Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Australian Wikipedians' notice board

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

Discussion

Start New

Archives

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 This noticeboard is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Archive 36. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Wikimedians to the Games

This thread has been moved to a sub-page due to size. Please also see outreach:HOPAU/W2G for further information.

Australian Dictionary of Biography

Is there a consensus that people in the Australian Dictionary of Biography are notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles? Is there any work underway to see these done? Should there be? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about a consensus but the existence of an ADB article is prima facie evidence of the topic's ability to comfortably satisfy WP:GNG, surely? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Yes, I would like to see a list started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, and would potentially contribute to it. --99of9 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is this list - Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Despite the name, this list relates to the Dictionary of Australian Biography. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Dictionary of Australian Biography to minimize confusion. --99of9 (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep being in either the Dictionary of Australian Biography or the Australian Dictionary of Biography and we have template if your citing either source {{Dictionary of Australian Biography}} {{Australian Dictionary of Biography}} Gnangarra 00:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. I've made a To-Do list for the ADB: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography. Be warned, it's long! --99of9 (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Great work 99of9. Moondyne (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone who has experience with templates please add options to Template:Dictionary of Australian Biography to allow it to take the entry author as well as the overall encyclopedia editor? Something like Template:DNZB does. Also having a gutenburg URL in the documentation must be confusing for new users. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've found Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography which is the template I should be using includes these. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Stuart you realise that DAB is a different work to ADB thats why the templates are different.. Gnangarra 01:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I have traced my confusion to the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography, which was my starting point. I've fixed that. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My script is done and capable of generating stubs such as Gertrude Mary Zichy-Woinarski. Feedback welcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks good and appears to be accurate, however I don't think the red links in the see also section are encouraged. The retrieved date for references should probably by in the "day month year" format. You could add a link to Portal Australia or a state or territory if appropriate. The discussion pages will need the Australian and Biography banners which probably can't be scripted because of assessing importance. It could be useful for making biographical stubs, if that is your thing. Personally I don't want to create a new article until I have done the extra work to push it pass the stub threshold. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(a) The red links are to other biographies in the ADB; they shouldn't be red by the time I've finished. They may point to disambiguation pages, however. (b) for the DNZB I added them all as low/stub and haven't had any complaints. (c) fixed date order. (d) I'll have a crack at portal links, they're not something I've ever done before. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jenks24 pointed out here that the authorlink option to the template is broken; I'll pause for a bit to see whether that gets sorted. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of determining the gender? --99of9 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No ways that I can think of; ADB doesn't appear to expose gender. We can't really blame them since WP don't expose it systematically either. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Word count " he " vs " she "? That would be right more often than not, and correcting a few percent is much easier than correcting every article's "it". --99of9 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I pondered that, but there are some people who are primarily known for their interaction with people of the opposite gender, making " he " and " she " unreliable. My current text is clumsy but correct; I'm loath to turn my back on correctness. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can/should I copy across a couple of sources from the entries? There's no technical reason I can't, but I'm not sure about copyright considerations. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd advise against it. I am already concerned you might cut close to database rights. But IANAL. --99of9 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Another minor issue. --99of9 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And another. --99of9 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've run across a few entries such as [1] which are actually entries for a pair of people. I'm going to assume that the primary individual counts as notable and the other doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to change my mind about this. There are about 10 of the 23 names in [Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography/Z Z] appear in double articles. All the required metadata is exposed. I may as well do both individuals in the double articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is reasonable. Some of them may turn out to be non-notable, but since they're specificially included as a joint subject in a dictionary of biography, they've got a reasonable shot at passing. --99of9 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how kind Google is to Wikipedia. Our Josephine stub already outranks the ADB entry! --99of9 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This often happens with new articles, but I notice that it's sorted itself out now. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now done [Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography/Z Z] and [Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography/Y Y] and tweaked my script based on feedback. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should wait until the redlinks are checked. Otherwise you might be creating duplicate articles of articles that exist at a different name. Also, the article names won't meet our naming conventions. Should we fix them afterward or before creation? --99of9 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that both of these are actually easier to fix after creation. I've made some changes (such as the removal of 'Sir') and moved a handful of newly created ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Dictionary_of_New_Zealand_Biography_as_an_authority_for_notability relevant to this. The key question being whether people with DNZB entries (and by extension ADB entries) are automatically notable or can be assumed to be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at the William Zerner article. The article makes no claim to notability meaning someone could come along and speedy delete it. Hack (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they could. My previous script used the word 'notable' but I received negative feedback about that so I removed it. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't just a word in the article, it's the whole concept of notability. I think I agree that MOST people in ADB are notable by wiki standards, are we sure that all are? Also, in that Zerner article, it tries to link the author to the ADB website. It seems that the template thinks that that field is only for internal wikilinks, so you get an extra set of [ ] around the external link. The-Pope (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue with this example is that the template appears to be broken. The second link goes to the correct place. I've fixed my script so that new stubs don't have this problem. Stuartyeates (talk)

Is there an example where the authorlink field properly links to an external website? On the notability issue, I still think the Zerner article would struggle in terms of notability. There are only a couple of relatively trivial mentions on Trove. This may require a fair bit of offline research to prove notability. While the majority of entries will be notable I think it is dangerous to presume notability for all. Hack (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This project is looking great. I do want to ask, though - the ADB is intending to start adding biographies for people who died 1991-95 in the next few months; are the lists easily updatable in that event? (I believe the plan is to add them gradually to the database, but I might be wrong.) Frickeg (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The lists seem to be pretty uniform across Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles, so I assume that there's a tool for it somewhere. More of an issue is if they decide to 're-skin' the site, which will completely break my script. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No it won't be easy to add new names to the list, I just made the lists out of what was available on their site at the time. Hopefully somewhere they make a list of new articles that we can use as a source. --99of9 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a proposed list, but I have no idea how they intend to go about adding them, how comprehensive this list will end up being, and whether links will be made from the list as new people are entered. Frickeg (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Input required on CAMRA

CAMRA was the original name of the Campaign for Real Ale article, until it was moved in December 2005‎, and a redirect was left behind. In Feb this year a user created a disamb page, offering readers the choice of going to Campaign for Real Ale or Canberra Academy of Music and Related Arts. The redirect was restored under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and a hatnote placed on Campaign for Real Ale, pointing to Canberra Academy of Music and Related Arts. Another user has objected to the restoration of the redirect. Evidence was then provided of the high traffic to Campaign for Real Ale, and the low traffic to Canberra Academy of Music and Related Arts via CAMRA; evidence has also been provided for the high global visibility and recognition of the CAMRA acronym with the Campaign for Real Ale. Time has been provided for counter arguments and evidence. See discussion on Talk:CAMRA. The page is now somewhat unstable due to the dispute. Opinions and comments would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on Dingos in Australia

The following was posted to my talkpage a few hours ago:[2]

Hello, AussieLegend! I'm bringing this to your attention because I see that you made an edit to this article relatively recently.[3] I came across this article by random, and saw there was no taxobox. I then found this article, so I copied the taxobox from there and inserted it at the dingo article. It was reverted by two different editors, one who removed the taxobox from the dingo article just a couple of days ago, and the other who created the C. lupus dingo article. It turns out that this taxobox was originally on the dingo article, was copied over to the other article, and now these two want the taxobox removed from the dingo article. Confusing, isn't it? I don't think these two are correct in removing a taxobox that has been on the dingo article since 2003 for their relatively recently created article - what say you? Doc talk 19:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article history shows that Dingo contained a taxobox until this edit on 21 February 2012. I'm not sure I'm convinced that there shouldn't be a taxobox in Dingo just because there's one in Canis lupus dingo. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Dingo#Taxobox where editors may wish to comment. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do join those discussions, but please don't see or depict anyone as "attacking dingoes". We're just trying Wikipedians. Please strike that through, if not rename the section. Chrisrus (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on Dingos in Australia is a local "in-joke". --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

First Fleet

The discussion at Talk:First Fleet#Requested move may be of interest to perusers of this noticeboard. Of course, the discussion is not a vote. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim Dalton

Current BLP discussion regarding article on ABC's Director of Television - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kim Dalton. Dl2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Open Australia

I've just come across the openaustralia.org website. I'm just wondering what others opinions are on it. Is it a reliable source? Thanks. ClaretAsh 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

we have a noticeboard that deals with source reliability WP:RS/N. This source is unlikely to be reliable for many (if any) uses. The about page lacks any indicator of editorial principles, articles do not cite content, it appears to be an amateurly administerd semi-open wiki. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from allowing comments from readers, openaustralia.org doesn't do much editorialising. Modelled on theyworkforyou.com (see TheyWorkForYou. Its a useful source for some basic info on members, notably including a scan of each members' Registrable Interests declaration - eg. [4]. Moondyne (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at reliable source and the concept of "fact checking." The absence of a public editorial policy is a heavy mark against them. They also don't have any of the signs of an archive. Compare and contrast to National Archives Australia or APH's actual Hansard, both of which have reputations for reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This last point is, to me, key. I can't see many reasons why you would need to cite OpenAustralia, as opposed to the official Hansard, all of which is available in some form online. OpenAustralia might be useful in locating the exact Hansard you need, but actually looking up the real thing shouldn't be too difficult. The site's other main feature is the registers of interests, which, although sometimes interesting, I can hardly see us needing to cite too often - and if there's anything notable about it, presumably a news source would need to pick it up first anyway. Frickeg (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. At first glance, the site looks deceptively trustworthy so, when I came across it, I figured it won't be long before some inexperienced editors start using it as a source. Thanks again. ClaretAsh 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia training days in Hobart

Hi everyone, Wikimedia Australia is sponsoring two Wikipedia editing training days in Tasmania, run by Leigh Blackall - one in Hobart on Tuesday February 28th, and in Kingston on Wednesday February 29th.

WMAU has agreed to provide travel assistance (up to $100 per day) for regular Wikimedia contributors in Tasmania who want to assist with either of the workshops.

Volunteers should apply via email to contact@wikimedia.org.au, and only need to supply their username. Places are limited! -- Chuq (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just an update on this if anyone is interested - please see the original links and also User:Chuq/Training Feb2012 for details about the sessions. -- Chuq (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets hope it ends up with more long term active editors for the Tasmanian subject area! well done anyways SatuSuro 08:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, great work. The number of people who have signed up is impressive. There's lots to write about in Tassie! Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple categories nominated for speedy renaming

About 54 Australian categories have been nominated for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS. Some of the renames are reasonable but there is an inconsistency in the disambiguation used that requires some oversight by Australian editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mostly pretty good and worthwhile IMO. I have some small quibbles about the use of "the" in some places (i.e. The Pilbara, The Kimberley, The Hunter, The Northern Rivers) but only a local would be expected to understand such local peculiarities. Comment from Western Australians on the the Pilbara and Kimberley ones would be very useful. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of the issues with "the", or rather the lack thereof, stem from the American desire to destroy the English language abbreviate by not using "the". I had to work hard to get the article for The Buggles (of Video Killed the Radio Star fame) changed from just "Buggles" because they see this weird need to not use the word. "Category:Transport in the Hunter Region" seems more natural to me than "Category:Transport in Hunter Region", as it does with others that you've identified. Another issue I saw at these renames was use of "foo, state" vs "foo (state)" disambiguation. We should be consistent and some of the cats nominated don't seem to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is still after all these years something fundamentally wrong with the process in CFD where they are in their little world (usual suspects about 3 of them) change whole ranges of categories and have no inherent obligations beyond the category page itself to notify of their splitting infinitives or hairs SatuSuro 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

New cat

I was wondering whether editors are aware of Category:Living National Treasures of Australia, a new cat that was created yesterday. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And when they die do they become "Former Living etc..." or just get decategorised? Maias (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Observer effect (physics)

Observer effect (physics) was shown on Media Watch as a source, complete with clean up tags. Anyone want to take a crack at cleaning it up? --LauraHale (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

23 March Meetup in Canberra for Women's History Month

Details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/6. :) Anyone who would like to attend is more than welcome to. :) I'm stubbing out articles about softball players in preparation of this. They are linked on the bottom of my user page. They tie into the the goals I set for the Australian sport Wikiproject:

• Wikiproject Australia sport

• Bring articles Australian women water polo to Good Article status. (11 currently nominated.)
• Create/update articles about current members of Australia women's national softball team that may compete at the Women's World Championships and nominate them all for DYK.

More details can be found on Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. --LauraHale (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth Parliamentary Library

I have nominated this redirect for deletion here. Someone thought that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library and the National Library of Australia are the same place. They are not. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Library is inside the Parliament House, Canberra, and is a reference library for the Parliament and the four Commonwealth Parliamentary Departments (one of which is the library itself). The National Library of Australia is in its own building in the Parliamentary Triangle a kilometre away. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just change the redirect to Parliament of Australia? Hack (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Or ... is the Library itself notable? Frickeg (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are now only three parliamentary departments; the library has been absorbed into the Department of Parliamentary Services. (see [5]) It is notable, being a government department, but the Parliament of Australia article does not mention it, and hence I did not think a redirect there was a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Who's Who in Australia

A question somewhat related to the ADB discussion above, but separate enough: does an entry in Who's Who in Australia constitute grounds for notability? I understand a number of other Who's Whos are essentially "pay-per-entry" jobs, but I think we all know this isn't one. Our article says: "People are included if they have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level. They are people who have built a positive profile over time. There are no restrictions on age or sex and entrants need not be born in Australia. Each person’s nomination is considered on its merits alone and entry in the book cannot be paid for. The book is a snapshot of Australian society at a particular point in time." The Who's Who lists is own criteria on its website.

My inclination is to say that they are notable, although further sources are of course desirable. The Who's Who can be a great starting point for a stub, though. Frickeg (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I've had a further look and the answer is a definite no; there are some people in there who couldn't sustain an article. A good starting point and no more, I think. Frickeg (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Green Left Weekly

This article could use some extra watching as it seems to have attracted a recent round of IP POV-pushing edits. Dl2000 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)