This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Australia Low‑importance Sam Mostyn is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Women in Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women in Red This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

I suspect that she was the daughter of William Downman Mostyn, M.B.E., who was apparently a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Australian military in the 1970s. A possibly matching birth notice (Bill Mostyn) was published in the Canberra Times in 1965. Source: original research. ghouston (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can't do anything about it without a source that confirms it. Haven't looked for one as yet. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on info I've just added from a defence site, and the info shown on the Virtual War Memorial and AWM sites, her father William "Bill" Mostyn is the same person. Is this enough info to put 2 and 2 together on Wikipedia though? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's original research, if it's deduced from multiple sources. There really needs to be a source that says it explicitly (so people have told me in the past when I've done that elsewhere :) ghouston (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter, a source was found. ghouston (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOB is cited based on a birth notice. I have left it there, but think we need another source per WP:DOB. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe citogenesis will kick in eventually. ghouston (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current source should be removed as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. She was not a public figure when this source was created and had no control over its creation. Steelkamp (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Done. I found an age in one of the sources so used that as an estimated YOB instead. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no evidently reliable source for the birth date. It is not in the official biography or any other official source I have seen. The lede ref is to a source with unstated credentials - maybe got it from WP? The two refs given in the body don't actually mention it - and may be redundant anyway. Laterthanyouthink, can you give a ref to the birth notice that you mention? ˜˜˜˜ (signed Errantios - tildes not working)

Somebody put it back, citing https://rulers.org/ as a source. Is that good enough? ghouston (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The birth notice is on Trove: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/105861765?searchTerm=Mostyn

What is rulers.org? It doesn't give its sources; maybe it gets its info from here. I've substituted the birth notice, in a reputable newspaper. ˜˜˜˜ (signed Errantios - tildes not working)

Basically a personal website? The birth notice is a good source, I think, although "reputable newspaper" is only relevant if such a notice would be vetted, and I'd guess not. WP:DOB was previously cited. ghouston (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're surely right about vetting, but, as WP:DOB says in a related context, this item seems "usable if there is no reason to doubt it". ˜˜˜˜ (signed Errantios - tildes not working)

I notice in the Governor-General section there are two articles linked for the appointment announcement, but why? Does The Guardian article offer more content than the ABC News version? Is there a good reason to keep this extra citation? It probably should be deleted if unnecessary because it's just confusing with a redundant citation. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally a good idea to have more than one citation - if you do as much cleaning up of old articles as I do, you will notice that old links often don't work and are not archived. Two links is not excessive. More than 3 is excessive. Another reason for adding the extra ones is that there is often other content in one of the other articles that can be added elsewhere in the article and it can be reused. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe the Short Description shouldn't reflect that Mostyn is Governor-General Designate, as Designate means she is not formally in the position and so does not have the responsibilities of the high office yet. Would it be helpful to many readers to know Mostyn is the future Governor-General like this in the Short Description? Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite: Australia does not have a formal title "Governor-General Designate". I've changed the Short Description from "Designate" to "designated". Errantios (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit, but I have to notify you that the area you edited is not the Short Description, the Short Description is seen at the top of the page in grey text when there is space although it is not always shown on desktop web but it is shown in the mobile app and in desktop search. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The query actually related to "status" in the Infobox. I changed that from "Designate" to the more accurate "designated", but somehow it got changed back—although that change has not appeared in the sequence of revisions. I've changed it again to "designated", adding a hidden remark "see Talk". Errantios (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That previous change has now appeared in the sequence, as a change by User:JackofOz. No further changes please without discussion here. Errantios (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have me confused with some other editor. None of my (very minor) edits have had the effect you claim. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o. There's a system glitch with your edit to "Media" at 10:46 on 6 April. Cheers. Errantios (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take your word for that. All I did was remove one (1) comma. What makes you think anything else happened? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From your watchlist check "diff" for my edit of 12:36 on 6 April. You should see that the previous is credited to you as a change to "Designated". Such a glitch has happened to me in the past. Errantios (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who made the original query and I did not intend for my question to relate to the status part of the info box at all, I was referring to the Short Description that appears primarily on mobile and in search results. With this question I am simply wondering whether the interim title and notification of changeover should be included in the Short Description (not info box). I have got shortdesc helper enabled on my computer and I can see more options for Short Descriptions such as adding and viewing them, to enable this tool go to your user preferences, navigate to Gadgets and then it is in the Editing section. Short Description editing if you need it is also available in the source editor, it should be the top line of the article in a very obvious template. I cannot see anything from your end that looks like a question as your original reply does not have a question mark or anything indicating a question. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You began by saying "I guess maybe the Short Description shouldn't reflect that Mostyn is Governor-General Designate", which I took to imply that it did. It did not (at that moment?), but "status" in the infobox did, and I confused the two. NFA ("No Further Action") seems appropriate here until she is sworn in. Errantios (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her title at present as per Constitutional convention and DPMC protocol is "Governor General Desigante for the Commonwealth of Australia". Her shortened title is "Governor General Designate" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia#:~:text=The%20monarch%20then%20permits%20the,the%20governor%2Dgeneral%2Ddesignate. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "as per Constitutional convention and DPMC protocol". Do you have a reference for either of these? Although Governor-General of Australia speaks of "governor-general-designate" (which BTW is not how any official title would be expressed in Australia), its references do not support that and I am minded to remove it. Errantios (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done the required homework, since nobody else has. Google and DuckDuckGo get only two hits for "governor-general designate australia". One is in PM Albanese's announcement - although not in the text itself but only as part of a header. The other is in an announcement from the Palace - where it does appear in the text, although apparently derived from Albanese's announcement. One could say that the phrase has—just now—become an established practice. So I am content to let "Designate" remain here. But the phrase certainly has no constitutional basis and one swallow doesn't make the summer of a constitutional convention. For that reason, I have removed it from Governor-General of Australia. Errantios (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at - for example - the swearing in of David Hurley (avaliable on youtube at [1]) You can see at 38:00 when the Black Rod presents Hurley to the Parliament as "Governor General Designate for the Commonwealth of Australia"

Given the attention to protocol given to ceremonies of state such as the GG's swearing in, one would think that the protocol used is correct. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was presumably agreed. I think it might nevertheless have been a first time. But now we know that it has happened at least twice and that firms up establishment of "Designate" as by now a practice. Errantios (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]