Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neopaganism in Australia#Requested move 24 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello there is a discussion regarding the Sally Rugg and Monique Ryan court case (Talk:Monique Ryan#Sally Rugg Affidavit) and I would appreciate your input. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 12:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently for the location for Tallawong, New South Wales on OpenStreetmap, the local map shows it as being off the west coast of Africa! I have finally determined there is something wrong with the Wikidata but I have no experience in this or how to fix it. The in-article coordinates are fairly correct. Anyone know how to fix this? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added the "OpenStreetMap node ID" of "8251724051" as a reference on the coordinate references which seemed to work when I ran into a similar problem. The results usually take effect over a couple of days. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, it may also be worth asking WT:WikiProject Maps. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You need to add the Wikidata item to the OpenStreetMap relation for it to work (which I have just done). The default point off the west coast of Africa is 0°N 0°E, also known as "Null Island". --Canley (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, Tallawong map is working now! --Canley (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Just seeking some other opinions on this one as another editor and I disagree on whether to put the exact date of Wyatt's resignation in the infobox at this point. If you have an opinion, please comment at Talk:Ken Wyatt. Thanks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Just gone live is a project at State Library of Queensland to provide Wikipedia citations for items in their catalogue.

So, if you are looking at a SLQ catalogue entry, e.g. an article "Towards an activist research: Is Wikipedia the problem or the solution?"

https://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/permalink/61SLQ_INST/1qppe2o/cdi_proquest_journals_2458907487

What you do is:

1. click the Citation button (with the closing double-quote symbol)
2. select Wiikipedia in the citation style list (you may have to scroll down)
3. click on the "Copy citation to clipboard"
4. paste it into the Wikipedia article in either text editor or Visual Editor (use Cite > Manual > Basic) as you prefer

I won't include a screenshot because I think it would be a copyvio, but I think you will figure it out.

While I initially thought scrolling for the Wikipedia option was going to be annoying, it seems to remember your previous choice, so subsequent citations will appear in Wikipedia format as the default (which is handy).

Like any automated citation (e.g. Trove), the citation generated may not be perfect, but you can add/remove/modify anything you like in the usual Wiki way.

If you like it or have constructive feedback, please say so on the SLQ feedback form (just a sentence will do, contact details are optional) and ask your favourite library to do it too!

Enjoy! Kerry (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boomerang (Australian channel)#Requested move 8 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. MaterialWorks (contribs) 10:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SBS Radio#Requested move 7 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The following NSW MLC drafts are awaiting review:

• Draft:Emily Suvaal
• Draft:Bob Nanva
• Draft:Stephen Lawrence (politician)
• Draft:Sarah Kaine

All have now been elected. I would welcome anyone who is interested in reviewing them. Thank you. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a comment on this cat talk page, but don't know if anyone sees those. Some time ago, there was a discussion about lower-casing the names of articles referring to "[prime minister name] government", as it is not grammatically correct to use upper case on an entity that is not an official entity or proper noun, and various others and I changed most of the existing ones. It has been brought to my attention that the cats are named using upper case for government, even up to Albanese. I don't know what the protocol is for changing category names, but perhaps someone here who is more experienced in these matters can comment and/or make the necessary changes? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

what the protocol is for changing category names — WP:CFD, WP:CFD#HOWTO. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch. I'll get back to that later. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would say that rule applies to articles. I am not sure if it applies to categories, but even if it did, I would say changing loads of category names like that is an example of pain without gain. That is, it is a lot of work for someone to implement and will create a lot of problems for everyone who is accustomed to using the categories and not realising their names have changed and keep on using the old names, because you are right that almost nobody will see a discussion on a category talk page. Also category names are embedded in scripts/templates, both on and off Wiki (e.g. AutoWikiBrowser, Petscan, PattyPan and other tools) and changes in the names will break them. I say, if if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Kerry (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

that rule applies to articles. I am not sure if it applies to categories — I presume that by "that rule" you mean lower case for common nouns, i.e. MOS:CAPS. In fact, the first bullet point of Wikipedia:Categorization § General conventions includes "do not capitalize regular nouns except when they come at the beginning of the title".

changing loads of category names like that is ... a lot of work ... and will create a lot of problems — I don't think it's that bad; it is actually included in the first criteria for speedy renaming: C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes ... capitalization fixes. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Request submitted. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Cabbage Tree Island, New South Wales (Ballina Shire) is a census suburb, has a public school, and media references. The Island in John Gould Nature Reserve is less notable. The current Wikipedia naming is causing google maps and google search to put the nature reserve island as the result of a search.

There is also a 3rd Cabbage Tree Island, in the Manning River, but it is probably not notable.

Propose Move Cabbage Tree Island -> Cabbage Tree Island (John Gould Nature Reserve) without a re-direct Propose Move Cabbage Tree Island, New South Wales -> Cabbage Tree Island

Jeffery, Eve (2023-03-21). "Residents of Cabbage Tree Island want to go home". The Echo. Retrieved 2023-04-16. "Indigenous Cabbage Tree Island community moves into new temporary home". ABC News. 2022-11-21. Retrieved 2023-04-16. "UNTOLD: Cabbage Tree Island - ABC (none) - Australian Broadcasting Corporation". www.abc.net.au. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

Newystats (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a proposal, that basically re-names the Victorian category tree, from the size and general ramifications it would be well worth checking out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_26#Category:Victoria_(Australia)

JarrahTree 01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I listed this a week ago and has no comments, posting here to get some Australian editor input. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It has now been delisted, so no action required. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ABN (TV station)#Requested move 23 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello--There's an open RfC Talk:Charles III#RfC on opening sentence that welcomes input. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've started a draft at Draft:Jones Bay. Comments and help are welcome. I've been staying at a place where it's right outside my window, so I got lots of photos and found no good article to put them on. See User:Dicklyon#Pyrmont and the Inner West for what I've been up to – about to wind up my thoroughly enjoyable stay down under. Dicklyon (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Jones Bay Wharf, which ties in nicely with the articles on the Finger Wharf and King Street Wharf. The wharf is also home to the Jones Bay Marina, a facility for superyachts in and visiting Sydney. Oronsay (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it say Wharf, and move it to article space now that it has a couple of refs. Still a stub though. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors' comments are sought at Talk:H._A._Willis regarding whether the infobox should note that one child has died. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I made a request for the HotArticlesBot to be added to several Australian Projects and I was advised to consult here first. You can see the request here.

It's already being used on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian biota/Hot articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/Hot articles.

I think it would be useful to add to all Australian Projects. What do other people think though? Jimmyjrg (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

All Australian projects - would be of benefit to them all JarrahTree 02:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think these would be really useful to help revive the projects. Jimmyjrg (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals/Archive 7#Deprecated language in citations for UK honours about whether citations should be updated to today's language, eg changing the 1980 "For service to the disabled." to "For service to disabled people." Members of this Wikiproject may have a view: please comment there. PamD 07:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I am looking for members to join WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Australians.

I figured that some members of WikiProject Australia might want to help contribute to the proposed WikiProject.

Let me know if you are interested!

Thanks AverageFraud (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

My knowledge of the phonetics symbols is way out of date now, but I think that the Coober Pedy pronunciation needs to be change per the comment by an editor on the Talk:Coober Pedy page. I think they're correct (having the "r" would be American pronunciation), so if someone here knows what the current symbol for the "uh" sound is, please change it. I'm guessing it could be "ə", but it needs someone with more certainty than I have. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it was correct before per the guidelines in this area; see my edit summary there. Graham87 16:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I don't like that, in particular when it applies to place names - seems to go against common sense to me... But I have not been involved in any discussions about phonetics and I'll accept what you say. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Early life of Keith Miller for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Keith Miller has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've suggested the page Australian Centre for the Moving Image be moved to ACMI and the current ACMI page be moved to a disambiguation page. ACMI is formally known as Australian Centre for the Moving Image, but no longer uses this name. Please see the discussion here. Jimmyjrg (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

For those who are new here or forgotten about my banging on about it in recent years, FYI there has been some new activity on the Indigenous style guide and this might be a good time for some more people to offer their input on a couple of issues (see talk page). It would be so nice to have something that most active Australian editors agree on, as a reference document.

On a completely different topic - is the only way to start a new topic in this new(ish) talk page formatting to use Edit on the previous one and then add it?

start a new topic in this new(ish) talk page — Depending on your "Skin" selection in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering you might see a "+" tab (I do, with MonoBook). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch, I see it. I will give that skin a whirl. (I had been sticking to the old 2010 version, which to my eyes looks better - but I do see the advantages of having the extra features showing as tabs.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Please comment at Help desk if you know something: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Australian_Pygmy_race Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that in articles about deceased Indigenous people such as Ms Dhu and Kumanjayi Walker state both their former full names and their names deemed culturally appropriate after death, even though it is against cultural protocols to use their former names (I am aware it is a case-by-case situation, as for notable figures like Gurrumul Yunupingu the family has said it was OK to use his name and image).

My gut says that I'll be told that since English Wikipedia is available to everyone, it can't/shouldn't be edited to abide by the specific cultural protocols of a relatively small population.

Nonetheless, I'm going to make the argument that it is unnecessary & offensive for Wikipedia to use their former names - why does the public need access to their names? For the 3 times the Kumanjayi Walker article mentions his birth name for instance, it could easily be replaced with 'Kumanjayi Walker' or 'Walker', and just have a note that his name is not included to respect cultural protocols, possibly having a link to the Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices page. Likewise for Ms Dhu.

I'm just posting this here to open up a dialogue and to assert my position as an Aboriginal Wikipedia editor. To me, it's a relatively simple fix & simple way to honestly demonstrate respect toward Indigenous people. AnElectricShangriLa (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy with trans-gender persons is roughly: if they were public figures before the switch, their earlier name should not be suppressed. So with Aboriginal persons: Oodgeroo Noonuccal was well known as Kath Walker, whereas no purpose is served by passing on Kumanjayi Walker's earlier name or names. Doug butler (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Doug butler: Wikipedia shouldn't and doesn't trade off reader utility for cultural protocols, but where omitting the former name has a negligible effect on an article's usefulness, including it seems gratuitous. So yeah, following something like MOS:DEADNAME seems appropriate. – Teratix ₵ 10:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The appropriate guideline here is WP:NOTCENSORED, in particular, with my notes in square brackets:

Some organizations' [cultures] rules or traditions call for secrecy [not using] with regard to certain information [names] about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic

I don't think MOS:DEADNAME is relevant here - there's a big difference between a transgender person changing their own name name because they changed their gender, and everyone else using a different name for a person because that person has died. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a proposal to add something to the MOS around Indigenous cultural naming protocols would be good for the Australian community to tackle. WP:PROPOSAL Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to this, I think it falls under WP:NOTCENSORED and is not really workable. Avoidance practices are generally in place for a period of mourning following the death not indefinitely. In the case of Ms Dhu, who died in 2014, this period has likely passed and without confirmation from her community we would never know for sure. (In Ms Dhu's case the family gave permission for her full name to be used anyway.[1]) Additionally, avoidance practices are not limited to names but can extend to images - would we also have policy to cover this? BLP policy can apply to articles of recently deceased people. So in the immediate period following an Indigenous person's death, things like the inappropriate use of sources to add someone's living name can be reverted (such as WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:BLPNAME) through existing guidelines. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ideally there would also be something in place to remove images on Commons during a mourning period if required. How that would be managed is beyond me though. From a brief look, it seems like you'd have to request the image be deleted. I think there needs to be research/advice sought on whether deletion is the best outcome though.

On Wikipedia a WP:CET could be created, noting that a subjects name has been removed due to a period of mourning being in place. Maybe the template also highlights that all images of the subject are to be removed during this period? Then perhaps for the template to be removed there would need to be a new reference added showing that the subjects name could be used again? Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

there would also be something in place to remove images on Commons during a mourning period — No. If the images bother you personally, see HELP:NOIMAGE. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not bothered personally, but I think it's something that would come up if a template around mourning periods were created. Jimmyjrg (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

And who is deciding how long this mourning period is? NITV's guidelines say This maybe just for a period of time, some cases could vary between six-to-12 months, but liaising with the community is paramount. ABC's say the mourning period may last for weeks, months or years. We know the diversity in indigenous memorial practices (see [2]). I cannot see how a one-size-fits-all model would work or the remote possibility of liaising with communities on a case-by-case basis. While a proposal like this is well intended, in practice it may be paternalistic. Indigenous Australians, I believe, would understand the risk of seeing a recently deceased persons name or image when they log onto the internet. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We aren't required to self-censor because of cultural sensitivities. It's not directly analogous, but on articles regarding Islam we never include honorifics around Muhammad's name, and we do show depictions of the prophets, two things which many Muslims consider improper or offensive. We do this because the truth is that it is simply not our responsibility to cater for every single cultural practice in existence. We aren't writing an Islamic encyclopaedia, nor are we writing an Indigenous encyclopaedia. When it comes to Wikipedia coverage of deceased Indigenous people, somebody likely to be offended (i.e. an Indigenous person who observes avoidance practices) should be able to make the connection that reading an article on that person will probably include details they would prefer to avoid. As far as I'm concerned, names and pictures are pretty essential for good coverage of an individual. I see no reason to start excluding them to cater for a cultural practice. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC), expanded 02:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia is not censored rule and that ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content", and I can understand that this is a radical/potentially unpopular idea but maybe that standard shouldn't apply here - maybe Wikipedia's attempts to be objective/neutral and all-encompassing in their collation of content is flawed, because there is no such thing as being objective or neutral (which Wikipedia as an organisation is aware of itself (and rejects as a misunderstanding of policy)) and the guise of objectivity/neutrality in tandem with the majorly white male Wikipedia editor base upholds colonial standards & hierarchies.

Saying "writing an Islamic encyclopaedia, nor are we writing an Indigenous encyclopaedia" begs the question - what encyclopaedia is being written, by who and by whose/what standards? If Wikipedia is committed to countering systemic bias, disrespecting well-known cultural protocols is not a way to do it in my opinion.

Additionally, the specific pages we're talking about here are about Indigenous people who have died in custody. Generally, they only become known to the public after death and their names & images before death are not widely known or circulated. With that being said, I'd agree with Doug butler's reply. AnElectricShangriLa (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be "objective" but it's also not a soapbox to right wrongs in the world. I am not here to debate "colonial hierarchies", I'm here to write an encyclopaedia. And our readers are not here to challenge "colonial standards", they are here to read encyclopaedic content. As I stated before, Wikipedia is not an Indigenous encyclopaedia and there's no compelling reason to defer to Indigenous cultural customs; an individual who reads an encyclopaedia entry should be expecting to encounter names and images. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It was in my mind to have a content warning for Indigenous people (similar to "First Nations readers are advised that this article contains images & mention of people who have died") but I'm not sure if/how that could be put into practice...

I question how this proposed rule would be 'paternalistic' - if there has been a chosen name given out by the family/community for media to use (as with Kumanjayi Walker & Ms Dhu (it is worth noting that in the footnote you provided, it says her family only gave permission for SBS to use her birth name, not Wikipedia/another organisation)) that editors can corroborate through multiple reputable news sources, why shouldn't Wikipedia just use this name?

Would it not be better to be 'safe than sorry' rather than actively reject cultural naming protocols across the board? AnElectricShangriLa (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

a content warning for Indigenous people — See Wikipedia:No disclaimers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs)

I still think a Current event templates could be developed to tackle this, or at least one of the existing ones could be used in these cases. While I agree Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, I do think a template could be used explaining that the content may be out of date.--Jimmyjrg (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that following MOS:DEADNAME would probably be the best solution here for now. I would support more, but it seems sensible that if we apply one policy to respect changed names in one case, we should use the same policy in other cases where names are changed for similar reasons. Using the old name is disrespectful with trans people, and it is disrespectful here, so it would make sense to apply the "what if using someone's old name is disrespectful" policy in both cases.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that (at least with WP:Victoria) the state/territory projects aren't being used fully (eg the Victorian to-do list was mostly pre 2012). I've tried looking at what needs doing in in WP:Austraila, but due to the large number of things here, it gets a bit too daunting, so I end up doing nothing (I think there may be a few users with similar experiences). Even the state talk page isn't really used, insted discussions that should be state specific are brought here where people will be more likely to see things. I'm unsure if the same can be said for the other Australia-related WikiProjects.
If thing keep going like this, why should we be tagging things into the various other Australia WikiProjects? Are these separate projects even still needed? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Very much so - you are focusing on the front end of the projects, the actual tangible survival of assessment for all the Australian projects is an inherent part of the structure of the larger project, and it is related to the rear end - the talk pages and the assessment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia - the project is not that far from

250,000 separate items that relate to the larger project. Currently Australia has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australia-related_WikiProjects

and the more separation into subjects and scopes of the projects - the larger project does not

gain or benefit any suggestions of 'reduction' or limiting the scope and spread.

Looking at the front end misses the point of the separate state and territory project creation,

and why and how it benefits the larger project.

There is nothing daunting about the issues - each project is different and can be dealt with over time. If anyone has problems with the larger dimensions, please, rather than 'fiddling' with the larger project - please help cleanup smaller 'parts' - it all helps in the end. Thanks. JarrahTree 10:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have started on tying to clean up the Victorian project (and mid way started questioning if it was worth it).

I've posted to a few of the sub-projects talk pages in the past about issues relevant to those projects (and I was told by you on one occasion that "I was more or less talking to myself there") -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue is the structure by which state and subject projects provide a scope for a limitation of the assessment framework (the backend) - the actual trying to seek out other opinions at state and subject projects (the frontend) can be very frustrating and eventually be self defeating. Many editors show little interest in alignment with projects per-se, and simply edit in areas of their personal interest and show little or no interest in projects.

Cleaning up a project can mean a number of things. To question if project cleanup is worth the while - is a positive and obvious response - and in the case of improving anything is well worth it. JarrahTree 11:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

For any one wondering why I had previously made comment about conversation with himself.

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Victoria

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tasmania

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Wikipedia:WikiProject_South_Australia

as a sample... JarrahTree 11:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Victoria has the most members of all the states, and yet only 14 view in the last 3 months (and most may be me editing the project), exactly why I'm asking if it is worth it.

I'm planning to also get onto updating the backend bits soon. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the long reply, but I thought this might be relevant. Last year I started putting together some stats around this, looking at all of the Australia Projects for the period of July 2015- August 2022

The three most popular pages were:

1. Portal: Australia
2. Australian Wikipedians’ notice board
3. WikiProject Australia

Occasionally the third spot has been held by talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force (Sep 2016), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics (Jun 2018, Jan 2019), Portal talk: Australia (Nov 2019), and talk:WikiProject Australian Roads (Jun 2020). Here's a graph: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xks8T/1/

Excluding the top three most populars pages, and all talk pages, gives a different look at page popularity, and how various projects have come and gone in popularity. Here's a graph: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/tMxSu/1/

The most popular page is initially WikiProject Melbourne in 2015, but is replaced by WikiProject Australian history until 2021 when WikiProject Australian Roads takes over.

Second and third place fluctuate significantly, but two large peaks are WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force (2016) and WikiProject Canberra (2019).

Talk pages which received over 1000 views between July 2015- August 2022 include talk pages for:

1. Melbourne
2. Australian Politics
3. Australian Rule Football
4. Western Australia
5. Australian roads
6. Portal: Australia

Here's a graph: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/XsEdq/1/

Looking at just Sep 2021-Aug 2022, I also created this graph of monthly average views for all projects and talk pages: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/didDv/1/

Page watchers is also interesting, many of the pages have an unknown number due to having fewer than 30 watchers. I created a graph of page watchers in August 2022 here: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/edBhP/1/

When I looked at States and Cities in Sep 2021-Aug 2022, NSW and Sydney had about the same views but Sydney had more watchers, QLD had more views than Brisbane but Brisbane had more watchers, SA had less views and watchers than Adelaide, VIC had less views and watchers than Melbourne, WA had more views and watchers than Perth.

Of those, only WA has a talk page more popular than its main page.

For members, on 8 September 2022 I counted the number of members on each project. There was a total of 1621 "current" members across each projects, but it was unclear how often anyone was updating the "former" members. Only 10 projects had more than 50 members. They were:

• WikiProject Australia - 335
• WikiProject Australian politics - 103
• WikiProject Melbourne - 88
• WikiProject Football/Australia task force - 85
• WikiProject Australian rules football - 69
• WikiProject Australian music - 64
• WikiProject Brisbane - 62
• WikiProject Victoria - 55
• WikiProject Sydney - 55
• WikiProject Canberra - 52

I had intended to put something together to give a push to people using the projects again, or finding new ways to use them, but I got distracted with other stuff. Hopefully this is interesting to someone though. Jimmyjrg (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is very interesting, thank you for sharing this. I'd love to see some sort of stats page eventually made from this that can be updated (maybe twice yearly). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I will add that tagging articles into the various subproject is useful for article alerts. The Australia project has quite a lot of articles and so the article alerts page is quite long, so I've watchlisted some of the subprojects instead which I find useful. Steelkamp (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The very important proviso is that the many editors of the past had allegiances to their home state or city - currently there are as many australian editors who have no identification of their location or their allegiances - and even some who have no interest in stating that they are even in Australia - so the figures above have potentially severe limitations. It is worth to make an effort to alert editors who take issues to talk pages to check the page views first, it is not much effort to do so - that way it is possible to see whether there are actually any page views where they wish to start a conversation or not.

Identified Membership is never an indication of actual editing numbers in any project - specially across articles - individual articles can be assessed from edit history and page views - however 'popularity' of articles is another thing again.

Australian editors are spoilt for sub projects - which in many cases have 'dedicated' editors who work in them - and therein lies yet another issue - some

sub projects might have maybe 2 or 3 editors who do the bulk of editing in that project.

Another observation is that the activity on sub projects cannot be identified by the 'front end' or the talk page and the main page - the articles inside the projects can be edited and worked on and extra articles made - and yet by external criterion they are 'inactive' due to the quiet talk pages - Tasmania as an example has a very quiet project talk page, yet editing of the component articles is constant, with many edits happening daily. It is very active - but the talk page is silent. JarrahTree 05:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The one problem with checking the page views first, is it becomes a catch 22. If not many are viewing the talk page then no one will post there, and if no one posts, why would anybody waste time viewing that talk page. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Patience - some oz editors have their invisible 'fan clubs' - seen by how many people watch a particular editors activity in total anonymity - not a catch 22 but more a case of - if 'x' posts somewhere, suddenly the potential for others who are already following may well increase page views and open the opportunity for others to be involved in discussion, if the subject warrants the attention. Also individual watch lists are totally independent from page views - some (but not all) Australian editors do have significantly large watchlists - so there is nothing to do with time wasting. JarrahTree 06:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'll aim to put something together in July. Jimmyjrg (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have made a proposal (User:ThylacineHunter/sandbox5) for a new layout for a state sub-project (this one is for Victoria, but it is easily reusable for any of the states/territories). I was hoping make it more engaging and useful for members to edit articles.
Any feedback would be helpful, especially as to what people usually engage with on the project. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As of 7 June 2023, both the geographical feature and locality Fraser Island are officially renamed K'gari.[3]. Comments sought on:

• Talk:Fraser Island#Requested move 7 June 2023 (geographical feature)
• Talk:Fraser Island, Queensland#Requested move 7 June 2023 (locality)
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Fraser Island (category)

203.8.131.32 (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

NBN (TV station) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:New South Wales Xplorer#Requested move 12 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Albert Hawke#Requested move 5 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there is a proposal for a potential Australian Transport Wikiproject, which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Australian Transport. This may take the form of a task force under here. If you are interested or want to provide feedback, please input there. Thank you. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there is an RfC at talk:Ben Roberts-Smith on whether in the article Ben Roberts-Smith he should be described as having "disgraced his country" attributed to Justice Besanko. Justice Besanko handed down a judgment in a defamation case between Roberts-Smith and three newspapers. AlanS^talk 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RfC: Jeremy Gans, July 2022 opinion on the Briginshaw principle. starship.paint (exalt) 10:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The article for Chung Chun Rice Dog mentions a presence in Australia, but I've struggled to find details. Would any project members happen to be familiar with this company or care to help with with a little research project? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Another Believer: The brand is "Chunky Town" over here.[4] (Searching ASIC originally and looking at connected names) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There was previously interest in this, so I thought I'd share it here so it exists in the archive. Yesterday (3 July) I compiled a list of all the WikiProject Australia sub-project members to count how many there are.

Across all sub-projects:

Total number of members (including inactive and doubles): 1919

Individual users who are members (including inactive): 1143

Individual users who are members (NOT including inactive): 735

Individual users who are members of more than one project: 263

There are a further 346 members listed on the WikiProject Australia page.

Of those, 154 are members of other WikiProject sub-Projects, and 186 are not. Some users have listed themselves twice, so the total doesn't equal 346.

My numbers may be slightly off as there's probably some users who are on multiple projects that I missed due to how some people change how their username is displayed in their signatures. I just copied and pasted the lists from each page.

For individual member numbers on each subproject:

Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Active: 28

Inactive: n/a

Australian Antarctic Territory work group

Active: 2

Inactive: n/a

Australian baseball task force

Active: 4

Inactive: 13

Australian cinema task force

Active: 13

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Adelaide

Active: 21

Inactive: 73

WikiProject Australian basketball

Active: 2

Inactive: 26

WikiProject Australian biota

Active: 19

Inactive: 16

WikiProject Australian crime

Active: 7

Inactive: 12

WikiProject Australian history

Active: 36

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia

Active: 32

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Australian law

Active: 8

Inactive: 42

WikiProject Australian literature

Active: 29

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Australian maritime history

Active: 25

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Australian motorsport

Active: 40

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Australian music

Active: 67

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Australian places

Active: 40

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Australian politics

Active: 106

Inactive: 1

WikiProject Australian Roads

Active: 30

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Australian rules football

Active: 69

Inactive: 183

WikiProject Australian sports

Active: 22

Inactive: 28

WikiProject Australian television

Active: 23

Inactive: 46

WikiProject Australian Transport

Active: 10

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Brisbane

Active: 63

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Canberra

Active: 53

Inactive: 6

WikiProject Crowded House

Active: 13

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Demographics of Australia

Active: 8

Inactive: 2

WikiProject Education in Australia

Active: 18

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Football/Australia task force

Active: 88

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Geelong

Active: 15

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Kylie Minogue

Active: 18

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Melbourne

Active: 90

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject New South Wales

Active: 48

Inactive: 1

WikiProject Noongar

Active: 5

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Northern Territory

Active: 31

Inactive: 2

WikiProject Perth

Active: 19

Inactive: 44

WikiProject Powderfinger

Active: 25

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Queensland

Active: 15

Inactive: 26

WikiProject Riverina

Active: 6

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject South Australia

Active: 14

Inactive: 14

WikiProject Sydney

Active: 57

Inactive: n/a

WikiProject Tasmania

Active: 16

Inactive: 22

WikiProject Victoria

Active: 51

Inactive: 8

WikiProject Western Australia

Active: 32

Inactive: 36

Note: Inactive members are defined differently across all of the sub-projects. Some remove members who are inactive with the project, others remove members who are inactive on any Wikimedia projects, and some never removed anyone. The time of inactivity is also different, with some removing people after inactivity of 3 months and others waiting 12 months. Some projects also list members who have died. For the purpose of this, anyone outside of the general membership has been listed under inactive. Jimmyjrg (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

See discussion for linking both needs-photo and state parameters: Template talk:WikiProject Australia#Both needs-photo and state parameters -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

See discussion: Template talk:WikiProject Australia#Future-Class -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose adding a future class to the template. I don't really see the point. Things that are opening in the future (Suburban Rail Loop as an example) can still be rated as a stub, start, B, GA class, etc. Bypassing the whole article rating scheme for future projects seems weird. Steelkamp (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Valley Heights Locomotive Depot Heritage Museum#Requested move 4 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Fork99 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors are invited to comment at Talk:Stony Head, Tasmania#41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E as to whether that particular location is worthy of mentioning in an article. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

What a totally absurd conversation to be having there, a very simple check of the Degree_Confluence_Project article would have been solved ages ago. JarrahTree 02:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

There’s a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Creative Spirits website on whether Creative Spirits is reliable as a source of information for Indigenous peoples of Australia. Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There’s a discussion at Talk:Rolf_Harris#"convicted_child_sex_offender"_in_first_sentence on whether Rolf Harris's child sex crimes are one of his main reasons for his notability and thus whether there should be reference to him being a "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence of the lead per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. AlanS^talk 09:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I notice that Ashfield Boys High School is in Sydney and Ashfield Boys' High School is in Belfast, the disambiguation being the apostrophe. Both schools have the apostrophe in their official name. There is a proper hatnote to each, but it all seems rather arbitrary. I suggest the Australian article be moved to [[Ashfield Boys' High School (Sydney)]]. Anyone have a problem with that? Doug butler (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think your move would be very sensible. --Bduke (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ashfield Boys High School (with and without the apostrophe) should be a dab page, then the schools can have {Sydney) and (Belfast) added to their respective article titles. I don't think one school warrants being the primary article over the other. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have changed my view. I now agree with with the above, --Bduke (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. At first I cursed your recommendation, as it would mean changing a lot of entries in Category:People educated at Ashfield Boys' High School, but then discovered half of them weren't soccer-players but Aussies, including half of AC/DC Doug butler (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(further note, following reversion by User:Happily888) :The reverting editor is not wrong. The Sydney school's website clearly has no apostrophe in their title, which one must presume is the current useage, and that user points out that (per WP:DAB#Different spelling variants) punctuation is considered sufficient disambiguation, provided hatnotes draw attention to the alternative titles, though you and I may disagree. They have, inter alia, quietly corrected the misdirected alumni. Doug butler (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I am seeing content added to Wikipedia suburb articles citing Microburbs. Its About page self-describes as being "free, detailed, and authoritiative" but, despite the claim to be authoritative, the website is does not indicate the sources used beyond "council PDFs, government spreadsheets, crime stats, planning data, school performance info and much more". Also despite the claim being "free", I frequently hit pay walls when I was looking at it. Some of the data is probably coming from ABS Census data (e.g. % of residents with overseas born parents), but a lot of it is not data collected by the census. Also the site appears to make quantitative assessments by combining scores for an assortment of metrics, e.g. my suburb scores 41.4% for "diversity" but our mental health score is in the "bottom 20%" (not clear if this is good or bad) and the top 22% for industry diversity (which seems remarkable for an almost entirely residential suburb possessed of virtually no commerce or industry). As anexample, in Mountain Creek, Queensland, someone has added "The economic class distribution is skewed towards the middle class, at 51.7%, with the rest distributed among the underclass (13%), upper class (5.5%), and working class (29.8%)." citing https://www.microburbs.com.au/Affluence-Economy/Mountain-Creek-(Qld) which made me wonder what "underclass" etc was defined as meaning (income?, education?, ...). But when you click on them to get a definition (as it tells you to), you hit a paywall. If you want to see more examples of content being cited from microburbs, look at this list

I would welcome your thoughts on whether this is a reliable source. My personal feeling is that it would be better to report data from the census, govt crime stats, etc directly from those sources and not to provide the interpretations that this website is presenting. Kerry (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Some might argue that those particular notions of class are outdated, some might not. They're not classifications I would expect from a reliable source talking about demographics though. I would expect a reliable source to talk about income bracket percentiles that make up each suburb. That's just me. AlanS^talk 06:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I just had a look at Microburbs cited on Ashmont, New South Wales and it's not clear at all where the stats cited come from.

For your underclass definition, if you hover your mouse over the word underclass it defines it as "The most disadvantaged socio-economic group, often facing poverty, limited op..." and then like you said you hit a paywall if you want to know more. It is a bit of a weird way to class people though, especially when the sources of information are as vague as "ABS, ATO, DSS, GOOGLE, TORREN and Microburbs, 2001 - 2023"

Is it overall similar to id community? They pull data from the census and about councils who use it in their own reporting, eg. Brimbank City Council. There's one for Mountain Creek here. They have their own scores about disadvantaged and advantaged people, but it's a little clearer where their data comes from. Jimmyjrg (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The article Clare Cousins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

failed notability guidelines 5 days ago and has been tagged with copy/paste

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSR07 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Architectural magazines appear to have several independent writings about her work, (and also some articles written by her), so I deprodded. Those with Informat access should be able to access articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've responded to this message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In this page the display is faulty; instead of "sports" "biota" appears.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Also in this page/--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem in the BannerShell. Sport appears for Talk:Kangaroo where there's a BannerShell; but not here Talk:Missulena occatoria where two Project templates are not linked in a BannerShell.--Oronsay (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed on the Stadium Australia article at the bottom of this section it mentioned that the stadium will be used in the 2032 Olympics. That doesn’t seem right since the Olympics will be in Brisbane and the stadium is in Sydney? Stadium Australia#2023 FIFA Women's World Cup

Anyone know anything about this? 49.186.84.209 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

They usually use several stadiums outside the main city for the football tournament - could also be used for rugby sevens possibly. ITBF (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, yeah looks like you must be right. I’ll add a reference to it 49.186.84.209 (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We have an article - Table of precedence for the Commonwealth of Australia - which has multiple longstanding issues. We effectively have one source - Federal Register of Legislation - for this, gazetted (coincidentally, I assume) one week before the death of Her Late Majesty.

The updated OoP remedies several deficiencies in the previous 1982 version such as Chief Ministers of Territories now being given a specific slot (immediately after State Premiers in order of population) but like its predecessor it omits any mention of members of the royal family.

The official list begins with the Governor-General in first position followed by governors of states in order of appointment. Our list fills in the current office-holders for these and all other positions.

The problem I see is that Wikipedia's list has the monarch in first position. This is not directly sourced - after all, we only have one gazetted Order of Precedence, and that says different - and the arguments advanced for what looks like original research rely on connecting dots to make a claim that nobody in authority seems to have ever stated.

I don't think that there's any dispute that if personally present the monarch would rank ahead of everybody else but I think that we could better handle this by a note with a link to some official protocol concerning members of the royal family rather than simply adjusting the official list according to the whim of Wikipedia editors.

The Canadian Order of Precedence (which also lists their Governor General first) covers this situation with a note, but the Australian one does not.

Rather than having the usual monarchists and republicans and Canadians and British and Australians hurling rocks at each other on the article talk page, and short of an RfC, I'd like to see some indications from a wider Australian audience than those with this rather arcane article on their watchlist.

So long as we can find sources, how should we handle this:

1. Stay with the gazetted list
2. As above, but with a note concerning visiting royalty (assuming we can find a source)
3. Just stick the monarch in first place without the bother of a reliable source.

Comments? --Pete (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend an RFC for the page-in-question's topic. Anyways, more input would be welcomed there. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion relating to Australian politics on WikiProject Politics. Feel free to contribute. QLDer in NSW (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fox Kids (Australia)#Requested move 14 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kicks after the siren in Australian rules football#Requested move 9 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m not too well versed in the ambiguous term disambiguation conventions for Aussie topics — however, should this article be Travelling Post Office (Queensland) instead? The comma to me implies that it’s a geographic place, but it’s not, it’s a historic type of mail train. Travelling Post Office leads to a British article for those curious.

Also curiously, I think some other states also had TPOs, but there doesn’t seem to be a standalone article on them. Or maybe the article could encompass TPOs in general throughout Australia? I will ask WikiProject Australian Transport for a second opinion as well. Fork99 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that the article is largely uncited, merging into the parent Travelling Post Office article perhaps should be considered. Bagufleat (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe bracket disambiguation is the correct form for this article. I'm wondering whether all words capitalised is the correct capitalisation though. Is Travelling Post Office a proper noun? Steelkamp (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is, the British equivalent seems to be fully capitalised. The Junee Roundhouse Railway Museum also fully capitalises it, click on the link that says VIEW ILLUSTRATED LIST OF MAJOR EXHIBITS, it will lead you to a museum PDF document. Fork99 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Fremantle Arts Centre (organisation) be moved to Fremantle Arts Centre, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Skyerise (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Moved from the talk page. I also started an ANI discussion]] about a related requested move at Museum and Arts Centre, Fremantle, but that's cooled down now. Graham87 18:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I should like to propose a WP Australia-wide standard for titling articles about sites on State historic registries. I propose that the standard be to title the article by the primary name used on the registry entry for the site. In many cases, the only reason there is an article on the topic is that the building is on the historic site registry. For consistency, we should follow the registry's designation for all articles about registered historic sites in Australia. Skyerise (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Seems a little...one-sided? Why should that be the sole authority? Drmies (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Because it is the name recognized as official by the State? Other geographical WikiProjects use the same reasoning to title articles about officially designated historic buildings, why should Australia be an exception? Skyerise (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not "the state", but the state heritage office; there's quite a difference. Anyway you might get more traction at the main Australian Wikipedians' notice board; I'd suggest moving/copying this there. Graham87 17:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Per the Heritage Council website: "The Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) is the State Government’s expert body on Western Australia’s cultural heritage significance as vested under the Heritage Act 2018." Aren't we supposed to follow the lead of the "expert body"? Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  For article content but not necessarily for article titles. Graham87 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Your response is confusing. Isn't this the talk page for the project? Skyerise (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Nope, you previously posted your message at the talk page for the Australian Wikipedians' notice board (thanks for moving it). Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia redirects to the main notice board. Other pages (but not all of them) in Category:Regional Wikipedian notice boards are set up similarly. Graham87 17:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info. I went to the project page and then the talk page for the project, which for most projects puts one in the correct place. There must have been an unnoticed redirect when I did that. Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. Please provide links showing which regional projects have such a convention. Even that might not convince us though ... we're a proud outlier in some ways, such as how we still use {{Infobox Australian place}} rather than {{Infobox settlement}}. Graham87 17:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like too much effort if its likely to be ignored. I'm reminded of a response by an Australian character in season 1, episode 3 of Sense8. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nah, this is a bad idea. Take Daglish railway station (which is a featured article) as a example. The heritage register uses the title Daglish Railway Station, but moving the Wikipedia article to that title would make it no longer follow the naming convention for all railway stations in Australia. Then you have the Public Transport Authority using the official name "Daglish Station". Why should the inHerit name be more important than the Public Transport Authority name? These conflicts can happen with local governments, or other state government agencies, not to mention the common name for the place.

I have said elsewhere that heritage databases often have weird names, or weird grammar, which quite often goes against WP:Common name. This his why heritage databases should not the be-all and end-all for article titles. Steelkamp (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

A very bad idea, the proposal is for a one size fits all focus upon appellations from usually highly divergent usages in each state and territory, and where 'official' names are often open to question as to they are specifically acceptable or understandable in general usage. The fact that each state (and current and former federal bodies) do not necessarily agree on naming in many cases, suggests a potential disaster if this idea proceeds. I do hope that a clear cognizance of the complexity of heritage 'naming' eventually reaches this proposal and allows it to remain just that, a query. JarrahTree 09:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Steelkamp, an example of one of the weirdest NSW State Heritage Register place names I've come across is ‘Sydney Terminal and Central Railway Stations Group and Central Railway; Central Station; Underbridges’ to refer to Central railway station, Sydney. And some of the others are something to the effect of “Example Railway Station and group” — sorry, a group of what? Chickens? Cows? Bananas? No reasonable person knows of or uses any of these long names, in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Google Maps often is a good start for what the common name of a place is, from my experience. But yes there are edge cases all the time, where technically the building and organisation on the same plot of land might go by different names including in both formal and/or casual contexts. These should be sorted out case by case, I don't think a blanket standard will work. Fork99 (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:Commonname is very clear In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article changing to heritage registers which take no consideration about usage, nor Indigenous names but are rather the reflection of the what an unknown individual chose. All heritage reports start with stating its also known as which can include the current name, common names, other previous names that have been used, no need for anything made up just to go with existing Wikipedia policy thats been proven reliable, effective, efficient, and something everyone understands. Gnangarra 10:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis#Requested move 29 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@User:Not Another NPC has recently added the referendum results to a number of electoral division articles. (see here). I am proposing that these additions get moved to each article's respective results page (which in the case of McEwen would be: Electoral results for the Division of McEwen.

As is, the results are making the electoral division articles very bulky (see wp:TOOBIG). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Many of the electoral division articles are now dominated by the referendum results. This is what the results articles were made for. The referendum results should be moved there. Steelkamp (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea, and I'll work to move the referendum results to those pages, and will do that going forward. I do propose, however, that the 'election results' header be changed to 'election and referendum results', to communicate to ordinary readers that that information is available on that page. I also propose that the most recent referendum result be included on the main page under that heading. Not Another NPC (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

propose ... 'election results' header be changed to 'election and referendum results' — Election results and referendum/plebiscite results should be kept in separate sections. They are fundamentally different. An election chooses the parliamentary representative for that division, and thus directly affects that division. A referendum or plebiscite does not affect the parliamentary representative or the division; the results are aggregated with other divisions and are only effective at the state (for double majority) or national level. The referendum or plebiscite results may be published per division, and might be statistically interesting, but have no per-division effect.

the most recent referendum result be included on the main page — No, because they do not affect the division, per above. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Did any Australian newspaper or magazine mention this Opera Australia doco ? Or, for that matter, the film of the La Traviata spectacular on Sydney Harbour, released by OA around the same time. Doug butler (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any review of Stars by Google or Bing searches. Limelight had nothing on it either. Oronsay (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I request an uninvolved editor to close / {{hat}} the entire section Talk:2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum § "Conspiracy theory" section sounds like left-wing smear as troll-bait. I would do it myself, but I'm an "involved editor" and {{hat}} says I should not. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone been down there, been round the trail? Govvy (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Are the Jellabies of British or Australian origin...? (nlwp, kowp) Ciell (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fox Showcase#Requested move 27 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiCon Brisbane 2023 will be held in Brisbane on 18 November 2023. Wikimedia Australia invites anyone interested in open knowledge and meeting fellow Wikimedians to join us for this community event with a program covering all things Wiki. Full details and links for registration, program submissions and travel sponsorships on the WMAU website. With thanks, BindiS (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I know that most editors don't like getting involved in conflicting views (I don't myself!), but there is a discussion in which I got involved because someone decided to revert an addition I made that was not in accordance with WP:REVERT, and without discussion. I'm not here to look for support for my point of view but simply for a few more voices and suggestions before this discussion can be closed. I am always happy to accept the consensus view; just think that it needs more input before closing the discussion and making whatever changes are decided upon. So if someone would please have a look at Talk:2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum#Media influence and see if you have an opinion or official wiki guideline to offer on this kind of thing, I would be grateful. Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Premier of Victoria § Requested move 1 October 2023 2. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 07:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Anthony Pratt (businessman) and its edit history, it's extremely obvious that the article has been substantially written by editors close to the subject. This goes back to 2008, when Pratt tried to have the article taken down (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Pratt_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=197709125). Failing that, editors close to the subject have subsequently been editing the article to make it more complimentary (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Pratt_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=566291028 ). This hasn't seemed to have been policed adequately, so now the whole article is an overlong promotional mess. I've started hacking away at it, but it needs more attention. Cjhard (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right. It's way over the top. I have begun to remove some hype and some trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)#Requested move 28 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How do these people select candidates for AfD ? I'm lost for words. Doug butler (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Resulted in a Speedy Keep. Thanks guys. I wonder how many OK Australian articles get flushed for want of a watcher? Doug butler (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback would be welcome at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Theeurekaflag.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. We need to establish the copyright situation for this image. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of using the term "Independent Liberal/Labor" to descibe the official party affiliations of elected councillors. Under the NSW Electoral Act 2017, the use of such terms are illegal. I would appreciate some input on this discussion there (or here!). Thanks, Siegfried Nugent (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments are invited at Talk:Noongar#Modern_vs_Historical on guidelines for Modern vs Historical. Are Graham Farmer (1935-2019) or Jack Davis (playwright) (1917-2000) "historical"? Mitch Ames (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Good afternoon all,

New article just created, needs some attention, including but not limited to:

• secondary, non-promotional sources
• clear definition of what the organisation is about

@Gaz8020:I'll let the article creation know about this in my next edit.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We're going to be running Koala at WP:Today's featured article on January 1 in honor of the anniversary of the Federation of Australia. It would be nice if WP:On this day could alert people to the connection, but per Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/January_1#Ineligible, that article is ineligible for WP:OTD until the references are improved. This is beyond my abilities, but if someone wants to tackle this before January 1, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm hoping to run either Australia or Canberra on January 1, 2025, but either of those would need some updating. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Tom Hawkins (footballer, born 1988) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey all,

I started The Saturday Paper article back in 2014.

It's now paywalled.

Things happen.

Anyone have access to The Saturday Paper review here?

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58, I just use Wayback Machine to create an archive in order to bypass the paywall. Often works in those sorts of situations. Only fails when the site in question doesn't allow webcrawlers. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I take that back. I thought it succeeded at first because I could see the article, but when I just went back to it was behind the paywall again. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPatht and Stephen: Yeah, thanks but no. Thanks all, but (a) if I'm writing about Australian writing, I should put my coin into paying for access to The Saturday Paper, not asking for how to get around its paywall (b) There's this thing called Admin accountability I am obliged to comply with, and even if by faint implication, of any number of other issues about those archived pages.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58, you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, but it's going to be the same thing -- someone's going to offer to send you a copy via email, which does get around the paywall. I don't think using it is a violation of admin accountability. No one expects any editor, admin or not, to pay for every source they're going to use once for a single article. I'd have shelled out many thousands by now if that was expected.

I've had good luck with the WP:Wikipedia Library, and if you're in Australia your own library may be able to help you access a copy. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It is well worth trying Australian materials - for non-trove users:-

• The Saturday Paper, The Saturday Paper Pty Ltd, 1900, retrieved 19 December 2023

• "online resource.", The Saturday Paper, Collingwood, Victoria: Schwartz Media (The Saturday Paper), 2014, ISSN 2203-3092, nla.obj-3157050951, retrieved 19 December 2023 – via Trove

• Schwartz Media, (issuing body.) (2000), The Saturday Paper, Schwartz Media, retrieved 19 December 2023

That's just a sample of three items... JarrahTree 13:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

There is currently a discussion on the Australia Talk page about whether Religion should be included in the info box. This is part of a broader discussion on how the content on religion should be presented in the article as a whole. As this is a featured article, any input on how this aspect could be improved would be very welcome. Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to this broader forum. Counts of religious people are inevitably biased upwards, due such factors as parents claiming newborn children to be religious, and people who were once in a church still stating that on a census, when they haven't attended for years. (A lot of Australian ex-Catholics tell me they do that.) For other reasons as well, the figures can never be precise. Imprecise figures should never go in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Howard River, Northern Territory#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon!

I have submitted a request at the Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop for a digital reproduction of the flag used by William Wentworth and William Bland for election as candidates of the Australian Patriotic Association. This is significant as the APA was Australia's first political party and the flag has been related to Australian colonial flags and the modern Australian flag (the latter by Wentworth biographer Andrew Tink). It therefore is a notable artefact in the development both of Australian democracy and Australian vexillology. I am mentioning it here in case anyone in this space is able to assist in this project.

Cheers! Will Thorpe (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Great Barrier Reef Airport#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Jralph00 (talk · contribs) has been amending distances to the CBD, claiming that they are wrong and to discuss this small change on every single article talk page would be unfeasible and unnecessary. I seek community input here particularly those familiar with Sydney. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Jralph claiming the new distances can be confirmed on mapping software. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A bit of further context - these figures are often far larger than in reality - possibly derived from driving distances, but no source. Furthermore the figure on some pages is inconsistent between the infobox and the main text. I am gradually updating these with an 'as the crow flies' measurement between the Sydney GPO and the suburb in question, rounded up to the nearest whole number. Jralph00 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What point are you using in each suburb for the distance? Nearest boundary, or some referenced geographic centre? Is the distance you are adding referenced to an external source? Stephen 00:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Measured to the nearest suburb boundary. The figures aren't referenced in an external source, though nor are the figures currently used - some of which are seemingly off by over 10km. Jralph00 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Unnamed Tasmanian football club#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:98five Sonshine FM#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maria (1823 ship)#Requested move 14 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Wagiman language has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ford Falcon (BA) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 21:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please join discussion at Talk:Australia_Day#Merchandise,_Woolworths_etc. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay appears to have recently replaced {{Infobox government}} with {{Infobox executive government}} on some (many/all? I haven't checked all of them, but eg: WA Vic) Australian state government articles, and I'm not sure that it's correct. Template:Infobox executive government/doc explicitly says (with my emphasis):

This box is for pages on the structures of executive governments ... and only on the structure. It should not be used for articles that use the wider meaning of the word government, i.e. all branches of government.

I'm not an expert on government systems, but I'm fairly sure that the state governments have legislative and judicial branches/powers. Victoria State Government even says, in the lead paragraph:

Like all state governments, it is formed by three independent branches: the executive, the judicial, and the parliament.

Comments are invited ... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I made the infobox changes, to bring them in line with the infobox at Australian Government page. Would trimming the pages down to being 'only' about the executive branch, suffice? I've also done the same for the Government of Canada & the 'ten' provincial governments. I also went by the infoboxes at the New Zealand Government & Government of the United Kingdom pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PS - If you believe I should revert my changes to the six state pages? I will do so. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

These need to be reverted, the scope of these articles is clearly the broader meaning of government. If it had just been done on cabinet pages or whatever then that would have been fine. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I'll revert. But I hope the discussion will continue here, on how to handle the Australian state pages. PS - I'll even revert the Canadian federal/provincial pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the "Infobox government" in all six Australian gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: & @5225C:, would it be alright if we keep 'Infobox government' (which I've restored), but change the parameter names in the six states. Change "Head of state", "Vice-regal representative", "Head of government" over to "Monarch", "Governor", "Premier"? Then add the names of the current office holders? GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said at WP:CANADA, I'm not sure about this as I think it's a good thing that infobox government shows us the generic offices. This should allow for a greater ability of comparison and contrasting with other governments across the globe; it tells us that the monarch is the head of state, the governor is the vicegerent, and the premier is the head of government. If there is a consensus to add current office holders I would hope that it's done like it is at Government of the United Kingdom where the names are in brackets, allowing the generic offices to remain visible. JM (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023:, this kinda ties in with the Canadian federal & provincial discussion. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Likely best, I let @Safes007: implement the correct changes, as he's done at the Australian Government page. Thanks JM2023 & 5225C for 'not' ignoring me. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I made similar changes to Australian Government and Queensland Government (but forgot to change the infobox), and I think it is ultimately better for 'X Government' pages in Australia to refer to the executive/body of people who run the executive and have a majority in the lower house, with a separate 'Politics of X' page to explain the separation of powers and broader political structure. In the federal context, I refer to the Parliamentary Education Office^[1] to support this view. That being said, it is also true that 'government' is also used to refer to all the branches of government (and I note that in the article^[2]) but I think the common meaning (especially in news reports) is to refer to 'the government' as the people who currently have a majority. I note I am from Qld and with its unicameral parliament, the executive government almost never has to consider what Parliament thinks, which makes a page about the three branches less appropriate, but that may not be the case in other states which I know less about.

That being said, I don't think the infobox of a page should be changed without changing the page itself and creating or expanding a 'Politics of X' page, and infobox executive should only be used when the page is actually about the executive as opposed to the system of government and enough information is written to justify two pages. I believe this is definitely the case for the Commonwealth, but may be more difficult for Tasmania (sorry Tasmania).

I also note there does not appear to be a consensus for the use of the term 'Government' in other pages and I think the meaning should be ultimately determined in context. For example, the Government of the United States and Government of Japan refer to the broader meaning, whilst Government of France and Government of Spain has a more restricted meaning. Another example is Government of Germany which redirects to Cabinet of Germany. Safes007 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've contacted Mitch Ames & their response was WP:DEADLINE, WP:BUSY, WP:SILENCE & WP:SOLVE. Since the original objector is too busy? I guess you've got the 'green light', to do what you can with the infoboxes & content of the six state gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these Commonwealth Realm articles titled "government" need their scope dramatically reduced to be about "HM Government" and not the entire political system. I made such points previously at WP:CANADA and it's something I noticed years ago. Especially bizarre is the Government of Canada article which tells us first that the government is all three branches, then that it's actually only the executive government, then goes on to describe the whole three branches and more anyway, despite stating that the actual definition issued by the government is the executive government only.

I also agree that infobox executive should only be used for articles covering executive governments and that the rest can be covered on "Politics of" articles (which I think many, if not most, already do).

Additionally, the reason there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of "government" is because it varies between countries. I believe that Commonwealth realms (and probably also Commonwealth republics, and most if not all Westminster systems) generally use it in the executive sense, while other systems do not, with major exceptions (i.e., Government of Russia, despite Russia being semi-presidential on paper). JM (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Members of WP:AUST, letting you know that I put myself as a connected contributor to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability talk page, as I wrote a speech about inclusion to them on 6 June 2022. I will still edit articles related to television, radio and technology regardless of my conflict of interest.

Off-topic: I am really busy today, so I will be back on Wikipedia at 1pm. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RMIT University#Requested move 27 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dani Laidley#Requested move 27 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Happily888 and @Vanderwaalforces, can you please check articles created by the IP 202.7.230.203, specifically The Cook Up with Adam Liaw, tonight and throughout February, as the IP copied content from the Adam Liaw article, without proper attribution, as mentioned in WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 09:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@TechGeek105 Thanks for spotting that. Looks like Happily888 has taken care of it (warned the IP). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Bendigo is currently seeking interested editors to join the project. If interested, please add your name to the project's participants list and start editing! Lotsw73 (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Lord Mayor of Melbourne by-election#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Planning to move this one to mainspace shortly, thought I'd first of all check here if anyone has any suggestions or objections? Pinging users who've been active on First Nations-related articles lately: @Aemilius Adolphin @Safes007 @Errantios @Riposte97 @Aliceinthealice @Bruceanthro @Laterthanyouthink @Zaddikskysong @BlackfullaLinguist ? Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neegzistuoja:

• on a first quick review of your proposed article I note you introduce the concept of indigenous custodians and indigenous custodianship without any reliable source/s or references verifying this is an existing, established and/or widely used and understood concept and, as such, unfortunately the article currently looks like original research where wikipedia, to be encyclopaedic, has a policy of no original research.
• on a quick search of wikipedia I also see that there does not seem to be any article on indigenous custodianship of lands and waters more generally across the world (I don't believe it is a uniquely Australian phenomena .. see here for instance [5], nor, by the way did I find any articles about the concepts of Aboriginal custodians and/or indigenous custodians of lands and waters

It occurs to me that in creating this article you have identified a significant shortfalling in the current wikipedia's coverage of indigenous custodianship as a thing, and maybe the best course of action might be to create a generic fully sources/referenced article on the concept of indigenous custodianship more generally, then update your current draft article with references/sources in the introduction to make the article about the particular nature and form indigenous custodianship takes with Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders Bruceanthro (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bruceanthro, I've had a go at adding sources to the lede and added your ICCA source in my short sentence on the term being used beyond Australia. I initially started writing the article with the title Traditional custodians, but from my (admittedly inexhaustive) research, this concept seemed to be more developed in an Australian context than anywhere else. Hoping it might be okay to start with this article, in the hopes that someone more qualified than me can start a more universal Indigenous custodianship article, perhaps once there is more useful literature. Seemingly similar precedent with native title: the Native title in Australia article was started in 2004, but the broader Aboriginal title one wasn't started until 2007. Neegzistuoja (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick comment tonight @Neegzistuoja:, as I haven't had time to read it properly, but just wanted to thank you for your work and comment that it looks very well sourced and laid out on the whole. I don't know much about the topic outside of Australia so cannot comment on that at the moment. Just one quick tip: if you go to Preferences, then Gadgets, there is an option to highlight links to disambiguation pages in orange, which doesn't work with mobile app editing but is handy when editing the web version. You will probably need to unlink the two I can see, custodian and Royal Societies of Australia, as neither seems to have a clear target article in wiki. Also, some thought will need to be given to incoming links to traditional owners redirects, as some of them may refer to custodianship rather than the native title definition. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neegzistuoja I think this is an important topic for an article, and it seems like a very good start to me. Personally I think I'm on the 'ownership' side of the "Custodianship and ownership" debate mentioned in the article subheading. I would just call the article "Indigenous Australian land ownership". To me this puts things in clear terms and puts it on the same prestige level as non-Indigenous ownership systems - yes the system of ownership is different, maybe there are more responsibilities associated with it, more spiritual associations, maybe the ownership is not individual - but in the end, there is Law that associates certain people with certain land, and under that law you can't take that land away from them. But, that's more my philosophical naming position, I think the current title is OK.

A future idea for expanding the article (maybe I could help with this) ~ In the parts of Australia I'm most familiar with (Arnhem Land), there's a clear distinction between what people call 'owners' and 'managers' of the land. Ownership is inherited from one's father, but you have management responsibilities for your mother's land as well. This second relationship is called 'djungkay' in Kunwinjku. See e.g. https://www.bawinanga.com/what-we-do/bawinanga-rangers/what-we-do/. I believe there are many related systems across Australia, and this would be an argument for an Australia-specific article. Zaddikskysong (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Indigenous Australian traditional land ownership" to distinguish from Native Title. But anyway as I said, I guess the existing title is fine;) Zaddikskysong (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Bruceanthro @Laterthanyouthink @Zaddikskysong for your constructive comments! I've just removed the disambiguation links and added "djungkay".

Forgive me for asking another favour, but I was hoping one of you (or indeed anyone reading this!) might be able to help me trim Commons:File:Koomal Dreaming- Cultural Experiences - Josh Whiteland.webm? I think a version that's just the Dreaming story he ends on, from 35:59-41:44, would be ideal. I'm in a bit of a precarious wi-fi situation at the moment, so my attempts to download that large video file before snipping and re-uploading have failed, and VideoCutTool doesn't seem to be working for me either... Neegzistuoja (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Digital terrestrial television in Australia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Holden Commodore has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Minister for Mental Health and Ageing (Australia)#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Australian Aboriginal Flag#Requested move 13 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm a tad out of action at the moment (can only edit for brief periods), plus don't feel knowledgeable enough about the orthography of Aboriginal languages to add anything of value to a discussion of this nature, but if anyone with any expertise, or know someone to tag, or willing to research further, would you please have a look at Talk:Ngiyambaa language to see if consensus can be reached on the spelling? Tagging Nishidani and NSH001, who have done quite a bit in this area. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone else please look at my last edit on Georgie Purcell? I expanded what looked to me like a biased article with disproportionate focus on her boobs instead of her politics. I was primarily led by the much longer French language article so perhaps introduced an unconscious bias in my efforts not to show a bias. My edit was reverted as not NPOV and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. Scott Davis ^Talk 03:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Mitch Ames:. Scott Davis ^Talk 07:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops - thank you @Grahamec: too --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Minister for International Development (Australia)#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Kicked off a new article for Sydney's biggest news of the year so far (sorry Taylor Swift), please (wood)chip in. Jpatokal (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay appears to have recently replaced {{Infobox government}} with {{Infobox executive government}} on some (many/all? I haven't checked all of them, but eg: WA Vic) Australian state government articles, and I'm not sure that it's correct. Template:Infobox executive government/doc explicitly says (with my emphasis):

This box is for pages on the structures of executive governments ... and only on the structure. It should not be used for articles that use the wider meaning of the word government, i.e. all branches of government.

I'm not an expert on government systems, but I'm fairly sure that the state governments have legislative and judicial branches/powers. Victoria State Government even says, in the lead paragraph:

Like all state governments, it is formed by three independent branches: the executive, the judicial, and the parliament.

Comments are invited ... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I made the infobox changes, to bring them in line with the infobox at Australian Government page. Would trimming the pages down to being 'only' about the executive branch, suffice? I've also done the same for the Government of Canada & the 'ten' provincial governments. I also went by the infoboxes at the New Zealand Government & Government of the United Kingdom pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PS - If you believe I should revert my changes to the six state pages? I will do so. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

These need to be reverted, the scope of these articles is clearly the broader meaning of government. If it had just been done on cabinet pages or whatever then that would have been fine. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I'll revert. But I hope the discussion will continue here, on how to handle the Australian state pages. PS - I'll even revert the Canadian federal/provincial pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the "Infobox government" in all six Australian gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: & @5225C:, would it be alright if we keep 'Infobox government' (which I've restored), but change the parameter names in the six states. Change "Head of state", "Vice-regal representative", "Head of government" over to "Monarch", "Governor", "Premier"? Then add the names of the current office holders? GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said at WP:CANADA, I'm not sure about this as I think it's a good thing that infobox government shows us the generic offices. This should allow for a greater ability of comparison and contrasting with other governments across the globe; it tells us that the monarch is the head of state, the governor is the vicegerent, and the premier is the head of government. If there is a consensus to add current office holders I would hope that it's done like it is at Government of the United Kingdom where the names are in brackets, allowing the generic offices to remain visible. JM (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023:, this kinda ties in with the Canadian federal & provincial discussion. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Likely best, I let @Safes007: implement the correct changes, as he's done at the Australian Government page. Thanks JM2023 & 5225C for 'not' ignoring me. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I made similar changes to Australian Government and Queensland Government (but forgot to change the infobox), and I think it is ultimately better for 'X Government' pages in Australia to refer to the executive/body of people who run the executive and have a majority in the lower house, with a separate 'Politics of X' page to explain the separation of powers and broader political structure. In the federal context, I refer to the Parliamentary Education Office^[1] to support this view. That being said, it is also true that 'government' is also used to refer to all the branches of government (and I note that in the article^[2]) but I think the common meaning (especially in news reports) is to refer to 'the government' as the people who currently have a majority. I note I am from Qld and with its unicameral parliament, the executive government almost never has to consider what Parliament thinks, which makes a page about the three branches less appropriate, but that may not be the case in other states which I know less about.

That being said, I don't think the infobox of a page should be changed without changing the page itself and creating or expanding a 'Politics of X' page, and infobox executive should only be used when the page is actually about the executive as opposed to the system of government and enough information is written to justify two pages. I believe this is definitely the case for the Commonwealth, but may be more difficult for Tasmania (sorry Tasmania).

I also note there does not appear to be a consensus for the use of the term 'Government' in other pages and I think the meaning should be ultimately determined in context. For example, the Government of the United States and Government of Japan refer to the broader meaning, whilst Government of France and Government of Spain has a more restricted meaning. Another example is Government of Germany which redirects to Cabinet of Germany. Safes007 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've contacted Mitch Ames & their response was WP:DEADLINE, WP:BUSY, WP:SILENCE & WP:SOLVE. Since the original objector is too busy? I guess you've got the 'green light', to do what you can with the infoboxes & content of the six state gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these Commonwealth Realm articles titled "government" need their scope dramatically reduced to be about "HM Government" and not the entire political system. I made such points previously at WP:CANADA and it's something I noticed years ago. Especially bizarre is the Government of Canada article which tells us first that the government is all three branches, then that it's actually only the executive government, then goes on to describe the whole three branches and more anyway, despite stating that the actual definition issued by the government is the executive government only.

I also agree that infobox executive should only be used for articles covering executive governments and that the rest can be covered on "Politics of" articles (which I think many, if not most, already do).

Additionally, the reason there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of "government" is because it varies between countries. I believe that Commonwealth realms (and probably also Commonwealth republics, and most if not all Westminster systems) generally use it in the executive sense, while other systems do not, with major exceptions (i.e., Government of Russia, despite Russia being semi-presidential on paper). JM (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Auslawnerd has change WA and apparently other states back to Executive Govt. I've reverted WA, but not anything else. Do we have any consensus on where we are going with this? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be best, to have the Australian Government page & all the six state government pages, with the same infobox? GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be best if they were all the same, but I'm waiting for other people to comment before reverting them all. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am a politics and law student with an interest in constitutional law and comparative politics. Apologies if I have accidentally made a mess, I was not aware of this wider disagreement about the meaning of the word 'Government' on wikipedia. If the consensus is that my edits should be reverted, I am okay with that.

However I will defend my changes for the following reasons.

• Government in parliamentary systems using the Westminster Model typically means the executive, whilst in presidential systems government can mean all three branches together.
• Government is used according to describe the executive branch on the Wikipedia pages for UK Government, NZ Government, Canadian Government, each of the governments of the Canadian provinces, Spanish Government Irish Government and most importantly the Australian Government
• It seems incongruous for the Australian Government page to refer to the executive government whilst each of the state governments use it in a broader sense.
• I think each state government page should mirror the Australian Government page (being specifically about the executive) and leave the entire political structure to a 'politics of' page.
• Using government in a broad sense leaves each of the states without a page on an important component of their government (the executive). The Cabinet is merely one part of the executive and doesn't include the Executive Council, the Governor, the Monarch (to a certain extent), departments/agencies and state instrumentalities. Whilst each state Parliament as the legislative branch has its own page with seperate pages on each chamber.
• Each of the state and federal executives use 'Government' to refer to themselves rather than the courts or the parliament. I think the difference between the wikipedia page and the actual practice of Australian Governments is a cause for confusion.

Again that's my position, but happy to revert if the majority opinion is otherwise. But from my observations it seems that JM2023, Safes007, @GoodDay and I seem to favour using government in an executive sense.

I also apologise if I have gone about it in a haphazard manner and I am happy to revert the infoboxes until each page has a corresponding 'politics of' page as a compromise. Auslawnerd (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in your observation of my opinion.

The Canadian federal level and all of the provinces have been changed to "infobox executive government", but that was included in a massive change in the scope of those articles from "government" in the American sense to "government" in the Westminster sense; the federal level and each province all also have a "politics" page which was changed in scope (if necessary) to cover the whole political system rather than just electoral results. When GoodDay originally changed all of those infoboxes in the Canadian articles, I said that either the article scopes have to be overhauled to match the infoboxes (the option I preferred), or the infoboxes had to be reverted; facing no opposition and with the support of GoodDay, I overhauled the article scopes and restored the executive infoboxes.

I was not sure about the Australia articles because Australia's political system takes elements from both the UK and the US, but considering what you have said here, I think that ultimately, the Australia pages should end up the same as the Canada pages: changes in their scopes to match the executive infoboxes, along with corresponding "politics" pages for the whole system. JM (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree and I would like to overhaul the state pages to match their infoboxes as well (particularly South Australia as I've read widely on the subject and I live there). Most of the information on each of the state govt pages is already about the executive branch and only has a few scant paragraphs on the courts and the parliament. I think GoodDay has already overhauled the Government of Queensland page as well.

Each of the states is actually closer in structure to the Westminster system than the federal layer is. This is because each of the states predate the existence of the federal layer as seperate British colonies, and the framers of the Australian constitution only incorporated American influences when the Federal Constitution was enacted in 1901.

Anyways I'll leave it at that and wait to see if Mitch Ames responds before taking any significant action. Auslawnerd (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Auslawnerd Well, it's been ten days, and Mitch Ames hasn't responded; given your reading of the consensus here, you might as well go ahead and make the changes. JM (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Riversleigh rainforest koala#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've already asked at the WP Library for this, but there hasn't been much uptake and someone suggested asking here. I'm trying to get hold of a copy of the following article that was in the Weekend Australian Review in 1991. I'm hoping someone here has access or is able to get it:

• Jones, K (23 March 1991). "The blitz and all that jazz". Weekend Australian Review.

If anyone can help here, I'd be extremely grateful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The paper's own archives don't have it. Your best bet maybe a library near you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately my local library doesn't even hold archives of British newspapers, let alone foreign ones - but your idea has reminded me that the British Library may be able to help, if no-one else can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just checked online via Newsbank at SLSA - unfortunately the weekend editions only seem to be digitised as far back as 1998. I expect this would be the same for any online access? The microform suggestion may be your best hope. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be at the State Library in a few weeks and could get a copy for you. They have a microfilm archive. Was it just this one article you're after? Jimmyjrg (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmyjrg, that would be great if you could. Yes, it’s just that one article. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ryan Searle#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Hilst [talk] 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors are requested to comment at Talk:Whadjuk § Inclusion of Noongar names? on the inclusion of Noongar words for plants and animals in the description of the Noongar seasons. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

See RFC instead. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1980)#Requested move 10 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Matthew Dunn#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I take this opportunity to compliment Dr Malcolm Allbrook, Managing Editor, Australian Dictionary of Biography, for his prompt and positive response to my recent suggestions for correction and clarification. Doug butler (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree. I met Malcolm at a conference in Canberra in 2017. Since then, I email him whenever I find something not quite right in an ADB entry. Sometimes it's a typo, sometimes a fact, in which case I provide one or more references to back up my claim. Thank you Malcolm! Oronsay (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We have two overlapping categories: Australian explorers and Explorers of Australia, the distinction being that "Australian explorers" is only for "explorers of Australian nationality". If we were to take this distinction literally, Aboriginal Australians aside, there would be very few candidates, unless we confer honorary nationality on those who die in the country. As it stands the two cats are a hodge-podge, arbitrarily assigned, this User being one culprit. Doug butler (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a mess. I admit to not knowing precisely what nationality means. I have the impression that some people are quite certain they know, and it's not the same as citizenship. But I'm confused.

The two subcategories of Australian explorers are also a bit of a worry. One is based on where they explored, the other on where they were from. Is that how these things are supposed to work? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but the prospects of a short sensible decision appear far fetched these days. The challenge is for a short well discussed and arrived at consensus as to which gets eliminated, and what gets promoted. Unfortunately it is as likely to be hijacked. One hopes in WP:AGF that it could be resolved by putting Explorers of Australia up for WP:CFD - and the particular territory of 'for deletion' can be a learning experience compared to the relatively stricter WP:AFD process. JarrahTree 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The distinction is not unique to Australia -- see the subcategories of Category:Explorers where Category:Explorers by nationality is distinguished from Category:Explorers by explored country and Category:Explorers by continent, so I don't think that the proposal is likely to succeed. The real problem is that wikipedia should really enable easy use of unions of discrete categories for search, etc, so that the number of categories could be significantly cut down from the current explosion of permutations. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I retract one assertion. Roughly half the "Australian explorers" were born in Australia (surprisingly most from SA). The category includes several round-the-world sailors and more than a few cave divers. Of the rest, about half were in Australia before adulthood, so we can claim them too, like those great Australians Mel Gibson and AC/DC. Doug butler (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the distinction is fine - not all explorers of Australia were Australian, e.g. Ludwig Leichhardt, and not all Australian explorers explored Australia, e.g. Staniforth Smith. But someone like John Forrest sits in both. ITBF (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in this starting Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight up again, I am happy to coordinate it. I think it would be probably best for it to be one per month instead of per fortnight. It would nice to for us focus on some of the Mid-Top importance articles that are sitting at Stub/Start/C class and try and get more Australian articles at featured status. Thoughts? — GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great idea. I agree, monthly would work best. Do you have some information about how it would? Would everyone collaborate on the one article for the month? Jimmyjrg (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmyjrg: Yes, essentially everyone would collaborate on the one article for a month. There is a procedure outlined on the old project page from when it ran in 2009-2010 that provides a good structure on how it may run and I think only needs a few minor tweaks to make better. —GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• When it was in process in 2009-2010, the successful bits were where the community was very collegiate and cooperative, with a range of editors who were from a wide range of subject area interests and experiences, who worked well to improve things. I do hope this time around that people are interested, it is well worth the effort!

I believe that the larger problem fourteen years later is the extensive sections of the project that flounder in the lower range due to lack of reliable sources, one liner articles and 'ones that got away' - unmaintained swathes of low standard articles that simply have not been re-visited since creation. In some cases not so easy to find, but nevertheless worth fixing up.

So there are potentially two levels, I strongly support the monthly time duration, and I would be very interested in supporting the lower level - however it does require a clear distinction between the two levels - fourteen years later there are very different priorities in the larger wikipedia project - and it would well be worth discussing the relevance of such a project and its scope considering the changes that have occurred over the time, before jumping in. JarrahTree 09:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I think it would be a good idea for the nomination process to scrutinise the sources available for a topic and use that to perhaps exclude certain articles from the project's attention, or perhaps when there are a few stub articles doesn't have much sourcing available, group them all together and dedicate one month of the year to them.

In relation to – it would well be worth discussing the relevance of such a project – I understand it may not be something with the highest level of support, but the main reason I edit here is to improve the coverage of Australian articles and to others with that same or similar goal, I feel having an article a month to focus on, and get it to GA/FA status would be a handy tool to not only improve the project but encourage new editors to perhaps get involved and go out and write their own FA/GA article.--GMH Melbourne (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well the capacity of most new editors to even survive editing articles in the face of the various gateways of draftifying and similar hindrances, means the level of discouragement are much stronger now within the system than fifteen years ago. Also to see the focused upon articles of the 2010 exercises - the current interests and emphases of the larger wikipedia project have moved, in some cases quite substantially.

The tendency of the participants in FA/GA is that they have survived a range of issues of being editors and still have faith in the system, while many new editors balk at the process and rarely venture into the field - which goes back to your interest in the older model of the early project. A collective focus on existing articles that are higher level beyond C assessment (for instance, or higher) to take them up - is a point where if it is a collective effort, in that instance specifically newer editors could benefit actually to see the process and what it requires to raise the quality of articles - towards the FA and GA areas. Very important! And as an afterthought, most FA's and GA's can benefit from collaboration rather than singular efforts...

The lower level is possibly to do with any one month or similar - it took over a year to eliminate backlog in one of the australian projects on the part of two editors - simply manually checking the project importance from unknown to low - not utilising bots but doing human checking... - there are areas in the Australia project that have similar issues that benefit from bot free exercises. So I still suggest two levels (or if it doesnt fit, perhaps a separate project) could benefit both the larger project, and the experience of the editors.

Whichever way things might go, thanks GMH Melbourne for suggesting re-starting the process - lets hope there is interest! JarrahTree 11:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to opine, I raised a question about the publishing of her DOB based on a birth notice on the talk page. I haven't googled extensively to try to find other sources myself as yet, but if this is the only source, it seems rather intrusive per WP:DOB and privacy per BLP guidelines. I could be wrong, but just thought I'd raise it here as I think it should have some other input before it stays there permanently. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup. I reckon that does not conform with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Steelkamp (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Steelkamp. Would you mind repeating it on the talk page, please? I am happy to remove it but would like to indicate discussion on the tp. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ta for that. I stumbled upon an age so calculated a YOB based on that, which should be enough to satisfy the curious, I would think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This article has some major formatting issues. My weak attempt to fix the problem was reverted. The article could do with some TLC from someone in this project. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The article COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania#Nauru uses "an historical case", where I would use "a historical case". The article is tagged as using Australian English. I am aware that "an historical" is used by some English speakers, and it was used in Australian works from a few decades ago. Is it part of modern Australian English? I'm responding to an edit request at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania#Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024 and need guidance.-Gadfium (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"An historical" works for me, but "a history book". It's about which syllable is stressed. Maybe a South Australian affectation. Doug butler (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found a Department of Education document which uses "an historical", so it clearly is acceptable in Australian English.-Gadfium (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be acceptable, but it's uncommon. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In modern Australian English, I'd bet more on someone using it being born/educated overseas, using a US autocorrect, or using material from a US source. That said, the addition was made here, and the editor was editing a whole bunch of COVID-19 pages and does not appear to be a fluent Australian English speaker (eg: see User_talk:John_B123/Archive_23#Why_not_a_covid_article_for_Kiribati?), so I'd say go ahead and edit it to "a" and see if it gets reverted ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's uncommon and clunky. In most usages I would prefer "a historical case". TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I would only consider "a historical" acceptable in written form, although some people vary when spoken depending on regional accents. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both are acceptable. I use "an" (and never dropped my aitches), but I've heard both here in South Australia. Suspect modern usage tends towards "a", and there are probably regional difference. See Australian English: an historical study of the vocabulary 1788-1898. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Australians pronounce our h's, so "an historical" is correct. However, we have spent so long watching American TV, American movies and listening to American songs that we often use American pronunciation, American grammar and American spelling. The English also drop their h's, so we blindly copy them too. Sighhhhh  Stepho  talk  11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The theory is that the an form arose from people dropping their aitches, or assuming silent aitches on this word. Only some regional dialects (notably Cockney) of English traditionally drop aitches, but as we know language evolves constantly and there are many outside influences on Australian English. IMO we should just accept both. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't resist recounting here this gem from our article on Australian rules footballer Jack Dyer, who did drop his aitches - "He also had a regular column which went under the name "Dyer 'ere" (a pun on diarrhoea) in Melbourne's Truth newspaper." HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would personally never use "an historical" but I can't speak for Australians more broadly. – Teratix ₵ 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback.-Gadfium (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am here trying to solicit some feedback for a featured list candidate I put up, the List of premiers of Victoria. The discussion has been stagnant for over a month and I'd hate for it to fail nomination due to a lack of discussion and to have to start all over again. Thank you! GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Antarctic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

I am not convinced that Bill Morgan (lottery winner) is notable. Please see discussion at Talk:Bill_Morgan_(lottery_winner)#Notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the Parliament of South Australia & the Parliament of Tasmania different from the other four Australian state parliaments? I ask this as @Safes007: keeps deleting the Australian monarch from their infoboxes & changing the sovereign, from the king to the state governors. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Constitutionally speaking, yes they are. Sovereign in this context links to King-in-Parliament and refers to the person who shares legislative power with the houses of parliament, in the same way that the UK King acts in relation to the UK parliament. It doesn't refer to independence, who is the head of state or anything like that.

While the other state parliaments are defined as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament^[1], in SA the parliament is defined as consisting of only the houses of parliament however actually legislative power is vested in the governor acting with the advice and consent of the houses. In Tasmania, the constitution defines the Parliament as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament^[2]. This difference can be seen in the old enacting phrases. In WA, it was "Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent..."^[3] while in Tasmania it is "Be it enacted by Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, by and with the advice and consent...".^[4] I found this information from this source:^[5]. Safes007 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. But again, I'd recommend deleting the monarch and or governor from the intros & infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Why so? I think its necessary for it to be there in some capacity because Parliament is defined as including the monarch/governor in an at least equal capacity to the houses. Safes007 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Either include them both or exclude them both. Best not to add confusion to our readers, by introducing such inconsistencies among the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think inconsistencies will confuse readers if they refer to differences that exist. Would you be ok with a footnote next to the governor explaining the difference? Safes007 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

All six state parliaments are Westminster style. But, perhaps it's best if we wait for input from others on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say all the parliaments are Westminster style? Safes007 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. They're based on the Westminster system of government. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I know that, I just don’t know why that is relevant. Safes007 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I stated my proposed (below) changes. Either they'll be accepted or rejected on this noticeboard. I just don't agree with presenting two of the six state parliaments differently, from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That being said. I do recommend a solution. Delete the sovereign parameter from all the state parliaments. Remove the monarch & governors from the infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The constitution of every state makes it clear what constitues their respective parliaments. Please refer to constitution acts as they are explicit in defining that. You can also refer to this source, which states:

For the Commonwealth and Victoria, Parliament is comprised of the Queen and two elected Houses of Parliament. For Tasmania, Parliament is comprised of the Governor, as the Queen's representative, and two elected Houses of Parliament. For Queensland, Parliament is comprised of the Queen and one elected House of Parliament. For New South Wales and Western Australia, it is the Queen acting with the advice and consent of two elected Houses of Parliament that has the power to make Acts. The position in South Australia is different. There the Queen or the Governor does not form part of the Parliament as such. That Parliament consists of two elected Houses. However, Bills passed by the Parliament of South Australia must be assented to by the Governor in the name and on the behalf of the Queen.

The same source cited above also states:

All the powers and functions of the Queen in relation to the making of an Act by a state Parliament are exercisable only by the Governor of the state. However, if the Queen is personally present in a State, she is not precluded from exercising any of those powers and functions.

Therefore, I wouldn't be opposed to adding both the monarch and the governor in the infoboxes. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: I too wouldn't be opposed to having both the monarch & governor in the infoboxes of all six state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeking clarification: @Peter Ormond:, are you supporting the changes that have been made at the Tasmanian & the South Australian parliament pages? GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Safes007: as you mentioned earlier. It may be helpful, if you put in footnotes, for those infoboxes. Having the governor described as the sovereign might be confusing for readers, as the term "sovereign" is usually associated with "monarch". GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How about "Governor of South Australia (as representative of the King|)"? I think that would avoid that confusion.

If you would like consistency, the states where the King is directly vested with legislative powers could be "The King (as represented by the governor of New South Wales)". The difference in order would indicate the difference in who is directly vested with legislative power as indicated with a footnote. Safes007 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Your proposals for all six state parliaments are ideal, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings#Requested move 15 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeking wider community input, 124.150.67.252 (talk · contribs) has been adding climate statistics for suburbs surrounding Sydney Airport saying that suburbs nearby (some of them are some distance like Earlwood) are similar to Airport's climate. The same user is now doing this for suburbs around North Parramatta. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In the old days the editor would be blocked, and the additions removed - a curse on the Australian project, weather circus/christmas tree/colour madness is something that the project should have resolved long ago for a general principle of the specific separation distance, and remove as many as possible as they detract from general content and are in no way of help in a wikipedia locality article where they in some cases take more room that the text of the article. The lack of consistent removal of such material is sadly lacking, as much as the lack of daytime administrators with Australian content on their watchlist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarrahTree (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's original research (extending a primary source beyond what it actually says). We try to avoid statements that date quickly, as climate data absolutely can. Climate data can vary between places for many other reasons than distance. For these reasons, the edits by this IP are a really, really bad idea and I've reverted them accordingly. P.s. could this possibly be Meganesia? Graham87 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the name of a proposed (now approved) merger of two universities in Adelaide, but as it was previously a redirect, there are around 150 incoming links which are intended for University of Adelaide. I suspect that this is going to continue to cause confusion as it is often called Adelaide University colloquially. I've added a topic to the talk page over there , if anyone would like to opine on this matter... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Also wondering about creating a DAB, and am consulting the DAB project people in case they have a suggestion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Freemason's Hall (Toodyay) must be a misspelling, because the apostrophe should come after the plural form, but it is spelt that way on the heritage records. What do we do in these circumstances? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The heritage records often have spelling mistakes in them. Take for example, this. There are two different spellings (Mitchell's Building and Mitchells Building) within the same heritage entry. Steelkamp (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So should I just move it regardless of sources? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

My 2c worth: use the correct punctuation and put "(sic)" after the incorrect. People burdened by a modern education will never distinguish the difference anyway. :-) Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, I can't speak for Australian heritage records, but it's not rare for US historic sites to use the singular when we'd expect a plural. (For example, Woman's Club of Fall River, or Worker's House at Lower Laurel Iron Works, or the redlinked Turner's Hall, a meeting place for American Turners). It seems to me too common to be an error, so I've accepted it as a peculiar usage. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. It is frustrating that people doing heritage records cannot get the basic grammar right. I was just looking at Freemasons Hotel and that doesn't have the apostrophe at all (which some would argue is valid because the building not a possession of the Freemasons, fair enough). But if there is an apostrophe, it should at least be in the right place! As all of the British ones include the apostrophe at the end, I am inclined to use SCHolar44's interpretation above. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Does any of you ever upload nonfree images under fair use claims? When I lived in the US, I occasionally uploaded nonfree images with fair use claims, since only US law applied to me. But now that I've immigrated to Australia, I don't know whether I should be comfortable doing this, lest I get in real-life trouble for uploading something that doesn't qualify as AU fair dealing even if it's US fair use. Please don't give legal advice, of course. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Fair Use policy applies to Australian articles as in the US. This is based on US law but is more restrictive. In particular, it should only be used when necessary and relevant.--Grahame (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't ask the question the right way. I'm quite familiar with the policy and how to apply it. I meant: are you (anyone, not just Grahamec) uncomfortable uploading nonfree images when they fit the policy, because we live in a country with a different system of exemptions to copyright and you're concerned that you might get into real-life problems, or do you upload such images because you think the real-life legal situation is unlikely to cause real-life problems? Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There are many people in Australia adding nonfree images to Wikipedia, myself included. Just look at articles on Australian music, movies, or books, that have posters and artwork added even though these are in copyright, with many of the contributors Australia based. I doubt that by doing this there could be any real life problems, but perhaps you have encountered some personally? Jimmyjrg (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

So heaps of such images are uploaded by Australians — good to know. In my previous job, I often was involved with fair-use issues in the US, but I've stayed away from anything comparable here, since I know nothing almost about fair dealing. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If they are not used in articles or their use in articles in contested they can be nominated for deletion and often are deleted.--Grahame (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's requirements for non-free use content are stricter than the fair use laws of the United States and Australia, which should prevent you from facing problems when uploading non-free use images. Steelkamp (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Australia, by the way. – Teratix ₵ 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

How to describe Miriam Margoyles? Not as easy as it sounds. There's a discussion here on the talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Came across this image used on the Steph Ryan page which is taken from the Victorian Parliament website

I don't really know much about the copyright on these images, is someone able to confirm whether they can be used (with the appropriate licensing of course) or not? Because if they are it seems worthwhile getting them uploaded to the pages of all Victorian state MPs without existing images Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It was apparently uploaded by the Nationals, but given the Vic Parliament says all of their website content is copyrighted and can't be shared for commercial use, I'd say it should be removed from Commons. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/copyright/

If you want to add photos of all the MPs you could contact individual MPs asking for a photo, or attend an event to take a photo yourself. It could be something worth getting funding from WMAU to do. Perhaps you could even partner with WMAU to run an info session about Commons for MPs? Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I left this message on the New South Wales project talk page, but that project appears to be lifeless. Anyone here want to have a crack at cleaning up this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_South_Wales#Lydham_Hall 76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Lydham Hall#Referencing, and discuss there if necessary. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram#Requested move 4 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

For those editors not fully familiar with all aspects of the Australian project, an interesting point of understanding the processes involved the checking articles for a range of issues is -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Australia

The Australian deletion sorting page is well worth visiting, to understand the discussions and ways that deletion can be argued. At times, there are the usual suspects, and in many cases editors who seem totally oblivious to Trove for instance. It is worth visiting. JarrahTree 06:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Messineo#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Since sometime around 2018, a number of users have comprehensively added to, or created new articles for places listed on the NSW Heritage Register. Much of this content consists of direct extracts from the registry entries, under CC-BY Attribution licence. This seems to have led to widespread (although, not universal) inclusion of the Local Government Area in the lead paragraph of articles for heritage listed locations - eg here. This is most likely an artifact of the heritage listings, which specify LGAs as they are used for administrative purposes within the NSW government. However including this in the article leads seems redundant and in some cases irrelevant. The information is unnecessarily specific and it is uncommon in Australia to refer to an LGA to disambiguate a town or city - usually where any doubt exists, a state is sufficient (Eg. Campbelltown, NSW or Campbelltown SA).

It also introduces inconsistencies between articles where other wikiprojects have worked to standardise formats, such as Boggabri railway station (non-heritage listed) and Tarana railway station (heritage listed). NSW railway station articles otherwise follow a very similar format and would not include the LGA in the lead paragraph. It appears that a number of experienced editors of good standing have changed the articles to include this information. Because of this, I'd like to seek opinions or consensus about the inclusion of LGAs in articles about buildings and structures before i start deleting these links from the leads. Dfadden (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, LGAs should generally not be used as an address, as LGAs are not used in addresses in Australia. Addresses use street, suburb and state, and those are the units that should be used in Wikipedia articles as well. If the LGA is especially relevant for some other reason, then it can be mentioned, but in general, don't mention the LGA. Steelkamp (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that in general the LGA ought not be in the lead sentence, especially as part of the address. The LGA might rate a mention in the lead section if the article subject is directly related to an LGA, eg hypothetically:

Council Hall is a heritage-listed building on Foo Street, Bartown, New South Wales. It has been the seat of local government for the Shire of Barshire since that shire was created.

but then it gets mentioned as part of normal next flow, not part of the "address". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Queensland Heritage Register project was done prior to the NSW HR project and the NSW project followed a similar format. In Queensland, we do have duplicated town and locality names (and place names that are very similar and easily confused, differing by a single character or the inclusion of a second word often omitted in every day speech), so disambiguation by local government areas is required or at least helpful. And in any case LGA names etc are often used in conjunction with a town/locality name where the place would not be well known, e.g. Finch Hatton is a town about about 500 people but I am sure most Australians would not know of it, but if I said Finch Hatton in the Mackay Region, then I think many people would have some rough idea of where I was talking about.

However, my expertise is Queensland place naming, but not NSW place naming, so I checked the guidelines on NSW place naming and on page 2, it states that "New place names may be duplicated, provided there is no duplication of the name within the local government area or adjoining local government areas. However, duplication should be avoided wherever possible." which suggests to me that duplication might be present in NSW place names but not within LGAs. Given that place names starting with "Spring" are very commonly found duplicated (or very similar) in Queensland, I did a check in NSW and, yes, Spring Hill is a village (and a railway station) in Orange (LGA), a suburb of Wollongong, and a suburb in Cabonne (as well as a lot of hills etc). And there's similiar names for towns/suburbs etc such as Spring Creek/Farm/Flat/Grove/Mountain/Plains/Ridge/Terrace and two of them are in Orange and Cabonne too. So, my quick look suggests placenames in NSW are duplicated.

I don't know to what extent NSW place name dupication affects heritage listings, but the NSW State Heritage register does include the LGA so evidently they thought it had some value. It is not uncommon for a Wikipedia article to be notable (or at least of interest) for two or more reasons and one often sees multiple infoboxes in such articles (or combined ones where embedding makes it possible) and combination of sections and section content accordingly. I think this is the case here. I would not argue for the section on Services to be deleted from the Tarana railway station article just because "that doesn't fit the heritage format". We all bring our own interests to Wikipedia and I think articles are better for the reader from that diversity of interests. Nor do I ever agree with removing cited content because "I don't like it" (apart from where it is actually contrary to policy), so I don't see the harm in retaining the LGA since it is already in the article and is routinely used by the NSW State Heritage Register in its description of places, and does not do any apparent harm to the reader who isn't interested in heritage or local government. Indeed, the example mentioned Tarana railway station is a topic that would struggle for Wikpedia notability as a railway station without its heritage listing (take a look at its citations, the ones not mentioning its heritage are all run-of-the-mill timetables and other rail *service* content, not discussing the *station* itself in a way that would meet the "significant coverage" required for WP:GNG. Kerry (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Aside, I note that anyone wanting to improve the Tarana railway station article might like to add some content on the Oberton Tarana Heritage Railway and the reopening of the railway station building following heritage repair and restoration works, which were thrown up in my research just now. Kerry (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually this search throws up a number of heritage-restoration projects being undertaken on heritage-listed NSW railway stations]. Kerry (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Kerry. I agree that the heritage listings provide valuable information to articles that may otherwise struggle against the GNG. My concern was specifically about the opening paragraphs. MOS:OPEN says that these should avoid being too specific, and my position is rooted in how we interpret this policy, rather than a case of WP:IDL. I think we should aim for consistency in the lead paragraph of building and structure articles, no more, no less. I am also not suggesting that we should remove content to favour route and service information over heritage details for train stations!

The value of heritage register entries including LGAs is primarily related to administrative and planning functions. There are planning considerations that would require consultation with local councils should any proposed developments impact these protected sites. For the same reason, the listings also include Local Aboriginal Land Councils, so do we also include this information in the lead paragraphs? Likewise, Geographical Names Board listings for towns and suburbs also include cadastral parishes and counties for reasons of lands administration. We generally dont include this information in the lead paragraph of an article on a town or suburb either! Dfadden (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, it is completely appropriare to include the LGA in articles about populated places! That said, there have been many council amalgamations and deamalgamations in NSW since the 1990s. This has resulted in relistings and gazettals of localities and some weird quirks in the GNB. Eg, for the example you gave of Spring Hill being a suburb of Orange and a village in the Cabonne Council, it is actually both - the Cabonne Shire surrounds the City of Orange and incorporates the outlying villages. The Geographical Names Board features two listings as if they were distinct localities, but that's actually a little misleading as they both refer to the same general area. If you look closely, this listing [6] states the locality spans two LGAs and the associated coordinates between the two listings only differ by a few seconds of both latitude and longitude. But now we risk digressing! Dfadden (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting chat. As a project team member who worked with Kerry, The Drover's Wife and others on the 2018 rollout of articles for each property listed on the NSW Heritage Register, I have a good understanding of the issues. In hindsight, I completely agree with Dfadden in that, within New South Wales, use of the LGA should be relatively rare. We would likely write:

Council Hall is a heritage-listed building on Foo Street, Bartown, in the Baz region of New South Wales.

Hence, there would be no mention of the ZZZ local government area. The proposal of It has been in the seat of the local government…. is confusing in several ways:

1. What is It…, as in 'It is in the….'?
2. Use of the seat of... within the context of LGAs is rare.

I acknowledge Kerry's genuine and innocent blindness to facts such as Cabonne Shire and Orange City being adjoining LGAs with Spring Hill / Spring Creek being on the boundary line. To me, the NSW Heritage properties require a retrofit of those articles where the LGA has been mentioned, to remove mentions of the LGA. The only exception to this may be where a disambiguation arises - which I would think would be exceptionally rare. In short, I'm support of any proposal to remove the reference to the LGA.

With total respect to Kerry, who did an inordinate amount of work to bring the NSW State Heritage project to life, just because it may be required in QLD, to mean that it must be adopted in NSW (or any other state) is an insufficient justification for wholesale implementation in NSW (and other states). I'm very happy to help with any project to correct; as proposed by Dfadden. For example, looking at Tarana railway station, this edit by me added the LGA of the City of Lithgow. Most folks would not know where Tarana is. So, perhaps a more apt description is Tarana, in the Central West region of New South Wales. I'd value thoughts on the addition of the broad geographic region, as opposed the LGA. Or do we simply record as Tarana, New South Wales; and consequently require the reader to try and find out where Tarana, Boggabri, Wingello, and/or Ariah Park, etc., or any other hamlet is located? Rangasyd (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Rangasyd! I have enormous respect for the work yourself, @Kerry and @The Drover's Wife and all involved put in to the SHR project. It was a large and overwhelmingly positive contribution. I do not seek to detract from that in any way by proposing minor tweaks such as this one.

Personally, I feel your suggestion to include regions in leads is preferable as this is already a much more common practice in NSW based articles. But especially given I'm proposing a change on the basis of consistency, I have to be pragmatic and comment that broad regions are not always well defined. There is often some overlap, such as with the Orana and Central Tablelands both also falling within the Central West. Or the South Western Slopes and Riverina. However, if the purpose is just to help the reader locate where a heritage-listed building or structure is, I would not object. Dfadden (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Dfadden. I suggest using the informal division of NSW Regions as the guide; with a bias towards the the sub-regions, instead of the regions. Yes, there are some grey areas. For example, does Wellington sit within the Central West, the Central Tablelands, or the Orana regions? The editor will need to make a call based on other articles on Wikipedia in Wellington.

In Victoria, somebody has gone and added postcodes as well. e.g. Richmond railway station, Melbourne has the address as: Punt Road, Richmond, Victoria 3121, City of Melbourne / City of Yarra, Australia. A bit long winded. I think the format of street, suburb, state, country as suggested above is sufficient. This his how you would address an envelope. Anybody wanting to know what LGA a suburb is in will find that information in the suburb article. Don't see any need for it to be included in other articles. Baraterena (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I do think having the postcode in the infobox is probably unnecessary, although if it is going to be included, it seems more appropriate in the infobox than it would if it was in the text. Dfadden (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we have achieved consensus here, but I do have some time over the weekend to make changes to the lead paragraphs to include sub-regions over LGAs as suggested by Rangasyd if there are no objections? Kerry, are you comfortable with this change? Dfadden (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dfadden: Go for it. WP:BOLD! Rangasyd (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Perth City Council election#Requested move 9 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Canon Sunter was an Anglican minister in Adelaide for nearly 20 years. Only one comment so far (mine, as major contributor) so additional inputs keep/delete would be welcomed. Doug butler (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fraser Island#Requested move 9 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Turnagra (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not from Australia. I am surprised however there is no article about the Castle Hill Showground, even though the Sydney Metro station is named after it. Can someone create an article on it? I feel I know nothing about it to do it myself. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Cusack (animator)#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCon 2024, run by Wikimedia Australia, will be held on Saturday 23 November 2024 in Adelaide.

Submissions are now invited and we encourage submissions from anyone interested in Wikipedia and its sister projects. Closing date for submissions is 31 July 2024.

Scholarships are also available to support people to attend in person.

Further information about the submission process and travel scholarships are available on meta-wiki.

Aliceinthealice (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

TISM has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)