Talk:Elizabeth Cosson

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Liz Cosson.jpg

Image:Liz Cosson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To admins and bots alike, please leave the image alone! It now has a fair use rationale. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opastute/bios/baker.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100216232903/http://www.defence.gov.au:80/leaders/other/elizabethCosson/index.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/leaders/other/elizabethCosson/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of Rank post-ADF employment

The use of Australian Defence Force rank, post-retirement or post-separation, is somewhat improper (should only be used by serving uniformed ADF personnel in the permanent forces, or if a member of the Active Reserve - when on duty or when there is a connection between that service).

Retired or post-separation personnel should use (Retd) or (Retired) if rank is used (after the rank, which is to be preferred, or at the end of all post-nominals) to identify they are no longer a serving member - see Northern Territory Strategic Defence Advisory Board[1] for examples. Ideally, rank titles of former serving personnel (outside of former Chiefs of Service or Chiefs of Defence Force, who have their title honorarily retained under Defence Regulations r.33) should not be used in article titles, section or infobox headers, or as the first thing in the lead (preferably to in a 2nd or 3rd paragraph which addresses their military service, or to appear in their military history section) expect in very limited circumstances.

This is especially the case when a former ADF member has gone on to other civilian careers and that is what they are known for now, as is the case for Ms Cosson, who is now a career public servant (having post-separation worked for Veterans’ Affairs, then Health, then Immigration and Border Protection, and then come back to Veterans’ Affairs) Kangaresearch (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC) --Kangaresearch (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RVREASONS

Editors, please abide by WP:RVREASONS. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button.

As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit). Kangaresearch (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC) ​ Please follow WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of reversions and edits of May 2020

Keep discussion on single element together for clarity

For clarity, signature for each paragraph has been included (from that used at the end) so each paragraph doesn’t look unsigned and therefore messy as a result - if using more than one paragraph to discuss seperate things, please - for future - let us sign each respective indent paragraph in a single issue discussion, as it aids comprehension to respond to each seperate item, rather than as a group block (which is much more difficult to follow). Kangaresearch (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As it has gotten pretty messy, have broken everything out into logical sub-heading so it is easier to find and track each element. Kangaresearch (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Department changes

Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356737) ...you could suggest something alternative, just so it doesn’t look like that field is unknown (that may cause confusion) Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, one possible alternative would be to use the approach suggested at {{infobox officeholder}} regarding redistricting, since many of the n/a entries were due to restructuring. I remain concerned about the length of the template, even after this removal, given the guidance of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Another change that would help with this would be to remove unnecessary linebreaks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I note your opinion, but I am also concerned about maintaining a reasonable balance between accuracy and conciseness, although at the moment it should be highlighted the current info-box is more aide memoire for me as I draft my way through the sections, and use it to hold references to be transferred to the main body. As I mentioned, this is an article that is a work-in-progress, not ready for review or classification and if it wasn’t for the fact that it has negligible page views recently, apart from my own lol, I would have sandboxed it. I’m not familiar with how redistricting looks post-edit, can you provide an article example with it, so I can see what you mean? Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You can see an example at Maggie Tinsman. For context, there have been extensive previous discussions of overly long implementations of {{infobox officeholder}}, including but not limited to a proposal to remove predecessors/successors entirely and more recently making details collapsible. Both of those discussions ended with no consensus but inform interpretation of the "less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" proviso of INFOBOXPURPOSE in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it is so much easier to understand your points when can give clear examples like that, so I can see them (rather than a generalised description or reference to). Why don’t you share your beliefs as to what you consider are the key facts for the info-box, if there is no mandatory rule or community agreed position, and we can then break them out as seperate discussion sections for anyone interested to discuss. As mentioned previously, the info box is an more aide memoire for me at this present point, to use as the sections get written out, with it to be returned to after that, so it can be looked at as a whole (it should be a quick summary of the article’s data points). As a very low visited page, other than myself and you of late, that didn’t seem to be an issue. But I understand you want to review it now, even as a construction site. I might try the redistricting in a sandbox but it looks like it isn’t a particularly large field and given the length of the proper titles involved will likely look quite messy with multiple wrap-arounds, but I’ll see if it can be acceptable enough. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Name, suffixes. Image would be nice if we could get one (if none are free could claim under fair use). Date and place of birth (which should include country). Current office and date. |known_for= without dates. Education but reformatted - typically we present institution first with degree in parentheses. Military service section. Hard to judge the relations at this point as you've said below you'll be expanding on these. With the article as currently written I would consider everything else non-key, but again I don't know what you're intending to do with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I take it you have no issues with name, suffixes, date and place of birth, current office and date but can you confirm. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I took the time to look through the article history and review the relevant policies. Let us start with the issue of your preference for a universal consistency on info-boxes, which has not got any RfC outcomes (despite popping up a few times now) for MoS inclusion. MoS currently says:

WP:MAIN Style and formatting should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable under MoS, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot.

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style, or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or—if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself—at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable.

Specifically, the focus is on consistency within an article, as opposed to across articles, but if there was a universal standard in place now, it would improve the basis of your preference. A review of famous Australian identities on Wikipedia however shows no such consistency - some articles have your preferences, others have a mix, or other. It seems it is the viewpoint of the last person to edit that is the outcome, with no universal consistency.

MoS basically says that style modifications edits on info-boxes must show respect to what is already there, unless substantive good reason to change (like RfC outcome). First version of this article appeared on 19 May 2006 - it didn’t have an info-box until 4 June 2008 (it was using military box as Cosson was still serving at the time). Nickname was added at this time. The Awards field of the military box was added 25 January 2011. There was a good substantive reason to change from military box to office-holder when I came to the page as Cosson has been 10 years out of the military and is a career public service officer now - I kept the original military box on at the end of office holder field and only removed out of date information.

Have you considered starting a new RfC over at MoS (considering previous info box RfCs never achieved consensus), to get your preferred viewpoint recognised as policy? That’s what the MoS recommends, otherwise what exists should not be changed without agreed good reason between the person who created it and the one seeking change I think, just on differing info-box style preferences. In the meantime though, I think claims of an unofficial but binding convention should be put aside as a macro-issue beyond this article (that needs to be addressed through the MoS RfC processes) as it is an issue of more general application (given you are referring to articles), and do as the MoS states - look if something can make the issue moot (like having no info box at all, or just one for her current position, and nothing else - which given your express preference, which has not reached RfC outcomes yet, for short as possible info boxes seems up your alley). I don’t think just digging in, without any tolerance of compromise, to this universal consistency you’d like to build, is going to get this article anywhere though (that should be split off to the proper processes for general style guidance policy variations). Kangaresearch (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Education

Education but reformatted - typically we present institution first with degree in parentheses. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve seen that in alma mater, which while is common parlance in the United States of America (US), is not a term used as common parlance here (people just ask where did you graduate from, as we don’t really have an Ivy League culture here and fraternities that use latin and greek to fancy themselves up). In Australia, University Senates issue rules over how degrees are to be stylised when disclosed, and they are consistently Degree / (Hons) or optional major / Institution / Date. While Wikipedia has a very heavy ethno-centric ethnographic US viewpoint, and as a North American you share that, it is about an Australian person who is of negligible interest to persons outside Australia. The Manual of Style does talk about degrees, but for in-line use (Joe Blogs, Phd) and doesn’t have anything relevant to here. When you say typically we, is that from a Wikipedia policy or are you just saying what North Americans typically do? Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That is typical of use of {{infobox officeholder}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So not from the Manual of Style? Is there a good reason to use North American conventions for an Australian figure, beyond a personal wish to do so, given no consensus guideline or rule, and it overrides the rules of the respective university as to how these qualifications are to be displayed. I’m just reflecting on earlier comments of yours about inferring something from things outside formal Wikipedia policy, given the Wikipedia policy also says that no such thing should be treated as binding, especially if it would be illogical to the specifics. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a convention limited to North American figures - in fact when I was looking at examples of well-developed Australian articles, many use institution only, eg Robert Garran or Mark Oliphant. It seems logical to keep usage of the parameter consistent across articles (as per MOS:INFOBOX) and also to make the article accessible to readers who may not be familiar with the intricacies of Australian university senates. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the info-boxes on those two articles have degrees in their info-box [confused look] (are you referring to in-text citation of degrees?). Reference to the degrees are in the body of the Elizabeth Cosson#Education - but that’s not my content (I’m not that far into the article - progress has ground to a halt as we discuss all this, so I’m still at info-box and some placeholder text in lead and second section). I don’t know who added what, but rest assured all Australian are aware of the academic title presentation here in Australia (due to public funding we have more university graduates than you do). It is not a fair representation to suggest it is something obscure to Australians, known only to dusty academics in the respective University Senates (who, because they are state bodies, enabled under enactment, issue legislative instruments) - I’m sure you didn’t mean that with malice though, just from the natural ethnocentric viewpoint of what you are familiar with (it would be like me saying that on an obscure American figure article - my unfamiliarity with that way isn’t enough of a reason if the vast bulk of those reading it are used to that local practice). My viewpoint is in the absence of any Manual of Style entry, or any formal consensus guideline, we have to consider who the article is about, who is likely to be reading it (noting she is an unknown outside Australia and not even that well known within), and what they will understand (and what will confuse them). We don’t want rounds of circular edits because you would like it American style and readers who come think, that’s all back to front, and edit it in reverse. A fairly stable page would be nice, that just updates as new things happen (not stuff going in circles). Kangaresearch (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the info-boxes on those two articles have degrees in their info-box As I said, many use institution only, ie. they omit the degrees from the infobox entirely. This presentation is used across a wide swath of Australian biographical articles as well as those from elsewhere around the world, so it would seem to be a fairly stable convention and one comprehensible to a broad readership. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned, I saw that You were talking about institution then degree in brackets afterward, and I just saw alma mater fields only in your two examples given, which of course only list the university (and it was a change to what is the Education field now). No surprise confusion followed. What you are really wanting is the Education field removed, not changed, and the alma mater field used instead but institution only like the two examples provided. Correct? Kangaresearch (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I took the time to look through the article history and review the relevant policies. Let us start with the issue of your preference for a universal consistency on info-boxes, which has not got any RfC outcomes (despite popping up a few times now) for MoS inclusion. MoS currently says:

WP:MAIN Style and formatting should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable under MoS, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot.

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style, or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or—if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself—at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable.

Specifically, the focus is on consistency within an article, as opposed to across articles, but if there was a universal standard in place now, it would improve the basis of your preference. A review of famous Australian identities on Wikipedia however shows no such consistency - some articles have your preferences, others have a mix, or other. It seems it is the viewpoint of the last person to edit that is the outcome, with no universal consistency.

MoS basically says that style modifications edits on info-boxes must show respect to what is already there, unless substantive good reason to change (like RfC outcome). First version of this article appeared on 19 May 2006 - it didn’t have an info-box until 4 June 2008 (it was using military box as Cosson was still serving at the time). Nickname was added at this time. The Awards field of the military box was added 25 January 2011. There was a good substantive reason to change from military box to office-holder when I came to the page as Cosson has been 10 years out of the military and is a career public service officer now - I kept the original military box on at the end of office holder field and only removed out of date information. Education was added at that time.

Have you considered starting a new RfC over at MoS (considering previous info box RfCs never achieved consensus), to get your preferred viewpoint recognised as policy? That’s what the MoS recommends, otherwise what exists should not be changed without agreed good reason between the person who created it and the one seeking change I think, just on differing info-box style preferences. In the meantime though, I think claims of an unofficial but binding convention should be put aside as a macro-issue beyond this article (that needs to be addressed through the MoS RfC processes) as it is an issue of more general application (given you are referring to articles), and do as the MoS states - look if something can make the issue moot (like having no info box at all, or just one for her current position, without any education or alma mater, and nothing else - which given your express preference, which has not reached RfC outcomes yet, for short as possible info boxes seems up your alley). I don’t think just digging in, without any tolerance of compromise, to this universal consistency you’d like to build, is going to get this article anywhere though (that should be split off to the proper processes for general style guidance policy variations).

An example would be Paul Keating - a very famous Australian - he holds tertiary degrees, but the info box just doesn’t include them or his tertiary institutions (just high school and trade ones) but I think that can be left out as well. Although I know you would not want a long info box like his, just ignore that, and look at the education bit (and absence of alma mater—or nourishing mother as this allegorical term loved in Northern American, but foreign here in Australia—field).Kangaresearch (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly care whether the article uses |education= or |alma_mater= to present the data - that was never the issue of concern, it's rather how the data is presented within the parameter. In that respect the Keating example seems fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Free Image (or Non-Free Fair Use Image) of Elizabeth Cosson

Image would be nice if we could get one (if none are free could claim under fair use). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you do a Google search to see if you find one you like, since I have other taskings from you, and I’m still not that familiar with the images side. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If no free images can be found this one could be claimed as non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That image is under Crown copyright and a bit dated, since she has been 10 years out of the military. There is a really nice head to toe one (she is short so it is not too big lol) I saw of her in an Annual Report but same issue - Crown copyright. Neither could be uploaded to WikiCommons and even for non-free you get into issues around how much you are using of someone else’s copyrighted image (the low res thing). A free image is a lot less headache, and I’ve tried the non-free upload before only to have the image disappear so as you have been around longer, can you look at that. It is just not something I am really across, apart from the background (I’ve seen a lot of so called free images on Wikipedia as well, that are of still copyrighted material, so I know I’m not alone with lack of finesse with uploading). The only easy ones are the historic photos (but you hit an empty well there with a modern figure - I do have a free image of her late father though but that’s not much use for the info box). Kangaresearch (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, non-free images are typically harder to justify for living people given that in theory a free image could be created of them. Let's flag this in case someone local might have that opportunity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an earlier image request box at the start of this talk page from a few years ago, to which no takers appeared, so it is likely to be a very slim hope - especially since this article page gets very low readership, and the talk page much much less. But I agree with you a good quality recent image would be very nice, but the Manual of Style does note that this is an issue for LPB pages and not to stress too much about it (but one little picture isn’t too much to ask). I know others have fudged a non-free one in (as a free image) but I don’t think either of us would be keen about that. Kangaresearch (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Known For

|known_for= without dates Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this personal preference or is there some Wikipedia guideline you are referring to? I had a look but couldn’t find any so if you can advise. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Again per typical usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So not from the Manual of Style? While this more of an open issue (no legislative instrument that says this is how this qualification is to be cited), beyond a personal wish to do so, given no consensus guideline or rule, is removing 7 characters that gives location information to what follows, reducing precision going to add anything (as opposed to degrading what is there). If you could expand a little, to give insight. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format - Military box (fields other than rank)

Also when you say military service section can you break this down (we don’t want things cropping up later). Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

|branch=, |branch_label=, |serviceyears=, |rank=. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You have no issues with the current branch_label? I know you North Americans want to use Branch for Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, but in Australia it is Service, as branch is used for internal components within a Service (for example, Supply Branch). As an article about an Australian person, who was in the Australian Defence Force (fair enough if it as US military), the correct classification used in Australia should be used Kangaresearch (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(entry shifted to rank discussion Kangaresearch (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC))

Info-Box Salary (Reference: Pay-point for Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs)

All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Kangaresearch...Your edit summary here... ought not be included unless a more reliable source can be located.Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria After review, the debridement you refer to specifically says it does not refer to publications of similar names (the debridement is on the UK Daily Mail and UK Mail Online - which are both different from the Australian masthead)... [Can you] identify what in this specific article, which is consistent with the authoritative source (the legislative instrument, which it is grouped with in its reference group)...[, what] ...in the cite-quote or the article itself that is inaccurate, misleading, or untenable... As stated in edit summary comments, it is not required to verify the Secretary band that the Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is in (that is covered by the legislative instrument reference...), but the legislative instrument alone is not proper citation for the specific salary, as it requires confirmation of both Band and Pay Point (I have verified the pay point is correct, but the issue is that finding an *open* source for that specific element is only to be found in this news article [it being something of a not particularly fascinating point for news coverage, peer-reviewed journal discussion, etc]... I didn’t go to this specific reference as my first stop, but followed the hierarchy of reference sources as is normal practice (but after being unable to find anything else better on the specific pay point, beyond my own research verification, this is the only option - it is not a stand-alone reference, it is in conjunction with the best quality reference, but its omission makes the primary reference weaker as we have only half the equation otherwise, and that would just be bad referencing). Kangaresearch (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

the debridement is on the UK Daily Mail and UK Mail Online - which are both different from the Australian masthead RSP refers specifically to MailOnline (dailymail.co.uk) - what leads you to believe that does not include Australian content at that site? I am not aware of any such exemption being discussed, and on a quick review of RSN archives have not seen any. WP:BLP directs us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.", and the current consensus regarding dailymail.co.uk is that it does not meet that bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the reference mark-up and saw it is actually pointed to the co.uk address, despite it being content that was produced here in the Australian office (my bad, I missed that). That does address some confusion. I do think we need to be clear between what is a rule (no deviation), what is a guideline (principle based interpretative aid, to which due regard must be given), and what is commentary on the preceding (some value, but not the same as a blanket rule) and make sure we are clearly representing these when discussing them. Before diving deeper however, can you answer whether from the legislative instrument alone you know which pay-point within that Band (of which there are three) the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs is on? Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC) (Grammar)Kangaresearch (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

On reflection, as per your comment above, and per WP:BLPPRIMARY, I feel it would be inappropriate to cite this information solely to that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Which information specifically are you referring to? The Band 2, or the pay-point within it? Kangaresearch (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The claim that this individual has a particular salary. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

To confirm, you are claiming the legislative instrument doesn’t do this? Is it your opinion now that it is irrelevant whether the references are accurate? The only criterion for you is the web address that one of the references relate to - it is banned as far as you are concerned? If I can find the same information from another news site, you don’t have an objection? Kangaresearch (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

My argument is that the current sourcing is not appropriate for including this parameter. Happy to consider an alternate source if one is available - I wouldn't want to make a blanket yes-or-no statement without seeing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can assist me, I’d be grateful - what is it you are looking for, specifically, as I wouldn’t like to just waste large amounts of time trying to find something to satisfy you if you don’t know what it is yet you want satisfied (that’s a much harder task) - but also, if I could have some specifics here, I’m far more likely to find it (since accuracy is not relevant from your viewpoint, but source is something very important to you). It would really help for you to say what you are looking for, as you’ve made it clear what you aren’t (so that part doesn’t need anything more). Can you suggest some parameters since I take it you are leaving it to me to find it. Appreciate anything specific you can give. Kangaresearch (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A reliable (not deprecated, published but not self-published) secondary source stating that Elizabeth Cosson makes $X per year, ideally with the year being recent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like that still leaves much up to your own (after the fact) interpretation, so can you give me something firmer and more specific? Can it be a newspaper not depreciated (or will no newspaper satisfy you?); [not something to be found in a peer reviewed journal so we’ll scratch that one]; A personal profile done by a museum or gallery?; etc. And again the meaning of the term recent is open to interpretation and as it is you that wishes to be satisfied, some firm guidance from you is necessary so this doesn’t just run in circles as it has so far. So don’t rush an answer, but please think about what you want specifically, provide sufficient detail and I’ll find one or two things for your approval (as you wish it to be) if possible. Think examples if you have a poor knowledge of Australian media or references (since you are not an Australian) - like you did with redistricting (because that was illustrative). Kangaresearch (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is unfortunately no comprehensive list of reliable sources. However, if you insist: a source from within the last five years with a green check at RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s good enough, it contains sufficient information to proceed with (it was just too vague before), so thanks for giving further clarity to your earlier response. I don’t know if WP:RSP has much to say about Australian sources though, given the ethnocentrism, but I’ll check and circle back to you if its got nothing, or just one or two. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Significance of family history

All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, not going to push too hard on this but as the relatives don't appear to be notable I don't see a strong rationale for inclusion here, given MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and conventions regarding biographical infoboxes (compare the documentation for {{infobox person}}) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is why I highlight the danger of jumping in too early, you can’t see where I’m going, and it wasn’t discussed - so you would have had to make some guesses. That’s why I jumped ahead and added some section text (even though I didn’t want to until I caught up with temporarily referencing the info-box and the lead first) to give you some insight. Cosson’s family history is quite famous (more than I realised even myself when I first started) - she comes from a long military pedigree and it not only gives insight into her reasons for joining the ADF, but also about how that career progressed. However I agree that living relatives with no significant contribution to these things don’t merit inclusion in a finished article (but as mentioned above, some biographical facts have been in placeholders as I work out their details to determine this - they’ve been mentioned by Cosson in interviews and biographical profiles as being relevant to her, but whether they are relevant in a way that contributes to comprehension for this article in its finished point is pending). I recommend waiting until research is completed and then looking at the main body (when done) to come to an opinion. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Co-operation

...perhaps you might like to... join me on this project, to get this article up to scratch - it’d be good to do it in a coordinated way rather than ad-hoc and randomly. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of edits or articles should be rational, respectful... and supported by direct citation of any evidence - not vague and unsubstantiated claims. This is excellent advice... Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, let us honour it in full going forward. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but brief - your last four paragraphs of 02:15 29 May 2020 were how I wished it started out, so thank you for that, as they were directly relevant, gave clarity and were uncontentious. I have no reason to suspect mine made at this time are anything but the same. Let us keep this going. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

SUSPENDED TOPICS Kangaresearch (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Capitalisation of rank when used as proper noun [SUSPENDED]

(Move from Info-box format subsection above Kangaresearch (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC))

I’ve already mentioned the Rank field of the Info Box and its proper noun status, but you can continue that here if you like to keep it all together. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The edit being discussed below relates to usage in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Moved from User talk:Nikkimaria Kangaresearch (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The edit is consistent with MOS:MILTERMS. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force rank titles are proper nouns - and as that same section states - military terms when used as a proper noun are capitalised (sorry, I assumed you knew that, but as a civilian I probably expected too much comprehension from you on that). I think Wikipedia Administrator AustralianRupert describes it clearly so I’ll just include what he said (but the info-box rank field should be capitalised as it is describing an actual rank, rather than a persons or persons) - see also Australian Army officer rank insignia

In the Australian Defence Force we are taught that ranks are only capitalised when used as a proper noun, e.g. Lieutenant Rupert. But if it is being used as 'Rupert is a lieutenant', it is not capitalised. I'm fairly sure that concensus on wiki supports this, but I could be wrong. I've been surprised before. That's my take, anyway. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here’s some examples to help clarify:

• The sailors were at the dock (common noun);
• Private Johnson saluted the Major (proper nouns);
• The majors attended the dining in night, hosted by the Brigadier, and saw he was erroneously wearing Captain hard boards and hadn’t noticed (proper and common nouns).

Proper nouns refer to a specific person, place, or thing and are always capitalized. Common nouns refer to a general concept or thing and are only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence.

Hope that helps you do the copyediting as you’ve elected to do Kangaresearch (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to add, whether capitalisation of Officer occurs depends on the context it is used - if it is used in the context of a common noun it would be lower case (the officers of the Mess, for example), but if used as a proper noun (Officers’ Mess, for example) then it would be capitalised. The Australia Army ranks are made up of soldiers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers and Officers (Commissioned, and Officer Cadets [who aren’t]) - as you can see soldiers is not capitalised because it is not a proper noun term, but the others are as it isn’t describing the person but stating a specific class of a thing. Kangaresearch (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, the edit being discussed in this conversation is this one. Pinging User:Schazjmd who made that change. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You hold firm to your viewpoints Nikkimaria, so I didn’t expect yours to change, but for the benefit of those that follow, it is good to document why it is as it is, and for that purpose it should all be kept together. I’ve changed the header to keep consistency with titles and the use field. Kangaresearch (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Kangaresearch, a rank is a proper noun when used with a name or as a name (as in Officers' Mess). In your example above, non-commissioned officer (etc.) are not proper nouns. Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd I disagree with your interpretation, and having served in the Australian Defence Force for 20 years, I am aware of when a reference to rank is capitalised or not, but as I don’t expect you to have the same level of familiarity with it, no harm done. I’ve recorded the history, so it is known why it occurred and what reasons were given for it. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Kangaresearch, I expect that proper nouns are the same in the Australia as in the U.S. And although serving in the military makes one familiar with ranks, it doesn't necessarily mean those who served know when to capitalize them. I encountered many officers and NCOs in the USAF who didn't use capital letters properly. (Retired master sergeant) Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd Nikkimaria - I agree that serving doesn’t mean one is an expert at service writing, especially outside command (JNCOs are not expected to be proficient at it, SNCOs get some training, only some officer specialisations do it regularly). I would take some care drawing assumptions between armed forces of different countries though - as they saying goes, they do things differently there. As April’s Fool Day has long gone, it was in the references, but as it seems you didn’t look at them, here are some examples [2] & [3] - it’s not an April’s Fools Day prank. If it is used in proper noun format, it is capitalised here (as for other countries armed forces, I couldn’t say, but as it is an Australian of no fame outside the country and not a huge amount inside, the readership will be overwhelming Australian, not that there is much readership from the history other than myself and recently Nikkimaria). Info only Kangaresearch (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Kangaresearch, look at Major general (Australia). Sentence-case is used for the rank. It is not a proper noun on its own. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd A Wikipedia article page isn’t an authoritative source, it is a reflection of whoever wrote the entry. I know you just want me to say whatever you want to hear, but I can only tell you what is. You can take it I’ve read everything you and Nikkimaria have claimed with an open mind, but I’m not swayed from convention here (as used in Australian press and peer reviewed journals) and the Australian Defence Force Service Writing Manual. Unless you are claiming expert status in Australian Defence Force service writing, and can cite authoritative sources as to local usage, I don’t feel this is advancing us anywhere. It is documented, nothing has been changed, and spinning it further isn’t progressing it. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I pointed to it to demonstrate how WP:MOS is applied. Perhaps you might want to take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to find others who might agree with you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated, given it has been documented, I have no tasks pending here. Nor a wish to keep it going like Bernie’s on the weekend. I’m happy to rely on domestic practice and the Australian Defence Forces own rules as to Australian formatting. WP:5P5, a core rule, covers over-reliance on particular interpretations that aren’t determinative, when there is a claim of an authoritative rule on something from a guideline (in what is a not particularly well written section) - but as that also does not change the viewpoints - it is not a reason to keep going either. There is no ambiguity over anyone’s viewpoint that has been expressed here - so nothing to clarify. If it had changed, you could have followed the procedures, but as it hasn’t there is nothing to resolve either. It is just open log and record, which has been done. Kangaresearch (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Honours & Awards [SUSPENDED]

Re: edit of 11:33 28 May 2020 (revision 959357485) - was inherited from old infobox, where both appeared, and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (I don’t see a need to constantly draw attention to gongs) Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit removes material duplicated between that parameter and |honorific_suffix=. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, it was part of the original info-box (reference added by me aside), and as you noted from my original reply I had no objection to it going when it is available both in the lead and at the top of the infobox (albeit in post-nominal form). I’ll be adding an Honours and Awards box to the body (you know, the one with thumbnails of the ribbons, etc) when I get time eventually. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Nationality [SUSPENDED]

Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356630) was inherited from old infobox and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (thanks for the WP:INFOBOXNTLY reference - this is the benefit of having edit summary fields that are more meaningful that vague and non-descriptive ones like "trim") Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit I assume based on your post above that you do not object. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, it was part of the original info-box (reference added by me aside), and as you noted from my original reply I read and thanked you for the WP:INFOBOXNTLY wiki-link, and agreed with your edit (I had not seen that sub-section, and as many of the Australian articles I’ve seen have them, didn’t remove it when changing over the military info-box to an officeholder info-box). Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Nickname [SUSPENDED]

Re: edit of 11:32 28 May 2020 (revision 959357307) - was inherited from old infobox, and was not my edit, and agree it is common enough, even if LP subject likes to make a thing of it (repeatedly mentioned in bio pieces she participates in, to draw attention to the fact she likes informality) Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit I assume based on your post above that you do not object. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, it was part of the original info-box, and as per my previously given comments I have no objection to something so trite going. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Info-box format: Occupation [SUSPENDED]

All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, don't object to your amendment Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this diff [4]. As a Canadian, I don’t expect you to be across the unique nomenclatures of the various public services in Australia (unless you’ve ever been in the APS, it is not something an average person would clock either) but it is important to be accurate and that is a proper noun title, but - public official - with wiki-link to APS seemed a reasonable comprise to make. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Refactoring of off-topic or uncivil comments for an article talk page

Kangaresearch (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC) References Discussion of reversions and edits of 28 May 2020 Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356737) I note you have a personal hatred of this apparently, but perhaps rather than just repeatedly removing, you could suggest something alternative, just so it doesn’t look like that field is unknown (that may cause confusion). As you have now made over 8 edits with 24 hours, perhaps you might like to consider putting your flurry of focus to good use, and join me on this project, to get this article up to scratch - it’d be good to do it in a coordinated way rather than ad-hoc and randomly. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Kangaresearch, it's not particularly helpful to attribute changes to a "personal hatred", nor to try to enforce compliance with an essay. Your edit summary here is incorrect - the page you link specifies not just "uncontroversial" but "uncontroversial self-descriptions", which the information added certainly is not. Given your previous assertion here that "both [references] are needed" to confirm the claim, it ought not be included unless a more reliable source can be located. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Nikkimaria You can and could have explained your reasons for repeated blanking of these elements, which had been requested repeatedly to date; you could have explained them just now in this post of yours, but you have failed to do so. When no reason is given, repeatedly, and you have failed to address any logical reason, and have ignored the offer to suggest an alternative, the only conclusion is the one that resulted (in the absence of your repeated refusal to communicate until now). Nor is it polite, respectful, helpful or fair to claim the Elizabeth Cosson article is an WP:ESSAY when you have cited no evidence to justify that misleading and inflammatory claim. It disrespects the work of multiple Wikipedians who have contributed by adding (not just token +2 character addition as you have done once and only just now, in contrast to the multiple blanking of elements that preceded it over the 24hrs proceeding) to the article over the years and which predominantly are the largest part of the article (and are not mine or yours). Please abide by WP:5P4. Discussion of edits or articles should be rational, respectful (such as by engaging in discussion before altering any recent work of others, except for minor edits) and supported by direct citation of any evidence - not vague and unsubstantiated claims. Yet again, in relation to the reference you have repeatedly removed, even after objection and request to discuss (which you have ignored until now), you have not followed normal resolution procedures. After review, the debridement you refer to specifically says it does not refer to publications of similar names (the debridement is on the UK Daily Mail and UK Mail Online - which are both different from the Australian masthead) but, this aside, I have repeatedly asked you to identify what in this specific article, which is consistent with the authoritative source (the legislative instrument, which it is grouped with in its reference group) and you have repeatedly failed to identify anything in the cite-quote or the article itself that is inaccurate, misleading, or untenable. Again, your personal dislike isn’t relevant, your misleading characterisations of policy (in incorrect context) are unhelpful, and your refusal to follow normal resolution procedures (contrary to editing policy) and just to repeatedly blank things (increasing every time in scope and range) is very very unhelpful. As stated in edit summary comments, it is not required to verify the Secretary band that the Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is in (that is covered by the legislative instrument reference, which is as authoritative as it gets), but the legislative instrument alone is not proper citation for the specific salary, as it requires confirmation of both Band and Pay Point (I have verified the pay point is correct, but the issue is that finding an *open* source for that specific element is only to be found in this news article [it being something of a not particularly fascinating point for news coverage, peer-reviewed journal discussion, etc]. As an academic, I didn’t go to this specific reference as my first stop, but followed the hierarchy of reference sources as is normal practice (but after being unable to find anything else better on the specific pay point, beyond my own research verification, this is the only option - it is not a stand-alone reference, it is in conjunction with the best quality reference, but its omission makes the primary reference weaker as we have only half the equation otherwise, and that would just be bad referencing). Kangaresearch (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC) As we are both voluntary editors, neither of us administrators or with any authority over the other, please stop Wiki-lawyering and making disruptive edits on this article as progress has ground to a halt as I have spend all my time (and time I didn’t have) over the last couple of days dealing with your disruptive (and up to now non-communicative) editing style. In closing, however, I do recognise and thank you for (after ignoring earlier multiple requests) finally communicating (albeit not constructively, but it’s a place to start from). I note a review of edits made by you on other pages shows you do not like to communicate regarding edits you make, so I appreciate you making the effort to overcome that and at least engage in some way now. If you are willing to work collaboratively in improving this article, as I’ve said before, I would most welcome it - but sniping, blanking, being uncommunicative, and Wiki-lawyering doesn’t improve this article or add anything of value to this article (and is really unnecessary). Kangaresearch (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Discussion of edits or articles should be rational, respectful... and supported by direct citation of any evidence - not vague and unsubstantiated claims. This is excellent advice. A large portion of what you have written is unnecessarily personalized, which hopefully we can avoid in future. (such as by engaging in discussion before altering any recent work of others, except for minor edits) Anything on Wikipedia can be edited by others at any time, without requiring talk page discussion first (with a few limited exceptions that don't apply here). Nor is it polite, respectful, helpful or fair to claim the Elizabeth Cosson article is an WP:ESSAY I did not do so. I referred here to RVREASONS, cited above. the debridement is on the UK Daily Mail and UK Mail Online - which are both different from the Australian masthead RSP refers specifically to MailOnline (dailymail.co.uk) - what leads you to believe that does not include Australian content at that site? I am not aware of any such exemption being discussed, and on a quick review of RSN archives have not seen any. WP:BLP directs us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.", and the current consensus regarding dailymail.co.uk is that it does not meet that bar.

Edit summary fields for edits/reversions to Elizabeth Cosson

Dear Editors, when publishing changes/reversions please take the time to use the edit summary field properly (one should never edit in haste, after all, so if you don’t have the time to enter a clear and plain English edit summary, you don’t really have the time to publish an edit or reversion).

The edit summary field should not use jargon, if plain English is available (unless jargon is universally understood by everyone - example: NATO), abbreviations, unnecessarily obscure or arcane words (when plain English is readily available, show your intelligence in your edits, not in obscure and uncommon words) or be indecipherable or cryptic.

An edit summary field should, without requiring you to look at the edit itself, give you a good idea of the what and the why of the change on its own. It takes only seconds to write a good one. Thanks for your consideration in advance, your fellow Wikipedians will appreciate it (especially on this page). Kangaresearch (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)