Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


100 Featured articles

It appears we now have 100 Featured articles! It doesn't appear that we have had an article promoted recently, so perhaps the 100th article was as a result of a tagging exercise. For curiosity's sake only, I would be fascintaed to know what the 100th article was if anyone could tell me. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It was Peregrine falcon. SatyrBot did tag it, but it did not FA tag it. A human later changed it to FA. So there could be other FAs that SatyrBot tagged but did not label as FAC. We only have 85 FAs to the best of my knowledge. The others are the risk of sounding snobbish...FAC is the ultimate test, after all, there is no 1a at FLC, and a large proportion of FLs violate MOS and don't have properly formatted refs! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
SatyrBot tags many articles with WPA because they are in categories such as "birds of Australia" or "hit records in Australia" and these should normally be reversed. Peregrine falcons are found in many countries, but WPA is the only country project which claims it. I would take the tag off it, but I'm also concerned that this would have to be done again next time SatyrBot runs. I've already reversed SatyrBot twice on RAI International.--Grahame (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
{{nobots|deny=SatyrBot}} does the trick. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the WPA tag off Peregrine falcon and denied SatyrBot pending a case being put that it should apply.--Grahame (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that FAs are more signifcant than FLs, but I think that the Australia articles table should include the number of lists, as other project tables do. Also if an article is rated as a list it is shown at the quality log as being removed, when all that has happened is that it has been classified as a list (implying some chance of becoming a FL, if not FA).--Grahame (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the FLs should have their own cats. At the risk of degrading FLS, both of my FLs took about 6 or so hours to rattle off, although creating all the articles was teh main problem. Now that all Australian Test cricketers have their own article, we could easily inflate the records by creating all sorts of stats lists and pasting them in from Cricinfo. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems we're back down to 99 again, then? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes 99, unless you include Blnguyen's Vietnamese articles (Nguyen Ngoc Tho was promoted today).--Grahame (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Blnguyen. Daniel (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hah! Don't forget Wikipedia:WikiProject Blnguyen/Daniel's occasional FL stint taskforce. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Emphasis on occasional. Daniel (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to 100 FA/FL again. Is this time genuine? -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We'll need to wait for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australia articles by quality log to update. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
See below.--Grahame (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

I have proposed Stump-tailed skink be moved to Shingleback skink - discussion at the talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

100th featured article/list

Satyrbot added WPA to Battle of Greece and this is now showing as 100th FA/FL, but it again raises the question of whether Australia's involvement in the battle warants inclusion.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I did not know much about this particular part of the 39-45 war, but having read the article, I'd say that Australia's participation was deep enough that it's worth the article being a part of this project. The article actually goes into Australian contributions to the battle in some detail, as well, which is nice. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
Australia's involvement in this campaign was significant: about 1/4th of the Australian Imperial Force fought there, the Commonwealth forces were under the command of an Australian headquarters and several Australian warships escorted convoys to and from Greece. Hundreds of Australians were killed and thousands captured during the campaign, which basically wrecked the 6th Division as a fighting force. The bungled campaign also led to a collapse in support for Robert Menzies which caused the eventual downfall of his first government. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to add another voice of support - I'd researched this battle a while back, as my Grandfather fought in the 6th Division both in this battle and then in Crete. As far as I can gather, it is considered highly significant from an Australian perspective - between this battle and Crete which followed, almost 40% of the Australian troops in the division were either killed or captured, which is why the 6th took most of the war to reform. - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nambour Chronicle back archives now available online

Just saw this in ALIA's Incite magazine...

"[A few governments/shires/whatnot] have scanned from microfilm and made available, in digital format, the entire full text run of this newspaper from 1903 to 1955."

Enjoy, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they've done that very well with a searchable keyword index. And the paper has surprisingly reasonable coverage of national news. I only wish that more papers did the same. —Moondyne click! 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I have registered an account there (it's free), so if anyone needs access and doesn't want to (or if they disable registration one day) gimme a yell. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Add some registrations to bugmenot. ;) Thanks for posting this. Looks awesome. --pfctdayelise (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Love Outside Andromeda

Anyone heard of this band? May want to step in with some refs to see if it qualifies for notability. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They meet WP:MUSIC#5, for the record - 2 albums on a notable label. I've watchlisted and removed the notability tagging...might work on it one of these days. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, removed the probably copyvio that was attracting two of the tags there and whipped up a quick bio of them, and two refs (both Triple J). Article doesn't look terrible now! (For the record, I haven't heard of them, no.) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've heard of them. They are not bad :) --pfctdayelise (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Review requested

I just wrote up Port Macquarie-Hastings Council dismissal, 2008 - it was getting way too big for a section of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council so a new article seemed worth creating. If anyone wants to have a go at improving it, or thinks a better title is warranted, feel free. In addition, probably an idea for those interested in such things to watchlist it as it could be controversial. Orderinchaos 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Powerhouse Museum PD images

User:pfctdayelise brought this up on the m:Wikimedia Australia mailing list (and just a quick plug that the incorporation meeting is on in 6 days!), but since I don't see it here I figure it's worth a mention - the Powerhouse Museum is releasing a large number of images into the public domain. The Flickr collection is here, and they're also being brought onto Commons here. And from what I can see, over half of them are geotagged. Those of you working on articles with a historic bent (particularly Sydney-based ones) would find it worth taking a look through them. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography issues - other opinions sought

I'd like to invite general comment on the inclusion or otherwise of some material in the Estelle Blackburn article which is questioned by Cygnis Insignis. The details can be seen in the talk page for the article. As I've pointed out on my talk page under the heading BLP this has the potential to affect other articles/references, the "Claremont" article in particular. I also post this to the WA Wikiproject discussion page. Retarius | Talk 06:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, only one comment received, from Gnangarra, on the discussion page for the article. I concur with his proposed modification and, as five days is a fair whack of the goanna's tail, I call this meeting closed. Retarius | Talk 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

New GG

First female GG Quentin Bryce to succeed Jeffrey [1] --Matilda talk 05:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd say that was a significant first, but it's kind of hard to get excited when we've had a female head of state for the last 56 years. ;-) Hesperian 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the takeover of this country by glorious mother Queensland continues =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
They only need a Queensland Chief Justice of the High Court and Rudd will have the trifecta. JRG (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Banksia mentioned in scientific study

This study on the use of scientific citations in Wikipedia found WikiProject Banksia's use of scientific references to be so good that it skewed the results:

"The total scientific citation pattern in Wikipedia is quite comparable to the total citation pattern seen between journals, though there is some tendency for Wikipedia contributors to cite high-impact journals, such as Nature and Science, more than journals that receive a lot of citations, such as Journal of Biological Chemistry. “Astro”-journals are often cited — more than would be expected from statistics from Journal Citation Reports. The Astrophysical Journals was found to be the most cited “Astro”-journal. Many citations also go to Australian botany journals, seemingly because of the Banksia Wikiproject that has made well-referenced articles for this genus of plants with the beautiful flowers. A number of the articles for these plants has become so-called “featured” on Wikipedia: Coast Banksia, Brown's Banksia (this Banksia is listed as endangered), Heath-leaved Banksia and Banksia epica."

Thanks to Cas for finding this. Hesperian 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a credit to Cas and you for putting together such good articles. Gnangarra 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Looking through the Category:FA-Class Australia articles at least 10% are Banksias and Fairy-wrens, all very well referenced and written. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work to all involved. :) Is also an inspiration to the rest of us that making the effort with academic sources is worth it. Orderinchaos 07:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Now THAT is freaking cool. congratulations on causing an outlier ;) pfctdayelise (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hats off to Hesp. and Cas for the recognition. You guys set a standard that we all aspire to. —Moondyne click! 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Images

If anyone is interested, this album on Flickr is full of fantastic aerial imagery of Sydney and its inner harbour, taken in Feb of this year - they are all Creative Commons images too. There are some good shots of the Harbour islands (I've already uploaded one of Cockatoo Island), Barangaroo before all the buildings were demolished, Rhodes Peninsula, Cabarita and Breakfast Point, and a couple of other places. It would be great if someone with a bit of time could upload some of these to Commons and put them on some of the pages; they would make good additions to our photo collection. JRG (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality count

The quality count for FAs, GAs and FPs above used to automatically update, but seems to have stopped lately. It shows 91 rather than 97 FAs.--Grahame (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 98, SatyrBot having discovered Red-winged Fairy-wren (+1 FAC, 1 FLC).--Grahame (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot responsible for that job only runs once per day. -- Longhair\talk 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It hasn't been running properly for some time. I manually updated it not long ago but it hasn't been touched since. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's correct. {{Australia opentask/Count}} hasn't been updated by the bot since 23:07, March 10, 2008. There's been no changes to the code within that template that would affect the bot visiting and I can't spot any obvious problems. I'll drop the bot owner a note to see what's up. -- Longhair\talk 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A bug in the bot's code had caused it to stop functioning. Things should be running as per normal now. -- Longhair\talk 09:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, great news. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar School

Hello all. At present this article is an FAC candidate. There have been few comments from reviewers, and I would be grateful to anyone who can read through the article and suggest improvements. This is a former FA and is very close to the standard required, but with only one opposing vote thus far and no detail as to the problems in the article I need help to work the article up to the standard required. Thanks. Harro5 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project

Hi everyone, I have worked on this article (mainly by myself) for a while now and it's been progressing well, it seems to be developing some good shape and form. This is quite a major issue at the moment that has caused alot of controversy and if we worked hard on it, it could be built it up to something quite good. I have made contact with Blue Wedges and their professional photographer and hopefuly I will have some images up soon...

Any help with expanding the article/suggestions/comments would be much appreciated. Davido321 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Admin/User needed at ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Deakin University associate professor

Did anyone read Wikipedia breeds 'unwitting trust' says IT professor and think "Research first, then conclusions"? Andjam (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it is Sharman speaking - she mostly researches in KM (or at least that's where our interests tend to coincide), and thus what she's saying is from that perspective. In KM the aim is to collate knowledge, with a distinction being drawn between knowledge and information. From her perspective, Wikipedia is, at best, information, as knowledge has certain requirements (and I'd need to check with her as to how she sees this, but my guess is that she uses the justified true belief model) which Wikipedia doesn't enforce. She's focusing mostly on the truth criterion in the article, but also touched on justification. That being said, most of her claims are standard practice - no-one I know accepts Wikipedia for citations, (including Wikipedia), but the "acceptable" list is very, very small anyway, so the vast majority of sources are precluded. But I do find the "niche" versions of Wikipedia funny - by definition, they have to suffer from the same problems Wikipedia suffers from, or they need to apply a very different model. So I'm not sure that their appearance is relevant to her concerns. And I did think "research first, then conclusions" too. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think she lost credibility when the article said "she said, adding there are certain political views, particularly conservative, that are not tolerated on Wikipedia". That's right, POVs are not permitted on Wikipedia! Also, should we do anything about Sharman Lichtenstein? Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
Actually, I'm seriously surprised that she has an article - I wouldn't have thought an associate professor met the notability guidelines for academics unless they've done something special on the way. On the other hand, she is now in Computer World - does that provide notability? :) If so, maybe someone should update the article and kill the prod.
She lost me with "If someone asked me if I would dedicate a day a week to Wikipedia I would expect to be paid." There are issues with experts and Wikipedia, but that some experts wish to be paid isn't the same as all experts wish to be paid, and it is counter to my experience here. :) She should have a look at KM, which is (unfortunately, perhaps) buried in experts. On the other hand, my dealings with her have all been very good, so maybe the article takes her views out of context. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with both of you. The ideas fit together in a way - the idea that one must necessarily be paid for sharing one's time and research is consistent with the conservative mindset which tends to want to control or repress everything or push it through a filter. That being said, her comment:
My students say Wikipedia is a good place to get a general understanding of a topic," she said. "They get a good understanding of a topic and get more specific information elsewhere. There is a need for easy-to-use information that is correct and has been produced by a rigorous process."
is exactly the advice I would give students. A citation of Wikipedia works for high school essays but the level of critical inquiry required at university requires sourcing well beyond it. It's funny, I was reading about that professor whose class turned out 1 FA and 7 GAs on Latin American literature (it's on a back issue of Signpost and well worth reading) and he seemed to believe that any article on Wikipedia at that level probably wouldn't need to be cited as it would be referenced so extensively you could go back to the sources the Wiki writer used and cited. It's interesting to note the lack of success of other services such as Citizendium which try to address the expert knowledge issue. Orderinchaos 09:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I give my students the same advice. :) Indeed, I was writing a paper recently on the Turing test, (or at least the test figured prominately in the paper), and used Wikipedia to get an idea of where to start the research. Then I went back when the work on that area was done and started writing what I'd been reading back into the article. A neat circle. Given that Sharman seems to approve of using Wikipedia to start research, I'm surprised that the article as a whole was so negative. - Bilby (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos's reference seems to be to refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-14/2000th FA ("If a Wikipedia article is a good one, then you won't need to quote it, as it will have links to all the relevant sources."), which is all of 5 days old.--Grahame (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. For my part, writing while sleep-deprived is never a good idea. Orderinchaos 02:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Which meaning of the word "conservative" did you intend, Orderinchaos? Andjam (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Economic right wing, I suppose. It's an attitude I've heard offline before (well, one of two attitudes - the first one being that one shouldn't do something for others unless one is paid for it, the other being that it drives down the market rate for writers and is some kind of risk to the free market). Some social conservatives would also object to an encyclopaedia anyone can edit because of a fundamental mistrust of human nature and a belief that evil will rule when what they perceive as anarchy is allowed to flourish. Orderinchaos 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh to make such statements publicly. Within the context of the comment one can only presume compensation was made for the comment, and therefore its not necessarily independent. Can reliability then also be called into question? Gnangarra 16:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Chris Anderson of the Long Tail reckons you don't make money from comments like this. Instead, you monetize the attention through grants, speaking fees and book royalties and the like. Andjam (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Supressing and censoring content is not consistent with free markets. Free markets mean being able to sell DVDs of Loose Change. (Thankfully, free markets also mean books like "Counterknowledge") Banning Loose Change or banning collaborative encyclopedias would be a form of protectionism. Andjam (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the Microsoft (and similar companies') response to open source, and claims it will kill off initiative elsewhere as commercial vendors will see no financial opportunity in innovation. I do agree with you, though. Orderinchaos 12:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Collaboration of the fortnight

1983 America's Cup was ACOTF from 7 April 2008 to 20 April 2008

  • Only two contributors made only 2 edits
  • The article increased from 3264 bytes to 4197 bytes
  • See how it changed

Perhaps I failed by changing it late, and not notifying the nominators and voters.

Anyway, this time round is Australia-New Zealand relations. Let's see if we can do better. Please help if you can. --Scott Davis Talk 13:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Australia's "continental shelf"

With the recent news about "Australia's continental shelf being expanded" [2], it has got me thinking. You don't negotiate with the UN for this, you negotiate with the gods of plate tectonics for this :P I would have thought the correct term was "Australia's legal maritime claim" or "Australia's territorial waters" are being expanded. GA uses the term "extended marine jurisdiction". Does anyone have any other suggestions as to which term is technically correct and consistent within Wikipedia? -- Chuq (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it is a good point to differentiate the geology from the international legal aspects, marine jurisdiction sounds fine to me and so does maritime claim or territorial waters--Matilda talk 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The jurisdiction is actually expanded to cover the under-sea land of the continental shelf - it doesn't include the water above it (outside of the standard 200nm EEZ). I would go with the GA descriptor, and avoid referring to it as a "maritime" claim or "waters". PalawanOz (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The proper term is "continental shelf" (which in this context has a legal meaning distinct from its geological meaning). See our article on UNCLOS and the relevant part of UNCLOS. --bainer (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Standard Emergency Warning Signal Technical problem

I was not able to link to this website because it includes square brackets[1].wav Sample of siren sound. What can be done about this? Kathleen.wright5 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks it worked. Kathleen.wright5 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You should be able to use an escape code. Let's try ... [3]. Ta-da! Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SMH Archives

If anyone has access to back editions (or online archives), I have found a SMH article from 1986 that (I think) I would like to use as a source in the Colin McCool article. My problem is that it costs $15 for a day-pass to the archives and I have no idea if the article actually contains the material I am looking for. Any help in accessing the article would be appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have access through NewsBank, so it might be there (they have SMH articles, but I'm not sure how far back, or how good the coverage is). Do you have a title? - Bilby (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"One of Bradman's invincibles dies" dated Sunday, 6 April 1986. I have JRG on the case as well. Thanks very much for your help. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it looks like NewsBank only has SMH back to 1999. If it is of any use, I've got 220 hits on his name in NewsBank, with some nice articles mixed in. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, thanks for having a go. My email is activated if it is possible to email a list through. Specifically, I am looking for details on his military service and family details (parents, brothers & sisters, wife, children, etc.) education. My thought process was that they would be in an obit. and he died 5 April 1986. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 06:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a little information I have found:
Colin Leslie McCool married Dorothy Evelyn Yabsley in Sydney in 1943.[4]
Dorothy Evelyn McCool, late of Umina, died 28 September 2005 [5]--Melburnian (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The Factiva database I have goes back to 1 September 1986, so just a little early. Recurring dreams (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all very much. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Some libraries will also have it on microfilm, such as the National Library or your state library. It still takes about half an hour to find the reel, and then find the correct page on it though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As it turned out I was in Melbourne yesterday and visited the SLV. The staff there were very friendly and helped my find the article in microfilm and print a copy. It didn't quite have what I was after but it was still useful regardless. Thanks to everyone for the advice. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrimp farm

Somebody has added WPA and nine other country projects to this FA. I don't see the logic of this.--Grahame (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. I think the bot's partying at the expense of us mere humans. :) Orderinchaos 09:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Bah logic or not - Now thats adding cats with a vengeance ! - imho (as a cat tagger sometimes loose) all country tags should be removed due to the nature of the subject - it could keep going beyond that. Thats taking cats to the highest idiocy SatuSuro 09:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed them - that was very silly. Just some random searching showed also Krill with an odd WP country tag - perhaps Krill is only Krill in Japan ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Very dangerous territory there - best check all the whale articles for the same country name? your turn there :| SatuSuro 10:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australia#Concern_over_Aussie_newspaper_articles, a discussion's started re the banner images we have for Australian newspaper articles, three of which are about the Cronulla riots. Orderinchaos 09:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Speaking of newspapers, is The Sydney Bulletin a different rag to The Bulletin? I've never actually heard of the former (not that that means much), and there's a clue that they may be referring to the same thing (Phil May, Norman Lindsay). Googling mainly refers to WP mirrors. Moondyne 16:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This link certainly implies that they are the same. A search on David Low found a reference that says he was at the Sydney Bulletin from 1911-1919[6] and another that speaks of his involvement with The Bulletin during the same period.[7] The La Trobe reference also mentions the "Syndey published Bulletin" [sic]. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on Phil May states he was attached to The Sydney Bulletin, or The Bulletin as it was better known - the initial creation of the article on the Sydney Bulletin referred exclusively to May. I have created a redirect.--Matilda talk 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A search of the NLA catalogue also seemed to confirm they were the same thing--Matilda talk 02:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Moondyne 01:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Category: Australians of British descent

This category has recently been created. I'm not experienced in such things but am concerned that it may not be a useful or notable distinction. ("Yeah her great-great grand-mother was from Britian.") In addition Category:Australian expatriates in Mauritius and Category:People of British descent have been created. Is this normal? Any suggestions? At this rate the bulk of all articles will consist of a mile of Categories with a little info perched above. SmithBlue (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit of a silly one - thanks for highlighting it. Australian expatriates in Mauritius, provided they are notable for that, may be a useful one however. Orderinchaos 04:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My dark vision is that every feature of an article will become a category. John Howard; Categories: Solocitor ,Syd Uni grad, MP, Treasurer, PM, PM lost seat, AustBrit Desc, pol, cricket fans, born year, parents married year, parents birth years, grandparents birth years, 4th child, former resident Earlwood, father in WWI, grandfather WWI, orphans, hearing impairment, speech impairment, etc etc etc. His info box alone contains 13 possible categories (to my count). At a guess I think we'll do 250+ categories easy if we try! Just making up this short list I begin to get a feeling of why catagorizing is so popular! Any chance of pointing me to some-where that will re-assure me (or offer treatment)? SmithBlue (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I know this opinion will likely be unpopular, but why would an article appearing in a large number of categories be undesirable (provided of course that all of the inclusions are based upon reliable sources and the other usual criteria for including information)? Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC).
Provided the criteria are satisfied I don't see that it is undesirable but there has to be a reason for inclusion and a limit somewhere. For example, my mother is a sixth generation Australian but she is of British descent so theoretically she'd qualify for inclusion in the category if she had an article on Wikipedia. But should she be included? If you say yes then you have to place a practical limit on how far back you go because if you don't then every Australian bio should be included in Category:Australians of African descent. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I was speaking generally, not particularly on the case of "Descent" categories. If we can reliably place one person or article into 200 categories, then why not? As far as the "descent" categories go, plainly there needs to be some reliable sources to confirm that actual descent exists (on the CfD page I ventured that either self-identification or citizenship would be good criteria to apply to stop things getting too ridiculous). That way, if I were notable, you could keep me out of "Russian Australians" and "Aboriginal Australians", even though I have both of those ethnic groups in my distant ancestral history. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC).
Category:Deceased Australian expatriates in Majorca? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop it! You think you are being funny but just 40 minutes ago I was a normal content editor but already now I can't go for more than 1 minute without creating a new category. And it feels so good! Soon you'll be hooked to and then we can categorize all of Project Australia! (Humour) SmithBlue (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Megan Gale, despite being born in Australia is in Category:British Australians just because one of her parents is originally British. I note she's not in Category:Polynesian Australians though. Nor is she in Category:British/Polynesian Australians or Category:Polynesian/British Australians. It really is ridiculous. I wonder when we'll see Category:Australians with bums. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is insane - too broad to be useful. Nominate for deletion I say. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I note this new category (ie Australian's of British descent) is a category wholly consistent with the outcome and precend set in the recent discussion here
I myself would like to please, please point out that each and every notable Australian articled on Wikipedia will have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 16 great grandparents, and 32 great grandparents .. thus, each and every person holds within thier biological selves the potential to be descended from people from 32 or more different nations .. and so categorised into up to 32 or more different 'descent based' categories .... making each and every one of the xxx(nation)-Australian plus Australian of yyyy descent based categories "nonsense" categories.
Not sure how to go about it .. but believe/agree all the Australian by nation/ethnic original categories need to be revisited/ thought about again .. and, if kept, may need to be subsistuted with Australians identifying as of xxxx ethnic origin?!! Otherwise .. as the song goes "I am, you are, we are all Australians"!! Bruceanthro (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 29 Peter Ballard (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

and .. the other nation/descent based nonsense categories .. does this nominated get waited out first .. then see from there?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701

Tagged an included in WP:AUST as a B-class article, while it ascribes who is the successor to the Queen it has no content specifically related to Australia. Is this a case of unnecessary tagging? Gnangarra 04:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Only those articles that WP:AUST are prepared to maintain should be tagged as such. This is an Act of the English Parliament that makes no reference to Australia at all. On the same principle, any Act of the English and United Kingdom parliaments before the Statute of Westminster 1931 that still applies to Australia could be tagged for WP:AUST. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It does affect the succession rules for our head of state (as far as I'm aware, there is no specifically Australian law to deal with this), but it's peripheral enough that I don't think there's any need for it to be a part of WP:AUST. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC).

Image request...

Would anyone be able to help me out with an image for Taxiride? I haven't seen them live...has anyone? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

on Flikr there are some like this Gnangarra 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
All rights reserved. :( dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Coast

Can someone with a knowledge of the social and demographic characteristics of this region please contact me? I'm trying to make sense of some political maps I've made which, well, aren't making sense as I don't know the area. Thanks. :) Orderinchaos 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey Delaney at DRV

Ooops...originally forgot to list this here. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 7. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He may now be notable for other things apart from his party antics. Apparently (so I've been told, I don't know for sure otherwise) he's released a cover of the Beastie Boys hit, (You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party!) and also appeared on this year's Big Brother. -- Longhair\talk 08:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, sources for both of things are listed at the DRV. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking of web 2.0 social networking, is there any way for a bot to remind someone they're planning to go to a meetup?

Also, is he going to help us with our next wikimania bid? Andjam (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Probably...WP:BOTREQ is your friend.
2) I hope so. ;)
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Women for Survival

Does anyone have any additional sources on this rather bizarre protest/encampment in front of Parliament House through October 1986? I have an academic journal which describes the event in at times comic detail, but would prefer to have multiple sources from which to write the article. Orderinchaos 08:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anyone on here would have much - your best bit would be to hit the papers. The Canberra Times would probably be a good start. Rebecca (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed even the NLA has one scrap book :( SatuSuro 09:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I found a few SMH articles on Factiva but not quite enough to give background (most of them are at the level of salacious gossip). The Battye allegedly has the CT on microform so I'll look there when next I get in in a bit over a week. Orderinchaos 10:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another roadside attraction?

A new nomination at Cfd Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_8 - Visitor attractions - interesting - 500 + category items - affects all state projects - worth a squiz - cheers SatuSuro 07:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Another again - the exciting changes again: - Just in anybody hasnt noticed all Australian protected areas are now up for the dramatic change of the word in to of - somebody wants to do a global, sigh SatuSuro 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet another stroke of good luck SatuSuro 06:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chilean Australian

A few more eyes on this great debate might un-deadlock it. It is a 1-1 stalemate at the moment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the issue is. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Brink - Tasmanian Eyes Needed

I came across these pages while on NPP:

There is no indication that they are particularly notable, and from my involvement with community radio here in Brisbane, I'm not sure that hosts of such programmes are automatically notable. Can any Tasmanians either verify for me that this programme and its hosts are more notable than community radio programmes normally are, or tell me that they've never heard of them? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Both articles are recreations of previously deleted material, I have redirected to Edge Radio and salted the pages Gnangarra 12:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A nifty trick

The Twelve Apostles

As you probably know, Flickr's advanced search allows you to search for Creative Commons-licensed images that may be modified and may be used commercially. Such images are compatible with our mission, and can be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. I've often searched for images of specific things; I'm sure you've done the same. But just now I ran a search using only the word "Australia", and got 88,000 results. Then, instead of sorting the results by "most relevant", which I would normally do, I sorted it by "most interesting". The result? - A mixed bag of absolutely stunning photos. Some are too - what's the word? - pretentious - to be useful here, but many are both encyclopedic and beautiful. I just thought I'd share this trick, in case others want to try it out. Hesperian 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This link takes you to Australia-images that are free for our purposes (derivatives and commercial uses are allowed). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Taxi blockade, 2008

I intend to initiate an article entitled 'Melbourne Taxi Blockade, 2008'. Has any one else a better tilte ? Thanks. Lentisco (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Per MOS it would have to be lower-case t for taxi. I have no opinion on its creation, although taxi blockades do happen from time to time in different locations and I'm not absolutely sure it would meet notability. Orderinchaos 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the blockade warrants its own article. Ideally, Taxicabs of Australia would have a Victoria subsection, with a background to the service in Victoria, covering administration, vehicles, safety issues, incidents and industrial action, the latter incorporating a paragraph on this particular demonstration. This would place the blockade and the issues raised within the context of the industry as a whole. Melburnian (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I haven't heard of it. Not sure how much that means, but I get the feeling it'd probably be a better candidate for Wikinews. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was last week (Thursday or Friday?) when the taxi drivers blockaded one of Melbourne's busiest intersections (Swanston and Flinders) right through the peak morning period, causing all manner of disruption. It was in response to the murder of a taxi driver and was generally protesting against perceived racism by police officers in handling reports from the South Asian community of this kind. Orderinchaos 04:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we'll really have to wait a while to see if it turns into a historically notable protest. There was plenty of secondary coverage of it at the time, which means that it would probably survive AfD, but I'd still be more comfortable waiting a month or so and see if it's still being discussed. If it is, then it's good enough for an article, in my opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be significant in a larger context. There was a recent taxidriver strike in Canberra, protesting about similar issues of security. Cabbies are often foreign-born and suffer significant racial abuse, extending frequently to fare evasion and occasionally to violence. I attended the Canberra meeting where there was some passionate discussion. --Pete (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it merits a general page related to taxi activism in Australia? (No idea how one would word the title) Orderinchaos 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Albury vs Wodonga

Albury, New South Wales and Wodonga, Victoria both B class present an opportunity for Victoria vs New South Wales editor collaboration challenge which state can get their article to GA first. Gnangarra 12:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course if anachronistic colonial-era borders weren't in the way, Albury-Wodonga would be FA-class already! -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
State Borders are not anachronistic. They serve a useful purpose and you should know that. Our states should be smaller, yes, but there's no reason to completely reinvent the wheel on them. JRG (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not the forum, but I disagree that State Governments perform any useful task that could not be done better at a national or local level. I am aware that constitutionally we are stuck with them for the foreseeable future, but this is not something to be welcomed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

The naming convention for Australian towns (Town, State) should be changed to only (Town). For example Stanthorpe is only one place in Australia. But it is named Stanthorpe, Queensland. Only those towns which have similar names in other countries should follow the format (Town, State). Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But unfortunately this has been discussed to death numerous times, and many many people have come out in support of the current convention. Hesperian 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
See the previous discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_places. -- Longhair\talk 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
More specifically for policy at SatuSuro 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone got there before me - but yeah, what they said. :) In my view having a standard form is a better approach. Orderinchaos 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep - you're about 3 years too late to argue that. Sorry. JRG (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's never too late to change a bad convention... if only people would see it as such. Hesperian 11:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well - this place (oz project) or theirs? (WP Oz places project) SatuSuro 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not my point. The conversation has been had. People are happy with the current convention. There's no point having the same discussion for a fourth time. All I'm saying is that the convention stays because people want it to, not because it is too late to do anything about it. Hesperian 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Another explanation is that people don't care enough about it to go and make the changes. Wongm (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Hesperian that conventions can be changed if they fail to serve their purpose, although I disagree this is such a case (Chuq rather eloquently put my argument below). Orderinchaos 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Or that it has all the point of the preposition preference argument here as listed further up this page - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Stanthorpe is at Stanthorpe, Queensland. The good thing is, we know exactly where the article will be. The problem before is that we had to look at "Stanthorpe", "Stanthorpe, Queensland", "Stanthorpe (Queensland)", "Stanthorpe, Australia" and "Stanthorpe (Australia)", at an absolutely minimum, before being sure the article didn't already exist. For suburbs, you could add the forms "Richmond, Melbourne" and "Richmond (Melbourne)" to the list. This had to be done for every single city, town, suburb, or locality in Australia. The current rule is easy - Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide are at those names; every other locality article is at <locality>, <state>. The alternate names can be (and often are) created as redirects. -- Chuq (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think Chuq has summed it up beautifully. The important counterargument concerning Stanthorpe is that if it is the only place in the world (or article topic with this name) it can be created as a redirect to the disambigated page. So we don't lose there. We do lose with the alternate as we don't know whether it has to be disambiguated or not. Sometimes too you can think there is only one such place but in fact there are others and that can lead to confusion - for example Mitta Mitta caused me some grief one time - I couldn't believe there could be another place called that and it is close to the border so I thought I was dealing with the right one :-( --Matilda talk 07:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In a number of different Australian articles the website is being used as a reference for various statements. The site itself seems somewhat dubious, appearing to an aggregation of various other sources. I believe because of this it fails the Wikipedia:Reliable sources test, and is best not used as a reference. An example of the mirroring - this and this. Any thoughts? Wongm (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The site appears to be scraping content from other sites (possibly without permission) and surrounding them with ads, news, weather etc. Doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all. Here's a list of Wikipedia articles linking to the site to assist with the cleanup. -- Longhair\talk 06:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that link - I wasn't sure how to work out which pages linked to it - only 68 to fix, I'm starting at the top. ;-)
If the link resurfaces after your removals, you may want to consider adding the site to m:Spam blacklist. -- Longhair\talk 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the linked sites seem to be copied from Monash University's Australian Places, which is no longer on-line, but can be accessed from here. Melburnian (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think many of the link additions are just good faith ones by various authors, rather than spamming by the site owner. I was just going to mention that many of them seem to be from the defunct 'gazetteer' website before Melburnian beat me to it - it is very frustrating that that site got taken down. Wongm (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
the site shouldnt be added to the spam blacklist unless the site is intentionally placing the links. Maybe we need someway to identify sites that while the content may accurate the site itself isnt considered a relaible source. Gnangarra 02:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

High Importance article Convictism has had recent comments about its title - it would seem it needs a broader discussion location - so brought it here SatuSuro 08:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the SOED. I can't believe that anybody would question the existence of the word Convictism, clearly we are becoming very ignorant of our own history.--Grahame (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing any issues with that title... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like there is still conversation at the article talk page as well - so if anyone wishes to support a view either way the article seems to the place to be SatuSuro 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Questioning the existence of the word has nothing to do with ignorance of history. I'm well versed on our history but I'd never heard of the word until today. There are some words that are more obscure than girt and convictism is obviously one of them. I'm originally an electronics technician by trade and it doesn't surprise me at all that there are electronic technicians who have no idea what a twystron is. Not everybody is familiar with every word. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In historical dialogue it's a fairly common term. But I can understand concerns along this line, it also sounds a bit awkward. I don't know what I'd support, though. Orderinchaos 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The situation is resolved by moving to Convicts in Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not - see the talk page SatuSuro 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tania Zaetta

This has hit the news today. Can we keep a close eye on this article with zero tolerance for WP:BLP breaches. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new wikiproject on Australian demographics

Hi - I am proposing a new wikiproject on Australian demographics. A draft project page is at User:Matilda/draft wikiproject‎. The gap I see is particularly in relation to articles on different ethnic groups in Australia. We don't have any consistency with these articles. There is some excellent data available from the ABS but it does need to be used carefully and with some qualifications. This use and qualifications should be consistent across different articles. Recently there has been exhaustive discussion concerning ancestry of Chilean Australians and potential understatement in the census data becuase those of Chilean ancestry might declare as Spanish instead (up to 1/3). Another issue also coming up at Chilean Australians and has also come up in discussing African Australians is the classification of individuals with biographies into these ethnic groups. The discussion at Chilean Australians concerns Chris Watson; for African Australians it was Marcia and Deni Hines and Billy Blue (as well as others). The same issues exist across the other articles too - sometimes violating WP:BLP. I am sure there are other issues to do with demographics that the project could pick up. However I thought I would float it here first - see if there was any interest other than from myself and Kransky, or if there was strong resistance to yet another wikiproject. Regards --Matilda talk 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

After participating in the Chilean Australian discussion I think this is a good brilliant idea. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • note - as well as making this a subproject of the Austrlaian wikiproject I would propose that it also be linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups - I just haven't had a chance to incorporate that in the draft yet --Matilda talk 07:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing the proposed scope of this project??
I for one am a little concerned to see some greater care, caution, standards and monitoring of the way ethnic and/or descent based labels (such as African Australian, Chinese Australian or even English Australian) are being assigned and attributed to individuals, and segments of Australia's populations (imagine a different time, and a different era assigning the label Jewish German) .. and I guess a demographics project of the kind you are suggesting might be an appropriate vehicle for this?
Should you proceed with the proposed project .. I for one would also like to suggest a proposed new project task (already!), to either expand the current Australian Aborigines article, or create a new one looking specifically at the way the Commonwealth census and statitics (demographics?) constitutional powers have been applied to Aboriginal Australians. While ABS figures might be good on other ethnicities (?), it would seem the ABS does not collect data, and may not know how many Australian Aborigines there are in Australia, and/or how those populations are distributed?!! (If I'm mistaken, I'd be glad to be corrected?) Bruceanthro (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The ABS does collect data on Indigeneous people - it's one of the main questions on the Census form, and there are two social surveys targeted specifically at the Indigeneous population (NATSISS and NATSIHS if I've got the acronyms right). In fact, there are several publications on Indigeneous topics. It doesn't look like there are demographics for individual clans, but we do have a reasonably good idea of the general population distribution. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Confusing Manifestation .. Australian Aborigines was recently tagged as requiring an Ethnic Group InfoBox .. seeking details of the size of the population of Australian Aborigines plus centres of populations (plus sizes) of Australian Aborigines. Knowing of the large Torres Strait Islander populations in North Queensland .. I found the ABS combines the Aboriginal Australian and Torres Strait Islander populations together, and the census data may not collect/distinguish between the two? It seemed no data specifically on numbers of people identifying as Aboriginal Australian is collected?? (I will, of course, look further).
Regarding the demographics of Australian Aboriginal language groups etc .. I believe their may be some materials being generated around native title determination applications, and NNTT registerations, which might be an good starting point for doing some such demographics .. for anyone willing and with the time?! Bruceanthro (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi the scope of the project is outlined at User:Matilda/draft_wikiproject#Scope: all matters specifically relating to Demographics of Australia, including: articles relating to any subjects raised about Ethnic groups in Australasia and articles listed, or to be listed in the Ethnic groups in Australia navigation guide here. I see the project as complementing WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia which would deal with the expansion of the Australian Aborigines article. I do indeed see within scope for the project as some greater care, caution, standards and monitoring of the way ethnic and/or descent based labels (such as African Australian, Chinese Australian or even English Australian) are being assigned and attributed to individuals, and segments of Australia's populations --Matilda talk 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I carried this advice forward into User:Matilda/draft_wikiproject#Open_tasks for your consideration?
The issue is a hell of a lot more complicated than that if you consider the historical aspects of how people have been counted from before federation and after - whether there is adequate academic or other info out there - the whole issue of the eligibilty to be counted - the status of people regardless of ethnicity - and all the old nineteenth century colonial hangups about being male property owner etc -- I havent delved into it - and I have no idea of the current status within academic disciplines about the issue - but if the demographic project gets up - a major issue will be the unfolding and ongoing issue of who gets to not get counted, or the lack of adequate checking - regardless of the capacity of the federal bureaucracy capacity or not - anyone au fait with federal parliaments funny games with the aec act over the last 4 or 5 federal elections would realise that there is a significant number of australians who fall between the gaps even now - so the issue with ethnic groups and their 'invisibility' is indeed a serious issue - history wars or no SatuSuro 11:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In reply to bruceanthro (getting a little confused with the threading), the Census does generate counts for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander - if you go to and look up "Indigenous Status by Sex" for a region, it should give you a table with four categories - not Indigenous, Aboriginal, TSI, and both Aboriginal and TSI. You should be able to get that for individual areas, don't know an easy way to get population distribution in one step (there is a map for proportion of Aboriginal people by state, but nothing at a finer detail). The Census Dictionary has some good info in its definition of "Indigenous Status" - open the PDF and search for INGP. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Confusing Manifestation! Going there now!! Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone have subcription access? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • At 176 pages, I can't do it in full, I'm afraid. I can grab a reference for you or send along some specific pages/sections if that would help.- Bilby (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that because of a book restriction or because of the time consuming nature? The first two chapters were what I was looking for mainly for Gia Long and Minh Mang. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A bit of each. :) At any rate, I should be able to help. I'll do my best tomorrow - I'm stuck in a boring meeting for a bit, so this will give me something to do. - Bilby (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Major bot run - heads up

OK, so I finally crossed my fingers, closed my eyes, and loaded all of Category:Australian music into AWB. Giggabot is now going on a field trip, armed with the Kingbotk Plugin, tagging everything (articles, categories, templates, and all) that wasn't tagged for the project.

If you see anything incorrectly tagged, please revert the bot, and remove the Australian music category (or subcategory) from the article/category/template/whatever. And then tell me about it.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All done! Logs are at User:Giggabot/AusMus; apart from 12 May, they're all in a format that can be copied into raw watchlist (here) if you like. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Some guy's laid into us at the comments section here (look for "thelonenut"). An extract of his comments:

(referring to Indiana Jones) As far as influencing people with incorrect and exagerrated facts about archeology, paleontology, etc - it's only a movie, I think the existence of a site such as WIKIPEDIA is far more dangerous and insidious, as it contains blatant fallacies and opinions masquerading as facts - I personally know dozens of people, both adults and adolescents, who due to vast gaps in their knowledge and education, have the view that simply because it appears in print on the Internet, it must be true - if I was King of The World, my first act would be to ban Wikipedia - it is bunkum for the most part, and I am fearful of the state of people's mind who rely on this site for "information"

A science teacher responded to this comment, broadly defending Wikipedia, while saying it's useful more for providing an overview than as a research tool (a view I generally concur with) and that in his opinion some articles particularly in the sciences are of good quality. He noted a couple of his Year 11 and 12 students had fixed errors on Wikipedia they'd found while researching at the library.

Thoughts? Orderinchaos 07:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're after .. but, in terms of insidious influence .. I was actually pleased to read in Queensland Parliamentary debates (Hansard) couple of weeks back .. politician referring to and 'drawing on that great fountain of knowledge, Wikipedia' to give details on the size etc of the Great Barrier Reef! So, perhaps, some of the the editors of that article at least may be having more of an impact than they think .. not only 'planting' readily avaialble knowledge into students and newer 'internet' generations .. but also into some of this states and nation's decision makers?!! Should be able to track down the exact Hansard ref if anyone's interested!!! Bruceanthro (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I quite liked "wiki-friend's" comments:
I'm more fearful of people that make broad comments without any facts, thelonenut cite your sources for Wikipedia being bunkum, where are the blatant fallacies and opinions masquerading as facts....
--AussieLegend (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd guess he's been banned for pushing his OR or agenda, so he just puts down the whole concept. The best response is that if there is an inaccuracy with wiki, you can tag it, correct it or even delete it. If a book, journal, The Age, ABC or Channel 9 make an error, however, you MIGHT get a correction or apology a few days later but that original published version will still exist for future hard copy researchers (online versions might be corrected, but not always) The-Pope (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Australia

Several articles are lacking on this topic. I do not have much knowledge on this topic, so I can't create the articles. Especially which are very important Australia-Germany relations, Australia-India relations, Australia-Pakistan relations and Australia-Venezuela relations. Is anyone interested in creating these articles? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft Guidelines for Lists of companies by country - Feedback Requested

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

HSC course in studying Wikipedia

If anyone needs some easy credits! [8] --Stephen 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why in heaven's name is Privatemusings speaking on our behalf? Do we not have any controls at all on who represents us? Hesperian 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the whole wikimedia australia thing was to include a specific media contact person - if any ed feels like talking to the media - what great fun that will be SatuSuro 02:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the comment as a personal opinion and didn't see Privatemusings as representing Wikimedia Australia or the Australian wikimedia community. I'm not sure we should make this into some sort of brouhaha; I would say Privatemusings was asked for his/her opinion and he/she quite reasonably gave it. There was nothing controversial in the comment and I don't see the issue. Certainly I don't hold myself bound to forward all requests from the press for comment to WMA, as long as I stipulate that it is my opinion only and not the views of WMA or Wikipedia as a whole. My opinion may or may not differ from any official line and I feel I have the perfect right to put that forward if I choose. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And how did Privatemusings and the interviewer find each other? I'll bet my boots that privatemusings has responded to a request for media comment directed at the Australian Wikipedia community, e.g. Wikimedia Australia. If so, then someone has fucked up. Privatemusings is the last person who should be representing us in the media. Hesperian 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mattinbgn's point is excellent. In theory - however from my own eexperience - I know at least one journo who would love to get 'the dirt' on wikipedia - and would press particularly hard if he knew he could get the right situation to press an ed on something to 'make a story' - and another thought he'd make great gossip column story simply by reporting on a slowly removed item of vandalism - in other words made a story out of a diff.

As a consequence I think it would be good practice to not make a brouhaha about any of the above - but have some sort of guideline built in the WMA operation that lets it claim to be the official source - that still allows Mattingbn's line and opinion for whoever wants to follow it - and also gives journos and others an idea whether they are speaking to informal or formal spokespersons. It might even help them if someone on wma actually made contacts to say ' we are the formal avenue' SatuSuro 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This "news" actually broke almost a year ago ... /Archive 26#HSC English. Interestingly enough, I recently decided that WMAu was near enough incorporation to start making contacts with the BoS, and on Friday got around to posting a letter to them (you can see the letter at m:User:ConMan/NSW BoS Letter and read about my decision to post it on wikimediaau-l). I kind of wish the Herald had contacted me about it (we haven't incorporated yet, and even if we had I'm not on the currently-inactive Press Committee but I am on the currently-inactive Education Committee and I'd probably direct them to User:pfctdayelise anyway since she's already had some dealings with the press). I do agree, however, that privatemusings' opinion does seem to be presented as just that - his opinion - and the fact that it mentions the "soon-to-be-formed local chapter" means people know about us now, which is a good thing. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, There was a recent meetup in Sydney in May which Angela and Tim Starling came to, as did Privatemusings, and there was talk of a local foundation chapter. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it's the chapter you're talking about, that's been in the works for a long time now, and is getting very close to fruition (we almost incorporated but the Victorian Government wanted more from our Statement of Purposes). For those who haven't seen it, the relevant page is on meta at m:Wikimedia Australia. Everyone is welcome to get involved, and to start thinking about our first order of post-incorporation business: a 2010 Wikimania bid or Wiki Asia-Pacific convention (please head over to meta, or the mailing list wikimediaau-l to actually discuss the idea). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK there was no 'chapter' contact for comment. And although a chapter may be an easy to reach contact for 'official' comment, it's certainly not going to stop journalists talking to random editors if they want to. I have no idea how they found each other, but I don't see it as disastrous. --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

<-- I think it's rather better than disastrous, personally! Mention of the local chapter in this manner might help, I reckon. Fully support calls for a broo ha ha embargo, and Hespy - you are both rude, and you owe me your boots! I'm also hopeful that further 'blue-sky' stories like this might come around in due course...... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasearch on collaboration

  • I am only curious as to whether other editors have had a request to participate in research on how collaboration is managed. Mattinbgn and I both have. The researcher is named Schroeder and he is currently with City University of Hong Kong. --Matilda talk 06:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No but I got a request from Isto Huvila last month - researching the information sources used in editing - Peripitus (Talk) 08:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Interesting? or not Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#Category:Rebellions in Australasia up for CFR SatuSuro 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia#Australia-related Categories for Discussion. However people might also like to note Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin which is a continuation of a series of recent nominations made to rename 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' . I feel this renaming has relevance also for the articles dealing with Australian Fooians, ie those at Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia (which currently have no naming convention applied - bit higgledy piggledy. Is there support for renaming the articles and associated categories found at Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin to Australians of Booian descent? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics of Australia#Cats:Fooians of Booian descent --Matilda talk 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I go mad...

Resolved: Matilda talk 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Could some please a) fix the references at Hugh de Largie and b) tell me why the references aren't working when I am adding them the same way I usually do (which tend to work). Even references that work in other articles don't work in de Largie when I import them. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bewdy but I still don't see how the inline referencing I've been successfully doing in the past suddenly didn't work. I'll chalk it up to a mystery of life. --Roisterer (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The main problem seemed to be that ref name = de Garis needed to be ref name = "de Garis" throughout, the quotes being needed as de Garis is two words, rather than a single word like Smith --Melburnian (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
aha! Thanks for that, I can sleep soundly tonight now. --Roisterer (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike Kelly

Can I suggest that this whole debate be moved to its appropriate location, Talk:Mike Kelly (politician). This is a noticeboard to advise many experienced editors of issues on Australian related pages, not to solve them. The-Pope (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Moondyne 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Future Melbourne

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Melbourne#Invitation to edit the Future Melbourne wiki & possible meetup opportunity may be of interest to editors. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Recently some articles that I have hadon watch have had a couple of Australian locations articles inserted 'in Popular Culture' where it is clearly (a) not Australian popular culture (B) but the 'other place' -

  • Is there any interest in this issue at this point - my personal feelings I will not vent here - but am very interested in the few editors who seem to read this noticeboard anymore - as to whether either - instant removal due to a total misrepresentation - or qualification that it is not Australian popular culture that it refers to, or some other strategy - any feedback would be appreciated. SatuSuro 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My strategy would be to remove if I disagreed with an assertion. If the factoid was reinserted tag with {{fact}} demanding that the assertion be verified with a reliable source --Matilda talk 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, you lost me with: "(B) but the 'other place' -". I wouldn't mind seeing an example of what you mean. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • - I consider the addition there symptomatic of the whole 'In Popular Culture' pathological syndrome in wikipedia - however others might see it in another light SatuSuro 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove all such instances most emphatically in my view.--Matilda talk 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I need to read fast got an edit conflict with matilda when removing the section, now one here. Gnangarra 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There are others - but they get sneaked in :( and I have forgotten which the others are for the moment SatuSuro 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you all moved faster than me. I was wondering what was wrong with the Marbles, and realised the offending section had already been ripped out. In popular culture is largely equivalent to trivia, and yes, excise it. Passing mentions are not encyclopaedic, and there is rarely a reference to back up the inclusion. --Stephen 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
We have to admit, though, that a fair chunk of Wikipedia is actually dedicated to "popular culture" (whether that enthuses us or not). Rather than have a blanket policy that it shouldn't happen (because it is already quite widespread), we should perhaps be thinking about what sorts of "additional info" is acceptable and what isn't. In all honesty, Bill Bryson is a fairly well known author, and the fact that he happens to sell a lot of books shouldn't necessarily mean that he gets dumped in the "too-low-brow-for-an-encyclopaedia" category. Isn't that sort of mention more akin to a "Curiosity" you often come across in wikipedia articles? Is it a massive problem mentioning that this location scores a guernsey in the doodlings of a well known author? Where should we draw the line? We would stick with existing wikipedia policies, e.g. self-promotion; sources which lack credibility; references to "authors" who lack notability, etc. etc. On that basis, it seems to me that the Bill Bryson reference should remain (if, indeed, it checks out). That seems like a common sense approach. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As an example, I just had a look at Mount Kosciuszko - very neat and informative article - but it surprised me that there is no mention of the influence the mountain has had on the Australian imagination, on art and culture, etc. We know there are celebrated paintings on the subject, we know there's some celebrated verse, and we know that Midnight Oil named a song after the mountain - is all of this stuff completely irrelevant? πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like the basis for Mount Kosciuszko in popular culture! And should every place mentioned in Bryson's, or any other notable writer's, books have it referenced in the article? No. --Stephen 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the influence on Art and literature is not necessarily "popular culture". So do we end up with articles on Mount Kosciuszko in high brow culture and Mount Kosciuszko in low brow culture? or is a small mention in the original article sufficient? (and, I think we are all aware that this sort of thing is common throughout wikepedia, and in all the major languages). I take your point that I would hate to see every place he's been to mentioned in every corresponding article, e.g. Bill Bryson has been to Canberra and hates the joint - that would be tedious in the extreme. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 04:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Popular culture encompasses both art, literature, and mass entertainment, as to suggest otherwise would tread on the toes of neutrality. --Stephen 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Popular Culture says: "It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, consumption, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature. (Compare meme.) Popular culture often contrasts with a more exclusive, even elitist "high culture...". So I am wondering whether the issue is: 1. a reference to low brow culture in a serious geographic article; 2. a reference to any extraneous material that is related to the subject matter on the margins; or 3. a concern that the English wikipedia is dictated by the whims of pimply American kids. If it's the latter - man, that battle was lost a long, long, long time ago. I apologise to everyone for incorrectly signaling a minor edit previously, it's a nervous habit I have developed from being an administrator on another wikipedia. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

<--- going back/unindent

The question is what does fictional writing contribute to the understanding of the subject, take a book I just finished reading Tommo & Hawk by Bryce Courtney. Set in Hobart, Sydney, New Zealand and aboard whaling boats during the 1800's should it be covered in each of these articles. To me the answer is no its a fictional story though the author will try to convey an authentic feel and culture of the period there's no presumption of accuracy as such the information conveyed isnt necessarily accurate. The question is how does "Popular Culture" sections become consistant across all articles not just one, to me the article Hanging Rock, Victoria addresses this issue in an encyclopedic manor. There needs to be something where the use in popular culture(fictional writting) has had an affect on the real life place before its encyclopedic to include coverage within the article, otherwise we end up with list 100 of lines in length of WP:OR where editors decide whether an author is sufficiently notable to have their book included in the list. Gnangarra 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent example - surely the reference to the book and film belongs in an article on Hanging Rock - who could contemplate thinking about the place, without thinking about the book and/or film? (also renowned for a very fine annual racing event) πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The Tommo & Hawk thing is a good example, and I don't think it's all that useful to chronicle every time a particular place, object or concept is referenced in popular fiction. "Hanging Rock" is clearly different as it is very strongly associated with the book/film, but few people would think "Bill Bryson" when the Devils' Marbles are mentioned. I do perceive that I'm more strongly opposed to trivia and "popular culture" sections than the enwiki norm, though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
The enwiki norm is to cross reference every Simpsons and Family Guy mention into every corresponding article. So deviating from the norm is not necessarily a bad thing in this case. --Stephen 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been out today and to come back to this is disconcerting - editors from many countries specifically have a problem - they thing that their 'popular culture' is universal - it is not - 'In Popular culture' should be a removable commodity in wikipedia unless it adequately qualifies with good references (the usual WP:V, WP:RS, WP:V as mentioned at the top of this section - it is impossible for such a concept to be 'universal' in wikipedia and will always have severe limitations where it claims to be a universal - unless it is sufficiently qualified within the country it claims to represent or exist in SatuSuro 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to be in a disconcerted state - I honestly don't think that what you have said in your last post is far removed from anything I have written (of course it's possible that I am not the cause of your disconcertedness). So, this really is about pimply American kids imposing their superficial, narrow, unwordly norms on what is and isn't culturally important. Don't be shy - come out and say it! You're amongst friends now! πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
mama mia - I did not say that here - it happens for all ethnocentric groups on wikipedia when trying to apply universal subject titles to things which can have considerable variation - temporally and spatial SatuSuro 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What's that saying .. Wikipedia in not paper?! Me, I've watched with some remote fascination .. the popular culture section of Irukandji Jellyfish come, go, and come back again!

Such sections towards the end of an article are a little bit like other "resource" sections of article - such as "external links', "bibiliography", "see also"", & even "references" .. only these sections instead locate the context or media/medium through which many people might most likely first encounter the subject: not a bad objective really! .. Often the sections are interesting!! I guess it's a fine Wikipedian line between general (verifiable) interest and notability?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at that particular section, I think that that particular example is a textbook example of an "in popular culture" section that adds very little to the article. Someone who encounters the Irukandji through, say, an MMORPG isn't likely to require a section in the article itself to read more about it, if they're interested. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

Australian dogs -- Australian National Kennel Council

The Australian National Kennel Council article needs some dog-knowledgeable help; some links to news sources or something other than the website. --Hafwyn (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

NSW Geographical Name Board: external links

There are a lot of links of the format "". These are broken and need update to "". Just a heads up. Circeus (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to do it? Wongm (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be the preferred method unless somebody wants to change all 428 manually. Whoops, make that 427. I just did the one at Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
All done. :) Daniel (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bill

Did anyone see a Wikipedia page about a drug appearing in The Bill episode "Zain: Inside Out Part 1" tonight? Andjam (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

too many refs?

I would appreciate the views of others as to whether one can have too many refs. I removed one of two refs from the article on Kevin Rudd on the grounds that the assertion was uncontroversial and it needed only one ref to support it. My reasoning is that there are over 100 refs for a man only 6 months into prime ministership and I believe only one reliable source is required to support any non-controversial assertion. My views have been challenged and I would appreciate the opinions of others. --Matilda talk 05:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is always better to have more not less and it certainly applies to references. IMHO the article is well referenced but not overreferenced (with the possible exception of his chinese name). There were 2 refs from different media outlets with different articles citing Rudd made Time's 100 most influential people. If the (non-bare) refs are there, and only 2, why remove them? Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We can reference uncontroversial facts as well. In fact it would be best to have the source of every fact referenced in some way so that the trail of information can be followed. It is also good to reference the authoritative source of the information so that the greatest trust can be placed in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not proposing that we not reference uncontroversial facts, I am suggesting that more than one reliable reference for an uncontroversial fact is unnecessary. This is particularly so when there are nmore than 100 references for the article which can be expected to grow in size based on precedent of other articles on other prime ministers. User Timeshift9 would seem to agree in part that 5 references are too many for an uncontroversial fact but 2 is OK - I think 1 is sufficient.--Matilda talk 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
But removing one from two when it's already there is silly, there is no reason to. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it is "silly" to reduce the number of references when there are over 100 of them on the article and they are unnecessary - additional references do not improve verifiability and therefore do not add value, in fact they detract from the article. That is why I have not acceded to your request to replace the reference and I have asked for the comments of others.--Matilda talk 06:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Two media outlets are better than one. One is Murdoch, one is ABC. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that one ref for uncontroversial edits is more than sufficient and people should probably resist the urge to add a second. However, I don't see anything wrong with having a second as backup in case the first goes dead. It's amazing what people will slip a {{fact}} tag on. I probably wouldn't remove it but I wouldn't complain if another editor did. Three references for uncontroversial edits is where I start heading for the delete key. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we're arguing about which news report to go to when we can go straight to the source: I've substituted in a single reference to Time itself. --bainer (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Where possible, third party neutral sources are required. Timeshift (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? I don't see a problem with citing Time for the claim that Rudd made Time. Seems like the best source to me. giggy (:O) 08:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it third party? By all means include it, but if you do you should also provide a reliable third party source. That is wiki policy. Timeshift (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
But Time is a reliable source? Do you honestly think they'd lie on their website about who they gave an award to? Do you think Kate Blanchett would risk her reputation by lying in their name? giggy (:O) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. All we're doing is saying he won a particular honour from a publication. That publication's record that it gave it out is sufficient verification. Orderinchaos 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you've completely missed the point there. Citing Rudd himself to say that he made the Time 100 would be the wrong source to use. However using Time to say that Rudd made the Time 100 is the best possible source we can use. It's the horse's mouth. --bainer (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources are useful in showing that the list is of significance. If I made a list of 100 most influential people on my blog, citing my blog by itself wouldn't be sufficient. Citing a reliable source about my list would help show that my list is of relevance. Andjam (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between the significance of your blog and of Time's 100. I'm sure a wlink to its article (I think we have one) will suffice for that. giggy (:O) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Which suggests that two references are a minimum in such situations - the horse's mouth and the form guide, so to speak. Eyedubya (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigger Head Island (Queensland)

I'm not convinced that Nigger Head Island (Queensland) is a hoax, but I see no indication that this is a notable island if it isn't. This seems the most likely place to get some locals involved. Input welcome at the AfD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to Nigger Head, which is its gazetted name. Hesperian 23:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


I'd really appreciate some input at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster. User:Supertask and I have been at loggerheads over a particular point for a month now and we still haven't agreed. I've posted a summary at the bottom of the section which might make the whole thing easier to understand. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Murrumbidgee River is new ACOTF

Murrumbidgee River has been selected as the new Australian collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks!

The previous collaboration was over Witchetty grub which was ACOTF from 25 May 2008 to 8 June 2008

  • 6 contributors made edits, plus a vandal
  • The article increased from 2,472 bytes to 3,682 bytes - 50% longer
  • See how it changed

I don't think I reported here that Australian rules football had been ACOTF from 4 May 2008 to 25 May 2008 (three weeks)

  • Over 15 contributors made 119 edits, especially Rulesfan
  • The article increased from 54,183 bytes to 59,152 bytes
  • See how it changed

I don't recall if I reported on the preceding collaboration, which was Australia-New Zealand relations.

Thankyou to everybody who supports these collaborations. --Scott Davis Talk 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scott, on behlaf of everyone, I appreciate the work you do on this. --Roisterer (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. I seem not to be doing much else around here lately. I'll have to get more involved again sometime when the rest of my life slows down. --Scott Davis Talk 12:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, what he said. Thanks Scott. giggy (:O) 12:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia-related articles flagged for cleanup


currently, a large number of Australia-related articles is flagged for cleanup for various reasons. (Counting those articles with {{WP Australia}} on their talk pages, this affects almost 11.000 articles, or 18%.) Are you interested which articles are affected? I offer to generate lists of these articles; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. These lists can either be generated for WikiProjects as a whole, or for individual task forces.

If you're interested, please sign up at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something we've wanted for a while now. I like it. What do others think? -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, yes please. giggy (:O) 08:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's an example here relating to WikiProject Comics . Australia list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Cleanup_listing.-- Longhair\talk 08:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos - an IP needs help

Hi all. An IP has requested help with images at Talk:Eromanga, Queensland, if anyone can provide assistance. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission is where to refer these. Gnangarra 08:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated place names in a state

In Victoria there are two Newtowns - Newtown, Victoria about the Geelong suburb, but there is another one near Scarsdale, Victoria, which is near Ballarat and had it's own railway station. ([9] and [10])

So how do we go about naming these articles? Wongm (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wongm. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places#General strategy and discussion forums, particularly "Where the Town/city, State name format still has conflicts (such as Kingston, South Australia: Kingston SE, South Australia and Kingston-On-Murray, South Australia), the same method of disambiguation that is used within that state should be used." Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but I'm not aware of a widely accepted form of disambiguation used for the two localities. How about Newtown, Golden Plains Shire, Victoria for the latter - utilising the sequence used in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania etc? --Melburnian (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's also Newtown in Toowoomba and Ipswich. The normal approach has been to pick one which is more likely to link, and bracket the city or metropolitan area afterwards for the other. Balmoral, New South Wales (Lake Macquarie) is one such (the other Balmoral is in Sydney near Mosman). For Newtown in Queensland, the Toowoomba one is bracketed, and in my opinion for the Victorian one the Geelong one should be the main one as it had a city council at one stage so is clearly in more regular use - so I'd go with Newtown, Victoria (Golden Plains). Orderinchaos 10:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that works --Melburnian (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OIC , there's actually 3 Balmorals in New South Wales. The third one is a small village on the old Main South railway line in the Southern Highlands. Unfortunately the naming conventions are inconsistent, so this one is Balmoral (Southern_Highlands), New South Wales unlike the one above. JRG (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we should probably fix that one (actually, wait, someone has - thanks :). Orderinchaos 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

These combinations of parentheses and commas are hideous, and having an article at ", New South Wales" even though that suffix doesn't actually disambiguate it, is supremely dodgy. In both cases the root of the problem is that people are hung up on conforming to convention, even if the resultant titles are crap. The convention exists to offer guidance on what makes a good title, and in situations where it does not do so, it should be ignored rather than slavishly applied. Titles like "Balmoral, New South Wales (Lake Macquarie)" might seem logical to Wikipedians aware of the naming convention, but to casual readers they are worse than bizarre. The three Balmorals should be at "Balmoral, Sydney", "Balmoral, Lake Macquarie" and "Balmoral, Southern Highlands". Hesperian 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear - and it does not necessarily fall outside the spirit of the guidelines if Balmoral, New South Wales is turned into a disambiguation page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the combined solution of Hesperian and Mattinbgn - ie dab page of PlaceName, State -> PlaceName, DefiningPlace using commas and not brackets to dab to DefiningPlace which may be council or region or ... --Matilda talk 03:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Me too. Well thought up solution. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree too thats how I disambiguated Sunday Island, Western Australia Gnangarra 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
except at Sunday Island, Western Australia brackets have been used for disambiguation and I think we are favouring commas to give for example Sunday Island, Pilbara. However for geographic features we said brackets - si an island a geographic feature or ...obvously geographic and I am in knots but if you were going to use a comma to delimit a state wouldn't you use a comma to delimit whatver else you were disambiguating to? The guideline we have currently is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Australia --Matilda talk 07:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for consistency myself. Hesperian 08:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, in light of the discussion above, how about
Oh, hell no. That makes things messy and inconsistent for no good reason. This case is easily enough solved: put Newtown, Victoria, which is the suburb that actually has people and which people are actually going to look for, and add a further disambiguator for the micro-locality of (Golden Plains Shire). Breaking up the convention creates the same bloody problem we had three years ago: we start having to play find-the-article whenever one wants to link to a locality article, and there's absolutely no good reason to have to do that. Rebecca (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca's system makes sense where there is a clear "primary location" and conveniently it aligns with standard WP "primary topic" disambig rules. I don't know what to do if there isn't a clear "primary" location though ... Note I mentioned a similar thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places recently, including a couple of examples. -- Chuq (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, it's probably easiest to disambiguate them both - ala (Golden Plans Shire) here, without buggering up the uniform convention. I'd also point out that it makes it look a little bit less silly in that format: in the case of the Ballarat Newtown, someone moved it to Newtown, Golden Plains, despite the fact that the area is no way known as the Golden Plains, and the name would make no sense to anyone from this half of the state. Rebecca (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't move it there - I created it there, thinking we should have an article on the place at the centre of the debate and I picked a name that best fitted consensus here at 08:00 ish 10 June 2008 (UTC) when the debate momentarily stalled. However I am quite happy to see it moved as consensus evolves. The current title Newtown, Victoria (Golden Plains Shire), is long but will integrate better with the listing order on the Newtown disambiguation page. Or we could have Newton, Victoria (the other one near Ballarat) . . . ;) Melburnian (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I remember that discussion very clearly, might only be two years ago. Every conceivable configuration was thrown up - re-reading the policy, I reckon it's still pretty solid and straightfoward. I'm not sure if we should get too hung up about what the actual article name looks like, because most people are going to, say, look up Newtown and go straight to the dab page, and from there it is crystal clear where to go next. Newtown is actually a great example seeing that there are a zillion possibilities across the world, and two in Vic within about 80 km of each other - if the policy can survive that one, we can survive anything. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Future Melb wiki sessions - this Tue & Wed

Hi all,

A late notice for Melburnians. The Future Melbourne folks have settled on two wiki sessions they'd love to see us involved at:

  • Tuesday 3pm - 4.30pm
  • Wednesday 5.30pm - 7pm

Both are at the City of Melbourne computer training rooms, 200 Little Collins Street. I'm going to go to the Wednesday one, it would be cool to see some familiar (and new) faces there! Please see Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Melbourne#Invitation_to_edit_the_Future_Melbourne_wiki_.26_possible_meetup_opportunity for RSVP opportunity.

cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't make this one, I'm afraid. I'll be down in about three weeks, though, so if anyone is interested in having a full meetup in early July, it'd be good to meet some of you folks. Rebecca (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm leaving on the 8th so if it could be before then I would be happy. pfctdayelise (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll be in town from (give or take a day or two) June 28 to July 9. I'll be busy some of those days, but if people are interesting in arranging my meetup I should be able to make it. Rebecca (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huntsman spider Delena cancerides

I have just added pix from flickr of this wee aussie beastie to commons under Delena cancerides. I'm not a spider guy (and I'm only quarter Aussie), so can anyone tell me what category that page should come under in commons - I thought it would be something like Category:Spiders of Australia, but that doesn't seem to exist there. Kāhuroa (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The spiders in Huntsman spider are in Category:Heteropoda venatoria, a sub-category of Category:Sparassidae. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, but this one isn't a Heteropoda species. Kāhuroa (talk)
The Commons Australia category tree is vastly underpopulated and underdeveloped compared to here. You could put it in Commons:Category:Animals of Australia, or feel free to create a sensible subcategory. Hesperian 11:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok - I'll create Category:Spiders of Australia as a subcat of Animals of Australia. Since this species is also found in NZ I'll do something similar for NZ as well. Cheers Kāhuroa (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SMH articles

Hi all. If anyone has access to the SMH database, I am looking for a copy of a SMH article dated 13/10/1998 titled "Ian Johnson, former Test captain and Bradman Invincible, dies at 80". Specifically, I am looking for details of Ian Johnson's death for inclusion in his article. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 12:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention much about his death, only: "Ian Johnson, who died in Melbourne last Friday aged 80, had the misfortune of captaining Australia at a time when the side was in a slump." and "He was one of 11 surviving Invincibles from Don Bradman's 1948 side and took part in some of the 50th anniversary celebrations this year. His death reduces their number to 10."[1] The rest is an overview of his life and achievements. Somno (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you've come across these refs: Ian Johnson Obituary (12 October 1998) "The death was announced today of former Australian Test captain Ian Johnson. Aged 80, Johnson died in a Melbourne hospital on Friday following a long illness. Johnson is survived by wife Allie and sons Bill and Bob, as well as six grand-children." [11]. Ryerson index "JOHNSON Ian William Death notice 09OCT1998 Death at Cabrini Hospital The Age (Melbourne) [published] 12OCT1998."[12] --Melburnian (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Somno for taking a look. Thanks for those links Melburnian, the first one is much like what I was looking for. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look through some databases to see if I can find more info on the weekend. Somno (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community

Hello folks,

The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit also to be held in Cebu, and which the Philippine Wikipedia Community is a Implementing Partner in. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to network with leaders from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. To register for the Open Source Summit, please contact CEDF-IT. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community

Stadium naming pt 2

As a continuation of a previous discussion (refer Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_28#Stadium_naming), I'd like to continue the "neutral name" convention that has been implemented across a few major stadia about six months ago.

Stadiums currently using this convention for article title:

If it is agreed to continue this convention, these are the stadiums that I am aware of that need to be renamed:

If there is any doubt as to the official "neutral" name, the ABC generally uses it, so checking the ABC Sport website should help. The only exception to this that I have found is that they use "Homebush Stadium" instead of "Stadium Australia".

Any other comments? -- Chuq (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. This page may help (incidentally the guy who runs that site is a Wikipedian, or at least was; too bad I can't remember his user name). Hesperian 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
At least it saves all the effort when they change names of he stadium every other week. Wongm (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support same as hesperian above - we have local sports activities in WA that seem to have diff sponsors every year - so a baseline of a standardised name for such places is a good sign SatuSuro 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's good enough for the ABC, it's good enough for me. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 06:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. In most of these cases the non-sponsored name is far more well-known. Rebecca (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support for at least the examples you name above. In each case the former name has at least reasonable currency. Suncorp Stadium is pretty well-known but a redirect from one to the other should cover it and this will certainly save renaming these pages every time they enter new sponsorship deals. Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the ABC's form guide, and the main reason it should be preferred is that it almost never changes, whereas some of the above have changed twice in the last 10 years alone. Orderinchaos 08:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Twice? Kardinya Park has been Shell, Baytec & Skilled Stadium in that time! Agree with the idea, although some may argue against it on "common name" grounds, especially where the corporate name is well established and not short term.The-Pope (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support in all of the above given examples, for the reasons given by Rebecca above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Seems we have consensus (as in, I support) - next admin here wanna go ahead and do it? giggy (:O) 09:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support and I'd like to add a couple to the list above:
Both of those sound good. giggy (:O) 10:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Doing a recursive listing of Category:Sports venues in Australia and removing duplicates gives the following list. I think it has to be on a case by case basis, and not a blanket rule, as some new venues may have never had a non-sponsored name. And Arsenal play at Emirates Stadium, not Ashburton Grove, but the The Oval is the main page, with Brit Oval a redirect. Common sense should rule. The-Pope (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Great list! I was going to leave this a few days but it appears there is already massive amount of support for it so I will make a start today - just on the major ones on my list, as you said some may be difficult. Stadium Australia and Docklands Stadium have had a sponsored name for most of their life, but they have also had two different sponsored names over their lifespan which negates that. I'm a bit unsure about the Townsville and Newcastle stadium names in my list, as I have never heard of the non-sponsored names, but I guess that applies to everyone with various stadiums, depending on where they grew up and what sports are dominant in that area. -- Chuq (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start on the list above! -- Chuq (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten

In this document (see page 18) Geoffrey Edelsten has threated a number of Wikipedians. In relation to the biographical article : Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he is concerned about identity fraud but he is also concerned that some wikipedians ( and others mainly journealists)

... have been responsible for inaccurate articles and reports which continue to disseminate falsehoods, many with malicious intent. Notice is given that these inaccuracies and often blatant lies will not be tolerated. Action will be taken to name and shame and if necessary legal proceedings will be instituted.

I feel pretty confident that the article complies with WP:BLP and adheres to the polices of WP:V and WP:NOR. Give the concern Edelsten obviously has - could others please have a look over to provide some assurance that ouninvolved editors feel the same way. Thanks --Matilda talk 06:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only involved in the sense that I commented the last time this came up in March, but I can see nothing defamatory or troublesome there - everything there appears to be factual (at least as far as media and other reliable source reportage is concerned). I notice he takes issue with many of those sources as well. The only section that could be realistically described as contentious is documented by the ABC and even Australian Doctor, and the claims according to Factiva were repeated as recently as four days ago in a local Melbourne newspaper, the Frankston Standard/Hastings Leader. ("In 1988, he was deregistered for overservicing and two years later jailed for hiring a hitman to assault a former patient.") The Sunday Age (5 March 2006), "The Age Diary" (28 Sep 2005, wouldn't use as a source), Daily Telegraph (29 July 2005), and 112 others including the Cairns Post, the Australian, SMH, Herald-Sun, AAP, etc. That was just with the search "Edelsten and hitman and patient". Several of the articles go much, much further than we do here. It is clear that we are not a source for the allegations being made in those publications, nor the incorrect information in this week's Leader (our article says 1987). Orderinchaos 08:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Again? I've given the article a bit of a look and anything even remotely contentious looks like its cited to an acceptable source. A lot of the 'references' in Edelsten's document (particularly #5) are dead or unattainable by the looks of it, so I don't really trust it as a source. Most of his objection seems to revolve around journalists writing less than glowing material on him, and then those same stories being used as a source here. As the items were published in reliable sources, I see no reason to disbelieve them unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
That said, if there is any specific points that Edelsten objects to that are not cited or can be disproved through reliable sources, they should be amended or removed posthaste. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
Agreed. I've also verified the text of the Age article he cites in his document, and included that as a representation of his testimony to the Medical Board in which he and another person denied some of the allegations against him, so have included one line on that. Orderinchaos 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the text in the article the same as the appendix in his document? Because Edelsten saying that he'd done nothing wrong does not mean that he didn't do anything wrong. That said, your edit to the article looks to be fair and above board to me, so nice work there! That said, I have a horrid sinking feeling that he won't give up his campaign until the article is a glowing biography that completely omits any of the less wholesome aspects of his personal history, although I'd love to be proven wrong on that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
I agree it proves only that he said he did nothing wrong (and that the wife of the alleged hitman agreed), and nothing else. I thought of it more as a "right of reply" kind of thing. The text is identical to that cited, and an SMH article published the same day contains most of the same material. Orderinchaos 14:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Meetup

Riverside Precinct Brisbane Meetup
Next: Saturday 13 January 2018

Just a heads-up to anyone who didn't get the message from Giggy's bot: we are having a meetup in Brisbane, probably on a weekend in early June. You can get more information and sign yourself up here. We're all very friendly people (well, those of you who I met at the Chapter incorporation meeting, anyway) so please come along and enjoy either a coffee or a beer (depending on your age) with us! Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Australian Mafia

I have become accustomed to stumbling across "mafia" articles in Wikipedia entirely informed by popular culture rather than serious research, but I was quite disappointed to find this article listed as a serious Austalian wiki project. How can we profess to maintain high standards, and yet allow this shoddy work to go through. The article is speculative in the extreme and is clearly influenced by our current fascination with crime figures, fueled by shows like "Underbelly". But an Australian Mafia? Worse still, as an offshoot of the Sicilian Mafia?! Come on, let's get serious. For starters, most of the info relates back to these well known crime families, none of whom are even remotely Sicilian. On top of that, the 'ndragheta is actually Calabrian (but even that connection is not verified in the least). Lastly, the link provided is simply a web site on Australian crime. So where on Earth has this idea come that there is an Australian Mafia as an offshoot of the Sicilian Mafia?

My disappointed was compounded when I discovered that the article had been listed for deletion (and rightly so) but people voted to keep it! I mean, do we just apply the rules strictly when it suits us or what? It just continuously amazes me that people can speculate without limits on the "Sicilian mafia", without anyone saying boo, but I usually have to jump hoops to write any half-serious content on Sicilian subjects, even when I'm backed by a personal library of 100s of volumes. I just find it a disgrace. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the thinking is in the article on The Carlton Crew which is based on the same book. It is described as

The closest organization to a traditional Sicilian Mafia family in Australia was the Carlton Crew. It is part of a local phenomenon caused by the emigration of Sicilian criminals called the Australian Mafia. It was formed in Melbourne, Victoria by famous gangster Alphonse Gangitano. Named after Melbourne's Little Italy district, it ran from the late 70s until today. The organization had a strong rivalry with the Honoured Society and the Calabrese Family. Both were Calabrian 'Ndrangheta groups also based also in Melbourne, and are now defunct. The current leader of "The Carlton Crew" is Domenic "Mick" Gatto, who rules the organization since Gangitano's death in 1998.

That article is tagged as {{Onesource}} and I suggest that tag is definitely in this case an indicator for improvement which might help clean up the parent article - ie we need some other sources to confirm and/or provide balance --Matilda talk 01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

During the Afd - I removed the weird 'see also' collection to the talk page - there are enough clues there as to whether anyone has actually tied to claim the issue was valid - one big problem with publishers and authors is that they put titles to books and parts of books to get the readership - as to the veracity of any of the 'see also' items to actually help create a better article it is up to others more familiar with the bottom books or the mackay subject to make the connections SatuSuro 01:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Organised crime in Australia. "Australian Mafia" is too speculative, IMO. But I'll leave the redirect there anyway. Moondyne 03:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Saw that - good move. One final word: to describe the Carlton Crew as being similar to the Sicilian Mafia is fair enough (even if bordering on poetic license), but to talk of an Australian Mafia as an "offshoot" of the Sicilian Mafia is a decent ol' leap. There's a stack of quality research to be found these days which has meticulously gone through court records to back up much of what we now know about organised crime. For instance, the links between the Sicilian Mafia and Italo-American crime syndicates are well documented - but where is it documented that something like that occurred in Australia. Sure, we've had and still do havecrime gangs of every description (including those involving of Southern Italian descent) - but has it ever been documented that something similar to the US experience existed in Australia? (i.e. international ties between the Sicilian mafia and a a local "offshoot"). Do we have sufficient evidence to conclude an "Australian mafia" should be viewed as being something separate to organised crime generally? Given what has gone on before the courts in both the US and Sicily over the last three decades, such a link with Australia would have come to light if it existed - but it never has - annd it's not up to us to speculate that such a link may have existed. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
100% agree Pippu. Its a big jump to suggest we have large scale mafioso type families endemic here, which is what was being implied (without citations). Organised crime syndicates certainly. I watched and enjoyed Underbelly and read all of the associated hype, and even if you did get confused between fact and fiction, it still didn't imply there was an "Australian Mafia". Moondyne 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

FL class


Can someone implement another category for this one in the assessment? Because heaps of people are periodically moving things into the FL class, which doesn't exist yet and the articles keep on dropping off the log. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have recreated the category, next I will look at the template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I began this change some time back but got distracted... If it's still outstanding over the weekend I'll take a look at what changes are required. I don't have the free time available right now to peer into the depths of the WP:AUS template but will assist if troubles occur with your efforts Graeme. Thanks. -- Longhair\talk 03:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Guess what - only administrators can change it. So we will have to wait for more help. Also do you really want a FL category for every subproject? Most of these will be unpopulated. What examples do you have of a WP:AU featured List? We could manually add the category if the template does not support it yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe have a project-wide FL category? (I have seen a few around WP:AU when I've been doing maintenance but wouldn't know where to start looking. Daniel or Giggy may have a better idea.) Orderinchaos 04:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
FL examples can be found within the Category:FA-Class Australia articles category, assuming they've previously been assessed as FA by the project. You'll find most of them sorted under 'L'. -- Longhair\talk 09:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
A few examples (mixed in with actual articles) here. giggy (:O) 09:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into this over the weekend when I'm guaranteed some free time. Is one broad FL structure sufficient for the entire WP:AUS project, or do we prefer subprojects to be configured as such also? -- Longhair\talk 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made the required changes. This also means our Featured Article count has now dropped below the 100 mark. -- Longhair\talk 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. 91 actually. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Help solving a little mystery

I created an article for Celia Douty, whose murder was the first in Australia to be solved using DNA profiling. The article covers almost all of the case's timeline, but I couldn't find any mention of the outcome of the convicted man's second appeal. So basically I don't know if he's still thought to be the killer or not. If anyone knows or can find a mention of this in the news, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Toytown Mafia (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This 2006 update is the last legal reference I could find. Seems to have entered a black hole. WWGB (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This article should probably be moved to "Murder of Celia Douty" (see also WP:BLP1E). Daniel (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right. Toytown Mafia (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Field Days

I was adding a little bit to the Speed, Victoria article about the Mallee Machinery Field Days. Attempting to link "Field Days" I found that it points to Club Days, an article that seems to me to be an entirely separate topic. The thing is, I am sure I recall reading an article about Field Days somewhere. Does anyone know if such an article exists under a different name? If there isn't I will create one as Field Days are an important part of rural life in Australia. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural_show#Field_days is all that I could find close to the topic. Most rural towns (in Victoria) of a reasonable size still hold an annual field day. -- Longhair\talk 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Reading the linked article it seems the Machinery Field Days developed from the British equivalent but is now a completely separate thing. Field Days like the ones at Henty, New South Wales and Elmore, Victoria are also significantly different from an Agricultural Show; the purpose of the Field Days is more about seeing the latest machinery etc. rather than judging produce etc. I might bash an article out on the topic this evening. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Dowerin, Western Australia an essential item if contemplating the issue - and the article is meek and mild about it - it is more significant that what is made out from the art imho SatuSuro 05:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) An unreferenced section and even henrietta is a bit coy about it [13]
but many west oz ag people would rather go to the dowerin field day than the raswa royal show if they want the hard yakka SatuSuro 05:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it isn't really my thing but I think the redirect inappropriate and Agricultural_show#Field_days too brief. Henty, New South Wales and Murrumbateman, New South Wales I believe are pretty popular - Elmore, Victoria gets 45,000 visitors a year--Matilda talk 06:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The current redirect appears wrong, although the article title we're looking for should probably be Field day (singular, lower case 'd'), which is currently redirected to Field Day amateur radio exercise. Most of the towns I know host a field day (as distinct from country show) have it in their articles, but not linked. I guess we have consensus that the right article is missing, so we should start it. --Scott Davis Talk 00:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Article stub created, and nominated at WP:ACOTF#Field day. I'll fix the links to it that should be to one of the other articles, but we might find we need to make a disambig page too. --Scott Davis Talk 00:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with any aboriginal language or folklore book...

I am working up Willie Wagtail for FAC at some stage, now this little critter does feature in folklore from around the country etc. I have a stubby section but it would be great if anyone can add a story, book or page ref. Much appreciated...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

See who else responds .. but would be glad to put up material I have access to, particularly from the North Queensland region .. perhaps sometime over next few days.
Relevant to your request, I note/recall that the Aboriginal folk lore and stories tell of a kind of appreciation people have, and even a kind of a relationship that forms .. such that Willy Wagtail 'messages' and 'messenger roles' may not be all that dissimilar to the kind of messages one's dog may give, announcing intruders etc?!!
I was wondering if, perhaps, there might be more material on Willy Wagtail's territoriality/ territorial behaviour etc which might be included in the article .. perhaps lending context, and giving extra weight to some of the Aboriginal beliefs/lore/stories?! Bruceanthro (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a great idea. I hadn't finished with those sections on behaviour by any means and was intending to exapnd. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going out on an original research limb, but is there some post-colonial folklore transposed from European Magpie, misinterpreted and reassigned by European settlers? --Stephen 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(Belated reply) interesting idea. Never seen anything written and will keep an eye out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Mountains moved to disambig page

Some person has moved the Blue Mountains page to a disambiguation page, notwithstanding the world-wide notoriety that the Australian Blue Mountains have. I think this move is disgraceful and wrong - the agreement of the two or three editors who happened to look at that page cannot surely constitute consensus. Can we please get this to a debate or something? JRG (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I alerted EncMstr (who made the move) to this. giggy (:O) 09:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If there are several Blue Mountains then it seems entirely neutral to have a disambig page at Blue Mountains rather than decide that one has more right to the name than the others do. There should be a disambig page regardless so where would you put it? At Other Blue Mountains? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly where it was - "Blue Mountains (disambiguation)" with the main one being the Australian one as it should be. That was a sensible place to have it, but as always it had to get changed to satisfy Americans. I'm not just thinking from an Australian perspective - the Australian Blue Mountains are known world-wide. The others are not. It's as simple as that. JRG (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If you lived in the Congo, Estonia, Jamaica, or, god help you, New Zealand, you'd have a different view of which were the most notable. --Stephen 09:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(insert joke relating to intelligence of New Zealanders) I mostly agree with AL and Stephen. giggy (:O) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The editorial justification for making the move aside (and I agree that it's a pretty sensible move, really), making such a potentially controversial change without getting any wider consensus probably wasn't a really good idea. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC).
Besides the Blue Mountains disambiguation and the Australian BM talk pages, where would be appropriate? As far as I know, standard practice (and policy) is only the Blue Mountains article talk page is needed for consensus. —EncMstr (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It was an Australian page until you changed it so you could have come here and asked. Whether you have to is beside the point; whether you can and whether it would be nice and polite to do so is what is at issue. JRG (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I believed it was a relatively uncontroversial move after the discussion at Talk:Blue Mountains (Australia). That looked like consensus to me. I understood it was not a strong consensus; however, I believed that the wider community would agree with it, so I asked User:EncMstr to make the move. That's Bold, but it's not impolite. He apparently agreed, and we were apparently correct, about what the wider community would think. However, I apologize for not asking here, and next time I will do so. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Re: "the agreement of the two or three editors who happened to look at that page cannot surely constitute consensus." Of course it can. Consensus is the agreement of "Most Interested Persons." That could be two people or it could be a hundred. The proper place to discuss a page move is at the talk page of the article in question. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle assumes that "most interested persons" will have the page on their watchlist. So the discussion at Talk:Blue Mountains (Australia)#Page move was perfectly routine. I proposed a page move. Two people objected. I discussed it with them; one agreed with my reasoning, and the other didn't respond. I waited 15 days for more comment, and anyone watching Talk:Blue Mountains had the opportunity to respond. Given that silence implies consensus, I asked admin User:EncMstr for help with the page move. Of course, consensus can change if other editors come along and think differently. However, we now have another four editors who seem to agree that Blue Mountains (Australia) is a more suitable title. Re: "idiot" and "disgraceful," how about a little civility? Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The lack of communication is what is disgraceful and which is why I am using strong language. It was an Australian page, therefore you or someone else should have alerted Australian editors at large who are more experienced to make a decision on this; and several of the ones on the talk page at least agree with me. There is no need to quote policy at me or anyone else - and "Silence and consensus" is someone's essay and is not a Wikipedia policy - and from my experience editors have acted in ways towards me which have not followed that. Anyway, we are getting off the point here. We shouldn't be arguing policy, we should be debating the importance of the Australian Blue Mountains world-wide in comparison to the others. JRG (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"which is why I am using strong language" - Nothing justifies calling somebody an idiot.
""Silence and consensus" is someone's essay and is not a Wikipedia policy " - Not a good argument. Wikipedia:Consensus, which is a policy states "In essence, silence implies consent" and links to the very essay you've disputed. Of course it does go on to say "if there is adequate exposure to the community" and you could argue that there wasn't enough exposure. However, you have exposed it here and, so far, consensus seems to be that the move was justified.
"we should be debating the importance of the Australian Blue Mountains world-wide in comparison to the others" - That debate would really be pointless, for reasons that have already been stated. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is labouring the point, which there is no need to do. I said I don't care about the essay and I'm not going to take notice of it. Now please, let's debate whether the Australian Blue Mountains' notability justifies it being the main page, or whether a minor mountain range in Oregon is notable enough to turn it into a disambiguation page. That is why I raised this and that is what I want to debate, not to debate policy or to continue AussieLegend's arguments against JRG. JRG (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't deciding whether it is notable enough to be there original research? And isn't all this pissfarting about just a waste of time? And why do I care? Wongm (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No - because you can establish that the Australian Blue Mountains are far more notable than any other and deserve the front page spot, with a secondary disambiguation page - which is consistent with what has happened with other Wikipedia articles. You should care. JRG (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
For my two cents having Blue Mountains as a disambiguation page is the better format. The link on that page to Blue Mountains (Australia),New South Wales is fine. The consensus for having done that? Well my understanding of consensus is if an edit (bold or otherwise) is ultimately left as is by the Wikipedia community then that demonstrates what community consensus actually is on the subject. As for the Aussie Blue Mountains being the "more" notable and deserving front page? I think it's better for all who use Wikipedia if we consider at all times a rest of world view. So probably better when naming articles on geographical locations to have the name of the country in the title. Which Blue Mountains (Australia) does nicely.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article traffic statistics speak for themselves. Blue Mountains in April received 11226 hits [14], were as the Blue Mountains (Oragon) only received 1962 hits [15]. During April the name Blue Mountains directed to the Blue Mountains article and not the disambig that it goes to now, so if you click on the Blue mountains link in the wikistats page it will direct you to the disambig page. For this month under the new name Blue Mountains (Australia) it has received 5617 hits [16] and the Oragon 1178 [17] This is truly a more notible article and Mountain range. I will look into the others as well . Adam (talk) (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The other Blue Mountains stats up to the 16th of June 08

Here are the stats for the other Blue Mountains up to the 16th. This will change as days go by:

Thanks for going to the trouble of getting stats. If it wasn't for the Oregon, Nilgiris and Jamaica examples, then I'd agree there'd be no need for a DAB, ie direct to the Australian Blue Mountains. However, while page counts of 100 in the NZ case are insignificant compared to 5,000 (just 0.2%), 1000 page counts vs. 5000 is not insignificant (ie, 20%). As someone who knows the Blue Mtns intimately, if anything I'd say the stats above actually support the need for a disambig page. --Merbabu (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
PS, also keep in mind that the Australian Blue Mountains are internationally only moderately famous. If they were as well known internationally as say the Andes, The Alps or the Himalayas, then it would be a no brainer - no disambig page. However, while I agree that they *probably* are more well-known than the others on the list, they are not that much more famous than at least 2 examples there. (part of the problem of having such an unimaginative name i guess). --Merbabu (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Blue Mountains disambig may actually lead more people to the Australian Blue Mountains article. Someone looking up the Jamaican, New Zealand, Oregon and so on may have a quick look at the Australian while they are at it. Adam (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in the same way that those looking for the Aussie mountains will find out that they are not the only Blue Mtns - really, it just highlights what a stupid name it is. Would be nice to use something more particular - perhaps there is a particularly apt Aboriginal word? BUt that's not a discussion for here. --Merbabu (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the stats support the dab page being the primary page as per arguments of Merbabu--Matilda talk 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like I'm in the minority here, but the fact that Blue Mountains (Australia) receives five times as many hits as the next most significant use of the term Blue Mountains strongly suggests to me that Blue Mountains (Australia) should be the primary page with the disambig linked off it per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Debate 00:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion really belongs at Talk:Blue Mountains (Australia). We shouldn't have two parallel discussions about this. But please note, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken further comment to Talk:Blue Mountains (Australia) as suggested. Debate 05:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to create these articles?

Reading the new articles list, I came across Jenny Bannister, and noticed some really surprising redlinks in the article. I'm amazed that we still don't have articles on Collette Dinnigan, Carla Zampatti and to a lesser extent, Joe Saba. If anyone's got a spare hour or so, it'd be good if they could get filled out. Rebecca (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's crazy! I'll get started on an article for Collette Dinnigan. Somno (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on Carla Zampatti. --Canley (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Anyone care to do Saba? Rebecca (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am picking up Joe Saba. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if we need an article on Australian Legends legend Bob Ingham too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

List of people on stamps of Australia still has quite a few red links(and they should all be notable), I copied them a while ago to the TO_DO page with some result, including the above - Certainly Darby Munro, May Wirth are glaring omissions. I'm working on Con Colleano but dont have the time for many new articles Epistemos (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please create Jane McGrath? It was previously a redirect to her husband, but I don't think that's really appropriate for someone who holds an AO for her own efforts and makes the front page of just about every newspaper in the country upon her death. Rebecca (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fooians, booians and a genealogical condundrum

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 20 is a mass change of categories at the australian project - Which needs careful consideration - if you are 1/4 hungarian and 1/4 turkish and etc - you might find reason to understand part of the argument - I cannot in the end make out why the necessity - but the arguments there might help you understand - cheers SatuSuro 05:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok - this page often attracts those interested in political articles - try something easier then than some sort of Balkan dispute. Is Simon Crean an Irish Australian? I am sure we can find sources that confirm his Irish descent. Both he and his father are listed at Irish Australian#List of notable Irish Australians. Simon Crean is not categorised currently as either an Irish Australian or an Australian of Irish descent and nor does his article mention his heritage. Crean senior is also not categorised but the article mentions his father being of Irish Catholic descent and I assume a ref could be found to support this assertion. Apparently 1/3 of Australians are of Irish descent (moi aussi but quite a few generations back). So easy remove at least Simon from the list I think and perhaps if it is seen as significant in influencing Frank (he changed his name to be less Irish so I guess - hmm not sure what I guess ...) well perhaps he could be categorised as an Australian of Irish descent
I would appreciate some view on what other people think --Matilda talk 06:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said at the discussion, I'd like all such categories split into "Foo-born Australians" and "Australians of Foo descent". And then for the very common ancestries (British, English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish), abolish the "descent" category because so many Australians fit the category and in 99% of the time the ancestry is NN, as it is with Crean. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's really very simple. If he was born in Australia he's Australian. If he was born somewhere else and he's beeen granted Australian citizenship then he's Australian. If he was born somehwere else, is living in Australia and isn't an Australian citizen then he's French, Irish, Botswanan or whatever (who really cares?). This recent obsession with defining everything and everyone to the nth degree is just ridiculous and pointless Amerikanization that has no place in this country. It's also subjective and non-encyclopaedic. After all, at what point does one stop being an English-Irish-Scottish-French-Botswanan-Russian-Indian-gyno-Australian and just become "Australian"? It isn't defined anywhere. There's also the issue of how the person identifies him or herself. If I have a drag-queen named Bob working for me and he wants to be called Trixie then legally I'm required to call him Trixie. There is really no difference with ethnicity. If Simon Crean identifies himself as Australian then we have no right to insist on identifying him as Irish-Australian. Any ethnic tagging should require full citations. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with those sentiments (see User:Peter Ballard#Racial and Religious categories are A Bad Thing). I would like to abolish all "Australian of Foo descent" categories (indeed all racial categories), but I suspect they're too entrenched in Wikipedia. So let's at least define them properly ("Australian of Foo descent") rather than the ambiguous and vague "Foo Australians". "Foo-born Australians" is more defensible because it's clearly defined and verifiable. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That would make for bad writing, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's original research. XXX-Australians is the commonly used word to describe overseas diaspora here (and in the same case in other countries); it's what we should be using. Rebecca (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Rebecca - but I think its use should be limited. Generally we should only care where they are from if it is critical to their biography. A friend of mine to cite one example was born in Benghazi, Libya, but his parents were Australian citizens born in the UK and NZ, and his birth there was pretty much an accident. I'm descended from an unbroken line of Moravians going to before the 16th century but I do not consider myself a Czech-Australian, although I am properly a British-Australian as I was born there. Whereas another friend who was born in this country as were his parents, yet speaks fluent Macedonian, eats said food, is a member of the Orthodox Church and gets very angry at Greeks about the Macedonia question is unquestionably a Macedonian-Australian. Orderinchaos 08:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
XXX-Australians is only common amongst a small group who think everyone uses the term and why is "Foo-born Australians" or "Australian of Foo descent" WP:OR? They're both more accurate and more easily verifiable descriptions than "Foo Australians". "They do it; so should we" is a very poor argument and not at all convincing. If you don't think so, please justify, using that argument, why we should drive on the right of the road, use 110VAC 60Hz electricity or any one of a million other things that "they do" but which "we don't". As for OIC's genealogy, you may not consider yourself Czech-Australian but, if you ever have your own Wikipedia article, what would currently stop anyone from adding that category to your bio? On the other hand, adding "Australians of Moravian descent" and "British born Australians" seems accurate and entirely appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that we need to have a discussion about how often we use these categories, but I really do oppose inventing our own terminology. Wikipedia:Use common terms exists for a reason. Rebecca (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Use common terms exists for a reason." - Actually, no it doesn't. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note any salient conclusions from all this here need to find their way to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 20 for any real effect :) SatuSuro 09:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca and OrderinChaos, I disagree (and I agree with AussieLegend). Terms like "Greek Australian" or "Irish Australian" belong to a bygone era as far as I'm concerned. Take a look at the people at Category:Greek Australians - how many of them would call themselves "Greek Australians"? Very few, I'm guessing. As far as I'm concerned renaming the categories is not WP:OR, it's undoing WP:OR.Peter Ballard (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not a "by-gone era". I worked in a school where most people self-identified as Greek-Australian or some other-Australian, and wore it as a badge of pride. Many of them didn't even bother with the -Australian bit, even though most as far as I am aware were born here. Orderinchaos 06:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Identifying yourself as simply Greek, Italian etc without "-Australian" was relatively common when I was younger. Everyone was assumed to be Australian without there being some need to emphasise it. Calling yourself Greek etc was more closely related to Category:Australians of Greek descent than Category:Greek Australians. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That bygone era has not gone. The Poles, Vietnamese, Lebanese etc. I work with and am related to are are either XXX, XXX-Australians, Australian-XXXs and only rarely Australians...depending on their personal preference. The terminology is alive and well, and used by people to describe themselves. XXX-Australians seems the most common term - Peripitus (Talk) 10:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
My wife's parents were both Polish. She wouldn't consider calling herself Polish-Australian. In fact she thinks it's stupid because she was born here. I do disagree that these terms belong to a bygone era, mainly because the terms didn't exist here in any bygone era. They're a rather recent import, courtesy of American TV programs, and the only reason people are referring to themselves (I live in an area with a lot of non-traditional Australians - ie not white, typically Anglo-Saxon, Aboriginal or Chinese descent - and none of them use the term) is because it's used on those TV programs because in the US they tend to define everything to the nth degree (eg jails and prisons are different things whereas here they're both gaols). And just because they are commonly used by a small group doesn't mean they're the correct terms. A lot of people use "mt" for metre. "kms" for kilometres, "gms" for grams etc and they are most certainly not right. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is a clear criteria to establish inclusion which is supported by a reliable source then its a valid category, even if it's from a bygone era the grouping are still valid. It where there isnt a RS criteria, the other thing to watch is for BLP issues and OR. Gnangarra 11:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
AussieLegend - check out google books search. Terms like Italian-Australian, Greek-Australian etc. have been in use since at least the mid 1920s....not much TV then. TV influence from across the lake has helped the silly labelling of everything though. kms mt and gms are just weird - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I realise that the terms might have been around for a while but they certainly weren't popularised before the late 1990s. Before then their use was limited to scientific papers etc and the general populace had never heard of them. Back in the early 1980s, when I was right into amateur radio, I used to carry around a 2m (144-148MHz) hand-held radio and people looked at me strangely. At the same time I attended computer club meetings. Both amateur radio and computers made me look geeky. Now everyone has a mobile phone that they carry around and raves on about facebook, myspace and msn. A lot of things have been around for a while but that doesn't mean that most people have heard of them. You can certainly blame TV for terms like Fooian-Australian. And that terrible Amerikan spelling of "jail". --AussieLegend (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
How silly of me, here I was thinking I identified as "Irish Australian", but because I was born here I learn I am actually just "Australian". Oops! Seriously though, if someone identifies as a "___-Australian", what's the problem with adding them to that category? If they only identify themselves as "Australian", then don't add them to it. (Although I agree that the penalty for using "jail" instead of "gaol" should be immediate deporation!) Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC).
The problem is that "Fooian-Australian" is ambiguous at best. There is no real definition for it, simple or complex, so placing somebody in a Fooian-Australian category can involve WP:OR. Deni Hines is one example. Does she identify herself as American-Australian? It doesn't matter, somebody slapped her in that category anyway. By comparison, Category:Australians of Fooian descent suffers no such ambiguity. Deni Hines would definitely fit in Category:Australians of American descent regardless of how she identifies herself. As Trevor Richards found out, "Fooian-Booian" is somewhat racist anyway because he wasn't black enough to be an African-American despite the fact that, unlike most African-Americans, he is an American who was actually born in Africa.[26] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating debate. If I have a drag-queen named Bob working for me and he wants to be called Trixie then legally I'm required to call him Trixie. - well if he knows his name is Bob such as on the new employee form, but simply requests to be called Trixie, as a drag queen, is the employer really legally obliged not to call them by their real name? I find this hard to believe. Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Hall controversy

Would someone who has a better grasp of the issues take a look at the above article. It is fully referenced and appears factual and not defamatory but as someone who is ignorant of the facts, it appears to me that there is another side to this issue that hasn't been included. Given that it involves living people, it probably needs a close eye on it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current article reads more like the Rory Hume controversy! WWGB (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to say I have a good grasp of the facts in this case but I don't see that the article is encyclopaedic. I think it gives undue weight to an incident in this academic's career. I am not certain that the controversy by itself merits an article. I assume that since there is no link there is no article on the academic concerned (see Bruce Hall (disambiguation) ), nor apparently on the associated academic (Rory Hume). I can't see where the notability derives from this article. There was an investigation and the academic had to resign. The article draws no conclusion about changes in academic practices or oversight as a result of the controversy. UNSW had a personnel change but did anything else change? Obviously it was a personal scandal but I don't see that this gives it the notability that merits a wikipedia article - there is no assertion of notability other than he was a senior academic and there is apparently also another academic's career implicated. While this event is significant in the careers of bothe academics it surely is not all there is to be said about them. So I don't like it. Given the lack of articles on the two academics involved I would have to declare that this comes within WP:ONEEVENT and in my view falls within the ambit of Wikipedia:Coatrack. I am proposing deletion. --Matilda talk 04:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It is probably worth noting that the content of this article was formerly within the article on the UNSW In that context it made some sense though was probably excessively topical and its inclusion was too much emphasis on this bit of history. Wikipedia is not news - it could have been left as a footnote to the resignation of VC Rory Hume and I would have thought that would have been sufficient for the encyclopaedia. There was an attempt to remove the material from the article last year [27] but it was stated in reverting the removal It's still a part of the uni's history. The material has never been discussed apparently at Talk:University of New South Wales Matilda talk 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's well sourced; at least merge some of it back into the UNSW article. JRG (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Australia‎ - check recent edits please

Hi - some excitable comments at Flag of Australia‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the talk page and the same IP address has been making a few changes. I can't look at these now as to whether they are reasonable or not - perhaps somebody else might like to have a look --Matilda talk 05:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been some typos and things corrected, and I can't spot anything obviously wrong, but some of the terms of phrase such as "Scientific opinion polls show a significant majority of Australians favor no change" leave a bit to be desired IMHO. I have opinions on this issue though so I'll wait for someone else to have a look and declare the edits neutral before I start meddling with things. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

Large lists

  • List of the largest churches in Australia is a list which I feel might contravene a few general intents of WP practice and policy - and some months ago i left comment on the talk page as to its veracity either by title or by assumptions that are implicit in its tabulation - so as to not make it a singular issues I would be very interested to see what fellow eds might make of it. And at this point I bow out of further discussion about it on its talk or here - and leave it to the tender mercies of fellow editors. If I am indeed wrong and am at fault rather than the list - I accept any reprimands gratefully - cheers SatuSuro 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tirari Desert

The new Australian collaboration is Tirari Desert. This article did not exist until it was selected for this collaboration.

Murrumbidgee River was ACOTF from 8 June 2008 to 22 June 2008

  • 10 contributors made 46 edits
  • The article increased from 15,542 bytes to 18,675 bytes
  • See how it changed

Thankyou to everybody who helped. --Scott Davis Talk 11:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the standard "thanks for running this Scott", I quite like the idea of creating an article from scratch - as for me I find it makes it easier to help in making substantial contributions, as opposed to an article that already exists when collaboration starts. Perhaps we should consider more collaborations of this nature in the future? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC).
Good idea. In quite a few ACOTFs I've looked to contribute but the article has already gotten to the stage beyond my minimal expertise level. Of course the job is then to find suitable red links. --Roisterer (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Century of FAs

Having uncovered a set of WWII Pacific articles listed as "Battles involving Australia" or were listed under the Australian military history taskforce but never tagged WP:AUS, it appears that WP:AUS has a few more FAs, 100 to exact, which means that Harry Trott by Mattinbgn appears to have been the 100th FA. The new WW2 FAs were all written by Cla68 (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mapit again

Does anyone know what happened to the handy geographic coordinates link at the top of each page when it was presented. It's much easier than having to scroll down to the very end of the page (or worse, find it in an infobox or the like). It appears to have disappeared. Can we bring it back? Does anyone know anything about this? JRG (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Still seem to be there for me; see Narrabri, New South Wales. You haven't changed or updated your browser lately perhaps? -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume you are not looking at a page that uses the 'other' Geolinks template? Wongm (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the Mapit AUS suburbscale template, sorry. JRG (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit, I assume is what's responsible. No edit summary, unfortunately, and the user has a complaint on his talk page about another template that they allegedly broke. I've been bold and reverted the change, but if there was consensus somewhere else please feel free to re-revert me. The couple of suburb articles I looked at seem fine now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC).
The various templates are in some level of process of being retired/standardised - I have made the change the person was attempting to make but botched. Ultimately the goal is so that Google Maps will display all of the locations as Wikipedia links - at present it only links ones that directly link coord or coor title d as it doesn't know how to tunnel through templates. Orderinchaos 06:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor undue weight issue


Someone want to do the honours with Mitcham, Victoria? I don't know enough about the EastLink to know for sure what to have in there, but I do know it's only peripherally related to the suburb. Orderinchaos 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just updating here - User:Melburnian fixed it. Thanks! :) Orderinchaos 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian White Ibis

I am going to buff this article up for GA and later FAC, as I am intrigued by how these cute little buggers have invaded Sydney. There should be lots on local councils etc. arguing about them so if anyone knows of any please add. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing happened in Australia this month?

According to In the news at the top of this page, nothing of note has happened in Australia since 26 May. If there aren't the resources to keep the page up to date, its prime position at the top of the page seems questionable. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WA's in the middle of an energy crisis. Which reminds me, I need to update the WA portal. Somno (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I've read the rest of the country just doesnt realise the effect its going to have on them, yet. Also note there was a by-election in Victoria. Gnangarra 12:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Patel to face trial, after agreeing to return to Queensland Gnangarra 12:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Have added both 28 June 2008 by-elections. Timeshift (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Added gas crisis... I figure the rest of Australia might notice when the national economy slides backwards next quarter, because we're the state that's been propping it up lately. ;) Somno (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

North West Pacific Islands

I created this as a redirect to South Pacific Mandate - the territory never existed in fact however postage stamps were issued 1915-1923 (until Versailles treaty) by the British as a claim on the territory occupied by Japan since 1914 so some reference needed simply because of the existence of the stamps but didnt seem to justify an article??. More info on the British claim incl. submissions at Versailles, also Japanese Pacific ops. in WW1 would appear to be needed (Epistemos (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

New Berowra by-election, 2008 article

Has anything seen anything about Philip Ruddock quitting? Everything I've seen (and I'm a political obsessive) indicates that he's decided to stay for at least this term in Parliament. As such, I suspect that the Berowra by-election, 2008 should be deleted as it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The newspaper reference in the article doesn't appear to support the claim which is attributed to it. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard nothing (and I'm not a political obsessive). Neither of the refs mention Berowra; suggest a prod. —Giggy 10:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I doubt by-elections merit an article at all, although I know that is a minority view. It clearly breaches WP:CRYSTAL , but I don't see a applicable criterion to allow speedy deletion. Given that we have articles on topics such as Next Australian federal election, I am not sure WP:CRYSTAL carries much weight anymore anyway. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Tempted to go for Speedy Delete. Maybe create if and when Ruddock retires. Next Australian federal election is a bit premature but we know we're gonna need the article one day, so it's not the same thing. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
To say there will be a Berowra by-election this year is WP:CRYSTAL. To say the next federal election is scheduled for late 2010/early 2011 is based upon cites and not WP:CRYSTAL. Timeshift (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have taken the the discussion slightly off-topic but while there is no doubt there will be an election, most of its contents—starting with the pictures of the leaders in the infobox—is speculation or related to the previous election. Anyway, I know I am in the minority on that issue too! -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We have plenty of precedent. Dont worry, it could be worse. Timeshift (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That was quick! Nick Dowling (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane infobox image

Some comments here would be good. Brisbane Man is correct that the Sydney article doesn't have a map in the infobox; personally I think it should. In any case can we have some nation-wide consensus on what image to place there? —Giggy 01:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a nation-wide consensus? If the editors on the Brisbane article prefer a map and the editors on the Melbourne article prefer a skyline photo then I don't have a problem that that at all. The information on both is still available in the article. Mind you, perhaps the very efficient developers of {{Infobox Australian Place}} would be kind enough to create a field for both and then everyone would be happy (except for those who feel the infobox is too large already!) -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I quite like the way it's handled it at London --Melburnian (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I like that too. And the infobox only goes as low as the end of the TOC so it's not really a big problem. —Giggy 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Very nice indeed! -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently the option is to choose an image or a locator map and there has been a general consensus at Template talk:Infobox Australian Place to keep locator maps out of the infobox in non-city articles. Given the relatively small number of cities, not all of which use locator maps, compared to the number of articles that use the infobox (I think it's around 6,000), it's only a small number of articles that would actually benefit from yet another field so it may not be worth the effort. I really don't care either way but I know there has been opposition to adding more fields. In the meantime, a quick fix is to place an image directly after the infobox, as in the case of Perth. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Short on time here but I tend to agree with Mattinbgn and AussieLegend here. Orderinchaos 07:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems I was speaking rubbish, although not intentionally. There is already a locator map function coded into Template:Infobox Australian Place[28] but it's not working properly. The locator dot seems to always be forced to the left, regardless of the coordinates provided. Yet another undocumented feature of the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
After a bit of research I found some infomation, here and here, that enabled me to get the inbuilt locator map functioning as it was intended. Using the inbuilt function allows you to have both an image and a locator map in the infobox. This test edit to Brisbane shows what it looks like. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would look better if the picture (of Brisneyland) was a bit larger and the location image was smaller. What do others think?--Sting Buzz Me... 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind that at all, AussieLegend, but perhaps using an Australia map instead of a Queensland map would be better. Australians obviously would all know where Queensland is relative to the country, but non-Australians might not. I think the Australia-wide image gives a much easier context for them to see where the city is at a glance. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC).
I think that the map should take up less vertical space, I would probably lean to the map of the whole of Australia similar to the one there now, but much smaller with a relatively larger locator dot.Melburnian (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the reasons that states were originally chosen, as I wasn't involved, but, as I see it, the infobox title is "Brisbane Queensland" so it seems more logical and consistent that the map shows the location of Brisbane in Queensland, rather than Brisbane in Australia. If you don't know where Queensland is in Australia then it's just a matter of clicking on the Queensland link which takes you to the Queensland article where there is a map showing the location of Queensland in Australia. Of course there is the issue of vertical size which is also an issue with WA, NT, ACT and, to a lesser extent, SA. Unfortunately that height issue is caused by the need to keep the image widths to a reasonable size. It is possible to force the infobox to use the Australian map but you have to leave the "state" field empty. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(reset indentation), well, as a similar example, it would be like marking the location of Denver on a map of Colorado. To me as an ignorant Australian, that gives me absolutely zero idea where the city is in relation to other centres, or the country as a whole. I can just click the link to Colorado, but if the information can be provided all on one page, then why not just do that? You're right in that anyone with a familiarity with the subject will know how Queensland fits into the map, but I would have thought the primary audience for an article such is that is people without a familiarity with the subject.
As an aside, having a look at the Denver image, they have both an in-state map and then a national map; perhaps that is another option that we can look at? Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC).
I looked up Vladivostok for a random example of a large city in a federation, they do the 2-map thing also, with a small map showing Russia and a larger map showing the cities location within the federal subject Primorsky Krai, I think showing the two maps is not a bad idea, if the size of the maps can be scaled appropriately. Melburnian (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia goatse

Can someone remove the goatse from the Australia page? It'll probably be removed by the time I post this message, but just wanted to make sure someone knew. I suspect it's template vandalism. (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, gone now. (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It was done again, and the culprit was a vandal edit to Template:Commonwealth_realms. If it happens again, that might be somewhere to look first. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
I've now temporarily protected the template --Melburnian (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ Derriman, Philip (13 October 1998). "Ian Johnson, former test captain and Bradman Invincible, dies at 80". Sydney Morning Herald. p. 43.  Check date values in: |date= (help)