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

21 August:

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 · 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 · 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:

Sexual assaults at unversities[edit]

A group of IPs, likely all the same individual, has been adding recent news reports about sexual assaults to university articles,[1][2] In the past, discussions have generally found that these contravene WP:NOTNEWS etc, so extra eyes on the affected articles would help. --AussieLegend () 11:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether there's an article on that HRC report (or the "Broderick" report for the University of Sydney, yet to be released). If so, one could redirect editors to those articles? Tony (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea if they exist. I did try directing one of the IPs to take up the matter on the talk page,[3] but he/she/it just reverted with the edit summary "Your pro-rape, misogynist edit has been opposed - take it to the talk page".[4] An attempt to force the IP to the talk page (he/she/it has been reverted at other articles) was fruitless. The admin said that I should try usiing the talk page. That advice is pretty useless if the IP won't do so. Honestly, I'm siick to death of the wankers that attack these articles. I don't give a flying fuck any more. Let somebody else deal with it. The article can go to shit for all I care. deliberately not signed
I'd say revert the anon with a link in the edit summary to your talkpage thread. Tony (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: This admin will back you up if that happens again. I can understand adding these sections to an article in good faith, but describing another editor as "pro-rape" for removing them is not acceptable no matter how righteous the cause. I appreciate your work in keeping these articles free of such recentism and clutter. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC).
The report from the Human Rights Commission was released yesterday. Kerry (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey Aussie Legend, I never called you names or whatever else your falsely accusing, don't misrepresent my edits please. But ironically I believe you may have just tried to call me a "wanker", so have a Bex and a lie down? And yes Kerry the HRC report has been released, thanks for noticing. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't falsely accusing anything. I was talking about the editor who made this edit. That said, I opposed the edit here and you made no attempt to justify its inclusion on the talk page before reverting.[5] Nor did you do it here. Or here. I suggest you familiarise yourself wiith WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.
don't misrepresent my edits please - Pot, kettle, black. --AussieLegend () 08:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, well don't call people 'wankers' then link to my edits, OK! Please stop using foul mouthed comments when referring to others, it's unbecoming and uncivil. - Pot, kettle, black. -- 121.216.192.249 (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I liinked to your edits first. Timing is important. --AussieLegend () 11:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(uninvolved comment) I came across this discussion in Huggle and I'd just like to remind everyone to keep calm before this escalates any further. DrStrauss talk 08:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the material added to the Australian National University's article, it does seem to be a significant event in the ANU's history, and I've moved the material there. I've also edited it to improve the wording (eg, to remove the clunky 'it was reported' construction) and note the university's response. Placing this material in sections called 'controversy' as seems to have been done in multiple articles does readers a disservice given that this has not actually been a controversy as far as I'm aware - all of the universities appear to have accepted the findings and have stated that they will address the problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And it goes on[edit]

The saga continues at Talk:University of Newcastle (Australia)#Student Life, with 121.216.192.249 doing nothing to justify inclusion in the article. Instead I've been accused of WP:OWNERSHIP, and the IP is now just parroting back what I've said to them, making me think they're more interested in trolling (see this edit summary) than contributing to a productive discussion. I fear that if I just ignore them, they'll just bulldoze their edits into the article anyway so some extra eyes at the discussion would be appreciated, whatever the outcome might be. --AussieLegend () 09:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR warnings have now been issued to AussieLegend, Waynetheman, 1.129.97.163 ‎ and 1.129.97.158 for their activity at University of Newcastle (Australia). 121.218.65.143 (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This, four hours after admin protection intervention, and by an anon IP, is possibly tendentious and does not look like WP:AGF. Aoziwe (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article continues to be plagued by a range of IPs, all belonging to Telstra, one of which started the problems today by arbitrarily declaring consensus even though there is none (there has been no discussion in over a week!). Notably, neither that IP or a registered user who did the same, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:EDITWAR, received warnings from this IP. Fortunately an admin saw what was going on and protected the article. However, for now it's only for three days and I can't see the other parties participating in rational discussion based on what I've seen over the past 17 days. More editors are really needed at the discussion. I tried to stay away but I just couldn't be that irresponsible. Somebody has to deal with the crap, which even included some drive by reverts of good faith edits, amazingly also from the same address pools. --AussieLegend () 20:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article[edit]

I found the linked article quite interesting

https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/02/there-are-more-wikipedia-articles-about-one-part-world-rest-it-combined/8486/?utm_source=SFFB

Please move if this should be discussed elsewhere.James.au (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

New South Wales Heritage Register appears to be CC-BY![edit]

I was looking at a place on the New Southern Wales State Heritage Register and clicked on the copyright and disclaimers link on the blottom of the page and found this excellent news that it is CC-BY. Go wild with new articles, folks! Kerry (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

More good news. In South Australia, heritage pages links to a CC-BY opyright statement. Let rejoicing be unconfined! Kerry (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Victoria's is still copyright though. Kerry (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Western Australia's is copyright Kerry (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Northern Territory's is copyright Kerry (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
ACT's is copyright. Kerry (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Tasmania's is not entirely clear but it seems to be saying you can reproduce only for non-commercial use, so no joy for us there. Kerry (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary.We now have 3 states with CC-BY heritage registers:QLD, NSW and SA. Jolly good news! Having done the articles for the QHR, I am not keen to put my hand up to do another state. But if anyone is interested, I can probably help though with some tooling to webscrape the info and partially generate the article, which is a massive time-saver. I'm not back in Oz until mid-Sept though (sitting in Montreal airport at the moment) so I can't do anything until then. Kerry (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Having said "go wild", I should note that my random sampling of the NSW State Register suggests that the information available about each site is minimal, see this example. The Wikipedia article based on it would be a stub (in this case, the article already exists and says a lot more th the Heritage Register!) Whereas the Qld HR articles are rated generally as C class as there is a fair bit of history and description of the site compared to NSW. But still, once an article exists, other people may add to it, so better a stub than nothing. And the SA Heritage Register is worse, see this example. I don't think you can squeeze a stub out of that, so I would be suggesting just adding it to a list/table of heritage properties in the relevant town/suburb locality. Kerry (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Does that mean all the images are public domain as well? If so that would be quite significant. (Your example had 15 images, but maybe that's an exception rather than the standard). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The NSW copyright page does not limit the CC-BY to text only (some do) so I believe the images are included in the CC-BY licensing. On their copyright page, under the Exclusions, it says

"Wherever a third party holds copyright in material presented on this website, the copyright remains with that party. Their permission may be required to use the material and you should contact that party directly. OEH has made all reasonable efforts to: clearly label material where the copyright is owned by a third party"

So in the absence of any clear labelling as being the copyright of a third party, I believe we can use the images too from the NSW site. I have not checked the SA site. Kerry (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a list ?[edit]

Do we have a definitive list in the project anywhere of good Aussie sources, and for example, what they hold, their copyright status, paywall status, access tips, and how useful they are? If not let me know and I will start one for all of us to add to. Aoziwe (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Williamtown chemical contamination[edit]

I have started this article on a significant emerging contamination issue in Australia. Any help from other experienced editors would be most appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The scope of the article could be broadened given that this is an issue at other ADF bases as well (eg, [6], [7], [8], [9]). Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The current lead sentence is a bit awkward - per MOS:BOLDAVOID ("the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence") it should probably be reworded, or the article renamed. I was considering rewording the sentence, but it's probably best to wait and see if the article scope changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
As has been stated, it's an issue relevant to other ADF bases, not just Williamtown. In fact it's relevant to anywhere in the world that uses/used Aqueous Film Forming Foam. Perhaps it would be better to add this to Firefighting foam#Health concerns, where there is already content. Despite the news reports, it's not a news item that gets a lot of coverage locally. There are a couple of properties with handwritten signs on their fences but that's really all. It doesn't get as much coverage as the bid to remove Salt Ash Air Weapons Range or the general aircraft noise complaints. Hunter Water doesn't even seem concerned, despite the RAAF base sitting right on top of the Grahamstown Dam catchment area. To be honest, some of the complaints are a bit of a beat up, like one person complaining he can't grow veggies in has yard, not the he's ever grown veggies in his yard. Even the first reference in the article has a bit of this. For example "That would leave only two NSW rivers open to commercial prawning: the Hawkesbury and the Clarence." Apparently they forgot Raymond Terrace, 20km upstream from Fullerton Cove. It's also a misnomer to refer to this as the "Williamtown chemical contamination" as it affects RAAF Base Williamtown, Williamtown, Tomago and to a lesser extent Salt Ash but mainly the effect is in Fullerton Cove. Ironically, the people in Williamtown who I've spoken to (right next to the base) don't have any issues, although their eyes did have a twinkle in them when they mentioned "class-action". --AussieLegend () 13:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It is an issue around RAAF Base Edinburgh in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, too. So far, there seems to be acknowledgement that there the chemicals have been detected in several wetlands and aquifers near the base. The local councils closed the wetlands for water extraction where it had been used for irrigation of market gardens and a school.[10] I've seen bore drilling rigs around a few weeks ago, so I suspect they are making a closer grid of testing holes to model the plume in the aquifer. [11] shows a list of 18 sites that the Department of Defence is investigating. --Scott Davis Talk 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
By contrast, Hunter Water released a fact sheet in April 2017 saying that the Tomago sandbeds hadn't been affected but that 3 bores had been isolated "as a precaution". --AussieLegend () 01:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
these toxic firefighting foams have been a big issue for months at the base at Oakey, Queensland (although there is no mention of it in that wIkipedia article on in Oakey Army Aviation Centre) so yes this is widespread and probably should be covered in general in one article to which specific articles like Williamstown, Oakey etc can link while providing any local specific info. Kerry (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Arctocephalus forsteri requested move discussion[edit]

I've set up a RM discussion on the talk page for what you may know as New Zealand fur seal. Some controversy about whether to use scientific name or use common name. Please feel free to comment.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Susan Carland[edit]

Would anyone mind helping to beef this up for review or actually reviewing? Was surprised to find we don't have an article on this person yet! So tried to fill the gap. Thanks. Donama (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

FAC needing another reviewer or two[edit]

If anyone is interested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vultee Vengeance in Australian service/archive1 (my nomination) would benefit from another reviewer or two. I'm biased, but I think that its subject (one of the worst aircraft ever to be used by the RAAF) is more interesting than the title suggests! Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still planning to stop by to follow up on my MilHist A-Class review, but it never hurts for someone not so immersed in military history to have a look if they're interested... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Gary O'Callaghan[edit]

I have created a basic BLP on this recently deceased radio personality. Please check it out as I did it rather quickly! 220 of Borg 07:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)