Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AWNB)
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
Read and edit Wikinews

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

26 November:

American servicemen marching through Brisbane in 1943
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 · Fossils of Australia · Landforms of Australia · National Tidal Centre · Office of the Status of Women · OneAustralia · Property Council of Australia

Articles needing attention · Crime in Australia · Cycling Australia · Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon · 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 · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of Australian political controversies · Outback · Paul Wild Observatory · Punk rock in Australia · Reg Ansett

Quality watch:


I see that the logo for this project on it's template is just an Australian flag. Ths US template logo is really cool. Ours should be more like that. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Americans do tend to go overboard though. Sometimes, less is more. --AussieLegend () 04:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That is true. But ours dose not convey a lot. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The words WikiProject Australia in bold in the template, right next to the flag, convey just as much as those same words would if they were duplicated in a logo - more so in fact, because they are a clickable link that will convey you to the project page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If we change, I would like a kangaroo. Hack (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hack: Good idea! A green kangaroo on a yellow background. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 03:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I say if someone reckons they can do better than what we've got, they should present it here for appraisal. What we've got is effective, if a little dull. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC).

These two aren't perfect but there sort of what I was aiming for:

Like I said, there not perfect and definitely not good enough to replace the current one. They are the sort of thing I would like. Though the coat of arms would also be good! Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Australian coat of arms is probably less recognisable to most of the world (and probably most of Australia) than the flag. Also it's way too detailed to fit into a small logo. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking something minimalist like this - Kangourou.svg. I'm okay either way. Hack (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hack: This Kangourou.svg is excellent. It's far better than mine! We should use that one. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyone got anymore suggestions and/or comments? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 03:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that the "logo" is fine and should stay as it is. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Why? Anyone else got anymore suggestions and/or comments? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Any? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see what you're trying to achieve. The US logo is a map of the US with its flag overlaid and the words "WIKI PROJECT UNITED STATES". Of those three components, the wording is entirely redundant as it is clear from the text in the banner that the logo is for "WikiProject United States". Only the flag or the map is required for identification purposes. Of those two, the flag is probably the more recognisable so that's really all that is needed in a logo. As I said, less is more, and I don't see the need to change what we have. Time being wasted on this is really better spent fixing up articles that need improvement. For a start, there are still 26 articles in Category:Australian place articles using missing parameters that need state codes added to their infoboxes and another 200 that need cleanup and removal of deprecated parameters. --AussieLegend () 06:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Let us quickly move on from this to other more pressing matters. No change is needed. The current image is best. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to be so dismissive of Catmando999's comments. I for one agree that the logo for this project is relatively unispiring, whilst it doesn't have to be 'over the top' like the US, there are plenty of other examples such as:

  • ENGLAND : Modified Flag for WikiProject England.bmp.jpg
  • CANADA : WP Canada Logo-.svg
  • JAPAN : WikiProject Japan logo version 2.png
  • SOUTH AFRICA : WikiProject RSA logo.svg
  • SOUTH KOREA : Flag-map of South Korea.svg
  • RUSSIA : WikiProject Russia.svg

For those editors who don't want to discuss the issue, that's fine but like the debate on the Australian flag don't expect it to go away. Dan arndt (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dan arndt:He's right you know. Time for reform is now. First things first, we need to pick an image. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 08:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't you need to achieve a consensus on whether a change is needed first? Its only a suggestion atm. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Taking a leaf out of the federal government's approach - its better to put up a range of alternative options and put it to a vote rather, including an option of no change. Otherwise this could get drawn out longer than necessary. Dan arndt (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is true. I was wondering, where should we put this vote to the masses, here or at RfC (or maybe something similar)? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The logo doesn't need to be inspiring, it's just part of a banner used to identify the project. It's not there to convince other editors to move here so they can edit Australian articles, or to demonstrate how great the fansite is. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Do we really need to waste time on this when we could be doing something productive? --AussieLegend () 13:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: I don't think you have seen the above. Why shouldn't we have an image like that? If I went and changed it right now would you care? Would you be upset? Of course, I wouldn't do that right now. I understand Wikipedia is not a fansite, it's just not fair that ours is a flag. Look at:

WikiProject Japan logo version 2.png it doesn't even have Japan's flag in it! Well it does have the red sun in it. But does that mean we can just have the commonwealth star? No, of course not! and as for "It's not there to convince other editors to move here", that is not what I'm trying to accomplish. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see, so I haven't missed the above but, please, let me comment on the images presented so far for your benefit.
Image Comments
Possible Australia WikiProject image.png
Text is redundant for reasons already explained. delta Cru, the rightmost star in the Southern Cross, is missing. The Southern Cross is an Australian icon, so it shouldn't be missing parts. Similarly, the bottom points on the Federation Star are missing. That Americans may leave bits off their flag is not justification for us to do the same. We're not America. Americans also represent their flag backwards - we don't.
Green Kangaroo on yellow background.png
I don't understand the light yellow triangle at the top of the image.
If you're going to use Skippy to represent Australia then you should at least use an Australian skippy, not a French one.
Modified Flag for WikiProject England.bmp.jpg
This is just the flag of England with redundant text added. (Well, just a cross is a bit boring but the Union Jack wouldn't be the same without it.)
WP Canada Logo-.svg
This is essentially a cropped version of the Canadian flag with some redundant text. No extra flash, in fact they've taken some away. Personally, I'd have preferred the whole flag and no redundant text.
WikiProject Japan logo version 2.png
Flag of Japan.svg
it doesn't even have Japan's flag in it! - Seriously? Have you ever looked at the flag of Japan? It's just the sun on a white background. The sun is right there in the logo for WikiProject Japar (look closely), rising behind Mt Fuji. And, of course, there is the redundant text. Oh, if you're wondering what the stars are, they're the Subaru logo.
WikiProject RSA logo.svg
Flag of South Africa.svg
I don't know why the South Africans chose to hack the crap out of their flag. Personally I've always found it to be one of the more visually appealing flags. If only they'd left off that redundant text.
Flag-map of South Korea.svg
Another hacked flag, but at least they left out the text.
WikiProject Russia.svg
When you've only got the colours of the Newcastle Knights to work with, I suppose you have to do something else but do we really need to be made that aware that it's RUSSIA.
Really, I don't find most of these creative, or even inspiring, at all. In fact they're pretty repetitive. The Japanese one is slightly better but even they couldn't fit in the whole country name. What's the Australian equivalent? If you're really keen on changing the image, my vote is for the image to the right. It's got the Southern Cross on it, the whole world thinks we all drink it, and we get to silently take the piss out of the rest of the planet for thinking that, which seems pretty Australian to me. --AussieLegend () 07:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Witty and brutal. Very Australian. Well, apart from South Africa's, you've managed to "explain away" all of them. I won't be cowed, however. I keep working and looking for something better. And, I saw the sun on Japan's, I think I mentioned that. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 08:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I feel like conceding. I'm starting to see no reason to continue this campaign with no support. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 09:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't be discouraged - some people are just afraid of change, which is evident from the fact that Aussie Legend appears to be a Fosters fan. I believe that we should look at an alternative logo, just like we should look at an alternative national flag. Dan arndt (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
YES! WE CAN DO THIS. Put Dan, please can you design a logo this time, my creative genius has been hit by a train and is intensive care. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Aussie Legend appears to be a Fosters fan. - The Foster's bottle works. Clearly Dan arndt is one of those foreigners who believes that an Australian would like Foster's. We have a winner.
just like we should look at an alternative national flag. - Looking doesn't mean we have to change, especially when there is no need. --AussieLegend () 11:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It feels like this argument will grind to a standstill soon. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously if this is the type of argument Clearly Dan arndt is one of those foreigners who believes that an Australian would like Foster's. We have a winner. that AussieLegend wants to use because there are individuals who have a different point of view to his own then it speaks volumes of his personality. I would prefer that all editors have the opportunity to freely express their opinion without being bullied and denigrated just because they might disagree with AussieLegend. Dan arndt (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I thought you were joking when you said Aussie Legend appears to be a Fosters fan and was responding in kind. I didn't think anyone, even a foreigner, would actually believe that I liked Fosters or would actually want to use the Foster's image, especially after I made a point of saying It's got the Southern Cross on it, the whole world thinks we all drink it, and we get to silently take the piss out of the rest of the planet for thinking that. My mistake for I forgetting that the Australian sense of humour is lost on some people. --AussieLegend () 11:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
And what makes you assume that I'm a foreigner? Even if I was why would that make a difference. Dan arndt (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Sigh... I said, the whole world thinks we all drink it, and we get to silently take the piss out of the rest of the planet for thinking that, to which you replied Aussie Legend appears to be a Fosters fan. Therefore, that you think that I, an Australian, am a Foster's fan, which only a foreigner would think of any Australian, is an indication that you must be a foreigner. It was a joke FFS. Catmando999 got it. --AussieLegend () 12:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is true I got it, but isn't all this slightly off topic? And Dan, no one drinks Fosters. That's a known fact. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hiw about we take this to RfC. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Issues such as this are best left to individual projects. An RfC is an invitation to any Wikipedian to comntribute. What would happen if the discussion was visited by members of the US project and they all said that we should use the US logo? (That's extreme, but I've seen stranger things happen) In any case, what would the RfC question be? --AussieLegend () 08:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay then. We won't take this before RfC. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave the logo as it is. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Change time to at least look at the alternatives. Dan arndt (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave as is, we don't need to change anything. --AussieLegend () 11:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else's? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's 2-2. @Hack: or anyone who commented on this earlier should vote. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 19:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is archived, I'll simply revive the conversation. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 07:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I do not think there is any need to change anything. Effort would be/could have been better spent on improving articlespace for the benefit of readers and editors, instead of weeks of drawn-out discussion on changing a picture that few would ever see anyway. -- saberwyn 12:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Catmando999: If the discussion is archived, which is an automated process, it means that nobody is interested in continuing the discussion. Posting every few days in the hope that somebody will respond is pointless. It just serves to annoy people. Threatening to restore an archived discussion, apparently until more people get involved, seems a little petulant. --AussieLegend () 13:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Okay, fine. Evidently I am the last patriot and I give up trying to fix a non-issue like this. Can everyone stop posting here so this discussion may R.I.P at last. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinions sought on capitalisation of "deaf" in "deaf community"[edit]

Opinions sought at Talk:Auslan#Deaf or deaf? on whether "deaf" is a proper noun in the context of "deaf community". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase. It's an adjective describing the community based on the evidence. Anyway adjectives aren't usually bumped up to proper nouns. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are deaf people who consider themselves to be a distinct community/culture; they self-identify as Deaf rather than deaf. I think if you want to respect them, you use Deaf in the same way as we would with Islamic, Rabbitohs, etc. Kerry (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
But of course not every deaf person thinks that way and therefore the precise context needs to determine whether deaf or Deaf is the correct form. But certainly I would understand there was a difference between saying "Fred is Deaf" vs"Fred is deaf".Kerry (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd interpret "Fred is Deaf" to mean that "Fred is involved with Deaf culture", and "Fred is deaf" to mean "Fred can't hear". But I suspect such distinctions may be lost on many casual readers. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
I agree that casual readers may not appreciate the difference (worth adding a link on first use to assist the casual reader) but that is true of many things on many topics! I presume some of the editors in this dispute do understand the difference and are probably feeling somewhat irritated/offended by the well-intended commentary by those who don't. Kerry (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I understand from a MOS point of view it should be lowercase, however I would ask editors to be considerate of the reason why deaf and Deaf exist. deaf refers to ability/inability, Deaf refers to acceptance of Deaf culture which includes their language and more. I never understood this until I worked with the Deaf community and the Deafblind community. Flat Out (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope this isn't a red herring, but I got into a lot of hot water over a similar with the US Blind community. It still feels wrong to me when I type that, but in the end their consensus was to capitalize anything related to the community of people who can't see, and only use lower case when describing one individual's impairment (and it's nothing to do with people who make window furnishingsFace-smile.svg). Nevertheless, it seems sensible to adopt consistent approaches for "deaf" and "blind".--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ironically, if I saw "US Blind" I would have thought that it did refer to a company making venetians. Just because a group decides to capitalise something, or make up words, doesn't mean that Wikipedia does. The military exclusively capitalises ANZAC, but there has been a lot of discussion over the use of ANZAC vs Anzac and we have decided to use both depending on context. Even if an organisation decided to call itself "DeafBlind Auztralia" doesn't mean that we would do in an article about the organisation. That is covered in WP:OFFICIAL. In Australia people still use "mts." and "lts." as abbreviations for metres and litres but that is clearly incorrect and we don't use them. Similarly, just because some people decide to capitalise "deaf" doesn't mean they're correct in doing so. People with a vested interest in something often want that something to stand out, and capitalising a word is a simple way of doing that. We can't base the way we do things on the actions of a group with clearly non-NPOV opinions. What we can do is take guidance from authoritative sites like which does not capitalise deaf. --AussieLegend () 06:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the question is (or should be) whether "Deaf" is a proper noun in that context, not whether "other people capitalise it". It's an important distinction; Wikipedia capitalise words because they are proper nouns, not because other people capitalise them. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate all the comments, but I wish editors has responded at Talk:Auslan#Deaf or deaf? as I had requested, so the the discussion was all in one place instead of three (here, Talk:Auslan#Deaf or deaf?, and WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters#"Deaf" or "deaf"? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Student creation of Australia-centric health pages: your opinions requested[edit]


My name is Lydia and I've been assisting with the delivery of a first-year communications unit in the School of Health Sciences at the University of Notre Dame Australia. First year students in our School often have difficulty with "information literacy" (assessing their own needs for information, searching, finding and using information ethically) as well as paraphrasing and referencing. As a librarian I work with the unit coordinator to find new ways of engaging students to improve their literacy levels so they are prepared for the rigors of university. Instead of the annotated bibliography assignment they normally do as a precursor to an essay, I designed a Wikipedia assignment with the help of the Wikimedia Education resources and local administrators. They were tasked to identify a gap in the Wikipedia coverage of Australian Health topics, design a page, and write an article at least 500 words long on a topic of their choice. They would later use the research they had found to develop a deeper essay question for another assignment. They were graded on the depth of content, page layout and number and quality of references used. Writing skill and style elements were not a focus of this topic as much as finding and using information well. It was also my hope that in contributing to Wikipedia the students would gain insight into a peer-review process and feel a sense of accomplishment in contributing to the world's knowledge.

This was an experiment for the School, and for me. We had no idea how the assignments would turn out. This particular student population is mostly straight out of high school and can struggle with motivation, time management and independent learning goals. Their biggest challenge in this assignment seemed to be picking a topic that wasn't already covered, and not procrastinating. However for those who picked a topic early, they seemed to do well with referencing and paraphrasing their information. While many of the pages have been necessarily deleted or modified now, I still think it was a good challenge for the students, and will hopefully make them think differently about Wikipedia. It also seems that the Wikipedia footnoting style is so easy to use that the reference lists were longer than expected, with more frequent footnotes. Some articles were much longer than expected as well.

I've attached a spreadsheet of student usernames and edit histories and would like to ask you the following:

What is your opinion of the quality of the articles (given the experience of the editors)- in terms of topic choice, sources, and writing? Would you encourage more assignments like this in the future? Any suggestions for how this assignment could be improved?

Many thanks, Ldawe (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot of great work by your students, @Ldawe:! They've all chosen very interesting topics. I hope that they found the world stage of Wikipedia engaging, and that the use of Wikipedia has enhanced the course outcomes. I haven't looked at all of the articles, but those that have survived at this point look really good, with well-chosen sources and decent writing.
Now for the critique: Several of your students haven't used full citations to help people verify where they get the information from. (some have used bare links, which could change in the future, and some have not completely filled out where to get them from - only giving an author and a chapter title, rather than the full citation for the book.) As accurately attributing information is an important academic skill, and verifiability is important in Wikipedia, perhaps this should be more emphasised next session. I'm not saying 'bludgeon them over the head with the Notre Dame citation style guide!', but the sooner your firsties get used to writing full citations, the easier the rest of their academic life will be - and it fits with the information literacy focus of your assessment in that it helps them avoid plagiarism.
Some of your students use persuasive language in their articles, too. Reiterating to them that this step is solely a literature survey, you only regurgitate what is already in the literature, might help with this. It sounds like they can argue their own ideas in part 2 of the assessment (off-Wikipedia), but not at this point.
A handful of students haven't included an introduction ('lead') section, either.
Your students can use the topics listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/To-do#Health for ideas of what Australian health topics have been requested by Wikipedians - the subjects may be covered under another name, so they will need to do a keyword search before getting their heart set on Dementia and Altzheimer's disease in Australia, but that might be somewhere to start for inspiration. A lot of the red links there will still be red next year.
It's a shame that the assignment is designed so that the topics have to be novel to Wikipedia - there are some existing articles like Rural health care in Australia or Cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Australia which could use 500 extra words and 10+ extra sources - let alone the care and attention some of your students have lavished on the drafts. Perhaps some further consultation could be made with the library liasons at Wikipedia to brainstorm how to use sandboxes to work on an expanded draft of an already-existing article, which otherwise would meet the guidelines of the assessment (over 500 words added by the student - not previous Wikipedians, and 10+ novel sources.) The page history could be used to provide documentation of the student's own work. At the close of the project, a merge could take place.
For further development, perhaps classmates could be assigned particular other classmates pages to comment on - with evaluation of sources chosen, presentation, and 'what I learned from my classmate's article'. That would enhance the peer review aspect - although perhaps it should be done before putting the article out of the sandbox, in case merging happens, and with a caution to use their 'handle' rather than their real name. Whether you want to get your students to improve their articles in response to their classmates' feedback or simply reflect on that might depend on the time available. Additionally, getting your students to attempt to deorphan their articles once they're out of the sandbox would be a good exercise - that way, people who are reading related articles can find the article by browsing, rather than searching directly for the topic. I have attempted to deorphan Diabetes in Aboriginal Australians and Closing the gap by adding a link to those articles in Indigenous health in Australia. (Indigenous health in Australia could also be a good brainstorming point for more detailled articles on aspects of Indigenous health - for those students who need inspiration.) I have also attempted to deorphan Vitamin D deficiency in Australia by adding a link to it in Slip-Slop-Slap. As other interested people find and read the articles, the more likely it is that they can build on and enhance your students' work to make something really useful for everyone - great things happen when Wikipedia articles are exposed to peer review. If they find that they can't deorphan the article, just writing a bit of text for you saying why they couldn't should be ok as well.
I style myself as a casual contributor to Wikipedia, but I think the assignment looks manageable (though you'd have to ask your Wikipedia liason for comments on manageability) and valuable to the project and the students. I think it has potential to be run again next year, and possibly even expanded to other subjects. Please feel free to ask for clarification on anything I've mentioned. Best wishes! -- (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to echo the IP contributor above, I think that for a bunch of first attempts these articles are pretty darn good. I would also like you to consider the idea of improving existing articles that are in a poor state rather than creating new ones, and maybe looking at whether an article title or subject is redundant to an existing subject. For instance, Injuries in netball isn't a bad article taken in isolation, but a lot of the content may be redundant to Sports injury. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
The topic of "injuries in (sport name)" might be considered a subtopic of whatever particular sport that article is about, rather than being redundant to sports injury. There is, for example, an extensive category on dance and health. It might be unusual for an article on injuries in netball to be made before a section like "Netball#Injuries", but it's not a bad or unencyclopedic topic. Do you think the method I proposed for expanding existing articles in a sandbox is feasible, if part of the goal is for the student not to get distracted by working with other people on their draft? -- (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback everyone (keep it coming!). I had done a mini-project about six months ago wherein the students edited stubs, for a lower mark. The only problem with doing that is that I'd have to find approximately 150 stubs for students to edit in Semester 1 - a lot of work for one person. As it was I found it very hard to find enough Health-related stubs on appropriate topics (very scientific or medical topics are not appropriate to this group). However, probably what I should have done is engaged the Wikipedia community to help me find the stubs to edit. Actually I'm quite happy with the way they have been referencing for a first attempt, in that they referenced at all, albeit in a rough way (bare links, etc). It's more important that they understand why and when to reference than to master a style at this stage. I think the peer review idea (students looking at each others' finished pages) is a good one. I'm thinking that I might modify this assessment and suggest it for the Foundation Year students. In that case, can anyone recommend lists of articles that need attention by subject? That would be a great help for next time. Ldawe (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Ldawe:. Stub articles are marked in Wikipedia in 2 ways. The first way is with a stub template on the page - you can browse a list of stub types here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types and then you can browse in those to find stubs that are listed that way.
The other way is by visiting a wikiproject's assessment page, and then choosing to view all their stub articles. You can do this on any Wikiproject's home page by viewing the table of assessments ("Subject articles by quality and importance") and then clicking on the word 'Stub' in that. Australia Wikiproject stubs, Medicine wikiproject stubs, Health and fitness Wikiproject stubs.
Most wikiprojects also manually keep a 'wishlist' of red links to be created and problematic articles to be worked on, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do. It might be worthwhile expanding the project's remit to working on start-class or stub-class articles, because both start and stub class are considered quite incomplete, and most would benefit significantly from sourced content being added. For example, Suicide in Australia is considered 'start-class', but it barely scratches the surface of the topic. There are a few other sources of wanted (red linked) or low-class stuff on the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress.
How were the topics chosen for your most recent project? -- (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I will look at these lists and try to bring together a list. Students will likely be working on this next semester but to a lesser extent. I think expanding stubs/editing incomplete articles would probably be an easier way. Ldawe (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Before I create it: Murray Town, South Australia or Murraytown, South Australia?[edit]

Sorry this is a bit of a trivial matter but I have a penchant for wanting to populate articles on the smaller less loved localities of South Australia. Before I create Murray Town, South Australia or Murraytown, South Australia can I have a quick show of hands from your quick research on the matter as to which should be the article and which should be the redirect? The former appears to be the gazetted name (and is used in at least one ABC article) and the latter appears to be the spelling used by locals. Thank you so much. Donama (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely use the gazetted name "Murray Town" as the article title, but set up a redirect. If you have a source that it is spelt as one word locally include that as well. --Canley (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I see the local school is gazetted as "Murraytown Rural School". --Canley (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Bounded localities have one name only, and Australia Post get them right, so no show of hands needed [[1]]. Sometimes a bit of historical hangover, perhaps affecting the school. Epistemos (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no problems. Murray Town it is. Can someone program a bot to change all the existing links for Murraytown, South Australia to the correct one? Donama (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The resource I use for SA place names, which includes nearby ones, is the "Property Location Browser" which includes the SA Gazetteer. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a RESTful interface, so the references have to include the ID and leave anyone seeking to verify info having to redo the search. The IDs are the same as the Australian gazetteer, but the SA one often has more info in the comments. It supports Canley's commments above (probably because of using the same source). --Scott Davis Talk 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


I honestly believe I will wake up one morning and find vegemite or sydney harbour bridge marked for deletion,, is close enough. JarrahTree 22:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also of interest is the short of the full dollar processes available on wp en - the delete nominator dutifully notifies the article creator, who hasnt edited for over 4 years, duty done, and leaves as is. Pointless and inneffective.

Where an editor hasnt edited for even a year, let alone 4, there should be a default to the nearest project to the subject noticeboard, such as this one. Considering how untouched some processes are despite their shortcomings (such as the CFD process and its lack of notification processes), Australian editors could well provide a lead on this and actually initiate a small item - where an editor hasnt edited for a year or more, the nominator is required to post to the nearest project for discussion. JarrahTree 23:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've closed it as keep. I can understand the frustration and I think some of your suggestions here are good. But can we please not bash the nominator any further (not so much your comments here as some at the AfD)? He's a good editor who's made a mistake, something that we all do. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Still, it was a confusing nomination: This is part of Clean Up the World, which might be notable. At the AfD for Clean Up the World, which ended 9 days ago, the nom wrote Pure promotionalism, and nnot notable enough to be worth a rewrite. --AussieLegend () 09:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Jenks24, the nominator is indeed a good editor, but the problem I have identified above is a common one with careless afds - notifying long absent editors, suggests that a process is required, regardless of how confident the nominators might be, surely to at least check edit history of creator wouldnt take that much effort JarrahTree 10:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside this specific article, I would like to discuss the general issue. Is there a process whereby nominating and article for deletion could also place a notice on the projects associated with that article? Or perhaps what I mean is: could such a process be implemented? That would go part of the way to working around the problem of inactive authors.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hard to do unless Twinkle can determine which projects to notify off the page tags. I'm a lot less bothered about only notifying the author automatically (because we hear about it sooner or later anyway), just annoyed at the sheer carelessness of the nomination. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I have asked the Twinkle folks about the feasibility of this change here--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note, I personally have seen CFD over almost 8 years exist in its own dark corner, and believe any sense of opening up a responsibility of wider dispersal of some of its conversations can be only a good thing, and to its credit AFD does have a number of processes which are more open and transparent JarrahTree 11:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this problem more or less dealt with by the deletion sorting page? This could perhaps be made more visible, though, maybe by a link in the top section of this noticeboard. Frickeg (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen that sorting page before: it looks great, but it still depends on the nominator knowing about this page and manually adding the link there. If somebody nominates a page for deletion, there is nothing that prompts them to come to this sorting page at the moment.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There are (wonderful) people who patrol AfDs to ensure they're all added; they're pretty good about not missing things. There's also article alerts, which does it automatically. Frickeg (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I learned something - thanks, Frickeg. There is a bot (AAlertBot) which automatically populates that article alerts list. Which makes my Twinkle question kinda redundant; I will post this there so they don't waste their time. Thanks again.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Painted Desert"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Painted Desert is under discussion, see talk:Painted Desert (Arizona) -- (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious edits to DOB and place of birth by and other IPs[edit] (talk · contribs) has today made a series of edits on several Australian articles, typically changing birth places and years. I'm not knowledgeable enough about any of the specific subjects to say definitely that the changes are wrong, but the pattern looks very suspicious. I don't have the time or inclination to check them, but if not for WP:AGF I'd revert the lot of them immediately. Anyone else care to check? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. I thought this was over, or I would have posted here myself. They were doing this a few days ago as well (through a different IP). It's all fake, vandalism of the worst kind because it isn't obvious. Revert on sight, and admins should consider blocking. Frickeg (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree. I checked the DOB for Peter Garrett and the change was bollocks so I assume the rest of it was too. I was in the process of reverting but got beaten to it. Definitely vandalism. Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It continues with a new IP: (talk · contribs). The IP has been warned at all three of its known addresses (the first that I know of was (talk · contribs)). I'm not really familiar with the processes here, but is there a good way to make admins aware that this is someone they should block on sight? In a more general note, everyone should keep a lookout for this kind of vandalism for the next while at least. The next time I see them I'll report them straight to AIV with a link to this discussion. Frickeg (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been happening for a couple of weeks, I have blocked at least 5 IPs in the past month – always the same pattern: fairly subtle edits to birth dates and places in Australian politician articles (of which I have many on my watchlist so I pick up most incidents). I just blanket revert if it matches that pattern and usually block on sight as well. Surprisingly persistent vandal – they usually get straight back to it when the block expires or use another IP address. --Canley (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed at least dozens of these on politician articles I watch. Usually someone else has fixed it before I could, but not always. How can we check for any recent changes like this on all Australian biographies in case some aren't being regularly patrolled? Donama (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I must say, i've had my user account on here for a few months short of a decade now, and never have I seen such unprecedented widespread persistent vandalism... i'm one notch below shocked. It seems like for the past month or so there's more than a dozen articles daily being systematically vandalised by IPs with subtle false changes like DOB etc. Apart from increased vigilance i'm not sure how we can combat this problem, let alone solve it. Timeshift (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Heavy use of semi-protection would stop them vandalising those articles at least, with no real downsides. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A range block would be our only chance of a quick fix – they all seem to geolocate to the same area, so it might be possible. Pinging Diannaa who answered the last rangeblock query I had. In addition to the three IPs linked in this thread, there was (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), possibly others. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
But to me it seems the target is any present or past, federal or state MP. How could we semi-prot such a large number of articles? Click here to see a once-off customisation of your watchlist which displays only IP edits, hiding registered/own/bot edits, in article space only, for the past month. Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Timeshift is shocked -- well nearly. Canley is impressed with the editor's persistence. I think we're surprised because we don't normally deal with attacks from bots. It looks to me like someone's written a script to make these edits to any candidate articles in a category (possibly Australian politicians) using random number generators. If the edits fail, start again using a new IP. Might be nothing more than an experiment to see how many innocent-looking malicious edits can get past the watchers by some pissed off researcher. No responses on the talk pages. To my shame, I once logged out and changed Adelaide to be the capital of South Africa just to see how long it would take to fix, so I kind of understand if it's a curious person who's forgotten to switch off their bots. Regardless is truly at odds with WP being useful and of high integrity, which we all want. I think, to combat this kind of automated behaviour, whether for academic curiosity or some less edifying purpose, an IP identified as participating in a known pattern of misbehaviour (especially if bot-like) should get only one strike before it gets blocked. Does WP have any established process or policy that works like this? Donama (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine line[edit]

This am an Australian government authority employee started an account - [2]

I am very interested to see what this grab bag noticeboard makes of this in the face of WP:COI and all the other related issues of the last 5 to 10 years of not allowing such processes to happen. Fellow australians wikipedians interpretations are sought on this matter.

The precedent is that every damned Australian government department and authority at federal, state, and local could end up with such an officer who feels they have an inherent right to edit (some of it probably already happens under different user names). Great to have an inrush in one of the few growing professions in Australia, but a disaster for neutrality - WP:NOT ? JarrahTree 01:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got no great problem as long as they stick to uncontroversial edits. It's a very obviously declared interest, they'll be under a lot of scrutiny, and can be relatively easily held to account if they cross the line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An example of a welcome series of edits from there would be cited climate history for every Australian place that has such data, whether it is online or not. They would have access to paper records that are not currently online, and access to people who can interpret it correctly. I have no idea if that is an intended purpose, but it certainly isn't where they have started . --Scott Davis Talk 03:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I predict an encounter with WP:ISU in the near future. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Lankiveil raises a good point, which I think needs addressing independently of any issues of COI. XYZ social media officer is a "role account" - not a specific person - and thus explicitly forbidden by WP:SHAREDACCOUNT and WP:ROLE. At the very least we should insisting that the social media officer create an account (or rename the existing one) that is explicitly one person, not a role. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed this discussion. A Bureau of Meteorology employee contacted me by Wikipedia email some time ago about getting someone to update their article, because I often edit the BOM's Wikipedia page. I let her know about Wikipedia's conflict of interest and sourcing guidelines. A different person contacted me today to let me know she'd be creating an account and making edits ... and by the time I was able to log on, I noticed the edits had already been done and reverted (sensibly, I think). As I said in a subsequent email, the edits to the infobox would have been alright if they'd had accompanying references, but I'm not so much of a fan of her edits to the article's lead section. I also let her know about the problems with her username. I agree that well-sourced climate-related edits/clarifications from the BOM would be welcome. Graham87 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we try to hold a seminar and invite the publicity/media sections of the departments to attend and find out how to do this correctly? It is hard to contact people on Wikipedia before they register! There has been a Wikipedia:GLAM/Australia seminar in Canberra before, but it was more specifically targeted at the cultural organisations. If Wikimedia Australia is still around perhaps they know how to organise this kind of event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have found none of these answers wholly satisfying, the issue remains the same - if the precedent is allowed by no interest in drawing a line on this issue, then as I said - every LGA, State and Fed Dept in Australia is increasingly employing people as social media managers, and apart from the excellent satirical approach that the TV series Utopia had, there seems to be a take them seriously approach to their behaviours.
I do not think we should simply let this alone and wait and see - this project needs to think very carefully about how information is added by specific corporate named editors.
Some government department/authority based editors have created some of the worst articles in the project, so Graham Bartlett's suggestion has a lot of merit. JarrahTree 07:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would hope that someone employed as a "social media officer" is aware that every platform has its own culture, rules and expectations. The BoM is a well-respected organisation in Australia, and appropriate engagement with Wikipedia could enhance this, but stomping in and making a mess of things would not. If I was a social media officer for an organisation, I would seek to understand what the users of a social media platform want from my organisation to enhance the reputation of my organisation in that community. There are slightly over 200 uses of {{BoM Aust stats}} for example. There are several thousand articles that could benefit from it. BoM could take a leaf from the National Library of Australia and make it as easy to include current Wikipedia-formatted material from BoM as it is to cite a reference from Trove. --Scott Davis Talk 09:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Great sentiments, having met some (social media managers) no comment The ideas about BOM and TROVE level adaptability require high level negotiation and is a classic example of an ideal WMAU exercise, if it was to eventuate JarrahTree 09:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally I feel that we should discourage "social media" managers on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a social networking service. I know that social media is defined as "... Internet-based applications ... that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content", but do we really want to be lumped in with Facebook, Twitter et al? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
From my time at WMAU and also answering OTRS tickets, I think it's more common than not for Wikipedia to be lumped in with Flickr and Twitter in the "social media" bucket. A lot of the more savvy "social media officers" realise that the title is a poor fit for us, but it's usually not them that's making the decision that "we have to get ourselves a Wikipedia!". Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC).
That's also been my experience. Provided the account isn't being shared (and I note that it says that this is a single officer's account on the user page), and they adhere to WP:COI I don't see any problems with this account. It's a shame that this edit by the account was reverted for no sensible reason. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Edit reinstated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The reinstating edits replace statements cited to [ The Bureau's own web site] and the APSC with uncited statements provided by someone who claims to work for the Bureau, but as far as I know, this has not been independently confirmed. The new information might be correct and more up-to-date, but if they can't be cited, doesn't that make them Original research that does not belong in the article? If the old page was out of date, it should be flagged as such until new sources can be found, not just changed without verifiable sources. --Scott Davis Talk 12:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help with Talk:Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute[edit]

Self-declared CoI editor proposing new content. I would do it myself but I am overseas with only a tablet and lousy wifiKerry (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)