Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scouting in Australia

I am also involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. There is an article on Scouts Australia with a template that links to possible articles such as Scouting in Victoria for all States and Territories. Would anyone care to give a hand writing these? Please see Talk:Scouts Australia before starting an article. --Bduke 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now a stub "Scouting in X" where X is a State or Territory. They need more detail particularly on the history of Scouting. Most, but not all, Branch web sites have little or no sense of history. --Bduke 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian States and Territories move

The article on Australian States and Territories has been moved to States and territories of Australia (without prior discussion). Comments on how to procede (ie, whether to move back, or rearrange categories etc) are requested. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad move, but you may want to ask the movee, to fix all the pages that now need to be changed to avoid redirects.--nixie 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it either, but it could have been approached much better.--cj | talk 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
much better? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
as the movee I would like to ask why the movee can fix the redirects better than someone involved in Australian articles? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not about being better. It's a matter of courtesy: if you move an article linked to by hundreds of other articles, it's polite to do at least some of the hard work of updating links yourself. As for the new title, I quite like it. --bainer (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
mmmh. I don't see that such action is impolite. And I have to say I find it a little impolite to demand such stuff. I often move pages to bring consistency to WP. I fix double redirects and often look for templates that can be adjusted. You know what makes me additional kind of feel impolite treated in this case? The linking was not coherent before. Some of you now demand something that did not exist. Anyway thanks for saying that you like the naming. And special thanks to User:E Pluribus Anthony who just came around to say "thank you for the move" and not demanding additional work. We are all working together - so it doesn't matter who does what. In this case it might have even faster if not I would search for the templates but someone more involved with AU would have done it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has been impolite towards you nor has anyone demanded anything of you. What was suggested, however, is that with prior discussion things such as links and categories could have been amended correspondingly and expeditiously. It's a long-standing editing practice to correct links when one moves a page, but not strictly required - so long as redirects are point appropriately, then everything should be fine.--cj | talk 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

quote you may ask the movee, to fix all the pages that now need to be changed to avoid redirects ... fix ALL, while there was no state of non-redirects before. I find this quite demanding and you blow the same horn with "it is long-standing editing practice". What logic is this? It has been long standing practice to read encyclopedias on paper. Maybe you stick to this and turn of your computer? And as far as "expeditiously" is concerned:

  • i don't see the big damage if for some hours there exist new redirects. And if there is such a big damage, I wonder how you have slept with the redirects that existed before for much longer time. BTW how much did YOU fix during the last 24h? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since 11 July 2003 Australian states and territories exists as redirect. [1]

For all the Australian demanders, and redirect-fix-focused people an excerpt from Special:Whatlinkshere/States_and_territories_of_Australia as of now is posted below Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

...list of 50 or so articles that link to Australian states and territories (redirect page) deleted by Commander Keane [2] - I am fine with the deletion Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll get a bot to fix them, if people feel so passionately about it.--Commander Keane 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thx for helping them and Wikipedia :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, so now nothing links to Australian States and Territories, is that all you wanted the bot to do?--Commander Keane 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
wrong:
Special:Whatlinkshere/Australian_States_and_Territories - has links to it
Special:Whatlinkshere/Australian_states_and_territories - has no links to it
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I think I have sorted them both out now.--Commander Keane 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Category: Australian radio programs

  • User:Grutness has contacted me on my talk page to ask whether the Category:Australian radio programs should be renamed as Category:Australian radio programmes. My advice for what it is worth is that programmes is the more traditional spelling but programs is the more common. However, I promised that I would post something here so that others can have their say. Capitalistroadster 09:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I was taught "programmes" as a young(er)ster, and a recent survey of that portion of my library by Australian authors (hey, I was bored) showed that in books even as old as ten years ago, "programme" is more common. However, "program" is catching on in a big way; two examples, The Canberra Times has standardised on "program" as its preferred spelling for both computer programs and any other sort of programmes, and the ACT Government has set up a "Helpshop Program" for shopping centres in Canberra. It won't be long before everyone — except for a few hangers-on who like to be perverse — says "program". Durnit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • John Winston Howard prefers "programme", whereas the Australian Government 'Style Manual' suggested standardising on "program" (at least last time I looked). I prefer the non-frenchified version (following Fowler) -- Paul foord 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Style: A guide for journalists (the News Limited Style Guide) says to use "program". Sarah Ewart 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • if this falls into Category:Categories by country it should IMO better use "Radio program(me)s in/of Australia". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to use programme, partly because that is what I was taught in school (and I'm not that old - I'm 27), and partly because I tend to be resistent towards adopting American spelling simply because News Corp and others think it might be easier. We haven't changed harbour to harbor and colour to colour. Adopting program instead of programme simply creates confusion in terms of what is and what isn't Australian spelling. (btw, does anybody know what the babel tempalte is for Australian English?) -- Adz|talk 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • From my experience, "program" has become dominant in the newsprint medium (thanks, as someone said, to News Corp) while the traditional "programme" is prevalent elsewhere. I was taught "programme" at school also, and I graduated from secondary school only a year or so ago, so I don't think "program" can be said to have displaced "programme".--cj | talk 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ABC and SBS use "program" (as do most of the radio station sites I checked). --Canley 10:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If the wording is ambiguous and both are acceptably correct, use the spelling the original creator used. This is pretty much standard Wikipedia policy. Dysprosia 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's different when the more appropriate spelling is obvious, though: on American articles, for instance, I always (if I remember) misspell "colour". And suchlike. For articles related to Australian topics, it's usually pretty obvious: -ise instead of -ize, colour instead of color, herbs instead of erbs (cough) ... it would be nice to be able to standardise on one spelling of "program(me)" across Australian articles in a similar manner. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I was taught "programme" as well, just like "gaol" instead of the American "jail" - Ianblair23 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the Macquarie Dictionary? What does it say? enochlau (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Second Revision (1987) has program, with "Also. programme" at the end. And hte computer-related definitions are numbers 7 and 8. --Scott Davis Talk 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, so program is the primary listing? I'd be tempted to follow what the Macquarie Dictionary says, and leave it at program then... enochlau (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to follow the Macquarie as well, although I am disapointed. :-( -- Adz|talk 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Radio programs of Australia" or "Radio programs in Australia" ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-30/Congressional astroturfing

The lastest issue of the signpost contains an Australian reference at the end of the article on Congressional astroturfing.--A Y Arktos 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo deletions

Many of User Tannin's photos are up for deletion. He has been a wikipedian since 2002 and many of them were uploaded before the tagging became mandatory. He has not been active since last September, his only 2 wikipedia forays being to revert attempts by other users to retag images. I do not believe he has read his talk page. This is an example of right process wrong outcome, not helped by the prickliness of Tannin. Could some wikipedian who knows him perhaps intervene by emailing him and seeking direction on approproiate retagging? Or something! See User talk:Tannin for more info on this. There are many many articles, particularly Australian ones that will be worse off for these deletions. He has uploaded I believe over 100 images.--A Y Arktos 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Tannin was not in favor of tagging all his images as GFDL since he did not want them re-used by commerical outlets, most of them are licenced under a non-commerical licences, which are as of May 2005, supposed to be phased out as possible. Its unfortunate that lots of images he uploaded will be deleted, but since they are not GFDL compatible and he isn't willing to change the licences (at least the last time I asked anyway) they will get deleted at some point. The commons has quite alot of images that could be used as replacements, we also have quite a lot of Australian photographers that could make replacements if we keep track of the articles that need replacement images.--nixie 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Images tagged as GFDL, were not tagged by him, and I'm guessing that those tags are wrong given my previous interaction with him.--nixie 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA Candidates?

Is it the done thing to report Australian Wikipedians going for RfA here? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ben. In the past when someone was up it was just mentioned in the discussion section. However I started its own section for it for my RfA in November last year. I feel it is important to let other Aussies know when one of us is up for adminship. Now that this board has been reformatted (which was long overdue), RfA announcements should go under "Other Candidates". We can never have enough Aussie admins. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup, when an Aussie's up, we want to know about it. They go to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements. Are there any Aussies up at the moment? We had a flurry through before the end of last year. --cj | talk 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think an RFA is meant to involve gathering wide community consensus, any publicising amongst "sympathy groups" is unfair in my opinion and likely to distort the discussion. It should be frowned upon just as RFA candidates writing to all their contacts asking for a "vote" is frowned up. (I'm not singling you guys out by the way, I came here as part of a survey to see if other noticeboards advertise RFAs as Singapore does. So, clearly some do - and some don't). --kingboyk 11:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Announcing Australian RFA candidates here is not about getting more support - it is about ensuring that the editors most likely to have encountered the candidate are aware that he/she is nominated. The choice of whether to vote, and which way is still up to individuals (and I have voted both ways on people listed here). --Scott Davis Talk 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Scott Davis. I hope we can keep them here, because they're useful. They don't mean that every editor here will go and vote for a candidate. I'd like to see any evidence at all that RfAs being posted here has led to a "pile-on" in any single RfA. AFAIK IRC is worse for this than genial noticeboards like ourselves. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
What they said. As we've often worked with the candidates at length, we're mostly in a better position to judge their suitability for adminship than some random passerby to RfA who just flicks through their last 100 edits. Ambi 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Ambi. I only get involved with RfA if I have come across the candidate. I therefore need to know if they have nominated from the Project pages of Projects I support. --Bduke 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Because no other Aussies have noticed yet, DaGizza is currently up for adminship.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup - Sunday

Just a quick note that there is a Sydney Meetup on this weekend. We are at meeting at the Town Hall steps, 11:30 AM, on Sunday 5th Feb 2006, with a view to having a Yum Cha lunch. If you're in Sydney, please come along! And if you are a Sydney Wikipedian, please add [[Category:Wikipedians in Sydney|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] to your user page, as it makes you easier to contact for invites to future meetups. Look forward to seeing you there! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The quick list of Sydney tasks has now been updated based on the meetup, and is shown below (apologies to the people outside of NSW) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here are some open WikiProject Sydney tasks:
Missing: Sydney Wildlife World (new zoo), Cumberland Plain, Australian Major League Baseball,

North Sydney Institute of TAFE, Hornsby Plateau,
Wayne Cooper, Fairfield Hospital, Sydney Children's Hospital,
Mona Vale Hospital, Manly Hospital, Mortlake Punt / Mortlake Ferry,
Chipping Norton Lakes, Appin.

Missing Roads: Henry Lawson Drive, Heathcote Road, Bathurst Street,
New South Head Road, Druitt Street
State Politics: Expand Parliament of New South Wales (e.g. a few photos could be good).
  • Past members timelines moved into each electoral district's talk page. A-G have been merged into the article resolving differences. See each article under Category:Electoral districts of New South Wales.
  • Stub past members pages of past members listed in existing electoral district timelibes have all been created. There are still the past electoral districts and past members of those districts, but there are too many of them to tackle at this stage. The next step here is to make sure that all links to past members are valid, disambiguation templates, and redirection to more commonly used names.
Expansion: Steps needed for getting Sydney to Featured Article status.
The list of local suburban Sydney newspapers may be missing some.

Georges River articles: Woronora River, Cabramatta Creek, Prospect Creek, Salt Pan Creek.
King Georges Road, Anzac Parade

Cleanup LGAs: Removing suburb redlinks from these councils: Lane Cove, Manly, North Sydney,
Parramatta, Pittwater and Pittwater list.
Education: Missing NSW Government Selective Schools (what they are, how they work);
Expansion of UWS, ACU, UTS, UNSW, Macquarie, Usyd articles (in roughly that order).
Rail: The railway stations need photos!!! Please help - List of CityRail railway stations- if you can even
provide a photo of your local station that would be helpful - ones that need photos are here. Also, CityRail needs expansion - this
could be a great featured article in the future with a bit of work.
Edit or discuss this list.
Just for the record, Parliament of New South Wales does already have its own article. Ambi 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - Live and learn! I've updated the Sydney tasks accordingly. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Shooting ranges in Australia

A quick note to ask for inputs for a new article branching off Shooting range. Specific countries are now addressed in this top level article, with inputs needed for several countries, including Australia. Thanks! Yaf 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the "Shooting Ranges In..." articles will quickly note, there is not much discussion of Shooting RANGES - mainly SHOOTING in that country. I would be very interested in a page showing how Australian shooting ranges are DIFFERENT to SHOOTING RANGES in the other countries - but I think they are all designed off pretty much the same international standards... Garrie 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian copyright

Are works from the Australian government public domain? The specific site I'm looking at is, [[3]]. Thanks. Gflores Talk 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Australian Government works are not public domain. The link in the footer takes you to this page which is quite explicit on the subject of copyright with respect to pages produced by the Australian Antarctic Division, similar conditions would apply to all Australian Government websites.--A Y Arktos 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Australian Govt is nowhere near as enlightened as the US govt as regards copyright, unfortunately. E.g. the idea that public paid for it, so the public should own it (which means public domain) seems to have not twigged. So, we're sometimes stuck with the perverse situation of having to sometimes get US govt data (e.g. NASA photos of Australia), and use those, instead of using similar material from Australian govt sources. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthering the discussion at the Sydney Meetup, [4] discusses copyright on NSW legislation. Section 2 seems to permit republication, although I'm concerned about 2 a). Although the GFDL allows the author to retain copyright on the work, this strictly speaking is not a "free" license. Furthermore, 2 e) prevents modification of the work. Is this then publishable on wikisource? enochlau (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(IANAL, JALS) That seems roughly equivalent to CC-ND, which is not a compatible license for our purposes. --bainer (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm seems like Wikisource has different rules to Wikipedia. This was their response: [5]. From a Wikipedia point of view, how much use do you think it will be if we dump Australian legislation onto Wikisource? Is it worth a try? enochlau (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
While we could, I'm inclined to think dumping legislation onto Wikisource is a Bad Idea. Legislation is constantly changing - unlike, say, treaties, or Jane Austen novels, anyone reading it really needs to know that what they're reading is very up to date. While I have no particular objection to caselaw ending up there, as the text does not change (even if a bit unnecessary with the definite accurateness of Austlii around), putting statutes on Wikisource opens up a needless minefield. Ambi 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You do have a point there - it would be quite hard to keep up with the changes. However, the case law sounds like a good idea, to accompany our case articles. Actually, it might be useful to store on Wikisource old, repealled pieces of legislation that are important historically but are otherwise unavailable online (Austlii only goes so far back); that would involve scanning the typed up versions, which will take up truckloads of time that I don't think many of us have. enochlau (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Putting legislation up would also be redundant, since it's all available through AustLII or ComLaw (or State equivalents) for free. I should check out what copyrights are on judgments, they may not be usable. --bainer (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ACOTF

I'm looking at rolling over the Australian collaboration. Are people here happy that the winner is It's Time which has already received a major start before it gets selected? Running second is Order of Australia which is also a fair starting size. --Scott Davis Talk 10:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Convictism in Australia was ACOTF from 22 January 2005 to 5 February 2005

--Scott Davis Talk 10:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Time has been selected. --Scott Davis Talk 11:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Map for I've been everywhere

I wonder if there is a keen map maker who would like to help make a map for all the places listed in the song I've Been Everywhere? I fully appreciate that most people would rather be working on more worthy and serious projects. It seems that the list is rather biassed though to Queensland and New South Wales and perhaps this would best be illustrated by a map. I am happy to help with coordinates for the places. I am sure I will learn some geography on the way. --A Y Arktos 10:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Winter Olympics/Commonwealth Games

Hi everyone, just thought I'd let you know about User:ben.carbonaro who is an aspiring journalist that is willing to add some information on the Winter Olympics and perhaps the Commonwealth Games. He is also passionate about netball, so if anyone is willing to collaborate, he's your man. Rogerthat Talk 12:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, Rogerthat.

I am an aspiring sports journalist and have written about/reported on various sports including AFL football, cricket, swimming, basketball and netball.

My main sport that I write about is netball, especially the Commonwealth Bank Trophy (National Netball League) and any international Test played by Australia here in Melbourne.

As Rogerthat said, I am would like to contribute some articles about the Winter Olympics as they happen in Torino and also some historical pieces as well.

Do we have any other aspiriing sports journalists here?

Ben.carbonaro 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, Ben Carbonaro's user page is somewhat controversial. given that Rogerthat wrote most of it in the third person on Ben's behalf, you might want to be careful - just in case you could be pinged for making personal attacks. I've been working on bios of Australian Olympic medal winning swimmers by the way, if you're interested.Blnguyen 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That's all in good humour, I set alot of it up but many "anons" added some of the more controversial attacks. But ben is fine with it. Rogerthat Talk 07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am fine with that as it is all a bit of fun. Ben.carbonaro 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC channel #wikimedia-au

#wikimedia-au is running on Freenode. That's irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-au . Come one, come all! - David Gerard 22:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To all those interested in setting up Wikimedia Australia, I thought we should set up a channel so we can have some coordinated discussion despite people being spread across different ends of the continent. People who don't have access to IRC, it's pretty easy to get, just ask if you want some help. It would be good to have a meeting sometime soon, to discuss some of the issues about the chapter's first steps. --bainer (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
When are people free? I suggest the coming Sunday night. See meta:IRC for instructions on how to join. enochlau (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest a good IRC howto/primer. Never having used it before it seems a little arcane in it's user interface. ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Try irchelp.org, it lists many primers and tutorials. --bainer (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject spam links?

There seems to be an effort to modify stub tags to rid them of references to wikiprojects. In particular the Canberra wikiproject stubtags have been modified several times recently by Users Freakofnurture, Jerzy, and Carnildo. They have not discussed their edits prior to making them. They have not referred to any policy or guideline. Their edits refer to "wikispam".

There has been some attempt to have a discussion at Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Canberra#template edit. The discussion would appear to support such footers as per Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices#How to attract contributors .28Advertise.21.29.--A Y Arktos 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Jerzy/WikiProj-soliciting stub templates and associated discussions at User_talk:Freakofnurture#Project-spam via stub tags, User_talk:Carnildo#Project-spam via stub tags shed some light that they are working together but not what guideline or policy they are following, nor where they sought or obtained concensus for their campaign. More discussion at User_talk:Jerzy#Comic stub templates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates#W-Proj refs in Stub tags, Template_talk:Marvel-Comics-stub--A Y Arktos 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we get in touch with these gentleman and suggest that they don't change stubs without discussing it with members of the relevant Wikiproject to build consensus?Capitalistroadster 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
All three are aware of the discussion at Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub, some of the activity dates from after that discussion and without reference to it.A Y Arktos 05:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I have asked User:Grutness for his feelings on this, as he seems to do a lot of work with stub templates, etc. --Martyman-(talk) 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
And after that introduction... :) There's not any hard and fast rule at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting about it, but there have been calls in the past to remove wikiproject links in stub templates, since they fall foul of the avoiding self-reference style guide. Then again, a stub template automatically refers back to wikipedia anyway. Links to wikiprojects from stub templates do annoy a lot of editors, though. Some wikiprojects compromise by having a link at the top of the stub category rather than in the stub template (I know that Category:Cricket stubs is one that does that). That might be a better way to go to stop any possible edit war (especially since edit-wars over the wording of heavily-used templates can be hard on the servers). If you want any more input from anyone at WP:WSS, feel fee to drop a note over at the WSS talk page - there are others there who would have more to say on this topic... Grutness...wha? 06:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Following the suggestion by Grutness, I have referred the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#WikiProject links in stub templates--A Y Arktos 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Oceania

I've put down some thoughts about this proposed portal at Portal talk:Oceania. Please come and comment.-gadfium 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Political biographies - any evidence of abnormal editing?

With the fuss over US congressional staff inappropriately editing congresscritters' biographies, has anybody seen any evidence of Australian politicians' articles being edited by parliamentary staffers? I haven't seen any such... --Robert Merkel 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • A recent issue of the signpost contains an Australian reference at the end of the article on Congressional astroturfing. I am unaware that the editor mentioned has made other than useful and impartial additions to the wikipedia. Some of his additions have been to articles on Australian politicians.--A Y Arktos 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Adam's contributions are above reproach. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • His contributions aren't always above reproach. But nobody's perfect. Andjam 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Heh, okay. His contributions have been very very good, and there is no evidence whatsoever that his boss has inappropriately influenced his writing. How's that? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, let me rephrase that; has anybody seen any inappropriate edits made by parliamentary staffers? Adam's contributions to Wikipedia have been outstanding. --Robert Merkel 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What are all the relevent IP addresses, Federal and State?--Commander Keane 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a few examples of this happening. Tony Simpson (WA state MP) appears to have been started by a staffer, and a new image was added to Mal Washer the other day by someone who looks like a staffer. The article on Andrew Brideson was briefly censored by someone who I have reason to believe may have been Brideson himself, and the IP traces back to the Victorian parliament. I have my suspicions, but no evidence, that some edits to Peter Collier were made similarly. There's also some that one does wonder about, such as the person who first wrote Victor Perton.

Finally, while he may not be a staffer or an MP, several of us have strong suspicions that a Victorian political figure who shall remain nameless is the Australian politics libel vandal. Ambi 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that this user? Agnte 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
this one, I think. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the Ross Lightfoot thing that happened a while ago, on Kerry Nettle, where a Canberra Telstra anonymous editor was repeatedly removing the "fuck off and die" allegation? It's not exactly definitive, though... Dysprosia 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not unless this counts -- Astrokey44|talk 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC meeting

As mentioned above, the proposed Wikimedia Australia now has an IRC channel, #wikimedia-au. It would be good to have a meeting sometime soon of Wikimedians interested in setting up the chapter, perhaps this Sunday evening? Logs will be posted for those who can't or don't use IRC. I think some real time discussion would be very useful. Please indicate below whether this time is good for you. (Wikinews people and others, please distribute this notice to Australian areas on other projects.) --bainer (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievably, I work Sunday evenings. But unless it is a bad time for a few other people, don't workaround for me. (Should these discussions be at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Australia now? If you're interested in the foundation of wm-au, I think you have to break down and get a meta: account sooner or later.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You need a job with irc access :) I'll see what I can do about popping in. -- Longhair 13:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Posted a note at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Australia#Meeting_on_IRC. enochlau (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Posted a note at n:Wikinews:Australian_discussion#Wikimedia Australia IRC meeting - Borofkin 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Have your say

Just noticed that someone has started a thread on WP:AFL on a footy site. This is a chance for promoting our project - have your say even if you hate football - CLIck here. Rogerthat Talk 03:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone reading this notice board really hate footy? C'mon!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Dale Begg-Smith

Gold medallist Dale Begg-Smith has been copping some vandalism in the form of innuendo about his IT career. He could well become the next Jimmy Wales. Andjam 14:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually have added a link to his IT company on his page.

Ben.carbonaro 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not vandalism - it is well-documented that he owns that IT organisation. Rogerthat Talk 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to project spring, or AdsCPM and CPM Media? Thanks, Andjam 04:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Project Spring. Rogerthat Talk 08:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
A google search didn't come up with anything. Do you have a citation? Thanks, Andjam 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yagan on the Main Page

Today's featured article is an Australian article, Yagan. Snottygobble 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

woot Australia. I am inordinately proud that Thorpdale, Victoria will also get to share the main page for a little while at least. DYK - Helping non-"Featured standard" editors reach the main page since ... uh... 2000 I suppose. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thats one of the best FA's i've ever read, informative, well-written. good work. Agnte 10:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin

rogerthat, a tireless contributor to aussie rules on this site, has a request for Admin ship up and running. I suggest you consider voting for him TheRealAntonius 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to support Rogerthat, who is a real asset to Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest, however, that you curtail some of your support, at least for the moment. Your enthusiasm is touching, but your ignorant and incivil attacks on other users at the RfA are doing Rogerthat's chances, as well as your own reputation, a great deal of harm. Please try to let matters run their course without further interference, for Rogerthat's sakes. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough mate, I read that page and it seems Rogerthat is also known for his temper...lol. TheRealAntonius 11:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mention of wikipedia

702 ABC Sydney segment "I don't get it" on Thursday night included people wondering why there's a "Sydney Harbour", and the host said that wikipedia isn't the final word, but the entry said Sydney Harbour is also used to describe Port Jackson. I can't quite remember his exact words, but it could be one of the first times a redirect has been mentioned in the media. Andjam 08:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hartz Mountains

Can someone have a look at Hartz Mountains -perhaps they should be a dab to Tasmaina/Germany?Rich Farmbrough. 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Caledon Bay crisis

Someone has out a NPOV flag on Caledon Bay crisis, with no explanation on the talk page. What is the general thinking about doing this? Paul foord 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree that there is a POV issue with it, and no explanation has been given, remove the tag. enochlau (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
While it's not polite to slap a NPOV without giving reasons why, I think the article has some NPOV problems. Andjam 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Umpire in Hewitt/Camplin tennis match ad

I've created a description of some of the Channel Seven ads for the Winter Olympics, including the ones featuring Steven Bradbury, and the one where Alisa Camplin plays "tennis" with Lleyton Hewitt.

Does anyone know who the umpire is in the "match"? Thanks, Andjam 09:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Alisa Camplin playing tennis with Grant Denyer dressed as Lleyton Hewitt, actually. The umpire is Bruce. --bainer (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Andjam 05:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sunday's IRC meeting

After discussion on meta (m:Talk:Wikimedia Australia#Meeting on IRC) and above, IRC meetings for all those interested in setting up an Australian chapter of the foundation will be held at 2pm AEDT (3am UTC) and 8pm AEDT (9am UTC). The channel is at #wikimedia-au, it can also be accessed through Wikicities' CGI interface at http://irc.wikicities.com/wp/ (thanks Angela!). Logs will also be posted for those who can't attend. --bainer (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A log of the first meeting is at meta:Wikimedia Australia/Meeting log 19 February 2006. Angela. 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tasmanian election

Paul Lennon has called the Tasmanian state election for mid-March, and our article on the election is pretty short. Any takers for expanding it? We've got a reasonable article on the coming South Australian election, which could serve as a bit of a guide if anyone is interested. Ambi 06:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Werribee Park

Werribee Park is on the TODO list, but is still a redlink. However Werribee Park Mansion does exist and mentions other things about the Park such as the Rose Garden. I suggest Werribee Park Mansion be moved to Werribee Park and expanded to give more information about everything there including the Rose Garden, Zoo, Equestrian Centre and so on. Does anyone object? --Bduke 07:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of the article for Werribee Park Mansion some three months ago, I say, "Go for it! Make it good!" --EuropracBHIT 08:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

I have made a start, moving Werribee Park Mansion to Werribee Park, adding material about the Rose Garden, the Equestian Centre and the Zoo. I'll add more latter. One question - I do not understand the reference to the Manor, a redlink. It is also seems that there is very liitle about Polo and matters Equestrian in Australia. Is this correct? This article needs some photographs and I'm not into electronic photography yet. Could anyone help? --Bduke 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian-related non-NPOV articles

G'day all. These are some Australian articles all have been slapped with a {{npov}} or similar recently. I've cleared out a some, theres a few left that others here may be more qualified to look at, so here goes. Agnte 23:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this list. I had a quick look at Nicky Winmar and I have now crossed him off the list. I would appreciate someone else having a look at it as well. It originally had a reference to his "exquisite skills" (not my wording) but now all reference to his skill level has been left out in the interests of getting the POV tag off...but...I can't help thinking that if we are talking about an exceptionally skilled player (confirmed by the Encyclopedia of AFL players), what is wrong with saying that the player was widely regarded as being extremely skilled? For someone who is rapidly getting up to 20,000 edits in a few wikipedias - I have to tell you - my observation is that often when someone whacks a POV charge on an article - it is often a case of the whacker being more POV than the whackee. In the AFL realm, non-AFL adherents are noticeably harsh and I am suspicious of their motivations. Sure, some of you will say: and deservedly so! However, a close inspection does not bear this out. For instance, in the Football talk page, a rugby diehard is trying to argue that Australian rules football should be called Victorian rules football - or that it shouldn't be described as an Australian game but as a Victorian game - it is the most inane, idiotic, POV argument I have ever heard. I guess Don Bradman isn't an Australian legend, he is a New South Welsh legend! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
what is wrong with saying that the player was widely regarded as being extremely skilled? I would say nothing, but if he was "widely regarded" as being so, it shouldn't be too hard to find just one specific instance of this to cite. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
on the talk page I quote from the Encyclopedia of AFL Players (which, incidentally, lists every player to have played VFL/AFL football since 1897, including games, goals and usually other autobiographical details like birthdate, birth place, from where recruited, career achievements, etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, if I raised eyebrows because I tagged a few of the AFL pages. I guess with cricket articles its easier because there are lots of individual stats, but in AFL this is obviously harder to quantify. However, it is probably improbable that players are extremely proficient at all areas, so it would probably be good to explain which areas were their relative strengths and weaknesses, lest it gives the reader the suspicion that the writer thinks that the player is immortal. If you think that perhaps I am being difficult, see Talk:Rahul Dravid, which was tagged in October. As for the quote, sports encyclopedias/history books aren't to the same standard as an encyclopedia. Some sports encyclopedias aren't really encyclopedias
  • As reward for his courageous effort, from 100 Great Australian Olympians
  • Some quotes from Wisden Cricinfo profiles have been cut and pasted onto cricket profiles, and subsequently booted off for POV not for copyvio

I think it is better to cite statistically and quote the pundit, rather than simply assert an 'encyclopedia' opinion as a 'fact'. Regards. Feel free to continue this on my talk page if it becomes a 1-1.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but for many players who played before the advent of advanced statistics (ie, before the mid-1990s), it is very hard to quantify the skills of particular players. I suppose you could quantify a full-forward's contribution to the team by the number of goals scored in a particular season, but apart from that it's hard to say without using anecdotal evidence. Rogerthat Talk 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have had a go at the Mr. Sheen article. It didn't really involve anything, just the deletion of two sentences, and one word from another sentence. If someone would like to have a look at it, and if it is NPOV, cross it off this list. --liquidGhoul 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

New Australian collaboration is Order of Australia

I forgot to roll over the ACOTF last night, but I've done it now.

It's Time was ACOTF from 5 February 2006 to 20 February 2006

  • about 16 contributors made about 60 edits
  • The article increased from 5.7 kb to 9.2 kb - 60% longer
  • See how it changed

--Scott Davis Talk 08:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tim Blair

Aussie blogger and Bulletin employee Tim Blair is currently a redlink, which has been deleted three times. Were any of the deleted versions legit articles that suffered vandalism? Thanks, Andjam 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Andjam, below is the text that was deleted:
Tim Blair is a right-wing Australian blogger and commentator who has based his work on political writer Gerard Henderson, but with much less success. He forms part of a small group of reactionary commentators, including Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt and Henderson, chiefly supported by News Corporation, seemingly devoted to imposing a right-wing social and political agenda on Australia and almost reflexively supporting the current Howard Government.
Blair was active in early 2006 in criticising left-wing cartoonist Michael Leunig, although in many ways Blair himself is a political mirror of Leunig's bizarre and extremist leftwing views.
Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There are obvious NPOV problems with this article but Blair is notable enough in my opinion given that he has been a columnist for the Australian and now the Bulletin for the past five years. Perhaps undeletion might be an option but not with that text. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • So just start from scratch? Andjam 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. Blair is notorious enough to deserve an entry. And, much as it pains me, he deserves a neutral, fair entry... :)--Robert Merkel 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • He was on Safran Sunday night as an example of a leftie gone right, as opposed to Robert Manne, a rightie gone left. Bit of a mismatch, I would've thought. :) But apparently he's also considered by some to be the closest thing to a "right-wing Phillip Adams". pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation of murderers

There is some concern about the categorisation of people as murderers and criminals. The concern has been raised at Talk:Maxwell Stuart. I have suggested that given Stuart was convicted, had unsuccessfully appealed, the verdict had been reviewed by a Royal Commission and upheld, to fail to categorise him as a murderer seemed to be POV, rather than the other way around. It is not the Wikipedia's role to unconvict someone - the issue is to report the facts. To categorise someone as a murderer, Wikipedia:Verifiability is met by reference to court decisions and, in the Stuart case, the report of the Royal Commission. As the issue perhaps was with the category label, the discussion has been referred to category discussion pages and a discussion has been initiated at Category talk:Murderers. The label descriptor for Category:Australian murderers states: "Australians who have been convicted of murder." - in Australia the legal system is the arbiter.--A Y Arktos 10:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not make the category Category:Convicted murderers and Category:Australian convicted murderers. They seems less POV. --liquidGhoul 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea and have copied it to Category talk:Murderers --A Y Arktos 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions - I have forwarded the discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 21#Category:Murderers renamed to Category:Convicted murderers .2B similar cats both subcats and criminals with both LiquidGhoul and Thebainer's suggestions.--A Y Arktos 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the word "murderer" on its own as it seems a bit emotive. Andjam 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. It's a purely legal term. If you've been found guilty of murder, you're a murderer. If you haven't been found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer. Ambi 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh

Anyone know what's going on with Dean McVeigh looks like Ambi is fighting a losing battle to try and keep the article encyclopedic. --Martyman-(talk) 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh is an insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to be called in when the Melbourne University Student Union crashed and burned amidst some generally dodgy behaviour. Since then, a bunch of the involved parties have embarked on a rather public campaign of slander against the guy. He may not be the best insolvency practitioner in the world, and I don't know or care, but there's definitely some dodgy editing going on here, so I'm chopping out the unsourced/badly sourced crap every time it gets re-added. It may be worth nominating the article for AfD - the only way in which he's even remotely notable is in the context of the campaign waged against him on this issue. Ambi 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Ambi 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Idon't think he is notable enough to have an entry and I agree some problems be solved if we agreed he did not meet WP:BIO criteria. I guess he might fit under "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - but I am not sure - I had not read of him outside wikipedia and only came across him because of the mention here. I am happy to nominate.--A Y Arktos 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote to delete. The article appears to be just another thinly disguised attack article we're fighting to keep neutral. -- Longhair 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean McVeigh--A Y Arktos 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. If it does get kept (and I'd rather it not be), I'd appreciate if you two could keep an eye on it so as to make sure it doesn't degenerate back into an attack article. Ambi 10:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If the problem is content, rather than notability, would article protection be an option? Andjam 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I still have a problem over notability. He appears to be more notable than other insolvency practitioners only because a bunch of student politicians have gotten upset with him and launched a smear campaign, which they're trying to extend into Wikipedia. However, if we were to assume that he is notable, then the only solution would be to watch over the Dean McVeigh article carefully and remove any unsourced claims, and in particular defamatory statements. Protection would not be appropriate in this situation; it would stop good faith non-admin users from making any improvements, and if he truly is notable, then we've got to assume that there will be people along wanting to actually make the article better — it's not a good idea to deny them that opportunity just because we don't want to watch it constantly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
We scored four "if"'s in regards to his notability above. I think that says something. -- Longhair 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned up this article as many of you know. However, there may well be a case for a judicious merge after the AfD process especially if there are continued problems. Capitalistroadster 12:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tasmania as part of Australia

An editor over at Talk:Goanna took exception to wording stating that 'goannas are found throughout Australia, except Tasmania' on the grounds that 'tasmania is not part of australia'. (Discussion continued at User_talk:Kazvorpal#Goanna.) While usually my preferred solution to conflicts of opinion is to find a compromise wording that communicates the facts without trampling on either side's opinion, I'm not inclined to view this as just a difference of opinion. Sanity check, please? --Calair 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Or you could say "the Australian mainland". Xtra 22:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
But goannas aren't just found on the mainland - they also live on Fraser, Kangaroo, and presumably a lot of smaller islands too. By the time we get to "found throughout the Australian mainland and many nearby islands, but not Tasmania" it's starting to get unnecessarily unwieldy. --Calair 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put a comment of Kaz's talk page. --liquidGhoul 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "Tasmania not being part of Australia" is as stupid a statement as another one I recently came across (that the adjective "Australian" should not be used to describe Australian rules football) - let's not be overly polite here - this isn't about differences of opinion - it's about idiocy and ignorance pure and simple - do whatever needs to be done to retain the integrity of the articles. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Football childishness

It looks like this football/soccer thing just won't let up. Frankly I no longer personally care what we end up naming things (though I once preferred "football"), but this idiocy — revert warring, "moving" by cutnpaste, etc. — has gotten way out of hand. Sooner or later the Australian Wikipedians are going to be the laughingstock of everyone here except the Romanians, and quite rightly so.

I've spent this morning cleaning up clumsy and stupid moves by User:Debunct and others. The work is good for my edit count, but not for my state of mind. I was going to move on to Category space and try to work out what sort of silliness was occurring there, but the old heart quails just to look at it.

Speaking of the categories, it's obvious that certain individuals here — hem, hem — won't allow the category to be "Soccer in Australia". "Football in Australia" is obviously inappropriate, as one can see just from observing Category:Australian football competitions. So, what I propose is: a multi-tiered thingy. "Football in Australia" or "Football codes in Australia", with "Football (soccer) in Australia", "Australian rules football in Australia", "Rugby league in Australia", and "Rugby union in Australia" as subcats. How does that sound? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask again - why should Association Football claim the title Football all to itself? How can I be accused of being POV when it is another group which is trying to appropriate a generic name all to themselves and make themselves out to be the one and only true football code worthy of the name football, when in fact, anyone who knows the history of football generally, knows that this has no historical basis. Furthermore, we are the english wikipedia, and soccer is the name that is widely used throughout the english speaking world (especially in the USA). Remember also that soccer is the term coined originally by the British as a shortening of Association Football (the original and official name of soccer), there is no sound argument for not using simply Soccer full stop. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea Mark. I agree pippu, there is no such sport as football. There are different forms of football, however, Association football (aka soccer), Australian rules football (aka Aussie rules), Rugby football (aka rugby)...you get the idea. Rogerthat Talk 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree - Association Football is the correct term, but it cannot be simply Football. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea Mark. --bainer (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of the word/phrase Marn Grook/Marngrook

At the risk of appearing pedantic, what is the correct spelling of the above? It is important because of accuracy and for 'text searching' problems. Please see discussion page for Marn Grook for details. Thanks. Lentisco 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Official War Histories Online

  • For those of you who don't know, the Australian War Memorial has full text copies of the official histories of the First and Second World Wars available online. A full text word search for the other editions and images are available for the other conflicts. [6]. It also has a useful encyclopedia. [7]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) .
    • There's also heaps of records on Australian soldiers at the National Archives of Australia (here), including service records for just about everyone who served in both World Wars. A decent portion are digitised, and are great for finding out where and with what unit people served. --bainer (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun

The article Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun seems to be sometimes unencyclopedic in tone, and lacks citation of sources. Is the article a bit biased against the idea of the Aussie being the rightful King of England, or is it just me? Andjam 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that it is biased. It just gives far too much space to a notion that is basically silly. There is a snowball's chance in Hell of him becoming King of England. The right of the current Queen is grounded in Parliament (mostly the restoration after Cromwell and the cases of William and Mary and then George I), with only some inheritance as part of the picture. Most of this article should be deleted. He had his 15 min of fame when the TV had a program about him. BTW, I'm not biased against him or the current Queen. I've been a Republican for 50 years. I'm based against the whole notion of Monarchy. --Bduke 05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the article seems to be about the legitimacy of the incumbent, which ought to be (and presumably is) available elsewhere in wikipedia. Andjam 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Having now read the article, I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion as Original research! The sections "Early Development to Bosworth", "Tudors", "Stuarts", "Triumph of heredity and statutory laws" cite acts of parliament, but do not cite the interpretations or claimed significance. "Pretenders" and "Conclusion" don't even go that far — they are pure editorialising. In particular, a section called "Conclusion" is a clear signal of an academic paper, not an encyclopaedia article. I think the article is salvageable by deleting everything from the first section heading to the beginning of the second-last paragraph, then providing a citation for the remaining claim. Some of the intervening material could be merged into Succession to the British Throne, and some is already there. --Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of serious international crime

I'm having a struggle defining "serious crime" in relation to the article List of Australians in international prisons, which is currently under review for featured list status. If there's any eager law students about who can help me with a more appropriate definiation for the intro text there, I'd be very grateful. -- Longhair 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In the NSW Crimes Act, a crime is labelled as serious if the maximum prison sentence is 5 years or over. Perhaps you could use a similar definition. enochlau (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
As Enoch said, "serious" depends on where you are - a suitable definition might be anything that qualifies as an indictable offence (or whatever is the local equivalent). Then again, something based on the available sentence would probably mean more to the average reader. There's also the issue of crimes which are not "serious" per se in Australia, but are harshly punished overseas (drug offences in Indonesia, for example). A definition based on prison terms sounds like a good idea in that context. --bainer (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested on the article talk page that serious crime should be replaced by noteworthy crime. Andjam 10:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea Andjam, but hesitant to use for now as I'm expecting a response along the lines of 'define noteworthy'. Keeping the introduction concise and detailing what lies beneath and why is the real battle I'm facing I guess. Your suggestion is winning by a nose, but I think it may need more detail as the others have suggested above to explain the list content. -- Longhair 11:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_17&oldid=1046756075"