Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Australian Wikipedians' notice board

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

WikiProjects edit | watch
In the news edit | watch
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

23 July:

The ruins of Pozières looking north, 28 August
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 · Australian Plague Locust Commission · Four'N Twenty meat pie · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of Australian political controversies · Paul Wild Observatory · Reg Ansett

Quality watch:

Locality population figures and the ABS[edit]

One headache I've been repeatedly coming across while working on town and locality articles is how to update or add population figures in regard to the ABS's entirely random census districts for things below LGA-level and general decision to ignore town boundaries. I've generally been going with the State Suburb data, but this gets difficult when the ABS either amalgamates up to six towns or has census districts accumulating random bits of a bunch of towns. I've tried some of the other classifications where State Suburb data clearly doesn't work, but even then I'm often choosing between figures that only include a town centre, or else just include random bits of that place and random bits of a few other places as well. Of all the organisations I'd expect to cause problems from just making shit up, the last of them I would have expected would be the ABS.

With that in mind, I'd really see what others suggestions for addressing this are and how others have dealt with this headache. Population information is something that's a bit of an outdated and badly sourced hodgepodge as it is across Australian Wikipedia, so it'd be good if we could somehow sort a way of working through this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In updating the figures for my LGA I've found it necessary to add a "Notes" section to most articles to compensate for the same sort of thing that you've found. Generally the ABS data is way off. When using {{Census 2011 AUS}}, using the "gazetted locality" code gives the reader a border of the locality in red, which is usually different from the census district, which is presented in blue. --AussieLegend () 13:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been using the gazetted locality code, which is useful for knowing how badly the ABS has stuffed it. I can often explain it away in notes or in-text if what they've done with the State Suburb boundaries is relatively simple, but if it includes too many towns or they've just mangled local borders completely that gets a bit hard. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I share your pain on this. I too use SSC when it's available. If it's not, sometimes I try to explain in the text that for census purposes, Smallville has been aggregated with Biggerville whose population is 321. sometimes I just don't bother with a population because it's all too hard to explain, especially when there are multiple localities or parts thereof being aggregated. It would be nice if we could find something from the ABS that explained why some places don't get an SSC. I suspect it is because their populations are so low that to reveal them would potentially compromise the privacy of households/individuals, hence the need to aggregate them. If we could get this confirmed and ideally know what the threshold value is (eg 50) then we could say that the population of Smallville was < 50. I can't think of too many practical purposes for which Wikipedia readers would need overly precise population data, given how naturally fluid it is. I suspect most people are just using the order of magnitude 10, 100, 1K, 10K, 100K, 1M etc to get a sense of how big a place it is. if we say the population is negligible, that's probably sufficient. Kerry (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This document gives an overview but doesn't answer my question of the exact criteria. Kerry (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we should just say "In the 2011 census, the population of Smallville was too low to be separately reported" and cite the ABS Quickstat for that GL which will be the SSC for Bigville whose map should show Smallville. For the purpose of the Census citation template, we would put the Bigville SSC as the ID and Smallville (GL) as the name field. And put "too low" or "-" in the info box? Kerry (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I have experimented with Yarrabilba, Queensland, let me know what you think? I think we need something on the Census in Australia page to explain this "too low" stuff which could then be linked from the articles with the "too low" problem for people who want more explanation. Kerry (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This ABS document seems to be saying that an SSC (which is an SA1 or so I believe) needs 180 people, unless it's an indigenous community in which case it's only 90. so this suggests GLs without SSCs have < 180 people. Kerry (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a really good way of handling this in a lot of cases, and that's the sort of solution I was hoping for when I brought this up here. I think the whole phrase is a bit too big for the infobox, and that I might be inclined to leave them out of the infobox in these cases but mention it in the lede. I also wonder if it might work to go "X was too small to be reported separately in the 2011 census; T, U, V, W, and X combined had a total of Z." Doing it this way around feels a bit less clunky than reporting a figure and trying to explain where in the heck the ABS found those people from. I think what you've come up with is better than "negligible" - that doesn't translate too well to a town of 175 people.
The only situations this wouldn't solve are ones like Cressy, Victoria or Birregurra, Victoria, where all relevant ABS districts are cracked, not only because of what they've thrown in with Cressy, but because of how they've randomly chopped up the named district as well in a way that gets very confusing to explain.
Also seconding having a bit in Census of Australia about the "too low" issues - that would be very helpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
"the population of Smallville was too low to be separately reported" is OR without a source. We really have no idea why the ABS has decided to not to provide separate data for some suburbs and the reason is not always because a suburb population is too small. For example, according to the ABS my town has a population of 12,725 but, for reasons known only to the ABS, doesn't include the whole town in the CCD.[1] While it includes the partially rural and mostly unpopulated southern part of the town in the figures, a similar area to the north is included in an adjacent suburb.[2] Together the population of the suburb and the northern part of the town is only 234. It would have made more sense to include all of the town of the town population in the town data and include Eagleton's population with Balickera and East Seaham to the north.[3] It's far more neutral to say something like, "The ABS does not report the population of Smallville separately. Instead, its population is include with that of adjacent Bigville." --AussieLegend () 09:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to show the silliness of the ABS districts, note that the Raymond Terrace south-western border is the shoreline of the Hunter River,[4] but the ABS CCD extents into the river. I'm not sure who they're counting out there.... --AussieLegend () 09:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Unnghh. *headdesk* It's pretty likely that they took out that section of your town to make up the numbers in the adjacent one and just took it from an illogical source. But if they're doing that kind of stuff as well, it does make it hard to go with the clearer formulation that Kerry suggested, and yours sounds like a decent alternative. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
... the ABS CCD extents into the river. I'm not sure who they're counting out there....
The people who live in houseboats, which are "treated as occupied private dwellings regardless of location". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we had any houseboats..... --AussieLegend () 13:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── AussieLegend suggested "The ABS does not report the population of Smallville separately. Instead, its population is include with that of adjacent Bigville", which is fine as far as it goes but I think a corresponding note would also be required for Bigville, so its population is not overstated. Especially in country areas where Bigville may not be any bigger than Smallville, and a couple of other Villes all in the Census area which is arbitrarily named after Bigville.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this important, especially where "Bigville" is a small country town. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about how we should word this again after seeing Kerry put her suggestions into action above. We have a reliable source about the ABS's cutoff for having a separate state suburb, and especially where they've accumulated multiple small districts together but haven't done anything else stupid (as they had in AussieLegend's example) I think it's reasonable to explain the situation. One of my next projects is articles on a bunch of small ex-sawmilling and now rural tourist-based settlements with very low populations, about six of which have been accumulated together (without any other silliness) by the ABS; I think it makes a lot more sense to the reader if we explain why the ABS merged them (which we know for a fact in cases like this) rather than just stating that they did it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've begun work on a 'Smallville' where the ABS Locality and State Suburb boundaries make no sense, but the local council quotes population figures for the settlement. It's based these on the mesh block, which is the smallest geographic region in the Australian Statistical Geography Standard.
All the files mentioned below are available from a single download page at the ABS.
The only figures the ABS publishes at the mesh block level are the total population and number of dwellings, in a single file for the whole of Australia. Mesh blocks are in effect 'level zero' of a hierarchy. They don't have names, only numbers. Key maps down to level 2 of the hierarchy are available as PDF files, as are a land use category and area for the mesh blocks in CSV files for each state. The mesh block maps (for each state) are available, but they are in Mapinfo or ESRI Shapefile formats, neither of which (as far as I know) I have the software to view, so I have not downloaded any of them.
'The majority of populated Mesh Blocks contain between 30 and 60 dwellings', so figures for multiple blocks would need to be added together for most settlements. How to refer to such accumulated data in an article I haven't really thought about yet. Hope the rest helps though. Innesw (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an interesting idea - but how well do these correlate with locality boundaries, and how much work would it do to cobble them together? I get mindful of the original research policy in these situations. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The ABS description page on mesh blocks says 'Where possible, Mesh Blocks are designed to contain or aggregate to whole suburbs or rural localities.' It also says 'Mesh Blocks reflect land use boundaries. For example, residential areas are separated from commercial or agricultural areas', so it shouldn't be a huge problem (in an individual case) to total the figures for adjacent 'residential' mesh blocks. The NOR problem had occurred to me, but maybe it's allowed under What SYNTH is not. I stress maybe, I'm no expert on NOR. Does adding A + B + C (individual figures from a sourced database, and possibly individually identified in the reference) to get D (the figure used in the article text) constitute original research? Innesw (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I see where you're going with this. How would I actually find the population figures? I got a bit confused looking at the documents linked above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It's possible the mesh-block digital boundaries files (especially the Mapinfo ones) contain the data about individual mesh blocks within them, but if not it would take the following steps. (I'll give example descriptions from the download page in [].)
  • View the boundaries file [state Mesh Blocks ASGS Ed 2011 Digital Boundaries] for the area of interest. It may only show the ID numbers for the mesh blocks.
  • Find in the mesh blocks data file [state Mesh Blocks ASGS Edition 2011 in .csv Format] the mesh block numbers of interest, and confirm they are of land-use category 'residential' (or similar 'built up' uses like hospital/medical)
  • Find the mesh block numbers in the census data file, and total the population and dwellings numbers. Very sorry, I didn't give the link to the download page for this before. It's a single file for the whole of Australia.
Now I've laid it out in detail I can see why it may be considered original research to get the numbers required. The step from map to mesh-block number(s) is probably unavoidable, but if someone put the land-use categories and census data in the one file ... Innesw (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

One solution which I've been using, after a discussion with Kerry, is using Victorian Electoral Commission data for cases where Smallville is merged with Bigville in a way that makes the Smallville figures totally useless. The electoral commission has counts for electors in every single locality in the state using the actual boundaries, and if you're looking for a "basically how many people live here" guide, it's a bloody lot more useful than saying "The AEC didn't actually release data on this page, but merged it in with this other place that is thirty times its size". The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you get a population figure from electors? Not everyone is enrolled to vote. The number of electors excludes everyone below the age of 18 and people who aren't enrolled. --AussieLegend () 19:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a population figure, but it's the best substitute I've found for population data where the ABS is completely useless. This means it doesn't go in the population field in the textbook; rather, it gets explained in the lede that the ABS doesn't release population data, but that the number of enrolled voters is X. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Brands[edit]

Pacific Brands has been subject to considerable WP:COI editing over the past couple of weeks. I reverted it all and then reverted myself because I thought I was a bit heavy handed. I invite others to look it over.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree it's COI but on the other hand I don't think what was done was too bad. Most of the changes appear to be factual (location of HQ) and addition of dates and citations. There was no removal of the "controversial" content. Personally I don't have a problem with the images you removed in your last edit. I think for a lot of readers making the visual association between a branded store they may have seen in a shopping centre and the company which owns it is quite helpful. And every article is better for having a few photos. OK, I'd rather they didn't use naked URL for citations, but at least it is much better cited than it was. I agree we need to keep an eye on these COI situations but I don't think this is a "puffery" or "whitewash". Kerry (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

PD Australia Images tagged for Commons[edit]

Firstly a link, Catscan

Hi, the {{PD-Australia}} license tag was recently updated to take into account restored copyrights (in relation to URAA). With this in mind a review was being undertaken of images that were tagged for commons to ensure they were actually safe to transfer. In the process I was also attempting to expand on the information in the descriptions (and fix a few source links that seemed broken..)

However, it's taking a little longer than expected and I would appreciate the assistance of contributors that are more familiar with the subject matter to help clear the backlog.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been seeing the URAA stuff come up a lot but this is the first time I've seen it in specific relation to Australian content. I fully admit I've not done my homework-reading on the topic of how URAA works on Commons, and I understand it's still highly contested (n.b. the recent debates on Wikimedia-l about the Israeli government PD images being deleted from Commons due to URAA). But... can I ask a simple question: is the new magic number for PD-Australian images to upload to commons "1946"?? It used to be that we could clearly remember "any Aussie photos prior to 1955" was ok, is that now "any Aussie photos prior to 1946" instead? Wittylama 08:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Essentialy, yes. However, I seem to recall someone saying Australian Govt images were subject to a 'They won't enforce' rule. Was this official confirmed to OTRS? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
based on commons discussion, pre 1946 is PD, the period between 1946 and 1955 is being deleted there as recent cases in the US have ruled that copyright has been restored in the US as of the URAA date of 1996 and therefore dont comply with the Commons requirement of free in country of origin and US. As WP servers are also in the US we still need to follow US copyright but we have free use provisions here... For images after 1945 and prior to 1955 use the PD-Australia template here and also include a fair use rationale noting that PD in Australia isnt a sufficient reason under current policy.... When the URAA provisions were first being implimented there was a requirement that for copyright to be restored the works had to have been registered in the US(there was even site that had them listed) but recent court decisions have made that requirement unnecessary. ... The Israeli issue has similar circumstances but a greater effect on the Hebrew WP which didnt have local uploads and who's policies where based according to Israeli law, its a problem many other language wikis face ... Gnangarra 09:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO: copyright is an issue which we can only guess at and make our own interpretations what it really needs is a more definitive directive from the WMF legal eagles on these issues. Gnangarra 09:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia Govt Works (URAA) or not[edit]

Stefan2 says this was restored, but applying the same logic that was used for British and Canadian items, I am assuming good faith about Australian crown copyright expiring globally. Does anyone want to get an offical response lodged in OTRS? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

List of people who have run across Australia[edit]

Article is apparently experiencing a rip-roaring edit war (dispute over particular participants) and could use some watching/intervention as needed. Dl2000 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The edit war is about the inclusion of Sarah Mycroft to the article. If you follow this sort of stuff, (the sport of running) your input would be greatly appreciated. I have started a discussion on the talk page.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiWednesday in Sydney this week[edit]

Hi, this Wednesday there will be a WP:WikiWednesday at the Australian Paralympic Committee HQ (Sydney Olympic Park).

5:30-8:30, come any time. FREE PIZZA ;-)

Signup at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/July 2014.

If you're coming late, let us know and we'll put some pizza aside for you. ;-)

Please please please come if you can make it. There will be a lot of APC staff and colleagues, and help is desperately needed.

p.s. we had a smaller workshop on Sunday at the end of round 1 of Women's National Wheelchair Basketball League . See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/20 July 2014 for details of that. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey John. Help doing what? What will the APC staff/colleagues be trying to do? --99of9 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
user:99of9, they need help editing Wikipedia; uploading photos to Commons; etc, etc. The Commonwealth Games begins the following day, the Wikipedia page for the event barely mentions Para Sports, and I'm pretty sure 90% of the para sport participant bios dont mention they are competing in the Comm Games. Also, Para Sport competitors often are reclassified just before a major event to reflect changes, so that is another type of edit to the bios that are needed otherwise we are confusing the reader with outdated info. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Marshall[edit]

This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

association football (soccer)[edit]

See talk:Australia national association football team where the usage of "soccer" or "association football" is under discussion -- (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)