Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help
|
The lunatics have taken over the asylum ...
Category:Australian rules footballers is now, in the main, Category:Australian players of Australian rules football. There is not words to describe such pedantry and stupidity. This follows from Category:Australian doctors renamed as Category:Australian medical doctors in the name of ridding it of ambiguity! (no idea if this category now only contains possessors of an MD or if mere MBBS holders still qualify for membership). I feel there is something deeply, even philosophically wrong, with the approach to category names at CfD but I am not well educated enough to express it as clearly as I like. Nevertheless, it is deeply frustrating to see simple, clear, concise names mangled in the name of "removing ambiguity" and "ensuring consistency", as if these aims can ever be achieved. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agreed with your sentiment until I looked at Category:Players of Australian rules football by nationality and saw 24 valid subcategories. Admittedly many of these subcategories have only one or two members. I still feel this level of categorisation is probably excessive, but I'd say we leave this taxonomy now that it is implemented. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Categories such as Category:Filipino players of Australian rules football are not valid. Matthew Stokes is an Australian of Filipino ancestry, not a Filipino. In Category:South African players of Australian rules football, both members of the sub-category are not South Africans but Australians of South African ancestry. A few other categories, such as Category:Welsh players of Australian rules football and Category:Tuvaluan players of Australian rules football are empty!
- The only sub-categories with any claim to being "valid" are Category:Irish players of Australian rules football and perhaps Category:Papua New Guinean players of Australian rules football. In PNGs case, Mal Michael and James Gwilt are Australians of PNG ancestry but Winis Imbi is the real deal (but marginally notable). There are two separate issues. One is the overcategorisation by supposed nationality which WT:AFL is attempting to deal with. Once that is sorted, the naming issue will be exposed as the brainless decision that it was. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Australian rules is also a major game in Nauru, but are there any articles on their footballers? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only sub-categories with any claim to being "valid" are Category:Irish players of Australian rules football and perhaps Category:Papua New Guinean players of Australian rules football. In PNGs case, Mal Michael and James Gwilt are Australians of PNG ancestry but Winis Imbi is the real deal (but marginally notable). There are two separate issues. One is the overcategorisation by supposed nationality which WT:AFL is attempting to deal with. Once that is sorted, the naming issue will be exposed as the brainless decision that it was. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds very similar to the categories which were created within rugby league recently by an editor (using various names). Category:Rugby league players by nationality is now, imo, ridiculously over-categorised with players included based on heritage, not representation or birth. A New Zealander playing in Japan was categorised as a Japanese rugby league player, as well as New Zealand rugby league player and Tongan rugby league player! florrie 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If all those red links means that these cats have been cleared out, then that's a job well done. --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of LNP party colours
I have started a discussion on the appropriate party colours to use for the merged National/Liberal entity in Queensland at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Template:Australian_politics.2Fparty_colours.2FLiberal_National_and_others. Input from a wide variety of editors would be welcomed! Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
Mount Warning (Wollumbin)
Could we get some more input on the Mount Warning (Wollumbin) page. Should it be named as such for starters? I don't think it follows the naming conventions we already use. Also should the term Wollumbin be used the way it is in the article? Mentioning that Wollumbin was the Aboriginal term for the mountain is significant enough to mention once but I don't think it should follow every time Mount Warning is written. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mount Warning/Wollumbin is dual assigned so either name is correct but I think that the article should be at the most common name (Mount Warning), with a redirect from Wollumbin, which is what was the case. There is definitely excessive use of Wollumbin on the page, even to the point of changing Mount Warning National Park to Mount Warning (Wollumbin) National Park, one thing that I've corrected. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Living somewhat nearby, I can confirm that the "Mount Warning" name is the one in common use - it's not a situation like with Ayers Rock where the indigenous name has become equally if not more popular than the European name. If the names ever get to a point where they're both equally popular in common use, then a change like this would be justifiable, but not right now. That said, a mention that "Wollumbin" is the indigenous name is certainly needed in the lead of the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC).
- I agree with Lankiveil - per WP:NAME the title of an article should use the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject. There is also a relevant paragraph at WP:Naming conflict:
- An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain, or a non-human entity such as an animal, does not have a name for itself. Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one. Similarly, the English name cobra for a type of snake is just as arbitrary as the Indonesian name "ular tedung", but the English name is used in the English Wikipedia because it is the standard name in the English language.
- Wollumbin deserves inclusion in the first sentence as an official alternative name, but not as a dual name throughout the article and certainly not in the article title. Euryalus (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Lankiveil - per WP:NAME the title of an article should use the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject. There is also a relevant paragraph at WP:Naming conflict:
- Living somewhat nearby, I can confirm that the "Mount Warning" name is the one in common use - it's not a situation like with Ayers Rock where the indigenous name has become equally if not more popular than the European name. If the names ever get to a point where they're both equally popular in common use, then a change like this would be justifiable, but not right now. That said, a mention that "Wollumbin" is the indigenous name is certainly needed in the lead of the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC).
I have followed the suggestions above and made the changes to the article. I used past tense to describe the use of the term Wollumbin, but also noted that Wollumbin is an official dual name. I hope I got it correct, but it might be worded more acurately. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. It was I who tried to move Mount Warning => Mount Warning (Wollumbin). In my defence, I would like it to be noted that:
- I did first check and found that Wikipedia place naming conventions did NOT give clear guidelines or advice on official/formally gazetted place names .. particularly where there may be two such names[1]
- On doing quick google search to resolve the matter, I found the following webpage which clearly displays a photo of a National Park sign for the area reading Mount Warning (Wollumbin).
You will of course note that the above rational for moving the article includes two verifiable references/citations justifying the move (1. extract of official names & 2. photo of the use of the Mount Warning (Wollumbin) name) .. which is more that appears to have been used to move the article back again!!
While it may once (pre-January 2006) been accurate and true that most non-Bandjalung people knew the mountain/feature by the name given it by Lt James Cook .. clearly, since January 2006 it is the State/Geographic Names Board of New South Wales intention that the Mountain be known by both its names (dual naming) .. & since January 2006 most visitors to the place will now know it by it's dual name/s .. as would seem appropriate to a significant place over which the Federal Court has determined an orginal native title to co-exist?!!
I wonder if a new Australian based addition to the Wikipedia place naming guidelines might be appropriate .. dealing specifically with formally gazetted/designated dual names for places?!! All in good cheer :-) Bruceanthro (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Image and public perception of John Howard
A new article I stumbled across - Image and public perception of John Howard. Is this anything but a POV fork? --Merbabu (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Redirected by User:Jenuk1985. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. It's been placed a few times in JH but I had removed it a it had no references. --Merbabu (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems an unlikely redirect - is anyone actually going to type "Image and public perception of John Howard" into the search box? Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll kill it. Orderinchaos 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems an unlikely redirect - is anyone actually going to type "Image and public perception of John Howard" into the search box? Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A request from our collegues at ru.wiki
What is the pronunciation of Cowangie, Victoria? -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be like the NSW placename Cowan which rhymes with "ran", and then a less emphasised "gee" after it, judging from that video. Orderinchaos 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sensitivities in recording Aboriginal MPs death
Sadly, NTs first Aboriginal MP Hyacinth Tungutalum died today [2]. I note that the ABC report doesn't list his first name, presumably out of cultural respect. I also recall that upon Wes Lanhupuy's death, the ABC did not refer to his name at all, callinh him "the former member for Arafura". What do people believe should be the process for listing the deaths of high-profile Aboriginals? --Roisterer (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The first port of call would be WP:CENSOR, right? While I'm reluctant to *not* put the name in, per our censorship policy, I would be equally reluctant to make a gratuitous display of it in the same manner that the anti-Muslim trolls on wikipedia insist on plastering pictures of Muhammad everywhere because "wikipedia is not censored" (ie, pictures of Muhammad are taboo for Muslims). --Merbabu (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mulrunji is how we handled an earlier case. Orderinchaos 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Which goes across WP:CENSOR and is an awful precedent. To go off-topic for a bit, that article is a textbook WP:ONEEVENT and should be redirected to the 2004 Palm Island death in custody article. Hirohito is my preferred model for cases where cultural tradition cuts across wider understanding. While I sympathise that indigenous Australians have their own traditions, I don't see why Wikipedia is bound to follow them, any more than we are bound to follow Christian, Muslim, Buddhist traditions etc. We should not be deliberately offensive, but neither should we be deferential, to any tradition from any culture.-- Mattinbgn\talk 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed btw. Was just citing that as a particular example rather than commending that particular article. Orderinchaos 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mattinbgn - very well put, particularly your last sentence. --Merbabu (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- We don't hesitate to change names where a living person changes them; why should we adopt a different position where a person's name is changed posthumously? Rebecca (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where a living person has changed their name, would we hide the former name? --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't hide it, just de-signify it. That was the point of the Mulrunji link :) Orderinchaos 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- We don't always change the name of the article if someone changes their name; article names are covered by WP:NAME which states "Use the most easily recognized name" and "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists". In the case of a politician, the most recognisable name for a general audience is surely the name they used in their life, not the honorific used in their death.
- Where a living person has changed their name, would we hide the former name? --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- We don't hesitate to change names where a living person changes them; why should we adopt a different position where a person's name is changed posthumously? Rebecca (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Which goes across WP:CENSOR and is an awful precedent. To go off-topic for a bit, that article is a textbook WP:ONEEVENT and should be redirected to the 2004 Palm Island death in custody article. Hirohito is my preferred model for cases where cultural tradition cuts across wider understanding. While I sympathise that indigenous Australians have their own traditions, I don't see why Wikipedia is bound to follow them, any more than we are bound to follow Christian, Muslim, Buddhist traditions etc. We should not be deliberately offensive, but neither should we be deferential, to any tradition from any culture.-- Mattinbgn\talk 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mulrunji is how we handled an earlier case. Orderinchaos 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A bit off-topic, but it would be very nice to get an article on him while there's decent sources around. Rebecca (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Another point, the Content disclaimer includes the following "Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures". It may be polite to use the honorific, and I daresay I would do so in my own writing on my own site (if I had one) but I think it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to make an exception to WP:CENSOR to meet the requirement of one particular cultural group. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I concur that it's inappropriate to self-censor these articles because some people from some cultural groups may find the use of the full name offensive. I wouldn't be opposed to a warning message at the top of the article about "This article contains names and/or images of recently deceased Aboriginal persons" or something along those lines, but if I recall rightly, last time that came up people started quoting from the "no disclaimers" policy, which I suppose is fair enough.
- I also think this is different from the Mulrunji issue, in that that person was not well known before their death, and therefore their name while they were alive never became "common". Tungutalum is a different case in that there is presumably a great deal of sources about him using that name, so that is unquestionably the "common" name that's in use. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
- This is horribly inconsistent with the stance we take with white people who change their names. If a notable woman is well known under her maiden name and subsequently adopts a married name, we don't keep using the maiden name as primary. The same logic applies here, ignoring the apparent kick some folks here seem to be getting out of riding over cultural sensitivities. Rebecca (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- At a pinch, I can think of Ginger Reyes as an example that goes the opposite way. Either way, the usual procedure with these things has always been to use the name that's in common use. For Mulrunji, that's Mulrunji, for Tungutalum, that's Tungutalum. Lastly, I'm not quite sure I like what you seem to be implying with this comment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
- This is horribly inconsistent with the stance we take with white people who change their names. If a notable woman is well known under her maiden name and subsequently adopts a married name, we don't keep using the maiden name as primary. The same logic applies here, ignoring the apparent kick some folks here seem to be getting out of riding over cultural sensitivities. Rebecca (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Having lived in the Territory for quite a well, I have a different view of this. I was there when Wes Lanhupuy died and remember that his name was not used for a while (BTW, we should have an article on Wes too). WP is not WikiNews. Since we have not had an article on him before, I think out of respect for the traditions, we should defer writing an article for a month or so. Is that too much to ask? --Bduke (Discussion) 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanting to note that the image at Kevin Rudd of himself and a woman at the apology to the stolen generations, with the aboriginal woman in the background, was removed at the author's request because the aboriginal woman in the background had recently deceased. Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Again, that was a different issue though. The creator of the photo wished it withdrawn and it was removed for that reason, not because we were worried about causing offense to Aboriginal readers. For the record, I believe that that was the wrong decision to make in the circumstances, as the image was available under a free licence and was appropriate to the page it was being used on. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
Need eyes on this. Death not yet confirmed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sexual abuse scandal in Melbourne archdiocese
This article - Sexual abuse scandal in Melbourne archdiocese - may need some looking over. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Non-Wiki query
Need some help - IDE drive has partially cacked itself. When I click on certain directories it makes a repeated noise "// // // ~.~.~.~" (4 or 5 times) before asking me to format the drive (?!). It only affects a handful of directories. In case there is a progressive element to this I have moved all accessible data to a SATA drive, but some fairly important directories (my electoral maps for Queensland and Tasmania, and my photos from my 2007 trip over east) are hidden behind this.
Is this the end for my poor directories or is there a way to get them back somehow? Orderinchaos 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seal it in an antistatic bag and put it in the freezer for a few hours. Once it's cooled down, try PhotoRec. You could also make a copy of the drive using GNU ddrescue then run PhotoRec on the copy. TRS-80 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try that. Orderinchaos 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Australian mobsters
I feel that Category:Australian mobsters is incorrect. "Mobsters" is more of an overseas term and also a term and name well used in movies and video games but really isn't used here. Category:Australian gang leaders or something else would be better used then Category:Australian mobsters. Bidgee (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- That particular category has been deleted twice via CFD (most recently here), and deleted G4 as well once since then. I've deleted it G4 again, since the recreation was more or less the same as when the last version of the article was deleted. I've also salted it, as there doesn't seem to be any reason for a category with that name to exist. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
Change of COTF
Hi -- could an administrator change the ACOTF template to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/To-do as per the voting here?
Australian Matt (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nick-D actioned it. Orderinchaos 09:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Australian politicians
Hello all. Just thought I bring some of your attention to this list here. The missing encyclopedia project aims to make articles that are notable from lists such as this one and once the articles are completed (blue links) they are removed leaving only the unmade articles (red links). Not sure what happened to this page here, but it seems that nearly every article in relation to Australian politicians/politics is created! (c.f. this where nearly everything is red!
So, seeing as this is relevant to Australia, I was hoping if anyone here is willing to have a look at that page and double check that the articles are indeed what they are (and don't lead to a disambig page for example or an article about someone else not related to Australia) and remove the names from that list as appropriate. Then just leave the ones that still need work on or are red links to be eventually created hehe!
Thank you for your time and apologies if this is already on the page somewhere. I will post this to the Australian politics task force as well. Calaka (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
{{pron-en-au}} being removed from articles without any discussion.
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making changes without any discussion. These articles that I've noted that Kwamikagami has changed is Cairns, Canberra and Melbourne. They have even gone so far to change Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). My main issue is that these changes are being made without any discussion (IE Here or the talk pages of the articles) for why the change is needed, it also goes against some of the sources. Next thing we will have is using international spelling (Such as meter) and date formats (IE: 04/14/2009). Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- We need to include both international and local pronunciations of Australian cities, just as we do any other cities. People already mispronounce Melbourne as "mell-born"; by only transcribing it /'melbən/, they're going to end up with "male-bun". People have enough trouble with the IPA without demanding that they learn Australian phonetics in order to figure out that it's "mell-burn" rather than "mell-born". Australian English isn't any different than GA or RP in this regard; special treatment just makes it inaccessible. The transciption used on Australian English phonology isn't even universal with Australian dictionaries, and in any case the differences between it and the generic English IPA are no greater than between half the cities in England, or between Los Angeles and Brooklyn.
- As for spelling and date formats, that's not an accessibility issue, and using local standards would be no different for Australian articles than for any other country. A more apt analogy would be to insist that articles on the US only use imperial units, and that metric be banned. I'm American, and am not as comfortable with metric as with imperial, but I expect all US articles to use metric, and to only use imperial when needed, and then in parentheses or footnotes. Local pronunciations of American or British—or Australian—place names should be the same. It's different when there's an actual phonemic difference, such as a syllable not being pronounced, but not when it's just a difference of /e/ being a mid or a low-mid vowel.
- BTW, most Australian cities are given in generic English, so, as it is, the reader has to learn two conflicting IPA conventions, encountered arbitrarily depending on who wrote the article. Local pronunciation info is valuable, but so is conveying the basics.
- The source concern is no different than for any other article. These seldom exactly follow any particular dictionary, as few dictionaries use the same IPA conventions. The vowel of lane may be transcribed æɪ, ɛɪ, eɪ, eː, or e, depending on the dictionary; we chose eɪ as a middle-of-the-road compromise, and if your dictionary uses one of the other formats, you simply convert, just as you'd convert spelling or a date format. A reader shouldn't be restricted from editing just because they don't have access to a particular dictionary authorized by Wikipedia. kwami (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I personally believe it should be IPAEng or PronEng, not pron-en-au. That's what we have on most Australian articles, and it does correctly indicate Australian pronunciation. Kwami knows this stuff inside out, I've relied on him in the past for IPA stuff. Orderinchaos 12:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's true now, because Kwami has converted most, if not all, of the Australian pronunciations in Australian articles to the international variant. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I personally believe it should be IPAEng or PronEng, not pron-en-au. That's what we have on most Australian articles, and it does correctly indicate Australian pronunciation. Kwami knows this stuff inside out, I've relied on him in the past for IPA stuff. Orderinchaos 12:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...though this was why we shouldn't have gone with IPA exclusively in the first place. Rebecca (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Just as an interesting point - as far as geographic names go, we have 38 transclusions of Pron-en/PronEng, 12 of IPAEng (strangely, 5 in the Wollongong area) and 4 of Pron-en-au. One article, Launceston, Tasmania, contains both Pron-en/PronEng and Pron-en-au. Orderinchaos 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's great to have Australian pronunciations (that's why I created the pron-en-au template in the first place), but most people are going to be more concerned about how to pronounce the names in general (that is, in their own accent) than in trying to acquire a proper Australian accent. We can have both, of course. But with a choice between two templates, pron-en and pron-en-au, we end up being inconsistent, with some articles directing the reader to the general English IPA key, and some directing them to Australian English phonology. IMO, better to consistently direct them to the general IPA key, and then include additional info on the Australian or local pronunciation (as in the case of Melbourne with its celery-salary merger) by linking directly to Australian English phonology. The pron-en-au template had a brief flurry of interest and then died. It hasn't been used for over a year. kwami (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea to have both pronunciations (like what Kwami did at Darraweit Guim, where it has both international and local pronunciations in the first line). But, I am now thinking we should perhaps remove all traces of IPA pronunciations, because I'm unsure whether pronunciations should be used in an encyclopaedia. I then suggest that if a reader wanted to know how to pronounce the name of the subject article, then redirect the reader to that subject's entry in Wiktionary, where perhaps pronunciations should be placed. As I recall, I cannot remember whether any professional encyclopaedias actually use pronunciations in their subject entries, if any do please tell me, because I am interested to know? --203.94.135.134 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Draft MoS/conventions
Just wanted to follow up on this discussion last month regarding whether there was a style or conventions guide for Australia. This draft template text is offered for further evaluation and discussion, if there is interest in developing it further towards an Australian style/conventions/FAQ guide. Dl2000 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great so far. I can't think of anything for those blank headings. Frickeg (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)