Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 53

Roger

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

I live on the other side of the world, but I have seen pictures of Roger numerous times, and I heard of his death very quickly. Coverage including NBC, BBC and CNN indicate to me that an AfD would resolve to "keep". Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, AfD please? Gryllida (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nah over-reaction- worse case scenario salt into a closely related article - one thing to be news another something that actuslly gives background on items like that. JarrahTree 03:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As the article currently stands it is just a single event and news so it does not warrant notability. However, if you look past the current definite sigcov (but only news), there are references going back to 2015 and 2016 at least, so actually there is sustained coverage demonstrating arguable notability. These need to be added to the article. AfD would not be a slam dunk either way. There would be a case to keep. Aoziwe (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There's four entangled topics: Roger, Chris "Brolga" Barnes, the Kangaroo Sanctuary, and the BBC documentary series Kangaroo Dundee, and a reasonable case for any and all meeting GNG could be made. I reckon centralising at the sanctuary would be best, with aopropriately catted redirects for the others. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ownership of original Castlemaine Brewery

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

Management and staff of original Castlemaine Brewery

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

RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings

Before resorting to a full RM at RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings I'd like to resolve the issue with the article title at Talk:RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings informally. Additional comments would really be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Article about a topic covered by a suppression order

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

"The Herald Sun in Melbourne published a front page that featured the word "CENSORED" printed largely on a black background." Many other links.

It is all over Facebook. Does Victorian courts prosecute Facebook? Would they prosecute Wikipedia? Maybe Australia will block Wikipedia? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, but here is a link to an interesting article about a similar situation, and it confirms that people should not be publishing the identity of the person on Facebook. Someone who knows how to contact Wikimedia Foundation should contact Wikimedia Foundation about this. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. I would wait before bothering them. NZ is very particular about the letter of the laws, much more so than Australia, and this sort of thing is virtually unheard of in the US, unconstitutional even. On Wikipedia, isn't the applicable law the law of Florida? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Censorship of Wikipedia and WP:NOTCENSORED are relevant -- there's likely to be zero chance of Wikipedia respecting such a gag order. For Australian editors editing the article or related pages without explicitly adding or editing the fact/details of the conviction, might that still be considered publication (the "Publish changes" button...)? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Australian editors editing the article or related pages without explicitly adding or editing the fact/details of the conviction, might that still be considered publication (the "Publish changes" button...)?" —That presents an interesting conundrum. Supposing that someone (for example a non-Australian editor) added the suppressed information to the article. Then supposing an Australian editor edits the article for some reason; perhaps they edit related information, perhaps not. Could that Australian editor be in trouble for "publishing" the suppressed information? The interesting part is that this hypothetical Australian editor does not know which prominent person is the subject of the suppression order, because that information has been suppressed. Does this mean that all Australian editors must check the entire contents of any articles they edit about prominent people, and not edit any article that mentions the subject being convicted of a serious offence recently, just in case that person is the subject of the suppression order? How far does "ignorance is no excuse" extend? 220.253.165.195 (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

According to the Australian Financial Review, (see link here), "the suppression order ... applies in 'all Australian states and territories' and 'on any website or other electronic or broadcast format accessible within Australia'." Which means that as far as the Victorian court is concerned, any editor anywhere in the world who publishes on Wikipedia any information inconsistent with the order could be held to be in breach of it. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it would be unwise for Australian contributors to write about the topic (we are subject to this court order). The Australian Government have the powers to block websites; let them use it to block Wikipedia if they want to suppress it . But I think shutting down Wikipedia in Australia would cause even more outrage than the event that we dare not mention (Wikipedia is currently #5 website in Australia so I think folks would notice). Kerry (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not censorship in the sense discussed in the Censorship of Wikipedia article. The purpose of the suppression order is only to ensure that the person has a fair trial when the person is tried in March on separate charges. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. As to whether Wikipedia will respect the order, that's a matter for Wikimedia Foundation, which should be informed by someone about the issue. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that Wikipedia should respect the gag order on the person's trial. But it is allowed to publish, just like the Herald Sun did, that the person's trial and all the associated legal proceedings are subject to a suppression order, which probably will last well into next year or beyond. Donama (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

But guess what!. We got it the other way round. We have broadcast the conviction, but not that even mentioning it is suppressed by the court.Moriori (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

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

I have sent Wikimedia Legal an email about the subject. Thanks to the editor who directed me to the contact details. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That horse has bolted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The suppression order is still in effect, and the judge has expressed interest in a possible wide pursuit of contempt charges. This would be an extremely inadvisable stance for anyone in Australia right now, regardless of what editors who are outside the court's jurisdiction have done. It is also beyond extremely inadvisable to be editing others talk-page posts to reinstate potentially suppressed material, and thereby potentially exposing them to legal consequences. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife:. Yeah i can't believe these fools on social media. The more times they break the suppression order, the more likely it is, that he will get off on appeal. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There might be additional costs and time delays for the legal system because of people breaching suppression orders, but it's not like he will be free. If he successfully appeals, there would just be another trial. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but in plenty of cases another trial doesn't happen. The alleged victims have gone through a lot to get it to this stage and it would be heartbreaking if the trial got derailed because people just couldn't shut up on Wikipedia and social media - too many people just don't understand the consequences (either for themselves or for the victims) of breaching the suppression order. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been cases in Australia where it was determined that a jury trial was impossible due to the media coverage of the accused leading to a belief that a neutral jury would be impossible. This can lead to a trial before a judge only, a bench trial, or a permanent stay of proceedings. - Bilby (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• The page in question is months behind with respect to the media ban on reporting. It appears true, anyone who may ever visit Australia as a known Wikipedia edit should avoid the page in question. Any edit amounts to publication of the current version. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not know what you were all referring to. But there was enough info above for me to find the article pretty easily within wikipedia. Not sure that any supression by wikipedia would do any good with such high profile non-Australian independent reliable sources pubishing material. Some of the non-English wikipedias too have been updated. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The English version seems quite up-to-date, but the French version notes that Cet article est lié à une affaire judiciaire en cours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox weirdness

Anyone know why the infobox map in AMP Square is currently depicting the Melbourne skyscraper as being located in farmland on the outskirts of Gisborne? I've removed the coordinates (assuming that they were the problem) and it's still there and now I'm a bit stumped. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The coordinates for AMP square are 37°48′57.8″S 144°57′27.9″E. However, when they were imported to Wikidata they were read as 37.4857°S 144.573°E / -37.4857; 144.573. The map in the infobox uses the Wikidata coordinates, not the coordidnates in the infobox. I've fixed the wikidata error and the map should now display correctly. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict... What he said! (But your longitude placed it in Footscray!) Tough tower to locate, it seems. The-Pope (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I'm not sure how I got 54.25????. To clarify what I said earlier, the article had two sets of coordinates in the article, one in the infobox and one at the end. One was set to display inline while the other was set to display in the title line which makes no sense. It was the second coord string that was wrong. I've restored the coordinates only in the infobox and set |display=inline, title. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas today! If your beliefs are otherwise, still have a nice day anyway! Kerry (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a very merry Christmas to everyone of us. Aoziwe (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox settlement for large Australian cities

Good morning. Next to all of the world's major cities use Infobox settlement so I don't understand why IAP is used. The British approach was using Infobox settlement on major cities and IUKP on smaller places. This approach is not what I am proposing. I am proposing major cities of Australia, which I consider at the very least to be:

• Sydney
• Melbourne
• Brisbane
• Perth

and maybe:

• Canberra
• Gold Coast
• Newcastle

These cities could have extra displayed information in the infobox that IAP simply cannot. It would also be consistent with a worldwide standard. IWI (chat) 16:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction between what you say was the British approach, and what you are proposing. I guess the question is whether international consistency for "major cities" is more or less important than national consistency for all cities and towns, and secondarily what the criteria for "major cities" should be. I imagine that Hobart is better-known internationally than Newcastle, but haven't attempted to validate my assumption. Perhaps a subpage/sandbox with some side-by-side comparisons would help? It would also highlight what information can be added in one but not the other, and what the significant format and structure differences would be. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: The British approach is for most cities of significance. For example London, Birmingham etc. but also (much) smaller cities like Worcester. My proposal is for the very major cities of Australia. I agree a side-by-side would be helpful. Also, I live in the UK and although I have heard of Hobart, I don’t think the general population have. But Newcastle is more well known. Essentially, articles that are likely to be viewed internationally should follow the international standard. IWI (chat) 02:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Lots of material to become PD on 1 January

I suspect that lots of other editors are more knowledgeable about this than I am, but reforms to Australia's copyright laws which will move unpublished works and 'orphan' works into the public domain 70 years after they were created will come into effect on 1 January 2019. Works with a known author will also be PD 70 years after the author's death. There's a useful summary of the details here. All Australian Government works from 1968 will also become PD under the 50 years condition. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Place names

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

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

What's the point of having this, yet again? We have a typical Wikipedia compromise to these kinds of intractable naming disputes: both versions are acceptable. If one or two users don't keep trying to move them from one to the other, there's no argument at all. And if one of those users didn't keep trying to claim - utterly falsely - that his moves were supported by guidelines, these issues would be at least considerably less angry. Brute force tactics and blatant lies to try to forcibly get one's way when they failed to do so through consensus, strangely enough, have a tendency to inflame disputes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are keen to play these items on the place talk pages, thats your call. Its just those who choose to turn up are not necessarily always a good cross section of the Australian editing community. JarrahTree 00:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, you're right, but it's been an ongoing argument for years and it's never come to a clear consensus, so the main effect of having it out yet again seems to just be to get everyone annoyed. Far easier on everyone if people just stick to the current guideline and stop trying to repeatedly force the issue by moving to their pet format. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

...process of playing with place names is with us again...
A link to an example would help the rest of us (average Australian editors not watching those specific pages) understand what you're talking about. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I presume they meant here, if people have followed the rules? Aoziwe (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

I agree that in many cases disambiguation using a state name (e.g., "Bendigo, Victoria") is unnecessary and often unhelpful. Most readers are not familiar with the names of Australian states. An example to illustrate my point: introducing yourself to an American as coming from Melbourne, it is better to say "Melbourne, Australia" rather than "Melbourne, Victoria" when disambiguating from Melbourne, Florida. Americans typically won't know that Victoria is a state in Australia. "Queensland" sounds funny. "South Australia" sounds like a region rather than a state name. "Tasmania" is considered an island, not a state, and might be confused with Tanzania. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a guideline that has said for many years that both formats are acceptable because it has long been a disputed subject, which is a pretty common Wikipedia means of dealing with intractable naming disputes. In the last few months, Mattinbgn has taken to lying in individual discussions and claiming that it mandates or justifies that they be undisambiguated, even though it explicitly states the contrary, that either format is acceptable. We had a fairly long period of avoiding conflict in this area until Mattingbgn tried to claim the last time around that because he'd stealthily personally moved so many articles (and people hadn't stopped him) the guideline no longer applied - when that failed, it seems he just resorted to flat out lying about the text of the guideline as if it had been changed to what he had wanted and hoping people wouldn't check. Mattinbgn - f you want to have yet another go-around at trying to win consensus for your views, be my guest, but brute-force mass-moves and lying about the guideline text are going to meet with predictably angry responses. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Jacknstock, while all potential readers should be considered, it's more important to disambiguate these places for an Australian audience, where necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, where necessary. The issue is disambiguating when it is unnecessary. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Australian towns are always used with comma state titling, local sourcing excepted. It is consistent in the real world, and was extremely consistent before User:Mattinbgn’s hundreds to thousands of sneaky pages moves to break the consistency. All those page moves should be reverted. Ignoring the real world naming style hugely reduces recognisability. Title minimisation does nothing but harm for readers, and no one seems able to articulate a single benefit beyond editor convenience, which at this point is negligible anyway. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • They are not always "used with comma state titling" otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. Mattinbgn is not the only editor who sees no need for unnecessary disambiguation for Australian place names and he is not the only editor to have moved articles. I object to the word "lying" being used in this context.--Grahame (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • He has repeatedly lied about the text of the guideline in attempts to pretend that it says what he wanted it to and failed to gain consensus for the last time around. That's just a fact, regardless of what anyone thinks it should state. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Grahame, “no need” and “unnecessary” are extremist language. Many good things are “unnecessary”. There is “no need” for things to be better. Why do you think it is better to not use comma state in titles of Australian towns? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I seem to be being called an extremist by an extremist. This is why I normally don't intervene in irrational discussions.--Grahame (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • The words have technically extreme meaning, necessity is absolute or not. You are avoiding the question. I’m saying comma state titling for Australian towns is very common in non-local sources, and helps recognisability for all readers, and lends itself to consistency, which there was before one person made hundreds of undisclosed page moves. Can you articulate a benefit of not using comma state titling? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • SmokeyJoe "I’m saying comma state titling for Australian towns is very common in non-local sources" - it isn't. "one person made hundreds of undisclosed page moves" - every edit is disclosed, the nature of a Wiki means they are in the edit history. If you are saying I used a alias, prove it. "Can you articulate a benefit of not using comma state titling?" - plenty of them, the main one is consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia (Australia is not a unique and special snowflake) and not confusing most casual readers who have NFI as to why we disambiguate unambiguous names. Having lost the argument every time (and it is every time) it is raised at RM, your aim now is dismiss any arguments you don't like and bully and abuse editors who disagree as you continue to do here. I will say it again - it is disgraceful and it needs to stop. The sad thing is that it works - I have my heart in my mouth every time I dare express a position on a place name just waiting for the personal attacks (from you and others on this page) to flood in, again. So this is it - you win. I am out of place names for good and indeed will stay as far away from you as I can. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Hi Mattinbgn. Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you returned. I want to register my objection to the history, but not harass you unreasonably.

"I’m saying comma state titling for Australian towns is very common in non-local sources". It is my experience in looking for sources for town titling that it is. Admittedly for small towns, there are very few quality non-local sources. A productive next step for this dispute would be to examine that question methodically, probably on a dedicated page. It's important, but not so much as to justify swamping this page.

"one person made hundreds of undisclosed page moves". My apology, mistyped. I meant "one person made hundreds of undiscussed page moves". i.e. You knew people objected to moving existing titles to short titles, and you did unilateral page moves, not WP:MR proposals to move. I think that was non-ideal. "If you are saying I used a alias" -- certainly not.

"Having lost the argument every time (and it is every time) it is raised at RM" This is not true.

"bully and abuse editors who disagree as you continue to do here". I am reasonably calling out a history of bold page moves that you well knew would be contested if formally proposed.

"it is disgraceful and it needs to stop" I have made zero bold pages moves between town long names (town, state) and short names (town). I ask you to stop, any move from a comma state title, for a town, is contested.

"Can you articulate a benefit of not using comma state titling?" - plenty of them, the main one is consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia (Australia is not a unique and special snowflake) and not confusing most casual readers"

Thanks for giving at least one attempt. Few give any answer. "plenty of them"? I wish to see a list.

"consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia"

Of course, there is an obvious problem. Some place names must be disambiguated, Darwin, Northern Territory, Orange, New South Wales, and so short names cannot be nearly as consistent as Town, State, which is as they were consistent. Also not USPLACE. Comma-state titling is common all through Australia and the US; comma-province in Canada; and comma-country in NZ. These countries share a custom of naming places after British or European places, or after famous people from the old country, and I think that is why it has always been normal to name the places with comma-region, from the day they were named, in non-local sources. In contrast, British/European cities have names that were unique from before the development of the current state of the language.

So, the many moves from Town, State to Town broke the consistency across Australia, broke it with the US, and left us in a mess. Consistency is a wash, and would be better if all the towns were moved to the long forms. Is there any disadvantage to any ready there?

"confusing most casual readers"? Seriously? This is just absurd. Bathurst is confusing. Is that a man, a motor racing venue, is it even in Australia? Bathurst, New South Wales? By what convoluted argument does anyone suggest that Bathurst, New South Wales could be something other than a place name in NSW? It has immediate recognisability.

That list of plenty of supposed reasons in favour of the short name, I would like to make a table of it, and score the strength of argument for each. Problem is, people mostly just give circular arguments. My research into the Wikipedia ancient history suggests exactly one reason, and that is editor convenience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • One I see is that the place is not defined by a political boundary, which is often irrelevant (and pov), and in my region these are old and unambiguous names. [not taking a position here, not sure I can even fathom the subject of discussion.] cygnis insignis 04:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks Cygnis. I have tried to guess, but I think the proponents for change really need to state their case, give reasons. The simplest cases to frame I think are towns, separate towns, where the “place” is the state. Not suburbs, not localities, not towns on borders, not towns engulfed in urban sprawl. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I just wish that the energy that goes into this particular argument could be diverted to productive activitiess. We have some conflicting guidelines. Some folks prefer one way, some another. Nothing new has occurred. How about we have a practice that we all accept such article titles as the original author created it (except when we must disambiguate) and divert this energy from arguing and edit warring into creating the articles for the many places without an article. I have more respect for those who create content than those who merely criticise and edit-war. Kerry (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see valid reasons for both approaches BUT neither is decisive in my view. The only place I can see this debate going is in circles, with a life cycle of years. Just have a redirect for the other case for each article if people feel strongly about either one, ie, we CAN have both. In my view this is heading to WP:LAME. I too would much rather focus on articles being there and their content, and while I dearly love consistency, as long as I can find a subject with minimal effort, ie, provided the name is "semiotically sensible", it is not a priority for me as to what form it is in. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Like what Kerry said, I don't think issue needs to be debated in general. If there's a conflict about how a particular article should be named, we can discuss it there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh so easy to say so, another thing for the general state of naming of things in the Australian project - it gets scattered, there is no central resolution, and it all goes in every direction. The reason this was brought here was to try to get fellow editors interested in a central point of discussion - no one seems interested apart from here. Meanwhile the two Tasmanian locations can effectively set a precedent for the Australian project if anyone took any notice. JarrahTree 01:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely be in favour of such a practice as Kerry suggests. It would redirect a lot of editor time into more productive endeavours. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That is totally missing the point - some people really enjoy getting involved in online arguments, (see the sheer volume and effort that goes into them), that is their choice. We are volunteers here and choose what we do in our editing, we do not have 'patrons' of specific editing behaviours, if people enjoy making issues and taking issue with peculiar naming conventions, that surely is what they are here for. The Australian project has long abandoned the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Collaboration_of_the_Fortnight or a sense of collaboration at general levels. There was a sense that there could have been a point where the community could have had a central point of going through the place name issue was resolved, is completely underminded by the case by case proponents. Oh well we tend to lose more editors that way, they simply do not like what they see when the localised arguments go bad, and in the longer picture of this, the project in general loses credibility. JarrahTree 01:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think if people are here for the arguments then they are not here to BUILD an encyclopaedia. It’s our fundamental principle. And they do not have the right to be here for any other reason. As it clearly states, we are not here to build a democracy. Kerry (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

JT> some people really enjoy getting involved in online arguments
K> if people are here for the arguments then they are not here to BUILD an encyclopaedia

Enjoying an argument is not the same as being here (only) for an argument (and not to build an encyclopedia). An editor might be here to build an encyclopedia but also enjoy the intellectual challenge of a debate as a means of persuading other editors – and thus achieving consensus – that a particular edit does improve the encyclopedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, I'm adopting the position for the negative. Debate sucks! cygnis insignis 17:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Other than reasons external to Wikipedia, the primary internal reason that active editors leave Wikipedia is the abrasive nature of the community. Engaging in debate beyond that necessary for consensus building isn’t productive, and probably cumulatively negative for editor retention. Whether it’s arguing more about it or taking action to rename existing articles to force one’s own viewpoint, it is occurring in the context of a well-known and long-standing dispute. The saying about having the courage to change what you can change, the serenity to accept what you cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference would seem to apply here. Just as “which English variant should be used” is not expected to achieve consensus, that establishes a “creator decides” precedent. If that leads to more people creating stubs for the remaining places to impose their view (there are over 800 settlement-type places in Queensland without articles and doubtless thousands nationwide), then I don’t see that as a bad outcome for encyclopedia building. I have no strong view on this issue so long as the other name is available as a redirect. Kerry (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Kerry Raymond, too much wisdom, circumspection and cautious statements for a debate; this is as confusing as heck. Whose side are you on? cygnis insignis 14:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of what Kerry said. There is no consensus to go one way or the other, and there is unlikely to be, so "leave them as they are, whichever they are, and don't move them (unless you really need to)" is a way to just comprehensively move on and go do more important things. That's not "case by case", that's putting a stop to it permanently - and it's the closest we're going to get to a central resolution to this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Scott Davis. This is very unfair. You must know I have created literally hundreds of new place name articles - without disambiguation and with disambiguation (where required). As for leaving Wikipedia, the bullying from some of the others in this conversation did drive me away earlier this year. I hesitate long and hard before contributing to discussions on Australian place names because the usual bullies will reach straight for the personal attacks - as they have above, again. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I recall similar to ScottDavis... I disappeared for years, and also recall the long gone heated arguments on this topic, then eventually came back to find placenames at new titles without the state qualifier in the title and immediately thought "#!%& me, somebody took it upon themselves to go BOLD where plenty of arguments have occurred before". I was going to speak up to ask what happened then decided just to move on and accept that a redirect will assist me to find any article on a place name I may be looking for if I can't. If we're not arguing about placenames we're arguing about place infoboxes and neither have been sufficiently solved in the almost 15 years of my watching the sparks fly from the sidelines. -- Longhair\^talk 05:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Longhair: I've given this some thought, no one will be pleased to hear. How about all the redirects go to a neutral url, the wikidata id or some random num-pad mashing, making that the BIG name at the top of the article and any alternative names and styling listed in an order that changes every couple of minutes? Then the article can get to topic at hand. cygnis insignis 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean Cygnis insignis but I suspect you're having a laugh. I put the problem to a mini-test this morning and asked my Google Home device to tell me about two towns at the other end of the country, knowing full well Google Home would seek the information from Wikipedia. Both topics I asked about were placenames titled differently. One being Biloela, the other being Condamine,_Queensland. I never mentioned the state once, just the placename. Google Home replied with content from both articles, so technically, it hardly matters what the title is because both humans and robots alike can locate what they're looking for. Nothing is broken the way things are. -- Longhair\^talk 22:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"I don't quite understand what you mean ", I get a lot of that in replies [sobs quietly] I do worry about bots, and hope there is a sanity limit to their logical reduction of licensed premises as nomenclature; if they realise that humans can divide by zero they are likely to enact Armageddon or the Singularity (or slow down the internet). If any other these events were realised then I would have to agree: it hardly matters. cygnis insignis 14:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that observation of specific cases would help understand the processes in view - see for instance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulverstone,_Tasmania#Requested_move_20_November_2018 JarrahTree 00:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

What would people think about formally changing the naming conventions along the lines of Kerry's suggestion above ("How about we have a practice that we all accept such article titles as the original author created it (except when we must disambiguate) and divert this energy from arguing and edit warring into creating the articles for the many places without an article.")? This recurring argument never ends well and it's no closer to a definitive consensus either way, and the status quo inevitably means that we have outbreaks of argument every year or so that are helpful to no one. Kerry's suggestion seems like something that could mean that this is the last time we ever have to this discussion. @Kerry Raymond: @Longhair: @Mattinbgn: @ScottDavis: @JarrahTree: @SmokeyJoe: @Aoziwe: @Onetwothreeip: @Grahamec: @Jacknstock: (I think I pinged everyone with an opinion on the actual issues above, apologies if I missed anyone.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Supported Aoziwe (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Supported — add redirects instead of page moves, as a compromise. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support (obviously) and, yes, add redirects for any "other" desired titles as per JacknStock's suggestion Kerry (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Nat965 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Accepted (as in "this is not my preferred choice, but I can live with it") I thought we had already formally accepted this compromise a time or two ago that this issue rose to attention. As neither "side" is going to give up all its ground, agreeing to build the encyclopaedia instead is a much better outcome that bitter naming convention wars that have driven a number of us away at some stage. Jack's advice for redirects is also necessary in both directions, whichever way the article is named. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Note Ordinarily, I would expect discussion regarding changing a guideline to occur on the guideline's talk page, per WP:CHANGE. I have placed a note linking to this discussionon the guideline talk page. I know this discussion has been noted at Talk:Alonnah, Tasmania#Requested move 24 November 2018 (that's how I found it). Has or should notice of this discussion be placed elsewhere? MegaSloth (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting it there. I was mainly focused on sounding out opinions and thinking I'd create a full RfC if needed, but posting it there saves the trouble. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note With respect, and without reference to any particular naming pattern I might prefer, any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here in favor of leaving this alone would still be contraindicated by the main naming policy at WP:AT, which will continue to state that WP:CONSISTENCY (one of the five naming criteria) is an overarching goal when choosing titles for articles. Dekimasuよ! 21:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no consistency at present (either in practice or in guidelines) nor is there any sign that a consensus for establishing a consistent approach either way is likely to come in the future, following the decision to break the consistency there was a few years back in favour of having two acceptable alternatives. So the only way WP:CONSISTENCY is relevant is if it's someone is claiming a non-existent consistency as an argument for moving them to their pet format, which is guaranteed to spark very strong arguments in the future if tried either way. Not having inevitably unhelpful future arguments is very much part of the point of this proposal. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • More to the point, the problem lies *within* WP:CONSISTENCY. It points to specific guidelines for place naming, which in contains WP:NCAUST which is the subject of the debate here. Currently it says "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than Sydney, New South Wales)." and it has said this (with minor copyedits) for many years now (a quick trawl suggests from 2011). The never-ending dispute relates to the relative desirabilility of these two forms "Place, State" vs "Place" (when both are possible). Nobody here is proposing a new style of naming, e.g. "Place, Australia" or "Place, Local Government Area" (which would be outside of WP:CONSISTENCY and its subordinate policies. My suggestion was to accept whichever form the article is created with (as allowed by WP:NCAUST) and put an end to the arguing, edit wars, and trolling, which are unhelpful for a harmonious community. I also had the hope it might redirect people's energy from arguing over existing articles into new article creation. That is, if you really feel strongly about how places are named, get out there and write new articles. For the record, although I have favoured one or the other style at different times (or so I recollect), at the moment I am pretty ambivalent. As someone who does write new articles about settlement-type places, you will probably notice that I do so as PLACE, STATE but this is purely because I normally click on the redlinks in navboxes/infoboxes to start these articles and these generally use PLACE, STATE for their redlinks. But I have been known to rename them to PLACE when the mood takes me. As someone who machine-generates article content, I always generate place links as PLACE, STATE (as that is the safest assumption, as statistically that will either be the article title or be a redirect to it, there being only a small number of cases when further disambiguation is required). I note I generated a number of those navboxes and infoboxes and that is why they contain PLACE, STATE, but this is to do with the practicalities of generation rather than a manifestation of a strong view on WP:NPCAUST. Kerry (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Having first started this 18 days ago, with a suggestion that the Places project be a good location to discuss (completely ignored), and the problem of low editor numbers on the Australian project showing up with so few venturing into discussion, I feel none the wiser that there is anything that suggests that a cross section of current active editors are either cognisant of this notice board ( The Tasmanian move items being visited by non Australian editors in the main ). Which implies, it is all very well for items ot be discussed and resolved on this notice board, but there are regular sections of the Australian project/articles where there is clearly no understanding of what the Australian community of editors have resolved about anything.
It is disappointing that it simply falls back to the same editors to make their positions known. There had been a hope that not the same set of editors do their thing. It was neither a call for any one editors role to lead on a particular method, but more to see whether a discussion could involve more ideas and more editors. Clearly that has failed. Here's hoping that 2019 might bring more active editors to feel it is worth being involved in the project, join in discussions here on the noticeboard, and to show that it is not the usual set discussing things all the time. Happy festive season to all. JarrahTree 00:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m disappointed that the title minimalists still refuse to engage when asked what reader is benefited from removing comma state from outback towns and cities. Putting all cities and towns, excepting the world-famous one, at Town, State gives recognisability and consistency, and matches real world usage. What is the counter argument?! —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You want a counter argument? Why should Mukinbudin be a redirect? Why should it have extra qualification in it's title, not just in it's opening line? Why isn't Nat Fyfe at Nat Fyfe (footballer)? Most readers won't know why he is notable until they click on his article, so why should I know that Gwelup is in Western Australia, but make me write three times as much to link to it without it turning redirect green? Dab only where you have to. It's one of the 5 article naming rules (conciseness) for the rest of the articles here. Australian towns aren't that special. The Link button on the tool bar and disambiguation helpers makes answering the "do I need to expand to town, state or not" question easy. The-Pope (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to think of the "comma convention" as qualified names (fully qualified would include ", Australia" as well) rather than simply disambiguated names. WP:NAME gives just as much emphasis to precision and consistency as to conciseness. Since the advocates of unqualified names choose to think of the longer forms as purely required for disambiguation, both of your examples could be made into disambiguation pages anyway. Mukinbudin could be a disambig page to contrast the town from Shire of Mukinbudin and possibly a railway station or line. Gwelup could disambiguate the suburb from Gwelup Croatia and the red links to Lake Gwelup. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Do not support This has been a discussion over the summer break and so I've missed it. Please seek further responses before considering this strawpoll to be in any way definitive. I don't think the original name of an article should be given any special status. Lots of reasons for this, but mainly Wikipedia should be about educating as broad an audience as possible, not be about avoiding an editor being upset. Donama (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Donama: - No one's suggesting changing anything just yet. What would you consider to be a better way of "educating as broad an audience as possible" through place naming conventions? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think "we all accept such article titles as the original author created it" if it would be better to be different. I get that this is an attempt at a commonsense peacemaking measure and might save an editor or two from needing a sabbatical, but again we shouldn't commit to editorial guidelines just for the sake of editors (as opposed to larger audience). On naming convention for Australian places, I must admit I am not convinced disambiguating each one by state by default is best to educate the world at large, but don't feel it strongly enough to argue what is now a really strongly established convention for us. I was on leave for about a year from Wikipedia when this was hashed out and unknowingly broke the rule when I arrived back but was swiftly educated. Haven't worried much about it since as long as redirects are in place from one to the other and the relevant disambig pages. Donama (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Donama: - how does the larger audience practically benefit more from the status quo, as opposed to the compromise? (Not trying to stir shit, trying to find ways for possible consensus.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The Australian

There is a content dispute regarding whether or not The Australian newspaper is right wing. There have been multiple attempts by one determined editor to downplay the newspaper's political alignment. Assistance from other editors is appreciated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear...there is no dispute we're all Australians here onetwothreeip. My point is we need good quality, reliable sources before painting The Australiuan as some right-wing extremist newspaper, which it certainly is not. The Australian newspaper is not Fox News!Merphee (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is calling or is seeking to call it an extremist newspaper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/ has it as "RIGHT-CENTER BIAS", reasonably factual with bias language. This site is always cautious, often determined before the post-truth shifts, and there is little analysis when compared to US papers. To gauge this site's evaluation of bias, you should see what it says about other papers: the appalling Washington Times has a slightly 'worse' rating than the Australian. cygnis insignis 22:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, there was no question, so the curt response is unwelcome. The discussion is interesting, and the views reinforce my own. Now take a breath and read what I said again, the site supports a view that the Australian has a right-wing editorial bias in language and selection of content. cygnis insignis 22:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This was already brought up by Merphee and is just cycling the same discussion that goes nowhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, so a curt response was justified? You invited opinion and I offered one. You want to be more tempered when dealing with reactionary issues, the clue is in the name. cygnis insignis 23:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• The lede says The Australian is owned by News Corp Australia. right left centre that one line says exactly what the leaning of the paper is, every news outlet of News corp is somewhere to the right, That QLD rag is at the extreme in print with everything else somewhere in the scale to right of centre. Theres probably an article in the ABC(yeah the Australian one) archives that will support that. Gnangarra 07:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Wikipedia article Gough Whitlam includes a comment, citing a reliable source, that Rupert Murdoch supported Whitlam in the 1972 federal election, which Whitlam won only narrowly. Whitlam was certainly not a right winger. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in 1972. That does not reflect the newspaper or Rupert Murdoch in 2018. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It is reasonably well-documented in reliable sources that the newspaper took a deliberate strategic rightward-turn about 20 years ago. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the newspaper as a whole, including its history, which began in 1964. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bahnfrend. And The Australian is certainly NOT Fox News! Just because it is owned by Murdoch means little. https://www.crikey.com.au/2007/06/26/crikey-bias-o-meter-the-newspapers/ While we are at it, I think the SMH and The Age articles need to reflect a distinct move to the left over the past 20 years. Calling them centrists as they are in the current articles in 2018/19 is absurd. The Age & SMH should be centre-left and the Australian centre-right. None of them should be classified as right wing or left wing as they all drift back to the centre at times and are non tabloid newspapers. And this is what the reliable sources say which is still important.Merphee (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter what any of you think. That's not what Wikipedia is about. A newspaper is a mix of writing by a whole bunch of people (jounalists, columnists, editors, advertisers, etc) and presumably this produces content ranging over some spectrum of political position, and this mix can change over time. So I don't think it's useful to attempt the exercise of deciding the political position of The Australian over all time, but it's not unreasonable to discuss political positions at specific points in time (e.g. editorials at federal elections, present day). As to the current political stance, this is clearly a topic about which many people (including Wikipedia contributors) have *opinions*. We have guidance in our NPOV policy on how we deal with opinionated matters. Firstly we try to focus on the facts of the matter, if facts are available. There are probably not a lot of facts here, but clear-cut editorial messages like "Vote for X" would count. Also if any major contributors to The Australia are current or former members of political parties, lobby groups or have other relevant allegiances, we can certainly document those facts. If we are reduced to opinions, we should follow the guidance of clearly stating whose opinion it is (and any relevant allegiances). We should represent all points of view in a balanced way. And I think should give up all hope of trying to find a 2-word summary for the infobox. When something is complicated, it needs to be explained fully in the article and not summarised in the infobox. Write the facts, state the opinions and who opines them. Don't tell the reader what the political opinion of the newspaper is, let them decide for themselves. Kerry (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Well said and I agree with us relying only on Wiki policy, not opinions. But as I also said it is worthwhile covering the Big 3 as a package here and include SMH and The Age, rather than just target The Australian as onetwothreeip has tried to do by starting this thread. 3 birds with one stone. Interestingly and touching on Kerry Raymond's suggestion to look at columnists, The Age has not got one single on-staff conservative columnist.Merphee (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading your comments again Kerry Raymond I am wondering if the political alignment in an info-box is in fact a good idea. Has this point ever been debated on Wiki more generally in relation to media organisations and publications? Having a 2 or 4 word summary in the info-box only leads to confusion and dissent between editors and away from Wiki policy and good editing.08:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Merphee (talk)

@Kerry Raymond:. @Merphee:, it seems to me that this whole issue is born of a particular editor's desire to attack Rupert Murdoch's dominance of Australian media, with a seeming underlying frustration that progressive news media has far lower circulation than Murdoch media. I will further make the observation that the Nine Network has become much less of a bogeyman today in comparison to when it was owned by Kerry Packer so maybe people need a figure to hate. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Well bloody said, although I was not game to say it.Merphee (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)unfortunately info boxes have been compressed into one fits fits all, some fields are irrelevant to some publications, its left up to the commonsense of editors to try to decide which are relevant to the article its being used in. Political alignment is a subjective concept for publications. As I said the political leaning will shift for any number reasons, they arent just limited to the owner, nor the editor, they also reflect both the events being reported about, the community at that and the person making such an assessment now. My comment about who owns the paper tells me all I need to know, its just like telling me a horse is from Bart Cummings stable its an intangible piece of knowledge that doesnt need any further dissection. Gnangarra 09:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Gnangarra, what do you think about Kerry Raymond's very sound and well reasoned comments above relating to us following policy and not following our opinions or biases?Merphee (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

<inline on purpose> I have never said follow opinion, I have said that because the field is in the info box does not mean it needs to filled in. The problem is caused by making infoboxes in a one fits all format. A news outlet that exists beyond the owner or a single editor will shift in its leanings depending on its target audience or the needs of the publication. In addition those movements will appear differently when taken out of the period in which they were written and judged on current positions. Whatever the source used its subjective depending on the source. For subjects such like this the infobox field should be left blank, for other publications the field should be decided upon a case by case basis. Policy is policy and WP:IAR for the policy makes nonsense and get in the way.  Gnangarra 11:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)  

I have just noticed that The Age has no political alignment in the infobox, and The Australian article didn't previously have a political alignment in the info box either. Can I therefore suggest we delete the troublesome political alignment in the infobox in the Big 3 Australian newspapers at least and use Kerry Raymond's logic instead, going back to what Wiki policy tells us to do in the body of our article, and as my attempt to resolve this mess and division?Merphee (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, can I ask that you use a space before the signature in your replies? cygnis insignis 09:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the way forward here is just to improve both the content and its citation: it's not like a lot of material hasn't been written about The Australian over the last half-century, and if more of it made it into the article (like the bit about the editorial decision to go more conservative, which doesn't feature in the history section despite its significance) the content would be clearer about this stuff without the argument. Starting from the content of located sources and then working from that saves a lot of argument compared to having these arguments about the outcome and working back to the sources. I don't think it's actually reasonably arguable that The Australian is conservative (I doubt they would argue), but I don't object to it being removed until such time as the sourcing is tightened up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This reference from Reddit says The Australian is leans right to partisan right [1], this one from the Sunshine Coast Daily says it is "overly conservative" [2], the Sydney Morning Herald say it was centrist but is now right wing [3] .... I'm not saying The Australian is extremist but it is right of centre. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay so obviously we leave the alignment in the boxes. So Hughesdarren, here are a couple of sources (among so many others) stating the Age and the SMH are left wing. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/how-the-left-killed-the-age/news-story/664d53d6fc0595cad47ff67d3ebe8a26 and https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/a-step-to-the-right-at-fairfax/news-story/ee4360ebd352a783d42ecfbc6c2e9811. The sources you quoted saying The Australian is more right wing are from these more left wing sources saying those sources are more right wing, or um something?? That's why I thought it wiser to just leave the infobox alone and drop the political alignment 2 word summary and instead and has been suggested by others here, to leave it to the readers to make their own mind up? Merphee (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The topic of this conversation is whether The Australian is right wing or not isn't it? In fact you said .. we need good quality, reliable sources.. which have now been provided. The political leaning of the sources is irrelevant if they are reliable sources (but do feel free to check back with the reliable sources noticeboard again) Hughesdarren (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

True Hughesdarren, but if you check you will see that centre-right was already in the article unchallenged. However this argument over what to put in the infoboxes is only going to lead to further perpetual disputes over all of the other Australian newspapers and what to subjectively put in those infoboxes. Interestingly, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post and other major US newspaper articles do NOT use political alignment in the infobox either. Could we use these Wiki articles as an example and provide consistency across our Australian/NZ newspaper articles by adopting the same approach and drop the subjective political alignment from all the the infoboxes and focus instead on adding solid content based on reliable sources? C'mon surely common sense can prevail here and end the division and hostilities over this ridiculous section of our newspaper/media articles? Merphee (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, thanks, much appreciated. cygnis insignis 11:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

So we have several "reliable sources". Newspaper A says (in opinion pieces by its own Right-wing fringe) that newspaper B is left-wing. Newspaper B says that Newspaper A is right wing, both writing to the Australian east-coast audience. Neither source gives us absolute values appropriate for our global audience. We have no reference that "centre" in Australia is anywhere near where "centre" is in the USA, UK, Russia or China. Just because they generally lean right or left of the Australian Centre says nothing at all about whether they are on opposite sides of a "global political centre", no matter how many Australian Reliable Sources we find. Let's leave this field out of all Australian mainstream newspaper infoboxes (it's probably OK to leave in the infobox of Green Left Weekly). --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

agree there a few smaller newspapers that it'd be appropriate like The Australian Communist, though we probably should consider having diagram created that shows comparatively how Australian politics Right/Centre/Left compares to US & UK. Rather than leaving to unscramble and make sense of List of political parties in Australia Gnangarra 15:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with all of that logic. But how can this be done practically and consistently now? Wondering if anyone else on this thread would object to removing the political alignment from the infobox in all mainstream newspaper articles?Merphee (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, as I read it, there is an emerging consensus for that. As you pointed out, the absence in the US examples is telling and I'm assuming a similar discussion played out before this solution was implemented. However, this may be abrupt change with consequent discord, and waiting to the holidays are over would be polite. What someone could do is place a notice on the talk of the relevant articles and draw further comment here. I have a strong and long-standing preference for this solution, so hope to see it implemented; boldly removing those now would not be building the consensus. As I read it, the next step is notification, does that seem reasonable? cygnis insignis 05:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a very reasonable approach Cygnis insignis. Hopefully other editors here could also add their support or opposition to this proposal. Would it be worth formalising this oppose/support process in some way do you think? Merphee (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be an example of where infoboxes are too simplistic. Any number of independent RS note that The Australian has a strong conservative slant in its editorials, headlines and stories. But this isn't consistent, and it regularly runs op-eds by progressive as well as lots of 'straight' reportage. The article should discuss this, but there's no sensible way to sum it up in a word in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, as per Gnangarra and the link, I do not think that necessary. The formulation of consensus is beyond familiar socio-political processes, my pompous way of saying this is not a poll. My suggestion that notifications being placed on article talk-pages is consideration for those who curate the page, the field was virtually compulsory and yet is troll bait, now it emerges that trying to accommodate it was all for nought … that is annoying af for those guys. cygnis insignis 07:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Merphee: the whole point of WP:Consensus is you dont need to count numbers when the discussion has clearly reached a point of common ground then go for it. To me there is a clear agreement that for all major newspapers currently published in Australia the field be blank. If editorial alignments need to be covered its done so in a section of article. Gnangarra 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What is going on here? The problems with this article are far more than how the newspaper is or isn't described in the infobox. We can't have the article only edited by people who believe The Australian is not generally a right wing newspaper and seek to make edits to downplay its political direction. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

[in the nicest possible way] Is anyone stopping you from making those edits? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

all edits need to comply with WP:NPOV Gnangarra 14:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gnangarra and other editors. I think there is now clear consensus and very sound reasoning for removing this political alignment entry from the infobox. Merphee (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making onetwothreeip and why you are only focused on The Australian but it's important for all editors to follow WP:NPOV as Gnangarra just said. Doesn't look like anyone has stopped you or any other editor from editing the article, as long as this policy is followed. I take it you are not opposed to removing this from the infobox of all our mainstream Australian newspaper articles and there has been no opposing arguments presented here by any other editor on this proposal either. Merphee (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife Yes, someone is stopping me from making those edits, that's why I brought the issue here. If by those edits you mean attempts to make the article more objective and less biased. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV is difficult line to walk, and you have to give appropriate weight to all information, if there is bias by the publication then that bias should be reflected in the article. Removing the bias and presenting the paper as something it isnt would in itself violate NPOV Gnangarra 09:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has sort of drifted away from the initial point of the political leanings of the The Australian and into one about infoboxes and WP:NPOV. As far as the infobox is concerned I have no problem including the political stance of the paper, it is mentioned a couple of times in the article as after all ...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)...as for WP:NPOV saying the publication is centre-right is not an issue of neutrality, it is a fact, and references from reputable sources can be included to support this. For the life of me I cannot see what the fuss is all about. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Might I suggest a formal RfC on removing political alignment from all Australian newspapers before actually doing it. I don't even see a consensus in this discussion, which started out as a disagreement about the leanings of one paper in particular. I've reverted the removal of the infobox parameter on newspaper articles in my watchlist. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the whole thread Whats new? Some very strong and sensible arguments have been presented and focused on the reader and improving Wikipedia. No real arguments against apart from one person saying they don't want to remove it but with no actual argument presented. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you? Only two comments above yours, by Hughesdarren, is that infoboxes are to summarise information in the article, and the article describes the newspaper's right wing orientation. I am inclined to agree with them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I did, but this is a very local concensus on a page which has little to do with newspapers. It is a good place to open a discussion, but not to close the discussion. No attempt was made to formalise or advertise the discussion to a wider group of editors - most obviously those editors who frequent media articles, WikiProject Journalism, WikiProject Media, etc. A formal RfC process would achieve this. Or better still, moving this discussion to Template talk:Infobox newspaper given this is what it directly affects. You're proposing a change which affects a lot of articles, you need a strong consensus. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, you were asked your opinion on this issue that sat on the talk page for a couple of days and you remained silent. What are both your actual arguments please and how do you both believe all of the other editor's very sensible and well reasoned arguments presented above are completely wrong? None of the articles on USA newspapers include this section it is worth noting. Perhaps starting with actual arguments and how leaving this subjective bit in the infobox benefits readers would also be a helpful start. Merphee (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about the infobox, it's a very minor issue. I agree with Hughesdarren, infoboxes benefit readers by summarising the article's information, which would include its political orientation if any. I did not start this discussion to be about the infobox, it was to bring to people's attention your (and possibly others') attempts to minimise the political orientation of the newspaper and for them to make edits and generate discussions over what should be in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As other editors told you onetwothreeip you we can all make edits as long as they are from a NPOV and you follow policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Anyway okay so you don't care about the infobox. That's fair enough. I'd be interested in responses to my comments directly above from the other editor as to why everyone else's well reasoned arguments are completely wrong and why this subjective bit should be kept when all our articles on USA newspapers do not include this. Don't we need consistency through Wikipedia. Merphee (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The point about the political orientation of the publication being written in a neutral matter (so long as references back it up) remains uncontested. Now the discussion has lurched to consistency. In this case a quick search of the UK papers on Wikipedia such as The Times, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Sunday Mirror and The Independent among others all have political orientation included both in the article and inthe infobox. So much for consistency. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Several very experienced editors took the time to detail exactly why they supported removing this subjective bit from the infobox like all our Wikipedia articles on major USA newspapers. And consistency was certainly mentioned earlier. No-one is lurching to it now. Have you got any actual logical and well reasoned arguments please that support why this subjective bit is to be retained and how it benefits our readers and why you disagree with all of the editors here who support removing it? There were multiple and distinct arguments presented including the fact that what is left-wing or right-wing in the USA is not the case in Australia. Also Hughesdarren it would help if you could please remain civil and drop the sarcasm. No-one needs that. Merphee (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No, other editors have not told me any of that, only you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Having these in the infobox, as we've learned for political parties, is a recipe for a thousand unproductive arguments IMHO. Just as we had people disagreeing about which flavour of right-wing the Liberal Party was about once a week, it's very difficult to get clear agreement on newspapers. The Australian is about as close to uncontentious as it gets, but even that's being argued about, and basically all of the other current infobox descriptions are more spurious. I'm never going to get worked up about it, but I do think these things (like for political parties) are better dealt with in prose. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, my issue is more related to achieving a meaningful consensus. Determining the non-inclusion of a parameter is not best dealt with here - I gave suggestions of more appropriate forums to hold a formal or semi-formal proposal. I don't see the basis for one small group of editors to decide a parameter can't be used in a widely-used infobox for a subset of articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's really unhelpful when a discussion like this, about something which usually attracts minimal interest gets a much larger amount of responses than usual and people who don't like the responses they're getting start off with "oh no, it's not a formal enough discussion" to try and ignore those responses. This is the main noticeboard for Australian editors - there's no better place for hashing out discussions about Australian editing convention issues, and I'm really suss on people who hope that if they shift the outcome somewhere random (probably where less people will see it) they might get an outcome they like more. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That's quite the accusation. I didn't participate in the discussion - I didn't know about it until I saw removal of the parameter on some articles in my watchlist claiming a consensus had been reached. It is not much of a consensus in my view, and it affects a widely-used template but only on a subset of articles, with no advisory to the talk page of the template or any modification to the template's documentation. If you think the reasons for the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are strong, why fearful of garnering wider opinion? -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from soliciting further responses to this discussion in different places if you think there's a point to it. That's a very different thing from trying to dismiss all the above responses. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem we have with the info box is that as demonstrated the Australian has been both left and right of centre where ever that is. The parameter in the infobox is not something that adequately defines the paper across its history. The whole point of the infobox as pointed out is to summarise the article, these articles about sources are extra important as they are reflected in so many other Australian topics that having a basic premise what ever it is actually alters the way readers consider information all of those articles. It is such an important aspect to Australian topics that goes well beyond News/Media that discussing it here is the appropriate place for an Australian topic editor to bring such a question. @Whats new?: this applies to only a small subset of topics where one size doesnt always fit all. Gnangarra 06:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Finding a source The Australian

Seeing as everyone's here, I was hoping someone could help. I cant seem to track down an article from Mediaweek (Australia), which would be very useful, as its used about 5 times throughout our article on The Australian. The website only seems to go back a couple of years, and there are no archives. According to Trove, no Australian library has hard copies, and only one place, Queensland University of Technology, seems to have online access to what are presumably back numbers-through Westlaw, which I don't have access to. I've tried googling a quote we used, but it only comes up in Wikipedia mirrors. Anyone with better database access or a better brain able to find it? Full ref is Manning, James (10 March 2008). "National daily plans new business website and monthly colour magazine". MediaWeek. Sydney, Australia (854): 3, 7, 8. Any efforts appreciated Curdle (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd - Factiva has Mediaweek Australia from 2007 through 2009, and a search for The Australian turns up references on that date but not this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename and/or reorganise ministry and shadow ministry articles

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics about introducing a consistent naming format for articles on Australian ministries and shadow ministries.

There is also a secondary discussion going on about introducing a consistent structure for articles on Australian ministries, which are currently divided up (e.g. First XXX Ministry, Second XXX Ministry, no numbering at all) in a bunch of different and completely inconsistent ways between the federal government and different states. This second issue is something we've brought up a few times over the years but never bothered sorting out, and it's hampered our efforts to build better depth in this area.

Any feedback on either would be appreciated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata and population

I'm looking for some advice on Wikidata, geography and population in Australia.

Specifically what I noticed is that Whyalla has a population of 21,751 cited to [4] (SUA - Significant Urban Area) but the corresponding Wikidata item wikidata:Q706029 has a population of only 3,635 cited to [5] (SSC - State Suburb).

I noticed because Whyalla didn't show up where I expected in a query for largest cities/towns in South Australia (I heard a remark that the current Australian Scout Jamboree has 10,000 scouts and makes Tailem Bend one of the largest towns in the state, and wanted to test the theory).

I guess my question is whether there are supposed to be separate Wikidata items for the "state suburb" and the "Significant Urban Area", and how the two numbers should be displayed in each of Wikidata and Wikipedia. Mount Gambier also has both an SSC used in Wikidata and an SUA used in Wikipedia (and a UCL - Urban Centres and Localities), but the difference is not so significant. I haven't looked at any others. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think on Wikidata we should have different properties (or the same property but with that different "attribute" or whatever it is called to give a different semantics to a property) for the SSC, UCL, and all the other TLAs. Clearly a Wikidata query should be focussed on comparing/compiling apples with apples and not apples with oranges. Meanwhile I would not mind if we looked at what we do on Wikipedia where we have 2 pop fields in the infobox Australian place (although it is extremely rare to see the 2nd one used) and what goes into "pop" is mostly SSC (since most places have an SSC) but may be a UCL or a SUA or one of the other things for towns and cities. Is there any reason we should not replace pop and pop2 (and their year and footnote fields) with pop_ssc, pop_ucl, etc, so we can provide as many of the different values as are available or we think appropriate. Kerry (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think they should be separate on Wikidata, and the Wikipedia article about the city should be linked to the SUA. The SSC is essentially the central business district of the city, and while it is a gazetted locality and the name is the same, it is a different entity, so I would suggest creating a separate Wikidata item for the CBD and tag it as such—same for any city town with a gazetted CBD of the same name (such as the state capitals). I'll start working on it... While that's fine on Wikidata, it's probably not ideal having a separate Wikipedia article for a CBD locality and Kerry's suggestion is a good one, to use the pop fields in the infobox. --Canley (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Many (all?) of the Australian city central suburbs do have articles. It becomes unmanageable otherwise to talk about a city at so many different scales in one article. Thanks to the wisdom of those who named the central city suburbs, the names are often horribly confusing to both Australians and others and also inconsistent. E.g. Brisbane's central suburb is called Brisbane City, whihc is not to be confused with City of Brisbane (the local government area) but most people do confuse it and some contributors propose merging them etc. This is why you often see such articles named Brisbane central business district or at least redirected to try to avoid the confusion. But this creates its own confusion as the central business area of Brisbane now extends beyond the innermost suburbs into other inner suburbs, so really the topic deserves its own article. It's all a mess but not one of our making. All we can do is put hatnotes to make clear what this article is about and what any confusingly-similar named articles are actually about. Kerry (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think for the state capital cities, we have a meaningful article about the "city" meaning the urban area, and a meaningful article for the "city centre"/CBD/suburb of the same name. I have not looked at whether there are meaningful distinctions for regional cities in the eastern states, but the SA ones are not clear about places outside of Adelaide metro area. Suburb names of regional cities/towns are not well-known. I doubt many people in Adelaide or further away would be able to state that the Port Augusta power stations were in Port Paterson or that Wallaroo Mines is part of Kadina (UCL and SA2 but not SSC) not Wallaroo (SA2, UCL or SSC). The articles about the towns/cities tend to be about the current urban area, and the population in the infobox matches that. There are not "city centre" articles for the bounded locality of that name which is a bit-to-a-lot smaller than the whole town/city. Often, where a person "comes from" is a function of how far away or familiar the speaker thinks the listener is. Someone might tell their friend from Jericho that they are from Wallaroo Mines, but they would tell someone from Adelaide that they are from Kadina. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It's likely that towns with populations exceeding just 200 will have more than one subdivision or suburb, many will be non-distinct except in some government data sets, including LGA's. Other issue we'll have is that geographic suburb/town boundaries dont always coincide with ABS boundaries. It'll be one of those case by case issues for the vast majority. Gnangarra 14:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like in general, Wikidata population figure is the smaller SSC, but Wikipedia population is the larger SUA or UCL number and the articles are generally written to acknowledge the larger area with descriptions of the central area included implicitly. I suspect Wikidata got its numbers from a bulk upload of data, but it's not useful for things like "What are the largest towns in <state>?" Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution. A tracking category on Infobox Australian Place could be used to find the scale of the issue (population on Wikidata is different to population in infobox). --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds about right—most of the reconciliation with census data would have been through a Mix'n'Match concentrating on the SSC items, then a bulk import of the population for the matched SSC, hence the apparent preference for the "smaller" population data. As the Wikipedia article will usually concentrate on the greater town/city (UCL or SUA), there will be a discrepancy. I'm happy to go though all the UCL and SUA objects and manually assess them, and split them from the SSC of the same name if required (as per Whyalla which now appears in your query). --Canley (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you (Canley) have been working on the Whyalla Wikidata item so it now appears in the expected place in the query result (thank you). I fear there could be a very large number of other discrepancies. Does the current solution throw away information that could be useful for some other purpose? I'm not sure how easy it is to query by qualifiers if "Whyalla" had two different population numbers qualified by Applies to part. I notice that Geraldton] (maybe all WA towns, I only looked for one) has gone the same way as the capital cities, with a separate (but presently too short) article at Geraldton (suburb) to show both population figures in Wikipedia (but the larger one is not presently on Wikidata). Should there be another mix'n'match round for the UCL and SUA census entities? In that case, my query would return two entries for those towns I think, unless I work out how to filter for which one I want. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There were Mix'n'Matches for SUAs and UCLs—more than I thought when volunteering to manually check these! Sorry, I didn't actually put the population on the new Whyalla CBD item—oops, it's now there. The other way to do it is to apply a preferred rank to a population figure, but this really would chuck out information in a query and you can't really assume someone wants that definition. --Canley (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

LOL, I thought you were getting enthusiastic! Just to keep us on our toes, The Nuriootpa SSC[6] is larger than the UCL[7], and it has a bigger SA2[8] that includes Light Pass and a handful of other houses (I haven't picked where from the map, but the numbers don't quite add up). I think the question I wanted to answer is best served by UCL populations, but I can imagine on other days wanting to know about SSC or LGA populations. All of these numbers seem to be valuable data (maybe not SA2?), the questions are how to represent them on Wikidata and how to decide which ones to use when. Port Pirie is another one with a commercial/industrial core with residential suburbs. Wikidata population 195, Wikipedia population 14,247 cited to 2015 regional growth estimate, not the 2016 census SUA or UCL. Port Augusta is only slightly better, and already has several populations in Wikidata. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Review Request - Yugambeh people

Jingeri all... For a while now I have been editing the Yugambeh people page, and it has grown quite large. I am proud to say it is probably among the largest, if not the largest article on an Indigenous Australian group. A lot of the others are merely a stub or a few paragraphs.

I don't really have a benchmark or much knolwedge of what constitutes quality. So could someone perhaps review the article and give me some criticisms thanks!

BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Kaya thank you for your efforts in bring knowledge to Wikipedia, I will have look at the article. Gnangarra 11:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus needed at Talk:John Cain (junior)

The issue is with the titles for articles about two men named John Cain who were premiers of Victoria, and who are father and son, but were not known as "senior" or "junior". The suggestion is for the article about the more recent and longer serving premier to have the title simply of John Cain on the basis of being the primary topic for the name John Cain, having more page views than all other John Cains combined. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Categorisation of Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne and SUBCAT

Australian editors are invited to comment on whether WP:SUBCAT should apply to Royal Exhibition Building and other Buildings and structures in Melbourne. In particular (with my emphasis added):

an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. ...

I assert that the duplicate parent categories should be removed, eg [9][10], because Category:Buildings and structures in Melbourne and Category:Tourist attractions in Melbourne are both supercategories of Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne, but The Drover's Wife disagrees [11][12]. See our respective edits for today for another 34 similar examples.

Is the category hierarchy wrong? (In which case could someone fix it?) Is there a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} or {{All included}} somewhere that I missed seeing?

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, just because there is not a non-diffusing subcategory template does not mean that it makes sense to see this sort of situation and, without thinking and in every case, remove all the articles from the main category. It often means that you've flagged a categorisation issue that probably does need discussion, but you seem to inevitably pick the least logical category outcome and run with it in every case. In this particular case, we've got an random outlier category that doesn't exist anywhere else (Heritage-listed buildings in Melbourne) and buildings correctly categorised under "Buildings and structures in Melbourne" that really need to be broken down, as they are in every other city, by what type of building ("commercial buildings", "industrial buildings", "churches", etc.). It does not make sense to remove all the articles from the type-of-building tree because they're heritage-listed and because this one random category exists in Melbourne and nowhere else. It does make sense to work out what to do with the heritage-listed category: delete it, rename it, find a proper place for it (such as by creating a heritage-listed-in-city category tree), or make it non-diffusing. I don't have a particular preference which of those we do, but it logically makes sense that it doesn't quite fit as is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I will say that the not-actually-category-tree at Category:Heritage-listed buildings in Australia is a mess: we've just got "heritage listed buildings in Melbourne" and "Heritage-listed industrial buildings in Queensland‎", both of which are random outliers, and so it would seem to make sense that either this tree should be populated or deleted entirely. (Again, I'm not particularly bothered as to which.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"just because there is not a non-diffusing subcategory template does not mean that it makes sense to ... remove all the articles from the main category." — Yes it does makes sense - that's what "without duplication in parent categories" means.

"It does make sense to work out what to do with the heritage-listed category" — So please do something about it...

"I don't have a particular preference which of those we do" — I don't have a preference either, so I chose one valid way of resolving the SUBCAT-non-compliance.

I understand that you don't always agree with my solution to the over-categorization, but your reversions of my perfectly valid edits, with no attempt on your part to explain why you reverted or present an alternative solution - until I raise the matter - are somewhat annoying. I don't have a problem with WP:BRD, but I suggest that in future you might start the discussion yourself as to how we might fix the over-categorization, rather than simply reverting and doing nothing to fix the problem. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

They're not perfectly valid edits - they don't make sense because, as you yourself admit, you don't consider what the categories are or what is in the categories before you start removing articles from one of them. You might notice that when I said "I don't have a particular preference which of those we do", what you did was not one of those options because it was the least sensible option possible. There is always an easy, non-contentious solution in these cases: actually look at the categories and what they're trying to achieve, and if there is any possibility it might be contentious, take it to talk so people can sort out the category structure. Or, y'know, you can create a daft category outcome, be reverted, post the discussion you should have started to begin with, and whine about being criticised, but that seems like the more painful way of going about it The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

as you yourself admit, you don't consider what the categories are or what is in the categories before you start removing articles from one of them — I "admitted" no such thing. Please stick to the facts, and don't make unfounded assertions about my thought processes.

... look at the categories... — I did. Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne looks like a perfectly reasonable subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures in Melbourne and Category:Tourist attractions in Melbourne. ("Heritage listed buildings" are "buildings" by any reasonable definitions of the words. Heritage listed buildings could reasonably be considered tourist attractions.) Nothing contentious there. WP:SUBCAT is a well-established guideline (do I need to quote the bit about non-duplication in child and parent again?); nothing contentious there. There's nothing on Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne to say its non-diffusing. There's nothing on either Category:Buildings and structures in Melbourne or Category:Tourist attractions in Melbourne to suggest that they are all-inclusive. So where exactly does it say "what they're trying to achieve" (other than WP:CAT, which explains in general what categories are for, and which I was explicitly complying with)? And why would I think that a well-established MOS guideline would not apply to those categories? As I have previously mentioned, if you revert my edits (which cited the guideline in the edit summary), if you re-add categories that are clearly contrary to MOS guidelines, please do me the courtesy of explaining why, at the time. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A tourist attraction is not necessarily a build, think Kings Park. Heritage Building is not necessarily a tourist attraction Edith Cowans House, being both makes sense. As does tourist attractions being categorised in Music venues, parks, or in transport(driver less bus in South Perth). Because at the moment a category only has buildings doesn't mean that it cant also have other item within in future. Likewise Brisbane & Melbourne arent outliers there just happens to be an absence of categories for Perth, Sydney, Hobart, Canberra, Adelaide and others. Gnangarra 09:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with dealing just filling the "absence of categories" in Category:Heritage-listed buildings in Australia is that the "heritage-listed buildings" structure doesn't work for anywhere but Western Australia - everywhere else categorises heritage-listed buildings by heritage register (e.g. Category:Queensland Heritage Register). Because of that, Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne and Category:Heritage-listed industrial buildings in Queensland will always be random outliers unless we totally overhaul the national heritage category tree, which you've always vehemently argued against. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the mistake is in putting Category:Heritage sites in Melbourne (a parent of Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne) as a subcategory of Category:Tourist attractions in Melbourne. Not all heritage items attract tourists. Breaking that nexus would address the issue I think? Are heritage items such as Saltwater River Rail Bridge, Richmond Power Station and Hawthorn railway station, Melbourne for example really seen as tourist attractions in Melbourne? There are still red links in List of heritage listed buildings in Melbourne which says it is a non-exhaustive list so there are probably even less wikipedia-worthy items of heritage, most of which would not attract tourists. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this change (makes total sense) but unfortunately this won't solve the problem - a lot of the articles Mitch removed were not from the tourist attractions category, but from Category:Buildings and structures in Melbourne, which they should absolutely be in. Short of just making the heritage-listed category non-diffusing to make the problem go away, that category is going to need some work to fit it into the structure of things somehow. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

We have ambiguity, embrace it accept that things be different in aspect yet the same in another stop trying to make everything either black or white. Gnangarra 11:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

a lot of the articles ... [were] from Category:Buildings and structures in Melbourne, which they should absolutely be in. — Those articles are in Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne, so WP:SUBCAT disagrees, unambiguously with you that they should "absolutely be in" the parent Category:Buildings and structures in Melbourne - "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category..."

making the heritage-listed category non-diffusing — that would solve the problem, for at least those cases. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT means that the situation you've flagged should be fixed, but your go-to solution never makes any sense in context, and, like all the other times this has happened, has been backed by zero other editors here. Making the category non-diffusing makes the problem go away (insofar as the problem is "Mitch is at it again"), but it's not necessarily the best solution because you've (again, as usual) found a category tree issue that actually does need discussing. if you're not going to helpfully contribute to the discussion beyond repeating "but WP:SUBCAT! but WP:SUBCAT!" in five different places perhaps now would be the time to bow out and leave it to editors willing to sort it out - for someone so fixated on this, I don't think you've ever helpfully contributed to a talk page discussion resulting from one of these sprees because you're incapable of paying any attention at all to what the specific categories you're fiddling with actually are and do. For everyone else, there are a bunch of better ways to sort out the "Heritage-listed buildings in Melbourne" category tree mess, and it'd be great to come to some sort of solution and fix the tree. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Categorization § A need for guidance. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturing plants

Category:Manufacturing plants in Melbourne and its parent Category:Manufacturing plants in Australia seem to be all about former factories. Equivalent categories for other countries appear to be (I only looked at a couple) about current factories. Does anyone know if there is precedent for a Category:Former manufacturing plants in Australia and/or is there a different category for articles about current manufacturing? Perhaps current manufacture is covered by Category:Manufacturing companies of Australia and focused on the organisation rather than the facility it uses? --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a case of overcategorisation: it should be upmerged to the almost-empty Category:Industrial buildings in Melbourne, which mostly avoids the issue (Category:Industrial buildings in Sydney doesn't have subcategories). Half the articles shouldn't be there at all: there's at least four articles about companies (not their factories) and a shot tower that isn't a manufacturing plant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

After carefully looking at this issue I agree with The Drover's Wife in so far as there being too many categories and the solution of merging them seems quite sensible. Merphee (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps factories are only WP:NOTABLE once they are heritage-listed and no longer being upgraded as technology changes. I have no problem thinking of a shot tower as a kind of manufacturing plant. I'd like to think that there is still manufacturing happening in Australia though. Subcategories of category:Wineries of Australia might be a source of candidate articles, but many of those are actually about the business not the physical winery itself too. I'm having trouble thinking of extant factories where it is the factory not the company that owns/uses it nor the product manufactured which is notable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

as an example of a non historic I would think the facilities for building the submarines in SA would be potentially notable, as would Austral facilities in WA. There bound to be more Caterpillar has a facility in South Guildford thats probably notable. There are bound to more in places like Shepparton in Victoria that have a history attached. It's only a minor concern over the use of manufacturing but what about fabrication and warehousing would they too be able to fall within the category. Gnangarra 06:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Gnangarra here - there are plenty of notable factories. We don't tend to do them very well because (even though I can think of plenty of examples that would comfortably pass GNG - the major automotive plants come to mind off the top of my head) the extremely aggressive deletionism on non-heritage business topics (if it exists, someone will try to delete it at least once regardless) puts users off working in that area. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We have Category:Motor vehicle assembly plants in Australia but despite it being named ...plants..., almost all the articles are for the companies. Broadmeadows Assembly is three sentences about a factory, but it's closed now anyway. There is surprisingly little about the facilities in Osborne in ASC Pty Ltd and ASC Shipbuilding. A little bit is in Collins-class submarine#Construction. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Aiia Maasarwe

For anyone who is interested, I have created an article in relation to the murder of the young Israeli woman in Melbourne, given the topic is continuing to attract significant coverage both here and internationally, especially given the wider implications in relation to the safety of women. Any contributions would be most appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

you need more information to avoid, one event and not news issues with the article. Gnangarra 11:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. Plenty of women get murdered in Melbourne. That this case was latched onto by the redtop media doesn't trump WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You'd probably do better to make an article on the Destroying the Joint group and their annual project, "Counting Dead Women", if you're after the broader picture. source. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that a specific named person has been charged, we should rename the article to "Death of ..." and remove references to "murder" (including categories) or replace them with "alleged murder" per WP:BLPCRIME. Does anyone have an opinions on this (either way)?Mitch Ames (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Mitch is correct. I think "Death of [Name]" is more commonly used in these cases - but Wikipedia pretty much always (in my experience) doesn't use "murder" with an ongoing trial for obvious reasons. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

for those interested

FYI - the failure of name changing is it does not have automated notification to relevant projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bulletin - some might be interested in this where it has Australia added to the title of the article.JarrahTree 15:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Beaumont children‎

Can someone go through Disappearance of the Beaumont children‎ and cut and cauterise all the crud and bulls-t that's accumulated in it? That crap about Jane Beaumont's purse being found in 2006, for example? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Australian flag in flag template

Hi Australia people, I was just gonna ask for approve/dissaprove for a change regarding the flagicon template which produces stuff like

Right now this uses the Flag of Australia.svg

, but I suggest that it should be changed to use the Flag of Australia (converted).svg

Both files follow official government specifications on the colours (RGB and Pantone), but the converted one is the one currently used on the article for Australia and the Flag of Australia.

...and in my opinion the converted version also looks more "natural" compared the "computer-y, non-natural bright" Flag of Australia.svg, (if you compare the files side-by-side to real life examples such as the gif and
https://nsca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Australia-flying-flag.jpg
https://au.educationhq.com/media/cache/66/79/x66797e1755ecbad1cbd204612a687551.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Th5kjPmgga.jpg and
http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0008/548819/Aus_Flag-1400w.jpg)
It would also is more in line colour-wise with other, similar style Commonwealth flags.

Note that the converted file description does state that "Note that the "bright" version is an official RGB colouring, and should be used instead of this for general use. See Flag of Australia.svg for main file information.", but this is strange to me considering that the Pantone colour are official specifications that have been given by the Awards and Culture Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of Australia. (While the RGB values comes from the Government Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers). So there is no version that would be "less official", and which is why it has been used for the Australia page etc.

Anyway, would you Approve or Disapprove if the template to produce flag icons was also changed to use the Flag of Australia (converted).svg instead?
Any thoughts or opinions?
--Havsjö (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In the target size, they are and . "Bright" is more likely to look blue (not black) in tiny size and potentially lowered-light monitors/phone screens. I (and I expect most other people) very rarely run my monitor at "full-bright" which is required for RGB values to match Pantone colours. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a comparison when its listed next to similar flags.

Flag	Pantone United Kingdom Solomon Islands Australia Fiji Australia New Zealand Australia Straits Settlements Australia Bahamas Australia Australia (1903) Australia	RGB United Kingdom Solomon Islands Australia Fiji Australia New Zealand Australia Straits Settlements Australia Bahamas Australia Australia (1903) Australia

Its rather minor, but it has always bugged me how this variant of the flag is used here compared to the one used in country article etc, making it so different compared to the other commonwealth flags around it (especially the red and if you look at them one-by-one like actually reading the list) every time in infoboxes/lists etc. But it people disagree I guess there would be no problem for it to stay the way it is
--Havsjö (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I find the small flag is almost indistinguishable, and the new svg converted version to be a clear improvement so I would support this —Cronium 08:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Any further opinions, for or against?--Havsjö (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Weak support: I slightly prefer the converted, darker flag. But I don't really know enough about the official status of flag images. Thanks for the work you've put into this, Havsjö. Meticulo (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter Thomson

Hi. There are currently no pictures of five times Open winner Peter Thomson on wikipedia. There are wikipedia compatible pictures available here https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/6814250/Holdings?lookfor=peter+thomson+%7Bformat%3APicture%7D&max=4&offset=1 (only accessible to Australian citizens), and here http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=SLV_VOYAGER3441573&context=L&vid=MAIN&lang=en_US&search_scope=Pictures&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,peter%20thomson&offset=0 (only accessible to residents of Victoria). I am not an Australian, so would appreciate it if someone was able to access and upload whatever they can. Thanks.--Jopal22 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

These seem to be physical items in onsite storage in Canberra and Melbourne—a print in the NLA and transparencies in the SLV, so I don't think it would be feasible to access and digitise these images. There don't appear to be digital versions available to Australians or otherwise. --Canley (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yeah sorry I think your right. Thanks for your help anyway. I was able to source a picture eventually anyway.Jopal22 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

OSM maps (reduxe) ... and screen readers

I did notice the previous discussion about this topic as it happened, but didn't pay it much attention because I'm blind and therefore can't use maps. However, it came to my attention while checking coordinates of various places in western New South Wales that Bourke, New South Wales had no coordinates listed. Geographical coordinates are one of the few ways I have to understand where places are without the aid of mapping. I therefore freaked out when Bourke had no listed coordinates (using my find feature to search for "coord" to find them is almost second-nature to me now) so I re-added them then did a self-rollback once I realised that their removal was a deliberate effort on MargaretRDonald's part. Any thoughts on what should be done from here would be appreciated; one of the virtues of Wikipedia for a screen reader user is its consistent layout, and I'm not a fan of that being disrupted. Graham87 10:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Graham87:I am no longer sure what my motivation was in the Bourke article. (Probably something to do with the inserted map on that page). However, for my money, co-ordinates should be inserted via wikidata, rather than directly in wikipedia: Inserting them via wikipedia means that they can differ depending on the wikipedia (and differ from wikidata). (I do agree that they are very useful.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought it might have been inadvertent due to the map replacement. In future if replacing the map, I suggest including the coords template with the just the title parameter, or if you want to use Wikidata, use the {{WikidataCoord}} template to transclude those coordinates. --Canley (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald and Canley: I've added the Wikidata coords template at Narrabri since that is a fairly substantial town. Would this be a good course of action for the other cases? Is this edit summary search a reasonable list of them? Graham87 02:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Graham87: & @Canley: Great course of action and very helpful stuff. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that it's not necessary to remove coordinates from articles in order to display the map and is actually undesireable. In the event that we start pulling coordinates from Wikidata (something I was looking at until the unexpected death of my wife in December) it will be based on the coordinates field and if that field has been removed it may result in a lot of articles being placed into Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, which will require that somebody go around to each of the articles and fix them. Last time over 2,000 articles were affected. Leaving the field will also leave the larger map but that's beneficial to most readers, especially on their first visit to an article, as it quickly identifies the location of a place within the larger region.

As an aside, Narrabri is one of those places that demonstrates how our reliable data sources can sometimes not be what they seem. According to the NSW Geographical Names Register, Narrabri is classified as a locality (in NSW a locality is the rural equivalent of a suburb but the terms are used interchangeably), not a town.[13] However, the description in the GNR entry identifies it as a town. The article uses the UCL figure of 5,903 for the population, which is common, but this is not actually the population of Narrabri. The state suburb figure is 7,606 and the map for that entry is for the actual locality/suburb/town.[14] This can be confirmed by referring to SIX maps, which is run by New South Wales Land and Property Information.[15] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Other language WPs have a wealth of articles that we currently lack, in some Australian categories

I discovered by chance recently what a wealth of articles some WPs now have in some Australian categories.

This is especially so in geography and, in particular, "Mountains in Australia 200 metres above sea level or higher", e.g. (at present)

• 8,416 articles in Cebuano ceb:Kategoriya:Kabukiran sa Awstralya nga mas taas kay sa 200 metros ibabaw sa dagat nga lebel
• 3,394 articles in Swedish sv:Kategori:Berg_i_Australien_200_meter_över_havet_eller_högre

Whereas we have, in English, only about 350 articles in subcategories of Category:Mountains_of_Australia_by_state_or_territory

I have read machine translations of some of the Cebuano and Swedish articles and they seem to be of a reasonable, if not good, standard. And also, it seems, easily translable to English. The articles seem to be mostly the work of Lsjbot, an article-writing app invented by Sverker Johansson. As of 2014, this bot had created 8.5% of the articles across all Wikipedias, in 287 languages. While there has been some criticism of Ljsbot as "lacking a human touch" (n.s.s. :-D), the articles did not previously exist and Johansson points out that the range of human-authored articles is heavily biased towards things of interest to typical WP editors, who tend (like Johansson himself) to be white male "nerds" (his word) from the northern hemisphere.

While I would love to volunteer for a sub-project to migrate these on mass, I am utterly lacking in skills/experience with bots/other such tools.

Grant | Talk 04:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Cebuano and Swedish bots were controversial to say the least, and a lot of people have been unhappy with the outcomes - in accuracy, in quality and in notability. I don't think there's much enthusiasm to repeat it again, and I don't think we need articles on many non-notable geographical features just because someone else ran a bot through the Gazetteer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of the wikidata topics that have articles in other languages but not English relate to the way that multiple topics are covered by one article, and wikidata does not permit links to sections of Wikipedia articles, nor to redirects. A quick example there is that wikidata:Q21983747 is about Lake Rowallan (ceb, de, sv) which does not have an article in English, but is covered in a section of Rowallan Power Station which has no other language articles. Others relate to the level of detail required. There are 19 languages with articles about wikidata:local government area of Australia - English isn't one of them, but we have an article for each "Local government area of <state>". Others are just bizarre - why would German Wikipedia have an article when English doesn't even have a standalone article for the island it is on (Heard Island is part of Heard Island and McDonald Islands)? Perhaps our coverage of a remote Australian territory is lacking. Unfortunately, the wikidata data quality seems to still be very immature and unreliable in many areas, too (eg the altitude of the power station is 36m higher than the lake mentioned above). --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

While the Lsjbot ceb/sv Wikipedia bulk generation predated Wikidata and could not have anticipated it, it has directly resulted in Wikidata "inheriting" the very poor data quality of these imports from the Geonames dataset, as Wikidata items were created from the ceb/sv "articles". --Canley (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the Wikidata concept has great potential. It needs a critical mass to be useful, and has sucked up data from all sorts of places, including various language wikipedias, with little visible regard to data quality. Unfortunately, in some areas, this has resulted in Wikidata being the low water mark instead of the high water mark for data quality. I did cherry-pick some examples to make a point above. There is a lot of good data in Wikidata as well, but I find it harder to judge the quality of any single item in wikidata than to judge the quality of a Wikipedia article. I'm not quite sure if that is because I am more familiar with Wikipedia, or if there is some other fundamental difference that makes Wikidata harder to evaluate. I have used the query service to help quality check or identify gaps in coverage a few times already. Some of the apparent mismatch in article coverage across wikipedias is not the fault of Wikidata, it just surfaces that way. For example, it might be reasonable in every language to have a single article that covers an artificial lake, the dam that creates it, and the power station that drains it. These are three distinct concepts that should have three distinct wikidata items (with relationships between them), but some language wikipedias might focus on the dam, some on the power station and some on the lake, leading to apparent deficiencies in the others. We have similar considerations with deciding whether articles should be about numbered road routes, or named highways for example where they diverge for part of the length, but overlap sufficiently that it would be silly to have two articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

recent spat between Kennerley and Stynes

Could someone who hasn't edited either article recently please have a look at Kerri-Anne Kennerley and Yumi Stynes? It seems to me that the incident and its fallout is reported widely enough to be mentioned, but at present it is not in the Kennerley article at all, and possibly too much coverage in the Stynes article. I think the goal would be to describe the incident without calling either person "racist" or "not racist" in Wikipedia's own voice. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's okay in the Stynes article - it's not like she has a huge history of notable stuff that would make it undue weight, and what's there does a good job of focusing on what the dispute was and what she actually said, considering the smear campaign against her.

The Kennerley article is harder because she's got such a long and prominent career that it's hard to slot in a controversy like this without it being undue weight: i.e. her article has one sentence for a three-year hosting role that won her three Gold Logie nominations. I think the way Dawn Fraser (who is a similar case of an old woman with a long history of being notable for other stuff getting into repeated racist barneys in her old age) covers her issues might be a way to handle it here while avoiding undue weight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There are still IP editors making spurious POV edits without consensus, further assistance needed at Yumi Stynes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There are still two very determined IP editors trying to start edit wars at Yumi Stynes, and one of them is an IP address owned by the Department of Defence (User:203.6.69.2), editing about something somewhat related to the Australian defence forces. This is beginning to get very strange indeed but more editors are needed here before this article becomes a blatant WP:COATRACK. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing Request for Comment on the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" in the infobox of the Australia article

There is an ongoing Request for Comment on the proposed inclusion of "God Save the Queen" in the infobox of the Australia article as the official Royal Anthem of Australia.

Link to discussion: Talk:Australia#Request for Comment on the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" as the official Royal Anthem of Australia

Regards, Brythones (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of Queensland - list of moderators

I came across this page, and discovered that the list of moderators was missing all moderators after Rollie Busch and before Bruce Johnson, except for John Mavor.

I have attempted to rectify this, based on my file "Moderators of the Queensland Synod of the UCA.xlsx" which I had last modified at 8:52pm on 12th July 2013, presumably to add the details of Dave Baker who had been elected as Moderator Elect in May 2013. Could somebody please check that I got the formatting successfully.

Honours awarded to those people are indicated to the best of my knowledge. I was tempted to include "Rev Prof" for Rollie Busch, but realised that doing this would probably break the link to his Wikipedia page. I included a note for Don Whebell's second term as being the first full time moderator in Queensland. Should mention be also made of John Roulston as the first (and so far only) lay person to be Qld moderator? Should Barry have an asterisk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutros55 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added those two items, and removed the tag that the list was incomplete. I found lists of previous moderators difficult to find when I tried to put them in all the synod pages. Thanks for filling Queensland's gaps. Quite a few of the others still have gaps too, if you happen to have a full set of lists of former moderators. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Something more for the article talkpage than here, but the section could do with some explanation of the moderator's influence. Is this essentially a courtesy post, or does the identity of the moderator actually influence or determine organisational or theological debates? Just so people reading this article can understand why this list is significant enough to include. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Kate McClymont Re-Write

Hey there, I've given Australian journalist Kate McClymont a tickle and removed the stub template. She will need an edit or 2 to tidy up my errors and the template on the talk page will need a look - I've removed the stub class, but I don't think its up to me to add a new class. I'm looking forward to any improvements an interested editor can make. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 02:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mass links / moves of aboriginal ethno articles

Posed summary at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia#Mass_links_/_moves. We might want to discuss if we should try to follow the AIATSIS reference names for the titles of the ethno articles, thought that's really more a linguistic than ethn resource. If we do, it would either require an admin here to make the moves, or a mass move request, which would be a pain. — kwami (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Need Pictures of two Aussie Cricketer

Anyone here, can you upload any pictures of Belinda Clark the first cricketer (considering men women) to score a double century and Amelia Kerr, scoring highest individual runs in women ODI !!! Please need it urgently for making some article acceptables as FL. Please do reply. Dey subrata (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

2017 AFL Rising Star is a Featured List Candidate

For those who are interested, I have nominated the 2017 AFL Rising Star page as a FLC (see discussion here!) This is a part of my own goal to increase the quality of AFL-related articles and lists (since August 2018 I have successfully promoted Norm Smith Medal, List of Gold Coast Suns players and List of AFL debuts in 2008 to FL-status). Please feel free to leave any comments and feedback, as it would be great to get more AFL editors involved! Allied45 (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate graphic

Minor issue at this graphic, the member for Ballarat did not abstain from the same-sex marriage bill as shown here, it was the member for Gorton, Brendan O'Connor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unincorporated Top End Region nominated for deletion

Unincorporated Top End Region has been nominated for deletion and could do with some Australian input. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unincorporated Top End Region. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Info box suggestion

Yet again - Info box format has become another topic, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney - which has impact on other capital cities in Australia, it seems the australian project is having the outsiders mis-perceptions of things trying to influence australian established conventions again, sigh ... JarrahTree 06:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Suppression orders

At the time of (what can now be revealed to have been) the Pell suppression order, we had a lengthy discussion on this page about suppression orders and why people shouldn't breach them. I noted at that point that the judge in that case had publicly noted that the order had been breached on Wikipedia and was considering widespread contempt charges.

With the lifting of the suppression order, it is now public that up to 50 journalists and editors potentially face criminal charges as a result of breaching the suppression order. I just put this here because it was clear in that discussion that there were widespread misunderstandings about the potential consequences for Wikipedia editors of doing so - regardless of their opinions on the suppression order - and since it's inevitably going to come up again at some point, it would probably be a good thing if people learned from this incident so we don't see Wikipedia editors winding up facing charges. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There is also heightened activity at the George Pell article as some are hearing about the conviction for the first time. Interested editors may like to keep a look out for vandalism or unsourced additions. WWGB (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 53#Article about a topic covered by a suppression order. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to all for broaching and engaging in this discussion, as this bio and media attention has emerged there is an opportunity for our article to demonstrate how content is presented in accordance with our policies: the very best attempt by a collaboration of individual editors at a NPOV. With the statements I heard on the news tonight by the American journalist (NYT?) I immediately thought there is an article in how this reported, not actually a spin-off of Pell, the comparative justice systems is one angle that has become a topic that has floated up out of this (albeit by the media's recent reports, which should be treated cautiously here). cygnis insignis 13:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an important point. Wikipedia can be a high profile source, and it's entirely possible that editors could be pursued over breaches of suppression orders (though the process for doing so is apparantly very difficult for people living outside Australia). The penalties some journalists are reported as potentially facing in this case include prison, so the stakes are very high. I'd rate the odds of Wikimedia choosing a hill like this one to die on as being very low if it was ever ordered to identify editors - who wants to protect people who ran the risk of a paedophile walking free due to their reckless conduct? Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No entry for Australian of the Year

Yesterday I updated the Template:Australians of the Year with joint winners Craig Challen and Richard Harris, only to discover that Richard Harris (anaesthesiologist) redirects to the Tham Luang cave rescue page. Anyone able to remedy this? Oronsay (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Richard Harris (anaesthetist). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC).

David Risstrom

This is an article that has been around for over ten years and surely doesn't meet notability criteria, but was kept after a deletion request so strange that it could only have come from 2008. I'm inquiring if anybody here knows this person to be more notable than only a local councillor and Greens candidate, otherwise it's going in the bin. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Salt it. The article is basically Greens whining that they didn't get Labor Senate preferences in 2004. No one has the right to preferences. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

My preference is that comments like that should be addressed 'To The Editor', in this case The Age newspaper (Feb 2019) [6 days ago]: Greens pick barrister to fight Labor in seat formerly known as Batman. This was the first hit when I stopped drawing on my own opinion and recollections of events and thought about editing our article. cygnis insignis 04:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, clearly I disagree, so please remove the prod cygnis insignis 04:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how that was clear. You're entitled to remove it but I think we can leave it there for a week and see if it gets substantially improved, or if we come to think it can be substantially improved. Particularly regarding notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it may not have been clear that I was not just grousing here, I primarily create content, I guess you didn't notice I edited the article moments before you prodded it. With the series of events that just appeared entirely dismissive of my contribution, and that it would best to have you remove the prod rather than look defensive of my own contribution to mainspace. cygnis insignis 04:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that the article has previously been to AfD (and resulted in a keep), it is not a valid candidate for a PROD in any case. Frickeg (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the rule should be changed so that an AfD more than ten years ago shouldn't be considered. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

He's still fairly well known from the 2004 Senate campaign even 15 years later - that was a pretty unique and historically notable losing candidate situation and very much the exception to the rule. There is also a huge difference between a city councillor in Sydney or Melbourne and your average rando suburban councillor - there's enough sources to even make an argument for inherent notability on that alone in my book. And he's got sources relating to other roles he's held. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that he doesn't pass GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not making the argument that he isn't notable, but I did not know of him, although I knew the Greens "lost" a seat in that election in the manner you describe. I think the historical significance of that is overblown, especially given that there have been numerous other upsets in Senate elections relating to preferences, and in any event he is irrelevant to that. I also don't see how a councillor is inherently more notable simply because they are councillors for the City of Melbourne or City of Sydney, and I don't think we've ever made that distinction. The main distinction I would make is for directly elected mayors. Surely this comes down to his other roles, and that is why I brought it here, because those roles aren't detailed on the article and I thought others may be of more help than I would be here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Although there have been other upsets, that one was particularly historically notable and is still discussed in reliable sources even now. Capital city councillors get far, far more attention than suburban councillors and are far more likely to pass WP:GNG. I could write a well-sourced article on just about any Sydney or Melbourne councillor, whereas even suburban mayors usually fail due to far less coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There's really no distinction between suburban mayors and suburban councillors of course. Maybe the notability of city-centre councillors overlaps with notability in other areas, but I don't see that being intrinsically notable like we do with elected politicians of legislatures. I would certainly encourage the creation of those articles if what you say is true, even if they only start as stubs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been dePRODed by virtue of process, ie, previous AfD. So it needs to go back to AfD if some one so thinks to do. If it gets back to AfD I believe I would be !voting delete. The subject seems to have been the subject of routine election reporting and campaigning and the only slightly interesting defeat is a single event anyway. Aoziwe (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The instant presumption of non-notability for unsuccessful electoral candidates is really frustrating in cases like this: although his article is boring and not particularly well-sourced, he's got tons of coverage and far more both in breadth and depth than a usual failed candidate. It just needs a good solid rewrite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I wasn't presuming that, but I saw it as a strong possibility. I'm only aware of him being a barrister, councillor and unsuccessful candidate, and not particularly notable in any of those three positions. It would be expected that an article of someone notable enough would have more contributions than simply from partisan malcontents, but this might be an odd situation. The purported reason to create the article, being that he didn't win a seat in anomalous circumstances, surely isn't enough. He's no Wayne Dropulich. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"more contributions than simply from partisan malcontents" and me, I would add if I want to maintain a level of polite discourse. You haven't haven't answered my query: did you notice I had just edited the article? Did you check google before raising it here? His new nomination six days ago is a coincidence? Yes no questions, but expand as you like.cygnis insignis 10:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually think Dropulich is a good comparison: Dropulich is notable for one thing, but he gets a pass because the fact he was technically elected passes him for WP:NPOL. They were both defeated in uniquely controversial circumstances, but Risstrom has more coverage in reliable sources over a much longer period of time and in more depth than Dropulich: it is possible to write a much more detailed article on Risstrom with the sources now available to us than it ever will be about Dropulich. But Dropulich is safe because of a technicality, while Risstrom is assumed to be non-notable by some editors. This sort of situation is Wikipedia notability assumptions at their silliest. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Risstrom's unsuccessful candidacy, which is a more accurate description than to say he was defeated, was really just typical political chicanery. The situation with Dropulich is far more notable, and the notability is much more relevant to him than the 2004 event was to Risstrom. If anybody is notable from what happened in 2004, it is Steve Fielding and not Risstrom. The situation in 2004 certainly isn't unique either, while the Dropulich case was. Not only did Dropulich win by the same manner Steve Fielding won a seat and with much less of the popular vote, there was also the unprecedented voiding of the election and subsequent by-election. Can you tell us what notability Risstrom has? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the contributors from ten years ago, regarding that it's clear it was written by people who were aggrieved at the 2004 election result. I most certainly exclude you from that description. I don't know if I noticed I had edited the article, but I added the PROD without regard to edits you or anybody have made, on the basis of a potential lack of notability. I checked Google and I didn't see anything that made him obviously notable, including an upcoming election candidacy, and I thought the judgement would be better made by bringing it to the attention of others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't just typical political chicanery: it's the one time in Senate history that a major party's preferences have elected a microparty diametrically politically opposed to them. It's still referenced fifteen years later as a result. He's been the subject of broad and deep coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time: it's undeniable that there is more verifiable information about Risstrom in reliable sources than there is about Dropulich. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So what should we put down as the notability of Risstrom then? I really am not trying to get this page deleted, I would much rather this page was retained, improved, and his notability satisfied. The reason for the PROD was to see if anyone thought he was notable enough, that's all. I also do not wish at all to minimise the the 2004 election result, and ideally we would have more written about that, not less. You keep alluding to him being notable enough but this event doesn't make him personally notable, even if the phenomenon is notable. You would know as well as I that the focus in reliable sources is entirely on the ALP, Family First and Steve Fielding, with Risstrom being hardly mentioned personally. He may very well be notable for other things, but that hasn't been reflected in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The notability of Risstrom is there: he was a major city councillor and a Senate candidate in uniquely controversial circumstances of lasting significance. There is solid coverage of him, personally, in reliable sources stemming from each of these things, as well as others - much more depth than Dropulich, who you agree is notable. It just requires the time to trawl through hundreds of sources to put together a good article, and I'm too busy in real life to have that kind of time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I think a headline naming a federal candidate confers notability without much else, and demonstrating otherwise is an ill-use of our time, contesting that with our opinion—how ever well informed—is unhelpful to discussion; just to clarify my position. cygnis insignis 11:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that being a candidate is enough to show notability? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No. How could I have been clearer about that? Why are you asking? cygnis insignis 12:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis I'm asking because it wasn't clear to me. Maybe you missed a word. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is looking like a clayton's AfD. The candidate might have got a lot of coverage but it was about the preference deal so it is really about Labor and Family First and the way our senate voting works, which is where the content needs to be, for that election outcome. The subject does not inherit the notabilty from the election mechanism deal, which they were not involved in. Aoziwe (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The coverage is not just about the preference deal, and there's plenty about him personally - but it obviously comes down a question of whether actual coverage or assumed-coverage-because-he-lost-an-election wins the day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is silly. If you want the article deleted, take it to AfD. Next time you want to PROD something, check whether it has been to AfD first. Pretty simple. Frickeg (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you think is silly? I proposed the deletion so that anybody who thought it was notable enough could remove it, otherwise it would be deleted. There seemed a good chance that this would happen given the inactivity on the article and the unconventional potential notability, but I was not personally supporting that article be deleted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions. Once the PROD has been removed or the article has been to AfD, deletion can no longer be considered uncontroversial and this has no time limit. Therefore, the addition of another PROD tag is improper and therefore silly especially since you claim that you were not supporting deletion. And, for future reference, any article prodded and then deleted can be restored simply by posting a request at WP:REFUND. PROD is not a permanent deletion process like AfD is. That said, I don't see why the article shouldn't go to AfD again as the reasons for keeping were pretty sketchy by today's standards. Yes he does have a profession outside of politics but so do most failed candidates, including me. While the election was on, local Hunter Valley media were playing sound bites from 3 people in their news reports; The PM, opposition leader and me. I even got a call from WA. Years after I failed to win a seat I was still getting calls from news agencies like the BBC (thanks for waking me up BBC!). I even got recognised by a member of the public at Movie World. Still, I don't think I meet the notability requirements, Maybe it's because I'm just some rando suburbanite and not a big city lor-ya. As for ongoing notability, none of that is mentioned in the article and a Google search is mainly candidate reports, Wikipedia and Risstrom's website. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically I thought if nobody removed the PROD then it ought to be deleted and that there was a good chance it wouldn't be removed. I didn't think surviving a previous AfD mattered if it was something so long ago, and I was alerted to my ignorance as soon as the PROD was removed, notwithstanding the several others who have told me this as well. I'm leaning towards !voting to delete it at AfD, maybe nominating it myself. I'm not convinced at all that his lack of success in 2004 makes him personally notable, even if the event was, and it's not even the only preference-type shenanigan that took place in 2004, let alone ever. It's possible he was a particularly notable city councillor, but it hasn't come to my attention how. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The election result is notable, the person himself is not. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If we were to make articles for every candidate based on the preference deals they didn't get then every One Nation candidate from 1998 would be notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've only just seen this discussion as I have been doing things-other-than-Wikipedia for a few days. The article as it stands fails to demonstrate WP:GNG, and fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. He is no more special than Alex Bhathal or Georgina Downer. It's not that he is assumed non-notable as a failed candidate, it's that being a failed candidate is not assumed to make him notable. It's a broader conversation if anyone thinks they can change the guidelines to make some (or all!) candidates wikinotable before an election or if they are not elected simply through them being candidates. Wikipedia assumed notability is skewed to make it easier to start articles for some topics/people than for others. That means that some kinds of articles need more work than others, for the same level of actual notability. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Oops - I forgot to come back here and reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Risstrom (2nd nomination) after I nominated it last night. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Tenterfield

Folks around Brisbane, or north NSW, might like an article I recently wrote, Tenterfield House, about a building which gave its name, indirectly, to the Tenterfield Oration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Sustainable Australia

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

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)

Disappearance of the Beaumont children

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)

Political alignment of Aus newspapers

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

NSW Geographical Name Register Mix'n'Match set

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)

Absolutely agree re display of the LGA name in the GNR, but warning folk not to expect an exact match in Wikidats. As ridiculous as this may sound, the easiest way I have to convert NSW coords into a NSW LGA is to use the Queensland Globe published by the Qld Govt which, for reasons beyond me, has layers for NSW LGAs and its suburbs and localities. The equivalent tool published by the NSW Govt (SixMaps or some name like that) can’t do this. Kerry (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Want a bit of a laugh?

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)

I couldn't find anything about it and I note that the article was created by JohannJunkeer whose only edits were on 14 and 15 May 2004 when he created the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a degree in Australian political science and am a politics and election nerd, and I've never heard of this supposed classification. If it does exist, it probably isn't notable. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s a hoax. A little digging suggests it is COI, promotional and possible undisclosed paid editing (but that may have allowed at that time). Kerry (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

well the prod is there and I fail to see anyone (including commentators here) adding proof that it is a justifiable part of the Australian project. Giving air to such rubbish doesnt help either - it says a lot about the demise of a broader range of editors in this project with bigger watchlists that it sits there so long untouched JarrahTree 00:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. I was beaten to it and it has been speedied. Aoziwe (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

List of cities in Australia

Over the past several months, List of cities in Australia has been subjected to a lot of disruptive editing by anonymous editors who keep adding non-cities to the article. At least twice now "regional centres" have been added. In fact, since July last year in the 77 edits made to the article, the only valid changes made to the article are some name changes and some notes. I've asked for page protection but until that happens, extra eyes on the article would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected. Stephen 02:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stephen: Well, that was a lot quicker than I thought it was going to be. Thanks! --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

John Curtin

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished add references to the page. It should pass GA now, but I can't help think it could stand a great deal more improvement. John Curtin is often regarded as Australia's greatest prime minister, and the only one from Western Australia. The article is listed as a level 4 vital article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Chicken parmigiana

Attention would be appreciated at chicken parmigiana, an editor there is attempting to make the article imply that this is a particularly American recipe, but the entire article could use work anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I had to laugh a little at how serious the issue is. We did it at least as early as 1951 - added to article - let the challenge begin? Aoziwe (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings

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.[16] 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.[17] I've asked for page protection. sigh. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it needs full protection.[18] --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)

Re: the exclusion of the shooter, I do wonder about the applicability in regards to Talk:University_of_Massachusetts_Dartmouth#Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev_Not_an_Alumnus. In that thread some persons wishing to disassociate Tsarnaev with the university attempted to add a precedent that only graduates of the university should be listed, but other editors rejected the idea as they saw the purpose was to distance the university from an unsavory person, even though the likes of McVeigh etc. are listed elsewhere. I am aware Tarrant doesn't have an article yet, but I could see a similar objection raised ("why are we now saying the guy has to have his own article when X cases exist) that was raised with Tsarnaev at UMass WhisperToMe (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 5#Remove Suspects Name the principle of damnatio memoriae was raised. This ties in with Ardern's recent speech and seems a worthwhile path to follow as much as possible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not. Ardern can do it if she wants, but we don't do that here. Wikipedia is not censored. StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Surely it is unencyclopaedic to adopt an outside authority's moralistic stance of concealing information. Yes, it was politically very astute for PM Ardern to take that posture, but it will be of no joy or value to future WP readers if we adopt such an obscurantist standard. And I have no doubt whatever that the world will recognise Tarrant as notable, whether we like it or not, as in the casae of Martin Bryant. WP is already a convenient promotional soapbox for many egos and ideologies, but our task is surely to to reduce that potential, not add to it. Bjenks (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, we say that Wikipedia is not censored but there are times we practice different forms of censorship. For example, all edits of sockpuppets are subject to immediate reversion so the pages look as if the sock was never there, even if the edits were constructive. That is censorship and what whatisface did is far worse. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing any information added by sockpuppets of banned people is not done because of what's in the information itself (so not censorship in the sense of "we don't want this information"). Instead it's to prevent banned or blocked users from editing (otherwise they could proclaim but it's useful and we'd be forced to keep their edits, and therefore keep their participation). WhisperToMe (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In the case of sockpuppets, trolls and vandals, WP:Deny recognition is usually cited. That seems perfectly applicable here.

Bjenks: You seem to hold contradictory positions. Or are you saying that naming the perp will reduce Wikipedia as a platform for promotional soapboxing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if he means that suppressing the name would just cause a Streisand Effect where people gloat about people trying to deny recognition and failing? (correct me if I'm wrong, Bjenks). BTW I read a film review of The Dark Knight which explained that the Joker was trying to put the city/authorities in an unwinnable situation, so that even if they "won" against him, they still lose in the end. The killer is putting us in that situation. It's important not to compromise Wikipedia's ideals, even if what we do is painful. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how our treatment of sockpuppets is relevant to proposed exclusion of basic information about a notable villain. Bjenks (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the reason that we remove the edits of sockpuppets, it's still censorship. @Bjenks, if you read my post you will see that my point is that while we claim to not censor, we do when it suits us and the removal of sockpuppet posts was a quick example. As for being a "notable" villain, he's not. He's a villain for sure but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO it's more accurate to say "we don't know whether he will meet the notability criteria when the dust settles". People like Timothy McVeigh, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Andrew Kehoe, Jeff Weise, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, etc. now have standalone articles, while Nikolas Cruz (Parkland shooter), Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane killer), Kip Kinkel (Thurston High shooter), Michael Carneal (Heath High shooting), Luke Woodham (Pearl High shooting), and Steven Kazmierczak (Northern Illinois U. shooter) do not/have not yet reached that threshold. It'll depend on how much analysis of the person's life and motivations is released. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Right. And (unlike the case of Martin Bryant, where Australian authorities forced a guilty plea which avoided a proper trial) we may see reliably sourced evidence manifested in a forthcoming judicial process. So why must we try to prejudice WP content at this early stage? Bjenks (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning egg incident

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)

Sacred Heart College, Sorrento - Joseph Tran

I'd like some opinions about this addition by PeterB12456 - which I previously deleted. It definitely does not belong in the lead section. Possibly it should be in a separate "controversies" section, but even then I'm not sure it belongs at all, being WP:UNDUE. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it does not belong in the lead. A lead should be a summary of due weighted key aspects of the overall subject, and unless this sentence defines the subject it does not belong in the lead. Yes a controversies would be more appropriate, but at this time it is only an unsubstantiated allegation, mostly heresay, and still under investigation, so I suggest, while WP is not censored, it is just tabloid and should not be there at all until the outcome of the police investigation is known. Aoziwe (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tran is now deceased and therefore the police investigation, such as it was, will not go any further. There has been no indication in the reliable sources I have seen that his accuser was or is a student at this particular school. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)