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

17 September:

Andrew Fisher
To-Do edit | watch
Announcements edit | watch

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

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

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

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

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

Quality watch:

Proposed deletion of Australia at the team sports international competitions[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Australia at the team sports international competitions has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable and not referenced

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prod removed from this and three similar articles as they have had prior discussion and should go through the AFD process, note that they do contain references so its likely that different admins will choose different outcomes which is why they should be considered as a group. Feel free to start an afd. Gnangarra 08:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It should be deleted because the name is grammatically gruesome. Can anyone here imagine a casual reader ever searching for an article of this name? Seriously? How on earth do people ever come up with such crap, and what is so wrong with our systems that it is allowed to remain as long as it has? Saying that because there's three more with such horrible names makes them harder to delete just shows how stupid our policies are. When someone makes a bigger mess than average, we should remove it more quickly, not slower. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This article contains no references. They're only internal links to other wikipedia articles. I'm sorry if this was the wrong process, I didn't know "the AFD process" was something different.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
there are a lot of problems with the articles, yes if they were new they'd would probably be nuked without issue but we have policies to provides checks and balances which hopefully ensure that random articles arent subject to the whim of admins regardless of prior discussion decisions. Gnangarra 08:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
They were new once. Why do they still exist? They are a blight on Wikipedia. Don't tell me it's because of our policies. All that leads to is the question of why our policies are so bad. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Today I learnt that the US has won more continental gold medals in men's cricket than Australia. Hack (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Bahaha. These all need to be torched, and while I don't know how to create group AfDs I'll be there cheering it on if someone does the deed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hack has kindly obliged us at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia at the team sports international competitions, The Drover's Wife.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

British Empire in World War II[edit]

See talk:British Empire in World War II on whether this should cover Australia, and what the proper name is, if it does cover Australia -- (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian gold rushes[edit]

Hi folks, somebody with a little knowledge should probably check the Australian gold rushes article over—it's been subject to a lot of vandalism lately, some of which hasn't been caught by ClueBot/Huggle/etc. It would probably also be a good idea for a few more people ot add it to their watchlists, but I've semi-protected it for the time being. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Queensland Place Name citations are all broken :-([edit]

The Queensland Place Names website has been changed. It no longer returns individual pages for individual entries in the gazetteer, meaning all the citations now fail (it is not just a case of changing the start of the URL but the fundamental approach to providing information). Despite the Qld Govt commitment to open data, masses of information has actually been taken away. A search for a place name now does not provide the Local Government Area, the latitude/longitude, nor any indication of the type of the place (town, locality, suburb, neighbourhood, railway station, mountain, sandbar, etc). So a search on Babinda (say) returns 4 Babinda entries (one is probably for the town, one for the locality, and one for the railway station, and goodness knows what the other one might be) but you have NO way of telling which is which or of telling them apart. Even aside from breaking all our Wikipedia citations, it is an appalling unusable interface. Please try it yourselves at:

and please use the "Was this page useful?" (lower right of screen) and tell them it's awful! Kerry (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I also note that there was no indication that the site was changing, nor was there any user input solicited. Kerry (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yuck, it looks like they're completely unlinkable too, so it's not even a matter of sending a bot through to fix everything. Dislike. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
Following a number of emails with the relevant Department, it seems we are seeing a partial implementation of a new system. The indications seem to be that we will get back the capabilities we had before but the URLs will be different. I guess we wait and see (no idea how long we have to wait). If it is just the URLs that are different, a lot can be fixed by a single change to the cite QPN template and hopefully AWB may be able to help mop up the rest. Fingers crossed. Kerry (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Little Athletics[edit]

Could a few editors please comment on this GA's peer review. Review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Little Athletics/archive1. Thanks -- NickGibson3900 Talk 06:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to the article. Some specific reasons are shown in individual edit summaries. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Independent Labour[edit]

I am updating Electoral district of Bundaberg and have one chap, Frank Barnes, who is Independent Labor for a number of years. What party colour do I use? He's not the only Independent Labor member listed here. While I presume it was not a political party as such, I would have thought one of the off-red colours as used for Frank Barnes Labor would be appropriate, rather than the grey for Independents more generally. I think calling yourself Independent Labor is definitely throwing your hat in the bed with the reds (so to speak). Kerry (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that it should be binding on us, but the UK pages use a washed out version of the colour for such candidates, see United Kingdom general election, 1906 for an example. Also paging User:Orderinchaos to this discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
I've always gone with the grey. Independent Labor (or Ind Lib, or any other kind of Ind) is still more Independent than Labor. I did try the washed-out colours but they all gave the misleading impression of party-hood (and there was an Independent Labor Group that was an actual party-ish type thing). I think it's best that we keep it as the grey, because we're still making the distinction but that way we're also making it clear that they are not members of a political party. Frickeg (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)