Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I've been doing some thinking, and the result of my thinking is confusion: In terms of greater WWII history, the bombing of darwin and the mini-subs in sydney harbour are unimportant (i mean its hardly in the same league as dresden or nagasaki or whatever) and so not deserving of its own article, however in terms of Australian history it is very important (being the only time that the commonwealth of Australia has ever been attacked, or had any serious threat of invasion) and so it does deserve its own article. So what to do? any thoughts? i had the one idea of creating a page seperate from WWII called australia's involvement in WWII, but that then doesnt really focus on what i was just talking about so i dunno. Any more experienced wikipedians care to comment? The bellman 09:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that these were all extremely important to Australians, and as such each should have their own articles written about these events. I don't think its wise to compare the relative importance of these events to Nagasaki and the D-Day landing. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, what coverage do they have in the broader war articles? They need coverage in Sydney, Darwin, Broome and Townsville's respective articles, and Australian military history (which we don't have, but would be nice, as it'd fit in as part of a global series of national military history articles - as well as the broader war articles. The other thing which might help here I think is what I've been talking about doing with History of Australia.

I've only looked at the Darwin and WWII(pacific) articles, but they each only have one sentence each, which is perhaps appropriate for WWII, but seems very lacking for darwin. I'll try and fix Darwin up soon The bellman 12:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At the moment, it's only broken up into two articles - before 1901 and after 1901. I think we could have at least ten - the same number we have for the United States. This would enable us to have an article on, say, 1930-1950, or an even shorter period, which would inevitably focus largely on WWII. Ambi 10:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i like the sound of this, even though it means a lot of work. The bellman 12:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any other thoughts about splitting up the history pages like this? Ambi 12:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I question whether trying for so many chronological divisions is making a rod for our own back. Overview articles are by far the hardest things to write in Wikipedia, and the longer the overview, the harder it gets. I personally think that detail is probably better placed in articles on more specific areas, for instance, in articles on gold rushes, or specific geographical areas like histories of specific cities and towns.

If you did wish to subdivide Australian history further, might I suggest that some suitable points to subdivide on: 1788 (first white settlement of note), 1851 (discovery of gold), 1901 (federation), 1945 (end of WWII), and maybe 1970 (end of the Menzian snooze). I'm not convinced any more divisions would be helpful at this point.--Robert Merkel 01:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For now, I think you're quite right. For the most part, they'd be good places to split it up. I don't like having the 1901 split though, because that tends to cut the whole federation thing in half. Perhaps 1905? Ambi 04:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have rewritten Amanda Vanstone. She needs a photo. Adam 15:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - it's been on my to-do list for a while. Are we officially not using AUSPIC images anymore? Ambi 01:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Auspic have twice told me on the phone that the images from the aph.gov.au website can be reproduced for non-commercial purposes, but they have not confirmed this in writing as I asked, so I am not using them for now. Also I have taken an oath not to upload any photos except those I took myself, because I am sick of arging with copyright-fetishists. In any case the Senate ones are very poor. Adam 02:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a bit of a point of contention between Adam and myself (I'm the copyright-fetishist he's referring to I believe), because when I contacted the MIS services who look after the aph.gov.au site they told me that I need permission to reproduce material. Incidently (and for the record), I hate Australian copyright! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, AUSPIC *= aph.gov.au, which is where the conundrum lies. While you need specific permission to copy from the latter, they get their pictures from AUSPIC, who appear to be different. That said, as AUSPIC's license is noncommercial anyway, and because they haven't confirmed this in writing, I agree that we should stay away from them in future. As Adam notes, the quality of the Senate pictures (all the lower house MPs being done) is pretty terrible for some reason.

As to solving this...how about contacting Vanstone's office? Ambi 10:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ive been doing some thinking (dangerous i know) and have decided that a lot of my posts recently have been about the correct way to organise articles. ie. when should an article be a self standing article, and when should it be a sub-section of another article, for example should the bombing of darwin be a seperate article or just a part of the articles WWII(pacific), darwin, Australian history, Australian military history, and japanese military history. The same thing with the fuzzy-wuzzys i am not sure if they deserve thier own article or not. SO, does anyone know if there is a wikipedia style page discussing how things should be organised/catogorised etc.? i apoligise for my stupid newbie questions. The bellman 02:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to wonder if there's enough information for a seperate article on the bombings - IMO, it'd probably be better off as a section somewhere. And with the fuzzy-wuzzys - if this was placed into another article, then we eliminate the naming issues. Oh, and there is a Wikipedia style page for discussing these things - here! :) Ambi 02:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Out of interest, when are we going to start archiving this page? It's getting kind of large! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Today. ;) Ambi 03:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent :-) Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • In order to keep this page down, I think it'd be better if we went about moving topics as they become dead/irrelevant, rather than archiving the whole lot every so often. Thoughts? Ambi
      • I think the only feasible way is to keep an eye on the topics. For instance, there is a question asked in the images section by someone (still gotta reply that actually) and so we should keep this topic. Maybe this means nominating an archivist? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've come up with some suggested strategies for the Sydney Wikiproject. Would anyone care to comment or modify anything? I'm actively encouraging people to, actually. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and and ive modified it; also while we have a section about wikiproject sydney, i may as well hijack it and change the subject. There was talk b4 about a national get together, which may well have been premature, however, then there was talk of city-wide get togethers which may also have been premature. SO, i am proposing as a step on the way toward a city-wide get together (which is a step toward a national get together, which is a step toward creating an australian wikipedia chapter, which is a step toward world domination :P ) anyone who is interested in doing some research on next weeks ACOTW (which i believe we agreed would be Victor Chang) meet at the Sydney state library for that reason some time next week. I know that Ta bu shi da yu went for last weeks collaboration, and (I THINK) was interested in going again this week, and i am interested in going, and i hope that maybe some other sydneysiders would like to come, and that we could make this a weekly get together of sorts. And i suggest that if this is sucsessful others try to set up similar get togethers at thier state (or in camberra's case national, and in darwin's case teritorial) libraries. And for the people who dont live in big cities.... well, um... i've got nothin'.... The bellman 12:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've got a wedding on, more's the pity (well, not for my friend... but you know) :( And on Sundays I'm committed to a few things! Maybe the week after? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool, unless anyone else is interested ill probably just go tot the local library then. Oh well, maybe someother time. The bellman 10:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can we set a limit on the number of items in the mini-to do list? Cause everytime someone adds another article to expand, someone needs to add more to the other columns to keep it balanced and looking pretty. That someone may or may not be me. But I think it's usefulness is limited the bigger it gets. Let's focus on one small batch and keep the rest at the Complete list. It'll also let us use the template in other places, like new Aussie wikipedians talk pages as a welcome, and the like. I would say let's make it a little smaller, maybe 15 items per column - 15 to create, 30 to expand, however many reviews/images fit. Just a suggestion for a smoother ride. T.P.K. 16:27, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. How about cutting it back to 10 that need creating, and 10 that need work? Ambi 00:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but how do we decide? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about cutting Fuzzy-wuzzy (as it appears this won't be created anymore), John Wamsley (I'll go create this myself later - too insignificant) Bert Newton (going to be ACOTW soon), 1989 Newcastle earthquake (natural disaster overload), 2003 Canberra bushfires (more natural disaster overload), Waterfall train disaster (other disaster overload), Woomera Detention Centre (perhaps leave only one refugee topic up there - we've already got Pacific Solution)

...and for the improve section, cutting all but Australian Record Industry Association, Conservation in Australia, Dick Smith, Dorothea Mackellar, Goods and Services Tax (Australia), Kerry Packer, Lake Burley Griffin and Snowy Mountains Scheme. Most of these appear to be the worst stubs on the list, with the exception of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, which, while not a stub, needs a heck of a lot of work. Ambi 04:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also think it might be better to list existing and nonexisting articles together in the complete list, that is, not under To create and To expand headings, which look pretty messy in hindsight. It's obvious which articles need expanding and which need creating thanks to redlinks. If no one is a die-hard fan of the current setup, I'll go change it... again. T.P.K. 12:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Articles on Australian cities are really missing decent quality locator maps. None of the capital cities have them, last time I checked (except for Melbourne which has one in conjunction with an area map). As an example, one of the best ones we have is this one for Rockhampton - no disrespect to the user that created it, but it is quite average. I've used User:Tim Starling's state locator maps (visible on each state's page) to make city locator maps. Just wanted to get some consensus on what layout and style people liked the best? I've put some examples up on my page at User:Chuq/Maps/Australia -- Chuq 03:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Which ones were you planning on using? Just one of them? Ambi 04:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, just one - not sure which one is best. I've added a new map up there Image:Australia map.png - also look at User:Chuq/Maps/Tasmania for some other layouts that I have used, that could be applied to the Australian city maps easily. -- Chuq

Update - some new state locator maps on that page -- Chuq 09:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On viewing these on a different machine, they appear a bit too light. Can someone check and see if it is just me? -- Chuq 00:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've started creating these, following the example of the Canadians, which I think works really well (2004 in Canada and 2004 Canadian incumbents). I've only created 2004 in Australia and 2004 Australian incumbents so far, but any help in filling the gaps and adding other years would be much appreciated. Ambi 04:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think these articles are a great idea, but I notice 2004 in Australian politics and 2004 in Australian culture are linked, but non-existant - I'm hesitant to think there is any need for these articles. Surely everything newsworthy in Australia in 2004 could be written (or summarised, eg Jakarta, election, etc) in 32kb? (It may be possible to fit incumbents into this page as well, but they aren't out of place on their own page) -- Chuq 11:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we definitely need a seperate incumbents page - it's quite long on its own, and 2004 in Canada is already well over 32kb. As to the politics and culture articles - I copied them from the Canadian one. I don't think they're a bad idea, but they haven't been created over there anything. So they might be worth removing, as long as there's something else to put in the sidebar (the Canadian one also has a couple of sport-related links). Ambi 11:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've just found a great resource for Australian biographies: The Dictionary of Australian Biography, at Project Gutenberg Australia. Note that while it is public domain in Australia (for now, let's see what happens with the FTA implementation), it is not public domain as far as American law is concerned, so it can't be copied verbatim into the Wikipedia, nor can the images be used. However, it does look like a very useful, convenient source, if one to be supplemented by checking more modern scholarship. --Robert Merkel 08:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another great resource, specificaly for bios of females is this from Women Australia (funded be the fed gov).

This book should not be confused with the Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB), which is the standard reference work for Australian biography. Serle's work was a personal one and his judgements should not be taken as fact unless checked against the ADB or another reputable source. Adam 08:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip Adam, I'll remember this! Will come in handy when researching Strathfield. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved from similar topic below

http://gutenberg.net.au/ - Was anyone aware of the existence of this? Bio's of many Australian explorers, politicians, artists and others. All public domain text! -- Chuq 05:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remember, however, that this is probably not public domain in the US, which means that I doubt we can directly copy it here. However, it's certainly good source material. Ambi 09:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it just a matter of finding the date-of-death of the author, or are there further wrinkles of difference between Australian and US law? —Stormie 23:00, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

IANAL, though there's no others that I know of - it's just the date of death. Ambi 23:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd actually pointed this out earlier on this page. As I intimated and Adam Carr (resident know-it-all on Australian history) explained in more detail, it's a useful resource but don't take it as gospel. --Robert Merkel 03:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops - and I thought I read every single edit made to this page! Apologies... moving this up to that section now... -- Chuq 07:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Australian Academy of Science has a lot of very good (and long) biographies on Australian scientists. Text is copyrighted, but its a good starting source--nixie 13:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lists themselves moved to [1] [2] [3] [4]. Ambi 09:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i added the sport section (however i dont know anything about sport so couldnt add many sportspeople. I think the Other section should be broken up a little, ie. science, politics, exploration, celebraty, milatary. The bellman 10:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is something similar here

Is anyone going to mind if each of these is moved to a subpage of the complete to-do list, as I've already done with footballers and judges? Ambi 10:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These should either be moved as Ambi suggests, or at least transferred above the 'archive line' on this page.--ZZ 13:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I actually intended the Checklist to be a list of articles we don't have, but now it is expanding into a List of Australian biographical articles. In that case it ought to be put somewhere else and organised more logically. Adam 14:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not just move the done ones to List of Australians, and the red-links to a subpage? Ambi 23:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We should have two lists here: articles which need writing, and articles which need improving. Adam 02:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Woohoo! The Bulldogs won! Now, do we have an article about them? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that our NRL content is going to make our AFL content look good. Edit: Actually, Canterbury Bulldogs isn't too bad, although sections of it suffer from the interminably bad writing that our AFL articles also suffer from. Ambi 12:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I might be able to convince my brother to look into fleshing out the info on this one. Having an article on the Bulldogs might actually be the thing we need to get more people involved in Wikipedia! After all, we are nothing if not passionate about our sport. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to start making up pages on each past parliament, which might encourage people to create pages for some of the retired figures. Which naming convention would you people prefer - the Canadian one (37th Canadian parliament) or the British one (MPs elected in the UK general election, 1987)? I personally like the former, but I thought I'd put it up for discussion before I started creating them. Ambi 12:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Weren't you using the term incumbent, or is that subtly diiferent from elected parliament? I think I'd prefer Canadian nomenclature out of those two options. That way there's no argument about including people appointed outside that year (though I'm not sure how common that is), but still part of that parliamentary edition.--ZZ 12:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The incumbents page doesn't refer to parliamentarians so much as the PM, Deputy PM, Cabinet members, Premiers, State Governors, High Court Justices, and Lord Mayors for that particular year. This, on the other hand, will just be a list of the parliamentarians (i.e. List of members of the Australian House of Representatives, but for past years). Ambi 12:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are complete lists of Australian federal MPs and Senators at my website, here, here and here. You are welcome to copy and wikify them. Adam 13:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam, you are a legend :-) I was wondering how we were going to do this... Will try to do something with this excellent information soon. Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I second that. I'll try and get to this next. Ambi 13:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I knew there was something else. How should we handle the Senate with these? Ambi 00:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By "how should we handle" you mean should we specify 6 year terms, and list senators elected for those 6 years, or list (say) a senator elected in 1998 in both "1998-2001" and "2001-2004" parliaments? Chuq 05:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm just unsure as to whether to have them on the same page (long), or if they're split up, what to name them as. Ambi 06:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any ideas, anyone? Ambi 21:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you are interested in using the Canadian pages as a model please note that the format used in the 37th Canadian parliament has been replaced by that used at the 34th Canadian parliament. - SimonP 20:02, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ambi 21:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello Aussies. I'm making a Voter's Guide project over at Wikibooks. I'm an American and am focusing on getting some stuff ready for the US midterms in 2006 (I'm assuming the upcoming election is too soon to accomplish much) and I see on current events that an Australian election will be occurring in about two months. If anybody is interested, I am creating some US framework now, which can be used/adapted for Australian elections as appropriate. Tuf-Kat 01:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Oops, it has been brought to my attention that I should study my months, as current events indicates that the upcoming Australian elections are significantly less than two months away, contrary to my original, bizarre reading. In any event, there will likely be another one, so the invitation still stands. Tuf-Kat 01:28, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Next weekend last I checked (otherwise I'm gonna look awful embarrased showing up to non-existent booths). But thanks for the offer & invitation.--ZZ 02:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 9, for the record. The Wikibook sounds like a good idea, I've been wanting to investigate the whole site but been a little lost. T.P.K. 06:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot of organization at the moment. It can be frustrating, but Wikipedia was once that way too. Tuf-Kat 06:19, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

There will be some problems with this checklist:

• Some people will appear twice, since they served in both the House and the Senate
• Some names will appear twice because two MPs had the same name (eg the two Kim Beazleys). You will need to check at my website to figure out who these were.
• Some names appear under different forms to those in articles, eg Bob Hawke appears as Robert Hawke
• Some MPs and Senators will need to be disambiguated from other people of the same name.

Adam 03:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you, Adam. For brevity, I've moved these to a subpage. Now, sorting time...Ambi 03:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It'd be much appreciated if someone could fill in the religious leaders section of 2004 Australian incumbents. It's not really my sort of thing, so I'm not sure where to start. Ambi 06:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam was able to chip in with the Catholic ones, and some of the Anglicans, which is handy, but I'd really appreciate some assistance with the leaders of some of the other religions - I've got no idea where to start with the Jewish and Muslim leaders, for instance. Ambi 09:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done some quick webseraching. Pulled up Canberra Islamic Center but haven't been able to explore it properly as yet.--ZZ 12:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that neither Islam nor Judaism are hierarchical religions like Christianity, and do not have recognised national "leaders" like Archbishops. Sheikh Taj El-Din Hilaly, Imam of the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney styles himself Grand Mufti of Australia, but has no right to do so and is not recognised by Victorian Imams. Adam 13:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Thanks, Adam. Ambi 13:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas for a picture of Jack Lang? I just found this little gem while formatting Adam's links, and it looks like its nearly ready for featured status. Ambi 10:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Needs a picture, and should their be a bulleted list of achievements? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I just asked for a picture. ;) The bulleted list I can take care of. Ambi 07:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I sent an email to monash uni requesting copyright info on a pic of lang on thier site, hopefully they will be willing to let us use it. i await thier response. The bellman 11:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • If you get permission, can you keep the emails and paste them into the image page? Kind of like I did with the Cyclone Tracy image. This would be helpful. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I get the impression that there is a sufficient level of interest in setting up an Australian Wikimedia chapter, so I'm keen to seriously look into what's required.

If I recall correctly, becoming a proper incorporated body will cost a couple of hundred dollars; not quite trivial, but not a huge expense either. We'd have to write and approve a constitution, appoint initial office bearers, and so on.

Initially, this would allow us a more convenient method to raise funds locally; in the longer term, it would serve as an official body we could use to apply for Australian grants, act as a good contact point for the Australian media, set up our own servers (for instance, sooner or later I expect Mediawiki will support distributed content cacheing). Not to mention it would be a good body to organise non-virtual get-togethers and suchlike!

What do you all think? Has anybody set up an association like this before? --Robert Merkel 01:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I'm certainly interested, but once it comes down to the nitty gritty legal details I don't think I would have the time, I spend more time mucking about on here than I should! I would be willing to do routine things like paying membership fees and putting my names on lists of signatures, or whatever is needed in that regard, but I don't even have time to participate at my local LUG, and I'm notably lazy when I'm not at a keyboard :P I *would* be potentionally interested in a Melbourne based meetup though, given it was on a weekend and I had a few weeks notice! -- Chuq 05:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it'd be an excellent idea, but it would require someone with the appropriate knowledge being willing to do the groundwork. Oh, and another advantage of doing this is that we may be able to (like in the US) secure tax-deductible status. Ambi 07:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I dont think that we are quite up to it yet, but i do think that it would be a good thing to work towards. I think we need a couple of things to happen first though:

(these are just my sugestions, i suppose other ppl will have other ideas)

1. get more aussies involved in this notice board, and possibly try to broaden collaboration to include some topics that arent wholly australian.
2. An irc channel for aussie wikipedians so we can collaborate in real time, and what not.
3. real world get togethers in the capital cities.
4. involment by australians in more aspects of wikimedia (ie. wikitionary, wikibooks, aswell as general tech, funraising, organisation etc.)

The bellman 13:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Meet up: Jimbo suggested that wikipedians make an effort to meet each other. He and Larry Sanger used to have bitter Usenet exchanges and when they met in person they became friends; so maybe a wikipedia meetup would help the sense of community. This page should help Wikipedians organise meetings. The bellman 07:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, as of today, our first article, Cyclone Tracy is now a featured article. Thank you to those who helped work on it. It's a shame that we haven't seemed to get very far with our next one. Any contributions over at Victor Chang would be much appreciated. Ambi 08:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I've extended this week's COTW to next Thursday. I think we need to find sources of information! Part of the problem is there's more info on Cyclone Tracy than there is on Victor Chang. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why thursday? Maybe it should be ACOTF (ie. collaboration of the fortnight). The bellman 11:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary, as long as we pick our topics wisely. Cyclone Tracy showed that we could do something decent in a week - we're just being hampered by a lack of information and time with this particular one. Ambi 02:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If anyone's in need of a project, I've now finished formatting, wikifying, disambiguating and sorting the House of Representatives section of Adam's list at Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Politicians. There's now a complete list of every past or present member of the House of Representatives that we don't currently have an article on. There's also quite a few important names there. Once again, any help would be appreciated. Ambi 08:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guys (and girls) - you have got to check out Summer Hill. I do believe it's our first featured suburb. Our user Nickj has done some tremendous work on this, and really pulled off a fantastic article. Feel free to leave a message of encouragement on his talk page, and please stop by his page to admire his bright shiny new barnstar! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Glorious stuff! Should it be at Summer Hill or Summer Hill, New South Wales though? :-) —Stormie 23:32, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is a suburb of Launceston named Summerhill (no article yet though) so the full name may be best :) Chuq 00:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some criticism: characteristics needs to be filled out more and there needs to be movement from dot-points to continuous prose. Good work though - Aaron Hill 02:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Looks great. Any chance of an article on better-known suburbs like Camelia, Macdonaldtown and Silverwater? ;) One Salient Oversight 03:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what we're hoping for! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Australian_wikipedians'_notice_board#Australian biographies

Would anyone be able to track down lists of Mayors and Lord Mayors for Brisbane, Darwin, Perth, Adelaide and Hobart? We've now got Melbourne and Sydney, but I'm having a lot of trouble tracking down any of the others. Ambi 03:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I was looking for the Hobart ones yesterday. No luck at all. I don't even know any names apart from the current one Rob Valentine - hey, I've only lived here for 2 years! A google search found me some pics and names of previous ones but no dates. I'll check with the council -- Chuq 07:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I think we'll have to do the same with the other capitals. Ambi 07:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had a hunt for Brisbane Lord Mayors:William Jolly, 1924/5- ?, John Green, ?, Alfred Jones, ?, Sir John Chandler (1887-1952), 1940-1952, Sir Reginald Groom, ?, ? ,Dr Clem Jones, 1961-1975, Frank Sleeman (1915-2000), 1976 – 1982 Roy Harvey, 1982-1985 Sallyanne Atkinson, 1985-1991 Jim Sorley,1991-2003, Tim Quinn, 2003-2004, Campbell Newman, 2004-current. Interestingly Sallyanne and Campbell are the only Liberal Mayors. Brisbane City Council should be able to fill in the blanks--nixie 23:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! From that, I'll be able to create some sort of Brisbane article, and the earlier ones can be filled in at a later date. Ambi 01:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to put some hard yards into Australian fauna. Anyone who has information or comments on the general page structure can chime in on my Talk Page. Also I think List of Australian birds needs some work/fixing - see my comments in its discussion.--ZZ 06:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still the same crummy bastards in power. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Time to start working on Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. Might take a while to save up the airfare though. Ambi 12:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What, not the Wikipedia:New Zealand wikipedians' notice board? —Stormie 02:32, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I want to cry (but I'm not British). Although if my plan pans out, I should be able to escape to Japan next year.--ZZ 12:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I spent 15 hours today warking at a polling booth, and quite frankly, i am amazed that democracy works as well as it does with such idiots for voters. As for four more years of the same; I really want to go get smashed to drown my sorrows. The bellman 13:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My mother helped sort votes this evening. Somebody had a senate ballot which had a big asterix in the Greens' box, and a note down the bottom saying "Up yours [the candidate's name]". I just hope Family First doesn't win anything. Gotta say my first election wasn't that enthrilling.--ZZ 13:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It looks like Family First will, but not the party leader in South Australia - instead in Victoria? What the hell? And this is despite the Greens outpolling them by a ratio of four to one in Victoria. And it looks like said guy will have control of the Senate. I did get smashed last night. We're stuffed. Ambi 21:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am *not* looking forward to having to revising the Australian political articles. How does one write "Howard lied his way to another term of office" in an NPOV manner? :( (User:Robert Merkel forgot to sign)

There's probably not that many we'll have to revise, but we'll need to start getting ones on the new members. Assuming that the articles on the retiring MPs are already up to date, Trish Worth, Michael Organ, Ross Cameron, Larry Anthony, Christian Zahra and Con Sciacca may need updating - though some of them haven't yet conceded defeat. I've done Michelle O'Byrne and Sid Sidebottom already. In the Senate, John Cherry, Aden Ridgeway, Brian Greig, Meg Lees and Jacinta Collins all need the same. Len Harris is already updated. The article on the election needs a lot of work, as it's still all about what might happen.

Now, to the (probably) newly elected. Michael Ferguson, Kate Ellis, Sharon Bird, Steve Georganas, Julie Owens, Justine Elliot, Ross Vasta, Mark Baker, Louise Markus, Stuart Henry, Michael Keenan, Andrew Murfin (maybe) and David Fawcett. The Senate I don't have candidate lists for, but Michael Ronaldson, Christine Milne, Connie Ferravanti-Wells, Fiona Nash, Anne McEwen and Annette Hurley, Helen Polley, Stephen Parry, Judith Adams and Glenn Sterle would all appear to be in. Ambi 01:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Liberals might have a senate majority too - now we're even more rooted! -- Chuq 01:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I left Australia so I wouldn't have to look at Gladys and wonder whether he was ever going to remove the pickaxe from his buttocks that his expression seems to indicate has been there since his university days. I'm going to have to stay away longer it seems. --Roisterer 02:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you really leave Australia because of this? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, when I was offered a job in The Land of the Long White Rain Producing Cloud, one of the first things that entered my mind was "there will be less chance of switching on the news in NZ and seeing Downer". --Roisterer 08:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment of last night. I dont really think that all voters are idiots, just that there is so much apathy in the electorate. Out of the THREE THOUSAND ballots cast in the senate in my booth, only TWENTY were under the line. Two of these were donkey votes, and another three came from myself and members of my family (who wouldnt normally have voted in this booth other than the fact i was working in it). That for people who normaly voted in that booth, only FIFTEEN serious below the line senate papers were filled in out of THREE THOUSAND.

I still feel completely numb and raw and completely disempowered from howards victory. I feel like just completely ignoring all things political and just burying my head in the sand. God help us if family first gets a seat. The bellman 10:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Short of some kind of miracle, the bastards will get in in Victoria, on Democrat preferences, which no one predicted. So it looks like they may well end up with the balance of power - or else the Libs will get a majority. So we're doubly screwed. I voted above the line this time. I trust the Greens enough. Ambi 10:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I came so close to voting above the line for the first time in my life, and the one reason I didn't was that I was voting Green, but wanted to put the Democrats below Labor to punish them for their despicable deal with Family First. I'm glad I did. —Stormie 10:17, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

47 below the line, and the AEC didn't even tell me who they all were - well, not like 1 vote ever made a difference. Alphax 11:09, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

Gosh, who says Wikipedians have a left-wing bias? I also spent 14 hours on a polling booth (not to mention six weeks in a campaign office), and am now feeling pretty sad, though not really surprised. I think our election coverage has actually been pretty good so far. Adam 15:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's ironic really. I've turned to the left, after being fairly right-wing for a while. I guess I just saw the light. The ironic bit is that now the rest of Australia has turned to the right. *sigh* - Ta bu shi da yu 12:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

For those of you who despair of our electoral system, check out Demarchy. It is an alternative form of democracy that doesn't require elections or political parties. And it was invented by an Australian. One Salient Oversight 06:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can someone knowledgable verify if this edit correct or not? (Addition of Elizabeth II?) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Australian_order_of_precedence&curid=302715&diff=0&oldid=0 -- Chuq 01:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm knowledgable. But school taught us the Queen was tops. Its not like she actually does anything, but technically she's tops.--ZayZayEM 11:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I know that The Queen is a Top Aussie, but I'm not sure if she belongs on that page. Then again I'm a republican so I'm biased :P -- Chuq 14:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Liz is still top of the tree. Orders of precedence are only for formal occasions anyway... - Aaron Hill 11:19, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

How come William Deane opened the 2000 Summer Olympics? An exception to the rule? -- Chuq 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Was the Queen here for the Olympics? —Stormie 11:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I would hope she had a damn good excuse if she didn't turn up :P -- Chuq 12:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If i remember correctly, she WAS meant to open it, but little johnny wanted to open it himself, but there was a big outcry about it, so it was agreed that the GG would do it becuase he was niether a filthy pom (like the queen) or a filthy git (like the PM).