Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

22 March:

A 1946 FAB-250 M46 Bomb.
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 political controversies in Australia · Paul Wild Observatory · Punk rock in Australia ·


Quality watch:

Political alignment of Aus newspapers[edit]

I added these a while back to remain consistent with international newspapers. See The Guardian, The Sun, etc (newspapers we should be looking to considering our media and media culture much more closely resembles and has been influenced by the UK than the US).

It seems people are mainly annoyed about The Australian being labelled right of centre, despite the fact that a number of former editors of The Australian have called the newspaper right-wing (which is something pointed out by the article itself). You can make the argument that the right-left paradigm being too simplistic but it is a concept that remains in use and is it's own separate issue.

Everyone wants to claim the centre as their own and there seems to be some obfuscating of The Oz's position by muddying the waters with asinine 'but they supported Gough'. Academia and the industry recognise all but some of the smaller News Corp publications (Mercury, NT News) as right-wing. So it's not an issue of subjectivity, when you have a number of individuals calling the Oz right-wing.

Additionally, I fail to see why, in the absence of a clear majority in favour or against political position in the infoboxes, we take the action to remove it. This is far from a neutral action and does not have the support from a plurality of editors (or guidelines supporting this decision) to justify it.

Also don't move the goal-posts by trying to suggest people are calling The Oz an extreme right-wing newspaper - we're just calling it right of centre (which is a literal quote from former editor Chris Mitchell).

Additionally, Kerry makes the astute point that a "clear-cut editorial messages like "Vote for X" would count." Luckily, we have a number of these in recent times from a number of News Corp publications, further giving credence to their right-of-centre position.

No clear consensus on this was reached, nor a clear, reasonable common-ground. Most people did seem to agree that today The Oz is right-of-centre, as backed up by evidence in the article proper. Now, for other newspapers finding a reliable source may be difficult but I fail to see why, for our largest and most popular newspaper, where we do have a reliable reference, we cannot include a political position in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginaldarnold (talkcontribs) 04:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Murdoch papers are not "right" or "left", they're whatever will benefit the Murdoch family at any given point in time. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

They have backed one party over a number in the vast majority of elections over the last 20 years. To suggest that they are currently anything other than right-wing, or that their history makes them impossible to classify is asinine Reginaldarnold (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Then update the article with a table to show what editorial stance they took in each federal election, making clear if they directly exhorted voters to a particular party or not, ideally with a direct quote, and of course a citation. Then the reader can make up their own mind about the policial allegiance now or at any time they like to consider. Kerry (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
"make up their own mind" and my dismay was replaced with hope, there is a wikipedian here. Thank you Kerry. cygnis insignis 10:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a section on political leanings in each publication article based on independent reliable sources. Unless the publication has only ever had one such political leaning it should not be in the infobox, to put it there otherwise is misleading, and for reasons following I suggest it should not be there at all. For a wikieditor, to rely on a publication's "Vote for X" statement or similar to infer a political leaning based on "X"'s political leaning is WP:OR, to rely on a publication's employee or owner stating their publication's political leaning is WP:PRIMARY, which should only be quoted and not used definitively. The political leanings section should only go as far as referencing who and what policies have been supported or criticisied, without WP:ORing where they fit on the political spectrum. Referenced quotes, however, from respected political analysts and political scientists could obviously be included. Anything else is the wikieditor's opinion. Aoziwe (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be a recipe for an utter nightmare of original research. Newspapers rarely have such a strict editorial line that they'll definitively support or criticise policies, as a newspaper, in ways that would be verifiable as opposed to just editorial observations that they've taken X line about Y issue a lot. What we can do is write what sources say about them and how they've defined themselves, with particular regard to how editors have defined their own coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we are actually in furious agreement. Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree that there should definitely not be a political alignment in the infobox of our articles on Australian newspapers for all of the above reasons and many other reasons discussed on other notice boards in the past. Merphee (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This from the editor who didn't even realise that The Australian is currently seen by almost all objective Australians as being just a little bit right wing. He is still trying to prove it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the state of flux we currently have with the former Fairfax papers, it would never be difficult to put the Australian papers on a spectrum from leftish to rightish. It's often what I look for when seeking the leanings of papers others are referring me to as sources. Why anyone wants to keep this stuff out of Wikipedia is beyond me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Sustainable Australia[edit]

We've had a real problem the last few months with microparties trying to write their own articles and endlessly edit warring until their article says what they want it to. Sustainable Australia seems to be the latest one to give this strategy a go - can we have some more eyes on it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't have articles for every minor party without parliamentary representation. That wouldn't exclude Sustainable Australia but it would be easier to manage. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that gets us anywhere - it would damage our coverage of Australian politics and, as you mentioned, wouldn't solve problems like this article. It's a serial problem across minor parties both with and without parliamentary representation and we just need to be a bit vigilant for it so these parties can't just endlessly revert one or two users. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking maybe we could have one article that details all current micro parties, with forks for ones that deserve articles. Otherwise there's a strong case for deletion due to a lack of reliable media sources. There must be other articles that we're not aware of that are significantly written by the parties themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Not in favour of that: it's completely unnecessary and there's no basis for merging registered parties. I have them all watchlisted and I draw attention to them when issues arise, so I can safely say there isn't others out there with these kind of edits. However, dealing with COI edits is frustrating enough: if bringing them to light means I have to waste even more time fighting off pointless deletion attempts instead of focusing on the COIs, then I may as well just save myself the headaches, shut up and let these kinds of edits stand. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
As an admin with knowledge of Australian politics, I'd be happy to look into COI editing. Feel free to notify me when this crops up. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I can see several IP edits that have been reverted, but the links to the IP talk pages are still red. People won't learn what's good and what's bad if you don't tell them. Please use 'Welcome' templates, and leave messages explaining why you have reverted. [{WP:Twinkle]] is useful for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to do it to tick a box if it makes other Wikipedians happy, but it doesn't actually address this problem. Templates designed for editors with any hint of participating in the project in any way don't work for people whose sole interest in being here is in trying to write and control their own article/write and control the article of somebody who's paying them, and for which the main solution is for them to get lost and find something better to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Further to the point, in less than half an hour, he's at level 3 templates and is still just endlessly reverting. Exactly the same thing has happened every other time we've had this situation of a political party who's decided that they're going to write their own article, Wikipedia be damned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Flickerfest[edit]

The concerns for this article have been addressed. The festival is mentioned in more than 80 other articles so should get its own page. Can someone please move it to article space now? Also note it was unilaterally deleted in 2014, then when someone tried recreating it, it was rejected so it has been stuck as a draft article for months. Flickerfest used to be on Template:Sydney events until it was strangely removed also in 2014, and is now far longer than other articles there like Bondi Short Film Festival. The old article was here for years before being deleted by one editor. Wosella5 (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Sydney - time for a photo run?![edit]

Sydneysiders, I found there were over 200 articles requesting a Sydney photo sitting in this category, the effect of which is just to make your eyes glaze over and think "gosh, I wouldn't know where to begin". So I decided to make it easier to tackle. I have weeded out the articles that actually did have photos and then created subcategories for the various local government areas in Sydney and relocated the remaining photos into those LGA sub-categories (where it was meaningful and I found sufficient information in the article to do so, e.g. an address or coords). For City of Sydney, I also created further sub-categories for some of very inner suburbs like The Rocks, Millers Point, Sydney CBD etc which had quite a number of photos requested. So if you fancy to go out and tackle one of these categories, it's much more achievable with categories ranging from 1 photo requested (in the Municipality of Burwood) to 28 (in The Rocks, New South Wales), this is a size that can be easily tackled in a day. Each category comes with a Open Street Map showing you the location of all the requested photos (click to generate) so you can easily optimise your travel around the area. Having done photo runs in and around Brisbane, I think having at least 2 people in the car works best. One to take photos and one to drive. If you have a 3rd person, get them to manage the route and navigation. Tip: if your camera or phone has geo-tagging capability, please turn it on (it helps a lot if you have forgotten where you took a particular photo). Before you go, check the Talk page of the article, it may have a quite specific photo request, e.g. the interior of a church as the article already has an exterior photo. Similarly reading the article may make you realise that the church's graveyard is a significant feature that might be worth a photo too. Also reading the article may tell you not to bother, like the bush believed to be extinct, a potential archaeologial site, and things that have now been demolished (but for which historic photos may exist) -- I'm not making these up! So get out there and photographing! Kerry (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I also plan to tackle Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New South Wales but with around 800 requests, in the words of Lawrence Oates "I may be some time". Kerry (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Good idea Kerry, though I suggest that doing more than one photo to document a place is more helpful as it gives the writers something extra to work with, also if you see any plaques, foundations stone or signs grab a photo and check that information is in the article as well. Gnangarra 05:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's helpful Kerry, I've already spotted a few places I'm likely to go. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings[edit]

Anonymous and relatively new editors seem intent on adding Brenton Tarant (the suspect) to the "Notable people" section of Grafton, New South Wales without any sources at all verifying a link to Grafton. There is one in the Christchurch mosque shootings that says he was a personal trainer there from 2009 to 2011 after he left school.[1] However, it doesn't explicitly say he was "from" Grafton. As a comparison, I worked in Melbourne from 1978-1980 after leaving school. Does that mean I am from Melbourne? The news article mentions many other places. Is he from there as well? I'm going to tag it with a citation needed tag but should the claim be in the article at all? --AussieLegend () 07:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This person is not independently notable per Wikipedia's standards (e.g. per WP:ONEEVENT), so I'd suggest omitting it from the Grafton article. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no doubt Tarrant(!) is from Grafton; he went to Grafton High, and his family is well known there, and there are plenty of reliable sources confirming that. But I agree with Nick-D that including him in "Notable people" in the Grafton article is a terrible idea. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Riley Ann Sawyers is in the notable people section of WP's Mentor, Ohio article and she was a baby who is only known for being murdered (and unlike Johanna, isn't automatically notable for being royalty). Yes, a terrible idea, this "Grafton" thing. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Until anyone satisifies WP's notabiltiy guidelines, eg WP:NEXIST, sufficiently for their own article they are not notable and should not be in list of notable people. Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Per the comments above I have reworded the hidden comment in Grafton's notable people section and removed Tarant (which was a link to the shootings article) as well as two others. I suspect they will be restored though. --AussieLegend () 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
As expected, he was restored to the article.[2] I've asked for page protection. sigh. --AussieLegend () 16:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it needs full protection.[3] --AussieLegend () 09:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@AL - I added Tarrant because I wasn't aware of the discussion. Thanks for notifying me. Heepman1997 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning egg incident[edit]

Eyes are also needed please at Talk:Fraser Anning egg incident, particularly those with more legal expertise than this layman, regarding the likelihood of being in contempt of court for identifying a 17-year-old. Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

NSW Geographical Name Register Mix'n'Match set[edit]

Hi all. Just letting you all know that there is a new Mix'n'Match set for the NSW Geographical Name Register here. I'd love to see others involved. As well as Wikidata, this will help Wikipedia populate Template:NSW_GNR. --99of9 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Great! Is there a problem with the Wikidata link? Does not appear to be working on the ones I linked just now. For example Arncliffe Railway Station gives this output. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, all direct item summaries have been broken since yesterday. Even their primary search page. Perhaps not coincidentally that was the same time I uploaded 60k items to mix'n'match. Although not required, I think Mix'n'Match might have followed all the links to aid it in making automatic matches, and inadvertently overloaded the site? @Magnus Manske: is that a possible explanation? --99of9 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mattinbgn: their site is back up, so your Arncliffe Station link now looks good. 99of9 (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Having been working quite a bit with the NSW GNR lately, there are a few problems here. Firstly the GNR has old LGA names, while NSW articles have mostly (but not entirely) been updated to new ones, so I suspect Wikidata will have the new ones,so we really need a mapping table to refer to. Second, the MixNMatch only seems to give me 2 options, Set (if it’s the one) and Skip. Because there are things like small creeks and trig stations in the GNR that are unlikely to have Wikipedia articles and hence don’t appear in Wikidata, I don’t seem to get an option to say “it is none of the Wikidata items suggested”, yet that is what I have found to be the thing I most want to say. I presume the semantics of Skip are “I dunno” which leaves it for the next person. statistically what’s our match rate likely to be (that is, number of GNR entries vs number of NSW Place Wikidata entries)? Kerry (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kerry. I was in two minds about whether to include the old LGA in the description, but on balance I think it is more useful for matching than having nothing. It will not automatically add LGAs as statements in the item. So the only danger is having to update the description when new items are created, but usually we update quite a few things when a new item is created, so I don't think that is a big problem. Regarding your mix'n'match... it sounds like you are playing "mobile game". Instead I suggest you go from a desktop, and start with the automatic matches where you can either confirm or remove provisional matches (for a specific type of items if you like). The other way of doing it is "game mode" where you get options "Next entry" / "Set Q" / "New" / "N/A". Which, variously mean: skip, match an existing item, create a new item, or "I don't think this will ever deserve an item in Wikidata". But don't use N/A much, wikidata has a much looser notability standard than wikipedia. If the GNB things that Trig stations are important enough to name, maybe we should too!? --99of9 (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This page might help: m:Mix'n'match/Manual, but I think a few bits are out of date. --99of9 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Beaumont children[edit]

Just a heads-up, but I'm starting to worry that a lot of fringe theories about who really took Jane, Arnna and Grant, are starting to creep into the article. Can people look over it, and please add it to their watchlists. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You raised this in January, and there have only been about 25 edits since then. You can get in there and edit yourself, remove uncited information, and discuss on the talk page. Stephen 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Want a bit of a laugh?[edit]

Have a look at Junkeer Classification, but be quick, I have speed delete nominated it as a blatant hoax. Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it is for real - just completely not notable - it is late here - will look at taking to PROD or AfD tomorrow. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)