the state is associated with a reference to a town or city in a different state to the state the people are talking in. However, much more important is source use. Sources usually introduce obscure towns with comma state, in both countries, if the publication crosses state boundaries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, the accusations made by SmokeyJoe and The Drover's Wife of bad faith dealings by me are not acceptable.
Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence for the use of "Town, State" in any sources, anywhere other at Wikipedia. There is lots of talk about its use, but no actual demonstration.
Thirdly, lets not pretend the convenience of "Town, State" is of importance to readers - it isn't. No one searches for "Deniliquin, New South Wales" and casual users would not understand the purpose of the convention. The mandatory "town, state" convention works mainly for the benefit of experienced Wikipedia editors.
Fourthly, if Wikipedia had started with a system that didn't require every article have a unique name, like Wikidata, this convention would never have started. This is a legacy of a software issue.
Fifthly, following the same logic of mandatory "town, state" would see all cricketers named, "First Name, Last Name (cricketer)" because of the existence of John Jones (cricketer). There is no logical difference.
Lastly, Australian locality names are not unique snowflakes, they are no different than the place names in the rest of the encyclopedia or indeed article titles full stop - all of which get by with the same article titling guidelines that apply elsewhere. The confusion is caused of course, by little, unnecessary carve outs like the one seemingly proposed here.
I could go on but I distinctly recall having this discussion on multiple occasions before and the same arguments apply then that apply now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: firstly, see my talk page where I defend my choice of word. He has made a very large number of pages moves, quietly, on quiet pages. This was shifting the overwhelming balance of the status quo that favours "Town, State", and important point usually raised in this titling discussion.
RE thirdly. Titles are not for searching. Titles are for recognisability.
Re fourthly. Wikipedia is for human readers, WikiData is for software.
Re fifthly. I don't follow the connection and suspect the slippery slope fallacy. Non-minimalist titles doesn't necessitate silly long titles.
Re sixth. Australian place names are much like US, Canadian and South African place names, a mixture of derivitisation of local language, old country place names, and old country politician names. That legacy makes for a big problem with recognisability. The comma-state convention is a huge boost for recognisability, is seen in the real word, and ensures consistency noting that so many place names must be disambiguated somehow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The description of the locality, such as its state, belongs in the lead, not in the title. The text of the article explains the topic. Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. Disambiguation is appropriate for resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia. Disambiguation is not appropriate to create a general rule that applies to all topics of a particular class. If there are several localities of the same name, then add the state. If there is only one locality of the name, then there is no need for disambiguation and the name of the locality alone is sufficient to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. That is how you achieve consistency: consistently add the state when disambiguation is required, consistently do not add the state when disambiguation is not required. When naming an article, I use the title that I would use to link to the article from other articles. If I would pipe a possible article name for brevity, then my first choice would be to use the briefer name as the title and avoid piping, because that is natural, concise, consistent, and precise enough to identify the topic.
If your main goal is recognisability and you want a descriptive title, the alternative to the concise locality name is not "Town, State" but "Town, State, Country." "Australia" needs to appear in the article title because most people outside Australia are unaware of the names of Australian states, and many are not even aware that Australia has states. We are building an encyclopedia for the world, not only for those who are familiar with Australian states. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Jack, you begin with the standard titling minimalist mantra, but it doesn’t speak to the reader experience. Without context, mentions of towns include comma state, readers expect this, it it a major cue for recognisability.
You then go on to speak to consistency defined from the perspective of an editors decision making process, quite different from the readers’ perspective. I don’t believe the product style should be defined by editing conveniences. Piping is not hard, and editors may link to redirects, a bot fixes them soon after.
Your second paragraph is the standard slippery slope fallacy, if not minimal then titles will be silly long. The single-comma-state format is a cue for recognisability, and the state names are well-enough recognised. Double comma-region-titling is not normal. Comma country is not common for Australia, overseas territories and Melbourne excepted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I found the edits that documented the original convention, and the beginning of changing it, over five years apart. The original words were All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at [[Town, State]] no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and preferentially made [[City]]. The unqualified [[Town]] should be either a redirect or disambig page. Local government areas are at their official name. from 25 April 2005 to 3 August 2010. I have not attempted to find the corresponding discussions that led to those edits to the guidelines. --Scott DavisTalk14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Mattinbgn’s 2010 update to Scott’s 2005 description is justified as a more accurate description of the status quo. It does not, however, speak to what is recommended, or authorise changing things, and to my best reading there was no talk page justification for doing these things that it didn’t do. Nothing was resolved in 2010. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
AfC and NPP backlogs
Hi fellow Australian Wikipedians,
Just a follow up to this post from December. Now that ACTRIAL is over, we have the opportunity to clear out the backlog of draft articles needing reviewing over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Articles for Review. Anybody interested in helping out with reviewing can apply for access to AfC helper script over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. One piece of advice I will give is to not be afraid to tag obvious promotional draft articles with CSD G11 and to send other draft articles with no prospect of publication (especially those which are continuously resubmitted for review, unnecessarily adding to the backlog) to MfD. If ACTRIAL is implemented permanently, it is important that we have a sustainable reviewing community to ensure quality draft space articles are published in a timely fashion.
For the time being following ACTRIAL's end, it is almost inevitable that the backlog at the Special:NewPagesFeed is going to blow out again. The community over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers have done a wonderful job reducing the backlog of articles requiring patrolling down from 14,000 articles pre-ACTRIAL to under 4000 by its end. I have attempted to keep the number of unpatrolled Australian related articles close to zero, but in the 3 days since the end of ACTRIAL the number has already approached close to 30. To discover Australian related articles in the feed, the best method I have been able to find is by searching for the keyword "Australia" using the NPP Browser tool.
Any editors wishing to have access to the patroller rights and page curation tools required in order to patrol pages should apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Regardless of whether ACTRIAL is implemented permanently or not, page patrolling is an important process, as all articles except those accepted through draftspace or created by users with the autopatrolled flag do end up in the new pages feed, and are not indexed by search engines for the first 90 days until they have been patrolled. Also, if you come across any Australian editors with long histories of quality page creations, please feel free to nominate them for the autopatrolled flag as this is solely to aid new page patrollers by automatically patrolling articles by these users, keeping them from unnecessarily increasing the backlog.
The skills and workflow required for both AfC reviewing and patrolling are very similar, and simply require a decent understanding of Wikipedia's deletion policies, notability guidelines, and the use of maintenance tags. Any editor with a history of participation at AfD or who regularly uses the Twinkle tools for tagging articles would be a good candidate for both these user rights and should apply if they're interested in assisting.
At the moment only a very small handful of Australian users seem to be active at either venue, so it would be excellent if more could help out. Whether you review or patrol a couple of articles a day or just once in a bluemoon, any help is greatly appreciated!
As a lifelong test cricket fan, it's simply too depressing to write about. If only they'd used that sticky tape to stick to the rules. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
If the section in Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18 becomes detailed enough, it can be moved into a separate article. I don't think this is likely, unless it has repercussions beyond the scope of the existing article. I just received an email from the CEO of Cricket Australia that they are "aiming to be in a position to fully update the Australian public on the investigation and outcomes on Wednesday morning AEDT." Doubtless this will be fully reported. I would wait until then, at least. There is no need to rush. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I see a lot of NSW articles are currently being mass uploaded. While NSW isn't my normal patch, I have to say they appear to be somewhat strange (probably generated without a human in the loop) and seem unusually obsessed with parishes and counties (not exactly how we normally refer to places in NSW where suburb/local and LGA are more important considerations). Kerry (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Many of these say rather misleadingly that they are "rural localities", but they are not recognised as such by the Geographical Names Board. They are civil parishes, generally with few people, but because they are not official localities, the ABS does not provide populations for them.--Grahame (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this, needs to re-read WP:NPOV. Also, the way he takes a time-out in the middle of the article to rant about how minstrel shows weren't really racist, they were the the product of their time!... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I have hopefully halted the edit war with some talk page comments and a new reference in that section. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. --Scott DavisTalk04:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I suspect we are going to struggle. Bob bates is well known in SA plant circles, through his work with the orchid society (https://nossa.org.au/about-us-2/) and other plant groups in the state, but I suspect that little has ever been written about him. Peripitus(Talk)12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi :-) Sorry, I don't know yet, I'm yet to read the sources. It is my first time joining a wikiproject (perhaps pleasant, as the time zones of the participants are more similar to mine; that was getting in my way at other places before). I'll see if I can read and understand the sources this weekend. --Gryllida (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
In this case this piece of text applies: "must not be altered without the permission of the copyright owner". This is not compatible with Wikipedia. So you should not just copy the list. Bu the list could cover the same mines, but presented in a different way. You could have the open date, how many $ have been dug up, or in reserve etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It sounds like I'll need to put more effort into it if I want to try again. The table on the website looked close to what I wanted, so I pretty much did just copy the tabulated text then add wikilinks to the mines, owners and places. It got deleted before I had a chance to think about what else I might want to find and add, or even drop a column for brevity. I had just found it a limitation that I could find lists of mines by mineral, but not by geography. --Scott DavisTalk13:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Australian people supercategories
When looking for a suitable category for an Oz biography one has two places to start:
Having created a few categories myself, I've had the quandary of deciding which way to go, as there's no clear distinction. It shouldn't be too hard to combine them and perhaps make it a little easier on other editors. Any ideas? Doug butler (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Are they really the same thing? For example, a person could be an HR specialist (their occupation) but be in the mining industry or in the health industry, ... a person could be a software specialist (their occupation) but working in the mining industry or in the finance sector, ... a person could be an accountant (their occupation) but be working in the construction sector or in the finance sector, ... That is not to say the utilisation of these categories and their sub-categories has not been very much conflated and confused, ... Aoziwe (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You could categorize people into industry and occupation as two separate things, but I'm not sure why we would categorize all bios into "businesspeople" and "people." Maybe it should be "Australian people by occupation" and "Australian people by industry." Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
For the general human population I suggest definitely not so. For wiki subjects there will be a significant weighting towards industry perhaps because people tend to become notable by one of their industries, but even so, again, I suggest definitely not all, so there are still two different requirements. Aoziwe (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I refrain from my various strong personal opinions on this matter here at the main noticeboard - but would advise that a significant system of linkages between subjects and states in the Australian project would become much less accessible in the event of the proposal coming to fruition.
In the event of the proposal coming to policy or practice across the whole of wikipedia - it would be very useful for fellow Australian editors to consider here the possible remedies for the loss of such a facility. Please respond, as the broader Australian editing community might need to find other devices to create linkages and inter-connections for the geographically and subject challenged reader and or enquirer to the Australian project. Please no word bombs - dot points much preferred - also it would be better to express agony, pain and or indifference at the rfc rather than here - remedies for practical responses to the potential loss would be preferred. JarrahTree08:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
A number of Australian editors have gone direct to the RFC page and commented, thanks to those who did (either way for or against) JarrahTree05:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This article could use some more watching, as it seems prone to WP:OR and WP:BLP problems. For example, recent addition of politician names without apparent reference support that they are Moderate Left. Dl2000 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I nominated the article for deletion: there is no such thing as a "Moderate Left" faction and everything in the article is (confused) original research. I think the author might have been inspired by the articles on the Labor factions - but the Labor factions are clearly formalised and extremely well-documented in reliable sources, rather than the loose alignments that tend to happen in the Liberal Party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Australian administrator assistance needed
Could User:Craig Franklin (SLQ) also be made a "memorial" user page please as this user is now deceased. Given that it has been stated elsewhere on-wiki, this is an alternative account used by User:Lankiveil during his Wikipedian-in-Residence role at State Library of Queensland (created to maintain a separation from his normal administrator and other rights during that project). I suggest that the User Talk of this second account be redirected to the Lankiveil user talk page to keep any comments in one place. Thanks to anyone who can help. Kerry (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Nobody dares to touch or edit the article Port Arthur massacre
Hello colleagues, I am somehow helpless. I tried to do some wp:cleanup work in the article Port Arthur massacre (Australia). I have asked for help at multiple [10] + [11] + [12] + [13] + [14] + [15] corners of this project. Now the thing is somehow stuck, leaving me with the question if this crime-related articles are OK regarding WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. It just looks like that nobody dares to touch or edit this article. Please read Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Discussion and let us read your opinions. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It really could use a bit of editor attention - this isn't just conspiracy theorists and such but also some Americans trying to draw some weird conclusions about the gun law aftermath. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Bendigo street housing campaign
Bendigo street housing campaign has been nominated for deletion. The AfD would probably benefit from participation by more Australian editors, especially those from Melbourne. I've been trying to get my head around the article, which has a number of issues, but have yet to form an opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
For a start, someone needs to resolve some of the clear content policy violations. After that, we can see what's left and whether it sustains a standalone article. I think it needs to be a section in a broader article on squatting in Australia, perhaps as specific as squatting in Melbourne; slicing any thinner is WP:TMI. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I have received the very sad news that User:Lankiveil has died (and have confirmed it is true). His user page has been "memorialised" and you can leave messages of condolences to his family on his User Talk page. We will miss him as a Wikipedian, as a Wikimedia Australia outreach person and I will miss him as a friend. Kerry (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
More than that, as President of Wikimedia Australia he gave the position a very important boost of respectability. His presence in Western Australia at special times in the evolution of both Toodyaypedia and Freopedia was special. His online and offline presence was widely valued in the Wikimedia Australia community. JarrahTree06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The funeral will be held in Brisbane on Friday 27 April. For privacy, if anyone wants the full details, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au Kerry (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Please verify or correct the article info regarding the number of seats each party holds in the Australian House of Representatives as some time ago I saw discrepancies with the numbers in the official government website but I couldn't make out the intricacies of Australian politics to fix it myself. Thinker78 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks fine to me, and has been updated to take into account the four resignations yesterday. It's hard to know what you were comparing it to without knowing which government website you were looking at (APH? AEC?), and how long ago you saw the other figures. It's also quite possible the Wikipedia article is actually more up to date than the government website. --Canley (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I had a look at the edit history—if you mean the numbers are different between the 2016 election results and now, then that is correct, because of resignations and so on. --Canley (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the information under "Current House of Representatives" is not up up-to-date and contradicts infobox data. Thinker78 (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, cheers, I'll write a paragraph summarising any subsequent changes, vacancies and by-elections since the 2016 election. --Canley (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, Australia's geography can make the community quite disparate. I'm trying to put together a template ({{Wikimedia_Australia_event}}) that makes it easier for people who find Australian meetup pages to navigate between them and WMAU. It's often very fragmented (e.g. navigating from Brisbane's Qwiki to Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth). I made the template because I came across the Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide long before I ever knew about WMAU. I never attended because I was in a different state and couldn't find a Melbourne meetup at the time. It took me two years to hear that WMAU even existed! The way I am hoping this template will improve on the previous is allowing a unified addition of relevant WMAU links, and be easily usable on edithon, meetup, GLAM etc events. Any ideas, thoughts and opinions welcome! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk02:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind the idea of linking the meetup/"real word activity" pages together, and promoting WMAU. However, I have a few comments... The new template seems big compared to the existing template:
Plus the Wikimedia Australia logo dominates the box, overwhelming from the "(location) Meetup" title. Maybe it would be better to have a smaller logo at the bottom, but with "Wikimedia Australia" spelled out in text? Also, seem features which the current Perth one has I find rather convenient:
Can update all the box details at the same time as editing the main meetup page
Has extra space for when there are special events in addition to regular meetups, or when multiple future meetups are planned
Allows pages calling it to pass through styles, so that e.g. for WT:WA it matches the look and width of the other boxes on that page
Great points! The Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/box template is definitely very well made. The watch link is a particularly good idea. I've tried to minimise height, but have made width 400px (equal to {{meetup}}). I'd put the logo that size, mainly to make the words (just about) readable. It could be possible to do some sort of dynamic scaling, or just make it smaller. One additional thing that I think should be useful, is that the template can transclude the "Next_meetup" section of a meetup page, so the invitation box doesn't even necessarily need to be updated. Although it is traditional to put a "past event" link, perhaps it'd be equally useful to lust link to the "Past_events" section of the relevant meetup page. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk12:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As much as I am a card-carrying WMAU member, I am not sure WMAU can lay claim to meetups. Anyone in the community is free to organise a meetup, not just WMAU members. I don't see a problem with WMAU wanting to better promote meetups (which are good things IMHO), just not sure about the organisation name and logo etc sending the wrong signal and people not coming because they aren't WMAU members. Similarly a lot of events that WMAU (or its members) are involved in are not "WMAU's events" but are more correctly partner events etc which may or may not be open to absolutely anyone. Maybe a template that was simply called "Australian Wikipedian real-life events" and let each event make clear whatever its affiliations might be and whatever the participation might be. Kerry (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
For general meetups as distinct from partner activities the connection to WMAU is a good fit in that by being under the WMAU banner the event carries the necessary legal protections for individuals who organise the event. On the technical side an email to contact at wikimedia,org,au is needed so we know bonus is we can also assist in other ways as well. Other organisations would responsible for their events and individuals responsible where they chose to exclude the chapter. WMAU also supports local WikiClubs who can have their own budgets for event activities. Gnangarra14:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that the aim is less to lay claim to events, and more about publicising the wider network of related events. However, I actually don't know which events are officially run by WMAU (e.g. A Melbourne WikiMeetup could run with no detectable WMAU presence). One things that definitely could be done is to have a parameter to insert an alternative image, leaving only the smalltext links at the bottom. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk00:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've created a small version {{Wikimedia Australia event links}} that just allows the addition of the links to existing boxes, with a small version of the logo. By wording it as "see also", it is not making claims about how involved WMAU is in the event, which can and should be done at the event page itself if relevant. I've added it to Perth meetup box (see above). - Evad37[talk]01:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This is how it looks for Adelaide (sandbox version):
Agreed. I suggest that the Australia event box be modified to look like this one (complete with room for an image of the relevant city/town/other place), and that a "watch" function be added as per the current Perth meetup box. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Great work Evad! Thanks all for the discussions - it's much improved the template. So long as the height isn't a problem for people's implementations, I've combined the best bits from the templates above:
some automated features of my own where link the |watch= parameter's default setting is to look for any link in the 'Next_meetup' section of WP:Meetup/city and use that
It means that once set up, it should be controlable by just editing the 'Next_meetup' section of any WP:Meetup/city page! {{Australia_event|Perth}} therefore produces the template as shown right. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk12:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't like being a wet blanket and/or raining on parades, but ...
Very early on in the discussions on this matter (on a different talk page), I pointed out that the Adelaide template is ubx size, in particular, ubx high, and many people using the Adelaide template rely on the template being of those dimensions. Your new template is very nice, but it's nearly twice the height of the old template, and thus is going to mess up the layout of pages which rely on the template being ubx size. In those early discussions I suggested that there be two Adelaide templates, and that the current Adelaide template point to this new larger template. Is the current Adelaide template the only template that's ubx size? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Turning off the WMAU links saves quite a bit of space (and the remaining extra height here is from the WA image being a bit taller than the Adelaide image)
We haven't had a discussion about organising our articles on cadastral divisions in many years, and I've been wondering, looking at Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), if it isn't time to revisit the subject.
There seems to be a lot of work going on on civil parishes in New South Wales, but they're at titles that are absolutely all over the place, for example:
There are also random differences between states - e.g. South Australia uses County of Flinders, while New South Wales uses Flinders County. There doesn't seem to be a basis in real-world usage for this: as far as I can see, NSW sources use "County of Flinders" just as often as South Australian ones.
How would people feel if we moved all cadastral divisions across Australia to "County of XXXX", "Hundred of XXXX" and "Parish of XXXX"? This would make eliminate all confusing titles and make explicitly clear across the board what these articles are actually referring to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
support suggestion. Question:- in real life do the parishes have any current legal status or are they all historic designations with no current usage or application ? JarrahTree07:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
No real legal significance, although I think they're still referred to in land records? They do have some use historically, especially in regional areas where sources would use parish names instead of later localities that don't align with parish boundaries. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
IM not a conveyancer/solicitor but have been close to a few land transactions and they do have definite legal significance in land title transfers in some areasJames.au (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC).
As they have no real legal status they should be called parishes and not be in place or locality categories, but rather in a parish category, same applies for counties which also have similar legal status. I note with trepidation that there are cases where multiple parishes exist in NSW with the same names. I think we have a big mess on our hands that maybe for most nonnotable parishes they should be consolidated within county articles as they offer no additional information than that offered by the gazetted place names and local authorities, really are just duplications of the same information already contained there. Gnangarra12:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Support I am all for consistency. From my limited knowledge of such we would need to be careful to ensure that article content is consistent and in context in regard to historical usage, current usage, amalgamations and overlays into newer divisions, and we distinguish between official localities, LGAs, and historical divisions, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I note that the National Library of Australia deals with these terms in the past tense (here) as relics of the days of rods and perches. A relevant WP article informs us that, if we go down that road, "at least 600 counties, 544 hundreds and at least 15,692 parishes" could be written up; but "Australia instead uses local government areas, including shires, districts, councils and municipalities according to the state, as the second-level subdivision." In my experience of family-history research, there is a further division between "(church) parish" and "civil parish". These are matters which can be explained in an encyclopedia without having to adopt them as an ongoing classificatory requirement that is doomed to imminent extinction. Bjenks (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the larger divisions are important to keep for their historical relevance, although it varies between states - e.g. so many regional South Australian historical sources refer to hundreds. We also already have articles on most of the counties and a lot of the hundreds. I do largely see your point about parishes. However, I feel like unless people are going to deal with the parishes issue by mass-nominating these for deletion right now (which I could go either way on), then we should first focus on straightening out the mess they're currently in. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Not from me. Do there also need to be some disambiguation pages created at the same time as required. I cannot think of an example right now but I am sure I have previously seen at least parishes and counties with the same name in the one state and also duplication of a name across states, so the current non standard naming convention sort of addresses this in a clunky way by having the name first and the type of division second so people do not have to know exactly what type of thing they are looking for when they start typing, so do we need disambiguation pages for name with a list of, for example, parish of name, Queensland, county of name, hundred of name, county of name, New South Wales. There might not be too many but do they need to be created at the same time as article name standardisation? Aoziwe (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we'll need some and I'm happy to create them as they come up. I was thinking of putting them at "Parish of XXX (New South Wales)" or, if necessary, "Parish of XXX (YYY County, New South Wales) if two in the same state. Thoughts or other suggestions? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I see the argument, but it would go completely against real-world usage: there are virtually no Trove hits (official or otherwise) for "Loftus Parish" - they're all at "Parish of Loftus". Literally - there isn't one single (relevant) Trove hit for "Loftus Parish" in either newspapers or gazettes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
My thought was and is as Gnan has written. The name first. My concern was not about real world usage, which is how we have agreed the articles should be named, but about disambiguating cadastral names when people do not know the type of the cadastral entity they are looking for. It could be a hundred, a county, a parish, a town, a LGA,... Aoziwe (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
More a comment than anything, but I understand Queensland will be officially dropping the parishes very soon (can't find the source) as they no longer have a role in the modern cadastre. I think we will still have counties (but they are only seen in land titles). I don't think we ever had Hundreds in Queensland. Kerry (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
New South Wales State Heritage Register - another article generator is ready to roll
I've been working on and off with a small group on doing a NSW State Heritage Register article generator along similar lines to the one I did for the Queensland Heritage Register, but there are quite a number of differences as each state has its own unique way of writing a heritage register entry. As with the Qld heritage register, the intention is that the generator is doing as much of heavy lifting as it can but always with the expectation that a human editor will polish the output of the generator into an acceptable Wikipedia article (I am not proposing a mass bot upload). There is a conversation happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places#New South Wales state heritage items - article generator about the generator and what more/less is needed there. Just so there is no misunderstanding, the QLD and NSW heritage registers are CC-BY licensed so we can copy text from them provided we give attribution (which the generator does within the References section in the subheading Attribution). Photos from these heritage registers may or may not be CC-BY licensed (it depends on whether the copyright is owned by the government or 3rd parties, so the generator does not do anything with photos). As the first real test, Young, New South Wales has been given a generated list of heritage listings (in the section Heritage listings), and these 3 articles linked from there are also outputs of the generator (subsequently polished by humans, so you may wish to look at the first version of the articles to understand what the generator is doing) and the discussion of these is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places#Specific example feedback (to save you reading the pre-history that gets us to this stage). So if you want to have some input into the process, please join in there. Also if you are interested in being involved in the roll-out, can you please indicate that too so we can keep you in that loop. Kerry (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
We've got a bit of a car-crash happening at Marcus Bastiaan as multiple new accounts and IPs who appear to be factional enemies of Bastiaan are adding all sorts of dreck on a daily basis - it really needs a good solid prune to things that are actually significant and sourced to actual reliable sources. Anyone willing to have a look at it/take an axe to it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this here. I feel I have been fighting a losing battle in recent days. As well as obvious attempts at political point scoring, part of the problem is the level of (in)competence of some of the contributors. I have tried pointing them in the direction of information articles on editing Wikipedia, with very limited success. This challenging behaviour has also had negative impact on other articles, especially Michael Kroger. (Oh, and thanks for adding dreck to my vocabulary. I'm sure I will find it useful.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Myschools IDs on wikidata
Hi all. To improve our coverage of Australian schools (surely this is one of the first things a kid looks up on Wikipedia), we've setup an identifier property on Wikidata to link to the Myschools website, which has a whole lot of demographic and performance data. If you'd like to help matching items on the mix'n'match set, it's quite easy, and would be much appreciated. --99of9 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I've made a start on matching these. The schools on Wikidata are a bit of a mess, many are missing "instance of" statements for example. So, a lot of work to be done but would be a great resource once "finished". --Canley (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Haven't heard of Myschools for a couple of years. Does it still exist? It may be useful for simple factual data, but it is not highly regarded in the education sector. It uses NAPLAN data. That is one of the worst measures of the performance of a school that has ever been invented. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree it would be a terrible idea to import, say, NAPLAN or other "qualitative" data into Wikidata or Wikipedia, but to have a national list of schools to create items for would be a very useful dataset—as you say, the "simple factual data" in a unified national list and linking to a national identifier is the useful data we are using here. --Canley (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Into Wikipedia, absolutely agree with you. Wikidata's notability threshold is different though (Wikidata:Notability), and while the wiki link criterion will not and is never likely to be met in most cases, I would argue the other two criteria for Wikidata notability are: clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity, and structural need (e.g. statements in person items). --Canley (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
even into Wikidata, myschools is problematic as a source. I still contend that structural need as part of statements about people most wont be needed nor in most instances even more would not be of any relevance to the person. Data from Myschool connected to individuals would run foul of privacy laws, and false attributions... Gnangarra05:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The data I'm talking about is name and location of the school, that's it. No other data related to NAPLAN, attendance figures, demographics, former students and so on. This would be using MySchool as a checklist and unique identifier only, not to source or import any other data. Linking to MySchool is not endorsement of the NAPLAN system or the site itself. Statements in person items would of course need to be referenced to the same secondary sources as Wikipedia would require, and this information isn't in MySchool anyway. --Canley (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see how this is any different to linking suburbs and localities to ABS SSC identifiers—yes, this makes it possible to link a person, through several levels of connection, to certain socioeconomic data. A bit of a stretch to say it's exactly like a possibly defamatory Google search term. --Canley (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NHS in a nutshell: "High schools/secondary schools are generally considered to be notable, but they must be able to meet the relevant guidelines for notability". --99of9 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Just checked a couple of local government schools on the My School site. Both had only 2017 data. It is now almost halfway through the 2018 academic year. A government site that cannot do better than that is not a good site. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm actually impressed it's that up to date. How is it reasonable to expect ACARA to collect and publish aggregated data for a school year, for over 8,000 schools, less than halfway through that year? Also, the 2018 NAPLAN assessments were less than three weeks ago. If it was 2016 data, yes, you'd have a point. Anyway, I want to stress that this isn't any kind of endorsement of the site, its content, currency or methodology. It's a list of schools which can be used as a very useful dataset. If there are problems with MySchool's data, or if the site goes down (which is quite possible, in fact likely), then the myschool links can be removed by editing the property or removing the identifiers, but at least we would have built up a useful school dataset in Wikidata. --Canley (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow, you have high standards if you think they should have a 3 week turnaround from raw tests, through marking, to collated national statistics. Here on Wikipedia we still have population data that is often 7 and sometimes 12 years out of date! (P.S. If you'd like to help with that, one way to help in bulk is here.) --99of9 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
My out of date comment was about student numbers. Nothing complicated about that. And unlike us, the editors at My School are paid to get it right. NAPLAN being a disaster is a separate issue. I know results for that won't be out until September. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to get enrolment numbers out of MySchools? This is one thing that can often be a pain to dig up but is useful for giving a bit of context in locality articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
There are enrolment numbers, but they are over a year old. (They would be from the end of March 2017 at this stage, at least for government schools.) See my previous comment. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I would have no problem with using 2017 enrolment data in a town/suburb article, since it would be juxtaposed with 2016 census data anyway, but the catchment of a school would very rarely coincide with the boundaries of the town or suburb it is in.
What is the time-range of school unique identifiers in this dataset? Around where I live there have been quite a few school amalgamations over the past decade or so, and more in the last 50 years, plus a split or two. Do they relate to campus or organisational structure? --Scott DavisTalk11:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1890s Depression
One thing I keep noticing as we roll out the NSW Heritage Register project is that we've never had a proper article on the 1890s Depression, even though it's really quite important in that part of Australian history. Australian banking crisis of 1893 covers only a specific, limited part of it, and that's really all we have. Would anyone be interested in taking a crack at creating an article? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
ANU Library flood appeal
The Australian National University Library is currently running an appeal for book donations to replace works destroyed when the bottom floor of its main library building was flooded earlier this year. This wiped out much of the ANU's humanities collections, including its large Australian history and political science sections. If you're interested in donating books to replace the losses, the ANU has set up a website here which lists the works they're looking to replace and provides a way to register your willingness to offer them. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please help me with these? I've never been able to use this aspect of Template:Infobox Australian place because the template balks at the input of coordinates in any format that's actually used in Australian gazetted sources. I'd really love to know how I can actually convert the official sources into whatever the heck Wikipedia does with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It used to be a lot easier when the bare coordinates could simply be plugged into the right fields in the infobox and the infobox worked out the rest but it's not really that difficult. There are a few variations of the format now. All are basically the same:
For example, from the Geographical Names Register of NSW we get that the coordinates of Millfield, New South Wales are -32 52 54 latitude (the minus indicates south) and 151 16 04 longitude (no sign indicates east).[16] The format used for the coordinates field is therefore:
Flag of Australia is becoming an image farm with far too many "At ... an Australian flag was flown ..... on ...." entries, rather than actual encyclopaedic content about the flag being added. Since 10 June the article has increased increased significantly in size but most of is it examples of how the flag has been flown. Some extra eyes on this article would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The editor involved has only been registered since March. His contributions history show somewhat of an obsession with the flag. I have tried to communicate with him about his approach, to no avail. Just today I thought one option was to wait a bit until he had a break, then tackle the article as a whole, with a big pruning tool. I also suggested to him that he get involved in other topics so he could see more about how Wikipedia works. That didn't work either. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: This editor has a new major target (along with all his other flag related articles) - Australian Red Ensign. Around 30 edits since yesterday. He has massive knowledge in this area, but very little idea about what constitutes a good Wikipedia article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
which in itself can be very disruptive, and WP:SPA accounts require care for third or fourth opnions - or uninvokved admins to keep very close watch.JarrahTree00:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Its a little pointy and very militaristic, such edits appear to potentially be for some external agenda. I think it would be best to start pruning the number of images to those which only compliment knowledge within the article removing any that are merely decorative. Gnangarra02:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Per Gnangarra's suggestion, I removed a number of images and there were edits by 4 other editors today, but some of the images have been restored.[17] The one of HMCS Protector has a really tiny flag flying off the stern. It serves no real purpose but it was one that was restored. Even an image gallery came back,[18] despite a note on the editor's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Those articles have got so bad now, that its time to walk away the WP:SPA now owns all Australian flag articles. I honestly hate logging in too see how much more damage has been done and nobody seams to care, if it ever goes to an RFC or ANI ping me Gnangarra11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
He just doesn't seem to get that it's an article about the flag of Australia, not every flag. RV to last stable version seems a good edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That said, having had a look at the other articles he is editing, as well as the non-free files he is now uploading to commons. I'm tempted to be VERY agressive in changes to the articles. He just seems to be attempting to add as many flags as he can to every flag article that he can. Flags of the Australian Defence Force, for example, even has royal flags in it now. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't being entirely facetious when I suggested reverting all the articles to the state they were in before he turned up. Have a look at his Talk page. This guy is motivated by a desire to increase the loyalty of Australians in preparation for the coming World War III, and the relationship of this with the (also coming) End Days. I have found it impossible to have rational conversations with him on article Talk pages or on his own Talk page. I'm not sure if this canned be termed a form of incompetence to edit here, but he is not here to build a great encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone here in Perth? Every year since 2013 I've have attended the Women's National Wheelchair Basketball League finals and taken a group photo of the winning team. This year it's in Perth, at the Bendat Basketball Centre at 201 Underwood Ave, Floreat WA, between 12:00 and 14:00 on Sunday 29 July. If someone could drop in and take a pic for the article, that would be most appreciated. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I am still learning about Wikidata and mix'n'match. I skipped a number of items for defunct newspapers that are described in a Wikipedia article for a predecessor or successor newspaper by a different name due to mergers, splits or ownership changes. Wikipedia redirects do not appear to have wikidata items. What is the "right" thing to do here? If I gave the wikipedia article's wikidata ID, then several newspapers would end up with the same Qid, which seems wrong. --Scott DavisTalk14:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
99of9 is currently active (real time re your times stamp) in wikidata and appears to have made edits in the area you are interested - he may have here on watch - or otherwise his talk page at wikidata is worth the asking... JarrahTree14:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: Yes, this is an issue. Trove was very particular about making a new ID even when it was just a name change. But when SLNSW faced this choice they always collected them into a single en-wiki article. So far I've been following the latter model and putting multiple Trove IDs on the same wikidata item (with all appropriate aliases). I don't think there's a completely correct answer, it partly depends how we want to use it later. But the good news is that there are easy tools to monitor those with duplicate IDs, and split them later if we want a full sequence of the newspaper histories. If you want to split them, we should find appropriate properties to link them (something like "successor").--99of9 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
As a data and information management person, it feels wrong to me to put multiple Trove IDs against a single Wikidata item for what is currently a single Wikipedia article covering several newspapers over time. My reasoning is that some time in future, a Wikipedia editor might choose to split out an article for one of the predecessor newspapers (e.g. where they were town-based newspapers and later merged following the same management owning both towns' papers). The previously-merged Wikipedia article links through Wikidata to the Trove ID for a paper that has a different wikipedia article.
The conversation makes me realise I should use the "New Item" button, but you make a good point that I should learn how to link it to the "close" wikidata item at the same time. I think I have read that the predecessor and successor links need to be explicitly set too, rather than using inference reasoning to derive one from the other. Tonight, there are enough obvious matches that I will continue skipping the mismatches until I am more alert. --Scott DavisTalk14:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It turns out the "New Item" button pops up a new tab, it's easy to add "replaced by" or "replaces" statements to the new item. I will leave it to an inference engine to derive the inverse. Hopefully Wikidata has a tool that makes it easy to do this as a later step if it isn't automated. --Scott DavisTalk14:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We had a wikipedia meetup in Perth today and by coincidence worked on probably about 100 or more mix and match items at the time - and the discussions between three editors in real life - experienced editors - had discussions that ties in what 99of9 is mentioning, and ScottDavis. The translating the information into data, or for that matter working on the criterion as to the 'fits' between the style and thinking of the three editors, suggest that it is neither a precise science or an easily resolved process. It might be good if there was an avenue to discuss between eds that wasnt necessarily here or at personal talk pages on data... JarrahTree14:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is a general mix'n'match or Wikidata-wide issue. The way Australian historic newspaper articles have been written makes it a particular issue for this dataset. Near the end of the Mix'n'match/Manual there is a guiding sentence under "Matching tips":
* Don't be afraid to create new items: If it isn't exactly the same concept please create a new item. It is much easier to merge two items after the matching has finished than separate an item into two separate items. E.g a World Heritage site for a city often does not cover the same area as the city itself, so a new item should be made.
To me that means that if the Trove item is not for exactly the same newspaper as the main subject of Wikipedia article, then they don't match. --Scott DavisTalk15:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: I think the two challenges with that approach are:
to ensure we don't take it too far in terms of proliferating what are essentially identical concepts: An entity does not change simply because it's name changes. So for example we have the single item (in both enwp and wd) Innisfail, Queensland, with the Geraldton, Queensland name attached. Similarly if a company changes CEO (or owner), we just mark that with date range qualifiers, rather than setting up a whole new company item. A similar approach can be taken with for newspaper titles, retaining our normal conception of a newspaper. An example of this can be seen at the wikidata item for the New York Times.
to use the information well once it is split over multiple items: The most common use cases for the newspaper data are expected to be in infoboxes and references. In infoboxes, drawing data from the directly associated item is easy, but drawing from "followed by" items is significantly harder technically.
(but I do agree that it's easier to merge than unmerge, so if unsure, separate items are always fine to start with)
I would like to ask if any Australians who have taken advantage of their publicised entitlement to a portrait of the Queen would be able to upload a picture of the portrait to Wikipedia or Commons please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)08:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not I have taken advantage of such an entitlement, the picture is likely not under a free license. --99of9 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
On catching up with my watchlist while I was away, I came upon Queensland Nickel (the Clive Palmer company that has been much in the news over the past couple of years). It was not an topic that I was taking particular interest in. However in July a couple of edits by a new IP user rewrote a lot of the article transforming it from a somewhat anti-Palmer article to a somewhat pro-Palmer article. So in the spirit of WP:NPOV I have tried to replace the rewriting with a merge of the previous text and the new text. I note that there were some challenges involved as the description of events was often out of sequence and usually undated and, while there were citations, their positioning in the article often did make very clear what text was supported by them. I've done my best but I would welcome others to take a look at it and improve it further. Kerry (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that that IP editing should have been reverted outright: it's some kind of POV pushing in Palmer's favour, full of loaded language. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Great story, thanks for the reminder - after a while it becomes too easy to be critical, too hard to remember to thank people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Millfield
