Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Would anyone mind if I re-did the to-do list? It's been static for so long - I wouldn't mind cutting it down significantly and bringing in some new things that need writing from the larger list.

Also, Darwin, Northern Territory is currently leading the somewhat inactive COTW requests page. Any thoughts on making it the next collaboration of the fortnight, and getting that going again? Ambi 01:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind if you do some clearing Ambi, so long as it's not to brutal, and important articles remain listed. But that raises the issue of what's important.

If you support Darwin's bid for COTW, vote here. --Cyberjunkie 06:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VOTE FOR CLEAN-UP:

1. Agree ScottDavis 15:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Agree Cyberjunkie 06:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Agree AYArktos 01:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I have removed new articles required where they already existed)

I was unexpectedly nominated for Adminship, I would appreciate some input, yays or nays, from some other Australian editors. --nixie 02:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Australian user Clarkk has been nominated for adminship on 10 May; Australian editors may wish to have input --AYArktos 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I note that Darwin, Northern Territory, is being voted on for COTW. That page has just been moved (again) to Darwin. This completes the cycle, as it has previously gone from Darwin to Darwin, Australia, to Darwin, Northern Territory, and now back to Darwin, with an entry of Port Darwin on the side. This being the case, almost every link to the page is now a redirect. I had been going through the linked pages changing them all to Darwin, NT, as I thought that this may have been the final format for this page (avoiding the confusion with the other Darwins and that pesky Charles). Unfortunately, all my edits have now become the redirects that I had been eliminating. (I also believe that anyone changing a page should go through and edit the redirects, but that's another story).

Late last year we had a vote on place names, with the format City/Town, State being accepted, with the exception of capitals which were to be listed by their name only, subject to disambiguation. I dare say that the Darwin page will probably move again, when someone gets the urge.

Are we able to confirm our format as voted on, and have it listed on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). At least this may finalise the continual moves of the Darwin page.

Whingeing completed, and I'll now return to obscurity Camerong 06:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Things linking to Darwin, Australia and Port Darwin are double-redirecting to Darwin, Northern Territory. Oh the mess of it all. It's like Supersonic Willy on Wheels ON WHEELS! On a pogostick! getting bored all over again. Alphax ^τεχ 08:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I killed the double redirects for now, or at least until we can get naming conventions sorted out. --bainer 06:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just started an article on the Australian gold rush, is anyone strongly opposed to me merging Victorian gold rush to the Australian article?--nixie 07:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, so long as you don't forget Charters Towers :). Slac speak up! 07:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be Australian gold rushes, since each rush (Victorian, NSW, etc) had its own distinct history, particularly social history. Of course, I am a Victorian, so feel free to accuse me of parochialism, but I think at least the Victorian rush deserves its own piece. --bainer 09:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with bainer that each rush has its own distinct history but I would be happy for the Victorian rush article to be merged and have its own section where appropriate. There are many features in common about the rushes including for example, Chinese miners and the attitude of other miners to Chinese, wealth created by gold manifested in impressive Victorian architecture, the lack of sustainability of the industry ... There is also a continuum as miners moved on - for example the presence of second generation Victorian gold miners in WA at the end of the nineteenth century and their influence on the outcome of the referendum for Federation --AYArktos 21:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Australian boots is on VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Australian boots. My wikistress is officially raised. Alphax ^τεχ 10:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Canberra suburb article is on VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hawker, Australian Capital Territory. While it was a poor stub, it should have been categorised as part of the Canberra wikiproject. --AYArktos 10:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we might need to make a VFD-watching section a permanent feature of the AWNB. I'm known as a deletionist, but I'm getting seriously sick of seeing perfectly notable topics put on here because Americans haven't heard of them and are too lazy or stupid to use Google. Ambi 13:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but in cases where there's genuine uncertainty about the noteworthiness of Australian topics, Australian editors are best placed to comment. The watch would allow Australian editors to give both sides of the debate an informed perspective. Slac speak up! 13:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also true. We saw that with the first Schapelle Corby deletion - no Australians voted, so none of the Americans had any idea that she was at all notable. Where could we put such a section? Ambi 14:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree it would be useful if we made VfD-watching a permanent section of the AWNB. I would be happy to consider whether an article is worth keeping and expanding and where appropriate contribute to that expansion.

I would think that as a matter of good policy it would be wise for people who are nominating an article on Votes for Deletion that they advise the original author and, particularly where that author was anonymous, the relevant country's noticeboard. I did so recently in the case of an Irish article that looked to me like a hoax. Such an approach would contribute to the project of countering systematic bias in the Wikipedia. --AYArktos 03:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Canada has a Canada VfD watchlist, is shouldn't be a problem to set one up for this wikiproject--nixie 06:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to do some housekeeping in order to get the collaboration going again. It seemed as if we had consensus to make it fortnightly instead of weekly, so I moved the page accordingly. I've also severely pruned the candidates list, removing the more stagnant nominations. Finally, we have a new COTF - Darwin. Please, if you get a chance, give it some attention. It's been a while since we've had a success with this - I think we can make this one work, and I'll be giving a fair bit of attention to it myself. Ambi 07:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are nearly 1200 articles in the Category:Australia geography stubs

It seems like too many to tackle to try to bring the articles up to a sensible standard.

The questions for me (AYArktos) are - what should an Australian geography article include if it is no longer to be classified as a stub

A stub is defined as a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less.

Some of the geography stubs we have are much longer - for example: Batemans Bay, New South Wales and Braidwood. The latter article does not mention population but the former article does. What information should be included so that they are no longer appropriately classified as Australian georgraphy stubs?

Possible suggestions for towns:

• location with reference to at least one large city or highway and significant landmarks nearby including rivers, mountains, sea
• population
• political information - eg local governemnt area
• any reason for notability, including local industry
• historical reference - eg settlement date/period

What about for National Parks? I am not sure that much could be added to some of the National Parks articles.

Is there some useful categorisation for Australian place stubs below Australian geography which would allow Australian wikipedians to tackle articles and improve them with a view to removing their stub status - for example on a state by state basis?

I note there is a discussion page on stub sorting.

--AYArktos 02:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, they're both still stubs. I don't see a problem in having such a huge category - it just shows how much work there is to be done. We'll get there eventually. :) Ambi 05:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Helpful Dave has been using his own method of eliminating Australian geography stubs by redirecting articles to Towns in Victoria, Australia.

My understanding is that stub articles are legitimate. The articles in question had enough information in them to justify their existence and in some cases even more. For example the immediate past revision of Tallangatta an article trashed by the redirect.

Before I revert his changes I have asked him to explain why he made them, under what policy, and whether if he was using some sort of robot he could undo atomatically? I would rather be contributing content to the Wikipedia than reverting such changes --AYArktos 21:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • It appears that Helpful Dave hasn't been too helpful. Some of the stubs merged to that list (which is completely hideous to read through) are really lame, but some are pretty good, uselful, stubs, and others could be destubbed. There does't appear to be any concensus for this kind of merge on the stub sorting project page, and I haven't heard it discussed elsewhere. Let me know what you hear from Dave and I can use my Admin powers for good and rollback all the changes, it'd be faster that reverting them otherwise. It certainly hasn't been policy to merge the US geography articles made by rambot, I don't see any reason why it should be done with these--nixie 22:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Helpful Dave has replied:

I hate stubs. Nice, full articles are better. If there is plenty of info about an individual town, it can of course get its own article, but stubby little articles are best amalgamated. Of course, one must be careful not to lose any information when so doing.

It's not really me, but Chammy Koala who is doing it. I'm just helping her out technically. If you think she has included one or two towns which deserve their own articles, then make it so. She is generally doing the right thing though, considering the short, boring nature of most of the stubs.

Please don't get antagonistic. "Trashed" is over the top. A redirect is not destruction. It sends people to another article with all the original content, and it's completely reversible. I don't need any particular policy here. We're all free to edit articles as we see fit as long as we don't break rules such as NPOV. You are free to argue that having individual articles is more helpful for users of the encyclopaedia.

Also, I never use bots. I just type and click fast  ;)

To see an example of my policy in action, take a look at Domestic AC power plugs & sockets. I wrote it all myself. I could have given each type of plug its own stub, but it's better to have a great article with all the info. It's a featured article now.

The article produced is now very long (54 kb when I last checked) and thus exceeds the recommended article size. The table of contents exceeds one screen's length and the sections are very inconsistent in content and tone - not least because the content has been derived from the original articles.

I think an article on Towns in Victoria should have information about what characterises such towns as opposed to towns elsewhere in Australia or elsewhere in the world. The list of towns in Victoria could then be gleaned from the relevant category page - Category:Towns in Victoria. The problem I see with continuing the article in the format at present will be that there are many more towns in Victoria than those currently included, does information about other towns not get included because they were written about later? Will some of the information presently there about the towns be edited out for consistency, thereby reducing the information content?

I do think having individual articles is more helpful for users of the encyclopaedia and the content more easily managed. --AYArktos 00:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do I. It's not as though towns are in the same league as double adaptors. The merge really doesn't help all that much - the individual entries are less likely to be expanded if they're tucked in the middle somewhere. And the page is becoming unwieldy and large. Slac speak up! 01:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the relevant talk pages and I think all the stubs should be categorised into Category:Towns in Victoria and the list done away with, it is a really bad way to present that information. Some of them aren't stubs anyway, and we could each pick one of those sentence stubs and make it into an actual stub--nixie 01:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

agree with nixie and slac. at the very least make the threshold for stub-dom much higher, see my comments on talk:Towns in Victoria, Australia. clarkk 05:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should revert all the sections back to single articles/stubs. See my comments on talk:Towns in Victoria, Australia. But I do think it would be good to codify some guidelines for when to remove the stub category from an article, eg should contain some information on location, current population, economic factors, geographic landmarks, and perhaps some history. --Takver 07:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Revert back to the original stub articles. If the day ever comes where all the AUstralian geoegrahpic stub articles are considered complete, the list (it's not really a list) will become redundant anyway. If anything, its' creation has shown how much work really needs to be done to bring the Australian geoegraphic articles up to par. -- Longhair | Talk 00:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Something very strange has happened. I was looking over my watchlist and noticed some red links: Drouin, Nyah West and Moe. Someone has just gone and deleted these articles. Fortunately I have 2 of those articles on my Towns in Victoria, Australia article, but since Moe was removed because it was quite long, it's all gone. I don't know who did it, and I don't know if the information can be retrieved as in deleting the article the history goes as well. I couldn't find any of these listed under VfD. I'm going to ask a couple of admins for help, but I don't know if anything can be done. Please help keep a watch on the other towns as they might go to.--Chammy Koala 09:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I confirm I cannot find these articles - can somebody with more powers that mere mortal users please research what has happened? I have a number of Victorian town articles on my watchlist, none of these have disappeared.--AYArktos 10:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

with some sleuthing I found the answer on Wikipedia:Copyright problems with a posting by Ambi:

• Moe, Victoria from [1] Ambi 11:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

perhaps if there are copyright problems with an Australian article they could be notified on this noticeboard and somebody might wish to ensure that copyright is not violated but there is information available about an Australian subject so that deletion is not necessary - there should be plenty to say about Moe without violating copyright. --AYArktos 10:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't know it was policy to just delete an article due to copyvio as all the history is then lost. I have the article in the history of Towns in Victoria, Australia so nothing in the article has been lost. If anyone wants the info either get it from the history or ask me if you can't find it. --Chammy Koala 10:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Losing the history is the entire point - a copyvio in the edit history is still a copyvio accessible through the Wikipedia site. That's why it is policy. By all means create another stub, but original copyright violations are deleted for a reason. Ambi 12:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's my suggeted criteria for destubbing, to destub the article should satisfy most of the following:

1. Article is 250 words plus.
2. Article is correctly categorised
3. Article mentions which local government area it falls within and/or nearby towns/highways, longitude and latitude (?)
4. Article describes basic stats, like population at census 1996 or 2001
5. Article mentions historical information and/or activites in the town now that make it interesting.

Rambots articles are less comprehensive that the suggested criteria if you take out the census info. Comments? --nixie 08:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was curious as to what a Rambot article was - more information can be found at: User talk:Rambot. US places are updated with automatic data. An example of such a place is Deaf Smith County, Texas - if you compare the current revision with the first you can see that the article was created with quite significant quantities of information - most of it demographic - but has now been update by individuals to include the history and external links.

I am happy with the criteria suggested by nixie.

In discussion with Fawcett5 concerning placement of a stub message on Batemans Bay, New South Wales, he suggested

those articles were marked as stubs simply because they looked small to me. Some of these community articles are bound to be short though I guess. In general, you might want to add something about the years of founding, some significant events, the local govt., maybe even map coordinates. Come to think of it, an Australian communties info box might help people from just slapping stub on it.

Wikipedia:Infobox templates provides information on the design and standards. Template:Infobox City is an example and is used at Johannesburg and Los Angeles, California. This template is obviously much more complicated than would be appropriate for an Australian community. If we had State, Local Government Area, Population (as of which date), Latitude and Longitude - that information should be readily available to populate such a box. It would be nice if we had date of gazettal or some other founding information but I suspect the information is not always readily or easily available. We could add post code. --AYArktos 22:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

for Local Government Areas we have template:Austlocalgovtarea, which is now nsw-specific, but i am planning to make it general. we could have an analogous (trimmed down), template:austlocality for towns, but i'm dubious that one template could be used by cities, towns and villages because of the variance in the amount of information you have for a city vs. a small village/locality. clarkk 10:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for destubbing added to Category:Australia geography stubs page --AYArktos 23:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two issues - firstly, should disambiguating titles for colonial-era politicians be, for example, John Douglas (Queensland politician) or John Douglas (Australian politician)?

Secondly, on the question of succession boxes - I'm sure other editors are worried like me that massive, monstruous succession boxes (*cough* Winston Churchill *cough*) could potentially overwhelm some articles, particularly those with little text. For this reason, I propose to have as our policy that we have succession boxes for the following federal cabinet ministries:

• PM/Deputy PM
• Defence
• Foreign/External Affairs
• Treasurer
• Attorney-General

. . . but not for other federal ministries or for state ministries (other than Premier). Nor should we, in my view, succumb to the practice seen in American President articles of making sucession boxes for individual constituencies. Other boxes we should not create include one for Opposition Leader, for Shadow Ministers, or for any Party positions other than Leader.

The over-riding principle I think should be common sense - if an article is large and well-established, it's not as harmful to have a big succesion box as in cases where the box is more than half the text.

Any thoughts on this? I don't want to inadvertantly annoy anyone with the use of the boxes. Slac speak up! 23:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the case of colonial politicians, I'd probably still go with Australian for consistency. It may also be a good idea to look at the Canadian example - they're generally ahead of us with this sort of thing. In terms of the succession boxes for federal ministries, I agree entirely - but I also think we should have succession boxes for corresponding state ministries. I've been trying to expand (and encourage others to do so as well) our articles on state politics, and I can't see too much harm in having Premier, Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Attorney-General (and maybe one or two other) boxes. Ambi 11:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the suggestions relating to succession boxes, with the possible exception of a box for Opposition Leader, although in the modern two-party era this could be largely redundant. On the naming issue, I agree with Ambi, as long as the article points out that the person was a colonial polly, John Douglas (Australian politician) makes things more consistent. We can always have Category:Queensland politicians etc if we need to split them up more. --bainer 12:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also think it a good idea to use succession boxes for only the most important ministries. However, I think that the Opposition leader warrants a succession box as well, especially if the Deputy PM is to have one. Generally, I think succession boxes should only be used in the ministries exclusive to, and of significance to, the Commonwealth (save Treasurer and A-G), leaving open the possibility of using it for the immigration ministry. Ministers of health and education and so forth do not require it, unless it is standard to do so.--Cyberjunkie 15:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that Opposition leaders will always already have one as leaders of the respective parties, so it is a little redundant. My opinion is that any Opposition Leader who doesn't become PM isn't all that important from a historical perspective - eg. Matthew Charlton. Slac speak up! 02:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, at least for the modern era (with the Lab/Lib situation). However, it might be more useful for the early 20th century when the party situation wasn't so clear. Also, it might be useful for people who aren't so familiar with Australian politics to be able to easily trace the position of Opposition leader through history. --bainer 08:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like having the Opposition Leader box, if for no other reason than, as Thebainer says, to be able to trace the position throughout history - and particularly for those not-so-well-known figures such as Charlton. Ambi 15:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The Leader of the Opposition is a position which precedes the consolidation of party-government. And given that the Opposition Leader is not perennielly of the same party, parallels with political parties are unhelpful.--Cyberjunkie 12:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been working away over the last couple of weeks at expanding our lists of MPs, and it's starting to illustrate some of the large gaps we have, particularly at state level. We now have lists of members of all the federal parliaments going back to 1961, every current state and territory parliament in Australia, as well as every member of every parliament of the ACT and NT Legislative Assemblies. It'd be nice to see some of the larger holes starting to be filled there - most notably some of the ministers from the Menzies era, almost all of the major state-level ministers, and many of the recent (but not current) Premiers and Chief Ministers. I'm sure I'll get to them eventually, but it'd be really nice if some of you could get stuck into some of these gaps. Ambi 14:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of work remains to be done on Australian politics-related topics. And I like to congratulate you for the fantastic work you've done and, I'm sure, will continue to do. I've only very recently stumbled across many of the federal topics and have decided that they are things I'd like to work on, as well as SA and NSW stuff. Perhaps consideration should be given to creating a WikiProject Politics of Australia. Such a project would help to organise and streamline contributions. The WikiProject Cities (Australia) have been successful (mostly). --Cyberjunkie 08:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that'd be a fine idea - it'd hopefully help to attract the attention of interested people to some of these people who really haven't got the coverage they deserve. Interested in creating it? I'm still taken up with working on these lists - I'll probably try to do another decade or so of the House of Reps next week, and follow it with another state, as I did the NT and ACT, though I'm not sure which one I'll do next. Ambi 15:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just started working the other way, forwards from 1901. I've done a couple so far. We already have a few pages on Federation era politicians, especially some of the ones involved in the Conventions and such, so I suppose I'm trying to round out the list, and at least get a page for everyone in the First Parliament. --bainer 09:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed - those first couple of pages are looking excellent. You might want to watch the disambiguations though - there's a few that link to people they shouldn't. Ambi 11:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to check those until the second one, I don't think there are any problems with that. I'm in the middle of fixing the first one now. There's also a bunch more dab pages that I'm about to start on. --bainer 13:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with regards to the WikiProject Politics of Australia. There might be some similar WikiProjects to base it on. I'm also just about to launch Wikiportal Australia.--Cyberjunkie 08:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is worthy of a sort of mini-collaboration? I'm keen to see it de-POV'd because I think it's got potential to be a good article. Slac speak up! 02:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note an article on Schapelle Corby has already been deleted once via the VfD process before. -- Longhair | Talk 15:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That vote is irrelevant as a) she's become more notable since February, with the media coverage of her trial, and b) no Australians voted on that, and of course Americans aren't going to have heard of her. It's not the first time notable Australian people have been put up for deletion because they haven't heard of them. Ambi 02:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have started Bali Nine, which no doubt others will want to add to. Adam 07:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we have articles (or a list of redlinks) for different railway lines in Australia? Particularly for the various lines now or previously in South Australia? If they exist, I'd link to them from the various township articles for towns along the lines, like Hawker, Tailem Bend and Karoonda. --ScottDavis 06:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rail transport in Australia includes an article on Railways in Adelaide but there does not seem to be any other articles on SA lines. For Victorian railway lines there is a subcategory:Category:Regional railway lines in Victoria.--AYArktos 07:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only place we've done this is, as AYArktos points out, in Victoria. It'd be wonderful to see some information coming in from other states. It'd be nice if the existing naming conventions (i.e. [[Mount Gambier railway line, South Australia]] and [[Mount Gambier railway station, South Australia]]) could be followed, though. Ambi 08:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just created the Category:Perth railway stations and populated some stations into this category, also it's a subset of Category:Railway stations in Australia. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 11:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made a loose start on Rail transport in South Australia. I'll try to polish the town names and a bit more tomorrow. I don't know how to correctly name lines, so I won't even try to make individual line articles. --ScottDavis 13:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should Template:Australia-gov-stub only be used for Federal government members, departments, agencies etc, or should it also be used for state and local government articles like Mid Murray Council?

I've added the outcome of the last vote to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) page, before we go round again. This convention has been the accepted practice for the last four months, at least. --ScottDavis 14:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go round again? Where and why? Ambi 14:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is useful to have the policy documented on the naming conventions page recording the Australian wikipedians concensus. This concensus was reached before some (including me) started contributing to the Wikipedia. If anyone might wish to gently remind a new user of the convention sometime in the future it is probably a useful link to point them to ... :-) --AYArktos 22:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambi: This convention seems to have been working fine for several months, and makes sense to me. Over the weekend, both Deniliquin and Port Augusta became issues for why they needed to be at Deniliquin, New South Wales and Port Augusta, South Australia. Since people were looking for the guidelines, I thought it was time to make sure it was published where new people might look, before we have to have another big debate on it. I hope I didn't step outside my authority :-) The consensus position was reached before I started regularly contributing, too. --ScottDavis 01:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to pipe in. Only the US, Canada, Australia and Italy are opting for preferential disambiguation (US/Can due to use of census bots, Italy due to usual Italian custom). Almost all other countries (UK, Ireland, isle of man, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, Mexico) are opting for [[placename]] wherever possible.--ZayZayEM 04:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had noticed that, but as an author of articles that refer to towns quite a lot, I've found it's easier to expect to have to disambiguate than not. I've also taken to authoring disambiguation articles at times (Cummins, Bordertown) and learned that even "obviously" unique names mean something else (Quorn - bet you don't guess right before clicking on the link!). The main annoyance has been the non-disambiguated [[List of Postcodes in ...]] pages. We have the advantage of clearly knowing what state any given town is in - the UK seem to have running battles about what version of county boundaries should apply. --ScottDavis 05:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Scott's right. So long as we always redirect to the state from the name, where there is no disambiguation issue and make a dab page where needed, because no user is going to look for "Dubbo, New South Wales". BTW, I might be unique in not being surprised by Quorn, having eaten the mould and sabbed the hunt. Grace Note 10:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just completed an entry on Peter Nixon, the former Gorton/McMahon/Fraser Minister and I note that he was the man who chaired the inquiry into the future economic directions of Tasmania. I don't know anything more about the Nixon Report but apparently it is fairly significant in Tasmania so if anyone wants to add anything to the article on the report, feel free. --Roisterer 07:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

xx This is clever, with the little photos. Could someone who understands these things do the same with the Australian PMs and Governors-General? Adam 02:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is nifty. The Canadians are way ahead of us in organising their politics articles. Many a Canadian template has been copied for Australian purposes. However, would such a table work with 25 Prime Ministers? Or would it be just a cluttered mess?--Cyberjunkie 08:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Canada has had 21 PMs so an Australian equivalent would look almost identical. Adam 08:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i've made a start at template talk:AustraliaPM, when it is complete, it can replace the existing template. clarkk 09:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is now done (see below). might need a few tweaks in order because some pm's have served more than once. probably no point is repeating the image twice, but i guess they should in appear in the order in which they first served. clarkk 09:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

xx

It looks good. Great work Clarkk! Another Canadian template made Australian. Now, what else can we pinch...--Cyberjunkie 09:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It attracts the eye to the list, making people want to click something. My two cents:

1. The Canadian version wraps better than the current Aus draft when the window is made narrow.
2. There should be the same number of photos as names. If the name list has people twice, they should have two photos. Ideally, one taken each time they were PM, but that's probably impossible for the older ones.

--ScottDavis 13:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i sort of disagree with the repetition, it would add another 4-5 photos and i think would make it more cluttered, but if somebody wants to try in a way that keeps it pretty, be my guest. clarkk 13:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks very nice, except that Deakin should come second, between Barton and Watson. Also can we do the Governors-General? Adam 11:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the PM box, I think that there should be no repetition of Prime Ministers, and that their name and picture should be placed where they first served. A separate succession box exists for the order in which they served.--Cyberjunkie 12:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case Menzies is in the wrong place too. His first term was between Page and Fadden. Adam 12:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Each person appearing once is fine by me. I just want to be able to count in (say) five faces and find Joseph Cook, and count the same number of names, but he's the eighth name at the moment. --ScottDavis 14:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The table should follow the Canadian model and show each PM's name and picture once. Mackenzie King was Canadian PM three times but his name and face appear once in the table. At the moment in our table Deakin's name appears three times but his face only once. This is confusing and unnecessary. Adam 14:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With South Africa as a Featured Article, I think that we should sttempt to get Australia to featured status. The article is really quite good already, all it needs are references and copy editing, and expansion of some sections like geography and flora. Could we make it the next COTF despite the rule saying it COTF shoud be an undeveloped article, so we can get another featured Australia artle?--nixie 03:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there any Australia-related feature articles? (I think Kylie Minogue is the only one)--Cyberjunkie 08:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy is the only other Australian Featured Article that I can think of--nixie 08:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have several - Eureka Stockade and Lake Burley Griffin among them. Ambi 09:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Good. For a moment there I was thinking how ironic it was that our only two features, Tracy and Kylie, had both caused pain...--Cyberjunkie 09:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Mark Latham and Gough Whitlam. I'm aiming to Bring Joh up to that stage too in the long term. Slac speak up! 11:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As part of the Australia Wikiportal I'm creating, I'm thinking of having a weekly or fortnightly Australian feature article. It would be selected from those Australian articles already features. Any suggestions for the first?--Cyberjunkie 11:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

mmmm... none of these have been featured, and they may need some copy editing, but they all deserve the status of feature articles. Hubert Opperman (cycling) and Walter Lindrum (billiards), along with Donald Bradman (cricket), are the big 3 all time Australian sports heros and world champions in their sports. Anyone care to have a look and attempt to bring them up to feature article status?--Takver 03:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lindrum and Bradman are very close to feature, especially Bradman, but Opperman not-so-much. At this stage, I think it'd be easier to go with already featured Australian articles rather than setting up a separate Australian feature system. I've placed Kylie Minogue as the current feature because she was the most recent Australian front-pager.--Cyberjunkie 05:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you all think of this effort I quickly threw together in an effort to redesign the AWNB to do list? Feel free to edit that document all you like if you have any ideas or improvements. I thought if we made the to do list into an actual template, like this, we could all have a dynamically resizing Australian task list for our user pages that suits its purpose on the noticeboard page as well. Comments? -- Longhair | Talk 16:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a template that can be used by users on their personal pages. However, I think I'm more in favour of having a table like the one used on the Canadian and UK notice boards. The Canadians have a quick links template that is useful too. I've almost completed a Wikiportal Australia that can help users further. A to-do list along the lines of the one you've created might be necessary for it.--Cyberjunkie 12:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have reworked the PMs template so that each PM appears only once. I think this works better.

xx

I would do the Governors-General except some copyright pedant has deleted our Hopetoun photo and I can't find another one. Adam 02:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)