Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright status of Bulletin photo

I came across a 1952 photo from The Bulletin archives taken in Oslo, Norway. Is likely to be in the public domain? Would the relevant question be whether the photo was first published in Australia? Thanks, Andjam 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were using the photo in Australia, it would be in the public domain, since it was taken before 1 January 1955, regardless of where it was first published. But we're using it in the United States, for all intents and purposes, so it's probably not public domain. --bainer (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was that if it was originally published in Australia and it's PD in Australia, it'd be PD in the states. Andjam 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think Thebainer's conclusion is right. I was under the conclusion international copyright law is honoured if the country of origin still holds the work under copyright, and dropped if the country of origin has released it from copyright. --Martyman-(talk) 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It has to have a "home country" to recognise its copyright. But which country is its home country? Xtra 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Should The Bulletin be contacted to ask about whether Australia was the "home country"? If so, should I do it, or someone more experienced with this kind of stuff? Andjam 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. If the photographer was Australian or employed directly by The Bulletin (not freelance) then it is most probably an Australian work. It would be strange for the copyright to be owned by an Australian but governed by foriegn copyright rules (though being strange is probably not a good way to judge these things). I am also not sure if the photo is owned by a foreign copyright owner if it's publishment in an Australian magazine would mean it falls out of copyright in Australia a set time after being published, although if it was still under copyright in it's home countrie the US would have to honour that... This stuff is too complicated for it's own good. --Martyman-(talk) 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Andjam and Martyman, you're right for stuff produced and published entirely within Australia. Stuff that's PD in the home country before 1978 is PD in the US. This photo was taken overseas, and there's also the question of when it was first published, so Australian law may not be the only applicable law here. As you've already said, it's necessary to establish details like that first. --bainer (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Any volunteers? Andjam 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've sent an email to The Bulletin. Andjam 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Football again

Okay, here's my proposal. If it gets support here, I'd like to tack on an additional proposal, which is basically a stick with a nail in it, weilded appropriately against anyone who tries any childish (like the page-blanking I saw earlier).

  1. When football is referred to, it shall be "football (soccer)", just like every other bloody article on Wikipedia. There shall be no more fighting over whether it ought to be football or soccer, and attempts to say "soccer (football)" will be treated with the contempt and violent beatings they deserve.
  2. "Football" on its own, then, will only be used for football codes in general: AFL, rugby union, rugby league, football, and, if necessary (God forbid) Gaelic footy and gridiron as well. This means that football-related categories remain, but as top-level cats with subcats relating to the particular codes, rather than fighting over whether "Football players" should be AFLers, footballers, whatever.
  3. Cut and paste moves, page blanking, creation of duplicate articles, etc. is lame, and will all be undone, as soon as I (and any other administrator who feels like helping) gets the time.
  4. Thrrrrp.
  5. If anyone disagrees with me, come up with a better proposal. "But football is what the rest of the world calls it!" or "how dear those soccer fanatic interlopers claim the rights to our sacred word!" are not better proposals.

Anyone got any comments? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No wonder this is running hot in football forums. People are riled. I just found this page from an edit history and God damn. I'm trying to convince people to take this to thefootballwiki.com so it gets into the right search queries in google in time for The World Cup. Redirects won't appear when searching for "Australian football". Why does it matter that it's called football anyway? How does this affect rubgy league (the greatest game of all)? I beleive that of the 48 English speaking football naitons, only 5 use the word soccer. The most popular football league in the world is the English Premier League and there are no soccer clubs there. Everyone knows that you need to type "Liverpool football club" to find the team, otherwise you get the name of the city. Also, there is debate about switching to the word football in the USA. F.C. Dallas being an example while others have dropped the word soccer from thier name all together. Call your sport what you like? I don't care. I hope we beat Brasil, but we probably won't. ;) As long as we do better than last time. :) Bye. --Executive.koala 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


From the FC Dallas website. '"'What does FC in FC Dallas stand for? F stands for "Futbol" which is the globally used term for the sport, and C stands for "Club" which again is the accurate reference to a team globally. As people across the metroplex will learn in the coming months and years, there are a variety of terms that more accurately describe the sport; such as Futbol Club when referring to the team itself." I wish we would use fútbol in Australia, but the racists would scream wog. --Executive.koala 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion either until now. Thanks to fuddlemark for pointing it out and I agree 100% with your suggestions. Grant65 | Talk 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong support - but it's probably already spinning out of control. There are two fronts to combat here: those that wish to appropriate the term "football" for themselves, and quite separate to this group, are those who do not wish to see Australian rules football mentioned in the same illustrious light as soccer, gridiron and rugby (cough, cough). Interestingly, this latter group are in fact all Australians - no prizes for guessing what their motivations are. I wish all and sundry luck. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal, although I think once "football (soccer)" or "Australian rules football" has been used in an article (I'd imagine usually in the lead section) and that article refers only to that sport (eg for Sydney FC or Sydney Swans), "football" can freely be used. Something needs to be done about page names too, but don't ask me! AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Mark's proposal is obviously the right idea, together with the comment from Albinomonkey. JPD (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta, guys. AlbinoMonkey, I agree.

I've spent the last couple of hours making a start on getting all this into shape (you can see the results in various football cats/articles, and my contribs). There's still a long way to go. At the moment, most of the crap is confined to football (soccer)-related articles, but sooner or later the other codes will require work, too. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

On Friday night I did a lot of work on moving Australian soccer articles to the correct categories, most of which has been undone by Executive.koala and an anonymous editor. I guess it would be wildly optimistic to expect them to undo their handiwork. Does anyone know how we go about getting a bot to do it, or some other timesaving method? I'm mainly referring to Category:Australian football clubs and Category:Australian football players, which to my mind should be supercategories made up of the ones for the respective codes. Grant65 | Talk 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There is this, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, which seems to be good for auto-find and replace things, although it is software which you'd need to install on your computer. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And when you're done Grant65, are you going to change all instances of Australian football with regards to Aussie Rules in Categories, Page names, etc, to Australian rules football? Australian Football Hall of Fame needs to be a disambiguation page and the current information needs to move to Australian Rules Football Hall of Fame or something similar, so that the Football Federation Australia - Australian Football Hall of Fame can be added to the encyclopedia and to the disambig. Only when you’ve finished with your crusade against Australian Football (soccer), of course.
Looks like you have a lot of work to do here (Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame), when you've finished Grantifying Category:Football (soccer) in Australia. After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of double standards now would you? There appears to be plenty of other users here who will be happy to help you. Remember, it's all for the credibility of Wikipedia. Don't the side down now, son. --Executive.koala 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Executive.koala, apart from your misleading comments about the use of the word "soccer", you are missing a significant part of the point. Even if it is always referred to as "football", it is not the only code referred to as football in Australia, so disambiguations and subcategories are appropriate. Of course, when naming articles aboutbodies, rather than topics, we use the name of the body, so neither Football Federation Australia nor Australian Football Hall of Fame spell out which code is referred to. If the FFA creates something called the Australian Football Hall of Fame as well, then disambiguation would be necessary, but that isn't the case. It's hard to see why you think there are double standards.
So how can you tell what sport this is by the title? Australian Football Hall of Fame Why does it not say Australian Rules? And yes, there is an FFA Australian Football Hall of Fame; it's just not in wikipedia yet. If football (soccer) can't use Australian football, the Aussie Rules shouldn't use it either, for exactly the same reason. So when you're done wasting your time changing all of the football links, you can do the same to the Aussie Rules links. --Executive.koala 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well the Football Federation Australia website under the heading "FOOTBALL FEDERATION AUSTRALIA - FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME" refers not once but twice to the "Australian Soccer Hall of Fame". There's no mention at all of "Australian Football Hall of Fame". But for disambiguation purposes I see no reason why the present Australian Football Hall of Fame article should not be moved to say, Australian Football Hall of Fame (Australian rules football). It can't be moved to [[Australian Rules Football Hall of Fame]] because that's not what it's called.--The Brain of Morbius 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
A soccer hall of fame? c'mon, let's get serious! I can really imagine hundreds of thousands of Australians with teary eyes winding their way through a soccer hall of fame. "I remember that nil all draw". "I was there the day so and so took a dive and won a penalty which gave us that magnificent 1-0 victory". "Remember how so and so would do a somersault, roll over a dozen times and then grab his ankle with such an anguished look on his face that his opponent got the yellow card everytime". "Oh look, I remember that nil all draw as well - it was an incredible game, there was not a single shot on goal all night, such tension, such professionalism, it was an extraordinary display of skill". "Oh look, that was the night we won 3-1 - it's still the highest scoring game of soccer on record." "This is the last game ever played in the NSL, such an historic event, there was so much emotion that night, to think that the comp survived a whole 26 seasons, the history of it all - it brings a lump to your throat." ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That was really constructive and helpful. Regardless of your views towards football (soccer), it has nothing at all to do with whether there is an associated Hall of Fame or not. Cursive 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, given the heading says "FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME" I'm pretty sure that's at least one reference to it being called the Australian Football Hall of Fame. Here are some others: [1] [2] also from the footballaustralia.com.au site. Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame seems fine to me. Cursive 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
One is actually officially called the Australian Football Hall of Fame and the other is not - is that too difficult for you to understand? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there is only one team officially called the Australian national football team as well, but that didn't stop that page being moved... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm less knowledgable of this issue, but if you have the references to show that that is its official name, then you make a fair point. No one would argue that that name is used officially to describe the national team of another football code (I don't think, but I could be wrong). "Australian Football" means something very specific in Australia, but I would think that Australian national football team clearly does not refer to anything related to Australian Football, and could perhaps be used to describe the socceroos (if that is its official name). While on the subject, I note that it says something about the term "socceroos" being the official nick name - but I had thought that Lowy was trying to distance the FFA from the nick name - perhaps "traditional nick name" or "popular nick name" might be better. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that one is called the "Australian Football Hall of Fame", and the other was started as the "Australian Soccer Hall of Fame", but since the change in name of the FFA, they are referring to it as the "Football Hall of Fame" or "FFA - Football Hall of Fame". They are not stupid enough to call it the "Australian Football Hall of Fame", as there is already something with that name. Maybe some disambiguation is required, but if so it should be "Football Hall of Fame (Australia)" or "Football Hall of Fame (Australian soccer)" or something like that. The disambiguation should definitely not come in the middle of the official name. JPD (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. No point messing around with it if they don't even call it that. Xtra 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
They do refer to it as the Australian Football Hall of Fame (see the two links I provided above). Agree with the point about disambiguation not being in the middle of the name though. Cursive 11:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Appuntu. There is only one Australian Football Hall of Fame - the others have a different name and the titles of their articles should carry that name. The logical extension of all this idiocy is that some bright spark will decide that Australian Football League should be clarified for disambiguation, and will be retitled Austrlaian Football League (Australian rules football). Too far fetched? Too idiotic? Don't bet on it! We've already had afficionados of the other codes argue that the adjective "Australian" should not be used to describe Australian rules football because it was invented in Victoria!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the Australian Football League (Australian rules football) being an idiotic idea (or using the original name Victorian Rules Football when talking about Aussie Rules). But for the same reason that's why the page shouldn't be called Australian Soccer Hall of Fame per JPD. Cursive 11:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
But what is its official name? I can't get a sense of that from any of the links you have provided. It seems to me that if we use the official names for all the codes, and also add them to Australian Football Hall of Fame (disambiguation), that we have it all covered without any problems. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem - it's not clear what the official name is - which was why I proposed the Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame in the first place. Seems ok now (others might not be happy with the status quo though) - if they ever do change it officially/change all the references from Australian Soccer Hall of Fame to Australian Football Hall of fame we'd have to do something about moving the disambig then. Cursive 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to stir up s%$^e and disappear for a few days. Anyway, it seems a reasonable conclusion has been reached. Well done, all. (thanks too, Cursive)--Executive.koala 15:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

New South Wales Cities box

I've been pottering away on making a New South Wales cities template in my sandbox. I got the idea from the {{Cities of Victoria}} template. I figure, if the Victorian's can have one, why not NSW? Does anyone have any suggestions, eg. cities I have missed?

Also should we be making other templates like this for the other states as well?

Blarneytherinosaur 08:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gralee?
Not a bad idea at all, but we need a precise definition of what fits in here, or it's going to fill up in no time, with places like Gralee. - Randwicked Alex B 08:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Gralee, Whoops! I meant to remove that one.
I suggest we include those places that have been declared to be cities, as defined at Local Government Areas of New South Wales. I went through the list there and collected as many cities as I could find, so I think they should all be there, but someone might notice if one is missing.
There are a few quirks, like Taree being the centre of Greater Taree City Council and, I believe, therefore a city, but Port Macquarie only being within a Municipality and therefore not a city, although it is larger. I don't know if we should have an exception for cases like that, or just stick with the official definition.
Also I would exclude those "cities" that are within the Sydney metropolitan area, which are already listed under "Local Government Areas of Sydney" in the Sydney regions template. (The Victorian cities template doesn't have the "cities" within Melbourne, and I think this is a good idea.)
Blarneytherinosaur 09:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Defining whether a place can be a city or not based on its Council area is flawed, take for instance Tamworth Regional or Bathurst Regional Councils, both are centred around the major centres of Tamworth & Bathurst that in their own right would qualify to be called a city. Isnt there an official definition (by the NSW Goverment) that determines what is classed as a city or not? --59.167.7.100 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The dictionary of the Local Government Act 1993 [3] defines a city as following:
“city means an area constituted as a city under Division 1 of Part 1 of Chapter 9.”
The Local Government Act 1993 No 30 Chapter 9 Part 1, Division 1, 204 Constitution of areas states that:
"(1) The Governor may, by proclamation, constitute any part of New South Wales as an area."
[And in 206 Constitution of cities]
"The Governor may, by proclamation, constitute an area as a city."
I believe that according to the Government of New South Wales unless a place has been proclaimed a city it is not a city, no matter how large its population is. Therefore I propose that this template should only contain those places in New South Wales that have been proclaimed a city and that are not within the Sydney metropolitan area (because they are already included in the Sydney regions template).
I shall now move the template out of my sandbox and add it to all those cities listed in it.
Blarneytherinosaur 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

National dish

I noticed Australia doesn't have an entry here. If China and the United States can, surely we can too! I'm thinking Lamb (food) and/or Australian meat pie. Any other ideas? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice New Zealand has stolen our Pavlova again for that list. Maybe we should reclaim it. - Randwicked Alex B 14:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not exactly a dish, but what's wrong with Vegemite? Confusing Manifestation 14:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much everything, I'd say, but I suppose it might be as close as we get to a national dish. ～J.K. 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
A conversation like this shows that this article is a joke. We shouldn't be deciding upon Australia's national dish. If there is no official statement declaring our national dish, then we do not have one. If we add it to the article, then it is just the opinion of the author. It is not verifiable. Also, the article is called national dish, and there are things like New York's dishes. Last time I checked, New York was not a nation. We have an article for Australian cuisine, that is good enough. --liquidGhoul 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point, all true, but disappointing nevertheless. Possibilities: pie floater; damper; char-grilled kangaroo; char-grilled barra; fish and chips.
I agree with Liquid Ghoul. Such attempts to congeal Australia's wide-ranging cuisine, influenced by our multiculturalism, down to one single dish, would only be divisive and anglo-centric. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Victoria Street to see if I can find some nuoc cham. :) Cnwb 02:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic groups and criminals

I have noticed that in Vietnamese Australian and Lebanese Australian there are criminals listed under the list of notables (Nguyen Tuong Van and Bilal Skaf). However anons keep on removing Bilal Skaf from the Lebanese article, and one has put a message on the talk page that criminals don't represent ethnic groups. The other ethnic articles do not have any mentions of gangsters and criminals, but examples could easily, eg, Andrew Chan and Melbourne underworld people, etc. What is the policy on this sort of stuff? Because some of the articles sound like glorification? Is it appropriate to include notorious figures? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

I don't like the media's obsessions with labelling criminals by their ethnicity, but this is another matter. This isn't a list of people "representing" ethnic groups, it's a list of notable people. Criminals can be notable. The list should include the governors, premiers, footballers, etc and criminals, if they are notable. JPD (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Criminals aside, I think the whole ethnic category thing has come too far. See Jason Moran (Irish), Dermott Brereton (Irish), Nicole Kidman (Irish), Paul Hogan (Irish), Cosima De Vito (Italian), who I assumed were all born in Australia, and therefore, Australian. What criteria are people using? Somebody born overseas is obviously a candidate, but is it correct to also include their children? -- Longhair 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that someone put a comment in the Brereton article noting that he is supporter of the IRA. An irrelevancy which I deleted.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian events

For events that are held regularly in Australian locations, but maybe aren't as big as the Royal shows and Footy Finals, but not technically Festivals, is there somewhere to put them? I would think an Events sub-category of, say, the regional categories under Australian Culture would be a good place for them. Confusing Manifestation 05:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia quoted in Parliament

We just got quoted in Parliament, in the Senate adjournment debate today. Is this the first time, I wonder? Dysprosia 08:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What was said? and who said it? -- Adz|talk 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember who said so, but it was a reference to one of our articles. You should find out tomorrow, when the Hansards come out. Searching the Hansards finds Wikipedia mentioned only once before in both chambers, here, by Danna Vale in the House last year. Dysprosia 09:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It was Senator Lyn Allison, quoting the definition of propaganda to describe Howard: [4]. --bainer (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Bit disappointing, that. Referenced twice in Parliament, and both times it's just to say "Wikipedia says you're a tyrant!"? How sad. Remember when our politicians were eloquent? Imagine what Mr Keating could do today! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Vale wasn't using it against a member of a competing political party. Gosh, it looks like team Vale came across wikipedia before I did. Andjam 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know we have Category:Articles referenced by the press, but is there anything like Category:Articles referenced by politicians.--cj | talk 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add Hansard links to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_source (there are already links to mentions of Wikipedia in the parliaments in the UK and Canada, for example). Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --bainer (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Latham Diaries

Please see the article talk page for a discussion about whether extracts from the book are required. I believe the article is too much of a book review, and that the quotes may breach copyright, but Grant65 has begun a revert war in response. Harro5 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

AFL and "Editoralising"

Recently Harro5 has gone on an editing rampage, destroying the content of articles such as Andrew Mackie. Compare this version to the current version. He has cited non-NPOV, which I understand, fine. But, surely if you wanted to go through with this you would specify which bits aren't NPOV and go to steps to improve them so they are NPOV? Disappointing Harro. Rogerthat Talk 10:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands is very POV and editorial-style (gotta love the image caption, "Mackie has fans excited for the future"). It's also got links to at least two redlinked images. It does need rewriting to sound like a dispassionate encyclopaedia article; however, Harro5's version is, well, very short. I think rewriting rather than cutting out the too-excited bits would have been a better option, personally, but I'm not willing to do the work either, so ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia, and can't editorialise unless we are quoting someone notable (eg. Caroline Wilson from The Age if it's football). Boomtish believes that writing in flourishing language about how talented someone was during their junior career - citing no sources - and listing individual statistics from games is worth adding to Wikipedia; I disagree, and when I reverted, I kept all fact that would be used in a standard Wikipedia article. I'm not going to discuss this matter any more, and hope Rogerthat realises while I love writing about football, my first allegiance on Wikipedia is to the project and its accepted conventions for writing biographies. If a similar article were written for a US politician, there would likely be an absolute uproar resulting in RFCs, revert wars and general ugliness. Harro5 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My curiosity got the better of me so I thought I would do a quick check of what we are talking about here. I had a quick look at some of your most recent edits on Chris Judd. On the one hand, you were right in deleting this clumsy sentence: And this was all despite having had two shoulder reconstructions before the age of 18 - but hopefully you did so only because it was clumsy - I would have thought that the fact that he has achieved so much in AFL football at such a young age after having two shoulder reconstructions before the age of 18 is at least a little bit noteworthy and surely merits a mention somewhere in the article. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

FAC timing for Australia at the Winter Olympics

I withdrew my FAC nomination for Australia at the Winter Olympics on the grounds that it wouldn't be stable during the Winter Olympics. As the article has an overview section on the Winter Paralympics, should I wait until the 2006 Winter Paralympics (which runs from March 10 to 19) finishes? Andjam 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian political parties

I notice that while Labor and the Liberals have just one page, the Greens have a federal page and a page for each state. Should all the Greens pages be merged, or should the Liberal and Labor pages spill out into state based pages? Is there a compelling reason for having pages for each state branch? Xtra 11:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the past there's been strong distinctions between different state Green parties (they were entirely separate entities for quite a while), unlike the united image they present nowadays. I don't see anything wrong with the status quo. ～J.K. 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the only time we need to split articles, is if they are of too large a size. Too often people will split an article, and the resulting articles lose a lot of quality because of it. It doesn't seem neccesary just quite yet. If you would like to contribute largely to an article, just put all the information into it as possible, and if it becomes too large, find the best way to split it. --liquidGhoul 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've always thought that state parties deserve their own pages, but I've never done anything about it. Cnwb 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian coin photos

I think that images of Australian coins which were made after 1969 ($1, $2, commemorative 50c pieces) can not be used because they are copyrighted as it says on the mint site: "The Commonwealth holds copyright in the designs and images used on Australian currency coins which were created after 1 May 1969.. Reproduction of designs and images without the permission of the copyright owner will be an infringement of copyright." I have asked for their deletion from commons [5] -- Astrokey44|talk 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they shouldn't be on commons, but when used to illustrate the articles on Australian currency, images of coins would probably qualify as fair use and thus could be uploaded locally. --bainer (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypical Australian road picture?

Newell Highway

Does anybody know of/have a picture of a stereotypical Australian road suitable to shrink to put in the {{Australia-road-stub}} template so we can have a different picture to {{road-stub}}? --Scott Davis Talk 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe get a Kangaroo on a yellow road sign... Rogerthat Talk 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the tradition of pictures on stub templates, why is a picture required?--Commander Keane 12:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

One reason is recognisability for stub sorters and editors. It makes it much quicker to recognise that I've typed the letters properly when I se the icon in preview. I guess it also helps to catch the eye of potential editors to attract them to the message.

AYArktos: Thanks for the category link - I didn't guess the right category to look in. There's about four pictures that are like what I was looking for (all taken by you, I see), so I'll see which looks best in miniature. --Scott Davis Talk 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

These are the four I'm considering. I think the first best represents and Australian road at this scale. --Scott Davis Talk 13:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the third and four images don't look like roads at that size. --liquidGhoul 14:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hard to go past a picture of a road pointing to Grong Grong. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The fourth is most representative of the Australian landscape being arid. I think it is the most appropriate.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the first one looks best. --Calair 05:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll add my vote for the first as well. Confusing Manifestation 05:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey there came across this discussion and wondered if this would be any good? File:AustralianRoadIcon.png It's the SW of WA. Cheers SeanMack 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a kangaroo on a yellow sign, as that way you'd be able to tell which country it is for, and can be shrunk without too much loss of detail. Andjam 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in support of a basic road sign also. It scales to any size. Noisy images with lots of background detail don't look quite as effective when thumbnailed. -- Longhair 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Something like , maybe? JPD (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean something like this? Surely someone here could make something pretty similar looking and upload it. Confusing Manifestation 12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks nice. Something similar would suit I think. With or without bullet holes I'm not sure ;) -- Longhair 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There is one at Kangaroo - -- Astrokey44|talk 12:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, I like the National 1 sign. It's obviously a road sign, and contains the Australian colours.--liquidGhoul 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's also much clearer to see than the miniaturised pictures of actual roads. --bainer (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am certainly biased, but if we are going for a road picture I like this one , because it includes a good balance of sky, Australian vegetation (and colours) and direction of road. The is not bad but perhaps needs brightening for the purposes of an icon. I don't like , to me it not immediately obvious that the icon = a road sign (and I spend a lot of time on roads :-) ); icons to my mind have to be recognisable without thought or translation.--A Y Arktos 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the kangaroo road sign as it is clean and unambiguous. A better version is needed though. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the kangaroo sign too, but to be effective at that size it should have a plain background - either white, or nothing but sky - to avoid any distraction from the basic roo-and-sign iconage. --Calair 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the kangaroo is the best choice, but I agree that it needs lightening and a cleaner background. If you look on Google Images for 'kangaroo "road sign"' you get a lot of results, some of which would be really nice if they weren't on pay galleries. Perhaps someone wants to walk into a $2 shop with a digicam? Confusing Manifestation 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Entering a bit late in this discussion, but my preference is for Aya's image right up the top. --Fir0002 www 07:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New ACOTF: Australian Space Research Institute

Order of Australia was Australian Collaboration of the fortnight from 21 February 2006 to 5 March 2006.

This seems to be an example of selecting an already large article. There were more votes than edits for this collaborations. The new selection is Australian Space Research Institute which is only a small article at present.

Three current candidates with five or more votes are going to be pruned from the list soon if they get no more votes. These are: History of women in Australia, Demographics of Australia, Ted Egan. --Scott Davis Talk 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious groups and fundamentalist militants

Hello. Further to the comments about ethnic groups, and list of notable people belonging to ethnic groups being criminals, a similar issue has occurred at Islam in Australia under the notable people of Islam. User:Tarins01, who I think has come specifically to WP to promote Islamic groups, has deleted the listing of people such as David Hicks, Jack Roche, Mamdouh Habib, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, saying that they should be listed as "Australian criminals" not "Muslims", while including random lists of Islamic studies lecturers, etc. extremely uncivil spat at Keysar Trad with User:Gullivers travels, and despite claims about religious categorization, many of his posts have been regarding jewish groups under "religious terrorism" - I think he may end up similar to say, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason_Gastrich.REgards,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SMH Article

I recently posted a reference to the following SMH article in the Talk:Football page, the latter having attracted much attention of late (unfortunately). Now I know many of you are sick to death of this topic - but if I can't discuss footy matters on this notice board - then where do you suggest I go pray tell? This is the article: Lloyd Swanton, March 7, 2006, "Play by the rules and keep your hands off our football" . It is of interest for the following reasons:

1. It touches on an issue (or a series of related issues) that has been running hot in the aforementioned talk page and to a lesser extent in this page.
2. It refers to the top 6 oldest football clubs (of any code) in the world, being: Melbourne 1858, Geelong 1859, Notts County 1862, Stoke City 1863, Carlton 1864, Nottingham Forest 1865. Also adding that: "Middle-aged" AFL clubs like Essendon and St Kilda are older than any senior clubs in Germany and Argentina. A "young" club like Collingwood (1892) is older than any Italian soccer club, and Port Adelaide (1870) older than any Brazilian club.
3. It helps reinforce the point that in any article covering the history of football (term used generically, as it always should be in Australia and by Australians), including (in particular) the history of its organisation, its institutions, its rules, etc. the fact that the Australian football clubs are so old in world terms is certainly of note and should be mentioned in this article (as it currently is, but others are trying to negate the worth of that importance, to date unconvincingly).
4. It is interesting that it is, of all things, a Sydney paper that is helping to pour cold water over the view that Australian rules football is not an Australian game (but a Victorian game), seeing that even the Port Adelaide footy club is older than the vast majority of football clubs of any code throughout the world - and by a long shot at that.

Yes, this is all tiresome, but it is equally tiresome to hear these silly arguments being made in the talk page of what is an excellent general article on Football (to which I have made zero contributions, other than raising the flag and trumpeting its merits). These silly arguments are being made by at least one Australian (more often than not, masquerading as more than one Australian, but that is another story) - and therefore, it is only right that I air these views on this notice board, with apologies to all who believe that sport is the opiate of the masses, brings out the very worst in people, etc. etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is partly related to what I have touched on, but I think it was worked out in the end, the correct title of the article has been restored, but alas, I am afraid that probably most of the categories have to be individually reverted to what they were - an AFL sub-project perhaps? Perhaps put the word out on the project page that where people notice the wrong category being used, that they use Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Alphax is on RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 2.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I believe that User:DarrenRay has violated the 3RR at Carlo Carli.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sport in city/state articles

Melbourne currently contains long lists of sports teams and venues which detract from the article as a whole and should clearly be moved to a separate article. Would Sport in Melbourne be appropriate, or would it be better to make it a section of Sport in Victoria? JPD (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of Sport in Victoria, as it'll have to be created eventually. Don't forget Sport in Australia (and its sub-pages) if applicable. I'm glad I read the Melbourne article, as I hadn't heard that they were building a new ice complex there. Thanks, Andjam 10:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles Fraser (botanist)

I'm ashamed/proud to say that my latest new article, Charles Fraser (botanist), is grossly west-centric, despite being about an eastern states person. If any of you t'othersiders feel inclined to provide some balance by filling in some details in the eastern states bits, you would earn nothing less than my undying gratitude. Snottygobble 06:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about Mr Fraser, so I can't help there. However, you should know that there's something seriously wrong with your references there ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mark, that's fixed now. Apparently subst: doesn't work inside <ref> tags. Snottygobble 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability check

In a List of Australian Winter Olympians, several people have namesakes, with two namesakes being adult models Danielle Carr and Christine Smith. The adult models don't seem very notable to me. Would anyone else be interested in having a look at the two (articles, not people!) to ensure that it isn't just a systematic bias against adult models on my part? Thanks, Andjam 06:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy...looks like there's an article on every Playmate of the Month ever. That doesn't say anything about notabilty, but it does suggest there's no way in hell we'd be able to get rid of them of they weren't notable anyway. I'd say you should create Christine Smith (athlete) then make a disambiguation page. - Randwicked Alex B 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest either Christine Smith (skier) or Christine Smith (skiing). In Australian English, "athlete" usually means a competitor in athletics, not just any sportsperson. Other wise I agree with Alex. --Scott Davis Talk 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I PRODded Danielle Carr, since it had ONE real edit and that was in May 2005. The other one is a bit more recent so I left it, but anyone can prod if they like. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The existing articles should also be disambiguated, making them Danielle Carr (model) (if it stays) and Christine Smith (model), with the main page as a dab page. There's no way either of those deserve primary disambiguation. --bainer (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian Football Hall of Fame

I note yet again that someone has changed the name of the article on the real Australian Football Hall of Fame, and the soccer people are pretending that theirs is called the Australian Football Hall of Fame - when it does not appear to be called that at all. Now I understand that there are endless nil all results that need to be commemmorated and that Australian soccer history is enough to bring a tear to your eye (although for all the wrong reasons) and a lump to your throat (from the odd karate chop), but can we please call it by its correct title, and use Australian Football Hall of Fame to refer to the only Australian Football Hall of Fame. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is really ridiculous. If the soccer hall of fame is not known as the aus football hall of fame, then aus football hall of fame should be for AFL with a link at the top saying If you are looking for the soccer hall of fame click here. Xtra 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridicuolous, a dispute should not continue for this long. I think you should go here, and try to get things sorted out. --liquidGhoul 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the Australian Trade Mark On-line Search System, "Australian Football Hall of Fame" is trademark number 898836, registered to the Australian Football League. Under Australian trademark law, the AFL has exclusive rights to the phrase, and it would be illegal for the FFA to use the name for their Hall of Fame or to market themselves using the phrase. Let's move it back. Snottygobble 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
At great personal risk I have moved the AFL article back to its original location, under a title which is the AFL's registered trademark and is therefore protected against use by the FFA or any other body. Snottygobble 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Crying over nil-all draws is better than crying over the death of a 20 year old girl from heroin, ecstasy and amphetamines supplied by Gary Ablett. Stick that in your hall of fame and celebrate it, Pippu. Oh, I see you did. --Executive.koala 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What the hell?!?! Why don't you speak to Maradona? Xtra 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you guys keep your voices down please; I'm trying to write an encyclopaedia here. Snottygobble 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The grass is a touch damp first thing in the morning, ahh - it's almost footy season - a time when we can all reclaim some true meaning in our lives by following the great Australian game! If you don't like our one and only indigenous code, your Australian identity is barely hanging by a thread, you have become a consumer of the sporting equivalent of M.......s, K.C and S.......s, global products aimed at the lowest common denominator - the exact opposite of what our great national game represents! I beseech you - reclaim your identity, your history and in the process the meaning of life itself! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(slaps forehead) ～J.K. 08:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that slaps forehead as in At last, someone else has finally got it! or as in I don't believe it, I just don't believe it or as in Oh the paiin, the paiin... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
All three. ～J.K. 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Category for Australian explorers, settlers?

Anyone think there should be a category (and corresponding stub) for Australian settlers or Australian explorers? Because settlement only happened 217 years ago, we have a lot of articles about this sub-category Australian people. Donama 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have Category:Australian explorers and Category:Explorers of Australia. I would support the creation of Category:Settlers of Australia. Snottygobble 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Created Category:Australian settlers. I didn't choose the name you recommended because I thought it would be good to keep it parallel with "Australian explorers". Donama 05:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Explorers of Australia is for people of any nationality who explored Australia, e.g. François Péron, French explorer of Australia; whereas Category:Australian explorers is for Australian people who explored, regardless of where, e.g. Douglas Mawson, Australian explorer of the Antarctic. I would have thought that you intended the settlers category to contain people who settled Australia, regardless of nationality, in which case "keeping it parallel" would imply Category:Settlers of Australia. Not that it really matters all that much. Snottygobble 05:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, point taken - nationality is not important - but the fact that they were settlers of Australia. I think it is new enough cat to simply move it. Donama 05:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be nice to have a stub specifically for Australian pioneers/colonists/settlers/early squatters. What should it be called? What categories of Australian people could it encompass? Donama 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about {{Aus-settler-stub}}. Something like:
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:transparent;"
| [[Image:{{Country flag alias Australia}}|30px| ]]
| '' This article about an [[Australia|Australian]] settler is a [[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]].  You can [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|help]] Wikipedia by [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it].''
|}
</div>

Snottygobble 05:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm not sure how to make this though. Donama 05:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Created this at {{Australia-settler-stub}}. This will categorise all articles tagged with it into Category:Australia settler stubs. Feel free to edit both of these. --bainer (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
New stub types are supposed to be proposed and discussed at WP:WSS/P (see also WP:STUB) before being created. There's a message to that effect at the top of Category:Australian people stubs to remind you. --Scott Davis Talk 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Since neither Thebainer or I noticed it, I guess that notice isn't very noticeable. I think when I see little pink or pale yellow boxes at the tops of pages I know it's a template and ignore it :$ --Donama 03:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability of BrookesNews

A criticism [6] of Tim Blair cites Australian web site BrookesNews. Does BrookesNews seem notable? Thanks, Andjam 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it until now. That said, it basically looks like another blog to me - looks like a case of pot.blogspot.com calling kettle.blogger.com a blog. I don't think the criticism is particularly relevant or well-founded, any more than including any of Blair's criticism of others on his blog in those Wikipedia articles. While Tim Blair may just be notable enough for an article, I don't think he's notable enough to be quoted as criticising anybody, and neither is BrookesNews. "Criticism" sections in articles are a common way to attempt to bypass NPOV policies by attributing criticism to someone else. --Canley 12:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I deemed it POV blogcruft and nuked it. Feel free to disagree! - Randwicked Alex B 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

John Howard's "American disease" quotation in Gun politics in Australia

A dispute over whether it is appropriate to utilize an inflammatory quotation of John Howard's in an international forum such as WP (a quote that was clearly intended for a domestic audience being as it appeared in a radio interview) has arisen. The section of Gun politics in Australia in dispute is:

"The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons", and that firearm ownership by ordinary citizens is an "American disease". While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally."

The issue is on calling the American 2nd Amendment Right for the people to bear arms, and the US Constitution, an "American disease". This is not appropriate for an international audience, as it is extremely offensive to Americans.

One alternative wording that has been discussed is:

"The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", and that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons". Howard often states "I don't want Australia to go down the American path."[7] While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally."

as it would be less inflammatory and more encyclopedic in nature than the current inflammatory version that insults Americans. Yaf 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But I don't understand, if that is what he said, that is what he said - we aren't here to cleanse other people's quotes and make them appear in a better light - we present them as they are, warts and all. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Include both if necessary, but the first quote deserves to have its context explained – ie it was said to an Australian audience and so obviously wasn't intended to cause Americans offence. (forgot to sign before Donama)
It's for Howard to worry about insulting Americans, not us. It's an in-context on-topic verifiable (? I assume) quote. No problem. I agree with Pippu. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with the quote. It shows his disgust for it, and it is what happened. There is no reason to sugar coat an article, so the Americans won't be offended. It is not up to Wikipedia to not cause offence, I am offended by a lot of what Hitler did, should we take out all the information about the Holocaust? --liquidGhoul 07:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the first quote. However, there is no source, so until someone sources it the second option is better. Of course, there's no reason why both quotes can't be in there. --bainer (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as a US citizen, I think the first of the two blockquotes (specifically including the "American disease" quotation) is fine. I'm sure Howard didn't specifically intend it to offend Americans; every Australian knows how highly Howard values relations with the US. But nevertheless, he has made it very clear that on this particular issue, he does not agree with the USA's approach to gun ownership. If that's 'offensive' (I don't find it so), it's an offensive fact, and a relevant one; Wikipedia is full of such facts. IMHO, the quote shows the vehemence of Howard's views on this point, and isn't that what that paragraph is about?
As for sources, Googling on +"john howard" +"american disease" pulls up a transcript of the interview in which he made those remarks, and even an mp3 of that interview. (The "American disease" remark is about two-thirds of the way through the mp3.) --Calair 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian people subcategories

To me, these subcategories are in a bit of a mess.

I think we could revamp the Australian people subcategories by making two new subcats "Australian immigrants" (people born outside Australia who now identify as Australian and live in Oz) and "Australian emmigrants" (people born in Oz but who identify more as some other nationality and live outside Australia).

These categories would have nothing to do with ethnicity, but cats such as "Australians in China" or "Australian-Brazilians" should be subcategories of "Australian emmigrants" or simply not categories at all. Possibly some really useless-sounding categories like "English-Australians" should definitely go. If need be make it specific like "Australians of Western European ancestry".

Any more ideas to overhaul the Australian people subcategories? Donama 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As a minor point that could save some trouble, "emigrants" has only one "m". I notice some categories have used "diaspora" instead of "emigrants", e.g. Category:Croatian diaspora. I prefer "emigrants" myself, but perhaps I'm missing an important but subtle difference in meaning. Snottygobble 05:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not fond of the diaspora word to be used generally - it has a specific meaning. I would rather refer to say community, but to cover those of the second and third generation. For example a Vietnamese-Australian might be born here but still be very much part of the local Vietnamese community and identify with that community as well as being Australian. The diaspora tends to refer to that community across international boundaries. I believe some diaspora identify more as such and maintain their connections despite which country they are in more than others. The Jewish and Chinese diaspora are more well known compared to the German dispora who perhaps adapt better to their places of immigration. In Australia, however, members of the Chinese diaspora would normally be referred to as being Chinese-Australians or Australian-Chinese.--A Y Arktos 18:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree diaspora is a bit of a flowery word and not that useful. The category names may as well be precise. An advantage of Wikipedia is that categories can be nested - in near-perfect subsets - quite a long way to achieve leaf-node categories that are useful to humans. Most of the intervening categories will be useful much more in the future when we are adding sexy decision support and browsing tools to Wikipedia. All that to explain why I still think we can simply use the very technical category names "Australian immigrants" and "Australian emigrants". Ideally subcategories of these would be used most often tho. Donama 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What has green blood, no backbone, and three hearts?

Cephalopods! That's octupuses, squid, cuttlefish and Nautiluses, and whats more we are sitting on the cephalopod capital of the world. Or rather we are boardering it, since cephalopods are strictly marine animals. Anyway, cephalopods are really, really cool yet our coverage of them is dismal (as an example of how dismal look at Southern Blue-ringed Octopus, it's almost an Australian mascot yet it only has a few sentences.). So there is already a wikiproject:Cephalopods however i was wondering if anyone would be interested in a specifically Australian cephalopodian wikiproject, or even an Australian marine flora and fauna wikiproject, hell is an Australian flora and fauna wikiproject too wide? Anyways, i'm specifically interested in Australian cephalopods and was wondering if anyone else was too, and if i might be able to round up some people to help collaborate with in some vaguely formal way. The bellman 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I love cephs but don't know enough about them to contribute much; if you create the project, though, I'd be happy to pimp it elsewhere :-) --Calair 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I love eating cephs - but that's where my love affair with them starts and ends. However, I do agree that coverage of the dastardly, but otherwise absolutely loveable, Southern Blue-ringed Octopus, is nothing short of woeful. Surely a prime candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Rum Jungle, Northern Territory

Rum Jungle, Northern Territory is receiving some POV editing to do with Compass resources etc. I htink it needs some work and also some watching.No very recent news reports apparently butthis ABC news item from 22 Feb (Renewed activity around Rum Jungle) is on the topic as why there is renewed activity around Rum Jungle on the Wikipedia!--A Y Arktos 20:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

New ACOTF: Rum Rebellion

Rum Rebellion has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration with 13 votes.

Australian Space Research Institute was Australian Collaboration from 5 March 2006 to 19 March 2006

  • 4 contributors made 9 edits
  • The article improved in quality, if not in length
  • See how it changed

The following articles have been nominated and will time out before the next selection if they do not receive more votes:

Conspiracy nuts...

Just FYI, some of the pictures from the Melbourne Wikipedians meetup have made it to this insane conspiracy page. [8] Agnte 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me... pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The link works for me (but maybe try the Google cached version). Who took those photos? They must be tall, the point of view is like a CCTV camera or something :-) --Commander Keane 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Josh Parris took the photo, and he was standing on a ledge. Cnwb 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I never realised I was part of the Zionist cabal. Cnwb 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Entertaining. I didn't know I was a Mossad agent?!?!?!Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Shit, don't tell anyone, but I'm not Jewish... or an administrator! (How did I sneak in?!) And my friend in the back of the first photo isn't even a Wikipedian... pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to vomit and cry. I know it isn't worth such an extreme reaction, but it is frightening our pages could be used like that and our photos. I suppose it's a risk we all take. I had thought they were of the current meetup but I hope not.

--EuropracBHIT 01:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

Comm Games medals in template?

After seeing this series of edits to Jane Saville, I am wanting to see what people think about adding Commonwealth Games medals to templates such as the one on the Sebastian Coe article, which had previously been just for Olympic Games medals. Should these be added? I figured our noticeboard was a relevant place to start some discussion, considering Australia has won about 700+ medals since the Melbourne Games started foure days ago. It would be an awfully big job to get around to all articles to add these templates for Comm Games too, but it does look bloody good. There, I said it. This post might be censored in England now, so for safety's sake, God Save the Queen. Harro5 05:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't go in the Olympic medal box, at least. Perhaps a new box for Commonwealth medals, or a consolidated box for medals in major international competitions (have fun defining that, by the way)? --bainer (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over Australian Cyclone categorisation system (Cyclone Larry)

There has been a dispute at the Cyclone Larry which more or less amounted to whether or not the Australian Tropical cyclone classification schemes was a valid one and whether the American scheme should have been used in the article. The dispute seems to have settle down I think, but I thought it was worth posting a note here in case people wanted to keep an eye on it. I thought it would have been absurd if an article about a storm in Australia reported the magnitude of the storm in terms of an American classification scheme - which seemed to be the way it was going for a while. -- Adz|talk 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate American spelling

Why has Melbourne University Student Organisations been moved to Melbourne University Student Organizations. GRRRRR. Xtra 08:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't wikipedia en_GB by default anyhow. Who moved it? Ansell 22:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
MoS: National varieties of English.--Commander Keane 00:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian railway milage/geodata?

Hi, Not from Australia myself, but I had an ideas for a possible project that might be of interest.

What would the views be about trying to compile a distances table for Australia's railway network? Or indeed a table of Geo-data for stations?

The only publications I've seen in the UK which had this type of information are Quail Track maps which covered Sydney and Tasmania respectivly.

ShakespeareFan00 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Amateur AFL teams

Hello. Recently, North Carolina Tigers was put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers by myself, with the result being to merge the team to its respective league - United States Australian Football League, on the grounds that the performance and competition level is not of first-class standard, although the leagues in themselves are of interest. At the time I wrote a rather large discussion, indicating that the AfD could be a litmus-test or precedent for similar AFL teams and I would like to see what people think about this, as to I (or someone else) should go ahead and merge them, without sending a whole pile to AfD.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question (even for a dyed in the wool, one-eyed aussie rules supporter such as myself). On the one hand, I accept the argument that it, and articles of its ilk, are not sufficiently notable. On the other hand, a lot of quirky, idiotic things appear to pass as notable amongst the broader wikipedia community. The article count is now so high that we've probably lost complete track of how much superficial idiocy is floating around in the guise of a wikipedia article. As a small but related aside: at what point do we stop writing about footy clubs in Australia? at VFL/VFA level? at state level? do amateur clubs get a guernsey (remembering that some, like University, are certainly notable in the history of the old VFL). We are currently involved in doing articles on anyone who has ever played one AFL/VFL game - and I am wondering why such a person (who may never have even touched the footy in their one and only game) should be any more notable than, say, an American aussie rules team that may have won their comp three years running. Lastly, most of these North American clubs have their own websites - brings us back into that whole mirky area. I haven't really left an opinion one way or the other, maybe because I reckon that the concept of notability is inconsistently applied right across wikipedia. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I reckon that the concept of notability is inconsistently applied right across wikipedia.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is hot favourite for this year's Wikipedia Understatement of the Year Award. AfD is, to put it politely, a bloody mess. ～J.K. 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to draw the line of notability. I echo the thoughts of Pippu and Jiminy that there is a large degree of inconsistency - even though Blnguyen, you are trying to set a precedent, I doubt it will be followed by others (for example, two different 20 to 1 articles both went under AfD in the space of two weeks). By the way Bl, the sport is known as Australian rules football - AFL refers to the main league (the Australian Football League). Rogerthat Talk 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

At what do you stop writing about clubs? Probably when (a) we run out of reliable sources or (b) we run out of puff. If a reputable source is writing about a club, then they've made a decision that the club is notable.

I guess my attitude towards notability is that if an article isn't vanity, attack, advertising, or non-verifiable, and the creator isn't a single-issue contributor, then someone must have thought the person was notable.

On the topic of notability, I haven't created an article about Australian ski jumper Tony Mihelcic because I don't know if he's notable enough. (I first heard of him on his personal web site) Any opinions? Andjam 10:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (Minor note: ski jumping is what Eddie the Eagle did, not what Alisa Camplin does)

Did he jump in the olympics? That must be close to being enough. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
He hasn't. (The only Aussie to have done ski jumping at the olympics was Hal Nerdal, and that was only as part of Nordic combined, a combination of ski jumping and cross-country skiing) Andjam 12:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion on notability for sportspeople is roughly the precedent set by WikiProject Formula One that everyone who has ever started one F1 race gets an article. I extend that to mean everyone who has competed in an international or national top-level race/game/match passes my notability test. "Top-level" is of course also subjective, but includes first-class cricket matches, Olympic, Commonwealth and Friendly Games, recognised world championships in just about anything. For teams, the league they play in and the place they represent should both have comprehensive articles that would become too large by merging the team info before I'd say the team is worthy of an article in its own right. Teams in national leagues, or state leagues of major sports (in that place) are roughly the level I'd stop at. --Scott Davis Talk 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that settles matters, Scott. --EuropracBHIT 01:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
Seems fair and reasonable, in particular, it's no use going to individual clubs if the article on the league consists of half a dozen paras - most subject matters in Wikipedia follow a similar principle and it is a fairly objective one (although there remains no shortage of superficial, idiotic articles floating around out there). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate, with people's agreement, to move this whole discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL ? -- Adz|talk 06:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the norm is, but personally, it wouldn't worry me one bit, and I in fact I would see merit in doing so. Of course it does involve moving people's comments around, and perhaps they need to give you a nod as well (that is probably the courteous way to go, says Gentleman Jim). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... the comments don't mention anything within the scope of WikiProject AFL, do mention a lot of others things and are about general priciniples. Why move it? JPD (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Only because I thought it would be a matter of time before people would start asking these very questions. When does someone get a guernsey? Is there a minimum number of games required to be played? Are the reserves enough? Being on a team's official list at some stage? (remembering that in the good old days, VFL teams would have lists of 70 players, over half never getting a senior game). At what standard of play do we deem someone too boring to write about? VFA? VAFA? ACTAFL? Then the question of overseas clubs is only a short step away from these sorts of questions. It sort of makes sense that a similar discussion would need to occur in the project page (we certainly have touched on this, but probably have not had it out fully). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with my comments in this discussion moving to the AFL project page, or with it staying here. My opinion would be players who have ever been on the list for an AFL match should have an article for that project to be complete. That should probably extend to all the players on the official list even if they were never listed for a game. Reserves is not a top-level competition (by definition) and by itself does not qualify a person to have an article. For Australian rules football, I think the "top level" competitions are AFL, SANFL, WAFL, VFL (both of them), International Cup and Interstate matches in Australian rules football. The NAB Cup and predecessors might count. Being a top level competition means I think the teams and players could have an article written about them, and that would be a satisfactory claim of notability. --Scott Davis Talk 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not entirely relevant, but just thought I'd share something I came across recently - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Pike. One user, Megan1967 voted the article for deletion, just another example of the lack of research undertaken by some people on this site. While we are on notability, even the most interesting players it seems, can't be fully notable according to some. Rogerthat Talk 12:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Swagman

Musing on a Sunday arvo... would you say these two chaps on the left are swagmen? What articles could I use this in? cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article on swagman reckons that the term was especially associated with some people during the 1890 and 1930 depressions, both of which are after the creation of the image. No harm in uploading to the commons though. Andjam 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Only in wikipedia... fictional monotremes

I was browsing Wikipedia:Peer review, when I came across a request about Tikal the Echidna. At the bottom it had Category:Fictional monotremes, and I thought "This has gotta be a one-entry category, right?". It turns out there are 8 entries. None of them from fiction by Australians.

Any nominations for fictional monotremes from Australian fiction that deserve an article? Andjam 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not enough for its own article ... actually, definitely not enough for its own article, IMO, but the Sydney 2000 mascots included an echidna and a platypus. I can never remember their names properly, because I just keep recalling either Roy and HG or The Games calling them "Syd, Ollie and Dickhead". Think it was Roy and HG. Confusing Manifestation 13:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The Dream. --Scott Davis Talk 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, several mascots mentioned in Olympic symbols have their own article. As well as Syd, Olly and Millie for the Olympics, the Paralympics had a mascot of Lizzie, a frill-necked lizard. Fatso the Fat-Arsed Wombat, which was not a official mascot, also has an article. Andjam 09:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Syd, Ollie et al don'y actually seem tp have their own article but nor probably should they--A Y Arktos\talk 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Shy the Platypus (children's book)? Alphax τεχ 08:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness

Can anyone fix up what has happened at The Church and The Church (band)? The latter appears to be the younger of the two. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a clumsy cut-n-paste move. Fixed now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tasmanian electorate names

I notice there has been some naming confusion with Tasmanian electorates, due the the electorates being the same for state and federal elections. Currently some different naming formats are used:

I'd like to suggest two options:

  1. Assuming the state and federal regions are completely identical, merge each pair of articles into one article
  2. Use the names Division of Bass (federal) vs Division of Bass (state) (and similar format for others)

Comments? -- Chuq 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely don't do the first option, the federal and state history should be kept separate. The second option makes sense, however. Considering there are only five articles affected it shouldn't be too hard to make them consistent. --bainer (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with The Bainer that they should be kept separate. It seems to me though that "Division of Bass (Tasmania)" could still be interpreted as the federal Division of Bass which happens to be in Tasmania. Would Division of Bass (Australian House of Representatives) and Division of Bass (Tasmanian House of Assembly) be too long and unwieldy? Snottygobble 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done some disambigging of places where there is also an electorate of the same name. I've noticed that federal electorates are always "Division of .." and state electorates are always "Electoral district of ...". Should be bring the Tasmanian electorates into line??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You would have to bring the Tasmanian Electoral Commission into line first. Snottygobble 02:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Snottygobbles' suggestions are too long. (state) and (federal) sound like the best so far. I have seen "Electoral district" and "Division" used interchangably, and I notice on
                       
the upper house seats are named as "Electoral division of ..", a nice mixture! -- Chuq 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In a mad fit of being bold, I have changed my mind and use a variation on option 2 - using the formats Division of Bass for federal electorates and Division of Bass (state) for the state electorates. I have moved the articles, and will fix double redirects now - I'll get around to fixing all other links later on tonight. -- Chuq 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Start of the footy season

My fellow wikipedians - the long wait is over - no longer need you spend your leisure hours on wikipedia - you can now dedicate yourself to the things that really count in life - like watching the footy! Yes, the game we all love, our national code, our indigenous code, our very own game - commenced last night. Sandwiched in between the end of the Commonwealth games and the Australian Grand Prix, what excuse does one have to sit in front of a computer screen? To top it all off, I understand that the Trugo season is reaching an exciting conclusion. I wish you all a great season, may your team do as well as you expect (which is not much if you are a Blues fan) and I look forward to seeing you all next October (or early September) when I next will get the chance to frequent your wonderful notice board. Speaking of all things cerebral, I recently started WikiProject Sicily, in case anyone out there has the slightest interest. Writing about Sicily while watching the AFL - tell me - does it get any better? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit late with one game down, but I wish someone had thought of running a footyan Australian rules football tipping competition. Snottygobble 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The football season finished on 5 March 2006 :P -- Chuq 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going anywhere near that one :-) Redacted. Snottygobble 02:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I accuse Charles of impersonating a Tasmanian! I never thought there'd come the day... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it - what's the football thing got to do with Tassie? -- Chuq 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The year's starting to fall into place now, the Comm Games are over, the GP is over (both great events but strangely timed). So many sporting events packed into the last month or so, impossible to keep up with. After spending much of the off-season writing stuff about football, hopefully this will inspire others to get on board. Rogerthat Talk 11:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Football? Pfft. Vive la netball. Ambi 12:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sports not involving snow or ice? Where's the challenge? Andjam 12:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can play netball for more than two weeks a year! It's far more exciting than football, and its participants aren't big and hairy. Ambi 13:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You obviously haven't met my brother-in-law. JPD (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What about Futsal in Australia :) -- Chuq 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
wait..dont go, you can update the 2006 Australian Football League season :-) Also it would be nice if there was an article on the 2006 National Rugby League season. I know they had a 2005 NRL Finals Series, but since most sports have a season article maybe someone wants to start 2006 NRL season? rather than having to wait until the finals -- Astrokey44|talk 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_18&oldid=988236186"