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

29 November:

Launch of the first Holden
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 · Murder of Kylie Maybury · National Tidal Centre · OneAustralia · Property Council of Australia · Road signs in Australia

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

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

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

Quality watch:

Australian place populations[edit]

There are three templates used for Australian census population data and their usages are:

At this time, 3 years after the last census, it's amazing that so many articles still use 8 and 13 year old census data and these really need to be updated. There are a lot of articles that have to use the 2006 data because of changes in the way the ABS correlated data for the last census, but I have trouble believing that there are so many articles that can't be updated. --AussieLegend () 21:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is also a problem because most of this population data is being used without checking that the census district has anything to do with the town boundaries, as we've discussed a couple of times before. I'd really love to see a dedicated effort to get these articles up to date, but also make sure we're actually representing in the article where that population comes from, and that's not something that can be done by a bot. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Good work on going through the list. 215 transclusions of the 2001 template isn't really much of an issue, although it clearly needs to addressed. My concerns when starting this thread were really that we appear to have around 5,000-6,000 articles that haven't been updated since the 2006 census. It could very well be lower than that, there are many articles that use census data that the templates can't handle, but we still have thousands that need to be updated and this will only get worse when the next census happens. --AussieLegend () 16:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking for a while on how to handle these census population updates every five years. I may be wrong but is the future intention to use Wikidata for this kind of thing? So that the census data can be imported there and object links update automatically? Secondly, if using Wikidata for populations is a while away, perhaps the templates themselves could contain the population figure, the census year and the SSC (or other) code as parameters. At the moment it is just used to format the reference link to the ABS, but if it included the population figure and the year, it could output a formatted number for the infobox, or a whole sentence for the lede, and the reference. The standardised formatting might make it easier for a script or bot to update all the outdated references when new census data is released. Just a thought... I can do some example templates if anyone thinks it's worth pursuing... --Canley (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Anything that can automate the process would be of help. Unfortunately, Wikidata is not really understood by most editors. Apparently Australian postcode information is on Wikidata but how to access it is a mystery. I've only seen one article that uses it. --AussieLegend () 23:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd be very wary of automating this particular process because of the census districts issue. We have enough problems with articles accidentally wildly misleading people about the populations of places because of the ABS's bizarre districts - this is something I think we need to be doing by hand and more carefully until we've dealt with this more broadly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd just comment that not all population data uses the templates so there is probably a lot more census data being reported in articles but using other sorts of citations and probably some with no citations at all. I would also comment that we keep coming back to this conversation about reporting census populations without any resolution. I would also comment that the human horsepower available makes any manual solution unlikely to be comprehensive. I think we do need to look at some kind of automation/semi-automation at least for those places with an SSC; I think we should be looking at this for the 2016 census. One of our problems is that the ID for SSCs changes between censuses. It may be that the ABS has some table that link these across censuses. Perhaps this is something where we should talk to the ABS. With Wikipedia being a top-10 website in the world, many Australians are probably getting their population data via Wikipedia; perhaps they would be interested in helping us find good solutions (they are the experts in this space after all). Kerry (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have Questia access?[edit]

I think this article has something I'm looking for, but it's half-paywalled and I was wondering if anyone has access. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have access (through the Wikipedia Library project, which I think might be running a new round of Questia licenses). What can I help with? Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife:, it's available through Factiva. I can email the text. Hack (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
That would be great. My email this user function is turned on - if you could send it there that would be much appreciated :) The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I just found found out the other day that factiva is freely accessible if you have a National Library of Australia card , which is free, at least for those in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh my god, you are fabulous. Not having Factiva access (since I'm deferred from uni at the moment) has been massively cramping my ability to edit on modern topics for months, and as it happens I have an old NLA card still sitting in my purse and just successfully tried it. This has completely made my day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Most state libraries offer it as well. Hack (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
All Aussies should check what databases are available to you at home via the National Library, your State Library and your local library. There's a *lot* available. Generally there is no cost to getting the necessary "library card" (although you might have to wait a few days for it to come in the post) if you are an Australian resident. Here is the link to see what's available at the National Libary (tip, library folk call these things "e-resources" if you are Googling). Kerry (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation_format[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation_format. regarding the format of CS1-style Hansard citations. Thanks. Evad37 [talk] 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you want Wikimedia Australia to do in 2015?[edit]

Hi everyone, the Wikimedia Australia committee will be having a strategic planning session for 2015 on 29-30 November. We would like input from our members (and other stakeholders - that includes all Australian editors) to suggest what the chapter can do to enable you to achieve our mission. There’s plenty of things WMAU could do, but there is no point in creating projects without keen volunteers, so please be explicit in showing your support for ideas that you personally would actively contribute to.

To get started, visit our Ideascale site at -- Chuq (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I know this involves a great deal of work, but it'd be fantastic if Wikimedia Australia could negotiate for more government content to be released under CC-by-SA licensing, as with the phenomenal Queensland Heritage Register situation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Encouraging the release of decent photos of state and federal politicians would be nice. Hack (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
maye something along the lines of the Wiki loves Parliament projects in Europe and (for want of a better links) Gnangarra 11:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with both the general and the specific. There's this definite gap with photos between the out-of-copyright pre-1955s and the past decade where digital cameras and mobile phones mean many people have famous folks in their digital photos albums. Although given some of the eyebrow-raising content on Commons, we'd probably accept indecent photos too! Kerry (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I left a message on Wittylama's talk page yesterday about whether any commercial/sporting organisations have ever been approached to release photographs, not just governments or GLAM organisations. To me the main stumbling block is explaining to the legal/marketing/IP controllers in those organisations what CC-by-SA really means in a real world situation. Is there a fact sheet we can show them? Working with US-based wikilawyers (prefer the real ones, but the wannabe ones too) to get some improvement/understanding/agreement on the 1946/1955 URAA issue would be good too. The-Pope (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
On a larger scale, improving accessibility of newspaper archives between the 1950s and the 2000s would be helpful. Hack (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
These all sound good! Could you add them onto the Ideascale site above, so that others can comment and vote for them there? -- Chuq (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with using third-party websites to manage the discussion of Wikimedia business, when we have perfectly good talk pages here (or there). This is especially the case when the third-party website requires me to register and create (yet another) account to keep track of. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
^This. Frickeg (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Me too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Reading this it is so obvious that so many editors have a conceptual blank when it comes to this noticeboard (Australian editors talking about editing Australian articles on english Wikipedia) and the actual context of what WMAU is, and what it does. Also lot of the comments above suggest that the disjuncture between what is already happening in the wikimedia world, and what editors know simply repeats upon itself.
It is as if the efforts of the last few years of WMAU attempting to explain itself to editors simply evaporates when the conflation so effectively occurs here. If you edit articles and contribute materials on english Wikipedia, that is not the same as being active or a member of Wikimedia Australia. At least no one has repeated the oft problematic conflation by a sometime associate of wikipedia projects who simply lumps it all into the meaningless phrase go wiki.
(a) To object to third party websites for being survey base is missing a serious point - the Wikimedia Australia chapter committee have allocated that as the way of doing the survey for better or for worse. Large numbers of online businesses and organizations utilised third party survey providers. Wikimedia Australia chapter is not specifically directly Wikimedia Foundation -
(b) Committee members have joined in the fray here - surely, if this is really a request for Australian editors to provide input - surely you should also identify yourselves for those who dont know you are? If this was a real attempt to really reach out - state projects, and the lists of state editor categories are surely the way to reach out? Usual suspects inhabit this space here - and they hardly constitute the full array of active Australian editors. Also some editors of some duration specifically avoid state or location identification - are you going to reach out to them as well? Also should committee members editorialise in the survey as well?
(c) Somebody is going to have to put more effort into selling the survey - it has clearly been already dismissed by a number of editors, and st the same time - real hard work on the part of Wikimedia Australia to explain itself as to what its scope and aim is, against the obvious preconceptions that have been evoked on this particular talk page, and also the context of the chapter and its history. Also the limitations as to the capacity of the committee to facilitate some of the ideas above and its general standing in the online community in Australia. satusuro 15:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"... many editors have a conceptual blank when it comes to ... the actual context of what WMAU is, ..."
That was not helped by the fact that yesterday (when I tried it) the "Wikimedia Australia" ( link redirected to instead of - which is why my post linked ("there") to instead of the Australian page.
"Large numbers of online businesses and organizations utilised third party survey providers"
That may be true, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.
  • I can contribute to Wikipedia or any of the Wikimedia projects - both article edits and discussions - using my existing single login. Requiring me to create a new account on a different system does not encourage me.
  • An editor can contribute to Wikipedia or any of the Wikimedia projects (article edits, discussions) without providing an e-mail address if that editor so chooses. Requiring someone to provide an e-mail address to vote or comment on survey suggestions does not encourage participation. This is especially the case when the "Privacy & Terms" in the "Create Your Account" dialog (you all clicked it and read the terms didn't you...), to which I would provide my e-mail address, links to Google - a company whose primary business is collecting information about its users and selling advertising, so whose "privacy" policies are not likely to be consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's.
  • Perhaps WMAU should consider inviting editors to discuss the issues on a subpage of and either allow editing on that page without registration or explicitly offer to create an account for anyone who requests one with the reason "to provide input to 2015 strategic planning".
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This kind of attitude definitely does not help Wikimedia Australia. You ask for responses as to what people would like to do, people politely give a bunch of great suggestions, and you've got someone evidently involved with the organisation who throws a fit at the users here because they don't want to have to sign up for some random site to repost the same ideas. Simultaneously being incredibly rude to editors who respond to your survey while at the same time whingeing that people don't pay attention to what Wikimedia Australia does is deeply counterproductive. Grow some manners. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you have people confused as only three members of the WMAU committee who are asking the question have responded here, Chuq, Kerry and myself. The editor was not only critical of those who choose to voice that they arent interested but also the committee for the way in which the survey was presented. The ideas raised here will be included in the discussions however the survey gives a cleaner opportunity to discuss individual ideas, which also provides alot more background information beyond a few words. We appreciate the need for another login but WP:AWNB isnt the ideal forum to discuss potential activity for WMAU the intent was just to advise about the discussion and ask people to join it. The ultimate aim isnt just to collate a whole raft of ideas but also seek out those who would like to do something and give them the support they need to succeed. Gnangarra 06:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd definitely be interested in doing something if Wikimedia Australia were to do some of the sorts of things above; their work at present, while valuable, is not really my area of interest. I am glad to know that SatuSuro is not speaking for WMA with that attitude. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The work being done at the moment is the result of someone putting forward a proposal at in their area of interest. If you want to do something then I more than happy to help you through the process just use the email this user function. Gnangarra 11:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
folks, your thoughts are welcome no matter what medium you use to communicate them. Here is fine. With the strategic planning meeting being this coming weekend, please add any thoughts you have sooner than later. So far, I see lobbying to release govt info under suitable license for things like heritage registers, phtotos of pollies, what else? If we were to run some event in your city/town, what would you like it to be? Social hangout with other editors? chance to meet with local Librarians or archivists or ...? A mini conferences with presentatiosn? A photo shoot day? If we ran an Australian version of Wikimania, would you consider coming? What about a repeat of GLAMwiki? would you want to take part in a national photo competition? I'm not promising any of these things will happen, but they are far more likely to happen if you express interest in them. Kerry (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne Meetup[edit]

As some may be aware the Australian chapter is having a strategic planning meeting in Melbourne on the weekend of the 29 & 30 November. Are there any people who would like to join us on the evening of the 29th for coffee and chat somewhere near the CBD. Its a chance for you meet the committee members especially those from interstate. Gnangarra 11:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I will be coming from Brisbane so look forward to meeting some of the Melbourne Wikipedian community! Kerry (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian football wikiproject templates[edit]

There are two possible template options:

  • {{WikiProject Australia|afl=yes}}
  • {{WikiProject Australian rules football}}

Which should be used? Or should one be deleted/redirected? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: I assume this is after a revert of mine to one of your edits. This is my rationale: {{WikiProject Australian rules football}} has 513 substitutions out of 13,537 WP:AFL articles. I'd say that {{WikiProject Australia}} (|afl=yes) is the one to keep and that {{WikiProject Australian rules football}} is redirected and a bot changes all the substitutions. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep both. Some articles, such as about Australian rules football teams overseas, don't belong in WP:Australia, so afl=yes would place them in an irrelevant project. Hence for them, we have the standalone template. For most articles about Australia based players, clubs, grounds etc, then they should be in both WP:Australia and WP:Australian rules football, so the afl=yes is easier to use, and allows you to add other sub projects like WA=yes or VIC=yes or similar as well. The-Pope (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you call "ladies who do good works"?[edit]

I have just created an article on Zina Beatrice Selwyn Cumbrae-Stewart and in the process discovered this out-of-copyright digitised book full of summary information and photos of over 100 similar women. She was one of those women with a finger in every pie (Red Cross, Mother's Union, etc), president of this, founder of that, and generally full of "good works" in the charitable and cultural spheres. However, I don't know how to describe her "occupation" in the lede para. The Australian Dictionary of Biography calls her a "community worker" (which I have used in the Wikipedia article) but I am not comfortable with that as it suggests paid employment. The digitised book uses words like "philanthrophic work" and "charitable work" to describe the activity but doesn't give a term to describe the person. She meets the dictionary definition of philantrophist, but unfortunately I think common use of that term implies the giving of money, whereas she gave her time. She was part lobbyist, part organiser, etc. There were a lot of women of her time in this kind of role so it seems a little strange that I cannot think of a common term for it. What would you call these women? Philanthrophic volunteer? Charity volunteer? Kerry (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also had this trouble trying to put non-career-women in a career box. "Philanthropic community worker"? Or I'd say it's good to try to reclaim the general meaning of "philanthropist" - time is money! --99of9 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Humanitarian? Stephen 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Good Samaritan? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd assume that would refer to a member of the organisation of that name. I like "philanthropic volunteer" the best of the suggestions so far. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd look seriously at Category:Australian_social_workers and Category:Australian activists. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian Heritage Database[edit]

I can't believe I hadn't noticed this before now, but I've just twigged that the Department of the Environment's website - including the Australian Heritage Database - appears to be CC-by-SA licensed. This would include the National Heritage List, the Commonwealth Heritage List, and more importantly, the huge database of the Register of the National Estate. Would there be any interest in importing this on a large scale, ala what's happening with the Queensland Heritage Register? It would be fantastic to work on some heritage places closer to home. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good find indeed! Some quick searches here suggest there are easily over 20K entires. This is going to be a lot of work (says she currently drowning in the QHR). There's plenty to keep us busy for years here! Now this database is compilation of 5 other databases (as you mention above). So probably the format of each of the sub-databases is likely to be different. So I think the first task is to examine entries from each of the lists and determine how the headings and data fields displayed would correspond to elements of a Wikipedia article and the fields in the Template:Infobox historic site as this would underpin the automated generation of articles. Then we have to gather our data, either 1) web-scrape it into spreadsheets (ugh, but possible) or 2) we ask if we can have the data released as spreadsheets or similar (much easier on us). Then we build generators from the data to the Wikipedia article, we then load the Wikipedia articles and spend endless hours reviewing and correcting them. Let's not underestimate the size of the task but it is do-able. Obviously the more people keen to be involved, the more quickly it happens. One thing I would say. I did a quick comparison of some Qld Heritage Register entries with these ones, generally the QHR are more fullsome, so we should do some checks to see if there are other state heritage dataset which could be made available that would be better input than these Commonwealth entries. But at the end of the day, availability under suitable licensing is the key consideration for us and clearly these Commonwealth ones are ready and raring to go. Kerry (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I had a good dig around last night, and unfortunately it looks like the Register of the National Estate was still in the relatively early stages of digitisation when Howard devolved their functions to the states. There are some that are article-length, but a lot that only have a very brief summary, and no way that I could find to search for the longer articles. Nonetheless, there's a whole bunch of articles we could still get from it, and though the other databases are likely to relate to topics we already have - there's a bunch of content that will be extremely useful for those articles in there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this may be a time when a case could be made to establish a WikiData link for the information but probably not worth creating a bulk set of 20k+ articles especially as the more notable would already have articles including many which are substantive in content and thats without considering any naming issues. Gnangarra 12:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
All of those are intrinsically notable - the US equivalents are well on their way to having articles for every single listing. That said, the poor quality of many of the online National Estate listings, plus the fact that we've likely got articles in some existing form on the other listings, means that (unfortunately) this is probably a do by hand job. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth creating a to-do list like Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography. Is it clear how many don't have articles? 09:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a really good idea for the National Heritage List and Commonwealth Heritage List: these have a really high bar to notability and their listings have been recently updated. It's probably not worth doing for the Register of the National Estate: it's massive, only maybe 20% of their listings are detailed and high enough quality to be transferred, and if we had to write entirely new content we'd be better off working from the state registers, seeing as they're the current authority (all the statutory powers of the Register of the National Estate were devolved to the states under Howard). The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
(i can't count Colons) if we could get the data, it's easy enough for a machine to run through them and sort the entrries by their length (and/or other machine-decidable criteria). That could be used to produce a list to aid human editors in spotting the entries with most potential for articles and then using a tool to generate as much of that article as possible. Anything that reduces work means more articles get created. So far I've rented about 220 or so articles for sites on the Qld Heritage Register out of about 1700. It's not no-work but it's a lot less work the writing them from scratch. I spent about 20 minutes or so tidying up the wikilinks mostly, looking for photos, etc. No way I could write one in that time. The resultant articles aren't perfect but they are not bad either. The biggest criticism I'd make of them is that they are single source. Personally I don't see a problem with generating stub articles if that's all we can do. When Google started putting out the first para of Wikipedia articles in its search results, I believe wikipedia noticed a drop in hits of about 20%, which probably tells us that a lot of people are only interested in the basic facts. What's a ficus? ah, it's a plant! Where's Montevideo? Ah, it's in South America. Stubs deliver basic facts and are better than nothing at all on a topic. Kerry (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
While this would be lovely (especially for the Commonwealth Heritage List in particular), it's way above my pay-grade to make this sort of technical solution. If anyone else wanted to though, I'd be stoked. I'm currently putting together a to-do list as a more manual workaround - there's only about 500 entries between both the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List. I also am not sure the metadata you've been using on the QHR articles exists in this case?
I think the Register of the National Estate is a manual job, though; I feel like looking for transferrable material from there is a bit like going fishing due to the wildly variant quality of their stuff, and I'm not that comfortable with having extremely-difficult-to-expand short stubs on stuff at the lower end of the notability scale - stuff that would be fine if we had a QHR-length article but is pretty contextless when just a sentence or three. Also, one important thing to note that can't be caught by bots - there is a lot of good content in assessments that have been declined or neglected by the federal listings but are included on state registers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I followed the suggestion of the user above to create to-do lists, which now exist (fully disambiguated) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Commonwealth Heritage List and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/National Heritage List.

For our purposes, the National Heritage List (100ish listings) is pretty short and eclectic, and some of their areas are broad and don't line up that easily with our articles. The Commonwealth Heritage List, on the other hand (500ish listings) has a LOT that we're missing and that would really contribute to our coverage of quite a few areas in which we've got active editors. It would be great to see - whether automated or not - a real effort to get the CHL listings ported and articles created. I'll certainly be diving in.

Also: my reading of their website and license suggests that the CC-by-SA license does not apply to the images on their listings. (The license essentially states that it includes content not from other parties, and all the images have prominent links advertising purchasing the rights, attributed to a different database.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of post offices on the CHL. Could work off a template for these. Hack (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
They're federal buildings. No need to work off a template when you've got the CHL's text! The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes[edit]

Most would have heard that cricketer Phillip Hughes has been badly injured by a 'bouncer' at the SCG. A few eyes on his page would be helpful as in the less than ≈7 hours since the event he has been declared dead twice by vandals. --220 of Borg 10:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC) link added --220 of Borg 11:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

semi protected article for 3 days, though it will still need extra eyes watching especially when a change in his condition is reported, also feel free to remove the protection when ever appropriate Gnangarra 10:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I was going to ask why the bouncer hit him and whether he'd been charged. --AussieLegend () 10:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Gnagarra! AussieLegend, I've now linked 'bouncer' to bouncer (cricket) :-p 220 of Borg 11:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Eyes could also be useful on Sean Abbott, the bowler of the bouncer that hit Hughes. There's already been one sloppy addition thankfully reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And another editor has mentioned it again here Somewhat better English and with links and a source. 220 of Borg 11:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
while it is a significant event for Hughes is really all that worthy of inclusion in the Sean Abbott, bowlers every year produce balls that cause injury of some kind whether its concussion or broken bones they dont warrant inclusion, at this stage this particular delivery doesnt having any lasting significance to warrant an exception. Gnangarra 12:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree, though I tidied up and expanded the text at Sean Abbott. I won't be miffed if it's removed. ;-) The incident has also made its way onto the Bouncer (cricket) page, which is bit much until the incident is 'resolved'. :-/ (though I also cited the ref there properly) Hopefully Hughes will recover, and the incident will be less notable. 220 of Borg 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
IMHO the bouncer article inclusion is fine, its significant enough to warrant mentioning there, even after Hughes recovers Gnangarra 13:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, almost half that section is pure recentism, purely about incidents that occurred this century. The word "recent" is actually used! For a game over 200 years old, that's a bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well there was an article in one of the papers today about batsmen being hit much more often recently (since WSC), possibly due to a partially false sense of security that the helmet gives them. So in that sense it is a recent phenomenon, not just our usual reasons for recentism. And I think it definitely belongs in the Abbott article too. The-Pope (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too, how common cricket type bouncers were more 'recently'. IIRC cricket started being bowled only underarm. Not sure when Overarm bowling became the predominant action, but that WP page says it's been around and legal since at least 1864, though the page has only one source, and the date is "strongly challenged". I too saw an article listing bouncer 'incidents'. Was this Daily News and Analysis ( page here it? --220 of Borg 02:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sad update - it is being reported that he has died today. [2] The page protection should obviously be kept in place for a bit longer. -- Chuq (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

reluctantly I have also semi protected Sean Abbott, been some tasteless-offensive commentary included in the article this needs a closer watch may even need to be full protected Gnangarra 08:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with your protection of Abbott's page Gnangarra. You probably know the edits I mean when I say I think they should be rev-deleted. Nb. Now that the exact injury and cause of Hughes death appears to be known,[3] mention of the incident also made an unsourced appearance in the lead section of Subarachnoid hemorrhage. -220 of Borg 08:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)