Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney)
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

28 August:

Arthur Fadden, the thirteenth Prime Minister of Australia
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:

Disruptive editing[edit]

Could I please have some help with Oxley, Queensland‎. An IP editor is insisting on adding a sentence on other suburbs sharing the same postcode to the lead (and is doing the same with Graceville, Queensland and Corinda, Queensland, claims the suburb has two halves - a Lower and Upper without a source as I have requested, and keeps removing a suburb to the south from the infobox. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A review of the IPs edits indicates that the above is an understatement regarding problems with this IP. --AussieLegend () 10:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, NQ and I have all reverted edits by this IP. The IP, who is edit warring himself, has reverted edits with the edit summary, "Reinstated Geographical information. No warring please",[1][2][3][4] and then, despite having made no edits outside of related areas in Queensland, decided to delete the geography section of Raymond Terrace (where I live).[5] This is clearly vandalism. --AussieLegend () 09:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I've just blocked them Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm pretty sure the IP had breached 3RR on Corinda,Queensland at least, so a block was certainly warranted. --AussieLegend () 10:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And the IP has returned and yet again edited Oxley, Queensland and yet again removed the fact that Inala, Queensland is one of the suburbs to the south from the infobox (feel free to check on any current map that they are adjoining). Sigh! Kerry (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked them again. Euryalus (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Kerry (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Our serial IP pest is back again. Again, removing an adjacent suburb (Inala) and adding a not-adjacent suburb (Sherwood). Does not respond on Talk or User Talk, so difficult to try to find out what is driving this obsession (a very old street directory, maybe? - not that I can think of any time when Oxley and Sherwood would have been adjacent, Corinda has always been in between throughout my lifetime at least). Kerry (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked again. Am cautious about long-term block of IPs, though this one has clearly been assigned to the same user since July. Let's see what happens in mid-September. Euryalus (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Women of Science Wikibomb event in Canberra[edit]

The Australian Academy of Science is running an edit-a-thon in Canberra on August 14, to improve the coverage of female Australian Scientists on Wikipedia. For those not in Canberra, it looks like you can participate online as well. It was covered in The Age on Sunday, and registrations close at the end of this week. I'm not involved in organising this, but I'm posting it here as I know many on this board will be interested. --Michael Billington (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Reminder. Wikibomb is on today (Thursday 14 August). I understand around 150 people are registered for the event (either at the Academy of Science or virtually); while they are probably all well-intentioned, many will be new to Wikipedia editing. Your patience and friendly assistance is requested in relation to the development of new articles and with linking to existing articles. I will be at the event physically so say Hello if you are there too. Thanks Kerry (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to anyone who helped. Over 80 articles are known to have been created but we are unsure of the output of many of the online participants. We are trying to gather the articles into a hidden category


If you want to help tidy up any of them. Most participants were new to Wikipedia editing so the articles aren't likely to confirm to the MoS. Kerry (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it has been a successful event. Thanks for lending your expertise. Articles seem to be well-sourced with some categories, link rot and incoming links to be sorted. Before reading them I couldn't name a female Australian scientist off the top of my head. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how well sourced some are, but given the mass media's preoccupation with sport, celebrity and politics, it's always hard to find truly independent refs for academics. How do you tell someone that a list of 50 peer review papers might not prove notability as easily as a single article in the Herald Sun? We want/need some references about the scientist, not just evidence that they write papers. Given the metadata debate happening at the moment, would have been nice for them to be told about our desired metadata - infoboxes, defaultsort, persondata etc. And the ABC has an article on the event. Not sure that the category is ideally named, bomb isn't always taken the way we mean it, and it's just a bit generic for my liking. The-Pope (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to say that the event might have gone better if the participants had been provided with a template such as this one that also included the Category:Australian women academics, Category:Australian women scientists and/or Category:Indigenous Australian women academics. These kinds of categories are insanely useful for this kind of activism. Also note that off-wiki coordination is in danger of crossing into meat puppetry as soon as the first article is up for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
A little good faith here wouldnt hurt, this wasnt an editor or WMAU organised event this was done by an outside group who saw a void and chose to fill it. Their inexperience is showing in a number of ways so instead of biting how about offering positive assistance and praise in what they achieved, everything being complained of is fixable Gnangarra 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
And they are starting to be challenged for deletion. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Article_alerts. At least one is at AFD, 2 have been prodded. As much as I'd love to help out and give good faith to the editors and organisers, this is exactly the problem that happens if editors aren't instructed correctly, and can/will be demoralising to the editor. The need for significant coverage in independent references should have been made absolute and non negotiable, regardless of the scientists position, number of papers written or reputation in their field. I don't understand H-scores or whatever metric academics use to justify their importance, but we either need to step in and help out, or the wikibomb might bomb out big time. The-Pope (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have dePROD'd several and will continue to work on any that look questionable. I suspect that several of the articles (mainly for scientists in government roles) are going to be deleted. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Template:Lang-en-AU (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

List of massacres of Indigenous Australians[edit]

FYI, the meaning and scope of "List of massacres of Indigenous Australians" is under discussion, see talk:List of massacres of Indigenous Australians -- (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New article creation[edit]

Hi all, I've created User:Chuq/Drafts/TasNetworks (Link changed Chuq (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)) - since I have a potential COI, I was hoping that someone here could move it to article-space (if they don't see any issue with it?) It should be fairly uncontroversial. -- Chuq (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done (albeit, having done it wrong the first time, which has probably left you with a double redirect). Kerry (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No harm in that, I can delete the redirects anyway! Thanks Kerry! -- Chuq (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone knowledgeable enough about the topic to contribute to the merger discussion at Talk:TasNetworks? -- Chuq (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian Sport[edit]

I think WikiProject Australian sport could do with a Yobot tagging drive. I had a quick look through some aussie sport categories and found a lot aren't tagged with the WP:AUSSPORT template. What does everyone else think? NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We probably should clearly define what the project scope is. It's it sports people or just sports, venues etc? Should it duplicate tagging articles already in the sub projects, Australian rules football, rugby league, soccer, motor sports etc? I've never really been sure. The-Pope (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with The Pope - the scope need to be clarified before anything further. The sub projects should have their scope defined as to whether they cover their subject areas only. It needs careful discussion before proceeding imho. satusuro 10:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've generally avoided doing automated project tags, unless you very carefully review the category list. I prefer to use WP:AWB. For my preferred project, AFL, there are a few categories under Category:Australian rules football that aren't really appropriate in the WikiProject, mainly Irish international rules players, winners of the Douglas Wilkie Medal and people notable for other things (mainly politicians or cricketers) who played a game or few of football at some lower level. You wouldn't want a recursive Category list from Sport in Australia to say include every world wide athlete who competed at the Sydney or Melbourne Olympic Games (don't know if it does, just an example of what can happen with recursive Category trees). The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another deletion discussion we weren't told about[edit]

Category:Australian specific-source templates was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2014. The result of that discussion, which only closed yesterday, was delete. The first I became aware of this was when a template that I had created was modified today.[6] The discussion was so poorly advertised that, over the period of over two months, there were only 3 participants in the discussion, including the nominator. Category:Australian specific-source templates included at least 42 templates, which seems more than enough for a sub-category and I believe that there is an inherent usefulness in categorising large numbers of templates that aren't generic into specific subcats. This deletion also affects Category:Australia templates, the result of the deletion is that all of the neatly categorised specific-source templates are going to be, if editors think to do so (which didn't happen with the example above), dumped into Category:Australia templates. I'm considering taking this to DRV but I was wondering if there is support for it here. I realise that this sort of thing bores some people so, to get you excited, it will affect sporting templates. --AussieLegend () 07:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Originally they were separated to distinguish between two types of citation templates. Then in a 2007 discussion they were put in Category:Specific-source templates this was then broken down when it became too cluttered the name choice was for a "logical" separation for where someone would most likely be working on content. Its just shows how idiotic the category renaming process is that something goes in a circle over a few years to where they started in 2006/7. Gnangarra 10:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It does indeed. No consideration appears to have been given to that at all in the most recent discussion. --AussieLegend () 12:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • well I suppose we could just move them the Cuategory:Australian templates then subcat some of them off into "Category:Australian GLAM sourced templates" Gnangarra 13:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The first file that was changed wasn't added to Category:Australia templates as it should have been. I had to ask the admin involved to ensure this happened. --AussieLegend () 16:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Are there any more comments on this, or should I give up on the idea of DRV? --AussieLegend () 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


I originally posted this request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography but that project is described as "semi-active".

I have drafted an article on the Walsh Report more correctly titled Review of Policy relating to Encryption Technologies that was conducted for the Australian government in 1996. Having founded and been a board member of Electronic Frontiers Australia who played a major role in the Walsh Report I have a potential conflict of interest in this article.

Could one or more editors here please review my draft, edit it if you want to, and—if you then consider it sufficiently neutral and meeting other criteria for Wikipedia articles—move it to mainspace. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you submit to the (currently very backlogged) WP:AfC system. I don't foresee any serious issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I've done some copy-editing of the draft. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I moved it to an article, the AFC is already heavily backlogged, and this is already better than most of the stuff they deal with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Qld Parliament reorganises their website - affects citations to their Re-Member database of former parliamentarians[edit]

Sigh. A number of existing citations will have deadlinks. While one solution is to go through and fix them individually, I presume the problem will occur again, so what I have been doing with my favourite citations is progressively creating templates and replacing the direct URLs in articles with the template so that fixing URLs just involves fixing the template once rather than lots of articles. However, I'm in the middle of a domestic crisis (moving house) so it may be more than a week before I can setup the template etc, so this message is just to warn folks of the issue and that I will be dealing with it when I get a chance (of course, if you are keen and want to do it sooner, please feel free!). Kerry (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll just note that Special:LinkSearch would be a good checklist here. It shows 1084 outgoing links to at the time of writing. --Michael Billington (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I will also note that 30 months after the restructure there are still a few hundred links to Not all of them are invalid. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject AusRoads[edit]

First of all, Is the wikiproject Australian roads still running?

Secondly, do we need an article on smaller roads such as the strzlecki highway or the Great Alpine Road? NMFCFan113 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

1) Yes, it is still running, there just hasn't been much collaborative work or discussion or people asking questions lately
2) Whether or not we have articles – for any topic, not just roads – is based on notability. Length/usage alone isn't a reliable measure/estimate of notability: A road that is a significant part of a state highway/route would usually be notable per WP:GEOROAD, or a road could also be notable for historical reasons (notability isn't temporary), or as a significant scenic route, etc. Also, don't forget that per the WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia does/should include features of a gazetteer. - Evad37 [talk] 03:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And short/stub articles can undergo significant improvement, if someone (or more likley, a group of someone's) put in the effort to research, rewrite, and expand them. E.g., Forrest Highway used to look like this - Evad37 [talk] 03:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Turns out the great alpine road is already done, what about the Old melbourne Road (Old Princess Highway) I am trying to discuss whether my ideas are considered noteable — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMFCFan113 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry (I misinterpreted your question as asking about possible deletion of the existing articles) Face-smile.svg. Obviously, you should check to see whether an article already exists, as that will save you some hassle if it does, because then you can just expand it – for example, Old Princes Highway, Victoria has already been created, but could be expanded. We do already have a lot of articles started, eg see List of highways in Victoria and List of road routes in Victoria, and similar lists for other states. If you want some rough guidance, major highways are usually notable, but most of them have already been created. Roads that make up M, A, and B road routes would probably be notable, major urban arterial roads are probably notable, more local roads are usually not notable (but may be notable as a tourist road or historically). Ultimately, it comes down to whether you have WP:reliable sources to support claim of notability (if you don't, any new article you create is likely to be deleted). Feel free to post more ideas here or at WT:AURD, and if do find you want to create an article, I would suggest starting a draft version in a sandbox (see WP:USERSUBPAGE). Anyway, I'm glad you want to contribute! - Evad37 [talk] 04:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)