Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AWNB)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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

14 December:

Bob Brown
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 · Property Council of Australia

Articles needing attention · Crime in Australia · Cycling Australia Done Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon · Environment of Australia · Privacy in Australian law · Tourism in Australia

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

Verification needed · Architecture of Australia · Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission · Australian performance poetry · FreeTV Australia · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of Australian political controversies · Paul Wild Observatory · Punk rock in Australia ·

Quality watch:

Indigenous names and Template:Infobox Australian place[edit]

I've just started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Indigenous names about the best way to add Indigenous names to articles about Australian places. I've no strong view about the best way to do it (that is, whether or not that template and perhaps others should be modified) but I think we should have the ability to do this and to do it consistently. Queensland already lists some indigenous names in its place name database as official or unofficial alternative names and with 2019 being UNESCO's Year of Indigenous Languages, I expect we will see increased interest in indigenous place naming. Obviously we are all aware of Ayers Rock being renamed Uluru, which in our case is accommodated by Template:Infobox mountain having an other_name field where the old name of Ayers Rock is captured. However, we don't have the same ability for a town/suburb/locality in Infobox Australian place. Should we routinely create redirects for the "other name" (be it English or Indigenous)? Ayers Rock is a redirect to Uluru (no surprises there) but should I be redirecting Woppaburra, Wop-Pa, Wapparaburra to Great Keppel Island? In what circumstances should I do it? If it's officially gazetted? If Indigenous people say it's their name for that place? etc. Anyway your thoughts are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Indigenous names. Kerry (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a standard way of recording the indigenous names for things and places. We do need some form of verfiability though, the same as for non indigenous names. It should not matter what the form of verifability is as long as it is consistent with wiki principles. Yes if it is in common use and a likely search term for a reasonably sized readership of wikipedia then a redirect should be in place I think, the same as others. What we do need to be careful of though is alternative names for things and places which should be shown as such accordingly, but not conflate with such etymological appropriation of indigenous words and names for things like or nearby that non indigenous people might have just used. Such should be an Etymology section. Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The preëxisitng names for flora, mammals, and birds have been regularised in W.A., is that not the case in other 'country' in Australia? cygnis insignis 16:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but I am not sure of the point you are making, but regardless, if a lexicon has been formally regularised in any way then we should be including it. Aoziwe (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Aoziwe, no apology necessary, I was hoping to be teased for more information. The extant names of mammals and birds have been recorded in southwest australia since settlement, these were analysed and refined with braod consultation to produce lists with regular orthography and pronunciation, this was published in the journal of the CSIRO. cygnis insignis 14:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of being provocative, {{Infobox Settlement}} offers this functionality already. If {{Infobox Australian Place}} is to live on as an independent template and not as a skin of IS, it really needs to demonstrate similar functionality. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place has a lot of functionality that IS doesn't have, like automatic categorisation, covering cadastral units, protected areas, regions and a lot of other non-settlement type places. Maybe IS should be a skin of IAP. That said, and I've already noted this at the infobox discussion, when I checked a few years ago, there were relatively few places that had gazetted indigenous names compared to the number of uses of the template (currently 13,089) and most of those are relatively unknown. Many are even dubious. For example, Karuah is supposedly an Aboriginal word meaning "native plum tree" but nobody really knows, including local Aboriginals I've asked. This extends to the word itself. Karuah is the name of the village and suburb but that may not be an actual indigenous name. When it comes to indigenous names they really need discussion in the prose but many are so obscure as to be not worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Another issue related to this is that {{Native name}} doesn't seem to cater for Australian indigenous languages. --AussieLegend () 08:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


I've just created the page 2018–19 Australian bushfire season and had a quick look at the previous years effort - 2017–18 Australian bushfire season. After creating the 2017-2018 season article mid-season I had a couple of long overseas holidays did not put any effort into updating it and as a result it now looks terribly incomplete. I was hoping other Australian editors may recall larger fires that occurred around Australia during this time could pitch in where they can to update the article. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing Companions of the Order of Australia articles.[edit]

Hello. I've noticed that there are a lot of redlinks at List of Companions of the Order of Australia. I was wondering if anyone would lilke to help with the recipients who currently don't have articles. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Place names[edit]

It seems the very recurrent and quite damaging process of playing with place names is with us again. It tends to polarise editors into particular uncompromising positions. As it occurs usually on a place where the average Australian editor might not have on watch list, please could the proponents of the sides consider the location of:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places so that the larger range of editors might see the issues spelt out? JarrahTree 00:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of having this, yet again? We have a typical Wikipedia compromise to these kinds of intractable naming disputes: both versions are acceptable. If one or two users don't keep trying to move them from one to the other, there's no argument at all. And if one of those users didn't keep trying to claim - utterly falsely - that his moves were supported by guidelines, these issues would be at least considerably less angry. Brute force tactics and blatant lies to try to forcibly get one's way when they failed to do so through consensus, strangely enough, have a tendency to inflame disputes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are keen to play these items on the place talk pages, thats your call. Its just those who choose to turn up are not necessarily always a good cross section of the Australian editing community. JarrahTree 00:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, you're right, but it's been an ongoing argument for years and it's never come to a clear consensus, so the main effect of having it out yet again seems to just be to get everyone annoyed. Far easier on everyone if people just stick to the current guideline and stop trying to repeatedly force the issue by moving to their pet format. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
...process of playing with place names is with us again...
A link to an example would help the rest of us (average Australian editors not watching those specific pages) understand what you're talking about. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I presume they meant here, if people have followed the rules? Aoziwe (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The "utterly false" claim here is the one that says there is any consensus for mandatory, unnecessary "disambiguation". Every time one of these incorrectly disambiguated names goes to RM, the consensus is overwhelmingly to move the article to its actual name. The "anger" in these discussions is generated by those editors unhappy with the clear change in consensus and reduced to throwing bad faith accusations around in an attempt to bully other editors from raising the topic at all. These actions are disgraceful and should be called out. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in many cases disambiguation using a state name (e.g., "Bendigo, Victoria") is unnecessary and often unhelpful. Most readers are not familiar with the names of Australian states. An example to illustrate my point: introducing yourself to an American as coming from Melbourne, it is better to say "Melbourne, Australia" rather than "Melbourne, Victoria" when disambiguating from Melbourne, Florida. Americans typically won't know that Victoria is a state in Australia. "Queensland" sounds funny. "South Australia" sounds like a region rather than a state name. "Tasmania" is considered an island, not a state, and might be confused with Tanzania. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
We have a guideline that has said for many years that both formats are acceptable because it has long been a disputed subject, which is a pretty common Wikipedia means of dealing with intractable naming disputes. In the last few months, Mattinbgn has taken to lying in individual discussions and claiming that it mandates or justifies that they be undisambiguated, even though it explicitly states the contrary, that either format is acceptable. We had a fairly long period of avoiding conflict in this area until Mattingbgn tried to claim the last time around that because he'd stealthily personally moved so many articles (and people hadn't stopped him) the guideline no longer applied - when that failed, it seems he just resorted to flat out lying about the text of the guideline as if it had been changed to what he had wanted and hoping people wouldn't check. Mattinbgn - f you want to have yet another go-around at trying to win consensus for your views, be my guest, but brute-force mass-moves and lying about the guideline text are going to meet with predictably angry responses. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Jacknstock, while all potential readers should be considered, it's more important to disambiguate these places for an Australian audience, where necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree, where necessary. The issue is disambiguating when it is unnecessary. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Australian towns are always used with comma state titling, local sourcing excepted. It is consistent in the real world, and was extremely consistent before User:Mattinbgn’s hundreds to thousands of sneaky pages moves to break the consistency. All those page moves should be reverted. Ignoring the real world naming style hugely reduces recognisability. Title minimisation does nothing but harm for readers, and no one seems able to articulate a single benefit beyond editor convenience, which at this point is negligible anyway. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • They are not always "used with comma state titling" otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. Mattinbgn is not the only editor who sees no need for unnecessary disambiguation for Australian place names and he is not the only editor to have moved articles. I object to the word "lying" being used in this context.--Grahame (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • He has repeatedly lied about the text of the guideline in attempts to pretend that it says what he wanted it to and failed to gain consensus for the last time around. That's just a fact, regardless of what anyone thinks it should state. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Grahame, “no need” and “unnecessary” are extremist language. Many good things are “unnecessary”. There is “no need” for things to be better. Why do you think it is better to not use comma state in titles of Australian towns? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I seem to be being called an extremist by an extremist. This is why I normally don't intervene in irrational discussions.--Grahame (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • The words have technically extreme meaning, necessity is absolute or not. You are avoiding the question. I’m saying comma state titling for Australian towns is very common in non-local sources, and helps recognisability for all readers, and lends itself to consistency, which there was before one person made hundreds of undisclosed page moves. Can you articulate a benefit of not using comma state titling? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          • SmokeyJoe "I’m saying comma state titling for Australian towns is very common in non-local sources" - it isn't. "one person made hundreds of undisclosed page moves" - every edit is disclosed, the nature of a Wiki means they are in the edit history. If you are saying I used a alias, prove it. "Can you articulate a benefit of not using comma state titling?" - plenty of them, the main one is consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia (Australia is not a unique and special snowflake) and not confusing most casual readers who have NFI as to why we disambiguate unambiguous names. Having lost the argument every time (and it is every time) it is raised at RM, your aim now is dismiss any arguments you don't like and bully and abuse editors who disagree as you continue to do here. I will say it again - it is disgraceful and it needs to stop. The sad thing is that it works - I have my heart in my mouth every time I dare express a position on a place name just waiting for the personal attacks (from you and others on this page) to flood in, again. So this is it - you win. I am out of place names for good and indeed will stay as far away from you as I can. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Hi Mattinbgn. Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you returned. I want to register my objection to the history, but not harass you unreasonably.
"I’m saying comma state titling for Australian towns is very common in non-local sources". It is my experience in looking for sources for town titling that it is. Admittedly for small towns, there are very few quality non-local sources. A productive next step for this dispute would be to examine that question methodically, probably on a dedicated page. It's important, but not so much as to justify swamping this page.
"one person made hundreds of undisclosed page moves". My apology, mistyped. I meant "one person made hundreds of undiscussed page moves". i.e. You knew people objected to moving existing titles to short titles, and you did unilateral page moves, not WP:MR proposals to move. I think that was non-ideal. "If you are saying I used a alias" -- certainly not.
"Having lost the argument every time (and it is every time) it is raised at RM" This is not true.
"bully and abuse editors who disagree as you continue to do here". I am reasonably calling out a history of bold page moves that you well knew would be contested if formally proposed.
"it is disgraceful and it needs to stop" I have made zero bold pages moves between town long names (town, state) and short names (town). I ask you to stop, any move from a comma state title, for a town, is contested.
"Can you articulate a benefit of not using comma state titling?" - plenty of them, the main one is consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia (Australia is not a unique and special snowflake) and not confusing most casual readers"
Thanks for giving at least one attempt. Few give any answer. "plenty of them"? I wish to see a list.
"consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia"
Of course, there is an obvious problem. Some place names must be disambiguated, Darwin, Northern Territory, Orange, New South Wales, and so short names cannot be nearly as consistent as Town, State, which is as they were consistent. Also not USPLACE. Comma-state titling is common all through Australia and the US; comma-province in Canada; and comma-country in NZ. These countries share a custom of naming places after British or European places, or after famous people from the old country, and I think that is why it has always been normal to name the places with comma-region, from the day they were named, in non-local sources. In contrast, British/European cities have names that were unique from before the development of the current state of the language.
So, the many moves from Town, State to Town broke the consistency across Australia, broke it with the US, and left us in a mess. Consistency is a wash, and would be better if all the towns were moved to the long forms. Is there any disadvantage to any ready there?
"confusing most casual readers"? Seriously? This is just absurd. Bathurst is confusing. Is that a man, a motor racing venue, is it even in Australia? Bathurst, New South Wales? By what convoluted argument does anyone suggest that Bathurst, New South Wales could be something other than a place name in NSW? It has immediate recognisability.
That list of plenty of supposed reasons in favour of the short name, I would like to make a table of it, and score the strength of argument for each. Problem is, people mostly just give circular arguments. My research into the Wikipedia ancient history suggests exactly one reason, and that is editor convenience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • One I see is that the place is not defined by a political boundary, which is often irrelevant (and pov), and in my region these are old and unambiguous names. [not taking a position here, not sure I can even fathom the subject of discussion.] cygnis insignis 04:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Thanks Cygnis. I have tried to guess, but I think the proponents for change really need to state their case, give reasons. The simplest cases to frame I think are towns, separate towns, where the “place” is the state. Not suburbs, not localities, not towns on borders, not towns engulfed in urban sprawl. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I just wish that the energy that goes into this particular argument could be diverted to productive activitiess. We have some conflicting guidelines. Some folks prefer one way, some another. Nothing new has occurred. How about we have a practice that we all accept such article titles as the original author created it (except when we must disambiguate) and divert this energy from arguing and edit warring into creating the articles for the many places without an article. I have more respect for those who create content than those who merely criticise and edit-war. Kerry (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I can see valid reasons for both approaches BUT neither is decisive in my view. The only place I can see this debate going is in circles, with a life cycle of years. Just have a redirect for the other case for each article if people feel strongly about either one, ie, we CAN have both. In my view this is heading to WP:LAME. I too would much rather focus on articles being there and their content, and while I dearly love consistency, as long as I can find a subject with minimal effort, ie, provided the name is "semiotically sensible", it is not a priority for me as to what form it is in. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Like what Kerry said, I don't think issue needs to be debated in general. If there's a conflict about how a particular article should be named, we can discuss it there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh so easy to say so, another thing for the general state of naming of things in the Australian project - it gets scattered, there is no central resolution, and it all goes in every direction. The reason this was brought here was to try to get fellow editors interested in a central point of discussion - no one seems interested apart from here. Meanwhile the two Tasmanian locations can effectively set a precedent for the Australian project if anyone took any notice. JarrahTree 01:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I would absolutely be in favour of such a practice as Kerry suggests. It would redirect a lot of editor time into more productive endeavours. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That is totally missing the point - some people really enjoy getting involved in online arguments, (see the sheer volume and effort that goes into them), that is their choice. We are volunteers here and choose what we do in our editing, we do not have 'patrons' of specific editing behaviours, if people enjoy making issues and taking issue with peculiar naming conventions, that surely is what they are here for. The Australian project has long abandoned the or a sense of collaboration at general levels. There was a sense that there could have been a point where the community could have had a central point of going through the place name issue was resolved, is completely underminded by the case by case proponents. Oh well we tend to lose more editors that way, they simply do not like what they see when the localised arguments go bad, and in the longer picture of this, the project in general loses credibility. JarrahTree 01:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think if people are here for the arguments then they are not here to BUILD an encyclopaedia. It’s our fundamental principle. And they do not have the right to be here for any other reason. As it clearly states, we are not here to build a democracy. Kerry (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
JT> some people really enjoy getting involved in online arguments
K> if people are here for the arguments then they are not here to BUILD an encyclopaedia
Enjoying an argument is not the same as being here (only) for an argument (and not to build an encyclopedia). An editor might be here to build an encyclopedia but also enjoy the intellectual challenge of a debate as a means of persuading other editors – and thus achieving consensus – that a particular edit does improve the encyclopedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Mitch Ames, I'm adopting the position for the negative. Debate sucks! cygnis insignis 17:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Other than reasons external to Wikipedia, the primary internal reason that active editors leave Wikipedia is the abrasive nature of the community. Engaging in debate beyond that necessary for consensus building isn’t productive, and probably cumulatively negative for editor retention. Whether it’s arguing more about it or taking action to rename existing articles to force one’s own viewpoint, it is occurring in the context of a well-known and long-standing dispute. The saying about having the courage to change what you can change, the serenity to accept what you cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference would seem to apply here. Just as “which English variant should be used” is not expected to achieve consensus, that establishes a “creator decides” precedent. If that leads to more people creating stubs for the remaining places to impose their view (there are over 800 settlement-type places in Queensland without articles and doubtless thousands nationwide), then I don’t see that as a bad outcome for encyclopedia building. I have no strong view on this issue so long as the other name is available as a redirect. Kerry (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Kerry Raymond, too much wisdom, circumspection and cautious statements for a debate; this is as confusing as heck. Whose side are you on? cygnis insignis 14:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of what Kerry said. There is no consensus to go one way or the other, and there is unlikely to be, so "leave them as they are, whichever they are, and don't move them (unless you really need to)" is a way to just comprehensively move on and go do more important things. That's not "case by case", that's putting a stop to it permanently - and it's the closest we're going to get to a central resolution to this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

At one point in time (maybe eight or ten years ago), we had almost universal consistency that every article that then existed about a town/locality in Australia that was not a southeastern state capital had a name qualified by the state or territory it was in. Some time after that, a few editors (Mattinbgn was not the only one, and Seav might have been before him) set about breaking that consistency by moving articles, not even creating new ones. The arguments got heated enough that I spent a few years away from Wikipedia. I hope this does not happen again. The guideline has been softened a few times since then to allow, then accept the shorter name style, but not to move existing articles. Unfortunately, this seems to be getting pushed again, partly by B dash. There are enough red links around that the effort would still be better spent writing articles about the remaining gazetted places in Australia than in fighting to move or not move the articles that exist. There is scope to expand most of the articles too. --Scott Davis Talk 02:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Scott Davis. This is very unfair. You must know I have created literally hundreds of new place name articles - without disambiguation and with disambiguation (where required). As for leaving Wikipedia, the bullying from some of the others in this conversation did drive me away earlier this year. I hesitate long and hard before contributing to discussions on Australian place names because the usual bullies will reach straight for the personal attacks - as they have above, again. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I recall similar to ScottDavis... I disappeared for years, and also recall the long gone heated arguments on this topic, then eventually came back to find placenames at new titles without the state qualifier in the title and immediately thought "#!%& me, somebody took it upon themselves to go BOLD where plenty of arguments have occurred before". I was going to speak up to ask what happened then decided just to move on and accept that a redirect will assist me to find any article on a place name I may be looking for if I can't. If we're not arguing about placenames we're arguing about place infoboxes and neither have been sufficiently solved in the almost 15 years of my watching the sparks fly from the sidelines. -- Longhair\talk 05:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Longhair: I've given this some thought, no one will be pleased to hear. How about all the redirects go to a neutral url, the wikidata id or some random num-pad mashing, making that the BIG name at the top of the article and any alternative names and styling listed in an order that changes every couple of minutes? Then the article can get to topic at hand. cygnis insignis 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you mean Cygnis insignis but I suspect you're having a laugh. I put the problem to a mini-test this morning and asked my Google Home device to tell me about two towns at the other end of the country, knowing full well Google Home would seek the information from Wikipedia. Both topics I asked about were placenames titled differently. One being Biloela, the other being Condamine,_Queensland. I never mentioned the state once, just the placename. Google Home replied with content from both articles, so technically, it hardly matters what the title is because both humans and robots alike can locate what they're looking for. Nothing is broken the way things are. -- Longhair\talk 22:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"I don't quite understand what you mean ", I get a lot of that in replies [sobs quietly] I do worry about bots, and hope there is a sanity limit to their logical reduction of licensed premises as nomenclature; if they realise that humans can divide by zero they are likely to enact Armageddon or the Singularity (or slow down the internet). If any other these events were realised then I would have to agree: it hardly matters. cygnis insignis 14:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that observation of specific cases would help understand the processes in view - see for instance,_Tasmania#Requested_move_20_November_2018 JarrahTree 00:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


What would people think about formally changing the naming conventions along the lines of Kerry's suggestion above ("How about we have a practice that we all accept such article titles as the original author created it (except when we must disambiguate) and divert this energy from arguing and edit warring into creating the articles for the many places without an article.")? This recurring argument never ends well and it's no closer to a definitive consensus either way, and the status quo inevitably means that we have outbreaks of argument every year or so that are helpful to no one. Kerry's suggestion seems like something that could mean that this is the last time we ever have to this discussion. @Kerry Raymond: @Longhair: @Mattinbgn: @ScottDavis: @JarrahTree: @SmokeyJoe: @Aoziwe: @Onetwothreeip: @Grahamec: @Jacknstock: (I think I pinged everyone with an opinion on the actual issues above, apologies if I missed anyone.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Supported Aoziwe (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Supported — add redirects instead of page moves, as a compromise. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (obviously) and, yes, add redirects for any "other" desired titles as per JacknStock's suggestion Kerry (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nat965 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Accepted (as in "this is not my preferred choice, but I can live with it") I thought we had already formally accepted this compromise a time or two ago that this issue rose to attention. As neither "side" is going to give up all its ground, agreeing to build the encyclopaedia instead is a much better outcome that bitter naming convention wars that have driven a number of us away at some stage. Jack's advice for redirects is also necessary in both directions, whichever way the article is named. --Scott Davis Talk 05:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Lawyer X scandal[edit]

I'm feeling like it might be time we had an article on the Lawyer X scandal - I've been a little bit hesitant about doing it given some of the sensitivities, but there's such a drumbeat of coverage that isn't going anywhere and it's only going to get moreso with the Royal Commission. Anyone have any thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely needs an article and there's no injunction against reporting the case except for the name of the barrister and things like that. I would've started it but I have no clue how. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS and other things like a royal commission, I'd say patience... wait a while JarrahTree 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the point of waiting on the basis of the Royal Commission: this has already sprawled so wide that we're going to need at least two articles (one on the scandal, one on the Royal Commission) as while there will some overlap, there will be plenty of material to cover both. We probably don't have enough information to do Royal Commission Into the Management of Informants without some more details of that being released, but we IMO have well more than enough for Lawyer X scandal. I'd like some more opinions before we do anything, though, given that it covers a lot of extremely sensitive issues concerning BLPs. I'd also really prefer (if we decide to do this) to see an admin create the article so it can be instantly semi-protected, removing the potential need to oversight attempts to break the suppression order. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No objection to the article, buy can we please avoid using the word "scandal"? It's such a tabloid term. Perhaps something like "Lawyer X informant" or "Lawyer X breach of privilege"? WWGB (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we'll be calling it something about "Lawyer X". That's not at all the primary name for the subject, and personally I haven't heard the lawyer being called Lawyer X, I've only heard them called by fake initials or by Informant 3838. Something involving "Melbourne gangland" for sure, and I can't think of how else to describe it other than scandal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Scandal is simply not appropriate. JarrahTree 01:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggested Lawyer X scandal because it seemed like the most common name I could find: the Herald Sun, The Age, the ABC, The Australian, The Guardian, Channel 9, Crikey and 3AW have all used it, which is about as close to a cross-section of the Australian media as you can get. There are no Google hits for "Informant 3838 scandal", though I have no objection to that title. As far as the naming: the police called her "Informant 3838", the High Court called her "EF", but the media called her "Lawyer X" while the suppression cases were being fought; while all three have been used in the last couple days, a bit of a Google News search seems to suggest they've settled on "Lawyer X" as the most common name - take a look for yourselves.
I'd be wary of "Lawyer X breach of privilege" because it's not undisputed that she did, in fact, technically break her clients' privilege - that's still an allegation. "Lawyer X informant" is a bit vague - it reads like a cut off title. "Melbourne gangland" anything seems like to be too vague given the context of the gangland wars - this is an issue specifically about the lawyer and the police handling of her as an informant. I'm not sure I understand the opposition to "scandal": every single media outlet I can find has called it that and given the Royal Commission it seems to be a bit hard to dispute. The Guardian called it "one of the biggest legal scandals in Australian history", and every other outlet seems to be taking the same line. Very happy to hear other suggestions if anyone has better ideas though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It might be only about the lawyer and the police for now, but there are potentially 600 people who could have their convictions overturned and their retrials will certainly be a major part of the story, as well as the royal commission too. The media is referring to the story by all sorts of names, including Lawyer X, Informant 3838, gangland barrister and so on. I would avoid using the word scandal but there's not much else to use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I humbly suggest "Melbourne gangland informer scandal". It's simple and ties nicely with the Melbourne gangland killings article. The word scandal can be changed if someone has anything better instead of scandal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip: the problem with that title is that there is more than one gangland informer scandal (the Murders of Terrence and Christine Hodson already has its own article). The Royal Commission is inevitably going to have to trawl through both due to the connections between them but there's a need to be clear about what we're talking about here or we're going to really sprawl. Melbourne gangland lawyer informer scandal is getting a bit unwieldy - any other ideas? I also think a lot of the broader stuff that will come out of the Royal Commission probably belongs in a Royal Commission article down the line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Melbourne gangland informers scandal. Given the connections, we can combine that into the article. I doubt we will need a separate article for the royal commission though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that's unworkably broad: the Hodson murders is already its own distinct topic with its own article that is not short of material (and easily expanded). There is enough overlap with the Lawyer X mess such that I don't see how the Hodsons don't wind up being dragged into the Royal Commission, but most of the Lawyer X stuff has nothing to do with the Hodsons. The Royal Commission is inevitably going to go into some other places as well. If we try and mash all of this together, we're going to wind up with an utterly massive article that's sprawling to the point of incoherence. I really don't see an alternative to having a distinct article on all the Lawyer X stuff, a distinct article on the Hodsons (as already exists), and an article on the Royal Commission covering the inquiry and the overarching mess. I certainly can't write one overarching article about it all that makes a damn bit of sense (especially after anything else happens). The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think people will only associate "informer scandal" to be the current one about 3838, and not the Hodson murders. I don't think readers will be disappointed that an "informer scandal" article about 3838 isn't an article about the Hodson murders, which is about more than the use of informers in that case. We're definitely getting ahead of ourselves here predicting what's going to happen with the royal commission. I thought you were suggesting the Hodson murders were very connected with the current informer scandal, but I would assume the potential retrials and acquittals would be the bulk of the continuing scandal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the opposition to using "lawyer" when that would remove any ambiguity about what the subject. "Gangland informer scandal" makes it complicated as blazes when there are two and they're vaguely connected. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The High Court of Australia case[1] is probably notable in its own right. A start on an article on that could be used to link out to related articles. -- Paul foord (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest using the title Lawyer X somethingorother... the Lawyer X title has been used since 2014 according to this Guardian article ("the informant identified as “Lawyer X” since the News Corp-owned newspaper the Herald Sun published a series of stories coining the moniker in 2014." [2]). I like Paul foord's idea of beginning with the HC article then branching out from there. -- Longhair\talk 05:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Paul. I also think "Lawyer X" is too common of a name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Nothing that cannot be fixed with a page move once another name for the saga finds itself mainstream. For now, it seems to be the name that's gained traction and has been used for some time. -- Longhair\talk 05:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Using the High Court case is a novel take, but I'm not sure it works: the High Court judgment was very brief, essentially just quickly affirming a 2016 New South Wales Supreme Court decision. It was merely the final catalyst for lifting the suppression orders on the case, and fairly small fry in the scheme of things - the judgment itself doesn't really have any lasting legal, cultural or historical significance beyond being the last shot for police at preventing the suppression orders from being lifted. I'd be (genuinely) interested to hear an argument for how it's notable in its own right, or how it's practical to structure an article about events between 2003 and 2009 entirely around the denial of an appeal to stop the suppression orders on them being lifted in 2018. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Splitting 'List of Australian treaties'[edit]

Please comment at Talk:List of Australian treaties#Wow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems already sorted now? Gryllida (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I was already splitting a lot of large articles. I don't know why Pigsonthewing isn't doing it themselves but they've been going around asking people to split large articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yea, though they don't seem to be involved in editing or discussing this particular article.. and it is already split. If they ask at a new article however, this may be more work to do. Gryllida (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing would be grateful if you didn't discuss him in the third person. ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
"seems already sorted" Yes, on the original page, but now we have List of Australian multilateral treaties, at 409,697 bytes - further splitting is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Do we even need these articles? The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a perfectly good treaties database which Wikipedia shouldn't be mirroring. This seems out of scope for an encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we do, because it allows links to Wikipedia articles on those treaties where notable. It's a really useful index in an area where we could and should do better. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I split them at a time after he made the comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Shouldnt these types of list just be Wikidata generated with an embedded query for the reader to filter. Gnangarra 12:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but that would require the en.Wikipedia community to accept such content from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Any thoughts on whether Roger (kangaroo) should exist? He was basically "created" to promote a wildlife sanctuary. I was going to start an AfD, but perhaps the article satisfies SIGCOV. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I live on the other side of the world, but I have seen pictures of Roger numerous times, and I heard of his death very quickly. Coverage including NBC, BBC and CNN indicate to me that an AfD would resolve to "keep". Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, AfD please? Gryllida (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Nah over-reaction- worse case scenario salt into a closely related article - one thing to be news another something that actuslly gives background on items like that. JarrahTree 03:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
As the article currently stands it is just a single event and news so it does not warrant notability. However, if you look past the current definite sigcov (but only news), there are references going back to 2015 and 2016 at least, so actually there is sustained coverage demonstrating arguable notability. These need to be added to the article. AfD would not be a slam dunk either way. There would be a case to keep. Aoziwe (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
There's four entangled topics: Roger, Chris "Brolga" Barnes, the Kangaroo Sanctuary, and the BBC documentary series Kangaroo Dundee, and a reasonable case for any and all meeting GNG could be made. I reckon centralising at the sanctuary would be best, with aopropriately catted redirects for the others. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WOW2019 The worlds of Wikimedia: communicating and collaborating across languages and cultures: University of Sydney, 12-14 June 2019[edit]

This may of interest to Australian Wikipedians. This conference is calling for papers/speakers (deadline 12 March 2019, 250 word abstract). Registration opens Feb 2019 (no details currently available).

I know nothing more than what appears here: Wow2019 Kerry (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Article about a topic covered by a suppression order[edit]

A Wikipedia article about a prominent person (I know who the person is, but I won't identify the person) states that the person was convicted in Victoria earlier this week of a serious offence and will be sentenced in February. The statement is sourced to a reliable source published outside Australia. The Victorian court is known to have made a suppression order prohibiting publication in Australia of the identity of the person or details of the case. Australian media have published articles about the suppression order, but have not identified the person or the details of the case. Which raises a question: should Wikipedia be allowing the Wikipedia article to be seen in Australia? Bahnfrend (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"The Herald Sun in Melbourne published a front page that featured the word "CENSORED" printed largely on a black background." Many other links.
It is all over Facebook. Does Victorian courts prosecute Facebook? Would they prosecute Wikipedia? Maybe Australia will block Wikipedia? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, but here is a link to an interesting article about a similar situation, and it confirms that people should not be publishing the identity of the person on Facebook. Someone who knows how to contact Wikimedia Foundation should contact Wikimedia Foundation about this. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. I would wait before bothering them. NZ is very particular about the letter of the laws, much more so than Australia, and this sort of thing is virtually unheard of in the US, unconstitutional even. On Wikipedia, isn't the applicable law the law of Florida? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Censorship of Wikipedia and WP:NOTCENSORED are relevant -- there's likely to be zero chance of Wikipedia respecting such a gag order. For Australian editors editing the article or related pages without explicitly adding or editing the fact/details of the conviction, might that still be considered publication (the "Publish changes" button...)? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
"Australian editors editing the article or related pages without explicitly adding or editing the fact/details of the conviction, might that still be considered publication (the "Publish changes" button...)?" —That presents an interesting conundrum. Supposing that someone (for example a non-Australian editor) added the suppressed information to the article. Then supposing an Australian editor edits the article for some reason; perhaps they edit related information, perhaps not. Could that Australian editor be in trouble for "publishing" the suppressed information? The interesting part is that this hypothetical Australian editor does not know which prominent person is the subject of the suppression order, because that information has been suppressed. Does this mean that all Australian editors must check the entire contents of any articles they edit about prominent people, and not edit any article that mentions the subject being convicted of a serious offence recently, just in case that person is the subject of the suppression order? How far does "ignorance is no excuse" extend? (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
According to the Australian Financial Review, (see link here), "the suppression order ... applies in 'all Australian states and territories' and 'on any website or other electronic or broadcast format accessible within Australia'." Which means that as far as the Victorian court is concerned, any editor anywhere in the world who publishes on Wikipedia any information inconsistent with the order could be held to be in breach of it. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree it would be unwise for Australian contributors to write about the topic (we are subject to this court order). The Australian Government have the powers to block websites; let them use it to block Wikipedia if they want to suppress it . But I think shutting down Wikipedia in Australia would cause even more outrage than the event that we dare not mention (Wikipedia is currently #5 website in Australia so I think folks would notice). Kerry (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not censorship in the sense discussed in the Censorship of Wikipedia article. The purpose of the suppression order is only to ensure that the person has a fair trial when the person is tried in March on separate charges. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. As to whether Wikipedia will respect the order, that's a matter for Wikimedia Foundation, which should be informed by someone about the issue. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me that Wikipedia should respect the gag order on the person's trial. But it is allowed to publish, just like the Herald Sun did, that the person's trial and all the associated legal proceedings are subject to a suppression order, which probably will last well into next year or beyond. Donama (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think Australian residents might want to be extremely careful about their comments here. Some of the above comments are playing a bit fast and loose with the suppression order as it is, and there've already been reports about Twitter users and others getting legal threats for breaching it, and in the transcript of yesterday's apparently public court transcript on contempt issues that's been going around the judge explicitly references Wikipedia. It might be an idea for people to leave the free speech arguments until after the suppression order is lifted if you're subject to it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have sent Wikimedia Legal an email about the subject. Thanks to the editor who directed me to the contact details. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
That horse has bolted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The suppression order is still in effect, and the judge has expressed interest in a possible wide pursuit of contempt charges. This would be an extremely inadvisable stance for anyone in Australia right now, regardless of what editors who are outside the court's jurisdiction have done. It is also beyond extremely inadvisable to be editing others talk-page posts to reinstate potentially suppressed material, and thereby potentially exposing them to legal consequences. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The page in question is months behind with respect to the media ban on reporting. It appears true, anyone who may ever visit Australia as a known Wikipedia edit should avoid the page in question. Any edit amounts to publication of the current version. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I did not know what you were all referring to. But there was enough info above for me to find the article pretty easily within wikipedia. Not sure that any supression by wikipedia would do any good with such high profile non-Australian independent reliable sources pubishing material. Some of the non-English wikipedias too have been updated. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ownership of original Castlemaine Brewery[edit]

Our family history has always laid claim to owning the original Castlemaine Brewery. The brewery they established in Castlemaine was set up by Edward and Horace Ewart who arrived in Australia on The Windjammer. The story passed down is that Horace drank the profits and the brewery had to be sold. Whether or not it was sold to the Wood brothers I have no idea. I do have a photograph of the management and staff of the brewery and all the information I can find is on the back of the photograph.

Management and staff of original Castlemaine Brewery

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoon000 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)