Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Australian Wikipedians' notice board

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

WikiProjects edit | watch	In the news edit | watch
WikiProject Australia Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board Australian Wikipedians Wikipedians in Australia Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight New Australian articles WikiProject Australian places New South Wales Riverina Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia Australian Antarctic Territory Australian WikiProject Cities Adelaide Canberra Melbourne Perth Geelong Sydney Other Australia-related WikiProjects The 5000 Challenge Biota Cinema Crime Demographics Education History Exploration Maritime Military Indigenous peoples Noongar Law Literature Music Crowded House Kylie Minogue Powderfinger Politics Sports Association football Australian rules football Baseball Basketball Motorsport Television Transport Roads WikiTowns Freopedia Toodyaypedia	15 August 2024 – Israel–Hamas war Peter Dutton, the leader of Australia’s Liberal Party, calls on the Australian government to ban the entry of Palestinian refugees fleeing from conflict in the Gaza Strip, which is met with significant condemnation from several politicians and organizations as promoting racial stereotypes. (ABC Australia) (Al Jazeera) SBS World News reports that the Australian government has rejected a majority of Palestinian visa applications, accepting 2,922 applications and rejecting 7,111 applications while granting 8,746 visas to Israeli citizens and rejecting only 235 applications. (Al Jazeera) 12 August 2024 – One person is killed and several others are injured when a helicopter stolen from Cairns Airport crashes into a hotel in Cairns, Queensland, Australia. (The Guardian) 7 August 2024 – 2024 Summer Olympics French police detain Australian field hockey player Tom Craig for allegedly purchasing cocaine. (DW) 6 August 2024 – 2024 Summer Olympics Australia at the 2024 Summer Olympics Fourteen-year-old Arisa Trew wins the gold medal in Women's park skateboarding, becoming the youngest Australian to ever win an Olympic gold medal. (The Sydney Morning Herald)
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	24 August: A scale model of the B11 in Holbrook 1915 – The town of Holbrook, New South Wales was renamed from Germanton. 2001 – The Tampa crisis begins when the MV Tampa tries to help a boatload of refugees, mainly from Afghanistan. More Australian anniversaries...
To-Do edit | watch	Announcements edit | watch
Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: Requests · Ariadne Australia · Awakenings Festival · Drought Force · Electoral reform in Australia · Fossils of Australia · Landforms of Australia · Sculpture of Australia Articles needing attention · Australian contemporary dance · Crime in Australia · Environment of Australia · Gender inequality in Australia · Privacy in Australian law · Secession in Australia · Tourism in Australia Images requested · Cheryl Kernot · MV Pacific Adventurer · Poppy King · Rosemary Goldie · James Moore · OneAustralia · Australian major cricket venues Verification needed · Architecture of Australia · Australian performance poetry · FreeTV Australia · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of political controversies in Australia · Punk rock in Australia Quality watch: 64 FL-Class Australia lists 407 FA-Class Australia articles 711 GA-Class Australia articles 155 FP-Class Australian pictures	Featured article candidates John Tonkin – Discussion Good article candidates Premier of Victoria — Discussion Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth — Discussion Sophie Scamps — Discussion Kevin Rudd — Discussion Boyd Exell — Discussion Tiger quoll — Discussion William Perry French Morris — Discussion Simon Stuart (general) — Discussion Gnaraloo worm-lizard — Discussion Zephyrarchaea marki — Discussion James Davis (escaped convict) — Discussion Manifesto (2015 film) — Discussion Requests for adminship none currently General announcements Grants: Project Announcement - Women's Art Register Art+Feminism Event Planned meetups Perth – 28 July 2024 Brisbane – To be decided Melbourne – Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/46 - Tuesday 13 August, 2024

Mass moving of place articles

Not sure if there was recent discussion about place names, but TT1245 is currently busy moving numerous Australian articles e.g. Cronulla, New South Wales --> Cronulla Dl2000 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @TT1245:. --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The moves are in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia and cleans up a legacy issue. TT1245 should be thanked. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The key word is may, not should. Particularly as TT1245 shows no interest in actually addressing the approximately ten million redirects he's creating, I'd rather he stop until he at least fixes the mess he's leaving behind him. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a matter of debate as to whether (a) the legacy issue needs change now (b) whether the average current editor of 2015 knows of the arguments and debates up to 7 and 8 years ago. I think it is quite onerous on the part of supporters of removing state names to (a) show the evidence and links to the older 7 and 8 year old debates and 'legacies', and alert current editors as to why stand alone unqualified place names actually help anyone, specially the reader who is both not australian, and also geographically challenged. User:JarrahTree 15:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think at the bare minimum he either needs to start addressing the thousands of redirect issues he's creating, or stop, or be blocked. This is questionably helpful at best, but if he won't clean up after himself it becomes clearly detrimental in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a convert on the issue of the disambiguation, but the editor does need to make sure they clean up afterwards; they are apparently very new, so perhaps someone who knows more about it than I do could explain exactly what needs to happen on the editor's talk page. Frickeg (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me (in small words) what the problem with the redirects is? I was under the impression that a bot came around and re-aimed any double redirects created by pagemoves (which appears to be the case for the few I've spotchecked). Or is there a completely different issue here? -- saberwyn 03:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Frickeg: He's already been pinged here and, when he made 72 more page moves without responding I left a message on his talk page.[1] He hasn't been back since. Maybe I scared him off. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've never been thrilled about [suburb, state] format. So Cronulla is somewhere south of Cooma? Or perhaps in the Hunter region? For anyone but locals, "Cronulla, Sydney" would be so much more informative. Indeed, on odd occasions I've repiped such items in the main text to clarify. Tony (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I am adamantly opposed to this. The situation before we implemented this guideline was a ginormous clusterfuck, with articles using about fifteen possible means of disambiguation and it being impossible to reliably link a suburb or town article if you were seeking to do so without a thorough Google for places an article might be. I can live with people moving them to the exact suburb name if it doesn't need disambiguating, on the grounds they clean up their mess afterwards, but any disambiguation needs to stay at "Town, State" for very good reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I am adamantly opposed to using the old colonial state-names in titles and main text by formula. So it's Mosman, Melbourne, and Mosman, Sydney. What could be clearer? Tony (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
      • That's contrary to WP:NCPLACE#Australia which says Localities (other than suburbs) and places such as train stations, parks, etc., may be disambiguated, where necessary, by reference to city rather than state. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) There has been a long-standing convention that Australian town/locality placenames are qualified by the state name, to ease the fact that many town names are used by other things too - either another town or person that this town was named for, or an item or activity that is named after the town - railway station, football team, airport, brandname, event, mineral. It is much easier to manage inbound links and disambiguations if the "right" links are to the qualified name. This convention was weakened to "generally qualified", and a few people have made efforts at various times to pick places that have no other articles with the same name and moved them. for example, I was surprised to discover that "Minchinbury" is a place - that's not what I think of as the primary meaning for that brandname as I'm not from Western Sydney, and geologists probably have a different interpretation again. We should be aiming for "the principle of least surprise" for both readers and editors --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Another example that this user just moved en masse was Villawood, New South Wales - when Villawood Immigration Detention Centre is, if not the primary topic itself, at least as notable. These are the sorts of things that at least warrant individual move discussions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• mass moves are a pain as they not only break/create redirects for internal links they also break external linking for the people that reuse the content whether its another site or QRpedia project that last thing anyone should encounter is page being redirected after following a link. Additionally they destroy all metrics to for such connections resulting in false data which is then permanently understated as redirect links cant distinguish between what started as an outside link and what started as an internal link Gnangarra 14:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

For all the talk of long standing conventions etc, no one has yet come up with the forum/s where it was previously discussed. Naming convention guideline section for Australia seems fairly clear IMHO in stating that city or town can be used on its own, with disambiguation required only where if there is a conflicting article. Quite happy to be proven wrong though.

If it was agreed as suggested to adopt a standard format, a project to cleanse doesn't appear to have been executed, given that there are many city, towns and suburb articles using multiple naming conventions. So if creating redirects creates issues, then mine are likely to be a drop in the ocean. Not a criticism of anybody, just an observable fact. Gosford for example has Gosford, New South Wales and Gosford, Australia redirecting to it, which in turn both have multiple links to them.

To use as Villawood example, the suburb should always take precedent as the lead article. The other articles derive their names from that of the suburb, so are of secondary nature. And if of sufficient interest are likely to have their own section in the article, as the Villawood Detention Centre does. Much like Sydney is the lead article, as it is the city's name that drives the titles of the Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney Opera House etc articles. But totally different with Richmond, New South Wales and Richmond, Victoria where neither is 'heads and shoulders' over the other. Ok, there are also other Richmonds, but assuming these were the only two, then it would be appropriate to have Richmond as a disambiguation page. Likewise as suggested above about Minchinbury. TT1245 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a formal naming convention, on the naming conventions page, that localities were titled at "Town, State" for many years. This was to avoid the "multiple naming conventions" that existed back in, like, 2003, and which haven't existed for a decade because that was implemented. Now, they're either at "Town, State" or "Town". That was subsequently watered down to the present wording.

Suggesting that the suburb should always take precedence ignores WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Outside of residents of Sydney, neither Minchinbury or Villawood are remotely close to the primary topics for those articles, and people have had to address those situations with disambiguation pages that now more appropriately reflect the situation. This needs to be discussed on a case by case basis, and mass moves based on bad assumption are inappropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just discovered that some of the moves have affected related categories at commons that are normally named the same as the articles here. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• lets see start at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_36#RM_--_moving_forward then you'll find in 2011 wording was changed by discussion at the naming convention page without any significant input from Australian editors, wording was further changed in 2013 by discussion of 3-4 editors again Australian editors werent made aware of that discussion either. Gnangarra 10:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Another move today

Today TT1245 has moved Port Stephens to Port Stephens, New South Wales, to "allow for Port Stephens, Falkland Islands article". This is incorrect, and I'd argue unnecessary, disambiguation. The correct disambiguation is Port Stephens (New South Wales) but I don't see the need. The articles were managed by a hatnote, which TT1245 has seen fit to delete.[2] At least this time he's fixed up the redirects, but this is really moving articles for the sake of moving articles. Port Stephens and Port Stephens, Falkland Islands have happily co-existed for eight years with no problems so there was no need for a move. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This brings up the disastrous "primary topic" principle, by which the plainest title (i.e. without disambiguation) is allowed on a first-come-first-served basis, no matter how trivial or unimportant that topic is compared with its siblings. I believe that principle is now widely deprecated. Tony (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic is still widely used. I've seen no indication that it's deprecated. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC still exists and very much still used, and the first come first served principle is never used as a reason to keep something at an unqualified article name. It might only be the case if the primary topics have changed over time (ie with people, a 1st term politician is rarely a primary topic, but if he becomes a minister, then they might be), and no one has got around to moving or creating a DAB page. Do we still follow the ", New South Wales" for towns and suburbs, but "(New South Wales)'" for geographical features? The-Pope (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There has never been any consensus to move away from that form of disambiguation. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There was never any consensus for it to be applied. It is the invention of one B2C, and was added to WP:AT without consulting other editors. I've witnessed the huge amount of trouble it has caused, and where in so many places it just doesn't work. Tony (talk)

Can you identify when it was added to WP:AT? The problem we have at the moment is that the naming converntion for Australia says Most Australian settlement articles. Port Stephens is not a settlement, it's a body of water, so the relevant portion of the naming convention would seem to be Localities (other than suburbs) and places such as train stations, parks, etc., may be disambiguated, where necessary, by reference to city rather than state which is confusing as Port Stephens isn't part of a city. In this case [[Port Stephens]] seems to be the right place as, based on page views, it seems to be the primary topic. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The flaws of a first-come, first-served approach to article titling is exactly why mass-moves are a bad idea, and it's ironic that TT1245 moving something to disambiguate it is bringing us back here. The Port Stephens situation is very easily solved by moving it to Port Stephens (New South Wales), and the disambiguation page is completely appropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on page views, google searches etc, the NSW body of water would seem to be the primary topic so it should never have been moved. Then there is the not so small matter that because TT1245 only fixed a handful of the most blatantly obvious articles, previously valid links in 150 articles were turned into links to a disambiguation page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Crux of the issue appears to be the different interpretations of what format should be used, which from discussions above is not clear due to a vague policy. However in this case it was fairly cut and dry that the disambig page was appropriate despite the protestations of one editor. As another editor has pointed out, had it been done when the Falkand Islands article was established in 2007, then there wouldn't have been an issue.[3] That something was not correctly set 8 years ago, is a fairly lame excuse not to correct.

Port Stephens (New South Wales) would logically be the primary article if Wiki was purely an Australian project. But as it is a global project, it is unlikely the other 99.7% of the world would agree, to whom Port Stephens, NSW would be as known as Port Stephens, Falkland Islands is to an Australian reader. So regardless of the merits or otherwise of my edits, at least it has led to a bringing to the surface of various issues editors have with the policy, and the problems its vaugeness is causing. TT1245 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the crux of the issue is not the interpretation, it's that you are moving articles simply for the sake of moving articles and causing problems in the process. As I said, moving the Port Stephens article turned valid links on 150 pages into links to a disambiguation page. That's something that somebody then has to fix. Your moves are creating additional work for other editors. A move didn't need to be made when the Falkland Islands article was created, it was handled more simply by the simple creation of a hatnote that has worked for eight years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. As for the primary topic issue, and also as I've already stated, based on page views, google searches etc, the NSW body of water would seem to be the primary topic. In the past 90 days there were 243 views of Port_Stephens,_Falkland_Islands,[4] while there were 1,480 views of Port Stephens.[5] That means at least 1,237 people did not move on to the Falkland Islands article. In addition to that, google searches for both places show far more hits for the NSW Port Stephens. That's just for a start but really, primary topic is irrelevant. What it comes down to is don't move articles just because you can and when you do have a need to move one, make sure you fix the problems you create. Don't leave it for somebody else to clean up your mess. If you really want to do something useful, there are plenty of things to do. You could always go through Category:Australian place articles using missing parameters and fix the problems in the 229 articles currently in that category. I've already been through a few thousand. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems I was right though. Thanks for the tip on where I could edit, but I think I'll plot my own course. Happy editing. TT1245 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you clearly were not right, as explained above. There is clearly resistance to your moves by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@TT1245: Right about what? I don't see anything to suggest "right" in the discussion above. You are getting close to people going further on preventing you from moving articles under any circumstance. You don't want to go down that path (and neither does anyone else or we'd already be there). --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Frill-necked lizard

There is an RfC at Frill-necked lizard - do we call it "Frilled lizard", "Frill-necked lizard"...or something else. Come and add your opinion at Talk:Frill-necked_lizard#RFC:_article_title. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa 02:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Death of Tyler Cassidy in the news

The article Death of Tyler Cassidy is getting some scrutiny in the media, in particular Channel tens The Project is running a story on it tonight(2-Jun) somewhere between 18:30 and 19:30 can you please keep an eye out for it the usual characters on that and associated articles. Gnangarra 07:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a bit of casual vandalism at Peter Hellier, Waleed Aly and Fifi Box, but nothing too serious. Thanks to everyone who braved commercial television to keep an eye on the articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

RFCs - Aboriginal communities in Western Australia

Editors are requested to comment at:

• Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents?
• Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas?

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Alan Bond (businessman) not well

Indeed, Bondie is reported in very poor condition after recent heart surgery. ("Complications" and induced coma on life support) I've updated his page with the facts.

I fear someone may try to kill him off prematurely. A few eyes on his page may be a good idea. 220 of ^Borg 01:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely we should recognise these facts as breaking news—not appropriate for Wikipedia. They could be written up for Wikinews. Bjenks (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It woudn't be premature. Tony (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Tony ! I think I detect some sarcasm there! 220 of ^Borg 06:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Bjenks, I actually popped over to Wikinews and suggested that on someones talkpage. Revert me if you wish, but some anon IP is just as likely to add it again, (or say he's dead! Hurrah!) IMHO. 220 of ^Borg 06:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

220, me? Sarcastic? Tony (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Died

• has died[6] Gnangarra 03:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just heard that on 2GB. So my update was useful, but unfortunate. I noted his page had a lot more views after his hospitalisation. 220 of ^Borg 04:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Green Rain vs Blue Rain (including humidity colour)

Hello fellow Aussies! I recently made an edit to both the Perth and Freo articles changing the rainfall (or precipitation) colour in the weatherboxes to green from blue. I am unable find a consensus I read concerning the use of green rain in Aussie articles, so it was changed back to blue. I really wish I could find it! Anyway, the rainfall colour should be green because it will keep in line with other Aussie articles that contain climate info, because almost all of them have green rain. It sets the Aussie articles apart from the rest of the world (like our use of infobox colours/use) and reminds of vegetation. It also helps differentiate between average rainy days and minimum/record low temps, which are also blue (see here to compare). What do you think? I would like to come to a consensus where we decide whether we have strictly blue, strictly green or leave as is in articles right now. Cheers, Luxure Σ 05:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Green does remind you of vegetation so why would you use it for rain, which is not vegetation? Rain is water and water is normally associated with the colour blue. This seems a no-brainer to me. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

for someone whos colour blind red and green cause accessability issues colour gradients are worse... just make it B&W with bold for the max/minimum values other wise blue. Gnangarra 12:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: Green just seems so unnatural to me. Most depictions of water use blue – eg on maps, in cartoons/animations, diagrams such as File:Capillarity.svg, and the rain in various weather icons – I don't think any of them would look better with lime green instead of blue. - Evad37 [talk] 01:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

For those wondering, here is the Fremantle page with green and with blue. Blue seems more natural to me, but as User:Gnangarra says, we should avoid colour coding to convey information, as it may not be accessible to the colourblind, those using screen readers, etc. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC).

Colour is discriminatory to a specific range of readers/listeners/users of wikipedia, I would strongly suggest some other form of distinguishing pattern or device if it is at all possible. User:JarrahTree 06:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, blue seems like a no-brainer here if we must use colour. I would support using colour provided it doesn't disadvantage those with colourblindness, on which I defer to those with more knowledge. Frickeg (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think in this particular case that it disadvantages anyone, since the numerical stats are still there for people who cannot see colour to use. However, it's a good habit to get into not colour coding anything, that way you remove any possibility of accidentally excluding someone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC).

I put through a colour blind test site and the reds in the temperature arent readable to everyone already add the green in its even less readable. Gnangarra 12:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to see how it compare re:colour blindness, on a website called colorfilter.wickline.org . It looks like from that website (selecting from prot- deut- and trit- -anopes/-anomalous) that green may actually help with distinguishing the colours (deut- and prot- being R-G, trit- the rarer B-Y). It would be interesting to see Gnangarra distinguish whether Normal looks like deut- or prot-. Knowing that everyone's eye is different, how Gnangarra perceives it would be different to Joe round the block. But using that website it seems to me that the green actually helps distinguish between the blue. The green colour represents vegetation, as in, everything is green after it rains, something a lot of sandgropers will know, with the veg. over there in summer being yellow. There was an edit conflict when I was writing this so gnangarra, did you use the same website? Luxure Σ 12:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I use colour contrast analyser, which covers all types of colour blindness P,D, T as well as monochrome, P&D the colour is high contrast to rest of the table, blue is obviously readable suprisingly I see more contrast in the red areas when the blue rain is present making them more visable. for T red areas arent as big a problem, but again with the blue for rain the overall appearance is more balanced and less confronting. Over every format if thre is really aneed for any colouring then the blue provides a much better balance to the table for those with P D or T Gnangarra 13:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This one does the same, yet what exactly do you mean by "contrast". For example (unrelated) when driving at night? I personally find the green more readable than the red, although if you visit Cairns have a look at its weatherbox (as it goes to a really dark green). What do you think/see, contrast and colour wise? Luxure Σ 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Contrast (vision) as in contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object and other objects within the same field of view when using blue for rain in all tests the appearance is more balanced and less confronting, when using green the contrast of the red areas causes numbers to be indistinguisahable Gnangarra 13:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Place naming conventions

Discussion

Recently from a conversation on this page, it has become apparent that there is some disagreement as to what format place names should take. Apparently the naming convention guideline was altered some years ago with minimal involvement from Australian editors and its vaugeness is causing some problems as it is open to interpretation.

I propose that a discussion be held and if a consensus is able to be arrived at, this then be proposed for inclusion in the Australian section of the policy document. Given the wide variety of opinions that may arise, I propose that the discussion be held open for at least one calendar month. The formats that are currently in use are: (please feel free to add others):

• 1) Suburb only, e.g. Cronulla
• 2) Suburb, city, e.g. Cronulla, Sydney
• 3) Suburb, state, e.g. Cronulla, New South Wales
• 4) Suburb, country, e.g. Cronulla, Australia

While I don't think we should explicitly rule it out, using the existing policy document as a reason to keep or change is probably a bit counter productive, giving that it is this policy that if a consensus can be reached, we make seek to change. TT1245 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I would disagree that the current Australian place naming convention guideline was "altered some years ago with minimal involvement from Australian editors". There was considerable input from a vast number of editors - from Australia and elsewhere. Mandatory, compulsory disambiguation for WP:PRIMARY topics was confusing for anyone other than those "in the know" - i.e. active Australian and U.S editors. Editors from elsewhere, infrequent editors and readers (the point of the whole exercise) were perplexed by the convention. Returning to it would be a backward step. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember some fairly long discussions. I was actually in favour of mandatory disambiguation and made some arguments along that line that I still stand by. However, the current situation has generally worked well even if I find the wording a little ambiguous. The only action I think we need is to sort out the "Name (state)" format for non "settlements" (I hate that word). --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't think a poll is the way to sort this matter out. I can't for the life of me see the problem that editors are so concerned about above - nothing has to be "fixed" immediately - but if there is to be a change then more discussion is necessary to sort out alternatives. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a poll is not the way to sort this out and that "nothing has to be 'fixed' immediately". The latter is my biggest problem with all of these moves. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. And these poll "options" aren't the answer: the person who came up with them got a whole bunch wrong under any approach listed there when he was mass-moving. No mass-moves, discussion on individual cases, voila problem sorted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For those interested see here for a similar situation. I personally believe where no disambiguation is required it should be option 1, and where it is required, it should be option 2 for suburbs in the capitals (not including "big" burbs, like Parramatta, Liverpool, Campbelltown etc., which are really cities in their own right (I hate to admit this)) and option 3 for the rest. If my version of O2 is hard to implement, it should revert to O3. I however personally like how it is currently. Cheers, Luxure Σ 12:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in establishing the original naming convention that resulted in one accepted name for the article about a populated place, with a redirect or disambig page as appropriate from the shorter form and any others with significant common use or inbound links. I still support <place>, <state> as the best solution. I have accepted moving articles (and leaving redirects) to the shorter article name in individual cases. Mass moves do not allow for consideration or cleaning up of ambiguous or template links, and leave the place looking messy. Once there was a disambig page for Cronulla (disambiguation) located at Cronulla for a short time, of the links I processed with Navigation Popups|Popups]], I think I found three common appropriate targets for the inbound links before the disambig page was moved away from the simple name by someone from the disambig taskforce who had noticed there were too many inbound links (and I was travelling with limited ability to fix them quicker). While many place names appear to be the primary, or at least original, use of a word, they often become secondary or ambiguous with an event, group or smaller contained place over time. Using names qualified by the state is no worse for readers, significantly helps cleanup crew editors working to resolve ambiguous or wrong links, assists frequent editors to be confident that they have linked to what they think they have, and slightly disadvantages infrequent editors who might not notice that they have linked to a disambig page by accident (which is easier to find and fix by the cleanup crews than the reverse). A vote will not resolve anything as well as discussion can and has. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Voting is evil, given how much moving articles without a valid reason (removing disambiguation isnt a valid reason) causes both disruption and unnecessary work I think we should take the same approach to uk/us spelling of common words, where its at now is where it should stay unless there is truly a compelling reason such as; Villawood being recognised nationally with the detention centre rather than the suburb from which it took its name or a name change like Crawley bay to Matilda bay. Gnangarra 14:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Vote

While a vote is not the be all and end all, it may be useful to a closing moderator in assessing. Have arranged into 2 sections, one for where the place is clearly the primary topic and one where disambiguation is required. Would expect that editors who prefer options 2-4 in the first section, would opt for the same in the second, but in case this is not so, probably best for editors to cast a vote in each section.

Where disambig may not be required

Option 1 if an article is the primary topic, then there should be no need for disambiguation. (as nominator) TT1245 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Where disambig is required

Option 3 in line with how most articles are presently named and likewise in other jurisdictions. (as nominator) TT1245 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of awards and nominations received by Crowded House for featured list review

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Crowded House for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Seattle (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move - Coolangatta

The views of those that watch this page are most welcome to comment at Talk:Coolangatta, Queensland#Requested move 12 June 2015. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Related to the multiple moves discussion above, specifically this part, a requested move was opened in my name by another editor. Since it's open, comments are requested. The discussion may be found here. Please note there has been some confusion by respondents because the discussion was opened on the article's talk page after the article had already been moved to another page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There is so much discussion and time wasted on trivial things like article titles. Instead we could be spending time cleaning up articles which have been tagged for the last eight and half years or a million other things more aligned with actually sharing knowledge. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be fleshed out but really does it matter that much when the majority of users can search and refine their searches until they find what they want. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally said it, agree with you 100% Shiftchange. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. After the WP:RM request was opposed I gave up, moved the article to the correct disambiguation and then wasted hours fixing the 150 articles that had broken links as a result of the move. For some reason another editor decided to subsequently open the discussion in my name so it now has to progress. That said, there are indications that the status quo is the correct location as available evidence is that the NSW Port Stephens is the primary topic, so that needs to be addressed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of us agree with you and would rather be cleaning up 8-year-old messes instead of cleaning up new messes created in the last month by the good faith deliberate actions of other editors. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison FAC discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fremantle Prison/archive3. Thanks. Evad37 [talk] 15:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48