Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AWNB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help

WikiProjects edit | watch
In the news edit | watch
Wikinews-logo.svg
Categories edit | watch
On this day in Australia edit | watch

Australia · Arts · Architecture · Cities · Communications · Culture · Economy · Education · Environment · Geography · Government · Healthcare · History · Law · Language · Lists · Media · Military · Music · Organisations · People · Politics · Religion · Science · Society · Sport · Subdivisions · Transport · Tourism

Australian states and territories · Australian Capital Territory · New South Wales · Northern Territory · Queensland · South Australia · Tasmania · Victoria · Western Australia

Capital cities · Adelaide · Brisbane · Canberra · Darwin · Hobart · Melbourne · Perth · Sydney

Australia stubs · AFL stubs · Geography stubs · Government stubs · Law stubs · People stubs · Paralympic medalists stubs · Television stubs

25 October:

Parliament House, Victoria
To-Do edit | watch
Announcements edit | watch

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia:


Requests · ABSTUDY · Ariadne Australia · Awakenings disability arts festival · Drought Force · Electoral reform in Australia · Festival of the Dreaming · Landforms of Australia · National Tidal Centre · OneAustralia · Property Council of Australia · Road signs in Australia

Articles needing attention · Australian immigration detention facilities · Crime in Australia · Cycling Australia · Environment of Australia · Privacy in Australian law · Tourism in Australia

Images requested · Benjamin Benjamin · Cheryl Kernot · MV Pacific Adventurer · Poppy King · Rosemary Goldie · James Moore

Verification needed · Architecture of Australia · Australian performance poetry · Four'N Twenty meat pie · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of Australian political controversies · Outback · Paul Wild Observatory · Reg Ansett


Quality watch:

Queensland Heritage Register[edit]

As I have previously mentioned, I have arranged for the Queensland Heritage Register to be available under a CC-BY license. It's in an XML format which is not directly suitable for use in Wikipedia. So I have written a number of programs to manipulate the information to create Wikipedia articles. Here are three of the 1692 articles I have generated (a church, a mine and a farm in the Toowoomba Region):

I am interested in any feedback about the generation of these articles. Do you see any "pattern of problems" in them or "patterns of potential improvement"? I am not asking whether the articles can be individually improved; I am sure any one of them can be. But I am looking for pointers to anything I can fix/improve through automated means. For example, I have just noticed that "queensland" appears in lower case in some of the heritage-listing criteria; that's something I can fix in the generator. You will notice that the generator tries to add in wikilinks within the text; this can be a bit hit-and-miss but overall it gets a lot more right than it does wrong. It's pretty good on linking place names and architectural elements but people's names are rather more problematic especially if they are also place names. This is an area where I don't think I can get too much better through automated means. Obviously I'd like to start rolling out these articles (probably a bunch each day over a number of weeks/months), but thought it would be worthwhile to let more people look over them to try to eliminate any problems in advance rather than afterwards. Thanks Kerry (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Some comments and suggestions:
  • Each paragraph should end with a inline citation – much easier to see what is referenced and what isn't, especially after an article develops
  • Suggest putting the CC-BY-3.0-AU notice at the bottom of the References section, under an "===Attribution===" heading (per this guideline (but noting that pseudo-headings shouldn't be used per this guideline))
  • Give an archive url for the webpage with the CC-BY-3.0-AU notice, in case it is removed in the future (I just submitted it to the Wayback Machine, so you can use http://web.archive.org/web/20141008094804/https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/the-queensland-heritage-register )
  • It would be good if the references could include an archive urls, if possible.
  • Will you being creating talk pages as you go, with project tags and {{text release}} (or something similar)?
  • Categories shouldn't be red-linked
  • Suggest displaying coords as "inline,title" so they also appear in the usual position at the top-right
  • Coordinates seem overly precise, suggest cutting down to MOS:COORD's suggestion of 4 decimal places, which gives an accuracy of ~5.6 m to 10 m
  • MOS:INFOBOX says "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." – I would suggest including the criteria on the Queensland Heritage Register article, and linking the criteria listed in infoboxes to that article (or just listing the letters without linking them)
  • Include {{Use Australian English}} and {{Use dmy dates}} at the top of articles
  • The leads seem really short, perhaps you could include something to the effect of "It was built in YEAR(s), and included on the Queensland Heritage Register on DATE. Significant components include LIST OF COMPONENTS."
Otherwise looking quite good, especially as automatically generated articles – well done - Evad37 [talk] 10:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks as though Evad has captured the range of issues, and well, I would suggest that red categories and talk pages would be a major concern. satusuro 10:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Some suggestions that for things that might be fixable by automation:
  • All three articles include WP:SEAOFBLUE overlinking (in both the lead paragraph and the infobox). Eg in Jondaryan Woolshed:
  • Single quotes should be converted to double - MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • "c1913" (any year, obviously) could use {{Circa}}.
  • There are some MOS:CAPS issues in the info boxes, eg "Significant Period" should be "Significant period", "Store/s / Storeroom / Storehouse, Pit - machinery, Hut/Shack ..." should be "Store/s / storeroom / storehouse, pit - machinery, hut/shack ..."
  • Acland No. 2 Colliery's Description section includes several non-sentence noun phrases, eg "Ancillary buildings", "Workshops The workshops are located...". I didn't notice this in the other two articles, but there are enough in the one article to suggest a potential problem.
  • This formatting strikes me as a bit odd:

Criterion A

The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of queensland's history.
Jondaryan station, established in the early 1840s, ...

Possibly the italics text (the criterion) should be part of the section heading, eg,

Criterion A: The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of queensland's history.

Jondaryan station, established in the early 1840s, ...

although it seems a bit long for a heading (appearing in the TOC). Perhaps this would be better, with "Criteria" as a heading (which it is not in my marked up text here) and criteria listed as definitions lists per H:DL:

Criterion

A – The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of queensland's history
Jondaryan station, established in the early 1840s, ...
Or maybe a table...
  • Other things being equal, use <br /> instead of <br>. I believe that they are both valid, but the latter confuses the syntax highlighter (Enabled from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, Editing).
  • Consider removing the empty entries from the infobox - they take up unnecessary space in the editor window
  • It might be feasible to insert {{convert}} where appropriate, eg scan the text for nnn acres, nnn feet, nnn other_units, etc
Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. Things that I have now automate or am in the process of doing are:

  • each para should end with an inline citation
  • CC-BY notice is now in an Attribution section with an archive url and archive date
  • Coords are now 4 decimal points, displayed inline and title
  • Now has "Use Australian English" and "Use dmy dates" at the top
  • Removed excessive capitalisation from the infobox
  • Replaced br with br/
  • Longer lede para. Some generated articles do have longer leads already (just not these 3 examples) but I will add in a bit more along the lines suggested. The limitation here is what fields are present in the input data which vary between register entries, so some ledes will always be longer than others.
  • Circa templates. Should be do-able but needs careful pattern matching to avoid false positives. In particular what characters can precede the "c" in the circa and non-circa cases?

Things I don't think I can automate are:

  • references in general having an archive url - I can only find a manual way to do this a single URL at a time, so if anyhow knows how to automate this, please share!
  • Overlinking in the first sentence (SeaOfBlue). It is not easily automatable to decide that "church" is a common term but "shearing shed" isn't. Similarly the address component is an amalgmation of separate pieces of information (which may or may not be present in individual entries); it is feasible to link the individual pieces but less so to try to link them in combination. It would be easy to not link "heritage-listed" if that would help.

Things that are not automatable but might be semi-automatable with AWB (where you can check each change before Saving):

  • Convert templates. I have had a certain amount of experience with adding convert templates using AWB and it's a very messy business and too high risk to automate. There are too many "special cases" where the automated approach would get it wrong and insert convert templates where it shouldn't.
  • Single quotes to double quotes. Most single quotes in the input are apostrophes (which should not become double-quotes) and there is no easy way to tell them apart (people do it much better than machines).
  • adding the text template on the talk page - this should be possible using AWB as the text template is always the same, but probably requires the generated articles were all in a hidden category (which might useful for other maintenance reasons)
  • project tags - again, if the articles are in a category, it should be possible using AWB to add project tags but I think this is for the projects to undertake as their tags are usually parameterised according to their own criteria of importance, quality, and other parameters meaningful to them. Similarly AWB is probably the tool of choice if they want to add infoboxes relating to their own interests to the article itself, as the articles will all be in a category of "type of thing", e.g. "Schools in Queensland".

Things that I think are non-problems:

  • red-linked categories. This is just a Wikipedia chicken-and-egg problem. You aren't supposed to have red-linked categories so you should create the categories first, but you aren't supposed to have empty categories so you should create the articles first. My plan is to create the articles and any required categories in parallel.
  • the non-sentence noun phrases in the Ackand entry appear to be a problem specific to this entry (certainly it does not seem to be present in a selection of other entries I've inspected. It was just unlucky it occurred in my random selection of Toowoomba Region articles (they weren't carefully chosen). Stuff like this just has to be tidied up manually and individually (garbage-in garbage-out). I note that while I intend to automate the creation of the article text, I intend to upload them manually, precisely to try to spot anything that has obvious problems as I go. Tedious, but I think it's for the best.

Still in the category of "open questions":

  • how to deal with the presentation of the criteria for heritage listing? Prior to this, I've tried a number of approaches and none is completely satisfactory. Generally for the rationales for heritage listing to make sense, you need to display the criteria first. However, if you display the criteria as part of a section heading, the table of contents becomes ridiculously wide because the criteria are so long. The infobox has a section for the criteria but the QHR's A/B/C/etc ways of naming the criteria aren't at all helpful to the reader (which is why I added the links down to the criteria within the article - I don't think linking off to the QHR article at that point is helpful to the reader and in any case that would require the criteria in the QHR article to be section headers, which has the ToC problem). The simplest solution is just to drop the criteria from the infobox and remove the sub-section headers from the Heritage Listing section. I have implemented this change manually on User:Kerry Raymond/sandbox/Acland No. 2 Colliery. Do you like this any better? No more "A", "B" and "C"s.
  • how many blank fields should you leave in an infobox? The MoS has no guidance on that point. Currently I think I have every field in the infobox present in the article whether I use it or not (with the exception of the UK Grid Reference -- truly meaningless in Queensland). But I can automate it so that each individual article has absolutely no empty fields. But some of the of the other fields are quite relevant to a QHR site and could easily be filled in by a person (just as we normally do with any infobox). Some fields are of marginal relevance (does anyone really care about the altitude of a QHR site?) and the foreign language name fields are probably irrelevant for an en.WP article. So the trade-off is between leaving a lot of empty fields vs not having the empty fields available for the person who wants to fill them in. Where does the right balance lie? Kerry (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be easy to not link "heritage-listed" ... - that's probably the simplest approach. (The specific register gets linked elsewhere anyway, and/or you could link "State heritage" in the infobox)
Most single quotes in the input are apostrophes (which should not become double-quotes) and there is no easy way to tell them apart - Apostrophes almost always (in a formal context) follow a letter or digit, so any single quote that does not is probably an opening quote. The next single quote that does not have a letter after it is probably the closing quote. Ignore single quote followed by letter - that is probably an apostrophe. I'm not sure if this is reliable enough (or how feasible it is to code).
how to deal with the presentation of the criteria for heritage listing? - the newer version certainly looks better.
Mitch Ames (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: single quotes. It's the "almost always" that creates the grief. Oh, and the original source also has backquotes floating through it which are opening quotes. Could it be done automatically? Maybe, but not easily. Human readers will not be confused by single quote being used both for quotation and as apostrophes. So I think the implementation effort outweighs the benefit here (conforming to MoS). ATM I am having grief trying to get circa templates to work and they should be easier. Again, I might decide that the benefit to the reader isn't worth the increasing complexity of the implementation. Kerry (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


I did a broadly similar project at for the DNZB a couple of years ago, see [[1]]. My advice is:

  • a wikified list of all the articles to be created is very useful
  • automated disambiguation is your enemy, since the small number you get wrong is insanely confusing; better to have few or no links.
  • I did a bunch into main space, let knowledgeable people pick them over and them saw what of that I could automate. This seemed very useful, but you need to notify widely to get diverse feedback (think, Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture)
  • Even with 1692 articles, I'd be included to do them and then point everyone who's expressed an interest to look over them and knock any rough edges off.

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think these are pretty good for the most part. I'm still a bit iffy about the "criterion" sections fitting the Wikipedia format but I don't have a better alternative. My two bits of feedback: these articles are really under-linked in terms of internal links, with key events and organisations, etc. not being linked;, and as someone noted above, the ledes are very short and not very helpful. I'm aware that these are not automatable, and I'm quite prepared to help out with them because this stuff is crazy interesting, but I'd be uncomfortable with dropping 1000+ articles with these issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"... uncomfortable with dropping 1000+ articles with these issues"
We could probably mitigate the "risk" by creating a page somewhere (eg subpage of Category talk:Queensland Heritage Register) and adding the auto-created articles to a list on that page. Advertise the existence of that list and invite editors to review the articles – at least for major problems caused by the auto-create – and cross them off the list (eg strike-through) as each is done. It might take a while to review them all, but there's no deadline, and the benefits of having the material probably outweigh the potentially lower quality of the auto-generated articles. (Most of those articles are probably still going to be better quality than a lot of the stuff that turns up in Special:NewPagesFeed.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, as long as Kerry was okay with the extra leg-work (I can live with it as it is if she isn't). The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Also the outbuildings section of the Acland Colliery article hasn't gone across properly - what were clearly meant to be subheadings has come out as plain unformatted text. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, good work on getting these created, I know you had a big hand in getting the data released in the first place and it'll be good to have more complete information on Queensland heritage places. My only 2c would be to omit the "Criterion" section, which I don't think adds that much to the articles and which I don't think is particularly encyclopædic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC).

Stylistically I feel like you're right, and it's something I've noticed with these from the get-go, but that section generally contains a lot of really important information about why the place is significant, rather than just what happened there. I wonder if it would be possible to rewrite these sections in a more encyclopedic style - maybe "significance" instead of what's effectively "heritage criteria"? I look at an article like the Acland Colliery and I don't know how I'd do that but it'd be good to be able to rework this somehow. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, what if we just renamed the criterion headings? It might be a bit more encyclopedic to have a "cultural significance" section than a "this is how it complies with criterion Z" section, while not really having to change the content at all (again, looking at the Acland Colliery example). The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, here they are again (these are all straight out of the generator, no manual improvement):

Compared to the previous ones and following your feedback

  • each para has an inline citation
  • CC-BY notice is now in an Attribution section with an archive url and archive date
  • Coords are now 4 decimal points, displayed inline and title
  • Now has "Use Australian English" and "Use dmy dates" at the top
  • Removed excessive capitalisation from the infobox (headings and content)
  • No longer use <br> anywhere
  • Longer lede para. It now mentions the architect, the date of construction and the builder (to the extent can extract those bits of information) and that is an entry on the Queensland Heritage Register. I didn't include the place components, they were too messy to present as sentences.
  • Circa templates have been added where it was safe to do (there was no immediately adjacent text that could place a different interpretation on the "c" and there had to be exactly 4 digits that looked like a year in the 19th/20th/21st century).
  • completely dropped the use of the A/B/C criteria names in the infobox and "Heritage listing" section

Additional changes:

My thoughts on recent comments:

  • I think it is important to include the criteria for heritage listing because that is (indirectly) the basis of the notability of subject matter. I think we need to include the precise criteria text as some of the responses don't make so much sense if you don't know the criteria (in some cases, the responses are much shorter). I also think I would be "losing faith" with what the QHR people might be expecting, which arguely is not a consideration from a Wikipedia point-of-view but if we want to encourage organisation to release information under CC-BY license, it's part of the bigger picture.
  • This automation is something I've worked on for some weeks and it's about as good as it can get I think. I've worked with cross-compiling (with more structured text) for many years, so I don't come to this as an amateur although I don't have a lot of natural language processing experience (which is generally a much harder problem). There will be things (like the linking) when it gets something wrong sometimes but it seems to mostly be getting them right. However, I note that all of the mistakes it makes are all made by human editors too. In addition to offers in this discussion, I have also had an offer from User:Shiftchange to assist with any manual cleaning up and project tagging.
  • I won't be "dumping" 1000+ articles quickly. I intend to upload them manually precisely so I can look for glaring problems. It will take months I suspect. I note that there are around 150 existing articles in relation to the QHR, so merging with existing content will be very time-consuming. For that reason, I'll probably work on the "red link" ones first.
  • As an aside, many of these QHR entries contain local history information (people, organisations and places) that could be used in other articles. Kerry (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty happy with that. One thing I noticed with the new version - where did it get the "alternate name" for the Jondaryan article? It's on Jondaryan Station (which also has an article), but it's not another name for the woolshed. The outbuildings section of the Acland Colliery article is still unformatted - is this the sort of thing we'd just need to fix manually? Also, getting down to the really tiny, there's a formatting error in the "significant period" infobox section of the Yandilla article. Again, easily fixable if it can't be automated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments on the current versions:
  • The reference ("[1]") for the location appears before the coords, but it should be after the coords. The reference appears with both the title and the info box copies of the coords, but it should probably only be in the info box.
  • There are still some capitalisation issues, eg:
    • (infobox Type) "State Heritage (Built, Landscape)" should be "State heritage (built, landscape)"
    • (Design period) "1840s - 1860s Mid-19th century)" should be "1840s - 1860s mid-19th century", possibly with a comma
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Both versions of User:Kerry Raymond/sandbox/All Saints Anglican Church, Yandilla have a bad wikilink for 'Moore' (person vs place). I would include the date of listing in the lede. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the Heritage listing section and criteria. Their inclusion has been justified on the basic of notability. Considering that notability should be established in the lead wouldn't it be better to reduce why each criteria is met into a sentence or sentence fragment and use them as a second paragraph in the lead? So for Acland No. 2 Colliery it might read "The site was listed on the Queensland Heritage Register because it demonstrates the evolution of Queensland's coal mining industry, has a high degree of intactness as an early small underground coalmine and demonstrates the principal characteristics of small underground coalmines of the early to mid-20th Century." - Shiftchange (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Not a fan of this. To use the examples here, the Jondaryan and Acland articles both map out the significance of the places in considerable detail, important pieces of which would be lost if we took this approach. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, once more with feeling:

I believe I have now addressed the remaining concerns (to the extent that I think is possible). Details below:

  • Jondaryan Station is the alternate name for Jondaryan Woolshed. That factoid comes from the QHR itself. I am just passing on the information.
  • subheadings present in the Acland entry. It is not generally possible to distinguish a heading from a short paragraph (the QHR has both), so it is not possible to automatically add in the syntax for subheadings. However, the generator software reports the presence of short paras to me, so I will be aware that subheadings may be present and can correct them manually if required. I have a number of these little warning messages to alert me to anything "unexpected" in the input data that may require manual attention.
  • I have fixed the presentation of the significant period and the design period in the infobox; both in terms of capitalisation and formatting. They should present better now but of course on particular screen widths they may not break nicely (that's a general problem with infoboxes).
  • The presence of reference [1] in the geo-coords in the title. I have experimented with all permutations and combinations and I have concluded that the designers of the infobox did not consider the possibility of providing a citation for the geo-coordinates and therefore didn't handle this well. I gave up and replaced the citation in the infobox with additional information in the attribution (the geo-coords are generated from the QHR Shapefile acquired under CC-BY license).
  • I have added the date of listing on the heritage register to the lede para.
  • The bad link in the Yandilla articles are fixed. This is the main error that the automatic link generator suffers from, finding a place name inside a person's name. For example, we have the towns of Gerard, Howard and Moore in Queensland, but all of these can be part of people's names. My generator cannot tell people from places. So if it sees "Howard Town Hall", it will be keen to link Howard to the place which is OK, but if it sees "Howard John Hall" it will be just as keen to link to the place which is not OK. Of course, if there was article called "Howard Town Hall" or "Howard John Hall", it would always prefer to link to those articles (it favours multi-word links over single word links, which is almost always correct). Wikifying is a "dark art"; it will not be perfect, but if people report any of these people/place confusions to me, I will instruct the generator that this name is too ambiguous to link to in the generation of further articles.
  • Re: criteria. The QHR input is sequenced History, Description, Criteria. To alter that order runs the risk of foward referencing (disussing something before it's been properly introduced). I would prefer to maintain the original sequence of presentation for that reason. The lede's notability claim is its inclusion in the Queensland Heritage Register. The final section provides the detail to back up that claim. I think that's OK as is.
  • Finally, double quotes. I said I could not do it, but I have. However, I have taken a somewhat conservative approach to the task but nonetheless it appears to be correctly replacing *most* (but not all) single quotes with double quotes in appropriate circumstances. However, the generator backs away if it sees too many single quotes in close proximity in a single paragraph as it cannot decide what is the right thing to do. So text like 'The Good Ol' Boys' Grocery Store' is the kind of thing it leaves for a human to deal with.
  • As I have previously said, automatic generation isn't perfect, but I think it is producing articles at least as well as average human editors could (the readers of this noticeboard being in the category of above-average editors to which the generator bows its head in deep respect).Kerry (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This all sounds pretty fair. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to get started at this point, and I'm looking forward to helping out! The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The presence of reference [1] in the geo-coords in the title. ...
Try using coordinates={{coord}} in the infobox. It worked for me in Canberra Centenary Column. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
No joy. Take a look at the Yandilla church where I manually experimented. I get no coords displayed at all and no map. Although 'coordinates' is one of the fields of the Template:Infobox historic site according to its documentation, when I look at the template code, what I see is the construction of a Coord template using the infobox fields like latitude, longitude, coord_params etc but making no use whatsoever of the coordinates field. I don't pretend to be an expert in template writing (who designed the syntax?! ugh!) but I think we are seeing a bug, a deficiency, or a documentation error in relation to this template. If the location citation is placed on any of the template fields that the template does use, it gets hoovered up inside the body of the coord template in an inappropriate place which explains its strange appearance both inline and in the title. The template writers do not appear to have considered the possibility that coords would have a citation. Indeed, I would go far as to say that most citations in infoboxes work "by accident" rather than "by design". That is, the field with the citation is simply rendered as presented and so the citation survives. However, when the template fiddles with the fields (in this case to construct the coord template), the citation is likely to end up where it doesn't belong. Kerry (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of this problem is at Template talk:Infobox historic site#Coordinates. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, given I previously had not response from that project in relation to another matter, I had thought it was probably moribund, so I was pleasantly surprised at the rapid response to my question about the coord parameters. I just need some spare time to test their changes, but I think the signs are positive. Kerry (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I am starting to roll out the first few. See Jondaryan Woolshed as the first one. If you have hidden categories displayed, you will see that the articles will be rolled out in the Category:Articles incorporating text from the Queensland Heritage Register (please review) which is a subcategory of Category:Articles incorporating text from the Queensland Heritage Register. So if you want to assist, please bookmark the "please review" category where you will see those articles needing a "second set of eyes" (obviously I will look at them, but I may have passed the stage of being able to see my own mistakes). If you don't see anything terrible, please move the article into the parent category (without "please review"). If you do see something terrible, talk to me. Finally, thank you for all the feedback I have received. And a very big thank you to those who have offered to do reviewing. Kerry (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this is awesome. I can't believe I was away from the noticeboard so long that I almost missed it. Fantastic work User:Kerry Raymond. --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:PM (ABC Radio)[edit]

Page move is proposed; join in discussion before it closes. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - it is a pity a literate australian didnt go there - the rename is not what it is known by, and is wrong, in effect. satusuro 08:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason a new discussion can't be opened. As a result of this, AM (ABC Radio) has been moved to AM (Australian radio series), which is also wrong. --AussieLegend () 11:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me for being dense, but what's wrong with it? Frickeg (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Neither programme is a radio series. --AussieLegend () 13:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
US centric editors get nervous about the use of ABC lest it get confused with their similar media name/acronym of ABC, AM (ABC Radio) Australia might be a possible variation, I dont know. satusuro 13:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
As evidenced by @Peterkingiron:'s (perfectly reasonable) comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_30#Category:Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation_television - more comments as to if/how/which way we should merge are, of course, welcome there. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How about (radio program) then? Frickeg (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Serial IP vandal returns[edit]

Our serial IP vandal Special:Contributions/58.174.148.126 is back with a new IP address Special:Contributions/58.161.227.114 but doing the same old edits on Oxley, Queensland deleting the adjacent suburb of Inala etc. Kerry (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again. Euryalus (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lorenzo Fillipe IV ... well known Lando Calrissian impersonator[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Editors' comments are requested on whether "Lorenzo Fillipe IV ... well known Lando Calrissian impersonator" ought to be mentioned on Bundanoon, New South Wales. Discussion at Talk:Bundanoon, New South Wales#Lando Calrissian impersonator. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Code (ABC)[edit]

Kind of off-topic question: Have viewers of The Code on ABC noticed references to a Wikipedia-like website called Cypedia? In an episode a few weeks ago, a character vandalised a page about an Australian government department, waited for it to be reverted, then (assuming the reversion was done by the government department themselves) used the IP of the editor to break into the systems of that department. In last night’s episode, another character uses it to look up information on a chemical compound. Just curious - I’m assuming they just decided to go with a fictional name and didn't think that actually asking WMF if the name could be used was worth their time! -- Chuq (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed it. I've no idea why they did it - perhaps someone thought that "cypedia" sounded more "technical" (eg from cyber). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It would almost certainly link to a concern about either misuse of trade mark or presenting Wikipedia in a negative light leading to complaints. Generally it's easier to pick a fake name (but close enough so everyone knows what you are talking about) and avoid the hassles. This behaviour gets parodied on Top Gear frequently when they talk about the Interweb and FaceTube. Kerry (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Plus any conversation that starts with "I guess our lawyers will have to talk to your lawyers" signals the start of a long-running and expensive activity that usually ends nowhere useful for anybody. Kerry (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It's the ABC, perhaps they can't mention specific products and services? Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Given how often they promote Facebook and Twitter by asking us to like them or follow them, and pop up hashtags in the middle of the program or put the stupid bird icon next to every news presenter's name.... (in blatant violation of section 31 of the ABC Act, which clearly says "The Corporation shall not broadcast advertisements ..." ... Grrr, must be about time for me to send them another complaint), I doubt that mentioning Wikipedia would be a problem. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Big Bash[edit]

For all you Big Bash League fans out there, I have created userboxes and user categories for you! The userboxes will automatically list you in the category. The user boxes are listed here but for your convenience I'll put them here:

Code Result
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Adelaide Strikers}}
AS This user is a fan of the Adelaide Strikers
Transclusions
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Brisbane Heat}}
BH This user is a fan of the Brisbane Heat
Transclusions
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Hobart Hurricanes}}
HH This user is a fan of the Hobart Hurricanes
Transclusions
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Melbourne Renegades}}
MR This user is a fan of the Melbourne Renegades
Transclusions
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Melbourne Stars}}
MS This user is a fan of the Melbourne Stars
Transclusions
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Perth Scorchers}}
PS This user is a fan of the Perth Scorchers
Transclusions
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Sydney Sixers}}
SS This user is a fan of the Sydney Sixers
Transclusions
 {{User:NickGibson3900/UBX/Sydney Thunder}}
ST This user is a fan of the Sydney Thunder
Transclusions

If you don't want a userbox, you can choose a category from Category:Wikipedian Big Bash League fans if you support a team, or, if you just enjoy the league, put [[Category:Wikipedian Big Bash League fans]] on your userpage. - NickGibson3900 Talk 08:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame, as a Heat fan, that their colour is too eye-meltingly bright to be displayed in all it's glory on a computer screen! Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikibomb (Sydney University) is armed for detonation[edit]

The University of Sydney is hosting a gender diversity editathon on Friday October 31st about women currently or historically connected with the university. The project page is at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University of Sydney Wikibomb. Any Wikipedians who can attend on the day would be much appreciated (sign up now!) to help train newcomers. If you would like to contribute online (sign up now!), pick a subject and start your research. 10, 9, 8, 7... --99of9 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)