Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to talk about this, but I noticed a spelling mistake in this page.

The second paragraph talks about sandalwood cutters, but has spelt sandalwood as sandlewood in error.

Can someone please check this?

Thanks,

Julz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.238.2.139 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. Graham87 08:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Border Crisis was created on Thursday by User:Collingwood26.

It's blatantly political, and covers ground already covered by other articles.

How can it be quickly removed? HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that it will need to go to WP:AFD. I agree with your assessment: this does not seem to be an attempt to create a neutral article. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have added a prod tag - it will need to be watched, I suspect sats 07:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be watching. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up as much as I could but what is left still doesn't warrant an article after the extraneous content, OR and misquotes were removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - The title itself is pure newspaper banner, and election time fodder, the sooner it is a redirect to a real encyclopediac article the better... sats 08:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Mitch Ames has added links to the article which make it clear that the article is redundant to the three articles linked but it can't be redirected to any single article so I've endorsed the prod with a note to that effect. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We could just redirect it to Asylum in Australia, which seems to cover the bulk of the material. - Bilby (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reputable source that uses the term "border crisis"? (None of the existing refs appear to.) I don't think we should even legitimise the term "Australian border crisis" with a redirect. Simply delete it. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's clearly a term invented for political purposes. Pure POV nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, for what it's worth. Frickeg (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

+1 for deleting without leaving a redirect, per above. Could it perhaps be speedy deleted per WP:SPEEDY#A10? (I'm not sure if its appropriate to place a speedy-delete tag on an article that already has a prod tag, so I'm just leaving the suggestion here.) - Evad37 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion ... may be deleted through speedy deletion". Therefore I've nuked the page. Graham87 06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite annoyingly, The NSW Geographical Names Board has reorganised its website so most of the 1,400+ links to Geographical Names Register extracts are now dead. It's going to be a pain fixing all of the citations so I'm going to write a citation template to make it easier to fix next time this happens. Stay tuned. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

{{NSW GNR}} has been created and I'm currently plodding through 700 articles with AWB. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

After fixing 140 articles using AWB I've hit a bit of a stumbling block and there are still almost 1,000 articles listed on the template's talk page that need to be fixed, mostly manually. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone better informed than me about defamation law take a look at recent changes to this article? I really don't have the necessary expertise to deal with it. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "better informed about defamation law", but I'm not happy about User:Alp watcher's additions either, and have removed much of it, and tweaked what remains. Details and reasons at Talk:Michael Danby#Edits by Alp watcher, August 2013. I suggest further discussion continues on that article's talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I created the Marriage in Australia page with a bunch of links to related topics. It needs to be built up into a proper article. There is obviously plenty of material for it. Cheers from NZ. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As it has been announced, perhaps admins might put this one on watch - Australian_federal_election,_2013 sats 06:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone like to join me next weekend for a drive to cleanup Category:Australia at Commons? At the moment it contains 601 files. It isn't that difficult work. Many just need to be removed as they are already in their appropriate sub-categories. Some of the them appear to be fine images worthy of inclusion in various Portal Selected Picture sections. If you do help and come across an excellent photo but don't do Portal work just list the files below. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, do you have a time in mind? Or just anytime?. Liamdavies (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anytime on Saturday or Sunday would be great. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this is largely (though not entirely) attributable to russavia not fixing up his bot uploads from Flickr... It might be best to ask him to fix this up. Most of the files seem to be in the "Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup)" category, which he doesn't seem to be actually cleaning up based on this evidence. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a go already It's currently down to 356 files.--Melburnian (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been at it a few times over the last day, now down to 187. Liamdavies (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a silly edit war at Vegemite regarding kosher and halal certification. More eyes would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A few Australian wikipedians are going to share a table in the outdoor cafe tomorrow lunchtime. Come along if you're in HK and would like to eyeball some faces behind the usernames. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to come but I'm not sure I have enough petrol to get past Borneo. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

it happened and was a good meet up... sats 06:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently noone thought to seek the opinion of editors here for this CFD opinions as to whether aboriginal place names are an important search feature Gnangarra 10:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Typical Northern Hemisphere bias, why would they care to ask Australian editors (sorry for the lack of good faith but it hasn't been the last time they've done this and it wont be the last). Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

By my count, this has affected 818 articles. Limited consensus by 4 editors can't override the agreement of entire project. I've been seeing far too much of this lately. There have even been cases where TfDs seem to be left open in the hope that enough delete votes come along.[1][2] Even worse, there have been blatant cases of WP:OWN that have not been addressed.[3][4] I don't see Bidgee's comments as a lack of good faith. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Aside from limited discussion and possibly poor consensus making, is the reasoning behind the decision valid? I think a list would be better than a category in this case. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin is tagged with {{refimprove}}. We could end up with a huge list article with literally thousands of citations. Individually categorising the cited articles with List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin as the main article seems more easily manageable. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that argument of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES was a flawed one, since the names are related (being Aboriginal rather than the typical white mans name) and even the guideline states

However, a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related—for example, a category grouping subarticles directly related to a specific Jackson family, such as Category:Jackson musical family.

As AussieLegend has stated, lists can rather cumbersome, whereas categories are manageable. Though it could've been renamed as "Category:Aboriginal place names of Australia" or something similar. Bidgee (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

CFD and its lack of transparency and total disinterest in reporting to affected projects (Australia and Indigenous Australian projects are valid active projects) has been consistent for over five years now - perhaps a DR is required.sats 14:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES seems quite clearly to apply: "Avoid categorising by... characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself". These places aren't directly related. The only relationship they have is in the name. If you believe this to be untrue then try to explain what characteristics are shared by, for example, Canberra, Kata Tjuta, the Culgoa River and Illalong beyond their names. You will find that you are unable to do so, illustrating clearly that the places have been categorised solely on the basis on the name.

Or to put it another way, if the names of those places were changed tomorrow to something of Aztec origin, would there remain any way they could be linked? If you accept that the answer is "No", then clearly they have been categorised solely on a characteristic of the name. This is quite different from a category related to the Jackson musical family. In that case, the author could tell you what links the articles in the category, beyond the name: they all have physical links to the Jackson family. It wouldn't matter if Neverland Ranch were renamed Teotihuacan Ranch tomorrow, it would still naturally fall into Category:Jackson musical family because a member of that family built it. That connection is a fact of history, not an accident of naming. That is in contrast to Category:Aboriginal place names where, once the name changes, there is no more reason to include Canberra than to include Darwin. Mark Marathon (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES actually says "avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject". Using Aboriginal place names in Australia is a quite noteworthy issue that always becomes front page news when a significant place is renamed to the Aboriginal version, such as when Ayers Rock and The Olgas were dual-named. Here though the categorisation avoids the need to create an article with thousands of citations as I've previously mentions. Even if WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES did apply, this is a case where WP:IAR can be invoked for valid reasons. I'd argue though that OC#SHAREDNAMES is misapplied here since articles weren't categorised by their names, but rather the general language from which their names came. This wasn't a case of Category:Places named Wagga Wagga, which is what OC#SHAREDNAMES is aimed at. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. In what way is "the general language from which their names came" not itself a characteristic of the name rather than the subject itself? If the articles weren't categorised by their names, then you should be able to tell us what characteristics are shared by Canberra, Kata Tjuta, the Culgoa River and Illalong. And if the trait that they share is just "the general language from which their names came", then why doesn't this category also include by "Kangaroo", "Boomerang" and "Ernie Dingo", since they share the same general language from which their names came.

OC#SHAREDNAMES isn't just aimed at Category:Places named Wagga Wagga. It is also aimed at "categories for unrelated people who happen to be named 'Jackson'"... or "categories for unrelated cattle stations, streets, sports field, towns, national parks and rivers that all happen to be named after Aboriginals or with Aboriginal words in their names or with their Aboriginal names" which is even less pertinent to their notability than people being called Jackson. I can see why some places being renamed with Aboriginal names might be noteworthy, and would make a good article. It might even make a plausible category, similar to "Category:Converts to Islam from Christianity. That at least would be an arguable case, since having gone through an official, historical renaming ceremony/act ties them together beyond their names, though it seems to fall foul of WP:OC#TRIVIAL in almost all but the most notable cases such as Uluru. After all, these places aren't noteworthy for having Aboriginal names, they are noteworthy and they have Aboriginal names. But I can't see any way that just ""Category:Aboriginal language place names" is ever going to fly. The standard litmus tests for these categories is whether the category will remain accurate if the article is renamed for some reason. Since it clearly won't in this case, I can't see it ever getting consensus.

And while WP:IAR is great and all, once you invoke it you need to have some sort of justification for going against longstanding consensus. What precisely are we saying that justification is here? Why, for example, is "Category:Places named for Aboriginal words" a valid category when "Category:European language place names" or "Category: Churches named for St. Dunstan" clearly are not? Mark Marathon (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan was that the only link between the articles was the saint and not all churches named for St. Dunstan are notable. Only a very few ever would be and so a list of place names was a far better option. Category:European language place names, which doesn't exist and apparently never has, is a problem category because what exactly is a "European language". Contrary to the situation that existed with Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan, Australian Aboriginal place names contained 818 articles, all of which are about inherently notable places. "Kangaroo", "Boomerang" and "Ernie Dingo" are not places, which is why they don't fit the category. They're also not Aboriginal. They are "Europeanised" versions of Aboriginal words, except for Ernie. As for the "longstanding consensus", there is an existing category tree, Category:Place names by language, that supports retention of Category:Australian Aboriginal place names. IAR is applicable for the reasons that I've already explained. A properly cited version of List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin would be enormous and difficult to manage. In such cases, an abbreviated list with a category for which it is the main article is a much better option regardless of what any policy might say. Again as I've already pointed out, OC#SHAREDNAMES is aimed at cases like Category:Places named Wagga Wagga or Category:People named Smith, where the links are tenuous, not at categories like this. Categories like these are used by people interested in Toponymy, which is one of the reasons Category:Place names by language exists. Oh, since "categories for unrelated cattle stations, streets, sports field, towns, national parks and rivers that all happen to be named after Aboriginals or with Aboriginal words in their names or with their Aboriginal names" isn't in OC#SHAREDNAMES, it shouldn't be in quotes. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I still do not undertsand at all. The problem with "Category:Places named for Aboriginal words" is that the only link between the articles was the language. And of course all articles in Wikipedia are about notable subjects, by definition. And of course not all places with Aboriginal names are notable. Nobody is ever going to write an article on Mucakity Creek, Prairie, Queensland, for example. The ones that have articles written about them however will be notable, and the ones without an article, of course, will not be included in a category.

"Category:Places named for Aboriginal words" is a problem category because what exactly is an "Aboriginal language".

It wouldn't matter if Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan contained 10, 000 articles or 10,all of them would be inherently inherently notable: they would have to be or they would be deleted. places.

You say that the category is for "the general language from which their names came", yet despite "Kangaroo", "Boomerang" and "Ernie Dingo" coming from exactly the same languages, you claim they do not fit the category because they are not places. SO clearly the linking element is not the language from which the words are derived.

You say that "Kangaroo", "Boomerang" and "Ernie Dingo" are "Europeanised" versions of Aboriginal words. But presumably Canberra, and Woolongabba belong in the category, despite being far more "Europeanised" then any of them.

But anyway, I've said my $0.02. If you want to try to get this through, go for it. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wll to be fair, "Aboriginal language place names" suffers the same problem as "European language placenames". There is more than one applicable language in both instances. -- Nbound (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

True. But in both cases it's probably people of European background doing the naming. That makes a significant difference. HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A point to keep in mind is that under the Geographical Names Act Indigenous names must be from the local Indigenous language, have official permission for it's use from the Indigenous community and be spelt and pronounced as the majority of English speakers would find the easiest to understand to avoid problems with emergency services etc. Wayne (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly relevant to names that have been in use for over 100 years, such as the place where I happen to live. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Title says it all. Bringing it up here because last year there was no consensus to move. Also, the talk page wasn't moved properly, there are now redirects Lake Eyre → Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre and Talk:Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre → Talk:Lake Eyre. - Evad37 (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, move proposals in such areas are politically fraught. Conservative folk oppose them for ideological reasons, but generally don't have the courage to say that here. They point at things like WP:COMMONNAME, knowing full well that such policies lead to maintaining the status quo. Using official names avoids the politics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as it's commonly recognized by the old name it should be under that name. A search indicates almost no use yet of the new name and the Indigenous people have no problem with the old name.[5] Treat it the same as Eyre's Rock, dual names are only used to accustom people to a new name. In time Kati Thanda will be the preferred name and the page will need moving to that. Wayne (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've been bold by moving it back, since a move request should be under taken. This also fixes the talkpage issue. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that dual names is far more common than most people know, for example the Geographical Names Board officially renamed the River Torrens to 'Torrens River-Karrawirra Parri' in October 2001, West Terrace Cemetery was likewise renamed 'Wirranendi' in November 2001 and Victoria Square, Adelaide was renamed 'Tarndanyangga' in May 2002. We still use the original names. There are also plans to rename (dual name) Port Adelaide, Glenelg and Klemzig and a host of other Adelaide suburbs in the future. WP:COMMONNAME must be followed or we'll be confusing readers. Wayne (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that such name changes in urban areas are a valid comparison with one like Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre, where the Aboriginal people are obviously much more involved in the practical ownership and management of the area. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have what I've been told is the counter bell from Anthony Hordern's Emporium Store in Sydney. I would like to add a photo of it to the Anthony Hordern page but don't know how to do this. Any suggestions would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diragdoll (talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a photo you took which you are happy to freely licence for use on Wikimedia projects, go to commons:Main Page and click Participate > Upload file. There are instructions on uploading, and if it uploads successfully, it will produce some wiki markup code which you can paste into the article on Wikipedia. --Canley (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There's an request for comment underway at Natalie Tran. There's a question about using Vidstatsx statistics (vidstatsx.com) to track YouTube views. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox Papua New Guinea place}} is being deleted after a discussion attended by Australian editors. While that template is not directly supported by this project, the names of many WP:AUSTRALIA members are in the edit histories of the template and the articles to which it was transcluded, so I'm posting here as a courtesy. I have listed the deletion at WP:DRV. The discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 14. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a range of issues arising at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_ethnic_enclaves and in turn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_15#Category:Ethnic_enclaves_in_Australia - sats 08:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there's a proposal for a coordinating project for Oceania (akin to WP:South America, WP:Asia), see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Oceania -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's already been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania - Evad37 (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI - it got created by a mysterious sock like editor in april of this year and has been languishing hardly started since then - akin - means it is a sister project to projects like WikiProject Asia.... It currently is being set up more fully. The Australian and various pacific island group projects are child projects as it is umbrella like the asia project. It should also be a good central point for the old favourites like what constitutes the australasian and oceanian regions... sats 08:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Should it be taken to MfD? Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not - it is something to support for - sakes, the WP:ASIA, and WP:OCEANIA are brilliant parts of the 'larger scope' projects under which the other projects sit - imho. Also when ther old t/rusty arguments about scope of projects - the coverage of the otherwise neglected areas is spoken for in the umbrella projects... if anything is being improved in the region like a WP:OCeania project I woukld suggest a close look - it might have benefit for the child projects like NZ and OZ etc - as there are cross-border issues that can be covered in the larger regional scope project like Oceania... hope that explains the issue slightly.. sats 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I always worry about what new editors will make of inactive projects. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well if you look at the 'static start' and the state in April of the Oceania project until a few days ago - at least things are happening now that will make it more usable... sats 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The name of the article Soccer in Australia has come up again for discussion, see talk:Soccer in Australia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

image:Buangor6.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

image:Markgasser1.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone check recent edits by Xtremest1332 to the articles Ghost Drops and Melbourne Bitter. In both cases factually significant changes were made to the contents, with no indication in the edit comment as to why. Unfortunately there are insufficient references to either verify or refute the changes. I did a few Google searches for the names mentioned (in both versions of each article) but have yet to find any reliable evidence to support either version. (Most of what I found looked like it had been copied from Wikipedia.) I have asked Xtremest1332 for some references.

What caught my attention is that the changes - in particular this one, which was then changed again - are very similar in nature to edits [6][7] by an IP about a month ago, which I reverted (along with other similar edits [8][9] by the same IP) as "suspicious" shortly after they were made. (My reversions of the four edits have not been contested.)

See also Lachlan Huxtable, a newly created article by Xtremest1332, which has been proposed for deletion.

Does anyone have reference material that could support either version of either of the Ghost Drops or Melbourne Bitter articles? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm equally suspicious - even more so when I look at the early history of the Ghost Drops article and found User:Klaysmum including these contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Klaysmum - the exact same set of articles, four years ago. I'd be inclined to delete all articles except Melbourne Bitter which probably needs a good fact-check. -- Chuq (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I pretty much rewrote the entire Stanley Bruce article from scratch earlier this year and slowly but surely, it's almost at FA status, but I need more reviewers/eyes to get it perfect! If so inclined please visit the nomination page and add any comments, support or criticism you might have. It's a top-importance article for Australia and it would be great to get this one over the line if it deserves it. Unus Multorum (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When you click an ISBN number such as ISBN 978-0-86840-609-1, you get to a list within which the section for Australia is not intuitively ordered. Opinions about the ordering of that section are sought at Wikipedia talk:Book sources#Australia; please comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When Australians want to settle disagreements about the geographic info such as the proper name of a place, what references do they consult? In the UK, it seems to be the Times of London Atlas and in the US it's Rand-McNally or the National Geographic Society and so on. What's the equivalent of that in Australia? Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Geoscience Australia covers the entire country but individual states have their own registers. For example, in New South Wales, the Geographical Names Board maintains a detailed register of placenames.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AUSTPLACES#Useful_Resources has placename sources for each state and territory.--Melburnian (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Austplaces useful resources mentioned above should be first call, and each state has geographic names committees sats 09:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Please, any reader of these words, if you have any other ideas or suggestions please do let us know. Chrisrus (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Say one wanted to determine if Australians call it, for example, Beijing or Peking, or Mumbai or Bombay, or some such. Where might s/he look? Are there globes and such made in Australia that might sometimes differ from those made abroad? Chrisrus (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Media or government usage would probably be the best guide. The obvious examples of where local usage varies from official usage would be East Timor for Timor Leste and Rangoon/Burma for Yangon/Myanmar. Hack (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

One source for government usage is Australian Embassies, high commissions, consulates, multilateral missions and representative offices--Melburnian (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevent to issues of Australian aboriginal kllings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article

sats 08:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I notice that http://www.belowtheline.org.au (great site, btw!) has Wikipedia links next to the names of any canaidates with articles (so basically sitting members, as well as candidates who are notable for other reasons). If you are aware of any candidates in your region who are notable outside of being a candidate, I recommend checking the site and informing the admins so they can add the link in. -- Chuq (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The usage of Boomerang (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Boomerang (Australian TV channel) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Beerenberg logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination removed, this is PD-Simple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

AU has an extremely low threshold of originality. Even the aboriginal flag has been backed by the courts as copyrighted. Ive changed the tag to PD-ineligible-USonly. So it shouldnt be moved to commons (requires PD-AU and PD-US, where as en.wiki only needs PD-US). Someone more familiar with the image should mark it with logo or trademark templates as required. -- Nbound (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it is copyrighted due to the curve in the wording and the addition of lines, it would be better under a fair use license with a rationale for use. Gnangarra 23:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably would be worth doing that to be on the safe side. -- Nbound (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Countries and territories bordering the Indian Ocean ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:The Commonwealth ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As you know, the word "cur" is a negative slang term for a dog or person.

You might not know, however, that according to experts and the Wikipedia article cur, there actually was a purpose-bred dog called a cur, the original cur of Britain, known only from historical records, which was a sort of a short-tailed heeling cattle droving dog, one that worked in a similar way that a blue heeler might work, but which was replaced by other dogs and went extinct.

Furthermore, you might not know that, in North America, there are a large group of special hound breeds, which my best dog reference book calls "treeing hounds", including coonhounds and such, which also tend to be called "curs". Take for example the Stephens Cur, for example, or the Black Mouth Cur. These are closely related to each other but not to the original British cur. When used in this way by dog people, it doesn't have a negative connotation, but it does betray that they were bred for a purpose, not for looks, to a breed standard, or as pets, although some are starting to breed them formally, and even to be pets, that's not what made them what they are.

Now, supposedly, in Australia, there is a third kind or breed of dog called a "cur" in Australian English: the Bull Arab. This is what I'm here to ask you about. The article Bull Arab calls it a "cur" breed, but it does not seem to be related to the extinct heeling cattle drover of Britain, nor the treeing hounds of North America, but rather something the Australians created to be a Catch dog for hunting feral pigs, from a series of different bloodlines, including molossers and sighthounds. However, I cannot find any proof in reliable sources that, in Australian English, at least among some dog experts and pig hunters, the word "cur" refers at least the Bull Arab and possibly also to other such purpose-bred native Australian catch dog breeds. Chrisrus (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of this distinct AusEng definition of "cur"? Is there an online dictionary of Australian English or Authoritative Book of Australian Dog Terminology or anything that we could use to cite the fact that the word "cur" in AusEng has this distinct meaning? Chrisrus (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have heard the term used to refer to pig dogs, though it's rare. If it were going to show up anywhere, it should be in "Sporting Shooter" or one of the similar magazines, which have a heavy focus on pig hunting and publish a lot of amateur stories. But I'm not finding anything in a search, which suggests that it's not really a common or notable term. Pending a reference, I suggest removing it from the article. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Preferred alignment (2013) of Australian east coast high speed rail system.jpg has been nominated for deletion over at commons. At question is what Australian government works are released under CC licenses. Would someone knowledgable in the field be able to pop over and give input? The discussion is here. Liamdavies (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Liam,

What is it you want to know? Have you read the links referenced in the information I gave? You'll see they are best-available sources for the Australian Government's new policy that it has adopted as a consequence of entering the Open Government Partnership. Among the information I've cited (with a link) is the statement by the Australian federal Attorney-General:

Australia is joining the Open Government Partnership [which] brings Australia into a consortia of over 60 countries that are committed to more transparent, effective and accountable governments -- with institutions that empower citizens and are responsive to their aspirations.

... Key Australian Government activities to date include … establishing the Creative Commons BY licence as the default licence for public Australian Government information ...

The Attorney-General's statement answers your question in "... what Australian government works are released under CC licenses".

This has been a bold move, very much in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. It will, however, take some time before it becomes well known in the wider community.

If you let me have a specific question (after you've read the sources I quoted), I'll be happy to answer them. I am expert in this field.SCHolar44 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response (I saw your original post on Commons), I was simply posting here for a wider opinion. It's not that I doubt you, but more that I felt it was prudent to seek input from those more knowledgeable than myself. Liamdavies (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My two cents would be that it's best not to assume a government work is freely licenced unless it explicitly says so. Yes, most Australian governments are hopping aboard the open data bandwagon, but many of their publications still aren't. Especially in this case, where it appears to be a document produced by a third party for the use of government, as opposed to something produced by the government itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC).

It would be great to see an Australian city listed in the Unofficial bids section on this page. Is this likely to happen in the near future? If not, what makes it unlikely? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

resources, money, participants, organisers, sponsors, distance from the rest of the world and costs involved in getting people from the other side... get a handle on that one, and you realise that to make a bid, it is not the smoke and mirrors tricks, it is the feet on the ground... and unless clive palmer becomes pm and builds a bridge to somewhere (antarctica?, singapore) the unlikeliness of a successful bid from Australia is about zilch, however that is one individuals jaded view of the biases of global demographics and related logistical impossibilities - try going to the Wikimedia Australia website for a more level headed response. sats 07:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The resources needed to organise an event like this are simply huge - it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct, and would require a team of people working full-time on it. However, Wikimedia Australia conducts several smaller events each year (and membership is cheap!). Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick is correct, however there are many positive aspects of the process of nominating as well - it would in all likelihood increase participation and knowledge of the project so that the balance between unlikely and likely are not as straight forward as one would think.sats 08:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We've bounced the question of hosting Wikimania around in the committee from time to time, so I've given this a bit of thought as I have organised international academic conferences and international standards meetings in my past life. To me, the main problem is money. While the logistics aren't easy, I believe that the right team (i.e. with some experience at this sort of thing) can do it. For an event of several hundred people (Hong Kong claims they had 700 registrations plus about another 300 organisers, volunteers and press) with parallel sessions, you are pretty much limited to two kinds of venues: conference centres and universities (which are usually only available during the non-teaching periods). Neither are cheap to rent (they know these large events don't have a lot of options); conference centres often require you to use their catering, universities are more flexible on catering. I would say that the ballpark costs for such an event would therefore be around $200 per delegate per day. Now the issue with Wikimania is that it has a tradition of free/near-free registration (e.g. 3-day early bird at HK for a WPian was $45, that is, $15 per delegate day). There's no way you can run this event on the registration fees -- you can't even provide a sandwich lunch for $15 per day. Even if my ballpark estimates can be brought down a bit by the use of a lot of volunteer labour, etc, the venue costs remain the big ticket item. So where does the other money come from? I understand there is an expectation of getting a *lot* of sponsorship to make up the difference. For sponsorship, you need to find organisations that are altruistically motivated to support Wikimania (some kind of commitment to free knowledge) or for whom you have a value-proposition around giving them access to the attendees in some form (e.g. drug companies sponsor medical conferences because they want to get the attending doctors to start prescribing their new drugs). So I don't see any point in bidding for Wikimania unless we have a few major sponsors lined up already so we know we have a lot of the costs underwritten. Kerry (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought the WMF put in buckets of money. Whether they would put in the extra buckets needed to run it in Australia is another matter. WMAU or sponsors might have to provide the extra money needed for the organisers to get together and for locals to get there, both costs that must have been very significantly less in HK. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is soooo not what we should be doing. Tony (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely all of this discussion would be far more appropriate at the WMAU web page rather than here, with a link from this page. With the opportunity to actually develop some of the arguments, also it would really help to hear some of the issues from people who have actually attended earlier wikimanias. sats 08:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a few comments on the above, from my observations at the "Future of Wikimania" panel, (at Wikimania 2013) and conversations with people there:

• The cost of making a bid is minimal; The cost of running the event ranges anywhere from $300k to $500k. This is mostly funded by WMF and almost all of the rest from sponsors.
• The actual cost to the movement is in the realm of $2.3-2.5m if you include all the travel involved (whether funded privately, from chapters, from scholarships/foundation, or otherwise). The additional cost of a WM in Australia would be (estimating $1000 extra per person for 1000 people) an extra $1m (so $3.3-3.5m given the above estimate).
• The conference does not need to be organised by the chapter; the US-DC and HK chapters were not established until after they were awarding hosting in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The London team of about 8-9 only comprises two WMUK board members. The DC chapter in particular said that hosting a Wikimania actually galvanised the "loose group" of Wikimedians in the area and their chapter probably wouldn't have existed without it.
• If someone wants to organise a bid there is nothing stopping them from contacting the universities, conference centres in their city and putting together a basic plan. I would recommend that anyone who does this at least keeps the chapter informed, so that we don't do anything silly like submit two competing bids.
• If a bid is accepted then a full team of volunteers (including staff) can then be assembled - but this doesn't need to be happen until a bid is accepted. Don't forget the team would all have be based in one city (or at least able to travel regularly)
• Several people actually asked me when they would see a bid from an Australian city. They certainly want us to have one. Yes, distance is an issue, but there are other benefits - less restrictive visa regulations, for example. The number of people who tried and couldn't go to Washington DC in 2012 because they were denied visas was surprising. Climate is another - the last two Wikimania's have been in 35 degree heat.
• I don't think there is a problem with discussing it here - the bid would be from the Australian community, with support from the chapter but not necessarily by the chapter.
• Casual discussion between those of us who were at WM2013 made us think that having the city in a major international hub (Melbourne or Sydney) would be best, with perhaps pre-events (either Wiki based or general tourism based) in cities like Perth and Brisbane beforehand would allow attendees to take a slightly shorter flight initially, acclimatise/get over jetlag, then a few days later head to the main conference. This is rather specific however, and of course any city which can put together a credible bid should be considered.
• It looks like both South Africa and Indonesia are making bids for 2015, both of these would be favourable locations for us; so not competing with them would be preferred - making 2016 the earliest we would want to bid.

That's my summary - not sure if I've missed anything? -- Chuq (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In my sandbox I'm currently working on the article History of Chinese in Australia. At the moment the Chinese Australian page has some good information but it is also lacking a lot of important information. I'd like help with this from interested people.Sir Langan (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you provided a link to your sandbox, it would be helpful. (or moved/copied your sandbox to WP:WikiProject Australia/sandbox/History of Chinese in Australia); don't forget the early explorations of Northern Australia in the Sui Dynasty. -- 65.92.182.123 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

His sandbox is not to hard to find. It's here. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now put up a work in progress article on History of Chinese in Australia It needs significant work and so does the information on the Chinese Australian page. All help greatly appreciated. It needs tags on the top of the page too. I'm not sure where to find those?Sir Langan (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Robert George .jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

file:AustraliaVolleyballlogo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See WT:WikiProject Oceania, where a suggestion has been made to replace the *-nesia project banners with the new Oceania banner, because they are now in the Oceania hierarchy. As WPAUSTRALIA is also now in the Oceania hierarchy, you may be interested in considering that idea for WPAUSTRALIA. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ain't going to happen. By all means tag articles that are relevant to both Australia & Oceania as a whole with both tags, but do not automatically assume that all of Australia's 100000 articles are automatically in Oceania's scope. What next, tag every article with WikiProject World or WikiProject Universe? The-Pope (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a total misunderstanding of what projects are about and category tagging is all about, and something that needs to be corrected.

Larger projects like WP Asia and WP Oceania have the smaller sub projects whioch do not need any extra tagging about at all - they remain the component projects with their own tags - the only tagging that the larger projects like WP Asia and WP Oceania are required - is where the higher heirarchy is in the title or scope is involved. To even consider that oceania tags are required on sub project talk pages is a very wrong idea, which needs to be considered in the same context where parent and child categories do not co-exist in categories on pages of articles if they are managed correctly. sats 08:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

image:AustraliaVolleyballlogo.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Australian Knights of the Thistle has been nominated for merger -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Cross of Valour (Australia) , Category:Recipients of the Commendation for Gallantry , Category:Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia) have beennominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There have recently been a bunch of uploads of portraits of foreign/trade ministers like Bob Carr and Richard Marles, with the attribution that they are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 and thus free for us to use. If this is true, it appears to me that the parliamentary website uses a similar licence, which would mean that (at long last) our politicians' pages could have proper official photos. However, I know next to nothing about copyright law - could someone who does have a look at this and make sure the user doing the uploading and/or me are interpreting this correctly? It seems odd that we would have missed this for so many years, so my instinct is I'm missing something. Frickeg (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They are CC-BY-NC-ND, which means they are incompatible with commons (completely), and incompatible with WP unless an appropriate NFCC template can be provided, which is unlikely as there are plenty of opportunites to get free shots. These need to be deleted. -- Nbound (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to nod intelligently and pretend I know what that means, but I'm glad someone who knows what they're doing can sort it out. A further question - if the person in question is deceased, would the photo then qualify? Frickeg (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it further, they've got those Images from DFAT, which has a much better license. They are fine -- Nbound (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. So Parliament's out but others might be in. Any idea about deceased individuals? Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted images of deceased individuals can sometimes be used. It might be worth asking at the Non-free content review noticeboard if you are unsure in a particular instance. Or await a more knowledgable person here. -- Nbound (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the copyright a function of the photographer, rather than the subject? I wouldn't have thought it mattered whether the subject was alive or not. (What if I took an artistic picture of a corpse - would it be covered by copyright?) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some usual suspects in the Australian project who were good at definitively stating the issues re copyright - maybe they are inactive (again) - it is well worth keeping asking and waiting, and not taking any partial explanations as potential final answers. And Mitch is right, it is the photographer who is the copyright holder, subjects are not. Re corpse, the right is with the photographer, and whatever license is stated/chosen by the photographer. However some publishers claim copyright, rather than the photographer - and again it is their perogative as to whether they claim copyrigh, or define which license is relevant to their publication. sats 09:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This issue is actually one of compliance with WP:NFCC, especially the first criteria. Non-free images are not generally acceptable in BLPs because there is a reasonable expectation that a free image is available, or could be created. For dead people, it's not usually possible to create a free image and if there are none presently available, it can be possible to use a non-free image. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Good to see people aren't making articles and categories about Australian animals that attack any more.

• Category:Personality with a animal survived
• Category:Personality with a kangaroo survived by nationality
• Category:Children with a kangaroo survived by nationality
• Category:Australian children survived with a kangaroo

Facepalm . The-Pope (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's easily fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been requested to be renamed, see talk:ANZAC Mounted Division -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A new(ish) article, is this the same as the existing Woomera Test Range? There is also a Woomera Launch Area 5 in existence. Could they all be combined into the same thing? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely that they are the same thing. Woomera Test Range says it is "located approximately 500 kilometres (310 mi) north-west of Adelaide". RAAF Woomera Range Complex includes a reference http://www.defence.gov.au/woomera/about.htm, which says that the Woomera Prohibited Area is approximately 450 kilometres NNW of Adelaide.

I'd say a merge is in order. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This user adds a lot of detail on bus routes and railway services, particularly around Melbourne but refuses to acknowledge that places such as Seaford and Hastings do indeed exist outside of Australia. Messages have been left on their talk page without any response. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 12:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that there is a backlog list with articles tagged for cleanup which haven't been fixed in nearly seven years. That is really . Please help with these forgotten articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Does any of the upgrade campaign material recently added to Nambour and Gympie North railway line belong? I've raised it on the talk page and one editor's talk page who is partially responsible but I have been ignored. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Absurd - non encyclopediac over-detail. sats 10:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

ignored, probably needs attention from an admin... sats 16:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, there is a draft of this article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rosine Guiterman, and the novice author says she's unable to finish because she's gotten overly confused by the editing process. If anyone is interested in peace activism in Australia, and wants to help close this one out and hit "Resubmit" on it to get it a final review for publication, it'd be great to see this draft not get lost between the cracks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this to article space. Someone can tag it for the project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:People educated at the National Institute of Dramatic Art, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renmaing. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some recent edits which state that Anthony Hawkins has died. There seems to be some detail on at least one fan blog, but does anyone have WP:RS or news obit confirmation? Dl2000 (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a notice in The Age about the death of an actor with this name, but whether it's the same person is not clear.[11] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

IMBd says he "Died: September 23, 2013 in Kyneton, Victoria, Australia". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Also TV Tonight and Television.AU. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these - TV Tonight indicated TelevisionAU and IMDB as sources. TelevisionAU in turn mostly based its report on The Age whose obit does indicate he was an actor. It now seems reliable enough to declare, although WP:NORUSH. Dl2000 (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been taking and uploading photographs of the ongoing RAN International Fleet review, but I need the help of other editors to categorise, sort, and caption them all, because at the moment I've not got time to do more than upload and run. I've been collating the image at User:Saberwyn/2013 RAN IFR ships, or alternately, look at my Commons contributions (which at the moment is nothing but IFR uploads). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Also, if I've failed to upload photos of any of the attending vessels, or if there's a particular ship or piece of equipment you want a shot of for an article, let me know and I'll do what I can. -- saberwyn 20:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Gday. I have now created a commons category for these - [12]. Anotherclown (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an article at International Fleet Review 2013.--Melburnian (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. -- saberwyn 09:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Cameron Smith also known as "Cammy"? See talk:Cammy Smith (footballer) for the discussion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled onto Living Atlas of Australia while doing some id's for photos soon to be uploaded from Penguin Island, thought it'd be useful for many different articles, inclusion of fauna/flora found in a regions, after some digging I found that it isnt comprehensive but its helpful Gnangarra 07:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com is on the local blacklist as a "Self-written commission-paying site", however Cyberbot II is picking up and tagging links and references to "examiner.com.au", the website of the Launceston Examiner newspaper as blacklisted too. I have requested that the newspaper site be whitelisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#examiner.com.au. --Canley (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I was wondering what was going on. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Frickeg (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Found this article. Both its images are up for deletion, File:Vincent-Smith-Musco-Blue-Whale-Sleeve-Photo.jpg and File:Vincent-Smith-Photo-Womens-Weekly-1981.jpg , as both images are more or less the same, and both are non-free, we should choose only one to keep, and convert it to a fair-use image. The article needs to be cleaned up as well. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

To introduce myself, I’m Sreejith Namboothiri - a prospective student to University of Technology Sydney (UTS). I have lately got the letter of Offer (along with an Academic Excellence Scholarship) for the general MBA program at UTS business school (Feb 2014 intake). As part of the conventional university research from my end, I have got stuck with a doubt for which I believe that only your organization can help me with a valid clarification.

From the day one of my university research, I had always made my mind that I will apply to only those programs/business schools which are AACSB accredited. As part of which I had applied and thereby got enrolled to this MBA program at UTS:

Course Name: Master of Business Administration

Course Code: C04018

CRICOS Code: 025004A

Intake: Autumn 2014

Is this MBA program to which I have got enrolled AACSB accredited? I have been lately going through the university information at Wikipedia where I find that only school of accounting at UTS Business School is AACSB accredited. I have enclosed screenshot of the information that I found in Wikipedia here below:

I crosschecked with the concerned authorities at UTS admission desk lately who were reconfirming that all programs at UTS Business School are AACSB accredited. As a prospective student to this esteemed institution, I will be deeply grateful if any of you could kindly help me in resolving my ambiguity?

Thanking you in advance.

With deep regards

Sreejith Namboothiri Cognizant Business Consulting Kerala India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.95.133 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Not really a matter for Wikipedia. In passing AACSB-accredited programs and schools appear to be listed here. Hope that's helpful, and good luck with your studies. Euryalus (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

{{Disputed-section}} was added to the Reconciliation with Utzon section of Sydney Opera House back in December 2012. With no discussion in many months, the tag was removed recently,[13] but has since been restored by the editor who originally added the tag.[14] Attention by Australian editors, per that editor's original request for attention by "those more familiar with the subject".[15] There is a related discussion in my talk page archives that sheds more light on the matter.[16] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a bit of a dilemma at redback spider which is at FAC at present. The issue is the last paragraph of the treatment section which mentions some historical treatments, mostly now so discounted they aren't even mentioned in any peer-reviewed review article we can find (apart from magnesium). Question is - is it better to list and discount them or just delete the paragraph altogether? --99of9 (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Trove, the National Library's newspapers archive. Someone has to have referred to them at some point if they're in any way significant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging... Yes we already have Trove references to all of these treatments. We can prove that they were real and used in history. What we don't have is their medical mechanims, peer-reviewed studies of their efficacy, or peer-reviewed studies of their side effects. So would you include the paragraph as it currently stands or not? --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep it - I'm not sure why one has to get into peer-reviewed studies of their efficacy or side-effects to mention that they were historically used, when there's reliable sources for their use. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion? Keep/remove? Medical and biology reviewers are leaning toward removal. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely leave it in: this is of historic interest. I would suggest strengthening the para to note that these were the pre-antivenom treatments though. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

... but anti-venom can have serious side effects, an is only given when the human victim is in danger. The paragraph is in a "Treatment" section (i.e. a medical section) and not a "History" section. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep them. They were a real part of a the culture surrounding red back spiders. Doesn't matter whether they worked or not. Nobody is going to try them today. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

...but is it part of a "Treatment" section and not a "Culture" section. The effectiveness of the old treatments is not clear from the section. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the short section in question uses the following sources for the historical aspects of the medical treatment of spider bites in Australia: Snowman (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• A newspaper article from 1893 about one treatment given to one patient by one doctor: "The Deadly Red-Backed Spider". Camperdown Chronicle (Vic. : 1877 – 1954). Vic.: National Library of Australia. 1 June 1893. p. 3.
• A newspaper article from 1951: "Don't Panic, But Treat Red-back Spider with Caution, Say Venom Experts". The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1957). Melbourne, Victoria: National Library of Australia. 6 January 1951. p. 3.
• A newspaper article form 1929: "Red-back Spider". Advocate (Burnie, Tas. : 1890 – 1954). Burnie, Tasmania: National Library of Australia. 7 September 1929. p. 5.
• A general book from 1894 (the first sections are on Wikisourse, but not the latter sections on health). See preface, which says that "Most of the matter is original, and the rest has been carefully selected and tried by herself, and adapted to the requirements of Australian Homes.": Rawson, Wilhelmina (1894). Australian Enquiry Book of Household and General Information . Pater & Knapton, Printers & Publishers. p. 165 – via Wikisource. [scan ]
• A reliable source to say there is not much evidence that treatment of spider bites with magnesium sulphate works. Also, used to say "Specific treatments for which evidence is weak or lacking are not recommended.": Isbister, Geoffrey K.; Fan, Hui Wen (2011). "Spider Bite". The Lancet. 378 (9808): 2039–47. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62230-1.
• A primary paper about research on strips of cat spleen in the laboratory: Pinto, J. E. B.; Rothlin, R. P.; Dagrosa, E. E.; Barrio, A. (1 August 1973). "Peripheral Adrenergic Effect of Latrodectus mactans Venom". Toxicon. 11 (5): 395–400. doi:10.1016/0041-0101(73)90114-1.
• A newspaper article from 1954: "Beware the Red-Back spider". Western Mail (Perth, WA : 1885 – 1954). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 18 March 1954. p. 3. Snowman (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to include historical treatments, they are verifiable and add to the article by contributing a historical perspective. I would agree that they be left in, and in the section they currently reside. Liamdavies (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

These may have been been mentioned before, just in case anyone is unawares:

• Current state of outreach in Western Australia:

satusuro 07:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Am thinking of significantly restructuring List of convicts on the First Fleet to list the convicts by ship rather than alphabetically, and to intersperse each ship list with a few lines giving context about travel on that vessel. Proposal is here, other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no issues with this, and would support the replacement of the current, 'soulless', alphabetical list. Are you aiming to get this to Featured List state? Stephen 22:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't immediately considered it, but would be willing to give it a try. However I can imagine a couple of problems:

• First, the list is much longer than those that seem to pass as Featured Lists.
• Second and more important - recent Featured Lists seem to have standalone articles for every one of their list members. For this list, around 50% of the convicts could credibly have a standalone and reliably sourced article. About 30% could justify a reliably sourced stub of 2-3 pars, passing WP:GNG but with little claim to fame beyond being on the Fleet. And the remaining 20% would not justify an article, msotly because they either died in 1787-88 or disappeared from the records. A Featured List candidate with 20% of the names without their own articles, would surely fail?

There might also/instead be a prospect for one of the "sublists" that I could just easily create - say "List of naval and marine officers on the First Fleet", "List of black convicts on the First Fleet", or even a genuine subset of the main list, like "List of convicts on Prince of Wales."

Welcome any views. Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

really defeats the purpose of lists if every thing on the list is required to have an article. I like the idea of of breaking it into separate vessels with details on each, which could then highlight captians & crew lists and all link back through the various vessel articlse to right pieces of information. Gnangarra 12:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see a reason to list people by ship but an overall, alphabetical list is still useful as it negates the need to do a text search to find a particular name. A lot of sublists can be avoided simply by using class="wikitable sortable". --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We could remove some of the benefits of a "by ship" list by completing the "ship" data on the current list and then having it wikisortable, as you've now done (thanks for that). But the list would also need to be combined into a single document - at the moment it is a whole mass of separate lists divided alphabetically by convict surname, or by one of the convict surnames for those that had aliases or flexible spelling. But I'm not dying in a ditch either way. :) Euryalus (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask a related question - what are people's opinions on articles on individual convicts? There are enough reliable sources, in enough detail, for a great many convicts to have articles like Esther Abrahams. But for most their only real claim to fame is the simple fact of having been on the Fleet. You could argue this is notable enough - one of the (unwilling) founders of European Australia, akin to being on the Mayflower. But you could also argue that this is against the spirit of the notability guide - these people weren't "leaders in their field" even if we've ended up with significant reliable coverage of their lives.

I'm not planning a mad rash of convict articles, but I might create a few as for various reasons I am sitting here with a quantity of early colonial records and not much to do. But before I do any of them, I'm keen on other opinions - is having been on the Fleet notable enough in itself to meet the spirit as well as the letter of our notability guides? Euryalus (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your records would be welcome to the wiki users I think. "leaders in their field" is a qualifiable issue, so wouldn't the people of our original labour force in the colony merit some measure in the 'leader' context. They contributed to development of the settlement. In that context I think users of wiki would expect to see some mention of them My humble opinion. --Andys'edtits 17:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs)

Fair point. I might start with James Freeman, Australia's first public executioner. Also James Bloodworth, our first (and for a while only) builder who constructed all of the key buildings for the very early settlement. Also some of the marines might make for good articles - for example Thomas Timins saw active service in the American Revolution, came with the Fleet to Australia, then went back to England and fought in the Battle of Trafalgar before retiring as a Lt Colonel. Described by other First Fleeters as haughty and unpleasant (luckily this is not a BLP). Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dont know where you got "leaders in their field" as a requirement General notability guideline is; If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. if the works are available to cite with sufficient information(beyond a stub article) then you can write articles about each and everyone, Obviously starting with individuals who have greater coverage makes your work easier, Gnangarra 03:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It's more the spirit of the thing, than the letter. For example, 22-year old convict Elizabeth Thackery. No one special - 7 years transportation for theft of two handkerchiefs, made a nuisance of herself on the voyage, took up with various marines on arrival, eventually married one and became a successful Norfolk Island farmer. Died aged 90. I have four reliable independent sources each giving an account of aspects of her life, including precise background on her trial, some uncharitable character references, Ralph Clark's view that she was inferior to a sheep, what her farm was worth, her Norfolk Island land-clearing habits and the wording and location of her tombstone. Enough to easily pass the letter of GNG, but really she's a nobody other than having been a Fleet member.

Anyway, thanks for the response, nice to get a few other views. Euryalus (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sound like very interresting documents. 7 years for two handkerciefs and trial information would make interrestig referance for people reading up on differant issues of the times, no just the first fleet connection. --Andys'edtits 11:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the citation style suggested by the Trove website. When you click on the Cite box when viewing an article, it suggests the following:

"NET CHECK". The Cumberland Argus (Parramatta, NSW : 1950 - 1962). Parramatta, NSW: National Library of Australia. 18 October 1961. p. 19. Retrieved 18 October 2013.

Usually when {{cite news}} is used, the publisher is the company or organisation that facilitates the printing or broadcasting of the news item. Of the four suggested citations for this article, Wikipedia is the only one that directly credits the NLA for publishing. Has any thought been given to using a more accurate citation? Hack (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've complained about the NLA citations both publicly and privately (by contacting the NLA directly ... they responded positively but are in the middle of a website revamp at the moment and have zillions of other things to work on; however I'd never noticed this particular issue before. You do have a point though ... the NLA aren't the original publishers of the image (but it could be argued that they, plus the text correctors, are publishers of the OCR text). Perhaps try sending them some feedback? Liam, what do you think of this issue ... can you do anything further to help? Graham87 12:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hack, as Graham says, the Trove team is aware of the wikimedia citation system changes that we'd like to make but there's a giant revamp currently in the works and this is but a small part of it. For the specific issue of the "publisher" field I actually had a meeting with them about this specifically only a couple of weeks ago. It's true that the field is just simply coded to always show the NLA in that place. One justification to identify the NLA as the creator of the digital item, as Grahame describes. This is a bit of a retroactive justification but not wholly incorrect. There's often no clean metadata field to pull the information from to give the original publisher (e.g. Fairfax or News Limited) and that's often not wanted anyway. Nevertheless, since this question has come up in this forum I will forward this conversation thread to the team so they know that the issues we were debating are acknowledged within the wikimedia community as well. Sincerely, Wittylama (who, in his day job, works for the NLA). 08:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally the publisher field is omitted for the more prominent newspapers. It's really only the local/community level papers that should have publisher set. Hack (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems like Wikipedia has been dragged into a political fight. [17]. WWGB (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Woke me up a bit. Articles to keep an eye on Bushfires in Australia, Abbott Government and Greg Hunt.--cj | talk 09:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Interactions between politicians and Wikipedia are certainly a gift that keeps giving. I wonder how this ties in with Alexander Downer's claim from about 2007 that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Qexigator has made some edits regarding the correct names of states at Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria (Australia), South Australia and Western Australia. His claim is that the correct names of the states are "State of <Foo>", based on the preamble to the Australia Act. He's since made other edits to the other articles but discussions are becoming fragmented, with parallel discussions about the same subject now in progress at Talk:Queensland#The State of Queensland, Talk:Victoria (Australia)#The State of Victoria, Talk:South Australia#The State of South Australia and Talk:Western Australia#The State of Western Australia. To avoid the problems associated with fragmented discussions I've opened this thread as a centralised discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis of discussion so far: please note that for my part the wording proposed under To clarify statehood below supersedes my previous wording for the articles. The following is copied from Talk:Victoria (Australia)[18]:

The info box links to States and territories of Australia but neither the lead nor the body of the article informs, or confirms for, a reader that "the State of New South Wales/ Victoria / Tasmania/ South Australia..." is the proper name of those states of the Commonwealth of Australia, per the preamble to the Australia Act 1986;[19] and, while section 13 applies specifically to Queensland, and 14 to Western Australia, the other sections apply to all the states generally. States of a federal union may have different names, as in USA, and not all the constituent parts the Commonwealth of Australia are States. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be being a bit thick living in Victoria, but I do not understand what the problem is. Victoria is a State and the article says so, linking to the article of states and territories. If you think the lede needs changing then change it and we can then discuss it if necessary. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, is there a problem? or problems? If so: external to Wikipedia or internal? In brief (!):

• Internal:

• the single sentence added to the lead with ed.sum. a constituent state of Australia, see Talk, for the reasons given above, was peremptorily deleted, with ed.sum. Misinterpretation of the official name[20]

• And see also New South Wales,[21] South Australia,[22] Western Australia[23] and Queensland[24]
• ...and discussion at Talk:Queensland, Talk:South Australia, User talk:AussieLegend and User talk:Dmol.

• What should be informative text is hidden from readers by inexplicit pipe links, which may be due to failure on the part of regular editors (over-used to this device, and/or too familiar with the topic) to read afresh from the plain reader's point of view. Encyclopedically speaking, that reader's point of view (regardles of "POV") is a principal criterion for all or most articles on any given topic. In respect of the several states federally united in the Commonwealth of Australia, readers, especially outside Australia, cannot reasonably be expected at a glance to discern when a proper name is being used in respect of a location, or in respect of an entity having jurisdiction determined by public law (and acknowledged by international law) within an area whose territorial limits are defined by the law governing the greater area of which it forms part. But such a reader can reasonably be expected to need to be informed here about that, at a glance. The lead follows a standard pattern for the other states: location; capital; population; historical origin; federation (why Federation?); statehood. In the present day, those items are determined by the state boundaries given or affirmed by the federal constitution, and the proper name of the state, as given thereby, should be in the forefront, in the first two or three sentences of the lead, so that the reader can immediately see it, and can relate it to the other states.

• External: Why is the constitutional status of the Australian states of particular interest, deserving clear and explicit wording? Well, for one thing, see the timetable at Perth Agreement, where the legislation of all Commonwealth realms is waiting for the several states of the Commonwealth of Australia to pass the legislation which will enable the federal parliament to legislate with intent to let the proposal for amending the royal succession come into effect in all realms at the same time.
• Internal and External: Regular editors will know that inconsistencies/mistaken uses of caps and uncaps occur in Wikipedia articles, sometimes due to similar inconsitencies/mistakes in sources (including official and authoritative sources and well-respected writers): other instances are f/Federation, Royal Prerogative, Royal Assent, king/King, President/president, military ranks[25]. In any given context it is not always clear whether the word/s are being used as a proper noun, to be cap'd, or not, and good writers (or publishers) may differ. Queensland is an example as discussed at[26]. It is in this kind of borderline or doubtful case where it can be helpful to gather informed "consensus". So far, it is remarkable that no source has been offered to refute using caps to acknowledge that the proper name of a state of Australia, so constituted as a part of the Australian Commonwealth, by or after "Federation", is "the State of (Name)". Qexigator (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify statehood

In view of comments on my previous edit, I propose that the articles about Australian states would be improved by a sentence such as now added[27], and at Queensland,[28] which meets the point in a sufficiently informative way. Qexigator (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've explained elsewhere, your determination that the state names all start with "State of" appears to be a misinterpretation of sources. Official documentation often capitalises "state", but this doesn't mean that "State of" is part of the state name. S16(1) of the preamble to the Australia Act is an example of the capitalisation convention. It capitalises "state" in several places where it would not normally be capitalised, including "means a court of a State or any other court", "in relation to a State", and "'State' means a State of the Commonwealth and includes a new State". S16(3) also does this, saying "Parliament of a State", "legislature of that State", "any other Act of that State" and "Legislative Council of that State". This convention is followed in the other documents that you've used for Queensland. The name of New South Wales has been simply "New South Wales" since Captain Cook named it on 22 August 1770.[29] That the preamble calls it "State of New South Wales" is simply application of the convention to capitalise state. As for the other content that you've been adding,[30][31][32] if this is added (and there's no consensus yet to do so) then it would be best to add this to one article, such as States and territories of Australia, instead of adding the same, duplicated content, to each article. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see above: for my part the wording proposed under To clarify statehood below supersedes my previous wording for the articles. That is, taking account of your remarks, among other things, I am not pursuing the caps/uncaps proper name point. But the article needs some wording to clarify statehood, which you have hastily reverted,[33] apparently (in view of your edit summary) without noticing that it is quite different. Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• for Western Australia it is not State of Western Australia it is Western Australia as per the The Constitution Act of 1889[34] as for the rest each has their own constitution it would be that which defines what their "official" names are rather than some document created in Canberra a 100years later. Gnangarra 23:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As a lawyer I can tell you that the Australia Act has no bearing on official state names. You would do better to look at the various state constitutions or the Australian Constitution. The Australia Act never presumed to bestow official names onto the states.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I also have never seen any suggestion that the official name of the states is "State of X" rather than just X. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

When WA is a party to litigation, it's referred to as the "State of Western Australia" or "the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia". Hack (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be just application of the convention of capitalising "state" in formal documentation that I mentioned above. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I generally refer to one of the major constituents of the Commonwealth as a State, with a capital S. This is common practice, especially in more formal writing. It does not mean that I think it is part of the official name of the entity. When the six Colonies became Australian States, they did not change their names. They referred to themselves and were referred to in official and general parlance as New South Wales, Queensland and so on. The preamble of the Australia Act is no better place to find the official names than (say) the phone book. --Pete (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Retraction: Please note that, taking account, among other things, of comments above there is enough to show that it was an error (mine) to have proposed that the states of Australia are properly named "the State of...". Thanks to those who have helped in resolving the point (for me. at least). Qexigator (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, was wondering whether there is anyone in this talk who is interested in creating and editing NOJA Power's Corporate Wiki page? www.nojapower.com.au. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyDavis03 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:ORG and WP:COI. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You can actually create a draft of the article yourself and submit it for review to other users. Considering looking at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I'd be more than happy to review it for you as well. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone able to do my a kind favour and take a look at the above. I'm not fully informed on courts and judges in the Australian legal system (being a pom) and I don't know if I've got the terms right. Particularly with regards to the supreme court part, I think he may have only 'acted up' and I don't know if I've made the article misleading. Could anyone take a look? Regards, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll make some edits shortly, but I think that's right, it seems he was only "acting" as a Supreme Court judge on several occasions [35], and the Australian Dictionary of Biography says "His over-leniency in criminal cases ... may have cost him a permanent place on the Supreme Court". The other change I would make is to replace the term "district judge" to "Judge of the District Court [of New South Wales]" or "district court judge" or something like that. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

An issue was raised in a recent AFD as to whether the Triple J Hottest 100 should be considered as a National Music Chart for the purpose of WP:NSONG? I was wondering whether editors could give me their views. Dan arndt (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say not. The Hottest 100 is a once-a-year, public-voted countdown specific to one (albeit broadcasting nation-wide) radio station. Although inclusion in the chart would probably be worth noting in the song article (more important the higher the song is ranked), I don't think that a song's inclusion in, or even topping of the Hottest 100 countdown in a particular year would pass WP:Notablity/Songs on its own. -- saberwyn 11:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I recently started fixing this article and I was wondering if any users could help by providing their Australian POV. It would also help if they could guide me what seems notable (what should and and should be added) regarding the Australian wind energy POV as well. Searches through Google News have provided several Australian news articles of course and it appears the company has done work for the Australian government. Any help and knowledge would be appreciated. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If no one minds, I'll move this to the bottom as it seems this thread is being hidden by the older threads above and the one below is hiding it as well. Moving it to the bottom will also help towards a consensus. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently started fixing this article and I was wondering if any users could help by providing their Australian POV. It would also help if they could guide me what seems notable (what should and and should be added) regarding the Australian wind energy POV as well. Searches through Google News have provided several Australian news articles of course and it appears the company has done work for the Australian government. To ensure the article is improved appropriately, I would like some assistance. Any help and knowledge would be appreciated. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Sj96 has recently added the state of a city whenever a city is mentioned, arguing that the inclusion of Australia as a discriminator is unnecessary as the states are sovereign. From my understanding of Australian law, the states are not sovereign, rather they are federated, meaning some of its powers were legally transferred to the federal government per the division of power clause in the constitution. Regardless of whether this is true, such technicality is unwarranted as Australia is internationally recognised as a sovereign state, not the the states themselves, hence as Wikipedia caters to an international audience, Australia should be used as the main discriminator, not the state. I have previous stated before that unless another Sydney exists in Australia, adding New South Wales is unnecessary and only further complicates the prose. Clearly my message hasn't gotten through, and the user has resorted to arguing his points on the basis of irrelevant and from what I understand incorrect technicalities. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this issue is broader than an Australian one, and should come down to reader/editor preference, common sense and consensus rather than attempting to interpret the autonomy or otherwise of a region. How is this handled in the United Kingdom and the United States? Articles about geographical places in these unions would have similar issues about whether a state (e.g. Missouri)or constituent country name (e.g. Scotland) is necessary, useful or unwieldy.

It could certainly be argued that the state capitals are large and well-known enough to do without the state. It wasn't so long ago that all Australian place articles had the state or territory name appended to the actual article title (but this convention seems to have gone by the wayside for major cities anyway)... so I don't think it's complicating the prose too much to include both a state/territory and national (Australia) discriminator in the article text. In the case of Perth, there is a Perth in Tasmania as well as Western Australia, so would it be necessary to disambiguate these or would it be assumed that as a capital Perth WA can be assumed? And then, in the cases of South Australia and Western Australia, is it awkward to include "Australia" after these as well (Perth, Western Australia, Australia)? (the "Australia" seem to be omitted frequently from SA/WA infoboxes and so on for this reason). --Canley (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand why the inclusion of states is needed when mentioning cities located in the United States - it has several folds more cities than Australia. In regards to the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are actual countries by definition and according to their laws and constitutions. Many of those regions also feature distinct cultures, languages and aspects, therefore it would be more common for people to refer to the actual "country" a city is located in, rather than the United Kingdom. As you said, basing an argument on legal definitions is unnecessary and common sense should be applied. As such, for Australia, there is generally no need to disambiguate cities as most cities have unique names; in the case of Perth, if needed, it should be disambiguated only once per article to avoid repetition. The context should also be taken into consideration - if an article is clearly about a river in Victoria, there's no need to disambiguate the cities that the river flows through even if another city of a similar size located elsewhere exist. Point is Sj96 is being counterproductive by including the name of a state every time a city is mentioned and this needs to stop. Adding unnecessary discriminators unnecessarily impacts on the flow of the prose. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Yu... last two sentences - hope there is an admin somewhere watching this... satusuro 13:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This non standard usage/editing, has also affected the UK articles as well see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians%27_notice_board section titled England UK or just England? satusuro 09:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't add states to well-known cities. I've been stripping out "Victoria" where it appears countless times in "Melbourne, Victoria, Australia" (the state linked ... why????). "Melbourne, Australia" is just fine, thanks, and if the nationality is stated a centimetre away in the infobox, please save the clutter by not repeating "Australia". WP is not a postal envelope. Tony (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This issue is not the 'ok' or 'not ok' of any one editor, but is evidently an obviously a creeping broader issue that requires dealing with. The suspects in both the UK version and the Australian versions have been doing this for some time if you look at the edit history/contributions. There has to be a much clearer 'signpost' to users that they are barking up the wrong tree if they think they can justify continued usage of an an unaccepted usage. satusuro 10:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Manly, Northern Beaches, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, Oceania, Southern Hemisphere, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way ... Tony (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that we have a consensus here against the inclusion of states. While the issue does not warrant an urgent response, it might be necessary to revert some of sj96's edits to important articles such as the one on Julia Gillard and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• YuMaNuMai‚ yes; but do you not agree that for less-well-known settlements in Australia, the state might be used (at least on the first occurrence in an article)? For example, Coolgardie, Western Australia. I think capital cities and other well-known cities should generally stand alone. Other than that, it's common sense by article editors. While we're on this topic, I'd like to recommend guidance that we avoid using "Australia" directly after naming "Western Australia" or "South Australia". It's a clanger like New York, New York. And in the opening sentence of bios, I've seen all too often that X is an Australian [film director/politician] ... X was born in Sydney, Australia, to parents of ...". Tony (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that tony is so astute in his commentary, maybe he would like to put his hand to tackle the Australian place template:

• Peppermint Grove, Western Australia
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Australian_place

and help clear the added Australia satusuro 11:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, as I said before, common sense should be used. However for suburbs located within the greater region of a city, I don't think it's at all necessary to specific the state if the greater city was mentioned earlier in the article. This obviously doesn't apply to the town you mentioned as from what I can see it is located in the middle of nowhere. In regards to your example of (I'm assuming) where Australia was repeated twice, an individual could have been born elsewhere and naturalised later in life. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As a follow up on the specific comment made by tony above, and comments at user pages, the use of the word "Australia" has been suppressed at the template named above. Thanks to Tony for the specificity of his last comment. It has been acted upon, and thanks to AussieLegend for the change. It should substantially remove the problem where places/localities were followed by the added "Australia", that no longer is the case. satusuro 12:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A related annoyance - editors linking the state and country independently, eg "New South Wales, Australia", thus girding us with a WP:SEAOFBLUE. I've been removing a few of those links lately. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been a fairly consistent practice for many years, not just in Australian articles but across all of Wikipedia. Opposing this style is silliness such as this. WP:OVERLINK says "the names of major geographic features and locations" are usually not linked. I don't think anybody could argue that countries and states are not major geographic features or locations. That said, while we may know where New South Wales is, can the same be said of somebody from the US or Botswana? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• sigh! disambiguation has been an area of problems for a while, the use of Australia over the State is further proof of this stupidity because not everyone is from outside of Australia in fact for many articles its more likely that it'll be some from within Australia who'll be more likely to follow links to these places. When you actually writing its natural to say Perth Western Australia or Perth, Tasmania when refering to perth not Perth Australia. As it would be to Newcastle NSW rather than Newcastle Australia or even Ashfield WA and Ashfield NSW. Of the reality is that discussing here is no longer an acceptable place to arrive at any conclusion whether it be the usages of ANZAC, disambiguation, templates etc you cant even tag an article a stub anymore all these are now decided by the cabals of the specialist wikiprojects and deletion discussion areas. Basically do what you feel is right and hope to christ that one of these groups doesnt find out because then your in for nasty pointless assult from people who think that everything should be of one size... Their Size! . Gnangarra 10:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What is our current position regarding the creation of articles about local government politicians, especially mayors, in Australia? I notice that Category:Mayors of places in New South Wales only has 68 pages in it and I seem to remember some discussion on this some time ago. Examination of the articles in the category show a large percentage are about MPs or former MPs and many others have otherwise established their notability in other fields but then there are several who are, apparently, just mayors. These include Clinton Mead, Jeff McCloy, Aaron Rule and John Stuart Tate. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This section is also listed elsewhere. Can we limit the responses to one talk page? I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Notability of politicians. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

.... six years as a complete copy-and-paste of his Australian Dictionary of Biography page? How did we miss that? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was that this may have been an import from the Dictionary of Australian Biography, which is in the public domain, and there were quite a few articles in 2007 and 2008 or so which were created using that text (same was done with the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, most were expanded and rewritten anyway and they're hardly ever seen these days). The Australian Dictionary of Biography is of course based on the same work, so there were quite a few articles which appeared to be identical, but strictly speaking were not copyright violations as they were based on the same public domain work. However, looking at the version of DAB on Project Gutenberg, Upjohn does not appear to be included in that edition at least, so perhaps it was a direct lift from ADB. --Canley (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So it looks like the 1949 edition of the Dictionary of Australian Biography only includes subjects who died before 1942—Upjohn died in 1979 so would not have been included, so it looks like it is an ADB copyvio. However, the use of DAB articles in the previous decade may explain why it was not detected as sourced from ADB, and was assumed to be a PD work. --Canley (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You are both correct. Percival Serle drew his cut-off at the end of 1942. Upjohn does not appear in the only edition published. Serle died in December 1951.Lexysexy (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that there is a backstage pass coming up to be followed by an editathon in the State Library of New South Wales on Saturday 23 November. This is the first time that an Australian cultural institution has opened its doors to us in this way and will be a special opportunity because the Library is providing: one of its best rooms; its expert curators (along with their expertise and their white gloves); a newly launched website (containing new resources); and of course, items from its collection (including rare and usually unavailable material) which we can look at, learn from, and use, to improve WP articles. For example, on the chosen topic (Australia and WWI), the Library holds many diaries and manuscripts from the period.

As you can see from the Library's project page, they have connected this editathon with their own work. They have already set out a wide range of resources to make things easier for us. Please sign up on the editathon project page if you can participate either online or in person with other Wikipedians. Hope to see some of you there! 99of9 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Damnit, I wish I'd had a bit more notice - this would be amazing to attend. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to miss you. Where are you based? Do you want to add your name to the list of editors interested in Sydney Meetups? It was also previously advertised on the WMAu mailing list and directly on the talk page of quite a few locals. --99of9 (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This editor may have a point. The article does need some significant work - especially the "Controversies" section. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it over the weekend. The problem is that people like him & Edelsten continually use minor errors in newspaper articles to discredit all of our sources. Claim the papers, and hence anyone who relies on them, are biased against him. Over the past few years he has been a very controversial person, but often it's only the accusations that are reported, not the end result. The-Pope (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A user has requested that Australia national association football team be moved to Australia men's national association football team. If you are interested in sharing your thoughts on this, please comment at Talk:Australia national association football team. The-Pope (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Female Anglican bishops in Australia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Female Anglican bishops. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I am convinced I will never understand the thought processes of the Categories project people. Actively making categories less useful. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A category containing only 3 articles is not much use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I come seeking further input into an editorial choice as to whether to include trade graphs in bilateral relations articles. I create these as part of an automated process which produces up-to-date graphs of all time-series statistical data provided by the ABS. Because I am now quite familiar with the types of data they collect, I and others have found uses on wiki articles for around [250 of them]. User:Libstar has started removing them for a variety of reasons: "We don't put monthly trade graphs in these articles", "We don't put monthly trade charts that are never updated" (they are updated), "these don't appear for other series of bilaterals", "no consenus to include monthly trade figures especially when trade is so small". So we started a discussion, but mid-conversation, he has declared on the basis of his own dissent that there is no consensus to include. So I'm here seeking further input. Do you think trade graphs are useful on bilateral relations articles? --99of9 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with them—a small thumbnail chart, with a reference/link to the source data should a reader wish to delve further is hardly an onerous "data dump". Regarding explanations of spikes or troughs in trade data, I'm sure if that was attempted, other editors would pounce on that as "original research". I recognise the user name: LibStar has been active for many, many years cleaning up what they see as "cruft" in bilateral relations articles, including requesting deletion of auto-created, very stubby, "every combination of two countries" pages. While their dedication to that topic area and work in keeping the articles clean and consistent should be applauded, I disagree that because trade data is not available for every bilateral pairing, it should be excluded. --Canley (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

not original research but Y axes can be skewed to exaggerate or underestimate spikes. I have a particular issue with these graphs when trade hovers monthly less than $2M it results in these unexplained spikes which 99of9 expects other people to find sources to interpret. that's why i call it a data dump, no explanation has been offered and trade graphs just dumped into 30 articles. If we apply similar similar standards we should insert monthly share price data into all major company articles, and monthly traffic volumes into highway articles. this is based on arguments presented to date: the information is public and "useful" to the reader. while we're at it, let's add tidal data to every coastal location. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several hundred NSW images on the commons that are only, and improperly, categorised as "Archives" even though they are already categorised as "Images from the State Records Authority of New South Wales" and are found at: commons:Category:Archives. Many are of Sydney and its suburbs. If you have some time please help out by removing the "archives" category and giving them better ones based on the data and image content. Most images can have more than one category. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - it looks like User:Oxyman has found another source of archival photos. There's definitely lots of categorization work around at the moment. There's also uncategorized Queensland State Archive material which a few of us have been working through, but it's a big job. There's also 1000+ Broadhurst postcards most of which I've done a rough location-categorization, but a refinement by subject would also help. Pick whatever piques your interest. --99of9 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to give the project a heads-up in case you did not know. I've been fixing some but do not know the geography well enough to always be accurate. ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to no consensus on a previous discussion re: article naming, there is a second discussion open about moving Australia national association football team to Australia men's national association football team. We are seeking outside input. Contributions to the discussion is much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As part of a cooperation with SLNSW, I've started some trials of batch uploads of PD images from their collection. If you're interested in helping out, here's one for starters: commons:Category:Images from the State Library of NSW album 442753 contains (soon) 169 good quality images of Sydney buildings in 1872. If anyone was around then, or otherwise recognizes these buildings (they also have labels), it would be great if you could help categorize them on Commons. The default parent cat is obviously commons:Category:Buildings in Sydney, but you should be able to be more specific than that. PS I still want answers to my query one section above. --99of9 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is awesome - nice work! The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If people are interested, I can drop a link each time a new set goes up. --99of9 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• 9 watercolours by Joseph Banks --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• 31 watercolours of Australian Fauna from 1789-1790 --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• 50 photos of cattle-farming from the 1920s
• 61 photos of fruit and vegetable farming from the 1920s --99of9 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

These are fantastic, thanks for uploading them. Can I shamelessly seek to put your connection with the SLNSW to work by uploading any PD images relating to the First Fleet or the individual marines or convicts aboard? We currently have pictures of Lady Penrhyn, Sirius and a pretty poor image of Borrowdale, but not of the other vessels. I'd particularly love something to better illustrate my previous pet project on Prince of Wales (1786 ship). But anything on the early (1788-1800) settlement would come in handy. There's also a quantity of images in "1788: The People of the First Fleet." by Don Chapman (Doubleday, 1986. ISBN 0868242659) which are credited to the Mitchell and would be useful in First Fleet biographies.

And/or ... (more demands!) anything at all on the early (pre-1820) convict transport ships - I have source materials on their voyages but absolutely nothing by way of images to illustrate them. Any images showing any ocean-going vessels in or destined for Port Jackson prior to 1820 would be great - I can hopefully relate indeterminate images to individual ships through cross-referencing.

Lastly, an individual request - I think the SLNSW holds an illustration of "William Baker's farm on the Parramatta River" c.1796. It appears in the Chapman book listed above and would fit nicely in my current slow-moving project to lift William Baker (colonist) to more than a stub.

And please don't hesitate to tell me "no" if any or all of these requests are unreasonable. It just seemed too good an opportunity to miss to ask for access to images in these areas. Euryalus (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Euryalus I'll look into these and let you know when I've got them up. --99of9 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@User:Euryalus Here's something to get you started: commons:Category:Images from the State Library of NSW album 65640 is now full of watercolours by George Raper. More to come, they've certainly got a lot. --99of9 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@User:Euryalus Now a few journals from first fleeters commons:Category:Images_from_the_State_Library_of_NSW_collection_413053 --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

These are fantastic, thanks very much for finding them (and to SLNSW for making them available). I'm hunting about for a use for all the fish ones. But in idle passing the first fish caught by a First Fleeter was a bream, caught by Phillip's boatman when the Fleet was still in Botany Bay and Phillip was scouting for a better location for the colony. So I'll have a use for one of these images at least, just as soon as I amass enough sources for a bio on him. :) Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I have created a new portal for Australian roads. The portal box on the right should be added to the See Also section of any relevant article using {{Portal|Australian roads}}, or use {{portal-inline|Australian roads}} for an inline version. Articles, images, videos and Did you know? facts can be nominated on the portal talk page – please watchlist the page if you think you might like to help maintain the portal. Cheers, Evad37 [talk] 10:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered that {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} has been nominated for deletion, or it might be conversion, or something else. It was actually nominated 9 days ago but, as per normal, we weren't notified. This discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 2#Template:Infobox protected area of Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just edited the details with several bus station such as Booragoon bus station and Wellington Street bus station, and those content were removed by Davey2010 as said that is is not a travel guide. As my opinion is is not only a guide, it also contain the historical information how the bus route goes to, for example. As the edit comment by Crusoe8181 noted "if they were tram or train routes would stay so why not buses?". Would anyone have comments for that? Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 16:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you noticed I did revert myself on both articles!...... So all's fine, Also an issue should be discussed first instead of running off to a noticeboard....

Thanks!, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. At the recent SLNSW editathon we discussed an idea to put "Ask A Librarian" links in the WikiProject boxes on Australian talk pages. Each State Library, and the National Library have a service whereby they can help with research about Australian topics, and it might help editors to have easy access to this, especially if it already points to the most relevant state. I've made a mockup of how it might look depending on which state subprojects the talk page is already tagged with. So now I'm here seeking comment on whether this would be useful, and whether you like or have suggestions for how it is implemented. What do you think? --99of9 (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Whew - that is really making some astonishing assumptions about competencies of librarians to understand issues relative to wikipedia... what publicly available documentation exists that verfiy librarians have (a) adequate trove literacy (b) adequate wikipedia literacy. I would say show the evidence that there are not going to be major misunderstandings, regardless of how it is set up. satusuro 10:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The librarians don't have to understand Wikipedia at all. It depends what you ask. If they can't get the info, they'll just say so. For example, when I was researching for Redback spider I needed a specific answer about a particular source that was held by the NLA but not by in my University Library. They could copy the relevant page and send it to me. I'm also not sure what you mean regarding Trove - if it's online already, we can use it if we're competent - this is not really about Trove. --99of9 (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

no need, if the questions doesnt seem obvious enough, dont worry. I would be concerned that to have such an addition without an extra page somewhere explaining the potential limitations, or even how to ask questions, might be of help. Just stand alone links seems a way to ask for potential misunderstandings as to why the links are there, and what the linkages might be in any sense. satusuro 11:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So, something like: Need help with your research? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at... --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

no, not necessarily.

Its a pity the usual suspects are probably out at their version of christmas drinks or whatever at this point in time, I am personally very keen to see your proposal up, (as it is something some of our more opinionated australian eds with limited capacity to look beyond the obvious might be encouraged to take a step away from reaching for their GNG holdall and actually have a means to check things) but I think we have to account for something like the really john cleese bleeding obvious - and an explanatory page separate from the templates.

It depends what you ask. - youd be surprised (I once a very very long time ago worked in an uni library, at the coalface so to speak...) - how some people need to be guided into ways of thinking how to ask about things... - which is why I strongly suggest a explanatory page - spelling out the obvious in cert 2 training level style - I am about to tell you about B. This is B. I have just told you that was B. Tell me is that B? satusuro 12:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC).

• Proposed for deleting, Category:Australian languages with mobile apps ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Proposed for renaming, Category:Indigenous Australians from Western Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

The discussions are here, if anyone has any interest at all.... Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16 __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey fellow WP:Australia members. Recently I requested for comment at Talk:Mount Cuthbert and Dobbyn railway lines. I believe you should know about it and participate in it. Thank you for understanding. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 07:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Australian languages with mobile apps has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Djembayz (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Federation, formerly Centro, has had some wacky editing going on in recent days, including some which completely removed two referenced paragraphs about its financial performance. If people could keep an eye on it that would be great. The history section may also need to be rewritten - while I can't find the source document, it is obviously copied from somewhere and hence likely in breach of WP:COPY. Orderinchaos 01:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone in Sydney has the time and inclination, could they get the {{coord}}s of the Macquarie Culvert and put them in the article. I was there a few weeks ago (on holidays, from Perth) and I think it's near the cafe/restaurant at about 33°51′53″S 151°13′02″E / 33.864729°S 151.217218°E / -33.864729; 151.217218, but my camera didn't record the coordinates as it should have done, and I don't trust my memory. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

sheep business at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture&curid=13642925&diff=588091118&oldid=587061998 being suggested to merge three very different aspects - worth checking... satusuro 01:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We really should get the Kiwis in on this. They're really into sheaps. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The second issue of The U Turn, the WikiProject Australian Roads newsletter, has been published. Read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/News. - Evad37 [talk] 01:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

An article of interest to this project that you may have been involved in editing, M1 road (Australia), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Evad37 [talk] 00:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A source discussing the The Japanese School in Perth stated that it shared a campus with a local school. According to the school's 2012 annual report it had moved three times. What local school did it share a campus with?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, our school shares the same property as The International School of WA, and we enjoy sharing our gymnasium and school grounds with them Kerry (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The standard {{Infobox settlement}} was placed on Exeter, Tasmania this morning by a non-Australian editor. Interested in thoughts, comments etc. about the appropriateness of this. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate at all. We use {{Infobox Australian place}} which is heavily customised for Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've replaced the infobox and updated the population figure. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The same editor had also added Infobox settlement to Dalveen, Queensland. That has now been fixed as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That non-Australian editor is me @AussieLegend: and @Mattinbgn:. I found this this discussion when I was making a visit on this noticeboard today. Anyway you should've notified me about this. I was adding infobox to Australia related articles which lacks an infobox. Maybe there's 1 article left in this page. From now on I'll use {{Infobox Australian place}} for Australian settlements. Thank you and next time please notify me if any question raises about my edit's appropriateness. I would really appreciate that. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And thank you Prattya for your hard work in improving Austrlian content; you've been popping up on my watchlist of Queensland places a lot lately! Kerry (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

One certainly can't get upset at an editor using {{Infobox settlement}} on Australian settlement articles even though we have a better and customised version; given that it's nearly ubiquitous everywhere else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

I didn't bother mentioning it to Prattya because I thought he'd only done 2 articles, I didn't realise he'd done another 48 articles but IS is better than nothing so it's no big deal as it's not a big issue to fix. While it might seem that IS is used nearly everywhere, nearly 24% of all articles don't use it. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• While we have everyone's attention, there is a proposal to add |localgov= to {{Infobox Australian place}}. The discussion is at Template talk:Infobox Australian place#LGA electorates. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose, as a general rule to apply to most Australian towns and cities, that they should be preferred to titled: "CityName, State". Capital cities, Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart & Darwin would probably be best not included.

Other cities would include the state name, for example:

Geelong, Victoria

Goulburn, New South Wales

Fremantle, Western Australia

Alice Springs, Northern Territory

Cairns, Queensland

Launceston, Tasmania

This happens to bring the Australian convention into line with the US convention. Compare:

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Australia &
• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States

Including the State in the City article title adds recognizability to the article title. People may think they town, but the state is definitely helpful.

It will mean that cities and towns are consistently named, whether or not there are conflict with the short name, which often there are. Where the city name is technically unambiguous, it should redirect to the full name, and editors should feel free to use the redirect.

For reasons I can't understand, many Wikipedians have emotional baggage related to title questions. I think it best if people attempt to give reasons in terms of what best serves readers, readers who may want to load an article on the city, and readers who do not want to load an article on the city but may misrecognise another topic by the city name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose For the benefit of other posters here, this is an attempt to open up another front in the discussions currently being held at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington?.

To respond to the original post, in the case of Australia, this has been done and dealt with - after lengthy and sometimes heated discussion. See Talk:Ballarat#Requested move, Talk:Deniliquin#Requested move etc. etc.

The Australian naming convention is in line with WP:AT. Why would it be desirable for it to change to something that is in not in line with that guideline? Further, why would it be desirable for Australia to fall into line with the United States and subsequently not be in line with the 206 other nation states and territories? Further again, what rational basis is there for excluding the capital cities from your scheme (especially Darwin)?

Extending your campaign to retain the status quo for US place names by dragging in Australian place names is not a wise move in my opinion. Best leave the discussion there to be decided on its own merits. The comment about "emotional baggage" is pretty poor too - those disagreeing with your opinion obviously must be thinking irrationally while you are coolly rational when posting your opinion, right? Hmmm. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Just use the common name where it is not ambiguous or confusing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have no dog in this fight, but I would like to point out that if you look at a list like maybe List of Sydney suburbs, you will find that the overwhelming majority (all?) of the cities follow the dreaded comma convention of USPLACE. The well-known cities the OP raises – which admittedly don't follow the comma convention – could be analogized to the list of well-known cities exempt from USPLACE because they're on the AP list. I doubt that so very many of the Australian city articles would follow the comma convention if it wasn't helpful at least to some degree. Food for thought? AgnosticAphid talk 00:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Being "helpful" (beyond reflecting a name of the topic) is not something that WP article titles were ever meant to do. --B2C 01:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm actually having a discussion with someone that thinks there's no reason that Wikipedia's article titles should be helpful to its readers‽‽‽‽‽‽‽ It would be nice to think that the point of Wikipedia is to be helpful to its readers rather than internally consistent with a set of narrowly drawn internal policies. AgnosticAphid talk 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Think about where being "helpful" when naming articles would take you and then you might realise why WP:AT does not mention "helpfulness" as a naming criteria. For example, should Technetium be at Technetium (element), Technetium (chemical element) or Technetium (chemical element, atomic number 43)? The title is for uniquely identifying the topic, encyclopedic information should be kept in the article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Of course you're right that if this is going to be an encyclopedia and not eHow then usefulness can't be the only criteria. But really, there is a difference between needlessly disambiguating something that to me is clearly an element or mineral and specifying that a tiny town that only 5 people are familiar with shouldn't include the ", Province" that clearly indicates to all readers that the article in question is a place and also gives a general idea of its location. Still, I said was...agnostic on this issue because I'm not Australian and I haven't the foggiest idea if actual people would use the province in daily lifea st hey do over here with the state. AgnosticAphid talk 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's my observation, that Australians are more tightly connected to their state than Americans to theirs, although it can be hard to tell, because Australian patriotism (extending to state patriotism) is far less overt than American, and cultural variation from state to state in Australia is less than in America. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Two comments - firstly, the main reason most of them follow the "comma convention" is because until around 2010 Australia followed the US in enforcing mandatory disambiguation. While this no longer applies, there has not been a mass renaming of articles since the comma convention was abandoned. This was because at the time, mass renaming would be disruptive and divisive. Moving articles to their natural names is done on a case by case basis as the situation arises. Your example is merely an historical curio, not evidence of anything. Secondly, I would suggest that well over 50% of the articles in List of Sydney suburbs would be uniquely named and could quite easily be moved if an editor was so willing. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding anything to a title that already identifies the name of the topic makes the title less concise. If it's necessary for disambiguation to make the title less concise, fine. But not for any other reason.

  As long as the topic is recognizable from the title to anyone familiar with the topic, the recognizability criterion is met. Trying to make titles "more recognizable" than that is unnecessary and disruptive. --B2C 01:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Arguments that we should not try to be helpful to readers seem extremely weird to me. Is this a common view? Calling attempts to be helpful "disruptive" is almost offensive.

  There are degrees of recognizability. Goulburn is a semi-important city. It was historically important, and is now in decline. Many readers would be vaguely aware of Goulburn, but may not immediately recognise it, but very likely would recognise "Goulburn, NSW".

  I think it is wrong to rank "concise" above "recognizability", when the ttle is still quite short. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  Making titles "helpful" is not the same as being helpful. Making titles "helpful' is not our mission. In fact, trying to make titles helpful is arguably unhelpful, this proposal is a case in point. The opposition at USPLACE being another.

  Someone only vaguely familiar with a topic, such as someone so vaguely familiar with Goulburn that they would only recognize it as "Goulburn, NSW", is not the level of recognizability we are striving to meet. If you want to change that, go ahead. Good luck, by the way. It would mean changing very many titles, and making many titles that are now settled in limbo. Who wants that, and to what end? Such an endeavor would be the opposite of making our titles more stable.

  Concise is not ranked above "recognizability". But if two concise titles both meet the recognizablity criteria, then the more concise is normally preferred. Don't shoot the messenger. That's the way it is on WP. To find countless examples, see SPECIAL:RANDOM. --B2C 02:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per comments and questions of Matt - also this has been done over so many times before, this new proposal has no merits, and with such an unfortunate analogy creeping into this, every dog has its day, and as it brings the Australian project and its contents into an argument in the US domain, lets hope this one is put down quietly. satusuro 01:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Mattinbgn. OK, obviously not Darwin. Thanks for the links, I'll follow them. I don't see discrepancy with WP:AT, in fact I thought I addressed the connections. I don't think it is correct to call this my campaign, although perhaps I have said enough at that other place. As for the other discussions, I think they look like going on indefinitely, Australia was mentioned, and I am seeking input from the Australian context. On "emotional baggage", I think there is no denying it, that there have been high emotions previously, but I note that the more extremely emotional seem not to be active at the moment. It was not directed at any active editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - the above comments suggest that this whole thing is a learning on the run with no sense of what has gone before, and that it is a personal discussion between smokey and matt. Wrong. The place name issue has created a vast amount of wasted time and space, and really should be not played with as it appears to be here. Longer time involved eds with memories of the time and space wasted in most cases have moved on. Whole project conventions should not, repeat not, become playthings of editors who have not acknowledged what has happened before. Capital city wars over names have been bad for the project, and editors, I see no positive outcome to continue to play with the naming. satusuro 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I meant this to be low key, and thought I was posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I had been reveiwing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places#General_strategy_and_discussion_forums and followed the discussion link. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places#General_strategy_and_discussion_forums would seem to be out of date? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - the above comments suggest that this whole thing is a learning on the run with no sense of what has gone before, and that it is a personal discussion between smokey and matt. Wrong. The place name issue has created a vast amount of wasted time and space, and really should be not played with as it appears to be here. Longer time involved eds with memories of the time and space wasted in most cases have moved on. Whole project conventions should not, repeat not, become playthings of editors who have not acknowledged what has happened before. Capital city wars over names have been bad for the project, and editors, I see no positive outcome to continue to play with the naming. satusuro 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - very strong objection that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#Should_the_article_be_at_Bothell_or_Bothell.2C_Washington.3F should spill over into the Australian project - we do not need it, and is bassically a lack of respect and total disregard for what has already occurred in the Australian project. satusuro 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:SatuSuro, apologies for not knowing the Australian project history, but I disagree that raising this is to lack respect and to disregard. There is a reason to connect. USPLACE is under criticism for being a unique naming convention. However, I had understood Australia to have had the same convention. In checking, I find that many places have been moved, many not, and that there is out of date information on the WikiPoject page.

I thank User:Graeme Bartlett for his comment "Just use the common name where it is not ambiguous or confusing". The simplicity of that rationale is almost compelling. Does he not consider that short names are less recognisable than long names, or such a difference in recognizability a very small issue? Does he mean that non-confusing, non-ambiguous Cities, towns, even suburbs, should be moved to their short titles? Or is the question itself somehow offensive? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

They could be moved as that will make our reader's job easier. However I am not saying let us go ahead and move them all now. If they are not at short names, there should at least be a redirect. There are more valuable things to do with our time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well said at the last point made... as to the rest orwhether anything should be changed, I for one am not convinced that there is any one final answer on this issue, even from a local user. Despite a set of statements on the issue at different times by various editors, in the end it really doesnt need a new editor from elsewhere determining this projects consensually reached acceptable usages. satusuro 08:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no way Perth could be considered at any level this article is at that location after 10 years of discussion with a different consensus was thrown out the door and enforced with an WP:ARBCOM case. As for the rest of the name there is no point in building consensus here because past experiences show that what we agree on is ultimately irrelevant when those from further afield decided by weight on number(nee cabals) in other locations what they prefer. Gnangarra 10:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tony (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find the policy-based arguments for not applying unnecessary disambiguation more compelling than the arguments for the comma convention. —seav (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose no good reason to move away from the same principles that apply every where else on Wikipedia. Also, this proposal seems a bit pointy govern given the nom's involvement in the related debate on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) talk page. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - as someone who used to favour the PLACENAME, STATE format, I have to say I've come around. Conciseness is an underrated attribute in page titles. Additionally I see no reason why Australian naming conventions should necessarily line up with US ones. It's a separate issue. Frickeg (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The inclusion of states when referring to Australian cities is simply not warranted. Unlike in the US where there may be numerous cities in different states with the same name, the names of cities in Australia are generally unique. Hence there is not need to clutter up articles and titles by including states which mind you have longer names. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - been there, did that. Didn't we sort this out a year or so ago? Lets not head backwards to project specific policies. If a name is unique, it doesn't need a qualifier. If it isn't then we all know what to do. No reason to change (again). The-Pope (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the Australian museum birds and insects collection with a little time to kill. Post species names of any you want pics of. 99of9 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick question. Is there an article on bush nursing hospitals in existence? I can't seem to put my hand on one. Assistance is most welcome. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've just identified a significant gap. Want to get started on the article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised when one didn't turn up. Not sure about writing the article - generic sources are difficult to find on the web. I did find this paper with some information on their beginning of bush nursing and the conditions bush nurses worked in. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes a dearth of online source material. Might see what I can find in a library. My understanding, at least of those I knew in Victoria, was that they were hospitals supported by the community, staffed by nurses and other non-medical staff (depending on size), with local GPs attending when required. No doctors were normally on staff. It's weird that there's so little online. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Some references I found last night (searching for "bush nursing centres" rather than "hospitals"):

• Another paper here about staff and patient experiences.
• Some historical info about bush nursing in Tasmania.
• There's some Victorian history in this 1972 Supreme Court report.
• National and NSW history in The Australian Encyclopedia.

Happy to help with the article too, or start it if I can gather enough material. --Canley (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you all make of the edits to update Queensland/Brisbane census data by Waheed91? I've fixed a couple of their edits, but I've had my fill of running around after people who make mass changes of borderline quality to Wikipedia articles. Graham87 02:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The first edit that I looked at is confusing.[36] I'm not really into Queensland so I have to rely on sources. According to the ABS and Geoscience Australia, "Godwin Beach" is correct, but I don't understand why he left the displayed name as "Goodwin Beach". He has created Godwin Beach, Queensland (Goodwin Beach, Queensland doesn't exist) but it's devoid of references, as are several other articles that he has created. A check of earlier edits doesn't reveal anything untoward. I think it's just a case of a very inexperienced editor (the account was only registered on 21 November 2013) making good faith edits, while unfortunately replicating errors introduced by earlier editors. I note that you've left a polite note on his talk page. Let's hope that works. A note suggesting he use edit summaries would probably be appropriate too. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another concern is Demographics sections for suburbs. The information dates quickly. In this case I think its worded poorly as census data is from a survey whereas these statements are presented as statistical facts. I have been updating the population data in the infobox and lead sections for geographical articles but I am not going to update Demographics sections from previous censuses. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think what we have here is an editor working in good faith but without a lot of experience - basically the same position that we've all been in at some point. I do think that the standardised wording they're using for the demographics is pretty clunky though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC).

No, we haven't all been in that position. When I had little experience, I wouldn't have been game to make so many sweeping changes, and would probably have gone to a Talk page first for guidance from more experienced editors. This guy didn't. That's the real issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head there, I think. Graham87 10:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I've left an additional note about edit summaries on their talk page. Let's see what happens. Graham87 13:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to express support for User: Crusoe8181 reversion of User:Waheed91 additions of census data to many Queensland suburb articles. Its a sloppy, cut and paste job by an editor who doesn't seem to understand collaboration or the need for proper referencing. Its not significant that 0.9% of the population of Goodna speak Tagalog. Anyone wishing to find demographic statistics should be able to access the census data themselves. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Failed the learning curve, so far, so the curmudgeon hat was retrieved. Clearly good faith, but the links are not too hard to access and I was hoping for better so tried to keep it nice for a while. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone I have created Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) and plan on creating a page for each other state/territory divison. If anyone would like to add content or assist in any way, please feel free. I have also listed the infobox in a slightly different way, putting number of federal seats in the relevant state they hold rather than say the number of federal seats the federal party holds together or the number of seats out of 150 the state party holds. LordFixit (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I 100% support these pages, I've felt they were required for a long time but have never got around to writing them. (Labor and the Nats need them too; the Greens, of course, already have them since they started out separate, and no one else qualifies.) The infobox thing seems perfectly sensible. (Incidentally I would suggest a page for the Queensland Libs as well, since they had a long and separate history from the federal Libs even if they are now part of the LNP.) I do wonder about the title though - is there an official version? And is the "Division" definitely capitalised? Frickeg (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspected the "official" party division/branch names would be a bit of a dog's breakfast in terms of consistent formatting, and that does appear to be the case. On the AEC website, the registered divisions of the Liberal Party are listed as:

• Liberal Party of Australia, NSW Division
• Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division)
• Liberal National Party of Queensland
• Liberal Party (W.A. Division) Inc.
• Liberal Party of Australia (S.A. Division)
• Liberal Party of Australia – Tasmanian Division
• Liberal Party of Australia – ACT Division

There are similar inconsistencies with the formatting for Labor, Nationals and the Greens—some are incorporated, some use full stops in abbreviations, some have dashes or brackets, Labor calls them Branches, Libs call them Divisions, and so on. Maybe list the exact registered branch name in the infobox but name the articles a bit more consistently? --Canley (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Are all the state party divisions part of the national parties? Hack (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thorny question. They're all affiliated with them, at the very least. The LNP, for example, is registered as the Queensland state branch of the Liberal Party, despite the fact that it clearly isn't. And then there are the WA and SA Nats, who stay out of the formal Coalition. Frickeg (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks very much like a crying out for a base table/list that explains the issues that are being dicussed here, and also a potential for anyone with a historical bent to actually show earlier forms in such a table/list. It also lessens the need for immediate stubs, as in a list/table they could be grey, before being red links before anyone gets around to creating the appropriate sub articles.

I would strongly suggest not jumping into separate stubs with all the usual info box arguments flooding here or the politics project. Suggestion then, please why not a separate list. satusuro 05:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because they're stubs initially doesn't mean they'll stay that way. Each of these has more than enough history to cover an article; books have been written on most of them. (Edit: Sorry, I'd missed the indented bit. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by it, though - are you suggesting a list article called something like "State divisions of the Australian Labor party", or so forth? Because if so, I would have thought it would be better to just link them all from the "See also" section of the main party page - a separate list seems like overkill. Open to arguments on this, though.) Frickeg (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

care will be needed in that the political parties of the past arent what is reflected in the current and that many have been the result amalgamations. With totally different ideals. Gnangarra 09:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that a 'list of state divisions/branches of australian political parties' including the whole damned lot would ba a lot more user friendly than a snake ride through see also entries which can get lost in the smoke and haze...

and in view of my comments and gnangaras maybe another list of 'former' or 'historical' needs to be configured as well satusuro 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It could start out as a list-type article with a broad-concept introduction, and any sections that get expanded beyond a stub stage could then be turned into individual articles, with a summary left in the list per WP:Summary style - Evad37 [talk] 09:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean one big list? I thought you meant ones for each party. I could see that, although I'd prefer a title with something to do with the federal system (coming up empty so far, though). Frickeg (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm also of the view that a list article would probably be easier for readers to navigate than a tangle of small articles. Perhaps state branches that have distinctive characteristics (thinking the Nationals here) might be able to expand beyond a stub, but I strongly suspect that most other state branches of the major parties don't have enough distinct identity from their parent federal party to justify separate articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

in view of the distinction that is made at the AEC website, there are the currently registered parties - http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/ in the words of the AEC . This register lists those parties which are eligible to have their party affiliation next to their endorsed candidates printed on ballot papers. and there are the deregistered - a veritable playground of wannabes who are no longer with use at http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Deregistered_parties/index.htm a brilliant point for an australian pair of lists. satusuro 13:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

List_of_registered_political_parties_in_Australia created, enjoy satusuro 13:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

These lists already exist at List of political parties in Australia. What is the point of separate lists? As for state branches, those of the four main parties (ALP, Lib, Nat, Green) are all unquestionably notable and worthy of an individual article. Unquestionably. They all have distinct histories and characteristics. If an intermediary list is deemed necessary, then fine, but let's not question the value of the articles themselves. (By the way, this kind of thing is par for the course in overseas articles, often where there is far less distinction.) Frickeg (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The other list mentioned btw has a vast amount of POV, OR, and uncited sections and is in its current state worthy for AFD. satusuro 00:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD? No. I agree that it's missing a ton of citations and could definitely use a rewrite, but if it came to that it could easily be reverted to the bare-bones version before all that other stuff was added. Frickeg (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Qualify - the equivalent section to the new list - is full of uncited POV OR material and I am astonished that it is allowed to sit there unchallenged for so long, whoever has that list on watch is culpable - it is unmitigated WP:NOT territory and should not be allowed to stay as it stands satusuro 01:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're overstating how bad it is. I don't think the POV is bad at all - it only creeps in in a couple of places - and most of the other stuff is just lifted from our articles on the parties in question. It's nothing a good copyedit, a prune and thorough citation wouldn't fix. I'd pare the descriptions back to a couple of sentences, myself. In fact I'm happy to tackle it this afternoon, if that sounds OK. I do think some detail is better than just the bare-bones list which was not informative to anyone; however, now I look at it, you're quite right that with descriptions it's going to get pretty huge. If we were to split it, I'd suggest doing it into "current" and "former", and incorporating the state branches into the "current" list. Going by registration gets a bit complicated when you look at the various state bodies, and that allows us to have the other list as simply "Defunct political parties in ..." Thoughts?

On the state branches, I wonder if perhaps the "Australian Labor Party in [state]" or "Australian Labor Party ([state])" constructions would work better. They change their names around from "division" and "branch" and such like constantly. Frickeg (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont think I am overstating the issue at all. List... has a large amount of unverified crap against almost every political party in the side sections. I fail to see how in any way it should remain. Unlinked, uncited, not verified OR is something you want to keep?.

I think the two lists are sustainable. The original list needs a lot of work - and if provided with adequate cites/and or links - provides context, if cleaned up. The newer 'registered' list would be much easier for some readers actually trying to find the current registered parties. I think a similar defunct/old names list needs to be created as well. The registered short lists can be excellent locations for identifying something quickly and easily, the potential number of sections in the original list could be awkward. satusuro 03:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's a bit messy, yes, and needs a rewrite. I just don't think it's a festering eyesore, is all. With the several lists, I was suggesting in total three lists: one, the current List of political parties in Australia, featuring an absolute bare-bones list of registered parties (federal and state) plus links to the other two; the second, called something like Active political parties in Australia, with more detail concerning the currently registered parties as well as notable unregistered parties (I wouldn't think there would be many of these, although we should probably include formerly registered parties that are still active in some way, obviously in a different subsection); and third, Defunct political parties in Australia, which is fairly self-explanatory. This would mean the current "Registered parties" list should be renamed to "Active parties" (or "current parties", or any other suggestions). (Edit: if it helps, I would probably not use any of the stuff currently on the main list page, and would rewrite all that section entirely to make it much briefer and properly sourced.) Frickeg (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok we are getting somewhere the original list is a mess, and if we try to keep this in line with our differing opinions, I differ from your proposal: -

• List of registered political parties in Australia - keep with minimal if no commentary.
• List of political parties no longer registered in Australia - I disagree with 'defunct' as the AEC list of this include older names of exisitng parties. It can cross ref into the registered for the renames, and also can include the myriad of long gone party ideas from the old election lists of the decades goner by.
• List of political parties - major re-write removing ALL uncited crap that lies in there. There is a lot.

I think to have something called 'active' is a dangerous precedent and to be discouraged - as there are indeed parties that are active but are not registered with the AEC' - at least making the distinction between the registered and unregistered as seen by the federal body that polices such stuff we are not wandering off and inventing another rabbit hole wikipedia invention....

Also I think this whole section needs to be removed from the AWNB and moved over to the politics project talk page and archived there. satusuro 06:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the state of that list has been woeful for quite a while. Essentially the problem is that it's a list trying to be a bunch of summary articles, and the summaries look like a weed-infested garden with plenty of self-promotion, lifted copy and so on. Orderinchaos 07:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On reading the whole debate and looking at the situation, I think multiple lists is overkill - simply fixing the issues on the existing list would be sufficient. My suggestion is that we remove the right column on the lower table and basically start again from scratch. Orderinchaos 07:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with either, to be honest. If we're going to go with absolutely limited description (probably the best bet), then yes, there's no need for the duplication. (If we do go with duplication, it simply can't be done by registration since the AEC has only been registering parties since 1984, so a lot of those defunct parties were never registered. And regarding Satusuro's objection, it's not a list of party names, it's a list of parties, so we would just exclude existing parties from the defunct list.) Frickeg (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking at other countries is instructive - e.g. List of political parties in Germany, List of federal political parties in Canada etc. Orderinchaos 23:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont agree with Orderinchaos, I think the existing list is not enough, for a number of reasons - but I still think this needs to be taken off the talk page here and archived at the politics project talk page. satusuro 08:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect Lumo Energy has recently suffered from a public relations scrubbing of negative information while adding a promotional tone. A few more eyes would be good. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mind having a look at this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find substantial independent sources. They are quoted often enough in their press releases, and also linked, but there does not seem to be much about the organisation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I have created a Requested Move discussion at Talk:Queensland state election, 1878#Requested move. Interested to hear the views of other editors. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Foreigners are attempting to move this to a strange name again.--Grahame (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For anyone in Sydney, there's a Meetup on Monday (tomorrow) evening from 5:30pm at the Paragon Hotel Circular Quay. See the meetup page for more details and to sign up. --99of9 (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Australia experts: This old abandoned Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable organization, and should the article be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Australian Wikipedians,
Blackcat here from Italy. I am an administrator on Wikimedia Commons and was kind of sorting the "People of" categories. I stumbled into Australia :-) and found the abovementioned category which contains a lot of public person that an Australian can recognise. I need your help to give a name to some of those people. Thanks and best regards. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

At least some of them have names in the descriptions, eg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faces_of_Australia_17_%285426990226%29.jpg

At least one has the name with a link to the (English) Wikipedia article, eg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carnegie_Exploring_Expedition.jpg

Mitch Ames (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mitch. For the latter there is also a category on Commons. Oh, of course when I said "identified" I meant "Identified as notable person" :-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 12:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can source a newer (free) picture, The article could probably use a update. I did have a quick check on WP and commons and we don't appear to have any. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 04:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I know, it's pretty hilarious isn't it! I've been trying to get to an event or launch so I can take a decent photo of him, but no luck so far. There is a CC licenced photo including Napthine on Flickr but it is a photo of various politicians and dignitaries at the Shrine of Remembrance and is too far back to be much use. --Canley (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Might I suggest that a quick email to his electorate office asking for a newer picture, and pointing out how goofy his page looks at the moment, might pay dividends? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC).

Looks like someone has replaced it already - but taken from his twitter page :-/ -- Chuq (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Which type parameter should one use for coordinates for electoral districts? Since states are adm1st and local governments are adm2nd, it seems to me that electoral districts (which carve up states) should be adm2nd as well. If not, is city the appropriate choice? If not, then what? Or do I just skip the type parameter? Kerry (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Caboolture Queensland—Legislative Assembly
State	Queensland
Created	1977
Abolished	2001
Coordinates	27°04′45.5″S 152°56′42″E / 27.079306°S 152.94500°E / -27.079306; 152.94500

The "adm" setting affects the map scale and most electorates are larger in size than LGAs so adm1st is generally more appropriate. This is what {{Infobox Australian Electorate}} uses by default. For smaller electorates, this can be overridden using "|coord_type=adm2nd". --AussieLegend (✉) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)