Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Hello. At Category talk:Pages where template include size is exceeded, we are trying to empty the category. And it happens that pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography/A-I and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography/J-Z are on overflow. Perhaps grouping in three pages could be a solution. What do you think about ? (please ping if you answer here) Pldx1 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea. Pinging 99of9 who it appears set these pages up. Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with that if someone is willing to do the work just to remove it from the category. --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Feel free to go ahead with splitting it into three pages. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Split into A-F, G-M, N-Z to have 3 arts of quite the same length. The result can be seen at [1]. Perhaps, you should delete the redirects A-J --> A-F and K-Z --> N-Z. Pldx1 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography/Proposed ADB Entries for People Who Died 1991-2000 to match Proposed ADB Entries for People Who Died 1991-2000? Paul foord (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm REALLY not sure if I'm writing this in the right area, I'm pretty damn new. But I just put my name into the NSW user table and the formatting is all weird, the table comes up under NT even though all the users state they're from NSW, and the NT table isn't there at all. Would fix it but have no bloody idea how. Thanks folks, loving Wikipedia, excited to have found this project E ribbon toner (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

G'day, don't worry it was broken before you got there. It was missing a small piece of mark up coding. I've added it now. Incidentally, I'm in the NT, but haven't added my name there as I move around a lot. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A stub article Australian nationalism was created without first submitting a draft to AfC. It is now up for deletion.

Category:Australian nationalism has the following articles:

• Australophile
• Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi
• Australian citizenship affirmation

Nationalism would seem to be a primary topic worthy of an article. Maybe people want to expand it in mainspace, or create a draft? -- Callinus (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Was just on Trove and got this message Just a friendly reminder that Trove will be unavailable from 5pm AEDT on 22 February until 25 February. Please make sure you save all of your changes before the outage. Trove 7 is coming! -- Gnangarra 07:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

http://trove.nla.gov.au/forum/showthread.php?2235-Trove-7-is-coming! the trove link explaining the change JarrahTree 07:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oof, that's a long one. Guess I should plan to hit the books instead of online research that day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

yeah a couple of days but its a significant upgrade to the interface rather than just minor updates. Our biggest concern will be with bots tagging deadlinks and the mes that will make because there are 100,000's of NLA links on here Gnangarra 09:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Trove is back in its upgraded form (although it is running very slow and there are clearly some bugs, I've had some weird results in the Book facet). One thing Wikipedians might notice is that the Trove team has modified the Wikipedia citations to address some of the feedback they have received from the community over the past few years since the last software refresh. So you might spot some differences like "via=National Library of Australia" rather than the former less correct "publisher=National Library of Australia" and other minor details. I believe they have also revised their list of Wikipedia article titles corresponding to each of the digitised newspapers; if you see any problematic links to Wikipedia newspaper articles (including redlinks) coming from Trove's new digitised newspaper citations, please let me know and I'll pass it on to the developers (or create stubs in the case of the redlinks). Kerry (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice Kerry Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just on that note about the article titles corresponding to their citations - they definitely haven't fixed it for The News in Adelaide (one that came up last night). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/14th Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Pub rock is under discussion, see talk:Pub rock (United Kingdom); "pub rock" has been Pub rock (Australia) as its topic in the past. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Templates ACTcity, NSWcity, NTcity, QLDcity, SAcity, TAScity, VICcity, and WAcity have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. - Evad37 [talk] 23:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There are some short outages likely to occur "today" and next week due to tests on switching between data centres. They will affect editing but not reading. See here for more details. Kerry (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The next outages are now postponed until the week of 18–23 April 2016.

Official schedule: schedule

Background information: background

Note that these two pages have slightly different dates; I'm trying to figure out which is the correct set of dates. If you are scheduling training events or edit-a-thons during that week, then you may want to contact me to get updated information soon.

Also, if you experienced problems with the five-minute read-only test on Tuesday, 15 March around 07:05 UTC, or if you have suggestions for places to announce this, then please contact me in e-mail offlist or on wiki at User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)

Forwarded by Kerry (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

An RfC on this topic has been commenced at WikiProject Politics, where most of the participants seem to be non-Australian. Not that non-Australians are exempt from comment on Australian matters, just that their contributions are less informed. --Pete (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless the contributors have law degrees, specialising in Australian constitutional law, I'd say most contributions are less informed. The-Pope (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's a topic that has even the most learned people confused, until you smack some commonsense into them.;) --AussieLegend (✉) 16:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I like to avoid lawyers as much as possible, but things like this, or the regular copyright arguments/policy interpretations on here sometimes could do with a decent lawyer who fully understands all the relevant laws, and not just read one or two cases (or newspaper articles on cases). The-Pope (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As is well known to members of the Perth meetup group, I'm a lawyer. I've glanced at the debate linked above, but I don't have time to read it in full.

The answer to the question raised in that debate is actually pretty simple, although various persons with political motivations (eg David Smith) have blurred it from time to time. Section 61 of Australia's constitution vests the executive power of the Commonwealth in "the Queen" (ie Queen Victoria and her reigning heirs and successors) and makes that executive power exercisable on behalf of "the Queen" by the Governor-General. The fact that the executive powers are vested in "the Queen" probably also, by implication, makes at least some of them exercisable directly by "the Queen" as well, although whether that is so, and, if so, the extent of it, has never been judicially determined as far as I am aware.

In any case, the effect of section 61 is that Queen Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state, and the Governor-General acts only as her representative (the discussion linked above includes a post noting that several Governors-General, and many constitutional scholars, have also expressed that view.) The fact that Queen Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state is true even though other sections in the constitution give the Governor-General certain specific powers, because those other sections need to be read together with section 61.

By convention, the Governor-General is always the one who exercises the powers of "the Queen", except when "the Queen" is in Australia, or on rare occasions of great constitutional significance (eg the giving of assent to the Australia Act of the Commonwealth). But that doesn't make the Governor-General a head of state. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As an Australian lawyer, your input into this long-standing content dispute is needed, to help reach consensus. If you are limited in time, then perhaps you could answer the survey or insert this very sensible answer into the comments. Travelmite (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Bahnfrend, It seems like you are blurring the executive power prescribed in s61 with "the executive powers", whatever they might be. If you are including powers given specifically to the Governor-General (say, 64, the power to appoint ministers) as being covered by the s61 executive power, I'd be very interested to see what source informs your thinking.

When the Queen is personally in Australia, she may, by virtue of the Royal Powers Act 1953, exercise any statutory power of the Governor-General. These do not extend to the constitutional powers.

The current Governor-General, according to his official website, sees his role as extending beyond representing the Queen. "In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers."[2] Would you like to comment on whose view is the correct one? --Pete (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's AGF, but this notice is not a sensible place to start yet another debate. Editors are working on Government in Australia and Talk:Australian head of state dispute with a view to tone the whole thing down and present a vastly more orthodox explanation. A real lawyer's perspective, really any viewpoint using reliable sources, would carry a lot of weight. Thanks all. Travelmite (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed the article Australian head of state dispute be merged with Monarchy of Australia and/or Australian republic referendum, 1999, can we please get an uninvolved person to comment on the merger discussion?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Following closure of the Rfc notified at the top of this section, [3] the current position is that there are now at least 4 against merger (and in favour of Retain,)[4] and there is a proposal to let the title of the article named Australian head of state dispute be changed to "Australia's Head of state of Australia". [5] Qexigator (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note and comment: "dispute" is not in the article Australian head of state dispute, and Talk:Australian head of state dispute#"an Australian peculiarity" (per Kirby) asks "which of the following is more suited to the article as a non-contentious and npov title, given that the article mentions that the differences of opinion or practice in Australia about calling the governor-general "head of state" are described by Kirby as "an Australian peculiarity".

• Australian head of state difference of opinion
• Australian head of state discussion.

Qexigator (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With less than 20 weeks until the Rio Olympics start, I've recently spent some time reviewing how complete our coverage of past games is. I was a bit surprised that whilst most of the recent games are very well covered, any from Sydney or earlier (ie pre dating Wikipedia) still have lots of gaps. For example, a 4 time Olympian (and record holder for most Commonwealth Games medals) didn't have an article until a few days ago.

I've created some lists at User:The-Pope/Aussie Olympians that show 13 triple Olympians, 132 dual Olympians and also 1000 single Olympians are red links, or their article is at a different name variation to the list at www.sports-reference.com (ie Rob vs Robert or married/maiden/hyphenated surnames).

Now, whilst all of these people are presumed notable by WP:NSPORTS, good luck finding significant coverage of the members of the 1960 Ice Hockey team, the 2000 handball teams or even some members of old rowing 8s or similar. I wouldn't be adverse to redirecting those people to the Australia at the 1960 Winter Olympics or similar article. And some of those "Australia at the Games" articles also need lots of work to add each Australian's peformance, not just links to the relevant "sport at the games" article. (but of course, now that the challenge had been set, I expect that the entire ice hockey team will reach FA level by Anzac Day!)

So if anyone wants to join in feel free. Let's see how many we can do before the flame is lit in Brazil. The-Pope (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be a good idea for anyone creating these articles to try to find a few good reliable sources covering the article subject before article creation. Hack (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears the serial vandal of Oxley, Queensland is back. New IP address but making the same old edits to remove Inala as a neighbouring suburb. Trying to start an edit war with me, I think. Kerry (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected for a month, may warrant longer if they undoubtedly return. Stephen 04:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that an edit filter might be implemented to stop the vandalism while leaving the article open for other constructive edits? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC).

If only there were. We have a similar situation at Sydney with editors periodically removing or changing weather related content sourced to the ABS and BOM. Unfortunately, unlike Oxley, most of these editors are not IPs, like the one yesterday and today who claims that statements by the ABS (based on BOM data), are opinion and personal synthesis.[6][7] For Oxley, given the number of edits to the article, I don't think it qualifies for pending changes protection (some admins at RFPP are loathe to add PC without substantial recent vandalism) so it may just mean a trip to RFPP each time to request semi-protection. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, vandalism nostalgia. All we need is User:Premier for the full "yesteryear" experience. Pending changes makes a mess of watch lists and is less effective than semi-protection - agree with Stephen that longer semi-p is called for if they return to this in a months time. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone want to take care of this draft? It'd be a shame to see it deleted. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

there are clear indications a sydney based library using editor would have better access to good refs... anyone? JarrahTree 01:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Today I was shocked to find out the the table of ministers on Government of New South Wales has not been updated in about a year (well, except by a comedian declaring Mike Baird "Minister of Nightlife Destruction") which is pretty bad of us because this is a high importance article and there was a major cabinet reshuffle after the election a year ago (Gladys Berejiklian was promoted to treasurer etc) and these changes were not added to Wikipedia.

I really don't have the knowledge or patience for tables. Using the visual editor I was able to correct the list of ministers (although I am pretty sure they are not properly ranked by seniority) and I am about halfway through matching them up with their opposition counterparts. Now however, whenever I open the table in the visual editor it seems to delete a cell somewhere and knock everything out by one place and I'm scared to continue editing. The table looks fine though in the "Read" view, it's only when I open it in the visual editor.

Does someone else want to have a go at this? the list of shadow ministers is really easy to find it's in the References. Mkultraviolence (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Australian place articles using missing parameters currently lists 65 Queensland and South Australian national parks and protected areas using deprecated parameters in the infobox. Until recently, this category listed over 200 articles but efforts by editors have reduced the list. However, the 65 remaining articles could really do with some attention by editors to get the number down to zero. The work required is not complex; in most cases it is just removing unnecessary notes and moving data to the correct fields.[8][9][10] It would be greatly appreciated if editors could help with this. Even if you only do a handful, (I just did 12 in 30 minutes) it might be possible to finally empty this category after more than 2 years. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of Shiftchange and a couple of other editors, all of the SA articles have been fixed and the category is now down to 42 articles. Only Queensland is letting us down now. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Coolangatta Gold is experiencing a lot of vandalism today. So many changes have been done and partially undone, I am somewhat unsure what is the latest good version, but I think a rollback to the last version prior to today (11 Oct 2015) is probably needed. Can someone with suitable powers semi-protect the article please? Kerry (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, for a week. Let me know if it persists beyond that. Stephen —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are sought at Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8 on whether the existing Corina_Abraham#Opposition_to_Roe_8 is excessive in its quotations from and coverage of the contents of her letter to the Prime Minister, and appears to be non-neutral and advocating Abraham's stance. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who knew absolutely nothing about Roe 8 or Corina Abraham until your message prompted me to look for them, I don't think it is non-neutral/advocating in an article about Corina Abraham as she strongly opposed Roe 8. We have to have NPOV in Roe 8 in an article on the highway, but we don't have to have NPOV on Corina's views/actions on Roe 8 in her article (and ditto for Roe 8 supporters' articles). Is it too long? I don't think so. Since she appears to be in a current writ that directly links to Roe 8, I would not have understood her basis for the writ without knowing something about her role in objections to the project. This is a "ongoing current event" and I think can justify a greater level of information rather than less at this time. Once the Roe 8 issue is all done and dusted, then it can be trimmed down. Kerry (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If I have a criticism, it is that there is no article (or redirect) for Roe 8 and the Roe Highway article is confusing in relation to what Roe 8 actually is. The article Roe Highway has a history subsection called Stage 8 (which I initially assumed was Roe 8) and couldn't work out why it seemed to relate to events 10 years ago and not a current event. It is only when I looked in the Future section of Roe Highway that I eventually worked out that Roe 8 is actually part/all of the Perth Freight Link proposal (which is listed as a synonym for Roe 8, but it seems Roe 8 is only one part of it) and I can't tell whether Roe 8 does or doesn't involve/resurrect any part of the Stage 8 proposal and its land reservation. Kerry (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you please re-post this at Talk:Corina_Abraham#Proposal_to_trim_Opposition_to_Roe_8, so the discussion is all in one place. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This is all very well, but the article is up for AFD, it would be better to follow the process there first, as it might not reach the point of being kept as an article, and the contents may well be subsumed in another form, which means aspects of this discussion need to take the AFd and possible turns to other things in the event of a succesful AFD... so to speak JarrahTree 09:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody please clarify what Roe 8 actually is in the related articles? According to Perth Freight Link#Roe 8, "Section 1, also known as Roe 8, is a five-kilometre (3.1 mi) extension to Roe Highway, from Kwinana Freeway to Stock Road." However, Roe Highway#Perth Freight Link says "The Perth Freight Link (Roe 8) is a $1.6 billion project to improve the road freight link between Kewdale and Fremantle Harbour. The project includes a five kilometres (3.1 mi) extension to Roe Highway". Is Roe 8 just the 5km extension, or the whole Perth Freight Link. And where does the "8" come in? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Roe Highway article. "Roe 8" is just the 5km extension of Roe Highway (from it's current terminus at Kwinana Freeway through to Stock Road), not the whole project. 8 is because (if constructed) it would be the 8th stage of the highway - previous extensions were known as Stage 7, Stage 6, etc. - Evad37 [talk] 00:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that according to Main Roads [11][12] Roe 8 includes Karel Ave to Kwinana Fwy. But this is already built (as part of stage 7, from South St to Freeway), so presumably Roe 8 involves upgrading the section from Karel to Freeway, possibly as part of the process of changing the Freeway interchange. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I came across this news article just now, This 12-year-old was Australia's PM for two days (on Wikipedia). It took me a while to figure out it was about the List of Australian Prime Ministers by age article. The BBC news article is pretty sensationalist and also badly researched as, looking at the articles history, it wasn't two days the edit stood for and it was not the main Prime Minister of Australia article, as much as I can see. Has anybody noticed this happened? Calistemon (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's just newsbeat. But yeah, no idea why wikipedia vandalism is newsworthy. It's happened plenty of times before, nothing new. This one, somehow, actually made the national news category. Timeshift (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A few journalists on twitter decided it was news. I tried to shut them down ("do you interview graffiti artists too?") (and did the revert), but it just spurred them all on. Not sure who's stupider, the Orley or the journalists. Smartest thing the vandal did was to pick a list that obviously wasn't watched too closely, and it lasted a day or so. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the news article is actually an embarrassment to the BBC, not Wikipedia. I considered them to be a serious news outlet until now. Calistemon (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a short, giggly interview with the kid on The Project last night. Expected copycat edits. JennyOz (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, hardly newsworthy. I guess it would be of mild interest to me if the addition had been made in wikidata - how long would we take to get him off this list: sample PM query. --99of9 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

For those of you who use the Wikipedia-format citations from Trove, you may have been frustrated by your inability to use them in the Visual Editor. The great news is that they will now work in the Visual Editor. Copy the citation from Trove and then in the VE, use Cite > Manual > Basic and then paste in your wikitext citation and it should magically convert before your eyes. I am loving it. Enjoy! Kerry (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Great news! --99of9 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The spoken version of Sydney, which dates back to 2006, has finally been updated, but I'm not sure how I feel about it....

• Original -
• Updated -

--AussieLegend (✉) 12:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just realised this isn't the whole article, just the lead. I hope these files weren't uploaded just as an ad for <insert location here> Valley Limo Wine Tours. All of the files have similar tags:

• PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA RECORDED BY DIMITRI O LEDENYOV AND VIKTOR O LEDENYOV SPONSORED BY HUNTER VALLEY LIMO WINE TOURS LTD
• PERTH RECORDED BY DIMITRI O LEDENYOV AND VIKTOR O LEDENYOV SPONSORED BY SWAN VALLEY LIMO WINE TOURS LTD SUPPORTED BY SHARED VALUE INNITIATIVE NGO
• ADELAIDE RECORDED BY DIMITRI O LEDENYOV AND VIKTOR O LEDENYOV SPONSORED BY BAROSSA VALLEY LIMO WINE TOURS LTD SUPPORTED BY SHARED VALUE INNITIATIVE NGO
• BRISBANE RECORDED BY DIMITRI O LEDENYOV AND VIKTOR O LEDENYOV SPONSORED BY MT TAMBORINE VALLEY LIMO WINE TOURS LTD SUPPORTED BY SHARED VALUE INNITIATIVE NGO
• MELBOURNE RECORDED BY DIMITRI O LEDENYOV AND VIKTOR O LEDENYOV SPONSORED BY YARRA VALLEY LIMO WINE TOURS LTD SUPPORTED BY SHARED VALUE INNITIATIVE NGO
• ROYAL AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA RECORDED BY DIMITRI O LEDENYOV AND VIKTOR O LEDENYOV SPONSORED BY BAROSSA VALLEY LIMO WINE TOURS LTD

... and so on. Prior to renaming by Wieralee, these were the filenames for the articles. Despite being 15 minutes long, audio has only been recorded for the first couple of minutes. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I listened to the first 30 seconds of the Brisbane narration, and I suggest the heavy accent makes it unsuitable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the logic behind these recorded spoken versions? I suspect a current version of the article with a screen reader is going to be a bloody lot more useful than a ten year old version with a human reading it aloud. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. It's probably just a carry over from the good old days. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've encountered this user before User:Viktor O. Ledenyov and their talk page suggests others have had similar concerns about CoI/self-promotion. I'm not inclined to assume good faith. Kerry (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles that have {{use Australian English}} need to have any recorded versions in Australian English accents, which seems to rule out this new version as way too hard to listen to. I guess it's a separate question of whether they are required at all. If they are required, then I guess we could organise a programme of regular updates by people involved in this project/notice board for the high importance and featured articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me somewhat of the whole Bhutanese passport thing from last year. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ragnar Garrett; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The primary topic of "Balfour Declaration" is under discussion, see Talk:Balfour Declaration -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it is very clearly Balfour Declaration. The other meaning is not widely known in Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob^Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently the citation provided for newspaper articles gives The Advertiser, it should be The Advertiser (Adelaide). I have sent an email to Trove using the online contact page. Paul foord (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that it generates Chronicle instead of The Chronicle (South Australia) too. I have reported it through the Contact Us link and my comment was assigned number RSref80850 but they have delays in responding. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The reply re The Advertiser (note, it has been the current name since 2007[13]) Paul foord (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting us regarding Wikipedia citations for newspapers in Trove.

The citations for newspapers that appear in Trove are automatically generated from the titles that are included in the newspapers database. Unfortunately, the titles in Wikipedia do not follow a standardised format (and can change), so it is not currently possible for us to automate the generation of these titles to always match the titles as they appear in Wikipedia. We do have further work on these citations on our list of future enhancements to Trove, however we cannot currently provide any information on when these changes may be made.

I apologise that we cannot provide a simple solution to this issue. If you have any further questions about Trove, please don't hesitate to ask.

I received an identical reply except for "feel free to contact us." after the last comma. Yes, Wikipedia article titles can change, but if the NLA chooses a sufficiently unique name in its newspapers database, then Wikipedia will create and maintain a redirect from whatever they choose to wherever the article happens to be (The Chronicle (South Australia) was a new article on 20 February 2013 and has not moved since). They need to work out distinctive titles to separate The Advertiser (Adelaide) from The Advertiser (Bendigo) and to separate The Chronicle (South Australia), The Toowoomba Chronicle and the Fraser Coast Chronicle at some stage. If the NLA chooses different unique names than Wikipedia, that is "our problem". If the NLA deliberately chooses ambiguous or duplicate names, it's theirs. Do we have a "Wikipedian in residence" or other "insider access" to the NLA? --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

While looking for info on a famous one-legged trick cyclist, I came across Kilpatrick cyclist&searchLimits=l-decade=191 this that states that Kintchie Kilpatrick was the wealthiest woman in Australia, and the widow of Edwin E. Kilpatrick. I've never heard of either and I'm not finding anything on them. --Roisterer (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there's some joke we're missing. The other items in that section seem a bit lighthearted. Hack (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2016 will begin in Australia tonight, please join the fun details at Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Australia. Uploading will take place from Midnight tonight(Sydney time) until midnight 31 May 2016(Perth time). Photographs of protected areas are eligible, along with flora or fauna those areas. Thanks to Wikimedia Australia the author of the top ten images selected will each receive $100 voucher(sorry no Dick Smith vouchers available) with an over all winner also getting a canvas print of their successful image. All ten images will then be submitted to International judging for more opportunites at great prizes including a trip to Montreal Wikimania in 2017. Gnangarra 12:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Brenden Abbott has been in the news recently, including today, and I looked at his article to find out exactly why he was in gaol. However, the article doesn't explain this. It mentions an armed robbery is SA but not the crimes in WA and QLD. There has been a single edit in reference to his recent release and extradition to WA that needs cleanup,[14] but the rest of the article says he is still in a QLD gaol. This edit made Abbott's birthdate in the prose inconsistent with the infobox and so on. This article really needs updating but I don't know enough to do so myself. The talk page has posts in November 2013 and March 2014 mentioning problems but these were not acted upon. Perhaps somebody from WA, QLD or SA can have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipeida Library's Resource Request service has so far been unable to supply a scan of a page (or ideally entire article), with definitive citation information, from the conference proceedings: Metrication: the Australian experience.

Most copies are held in Australian libraries (see Worldcat). If you are in a position to help, kindly see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_28#Australian metrication for complete details of the request. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A relatively new editor has incorrectly moved Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales to Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales regions which is both unnecessarily specific and inconsistent with naming of related categories. All articles are back in Category:Shopping centres in New South Wales, but the new category needs to be moved back to the old location to preserve the edit history. Could any admin watching please fix this? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors may like to visit Salim Mehajer and Talk:Salim Mehajer. Some of the content is sailing close to the wind on BLP issues. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What content in particular do you feel is problematic? - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I have now added a formal RfC tag to this article to bring further review to content I consider to be trivial or breaching BLP. WWGB (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I encourage scrutiny, and I would love to read the feedback of others on AWNB :-) As an Aussie myself, I always get a kick out of seeing other Aussies edit and read articles on Wikipedia, especially ones I've contributed to! - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please rate this rewritten on the quality/importance scale? I'm trying to add and rewrite articles about notable bushfires. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Shiftchange (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of the Hongorai River ; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Two discussions likely of interest to the denizens of this notice board:

• Talk:Tumbarumba, New South Wales#Requested move 18 May 2016
• Talk:Federation Council, New South Wales#Requested move 18 May 2016

Discussion is probably better kept to the pages in question. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The first of the above was closed by moving the page back to Tumbarumba on procedural grounds. There is a new request to move it to Tumbarumba, New South Wales at

• Talk:Tumbarumba#Requested move 23 May 2016

--Scott Davis ^Talk 02:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help the drafter of Draft:Schultz Cairn to get it into acceptable shape. It appears to be a notable place, so we need an article about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg has been nominated for deletion. Given the subject, some comment from Australian editors is appropriate. The discussion may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion has arisen regarding the lead sentence in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse; whether or not to change the opening sentence from "...established in 2013 by the Australian government pursuant..." to "...established in 2013 by the Gillard Government pursuant..." The discussion can be found here. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching the images that have come in for WLE in Australia and there are many very good, well now its creating a good catalogue of images. The challenge now is using them images in articles maybe if you have cast an eye though the category update the current articles https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016_in_Australia Gnangarra 02:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: Does the Moreton Bay Marine Park qualify as a protected area? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: yep every protected area qualifies Gnangarra 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Which works out as very broad in practice - for instance, the entire Canberra Nature Park is in-scope, which puts most Canberrans within a short drive or walk of a protected area. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep there would be very few people who werent within easy reach of an eligible place. Every photo adds to our knowledge, who knows maybe it will encourage a few more people to contribute on a more regular basis. Gnangarra 05:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In the news: Wiki Loves Earth photo competition comes to Australia for first time. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

More discussion on NSW local government area names at Talk:Mid–Coast Council#Requested move 26 May 2016. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The NSW Government today abolished a range of local government areas and created 19 new ones. The changes have been proclaimed and are effective as of now.

The list can be found here. Proclamation can be found here

New Councils

• Armidale Regional Council
• Canterbury–Bankstown Council
• Central Coast Council (New South Wales)
• City of Parramatta Council
• Cumberland Council (New South Wales)
• Edward River Council
• Federation Council (New South Wales)
• Georges River Council
• Gundagai Council
• Hilltops Council
• Inner West Council
• Mid–Coast Council
• Murray River Council
• Murrumbidgee Council
• Northern Beaches Council
• Queanbeyan–Palerang Regional Council
• Snowy Monaro Regional Council
• Snowy Valleys Council
• Western Plains Regional Council

New articles for the new areas need to be established and the old council articles need to be updated to include their abolition. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Goodness me! I'll try and start some of those articles tonight. I have been working on setting up a comprehensive geographic ontology of Australia on Wikidata, including LGAs and electoral divisions, looks like there's now a lot more work to do on the NSW part of it! Perhaps if I can work quickly on the new NSW set up in Wikidata, it could be used to populate or generate articles? --Canley (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As a result of these mergers, we're going to need somebody to make some new LGA maps. In the meantime, the locator map in {{Infobox Australian place}} can be used to highlight the centre of the areas, if somebody can work out where the centre is. It will be interesting to see where the council HQ for Mid-Coast Council is going to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I can generate the maps if there is any boundary data released. If not I guess I could merge the original areas from the PSMA LGA boundaries? --Canley (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The proclamation refers to the "the boundaries shown for each area on the maps kept in the register of public surveys on the amalgamation day and having the identifier numbers specified beside the new areas in the Table" - if that helps? Example here -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that most of these names will be changed, but won't prevent a start on the articles.--Grahame (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

How do we find which councils were folded into these new "mega-councils"? I'm in particular interested in Auburn City Council, given I'm currently editing the Salim Mehajer article. - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Letsbefiends:: This is the official NSW Government page listing the information. Most of Auburn, along with most of Holroyd and part of Parramatta were merged into Cumberland Council. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 12:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Any chance some of the folks going through updating these articles could fix the locality lists and templates so they show the full list? Apparently New South Wales is one of the last places to still have a random few localities thrown into the LGA lists/templates instead of actually listing all of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

No - but you can if you wish. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Finding the content for each LGA is relatively easy. It's just a matter of searching the Geographical Names Register for both "locality" and "suburb" (two separate searches) in each LGA. At the moment, the register still shows all of the old LGAs, but at least it's a start. I did this some time ago for the Hunter Region.[15] --AussieLegend (✉) 23:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice that City of Dubbo has merged with Wellington Council to form Western Plains Regional Council. In NSW, city boundaries are determined by the LGA boundaries. Now that City of Dubbo no longer exists, is Dubbo still a city?[16] If so, where are the new boundaries? Even the authorities do not know (I checked). Stay tuned for more confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Following on from this, I contacted the Geographical Names Board for advice/direction, but was told to contact somebody at the Department of Finance. The email response I got from the department's media unit said "this is not an issue that falls under our purview". After I responded with an apology and a note that the GNB had given me the contact details, I received multiple responses, one saying this was definitely an issue for Dept. of Finance, another directing me to a map of the new LGA and a third reiterating that it wasn't an issue for the Dept. of Finance and saying I should contact "LG NSW". I contacted LGNSW and am awaiting a response. sigh. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I took on one new council, and made an arbitrary choice to do Snowy Monaro Regional Council. I merged the lists in the old shire articles to get about 35 towns/localities. On the advice above, I have searched for Localities in each of the three former shires and got a total of 109 places. None of the three had any Suburbs. I have compared the two lists, and find a few places in the shorter list that have articles but are not in the longer list of gazetted Localities. They are in the GNR as Rural Places, but there are a range of other things (roads, mountains, huts, yards etc) that are also Rural Places.

I have updated {{Snowy Monaro Regional Council}} to contain those 109 localities, and added a Group 2 with the remaining blue links from the old list, pending a better decision. I also noticed I have introduced one error, but it is past bedtime, so I have left Springfield, New South Wales in the list. It is a locality near Cooma, and a suburb of the central coast. Does anyone know how Australia Post disambiguates these places? --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Australia Post but, per WP:NCAUST, the locality title would be Springfield, New South Wales (Snowy Monaro Regional Council)

Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Scott - that looks fantastic. Out of curiosity, what localities are the various ski villages in? It seems peculiar that they wouldn't be gazetted because they're all pretty notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't worked that out yet - the NSW GNB website doesn't seem to have a map like the SA equivalent does, but it at least give RESTful URLs for the detail pages unlike SA, much better for references. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What are "rural places" in New South Wales? Do they have the same status as Localities, or are they contained by Localities? I found four articles for places in Federation Shire that are not Localities or Suburbs, and eventually I realised they are Rural Places, so I have added a rural places group to {{Towns in Federation Council}} which is now dominated by red links. Should the longer list of Rural Places be added similarly in the template for Snowy Monaro Regional Council? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd be inclined to only list the ones with articles, there - the map of Federation Council demonstrates that the rural places are included in the localities. There are too many that are patently notable to not list them but I'm not sure we need to list places that aren't current localities that nobody's ever heard of. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A rural place is defined as "a place, site or precinct in a rural landscape, generally of small extent".[17] They can be anything. Two examples from my neck of the woods are Dutchmans Bay, which is a neighbourhood consisting of a couple of streets in Nelson Bay, or Gan Gan, which was an undefined area around Gan Gan Hill, also in Nelson Bay. A rural place could also be something like a well-known park next to a river. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Including localities consisting of half-a-dozen farms like we have in {{Towns in Murrumbidgee Council}} obscures items of relevance interest more than it enlightens. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how big each place is. In general I chose the classes to include based on what places already had articles in the old infobox, or maybe the one before it. It is hard to tell whether somewhere that is now only a few farms was once a thriving mining town with a rich history. Ideally there would be a way to mention these in larger aggregated places. In SA, the entire state is partitioned into "Bounded Localities" (LOCB), so in general we are making articles for the LOCBs, but referring to (with redirects if appropriate) to contained LOCU unbounded localities. A few of these cause difficulties if they appear to be historic communities now split across two or three LOCBs when the village shrunk, but in general it seems to work. I've removed the "Rural Places" from the Murrumbigee template to reduce the red link pollution since it seems none of them had articles in that Council. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this a opportunity to create some consistency in the naming of the articles? At the moment, when you look at Category:Local government areas of New South Wales you see a mix of area names and council names, e.g. Moree Plains Shire and Murray River Council. Looking at the other states, I see NT, Qld, Victoria and WA have standardised on area names, whereas SA and Tasmania are inconsistent like NSW. Since the other name is usually a redirect, is this a good time to make them all consistent? Kerry (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is possible in these cases. We use consistent naming schemes where the states use consistent naming schemes, as in the states you noted, but there's not much we can do where their official names are all over the place. I think there's places you can use discretion - e.g. in South Australia, where they were historically consistent for District Councils, but so ridiculously inconsistent for municipal corporations that they often used multiple names at the same point in time, I've followed the most active historian in that area picking the naming convention most used in acts of parliament and then sticking with it across the board. But I don't think that applies to NSW and SA now where they are internally consistent but inconsistent among each other - there's no way to create consistency without making stuff up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I only looked at NSW not SA, but for NSW, look at the legislation where Murray River Council comes into being. The definitions clearly distinguish between the area/council and in particular "new area means an area constituted by this Proclamation" and "new council means the council of a new area constituted by section 219 of the Act". To me, this is clearly says that it is the area that is proclaimed not its council. And in section 4 Amalgamated Areas, there is a table in which column 2 is the "name of new areas". In that list, I see "Murray River" as the proclaimed name of an LGA. On that basis, I thinkn the Wikipedia article should be called "Murray River" and not "Murray River Council". Of course, for normal Wikipedia disambiguation purposes, we would need to call it something like "Murray River (local government area)" to distinguish it from the probably-better-known river, but my point is that the word "Council" should not be present as part of the official LGA name. However, the Murray River Council article does not cite the legislation but instead says:

"The Murray River Council is a local government area in the Riverina region of New South Wales, Australia. This area was formed in 2016 from the merger of Murray Shire with Wakool Shire.[1]"

which defines the council as a local government area (and not as the organisation which governs the area) and where [1] points to a government website about the amalgamations where "council" is used in a similarly casual manner, whereas the legislation is quite precise on the difference and does define areas with names. So for the amalgamations proclaimed above it seems to me that we do have area names and those area names don't include the word "council". I do note the presence of "Armidale Regional" in the list of new areas. I must admit that, being an adjective, Regional does suggest that the compiler of the list expected these names to be followed by a noun (perhaps Council? perhaps Local Government Area?), but the legislation simply says these are the "names" and if proclamation is what we are using, then that is what they are called. Can anyone more expert in NSW LGAs than me shed further light on this issue of the naming of LGAs (as distinct from their councils)? @Mattinbgn: Kerry (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be intensely confusing and would make people look at us a bit funny because I think we'd be the only ones going to that lengths to avoid referring to the LGA itself as "Council". (This is where the Wikipedia-unique interpretation of LGA territory as having significance besides being governed by the LGA gets really absurd.) It has wording like "Regional" because no one else is trying to take this particular spin. The table itself is pretty obviously just abbreviating the names to remove the word that's common to all of them. Every other reference to that and other LGAs in that proclamation is what every other official source is calling them, and it takes a pretty determined effort to take it out of context to suggest otherwise.

I also think this approach hasn't panned out well in Queensland - in taking a original research-ish interpretation of Queensland's statutes, we've now wound up with a situation where any search for "X Region" taking out Wikipedia turns up very few relevant hits, and indeed turns up many not relevant ones. Trying to take "council" out of the names in cases where it is the actual council's name amounts to us making shit up, and it shows and it makes our articles less helpful where we've done it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no elegant solution unfortunately. This is as a result of the NSW Local Government Act 1993 and its subsequent effect on the way NSWians refer to their LGA. The intent of Section 221 of the Act was to drop the terms "Shire" and "Municipality" from the names of LGAs. However, many of these LGAs were attached to their names and in response the NSW government passed an amendment allowing the LGAs to resolve to keep the term "Shire" and "Municipality" in their official name if they wished - but I understand this was a limited time option .

Most of the Shires took this opportunity up - see State Records on Moree Plains Shire here - "The Local Government Act 1993 (Act No.30, 1993) no longer referred to shires and municipalities, only to 'areas'. (11) A subsequent amendment made it possible for areas to retain their old name, despite this no longer denoting a legal status. (12) Moree Plains continued to use 'Shire' in the names of the local government area and council. " Some former Shires didn't - i.e. Walcha Council, Cabonne Council - despite the (incorrect) names of their articles on Wikipedia. Muddying things further, in 2004 the NSW government created Greater Hume Shire as a "Shire" but Palerang Council as a "Council". All in all - naming of LGAs in NSW is a mess.

With the changes, over time NSWians (at least in my experience) started referring to the "Council" as opposed to the "Shire" - i.e "I live in Corowa Council" is common. Coming from Victoria, via a short time in Queensland local government, this sounded strange to me but I have got used to it now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattingbgn. I figured you would know and from the sound of it, there may be little we can do with NSW if "living in a council" is normalised. It's not something I hear said in Qld, where we seem able to distinguish a piece of land (the LGA) from its governance (the council). From a Wikipedia perspective, we have partly created our own problem by traditionally combining the area and its council in a single article, something we do not do at the state/federal level where Australia and New South Wales exist as articles independent on their respective Government-of articles. In theory, we could tease the articles apart at the local govt level but they are unlikely to be large enough to justify it in practice. Oh well, I guess I give up on my hope of getting consistency in the LGA naming. Kerry (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

South Australian usage conflates three different meanings to "the Council", depending on context. These are 1) the elected members (equivalent to parliament), 2) the entire organisation (effectively the local public service), 3) the area over which the previous two have responsibility. I grew up in the country and my local District Council meant all three. I now live in the "City of xxx" (without "council"), but would still say "City Council" to mean both the elected members and the entire administration, and would use "council" as the noun for the area governed by a non-metropolitan council. The grammar in the lead sentence of Barossa Council (for example) is correct: Barossa Council is a local government area in the Barossa Valley in South Australia. "Shire" is not a word used in SA. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

While we are discussing aspects of article naming again, I notice that wine regions typically have an official name that is a town, valley, river or similar, but the wine region has legislated boundaries that don't always correspond to tourist regions or district councils with similar names. The Australian wine region articles seem to currently be named with a mixture of "WWW wine region", "WWW (wine)" and "WWW", as well as some not having their own articles and just having a town or region article linked to or included in a category, without much coverage of wine in that article. The questions I am pondering are:

1. Do "we" want to standardise the naming for Australia's wine regions and zones?
2. If so, to which naming style?
3. Should disambiguation and WP:PRECISE naming be the default, or WP:CONCISE (i.e. "WWW") be the default where possible?

--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the the article Tumbarumba and it struck me that we(contributors) often refer to a placename as being ...from the Aboriginal words for... or .. derived from the Aboriginal word... or something similar. We know there were over 300 Indigenous languages and countries before, should we not be using the name of these if we have that information rather than Aboriginal linked to Indigenous Australians which does nothing to further inform the reader and implies that there was one common language spoken. Where there is insufficient information should we not say ...from an unidentified Indigenous Australian language.... In that particular article the source[18] actually refers to the Wiradjuri language. Gnangarra 08:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If the provenance is not clear, changing "the" to "an" should do the trick. Hack (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the South Australian places have the official gazetteer derivation as "abna for..." (trees, mud, ...), with no clear indication that the word came from anywhere near the place it was applied to (and several examples where it did not). It's also tempting to wonder how many places have "Aboriginal names" that would literally translate to "I do not understand what you are saying" or "get off of our Country". --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Some Aboriginal groups have compiled lists or dictionaries of their languages. These could be used to verify the names. Hack (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In many cases though the sources just say "Aboriginal". It's frustratingly imprecise, but we shouldn't be making guesses given the enthusiasm some early settlers had for using Indigenous words for places that were from languages hundreds of kilometres away. When the sources allow us to use more precision on the exact language used, then we should match that precision. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

We can only go on what the sources say. If you don't believe the source, you can specifically attribute the claim to the source. Hack (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

where the source is clear on the origin then say the orgin, if its unclear then as Hack says an instead of the subtle but significant. Where as Scott says it may come from outside the place its still a Noongar word even if its used to name a place in Wiradjuri country just like Nullabor is from latin or Perth from Scotland. We wouldnt say from the European language so why do we say from the Aboriginal language. Gnangarra 03:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Doing a search for "from the Aboriginal word" on this site, there are about 150 results. Hack (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably should be "an Aboriginal word" rather than "the Aboriginal word"; that doesn't . But we shouldn't be guessing if a word is Noongar or Wiradjuri or something else unless we have a source to verify that. To address User:Hack's point, this is by no means limited to Australian languages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC).

On reflection, "the Aboriginal word" can be a correct usage if the relevant word immediately follows. For example, from the Pilbara article: "The Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre Wangka Maya says that the name for the Pilbara region derives from the Aboriginal word bilybara, meaning 'dry' in the Nyamal and Banyjima languages." Hack (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

in that the usage Aboriginal is redundant as there would be no loss of meaning in ...derives from the word bilybara, meaning 'dry' in the Nyamal and Banyjima languages... Gnangarra 12:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Porton Plantation; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that the AfD is finished, I'd like some comments on my proposal to trim the "Opposition to Roe 8" section. Details at Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8. Could we continue the discussion there please, not here, to avoid (further) fragmenting it. Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

After all the discussion that went into not deleting the article surely some editors (other than myself and Gnangarra) must have an opinion on its contents... Could editors who'll be attending WP:Meetup/Perth/27 at least of have a look at Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8; perhaps we can discuss it in person. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I've raised an RfC: Talk:Corina Abraham#RfC: Opposition to Roe 8. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In the last couple of months Tasmania has been evolved into a large collection of suburbs, I am sure in WP:AGF.

However, when I raised the issue as being potentially contentious, a deathly silence (some edit issues in the last 10 years on the Tasmanian project have had up to 12 to 18 month turn around time) has occurred, and the progenitor of the project has returned to creating further.

The bulk of the categories of 'suburbs of LGA' has been captured by the following: -

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]

What would be very good would be those from the mainland who of long enough duration at this notice board who can remember the issues as they appear and in the now moribund Australian places debates and discussions from way back, that this raises - where localities are ascribed things which are in not what they are claimed to be. JarrahTree 02:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue emanates from usage of the usage of [22] as a guideline, which leads to the question, surely where statse suburbs exist - should they be in a totally separate category system, as they do not related to localities exactly or as is commonly known. As it stands, there is nothing in the categories to identify they are abs constructs. JarrahTree 03:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The ABS's "state suburbs" are completely useless for any other purpose because they're not based on anything: they essentially amount to the ABS making shit up to come up with statistical districts that meet their particular guidelines, and they randomly mash together bits of all sorts of places in ways that otherwise make no sense in order to do so. We have seen some examples of ridiculous mashups of gazetted geography when we've discussed their use in the past. They shouldn't even be used in articles without some footnote explaining the real-world relationship between "state suburb of Blah" and whatever geographical place is actually being referred to (see, for example, the population figure at Cygnet River, South Australia).

The mess about "suburbs" for places that are not suburbs can be easily enough fixed by moving the category to "Localities of Blah Council" and should be reasonably uncontentious I would think. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a mess, we need a few more people to participate at the above linked CFD discussions so that a definitive conclusion can be reached. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It really is. I've just commented - I think you missed a couple Graeme? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

For anyone trying to follow, despite efforts to bring it here - there is also a continuing conversation at the first CFD at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_12#Category:Suburbs_of_West_Coast.2C_Tasmania - JarrahTree 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The specific CFD/R is neither closed or resolved, and the editor who has created the set of suburb categories continues creating more categories unabated. I am sure the editor or others will resolve the issues for the specific Tasmanian context, however the usage of such an artificial construct in the full Australian context needs to be resolved. I am not sure whether other state projects are amenable to, or in line with such a category creation. Other states editors comments would be appreciated please. JarrahTree 03:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like this is a that-specific-editor problem and so isn't likely to arise in other states, especially since most other places already have their geographical articles organised already. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bindi Irwin article attracts a lot of vandalism on a regular basis but yesterday an IP went to a lot of trouble to fake her death (there is no real-world evidence that she has died) and keeps restoring their version. Other IPs are trying to fix it piecemeal and it became a bit of a mess so I rolled it back to what appears to be a clean version. Is it possible to get it protected at least against both the ill-meaning and the well-meaning IPs? Thanks Kerry (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was someone outside of Australia based on the timestamps. I've s-protected it for 48 hours, which will hopefully be long enough for them to lose interest. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In other news, it was discovered today that Australia's largest shipwreck, MV Sygna has almost disappeared from view. The storms currently hitting NSW caused the remaining superstructure to collapse into the ocean at the weekend. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Article in the Oz today, FWIW - Federal election 2016: Labor denies ‘softening’ image -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What a ridiculous "article"! All hearsay and supposition, the only person quoted being an unnamed "Liberal source". User:Frickeg moves an article to the Aly's most commonly used name, and is implied to be a Labor stooge whitewashing the article to downplay her ethnicity? Can't say I'm surprised from the Oz to be honest, but this doesn't even have the slightest smidgen of journalistic rigour or even basis in fact. --Canley (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

One would hope that at the least @Frickeg: was asked to respond to being called a Labor stooge before publication. Hmmm -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of it. Thanks for pinging me, guys. It would've been awfully nice to be contacted before being named in a national newspaper, yes, but this is the Australian - "newspaper" may be a little kind. Frickeg (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Can someone gives the Cliffs Notes for those of us for who it will be a cold day in hell before we subscribe to The Australian? I'm baffled by what Frickeg has to do with Anne Aly since all he did was move the article and he's not even from WA. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Google search the title and it lets you in. Frickeg (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't work for me anymore - it doesn't even give me a preview paragraph. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Odd. Not even in private browsing? Anyway, the article says Aly's Twitter account was cleaned and her Wikipedia page renamed "in an attempt, opponents say, to downplay her ethnicity and outspoken views". The main Wikipedia stuff is: "In recent days, her Wikipedia page has been renamed. Users looking up the page “Anne Azza Aly” are redirected to a page headed “Anne Aly”. The ALP denied that it had made the change as part of an attempt to soften the Egypt­ian-born candidate’s image in the eyes of voters. “We were not aware of a name change of the page,” the spokesman said. An edit history shows that a Wikipedia user called “Frickeg” renamed the page on May 29." An unnamed Liberal source then says that it looks like Labor is trying to "homogenise" Aly. My favourite part is how they asked the Labor campaign about the Wikipedia page move, but didn't ask me, the person who actually did the move. Frickeg (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not unusual. If they'd asked you they'd have no story. I had a problem with a disruptive editor on one article and he was subsequently indef-blocked. He then went to the local paper and whinged that he wasn't allowed to put his POV into articles. They wrote a nice opinion piece that wouldn't have been possible if they had bothered to ask me for clarification. The editor in question didn't even reply to my email. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we create a page for the superstorm that has affected the east coast of Australia? Matt294069 is coming 04:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there is already a page that covers it, being Australian east coast low. Id suggest that you could add to this page? The note above about the MV Sigma could be included there too perhaps? Jamesbushell.au (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No I think it should have its own page as it affected more than one state and we have four deaths (could be six) and it should be called May 2016 Eastern Australia floods or something like that. Matt294069 is coming 02:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is already precedent with June 2007 Hunter Region and Central Coast storms linked from the list of specific examples in Australian east coast low. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok all goodJamesbushell.au (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/28 the whole of the WMAU committee will also be there please come and say hi. Gnangarra 05:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is an open RfC at Talk:Hunter Valley wine#Merge or split that is relevant to this project. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi fam! I really dislike this page (List of convicts on the First Fleet) and it is really very long and messy. I left a message on the talk page a while ago but no responses.

Here are my main points:

1) Should the "other information" section be shortened for convicts to only a brief summary? For example, Ann Inett has over 500 words, Charles Peat has nearly 800, and Thomas Limpus has over 800 words in the "other information" section. (Others have none). I think 100 word cap? I think it should be brief and the page is very long. Should some of these people with very long "other information" sections be converted into articles?

2) Also, last and first names are split into separate columns. This makes it really awkward when linking convicts to their pages.

3) The last column is "Age as of May 1787", using the date when the fleet left the UK, which I find a bit strange, especially when some convicts had known date of births.

So currently the first article looks like this:

Surname	First name	From	Date of conviction	Sentence	Other information	Transport ship	Age as of May 1787
ABEL	Mary	Worcester, Worcestershire	5 Mar 1785	7	Mary was convicted at Worcester for stealing 3 Ells of hempen cloth, tablecloths, clothing & other items, value 31s, on 5 March 1785. Mary was from Hanbury, Worcestershire, and was listed as a servant by occupation. On 25 November 1786, Mary was transferred from Worcester gaol to Southwark gaol in London. Mary was pregnant when embarked on the Lady Penrhyn and gave birth to a child, William on 13 April 1787. Mary married Thomas TILLEY on 4 May 1787 at Sydney Cove. Mary's son William died on 19 May 1788. Shortly afterwards, on 21 July 1788, Mary also died at Sydney Cove, NSW.	Lady Penrhyn	c30

But I think it should look more like this:

Name	From	Date of conviction	Sentence	Other information	Transport ship	Date of birth
ABEL, Mary	Worcester, Worcestershire	5 Mar 1785	7 years	Mary was convicted at Worcester for stealing 3 Ells of hempen cloth, tablecloths, clothing & other items, value 31s, on 5 March 1785. Mary was from Hanbury, Worcestershire and was a servant. On 25 November 1786, Mary was transferred from Worcester gaol to Southwark gaol in London. Mary was pregnant when she embarked on the Lady Penrhyn and gave birth to a child, William on 13 April 1787. Mary married Thomas Tilley on 4 May 1787 at Sydney Cove. Her son died on 19 May 1788. On 21 July 1788, Mary also died at Sydney Cove.	Lady Penrhyn	c. 1757

Let me know what you think. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems better, although I would place the dob column before date of conviction so the identity and the conviction-related columns are grouped together. I wouldn't set a strict word cap but I would try to trim them down as much as possible. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the changes proposed by EllsworthSchmittendorf and Shiftchange, and offer further suggestions:

• The name should be "<First Name> <Last Name>" (not "<LAST NAME>, <first name>") per WP:NCP#Standard format and variations. If may be necessary to specify a sort key.
• Similarly, names in "Other information" should not be capitalised.
• "Other information" should use surname only (where unambiguous), for consistency with WP:SURNAME. Eg "Abel was convicted at Worcester for stealing ..."

Mitch Ames (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Forests of Australia, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

An IP and then a new user (probably the same) is repeatedly vandalised this article in various ways. Is there some way to protect the page against this user? Thanks Kerry (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not an obvious target for vandalism, but protected for a week. Stephen 08:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kerry (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've created Category:Recipients of Engineers Australia engineering heritage markers. I'm sure there are plenty more articles that could go into it... Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a searchable database of these heritage markers here but it comes with a warning that there may be errors in the table returned (although it seems OK for getting a quick list of candidates). The definitive list is here. Kerry (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This image is nominated for FFD. Join in discussion there to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This company is a major software player in Australia and company reps had been editing their article directly. Happily they are now making suggestions on the Talk page instead. Would anybody here be interested in working with them to review and implement their proposed content? Not really my area. Am also posting at WT:WikiProject Companies but thought I would try here too. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red July 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hi Folks

Just to let you know WMAU has just spent a week training and talking to people in Darwin at the request of the Northern Territory Library. Expect to see a lot of new content about the NT start to appear, if you have an article you need sourcing please use the ask a librarian service of the NT library[23] they are expecting your request. There are few DYK already nominated Alfred Lionel Rose and Hannah Wood, Stokes Hill Wharf is almost ready for a DYK as well. Please be welcoming to new editors while we spent a lot of time working with about 10 people there will be many more who wont have had that experience also turning up... As always Wikimedia Australia is here to help you as well please get involved. Gnangarra 09:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting comments about the lead section of Singapore and I have cited Australia as a good example due to it being a featured article. I would appreciate if editors can comment here. Talk:Singapore#RfC_about_lead_section --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Australian science and engineering prizes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Australian science and engineering awards. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The affiliation switch for WIN Television and Southern Cross Ten is coming. So, shouldn't there be a dedicated article about the event? English WP has articles about similar TV affiliation switches in Anglo America (2001 Vancouver TV realignment, 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment, 2007 Canada broadcast TV realignment). We could name the upcoming Australian event like 2016 Australian regional television realignment. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It's a very interesting event. The level of bitterness between media companies being reported and the significance of the change warrants a dedicated article. There would have to be over a hundred news articles documenting this event - plenty of sources. Smacca 11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Created a draft at Draft:2016 Australian regional television realignment CC @SmaccaWA: @Nick Mitchell 98: @AussieLegend: @Billy Liakopoulos: @ViperSnake151: JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think this needs an article; the Vancouver situation was unique because it involved practically every single broadcaster in the city. This is more of a basic affiliation swap, which has happened in the U.S. occasionally but not often (i.e. WRAL and WNCN most recently). ViperSnake151  Talk  15:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This change has left over 500,000 people in Western Australia without a 3rd commercial broadcaster, in addition to the loss of channels and high definition services across multiple regions. It affected regional audiences in every state except NT. It's the first time the Nine brand has had a national platform, readying it for a merger. Definitely warrants something more in depth. Smacca -- Smacca | Talk 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, actually on second thought, given the collateral damage that has occured, I'm guessing this could be appropriate for an article. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article on bodgies and widgies there are several errors. I lived in Kings Cross from late 1948 to 1952. The term "bodgies and widgies was not in common use until 1950 after a Sydney Sun reporter fabricated a "story" about teenagers in The Cross. Widgies were unheard of prior to that article. Check Pix Vol 23 December 3rd 1949, (That's me on the cover.) In Pix's seven page article there is no mention of either bodgies or widgies. The group I was part of were keen followers of "progressive" jazz, bop and jive. We were not an organised group - simply individuals with common interests. There were never 200 of us at any given time - more like 30 or 40. I have written a novel, "Sharp" about that period which I lodged with the City of Sydney Historian. I might also refer to an article by Clem Gorman on the same subject in which I am misquoted on 8 occasions. If you want to know the facts talk to those of us who were there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.32.102 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked in the historic digitised newspapers. The earliest newspaper mention of bodgies that I could find was in this January 1949 article. The earliest mention of widgies (with that meaning) is this October 1950 article which mentions both bodgies and widgies. So you are certainly correct that these terms were not in common use until 1950. Kerry (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello all

There is a move discussion at Talk:Greater_Sydney_Rams, proposing to move it to the Western Sydney Rams, that hasn't had any input yet. If anyone has an opinion on that, please contribute. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I heard it noted that we now have two Dancing With The Stars senators, so I tried writing this query of wikidata asking for Australian-born politicians who have been a cast member of something. Unfortunately, apart from Pauline, who I added to the Dancing with the Stars cast list, and Lenore, all the others look wrong. It looks like most were caused by a fairly innocuous process:

• actor is redlinked as a cast member of a film on some wikipedia somewhere
• politician with the same name is written about turning the redlink blue (but wrong)
• wikidata bot scrapes the cast list off the film page, and adds the politician's wikidata page as a cast member of the film's wikidata page

Any ideas for good ways of stopping this, rooting out similar issues, or?? --99of9 (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't answer your question about wikidata, but another way to look would be to use PetScan to search for intersecting categories. Looking for articles where the subject appeared in the categories "Australian actors" and "Australian politicians" came up with the below. Not sure there would be an effective way of searching for people who have appeared on factual, reality or variety shows, or were not actors.

• Liddy Clark
• Elisabeth Kirkby
• Rosalie Kunoth-Monks
• John Lazar
• Terry Norris (actor)
• Bob La Castra
• Alan Cinis
• Peter Block (politician)
• Jeremy Ball

Hack (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to get their occupations updated in wikidata so these show up. --99of9 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at your wikidata query—yes, most of the results are where the cast membership has been incorrectly applied to the Australian politician rather than the actor of the same name such as John Alexander, and of course John Howard (Australian actor). Yes, the process you outlined above is very likely what has happened. --Canley (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed these all now. I guess we all just need to be careful when creating new articles that pre-existing red links aren't to a different entity. --99of9 (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Following the federal election, various editors (including myself) have been updating seats/members/etc. after the election results. Now, User:AussieLegend is attempting to prevent this happening on pages connected to Division of Paterson, saying we cannot make these changes until the seat has been declared. Leaving aside that this has literally never been done in the history of our covering state and federal elections, the term of an MP begins on the day of the election (see, for example, here or literally any other MP profile). Updates are only being made where a reliable source (generally the ABC) has called the result. Can we have confirmation that this is the way we do things please? Frickeg (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A term can only start when the seat has been declared. Six days after the election, the AEC is still saying that no seats have been declared.[24] Once a seat is declared, the term start is backdated to the date of the election, because that is when the candidate is deemed to have been elected. They don't delay the start date just because it took time to count the votes, but you can't declare a candidate has been elected until the votes have been counted and one candidate has more than 50% of the primary vote or the seat has been declared. Candidates do not become MPs until they are sworn in so, at this point, candidates who are not sitting MPs are still just candidates. We go through this every election at Australia when misguided people thing that the PM can be updated as soon as the election has been held. It has always been held that the PM is not the PM until he is sworn in and the same goes for candidates. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because the PM is actually not the PM until he's sworn in. The MPs are MPs already. As for 50% of the primary vote - if that's OK, why is 50% of the 2PP (or in Swanson's case 60%) not OK? Frickeg (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you not reading? You don't become an MP until you are elected. Having more votes than the other person does not automatically make you an MP. Only one person can get more than 50% of the primary vote. If that happens, the person is automatically elected. However, if no candidate reaches 50%+1 vote, then preferences are distributed, which is what is happening now in most seats. That requires exhausting votes until there is a mathematical certainty that one candidate has enough preference votes, in addition to their primary votes, that no other candidate can achieve more votes. As it stands now, in most seats no candidate has achieved that. Most of the 2PP votes you're seeing now are still only projected figures, as they are on election night. Two-party preferred votes are usually based on exit polls and distribution on "How to Vote" cards, not on an actual count of the votes, so may not be accurate, especially since there is no requirement to follow a how to vote card. Because of this, it's necessary to wait until a seat is declared, because preference distribution and postal votes still have to be counted and can have a significant effect on close elections like this one. Note that postal votes aren't even due until two weeks after the election. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ummm NO. The Two-party-preferred votes are derived from the Two-Candidate-Preferred (TCP) count by adding them up. The TCP counts are done in each polling booth immediately after the first preference count, not from exit polls or how-to-vote cards. They are only indicative, because every booth in a division does them between the same two candidates (chosen in advance by the AEC, and provided in a sealed envelope to each polling booth, not to be opened before 6pm). The Division of Grey is taking so long because the AEC's choice turned out not to match the electorate for who would be the top two candidates on first preferences. These are still only indicative if there turned out to be a close battle for second place, as the final result requires all votes to be checked, including those postal votes from overseas that haven't arrived yet.

WP:PRIMARY says that in fact Wikipedia should be based primarily on secondary sources, not primary sources. That means that our articles should be based mostly on the newspaper reports that so-and-so has won, supported by the primary source of the AEC for the exact count (which cannot be provided yet). I have created a number of the stub articles about new MPs, you might notice a few of the close ones were created in the Draft: namespace as I was not sure if they will ever be needed, and Julia Banks is still there, but when someone goes to create that article once it is clearer, they get an alert that a draft article exists.

There are a whole bunch of "current member" templates and still some Division articles that are wrong because they name people who did not contest the election. I suspect that in fact those people's terms ended at 9am on 9 May, and the electorates were not represented between then and 2 July (6pm, I'd guess). Ministers are a different kettle of fish, and retain their commissions until they are explicitly taken away (or automatically if three months elapses, I think I read somewhere but haven't tried to find again yet). So ultimately, it is impossible for Wikipedia as a whole to be "right" at this moment, we can either be definitely out-of-date or possibly in advance of due process, and hopefully proved to have been right in a couple of weeks. A possible test would be if a "successful" candidate (announced by multiple news sources, but not yet declared by the AEC) drops dead tonight, will there be a by-election, and if so, is it because the 2 July election failed, or because the current member died in office? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this issue is not as clear cut as may at first appear, because of section 42 of the Constitution, which says "Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution." Consistently with that section, a person elected to parliament is not entitled to any remuneration as a senator or member until he or she has taken the oath or affirmation, at which point an entitlement to remuneration arises and (by legislation) is backdated to the date of the election. But does this mean that the person is a senator or member from the date of the election? Or is one of the effects of section 42 that a person who has been elected does not become a senator or member until he or she has taken the oath or affirmation? That's the point that isn't clear. The solution to the issues raised by these questions may even be that the person becomes a senator or member on declaration of the poll, and is a senator or member only from that date.

If anyone elected to parliament had ever refused to take an oath or affirmation, then there would have been an issue as to whether that person had ever become a senator or member, but nobody has yet refused to take an oath or affirmation. Similarly, if anyone had ever been charged with bribing, or attempting to bribe, a person who had been elected to parliament, but had not yet taken the oath or affirmation, then there would have been an issue as to whether the subject of the bribe or attempted bribe was yet a senator or member at the relevant time, but, again, nobody (as far as I am aware) has ever been charged with doing either of those things.

There is an interesting discussion on one of Antony Green's blog pages of the issue of when someone becomes a senator or member, but that discussion is inconclusive. One of the points made by one of the posts in that blog is that it is not easy to see how anyone could be a member of the house of reps when the house has been dissolved and has not yet reconvened (and the same point can be made about senators after a double dissolution). But on the other hand, section 42 refers not to "senator-elect" or "senator-designate", nor to "member-elect", but to "senator" and "member", and that terminology suggests that persons elected or appointed are already a senator or a member before taking the oath. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says that in fact Wikipedia should be based primarily on secondary sources, not primary sources. - What it actually says is to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources, not "not primary sources" at all. It continues; Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. If the primary source says the seat is not declared and the secondary source says that it is, that is a "novel interpretation" of the primary source, especially when the primary source is authoritative as you can get. This is really a case where WP:DEADLINE applies. There is no need to get these articles changed NOW. Better to wait until we have a definite result and then change them. It's not going to hurt anyone and it will stop confusion, especially given the issues raised by Bahnfrend. In the meantime, people wanting something to do could update the 2,000 articles that we have that still haven't been updated with 2011 census results. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit to respond to here: first of all, yes, they do unquestionably become members from the date of election, not from the declaration and DEFINITELY NOT from being sworn in. No one has ever refused to take the oath, but someone has died before having a chance to: John Clasby, who is definitely considered an MP. As Scott Davis has pointed out, AussieLegend is utterly wrong on 2PP counts - they are actual counts, and in most districts (definitely in Paterson) there is a mathematical impossibility of another candidate winning. We would be doing our readers a disservice not to update this promptly - people are coming to pages like Division of Paterson to see who the new MP is, and Meryl Swanson is not "expected" to win her seat - saying that is blatantly misleading our readers, since she is certain to win it. There is no doubt, and we have multiple sources saying that.

By AussieLegend's logic, our seat tally at Australian federal election, 2016 would be 0-0-0. Even if that were correct technically (I do not concede that it is), it is not remotely helpful to our readers. Frickeg (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

they do unquestionably become members from the date of election - Only if they are actually elected and, as of now, nobody has been formally elected.

As Scott Davis has pointed out - If you're going to quote someone, don't selectively quote. He also said They are only indicative. They don't have any real authority. At the polling booths where I've scrutineered, the primary votes are reported before the TCP count is carried out, so what you initially see on TV is as I've indicated. The counts that you see on the AEC website now are still not final counts.

people are coming to pages like Division of Paterson to see who the new MP is - So we should ignore WP:V? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

No. They are actual figures. They are not estimates or anything like Antony Green puts out on election night, they are the real, honest-to-God, actual figures. I don't know what I'm saying that's making you misunderstand, or where you're misunderstanding: this is not election night, and the 2PP counts are 100% real, non-inferred, actual. In Paterson, I even tested, and even if 100% of minor preferences went to the third-placed candidate, they couldn't overtake. Of course, that's not the case in many seats, but even so. You are advocating an approach that is functionally useless to our readers over the most arcane of debatable technicalities. As for WP:V, do you not see the ABC, which we have been using on the election page all week (but according to you should clearly have been saying that people "are expected to have won" seats, even though they're not). We are not making these calls ourselves. Frickeg (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec):since she is certain to win it. - In Paterson there are 112,575 electors with 96,295 votes counted. That means there are still 16,280 outstanding votes. With preferences the outcome is still not certain, which is why the seat has not been declared. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Using Paterson as an example: there are 96,295 votes currently included in the tally. Included within that number are 3,990 postal votes (including those rejected at the outset). 7,799 postal envelopes were issued, so the remaining postal votes cannot be more than 3,809. There are also 689 absent votes, 2,182 provisional votes (many of which will be rejected), and 508 declaration pre-poll votes. The absolute maximum number of votes still to be added to the count is therefore 7,188. Swanson's margin is currently 20,192. Even if every single outstanding vote went to the third-place candidate, and then 100% of preferences flowed to him, he still would not overtake the second-place candidate. So yes, Swanson is certain of victory; but we have plenty of sources saying that anyway. Please don't talk to me as though I don't know what I'm talking about. Frickeg (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have sources for these figures? According to this, Swanson's lead is over 6,000 votes shy of your claim. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's right there on the very page you linked, obviously. Where else would I be getting them from? You are looking at the 2PP, aren't you? Frickeg (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see the quoted numbers on the page you linked to, at about 01:00 EST Saturday. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional response to a comment on AusieLegend's talk page If the AEC cannnot determine results at this time, then neither can we.: For the purpose of the AEC, the "result" is that "Candidate X won with 51,234 votes, defeating candidate Y with 35,678 votes", so they can't declare a result until they have the last digits of those numbers. For the purpose of the MP articles, we only need to know they won, not that they won by exactly 15,556 votes.

Following up the above commentary on my earlier comments — The TCP (and TPP) counts on the website at the moment are for most electorates the counts done in the polling booth after the close of voting last Saturday. As those of us who have been in a polling booth, either as a scrutineer for a candidate or as a polling official would know, the Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the booth makes three phone calls to the Divisional Returning officer. Choosing for example the polling place of Nelson Bay in the Division of Paterson, I see at [25] the following:

Nelson Bay 	Baptist Church Hall, 19 Government Rd, NELSON BAY NSW 2315 	Sat, 02 Jul 2016 6:56:03 PM AEST 	Sat, 02 Jul 2016 7:26:49 PM AEST

The OIC at Nelson Bay phoned through the HoR first preferences at 6:56pm. While some of the staff started unfolding and sorting senate papers , one or two sorted and counted the first preferences for the minor candidates by which of the two major candidates was "most preferred", and phoned through the TCP numbers at 7:26pm. Some booths have the first preferences update only a few seconds before the TCP numbers, that is often because they found an error during this distribution (the booth I ran found two ballots that had been incorrectly attributed to the NXT candidate but should have been counted as ALP, so I corrected the first preference count in the second phone call). The third phone call contained the total count for each group and ungrouped candidate on the senate paper, and [26] shows that Nelson Bay booth made that call at 10:13pm. They then finished packing up, bundling and packaging the ballot papers and everything else for transport, and delivered all the ballot papers in sealed transport boxes to their Division's local collection point. Before the final results are reported to the Governor-general, all of these ballot papers will have been counted and checked at least once more, so it is possible that those web pages will get newer timestamps if the check reveals a variation. Declaration Vote ballot boxes (absentee and provisional votes) were returned to the Division unopened, so the division's staff had to open the boxes, sort the envelopes and ship the absentee votes to the right division. Staff then check the details on the envelopes against their rolls (and in the case of declaration votes, possibly other sources to confirm that the person was actually entitled to vote), then separate the labels from the ballots before opening, sorting and counting those ballots.

I told my staff that the purpose of the TCP last Saturday night was primarily so that people sitting at home with a glass of wine had something to talk about while we were working. The process of helping to update Wikipedia articles this week has made me appreciate that they do also have a wider purpose this week before it is practical for the Division staff to check count everything. In South Australia, I don't think every Division has its own staff, they seem to be a single pool shared across 11 divisions, or possibly a small number of pools serving about three electorates each. It is possibly the same in other states, so they are focusing the efforts where they matter most. The widely quoted "no vote counting on Sunday and Monday" did not mean they took two days off, it just meant they were doing other critical functions such as sorting and moving absentee votes, and in fact I think they did update the TCP counts in divisions where the predicted top-two was wrong. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:AussieLegend: As one who worked in the bowels of the machinery of government for some years, let me add my voice. Yes, a person is only "officially" a member when they're declared elected by the AEC, but they are "actually" the member from election day. There is absolutely no doubt that Derryn Hinch and Pauline Hanson were elected senators, even though they've not been formally declared yet, and since this was a double dissolution, their terms started on 2 July. This is why I've argued on their talk pages that they should already be referred to as "Senator" Hinch and Hanson, not "Senator-elect" Hinch and Hanson. Similarly for new MPs elected on 2 July. If their election is beyond doubt, they should already be called Joe Bloggs MP, without waiting for the AEC to declare the results. I can assure you the Department of Finance is already sending out letters to newly elected MPs about their office accommodation, staffing and other privileges, and addressing those letters Joe Bloggs MP or Senator Mary Jenkins. This has always been Wikipedia's practice too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference with Hanson and Hinch - They received more than a quota; it's effectively the same as a lower house candidate who gets more than 50% of the primary vote. The Department of Finance doesn't determine who is elected, it can call somebody anything it wants, but it doesn't make it official, any more than if we all started calling you "Prime Minister". --AussieLegend (✉) 20:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hinch did not receive more than a quota. And I don't understand this emphasis on primary votes when we have preference counts for every division. Frickeg (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the results are not official yet, has nothing to do with anything. Where did you get that idea from? It's what's been reported in reliable sources, and there are plenty of those for the results were talking about. Sure, official results are, if you like, super-reliable, but there's no reason WP has to wait until that point is reached. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

In "the good old days", the AEC would not be publishing online progress scores. The only source we would have would be the print and radio media. At the moment, if we "get it wrong" for one of the close-but-not-too-close seats, it won't be wrong for long after the change is made public, certainly less time than a print media cycle. I'm comfortable with Wikipedia reporting what we find in multiple Reliable Sources, even if it turns out not to have been the (as yet unknown) truth for some seat. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I noticed that you can watch the parliament live on the aph.gov.au website. There is also historical footage of notable events like the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. The conditions of access state the material shall not be used for (i.) political party advertising or election campaigns; or (ii.) commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising. Can the footage be uploaded to WikiCommons or not? If not, should we use the external media template? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons requires material to be reusable, including commercially, and including for derivative works – so that's no for Commons (see c:COM:Licensing for further information). Using {{external media}} in relevant articles should be fine - Evad37 [talk] 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Evad37. New9374 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi I need help finishing my page I have created on Mount Campbell New South Wales that is located in Piggabeen. I need to have correct link placement and need to add as map and pictures. Can anyone please help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Campbell,_New_South_Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A035:BA00:471:3892:8F1B:9514 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added an infobox with a map for you. In the process of doing so, I discovered that it is officially called Campbell Hill (formerly Mount Campbell) so I have renamed it. Pictures are a harder problem, as they have to have a suitably open license. If you live in the area, go out and take a photo and donate it. Otherwise, there's no guarantee such a photo will be available unfortunately. Kerry (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make a link from words in one Wikipedia article to another Wikipedia article, you need to write it with square brackets, e.g. writing this:

over to the township of [[Coolangatta]] and [[Fingal Head, New South Wales|Fingal Head]]

produces

over to the township of Coolangatta and Fingal Head

I hope that helps you. Kerry (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I noticed this portrait of parliamentarian Bob Katter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Australia license. Are all such parliamentarian portraits licensed under CC-BY-SA including those on the aph.gov.au website or only those on the parliament.curriculum.edu.au website? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The aph.gov.au website is licenced as CC-BY-NC-ND, hence the portraits there are unsuitable for Wikipedia unless they're also on another separate website with a more acceptable licence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC).

Thank you Lankiveil. I'll ask the parliament.curriculum.edu.au webmaster if they can upload more portraits under the CC-BY-SA, and the aph.gov.au webmaster if they would instead consider licensing the portraits under the CC-BY-SA. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem I've had with similar requests for the portraits from state parliaments is that they'll probably want the pictures covered under the same personality rights that apply to recordings from the chambers themselves, which stipulate no use for satire or ridicule. Since this is obviously not compatible with the licences we accept here, it's always been a deal breaker when I've tried it. That said, it's been a few years since my last attempt so perhaps the position here will have softened, so good luck! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This proposal may be of interest to the denizens here - Wikidata:Wikidata:Property proposal/Australian Heritage Database ID. Those who know more about Wikidata properties than I may wish to consider a property for Queensland Heritage Register to support the good work of Kerry Raymond (talk · contribs). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had been thinking about this myself for some months, but it hadn't made its way to the top of my to-do list. Thanks for the heads-up. Kerry (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

On a related matter, there is a template for citing the Australian Heritage Database at the obscure location of {{cite AHD}}. Rangasyd (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

well, following some discussion at Wikidata, we now have a property for the Queensland heritage register Ids, so if we can get that going, we should learn a lot about doing our other heritage registers. Thanks again for the heads-up, User:Mattinbgn Kerry (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Are mugshots released under the public domain? For example Pauline Hanson's mugshot here. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In Australia, "public domain" = "copyright expired". Therefore, the answer is no. Government policy is that Crown copyright images should be licensed under creative commons but its up to each individual government body to decide if this means available for commercial use. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Different IP but the edit relates to the neighbouring suburb of Inala as always. Appears to be testing the waters with a minor edit, presumably to see if we are alert to changes in the article or whether they can get away with more drastic changes (past experience is removal of Inala from the article, removal of information about flooding, and other white-washing/peacocking); I am guessing our serial vandal doesn't know about watchlists. Can others put this on their watchlist as I am not in regular Internet access for a few weeks. Thanks Kerry (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

and again its happened I have just given it 1 month protection from IP/non confirmed users for its third time, may want to put it on the pending changes list instead Gnangarra 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

[27] for Tasmanians who have the issues about mainlanders (and the rest), a possible redirect with no reference to this project or interested parties, has been eliminated. Tasmania-speak (mainlanders, etc) is the poorer for it. From an IP whatsmore. JarrahTree 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

An article Mainland Australia to do something similar to Contiguous United States might be a good idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC).

well insufficient identification of the phenomenon of Australia's relationship with its oft lost state (even some external eds have considered it another country, whether on maps of oz or not) and the designation of the larger land mass to the north, needs a mention somewhere JarrahTree 11:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a look this morning, and as I suspected the tricky thing here is getting going to be getting a formal definition of the term. Lots of places use it as if it's usage is perfectly apparent, but it seems that nobody has actually defined it. I'm not sure, for instance, whether you'd include Bribie Island or Kangaroo Island in "Mainland Australia". Thoughts? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, I am certain the expression Mainland Australia is a term that is required at some time, whether inside another article about state relations and tensions, or as a separate article, not sure. JarrahTree 12:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the term has ever been defined because everyone "just knows" what it means. And yes Bribie and Kangaroo islands would be included. Just not Tasmania, or those two islands near it, or external terrritories. It'd be a lot easier if we could fill in Bass Strait. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"...everyone 'just knows' what it means" — The problem with "everyone knows" is that often different people "know" different things (and don't necessarily realise that the other person "knows" something different). All Perth people, for example, "know" that Rottnest Island is not part of the mainland. (According to our article, "Rottnest was separated from the mainland around 7,000 years ago".) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

With a name that includes "Island" I don't see how anyone could think that Rottnest wasn't an island. It's a bit of a giveaway. I'm not sure of the relevance of when it became an island. Even "Rottenest" (that seems to be the biggest confusion that I see) would be included as part of the mainland, as would Melville Island. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not sure of the relevance of when it became an island" — It's not "when" that's relevant - it's the fact that the article explicitly says that it is separated from, ie not part of, the mainland. My point is that the definition of "mainland" that everybody "just knows" depends on who "everybody" is, and what the context is. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

of course things change depending on the use, and yes people do use the term differently but hats common in Australian english we also use paddock when talking about the nullabor, yes when your on rottnest it is referred to as the mainland but its not confused with the use from tasmania, then there is remote when referring to places, or ...up on the end place names in the southwest and everyone knows its a noongar(indigenous word) word Gnangarra 08:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What if we say that Mainland Australia (both words with uppercase first letter) is term which refers to the contiguous Australian states and territories (list them) and explicitly excludes Tasmania and Norfolk Island (and the other offshore territories). And just say nothing at all about islands of the mainland states. Kerry (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"What if we say that Mainland Australia (both words with uppercase first letter) ..." — We'd need reliable sources that consistently capitalise "Mainland", ie as a proper noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Capitalisations is something to worry about once the article is started and sources are decided on, for now Mainland Australia as the page is sufficient Gnangarra 12:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It concerns Category:Mathematicians from Melbourne being merged into Category:People from Melbourne. The discussion can be found here[28]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Any ideas as to what to name an article. Will clearly meet GNG. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See Royal Commission into Juvenile Detention in the Northern Territory and Talk:Royal Commission into Juvenile Detention in the Northern Territory -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, The above article was converted in late 2015 to a bot-generated list which uses Wikidata by an editor named Magnus Manske. I have a memory of posting a message on the above editor’s talk page at the time which complained about some aspects of this change. Unfortunately, I cannot find it on the talk page when I looked today (i.e. there is no talk from late 2015 back about late last decade). Anyway, I have followings criticisms of the list. Firstly, the list cannot be manually edited as any edits will be removed by the bot when it next does an update - there is a ‘manual update list’ which I cannot get to work. Secondly, its layout is unsatisfactory in several respects. It is sorted by state and territory rather by managing agency with the result that all external territories are separately listed (i.e. all managed by the Director of National Parks) and every entry for each national park has the name of its managing agency which is the same in every state (i.e. unnecessary duplication). Also, there is a column for “visitors” which I suspect will be difficult to populate (no pun intended). Thirdly, some of the wikidata content appears to be incorrect when examined in detail which is probably a completely different problem. My main issue with all of this is that the change to the article appears to have been made unilaterally without any discussion with anyone or any projects that may be interested in the article. I would therefore assume that such change should not be permitted. Does anyone have any comments re the above? Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Some general comments:

• The Wikidata Phase 2 RFC was closed with "not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia at this time ... it might be worth discussing use in tables specifically – but not consensus regarding this has been reached in this discussion"
• I'm not aware of any subsequent RFC or change in consensus on this point, so any such use of Wikidata is WP:IAR.
• Even a more recent RFC on infobox usage [29] was contentious, to say the least
• If Wikidata is to be used, having it update automatically (as it does for some infobox parameters) via templates or the {{#property:}} parser function may be more appropriate than having it being bot-generated
• Per WP:BRD, you could revert this bold conversion, pending a discussion resulting in consensus. - Evad37 [talk] 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging ListeriaBot's operator Magnus Manske - Evad37 [talk] 07:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cowdy001: Your original post to User talk:Magnus Manske was on 24 November 2015.[30] It was archived without ever being responded to on 25 Decemnber 2015.[31] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so this might not be the place to discuss things in general, but just a few points:

• the bot only edits where the appropriate templates are used. If you don't want the list in the article, just remove it.
• German Wikipedia (generally very territorial about these things) don't want ListeriaBot editing in article namespace, to I turned that off. It still edits on talk pages there. Other Wikipedias have been a little more "enlightened".
• Wikidata-based lists in Wikipedia are coming as a build-in feature, the bot is just a "stop-gap" measure.
• If you like the list and the updates, but have issue with the generation, there are a lot of options to tweak at {{Wikidata list}}. If you find a bug or want a new feature, there is an issue tracker. Also, everyone is welcome to submit pull requests (aka software improvements). --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the template so that it doesn't load the redundant visitor numbers field, and filled in some missing data over at Wikidata. While I wouldn't be opposed to removing the tables (which are a bit ugly, sorry Magnus), I think that this sort of thing is only going to become more widespread in the future and would encourage folks to correct any errors they see over at Wikidata, rather than griping over its inaccuracies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC).

A series of random user accounts are being used to add a piece of spam to Australian articles. The addition will be of the form

See also [https://vikiputovanja.blogspot.com.br/ '''XYZ Travel Guide''']

where XYZ is the name of the article

The edit summary will be of the form

Undid revision 729495629 by 74.18.164.82 (talk)

with random revision numbers and IP numbers. Here's an actual example

Keep your eyes peeled. Kerry (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the domain always vikiputovanja.blogspot.com.br? If so, there are no links at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=vikiputovanja.blogspot.com.br&title=Special%3ALinkSearch (with "vikiputovanja") seems to pick up http: but not https: (unless you include the https:// prefix) - in particular, as I write this the current Sunshine Coast, Queensland (this version) has a link to https that is not detected by the external link search.

I currently have both http and https linked from my sandbox for testing the search. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's always the same address, then we can include the link in the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist which should throw a spanner into their works. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC).

I have Camden, New South Wales on my watchlist because of this craziness. Last night, I found a constantly shifting IP editor, 121.143.46.235 and 118.42.9.183, who kept on changing federal electorates and local government areas without an edit summary. Since their changes didn't match the text description at Division of Hume (and I can't see them ap), I reverted them all as unexplained changes. They since sent me a message from 121.144.232.191, providing a reference to the AEC. The ABC also confirms that Hume's boundaries have recently been changed. I've undone my rollback of the IP's edits, but could somebody who can actually see the maps go through and update everything properly?Thanks! Graham87 04:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was a federal boundary redistribution in New South Wales late last year, and the council mergers this year as well. These lists of localities are very difficult to update in the articles, and I've suggested trying to set them up in Wikidata to make it a bit easier to update after the redistributions happen. I managed to update all the Sydney divisions (I think) just before the election, but I didn't have a chance to do the regional and rural seats like Hume. I can do them somewhat automatically from a database, so it shouldn't take too long. Anyway, these IP edits are probably fine—I will try to check them this week if get a chance. --Canley (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I found and fixed a bunch of places that had moved from Farrer to Parkes a few weeks ago, but not sure if I got them all. I wondered if the history was actually important too, but did not attempt to incorporate it. Maybe current in the place articles, and history in the division articles. That would make it easier to use Wikidata I think, but still a challenge for very small places, especially if they have WP articles but not a polling booth with the same name. The WikiMiniAtlas has not been updated for some time either, so difficult to use that to discover newer articles that might matter. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else feel like Margaret White shouldn't be the location for the article about the fictional character in a Stephen King book?

I ask right now because Margaret White (judge) has been appointed the new co-commissioner for the upcoming Royal Commission into the Northern Territory's juvenile detention system.

I feel that either:

1. Margaret White the judge should occupy the "Margaret White" article title; or
2. The disambiguation page should occupy that spot (and fictional character be disambiguated in title) so at least readers can get to the judge article in one click.

The "Margaret White (fictional character)" article currently has a warning about it not clearly meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria, which is probably wrong, but I'm not in a good position to know for sure. Donama (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, Donama. Does a real person automatically have notability over a fictional person? Hat-notes at each page would help prevent confusion at least. Perhaps Margaret White the fictional character, (Carries' crazy mother) should be moved to Margaret White (fictional character) then Margaret White (disambiguation), could be moved to 'Margaret White'. this seems to be commonly done. - 220 of ^Borg 09:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, so have been bold and made the page moves to Margaret White (Stephen King), but not sure I ave time now to clean up all the new links I have left to the disambig page (but intend to do it later tonight). --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a hat-note to the judges page linking to the DaB. --220 of ^Borg 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not automatically. It's easy to imagine QCs named Frankenstein or Santa Claus or Harry Potter not getting an undisambiguated article title! Thx both of you for fixing it up in this case though. Donama (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Some assistance at Census in Australia would be appreciated. The article says that the census is compulsory and this has both been discussed on the article's talk page and is supported by a citation confirming this.[32] However, a new editor has taken exception to that and claimed it is not compulsory.[33] I've added another citation,[34] but the new editor has removed that and corrupted the existing citation, that I had only just fixed. I can't revert at this time as I've already done so 3 times today. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If we have an admin watching could someone do a protection number of some variety as it looks like the festering social media misunderstanding of what the census actually means is spilling into wp space... JarrahTree 09:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just adding that the new editor's posts on the talk page are also eyebrow raising. reference to "Mr Hitler, racist website, the "illegal invasion of iraq in 2003". And then there is this post on my talk page accusing me of having an agenda. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There's only one person with an agenda that I can see. I've undone the latest edit and semi-protected for a week. Let me know if it spills elsewhere. Stephen 09:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. From the weird posts on the talk page I get the impression that he thinks the Wikipedia page is somehow an official ABS forum where he can rant about the census questions. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 on whether this is trolling or not. Either way I removed most of the questions (except the "tourist" one), as being irrelevant to improving the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC).

Adelaide Rams, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Some admins and others are currently exmaining content related to a wikibomb event of 2016 - but as always at these venues, they appear to not have thought about even mentioning the matter here.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious_article_creations_-_All_new_accounts_creating_pages_about_Australian_academics

If there are any wikipedians with any knowledge about the event/process, there is an opportunity to enlighten a group of what do not look like australian eds (apart from Kerry)... JarrahTree 09:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, while it is a good thing that folks want to organise edit-a-thons, it would be nice if they involved some experienced local Wikipedians. This South Australian event of yesterday seems to have caught all of us unaware. Folks, if you do ever hear of a possible or definite upcoming or ongoing Australian event of this nature, please draw attention to it here and to the attention of Wikimedia Australia. These events are always well-intended but involve large numbers of newbies and are usually organised by people who have little or no experience with Wikipedia either. Obviously it's in everyone's best interests if we can get some involvement of experienced Wikipedians in the both the planning of such events and in supporting the event on the day both in the room and online; there's obvious mutual benefit in making these events as successful as we can. Kerry (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

At the talk page of every Australian article in the template is a contact with WMAU chapter link - well worth keeping WMAU in the loop if you are aware of anything like that happening. Thanks. JarrahTree 23:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll be in Canberra from the 29-30 August, there is a planned meet-up at King O'Malley's (though I'm open to suggestions) from 6pm on the 29 August. Sorry for the short noticed, only had the trip confirmed this afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So there is some silly cluster of stuff I found while searching around, and I want to make wikipedia more accurate, however I wanted a bit of consensus here before making changes all over the shop.

Firstly, Please keep in mind scientific accuracy for this post. I don't care what your personal beliefs are on the matter, simply the science, and why it is the way it is.

So here goes:

There are three different things all called Australia

• The Country
• The Landmass
• The Continent

Unfortunately, all three of these are called the same thing, which can make differentiating them kind of confusing sometimes. It's why when Australia is cited as the worlds smallest continent, they sometimes use the size of the landmass, or the country, and only rarely the size of the continent itself. This has been mitigated recently by the addition of Australia_(continent) - which is very useful.

The point of the matter is - The Continent of Australia is completely separate to the Landmass of Australia. Hopefully we're all still in agreement by this point, and if you disagree with that, feel free to use the talk page on the previously linked continent page, but good luck defending why your idea of Australia (the continent) doesn't include all the things that are on the continental shelf that Australia (the landmass) inhabits (PS: It's called that for a reason).

So, now that we have that out of the way, let's use the definition of an Island. The agreed upon definition on Wikipedia (and a vast overwhelming majority of geographic/scientific journals) is "An island or isle is any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water."

Now. Australia (The Landmass) is an Island.

I would like to make edits to a number of pages to make it so, as well as propose we start a new Australia_(Island) page OR make the Geography part of Australia clearer in this differentiation. I'm happy to put the work in for this, but would rather a consensus be reached before treading on peoples toes. The fact is pretty plain however: Australia (The Landmass) meets the criteria Wikipedia itself uses for an Island. Until that criteria changes on Wikipedia, changes should be made to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaneWilliams (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, wikipedia is based on independent secondary sources. If you want to make this distinction, you'll need sources which use it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

second stuartyeates - all the fancy discourse means nothing unless there are specific WP:RS per the way that wikipedia works JarrahTree 10:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are numerous sources for it. The problem is that the sources against it all stem from one guys blog that got to the top of google results, and has since been referenced as an authority elsewhere, including here on wikipedia. I mean, you can see sources that show the Australian continent includes the landmass of Australia and various other landmasses. The definition of Island is clear and source referenced. Do I need a source that strictly states Australia to be an Island, or is like citing a sky is blue source? We have the requisite sources and specifics setup elsewhere, with all definitions of the Australian continent including multiple landmasses, and the definition of islands being very clear. BaneWilliams (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption - the way WP:RS are utilised is not necessarily an assumption for any editor to (a) use google as an effective check, or (b) to assume that blogs are necessarily utilised or accepted throughout wikipedia as WP:RS - too simplistic an uderstanding of how wikipedia can work JarrahTree 15:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My assumption was that because the opposing view failed to meet WP:RS standards, it shouldn't be utilised, but it has been. Without that information on Wikipedia logically it would be obvious that this is the case. The sources used are either WP:RSSELF or WP:UGC where they are referencing said self published works. I will spend today finding an authoritative source I can easily attribute. BaneWilliams (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on this called Mainland Australia. It could have the properties of an island listed, but does not yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this - I wasn't aware of that page at all since it's not referenced well. I will use this to add Island stuff to with sources, and then go on fixing up other things elsewhere. I appreciate this Graeme! BaneWilliams (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Mainland Australia is an article about the social, linguistic, psychological aspects that are used to distinguish or recognise some places have a disconnect from the main hence the name its not a geological formation just like the use use of east coast, southern states, tother staters, across the paddock and other such terms. It came about following a recent discussion here. Gnangarra 03:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

An island is not a geological object, instead it is the land above water. The geological concept corresponds more to the continent, the high parts on one tectonic plate. The island of Australia corresponds in its physical extent exactly to the concept of mainland. A strong case could be made to merge article with two names which are about different aspects of the same area of land. They both result because of the water separating the mainland from the rest of the islands and world. Anyway I am not supporting Australia (island) as a separate article until someone comes up with sources with significant content. Otherwise just merge it with Mainland Australia if there is verifiable content, but not significant writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the thing, we know Australia is an Island. There are over several hundred verifiable sources via Trove that state as much, compared to the 5 sources that don't (and only one of those sources is actually talking geologically, the others are talking culturally or economically in a poem and a Kevin Rudd speech). While I'm not entirely certain there is enough information to warrant a Australia (island) page necessarily, there is information to correct the errors existing on pages like Island and others. I also feel that considering the differentiation between the three different versions of "Australia" are so difficult to understand, that we need somewhere that builds upon this. I'm scouring some of these sources trying to find one that talks about it from an authoritative standpoint, rather than having to use a significant multitude of small sources. This will likely take days. BaneWilliams (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the Mainland Australia article is that it defines the "mainland" as the states and territories that are not Tasmania or island territories. In particular, from a Tasmanian perspective, Kangaroo Island and Rottnest Island seem to be counted as "mainland Australia", but they are presumably not part of Australia (island). Certainly the South Australian government does not consider KI to be mainland.[35] --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The venerable It's an Honour website has been moved to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet website at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/government/its-honour

The site is very widely used as a reference on Wikipedia. The old links still seem to work for the moment, see example. The main problem I can see is that the content is displayed in a frame, and so there is no apparent address or ID that can be easily used to link directly to the entry for future use as a reference. --Canley (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the itsanhonour.gov.au domain is still being used and serving up the content, but it is just displayed in a DPMC wrapper for some reason. The best way to get a direct link for referencing is to do a search, then right-click on the result and open it in a new tab or window. --Canley (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have drafted (what might become) my first article. Before I do any further work on it (inc filling refs) and hit the submit button for review, I am hoping some fellow editors here might take a brief look and advise whether it has a chance of passing. I'd rather abandon it now and go back to gnoming, than argue about its acceptance. Just thought I'd ask here first as some Aussie editors may be familiar with these blokes' story. (Unbelievably, whilst typing this, ABC in background started talking about their launch today of a new mobile shower van service. All a bit surreal really.) I am leaving some questions on the draft's talk page and welcome any input. Thanks JennyOz (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me - that's a pretty unarguable amount of sources and it's well enough written. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If that is a first article, I can think of a lot of stubs on wikipedia in general that would never get to that standard in their whole history... well worth putting up - even some established editors never get their stubs to that standard. well done JarrahTree 12:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Jenny Oz Yours puts many other first articles and long standing articles to shame. I have added some comments for your consideration on the draft's talk page. Aoziwe (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind words here and for input on the draft and its talk page. I do have to say though that it was relatively easy to write because the coverage was easy to find. Two years of only positive mentions made for sweet simplicity. I probably spent 80% of the time checking policies. Thanks, gotta love collaboration. JennyOz (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This might be a question out of left field, but I have failed to find a meaningful answer in Wikipedia or Google. What is or was an Inspector of Conditional Purchases in NSW? Did we have them in other colonies/states? It seems to be some kind of public servant or magistrate role that might relate to land sales or selections, but I have not found a description of the role, powers or purpose. At this stage, I am pursuing family history research, so have no idea if this is an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article about the role or any of its past occupants yet. Thank you to anyone who can point me to a useful answer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the answers, but apparently the need for inspection of conditionally purchased land may not have existed before the passing of the Crown Lands Amendment Act of 1875, so such a position might have been created with that Act (although the Act doesn't appear to mention "Inspector". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Try trove, there is heaps there JarrahTree 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

About Murder of Kylie Maybury ... It was brought to my attention through a 1970 article in The Age that the accused man in Kylie's case was charged in 1970 with attacking a 14 year old girl on a train with a hammer. Does the legal ban on mentioning prior convictions before the Kylie case court process is completed apply to us as well as the press? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably hold off until after the trial. The last thing you want is the whole process being derailed because some juror found out something they weren't supposed to on Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

The Monte Carlo (biscuit) article has no photos (nothing available on Commons). Surely among us, there must be someone with a packet of these popular biscuits in the cupboard who could do a quick snapshot and upload. Kerry (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually have a pack - I just love them. I'll take a photo tomorrow, @Kerry Raymond:, thanks for posting this. Steven Crossin 12:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve! I hoped someone would bite into this! Kerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Kerry Raymond and Steven Crossin: I also have a picture of the unopened packet but I am presuming that this is copyrighted and hencenot useable in a wiki ? Aoziwe (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoziwe! I suspect you are right about the cocpyright on the packaging, but I think folks probably want to see the biscuit more than the packet anyway. Thanks for the scientific dissection of the biscuit; I hope it didn't interfere with your enjoyment of eating it later :-) Kerry (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It was eaten before I had finished the edit of the article ! Aoziwe (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We can't add the "No Monte Carlos were harmed in the writing of this article" tag then..... ;) Jamesbushell.au (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Any other biscuits, chocolates or similar that need detailed photographic evidence (prior to being eaten)? The-Pope (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, looking through Category:Australian snack foods, photos are needed for product Bertie Beetle, Cheezels, Chicos (candy), Lolly Gobble Bliss Bombs, Milo (drink), Minties, Nobby's (nuts), Parker's (pretzels), Polly Waffle, and Twisties. Kerry (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

More, ... Thins (crisps), Samboy (crisps), and products from Darrell Lea and The Natural Confectionery Company

I have none of these in the pantry. Aoziwe (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Plus, we need articles for Salada (biscuit), Vita-Weat, and Jatz ... always plenty to do on Wikipedia.

See Arnott's Biscuits which has a list of many said such most of which have no articles yet. I am up for giving a few of these a go over the next few weeks. Will post here which ones I will work on to avoid overlap. Aoziwe (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry, striking, will not have time after all any time soon. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is continually getting rewritten into an advertisement by someone close to or working for the subject - any chance of some more eyes on it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also possibly copyvio on the image - see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Bettina_Liano

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just rolled the article back again, but see Talk:Bettina Liano#Links to useful information that just needs rewriting about extracting some useful material from the advertisement. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

And again [36][37]. This version is almost exclusively a direct copy of http://www.bybettinaliano.com/.

Some administrator intervention may be required. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Censuses in Australia has been nominated for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 3#Category:Censuses in Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I am looking for some advice about using items in the National Library of Australia on Wikipedia. Has any here previously contacted them to discuss releasing material under a free license? I'm looking at the photographer Terry Milligan (now Venerable Ekaggata) who took many outstanding portraits, some of which are held in the National Portrait Gallery. Would we need to contact the photographer or the National Library? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Census in Australia}} has been nominated for deletion. The discussion may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Megan Marcks#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to the Sydney Meetup!

• Thursday 15 September at 6PM at Petersham Bowling Club.

  (a) accessible by train - Petersham station

  (b) has some nice draught beers

  (c) has some nice food

  (d) has some quiet areas outside and inside...so people can chat without getting a hoarse voice by shouting over 100 decibels of muzak etc.

  (e) accessible by car with straightforward parking nearby

This message was delivered to the invitation list - to opt out of future invitations please remove your name from the list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I've had a look over the domestic violence in Australia page, and was disappointed over the lack on information. Over the last month, I've done some work to the page and I would like some review over the work I've done just to know if I'm going the right way or I'm way off track. If anyone could help me (at least with a feedback) with this project, it would be great! User:Zapacit 09:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have only skimmed it, but Zapacit it looks like you have done a very good job in deed. You could perhaps run the Wikipedia:Good article criteria over it and put it up for consideration? Yes you a quite right, the July version was simply embarrassing. If you want to let me know and I will have another, closer look at it too. Aoziwe (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Aoziwe: Thank you very much for this. It really helps to know at least I'm heading to a good direction. User:Zapacit 12:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zapacit: Firstly, good work on taking a short article and doing a lot of work to expand it. My one word of advice would be to be careful about the sources you use, given that unfortunately some aspects of the topic have become politicised. For instance, you use "oneinthree.com.au" to support a claim about male victims of domestic violence, but there is no indication of where they got the data and the operators of the website seem to be coy about revealing who they are and who they are affiliated with. A quick Google search shows that there is quite a substantial body of criticism towards the methodologies used by this group ([38] and [39], for two examples), and my own looking at their "data" page shows they use a hodgepodge of interpretations of census data that doesn't immediately strike me as reliable. The topic of male victims of domestic violence unquestionably needs to be addressed in the article, and to my eyes you don't seem to be pushing any agenda. Just be very very careful about the data that you use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Thank you very much for this comment. I tried to give a wide range of articles and documents as possible and not to stick to SMH or other mainstream politically papers. However, some of those sources needs to be cited. As much as I had the time, I went through those articles to their sources and cited those. Thank you, I'll be more careful next time. User:Zapacit 12:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

More feedback would be appreciated at Safe Schools Coalition Australia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would particularly like to know why the views of the Australian Christian Lobby must be outlined on an anti-school bullying program. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Because they are notable in this situation. Try re-wording your comment to "I would particularly like to know why the views of the Australian Christian Lobby must be outlined on a controversial LGBT organization" and I guess the answer will be obvious. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I was after an explanation. Could you explain the reason in a little more detail. I am not following you at all. "Notable" is not the right word and what situation are you referring to? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like the word "notable" in regards to wikipedia content, and you don't know which situation I am referring to, then perhaps you should seek an explanation from another editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee you we will be able to follow our policy of using prose to explain things. We don't need lengthy quotes at all and certainly not embedded lists of them (which may or may not be table form). How people describe things is not that important to us, especially when what is said is not substantiated. We don't want our readers to contemplate what was said about our subjects. We want to them know what's what by informing them directly. We don't want to be like shock jocks. We want the opposite here. We are better than that. We should not use provocative language in descriptions or arguments. Instead, offer information gently. We need to be concise and not convoluted or include vague language. Copying and pasting what people said into articles is laziness. I'm challenging its inclusion and waiting for its justification. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Both User:The Drover's Wife and User:Spacecowboy420 are willing to work co-cooperatively, to discuss and where appropriate to moderate their views. I believe they are working to increase the quality of Wiki-articles and I would categorise both as valuable Wiki-editors. However, the my-way-or-the-highway style of editing, (even dressed up with claims to WP:P&G), simply reduces the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information and speeds the decline in both Wiki-editors and Wiki-users. B20097 (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What a very strange way of looking at wikipedia - editing on wikipedia has nothing to do whether editors moderate views to anything, the basic means of editing require the guidelines of an online encyclopedia with the adherence to WP:NPOV and all the rest - to judge other editors in terms of negotability misses the point completely. Credibility rests on the information being within the context and framework of guidelines of the encyclopedia. Making judements like the above has very little to do with what WP:ABOUT. JarrahTree 07:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Unless editors are prepared to moderate their contributions (and particularly the emphasis) to ensure that NPOV, Wikipedia editing gridlocks. Some editors can do it better than others. B20097 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You have one point of view, and by no way from your edit history are you qualified as a neutral observor capable of making such comments, wikipedia reaches a range of decisions that are reached by consensus and co-operation, not by taking any one editors final word on anything. JarrahTree 08:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar to both User:The Drover's Wife and User:Spacecowboy420 for your article NPOV work. B20097 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What we can see here is pure denial. It was also evident here. The presentation of barnstars was a demonstration of anger, expressed as charity in the good Christian manner. There are hints towards bargaining or negotiation above. There was also some projection going on with the accusations of bias made against me. So what some editors are mourning is both the soon-to-occur loss of political statements into articles, through the gross overuse of quotations, and the future use of Wikipedia to expouse these beliefs. That dawned on them yesterday after I posted to this noticeboard. As they move more fully into the negotiation phase I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am fully motivated to come after every single scrap of it with military precision. I am not willing to compromise on our policies and guidelines. In the articles I watch I want to remove all but the very most important speech or quotations. I then want to replace that with concise, fact-based prose written by a Wikipedian, sourced by reliable references, if relevance has been proven. That's the best way to a good article and that is what I relish. The obligation to 'fix articles' always rests with those who edited in error. So that is my analysis of what has happened and how to move forward. Also thanks to User:Trankuility for alerting me to how bad this 'situation' really is. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of talk and not a lot of effort to try to convert all this rhetoric into article content that will actually stand. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Shiftchange Don't overlook putting some of your above effort into this article and its "very long" problems which you have identified, to work towards Wikipedia as a NPOV encyclopedia. B20097 (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, when I feel like it. I can't imagine how many people have been turned away from that because its not very readable. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Skyring, who has recently removed 12,988‎ characters from ACL > SSM, based on WP:We don't need every petition listed. Skyring is upfront in saying, "this user supports the legalization of same-sex marriage", therefore it may be a challenge for him to edit S‎SM topics with a NPOV, particularly considering his views on "religious crusaders" Similarly, I would venture that remaining impartial will be a challenge for the 581 members of the Wiki LGBT group. Still I am sure the Wiki Hetro group will provide the necessary NPOV Wikipedia balance. It seems - Wikipedia, we have a problem. B20097 (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You hardly have neutral views on the subject either. Judge people by their edits, not their views. Perhaps the only useful thing in that massive swathe of remove text was that the ACL support a plebiscite, but everything other bit of "the ACL oppose [specific marriage equality measure]" or "restate their policy in public" was a waste of space and statement of the obvious. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The ACL doesn't seem to be a particularly notable or important organisation. Why on earth do we need to keep track of every petition, every press release? I picked that section to winnow, not because of my views on marriage equality, but because most of it looked like chaff. The whole article needs a good prune. And, B20097, you don't seem to understand how WP:NPOV works. We don't edit in a neutral tone; we present the various views according to their sourcing and weight. Big difference. --Pete (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to echo the above - we require edits to be neutral, not editors. The implication above about the LGBT group is frankly offensive (what, only straight people can write about LGBT issues neutrally? Give me a break, or rather more profane words to that effect). By my reading, much of what has happened on the Safe Schools page is an example of Wikipedia working well, so I wouldn't say it's an indication that "we have a problem". Frickeg (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the comments re views on "religious crusaders" above, perhaps my choice of words was unintentionally misleading. My experience is that religious or political hardliners have difficulty accepting any views other than their own, and the sort of restrictions we place on editors - reliable sourcing, NPOV, WEIGHT and so on - are obstacles to the declaration of The One Great Truth, for which Wikipedia must be a divine mouthpiece. Let's face it, if you fly a plane into a skyscraper through some wacky conviction, you're not likely to find wikiprocess worth two squirts of retromingent expression. --Pete (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)