Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help

WikiProjects edit | watch
In the news edit | watch
Read and edit Wikinews
Categories edit | watch
On this day in Australia edit | watch

Australia · Arts · Architecture · Cities · Communications · Culture · Economy · Education · Environment · Geography · Government · Healthcare · History · Law · Language · Lists · Media · Military · Music · Organisations · People · Politics · Religion · Science · Society · Sport · Subdivisions · Transport · Tourism

Australian states and territories · Australian Capital Territory · New South Wales · Northern Territory · Queensland · South Australia · Tasmania · Victoria · Western Australia

Capital cities · Adelaide · Brisbane · Canberra · Darwin · Hobart · Melbourne · Perth · Sydney

Australia stubs · AFL stubs · Geography stubs · Government stubs · Law stubs · People stubs · Paralympic medalists stubs · Television stubs

4 December:

Charles Joseph La Trobe
To-Do edit | watch
Announcements edit | watch

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia:

Requests · ABSTUDY · Ariadne Australia · Awakenings disability arts festival · Drought Force · Electoral reform in Australia · Festival of the Dreaming · Fossils of Australia · Landforms of Australia · National Tidal Centre · OneAustralia · Property Council of Australia

Articles needing attention · Crime in Australia · Cycling Australia · Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon · Environment of Australia · Privacy in Australian law · Tourism in Australia

Images requested · Benjamin Benjamin · Cheryl Kernot · MV Pacific Adventurer · Poppy King · Rosemary Goldie · James Moore

Verification needed · Architecture of Australia · Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission · Australian performance poetry · FreeTV Australia · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of Australian political controversies · Outback · Paul Wild Observatory · Punk rock in Australia · Reg Ansett

Quality watch:


You must not come to Wikipedia and preach about trivial matters. Wikipedia must never, under any circumstance, be a voice for a particular view. This is why we are so popular with internet users. This is our cardinal rule. Please adhere to our policy. It works best that way.

We do not aim to contain all expression found elsewhere. This isn't anarchy, we have rules. Wikipedia is not here to promote things or make our readers contemplate a topic nor is it a form of personal communication. When this happens, it breaks all of these policies.

This type of editing is extremely poor quality and should be removed immediately. Its just a quote farm - a long list of quotations said about various things. This is trivia because anyone can say anything about anything. There is no value to that information from a referencing (building an encyclopedia) point of view because it is of very little consequence. Its not knowledge on the topic of the article. Its imparting knowledge of what was said about something. That is peripheral, off-topic and too trivial and therefore doesn't belong.

We aren't here to document the activities of any organisation in detail. We provide a summary of information, not little bits and pieces, not lists of activities, political positions or quotes. We don't want to copy and paste what was said about things into Wikipedia, except rarely and with good reason. This is laziness and can be a form of fraud where editors game the system to procure a vehicle or platform for ideological dissemination. When you let this stay it devalues all the other good editing we do. Its makes a mockery of the WikiProject Australia. When editors do this they are displaying a lack mutual respect. Its incivility. Some contributors are unable to constrain themselves from their deeply held religious views. Biased edit histories disprove any notion of neutrality. This editing is not done to improve our encyclopedia. It is done solely for the purpose of showcasing religious views. Help stop the biblethumping and push this dribble away. Please don't underestimate this threat and support me on this. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My approach to biased articles is to attempt to restructure them and add balancing reliable sources. Whole scale deletion of content with a large number of independent sources is problematic, I have also found at times the existing sources useful in rebalancing an article. -- Paul foord (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
My approach is remove what doesn't belong. That is the solution to our cleanup backlogs. We don't have time to pretend biased editing is useful and ignoring it is failure. I don't feel obligated to fix other editors mistakes, especially not decades into the project when our policies are firmly set. This is how we assess our peers' contributions. Any edit away from our assessment criteria should be corrected by its removal with pointers to our policy unreservedly. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If there is significant independent media coverage of campaigns run by such organisations as the Australian Christian Lobby, and such organisations are reported to have significant political influence, then labelling reference to those campaigns and political influence 'trivia' and removing links to those sources is counter productive. Putting it in a critical encyclopedic perspective is what users want, where that can be done from the independent reliable sources then that should be done. Paul foord (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian Christian Lobby[edit]

Please continue the discussion regarding the Australian Christian Lobby at Talk:Australian Christian Lobby#WP:NOT copied from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians.27 notice board.23WP:NOT Paul foord (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The article I presume you are referring to is Australian Christian Lobby? If so, then because they are a lobby group it is entirely appropriate that their stance on issues they lobby in regard to is succinctly documented in the article. The usual verifiability via reliable secondary source guidelines still apply. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Please try to think of the wider world. The very same argument could be made for railway stations and what they do. Its not our role to document, record or list what times trains arrive and depart from a station and yet that is the purpose of a train station. We direct our readers to the relevant train authority for that information. Likewise readers wanting to know this group's specific stance at some point in time need to visit their website for that information. We don't track any organisation's views for them. We don't provide that kind of content because its trivial information not belonging in an encyclopedia. How about casinos, shall we list what games are available and what a casino manager thinks of their facilities? The purpose of all companies is to generate profit and yet we don't include lists of annual profit and loss statements. This edit serves no other purposes but to spread religious speech. Someone wishing to inject so many quotes is trying to persuade. We must write objectively without bias. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the correct analogy is the railway (organisation or line), not a single station, and yes we do document major routes and when they run and which stations they service. Similarly the correct analogy for a company is what they produce and where and sometimes also important who-fors, etc., which we do document, which for a lobby group is their stance on issues and who they target. Aoziwe (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
It is a sad reflection on the current state of our editing community in Australia when individual editors have taken up a specific case of misuse of the editing privilege - and no one turns up to support or add comment. I for one think Shiftchange's current reward of total silence from others is unfair on the effort put in to try to present the case and point it out. The possibility of further situations such as these is always there, one only hopes others who have to battle with misuse in what increasingly are singular efforts, are supported more over time. There are probably similar efforts by well meaning editors in less noticeable corners, they are always better brought here for the wider community (where ever it is) to see. JarrahTree 02:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
... no one turns up to support or add comment. I for one think Shiftchange's current reward of total silence from others is unfair ...
Qui tacet consentire videtur (He who is silent is taken to agree). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a challenge to comment. I think the "detail version" is too long, but a brief summary of the key points of the ACL platform is helpful to an understanding of why it is not precisely representative of many Christian Australian's beliefs, and why it is such a polarising organisation even if it broadly has agreement or acceptance on some topic. It's a lobby group, not a political party, but we give a description of the key policies and attitudes of many parties to help readers understand reactions. --Scott Davis Talk 10:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There are thousands of Wiki-articles which detail the views and lobbying efforts of organisations. Many examples here: environmental organizations;LGBT rights organizations and Lobbying organizations in the United States.
User:Shiftchange has said, "I'm spearheading a campaign to remove Christian propaganda, such as this from Australian articles. Join me, now! I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am fully motivated to come after every single scrap of it with military precision. I am not willing to compromise on our policies and guidelines. In the articles I watch I want to remove all but the very most important speech or quotations. I then want to replace that with concise, fact-based prose written by a Wikipedian, sourced by reliable references." Obviously a POV. On 17 November 2016 User:Shiftchange removed every single reference to ACL's views and lobbying efforts (being 42,704 characters) with the justification as "remove trivia".
Under Shiftchanges, changes, (1) the 10 year old ACL Wiki-article is decimated, the (2) its Wiki-structure is now different to most similar organisations and (3) the lede now refers to issues which are now not mentioned anywhere else.
John Warhurst, emeritus professor at ANU said, "ACL is now established in the top echelon of lobbying groups"[33] Professor Marion Maddox . . has said that ACL has achieved, "remarkable influence . . "[37] Fine, but what does the Shiftchange-ACL actually do?
I agree 100% with User:Aoziwe's comments above. I agree 100% with User:Paul foord's comments here. I recommend the ACL wiki article remains in its unvandalised state. From there it can be further improved. B20097 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason this discussion is not at Talk:Australian Christian Lobby? Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
For some unknown reason Shiftchange put it here??? B20097 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

New 5000 Challenge for Australia[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge and the wider Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Australia and Oceania like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Australia but fuelled by a contest if desirable to really get articles on every state/territory and subject mass improved. After every 100 articles done for Australia this would feed into the main Oceania one. I will start a 1000 one for New Zealand or even a sub 1000 article challenge for a state of Australia or something like Rules Football if there is the support. I would like some support from wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start anyway with some articles to make doing a Destubathon for Australia and Oceania worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

City of Bankstown template[edit]

Given that City of Bankstown has now merged to become Canterbury-Bankstown Council this template will need to be updated. Template:City of Bankstown topics. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Logo Change[edit]

I think we should change the logo of WP:AUSTRALIA. This was previously discussed here. The final vote was 2-2 and I think we should discuss it again and see if we can come to a conclusion. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose changing the logo. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing to gain by changing it. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no reason provided, no inadequacies in current logo demonstrated, pointless distraction. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Completely agree with both Mitch Ames and Shiftchange. --AussieLegend () 18:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was not going to comment as I have nothing new to add, but since a previous discussion is described as a vote and the results tallied, I pile on the bandwagon as I also see no reason to change. "If it's not broke, don't fix it". --Scott Davis Talk 12:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same as above. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The logo seems fine as is, as are the points of others who have come here JarrahTree 14:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian agencies are confusing[edit]

Can someone do some work on Australian Classification Board and Australian Classification Review Board. I was also told by とある白い猫 that some of the content may need to be split into a third article, Classification of media in Australia. I would rather someone familiar with these Australian agencies work on this rather than someone like me, who's completely unfamiliar with them. (I'm American, by the way.) Gestrid (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is this (just to clarify and verify). You have two different "sister" agencies. Each should have their separate article for the separate history (who run the office, how much funding it got and other such bureaucratic operation). And a third article to discuss their joint work classifying games, movies and whatever else they classify. Both articles have content (#Controversies, #Classification decisions) on this so they would be merged to this third article where issues are more prominently discussed with the role of each agency since I expect there will be some overlap. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

drum line program to kill sharks[edit]

Australian editors' opinions are requested at Talk:Queensland#drum line program to kill sharks. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better suited on Drum lines. Although if Queensland was the first jurisdiction in the world to deploy them it may be of historical significance. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of copying Shiftchange's comment to Talk:Queensland#drum line program to kill sharks, so that the discussion is all in one place.
Please add any further comments to Talk:Queensland#drum line program to kill sharks rather than here. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Courthouse or Court House[edit]

What's the consensus on the correct form in "Australian English"? I notice we have both in use in article titles. I usually write it as 2 words myself, but I have no idea for why I do. The Queensland Heritage Register uses both forms (which is what triggers my question). Or doesn't it matter? Kerry (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary only lists "courthouse" with no alternative spelling, which is odd because "court house" is pretty common as a proper noun. I'd suggest "court building" as a generic descriptor. Hack (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we should always use "courthouse" for the common noun. In proper nouns we could look for an official version in each case. For instance, Berrima Court House. This can get tricky where there is no consistency in the sources, e.g., the WA Heritage Council describes the "Albany Courthouse", while the Royal Association of Justices WA chooses "Albany Court House" (but "Bunbury Courthouse", "Mandurah Courthouse", etc! But perhaps the truest "official" source is the administering authority, the Attorney General's Dept. My search there showed that their consistent preference is for "Albany Courthouse", etc This option provides consistency within WA while allowing other states to differ. Note, however, that a historic (only) building may be administered by a heritage authority which may have settled on "Court House", and we should go along with that. Bjenks (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Queensland Supreme Court website is using "courthouse". I'm thinking this is the best way to go, given the Macquarie Dictionary support. Not that I am going to rush out and rename everything, but incrementally I'll try to move towards standardising "courthouse". Kerry (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries with the common noun—"courthouse" is also endorsed by the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. (In their 1965 edn, the first I bought, they prescribed "court-house".) But that does not carry over to proper nouns which are spelled according to local usage and/or documentation. Bjenks (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Just Jeans[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Just Jeans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced and non-notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

creeping wheatbelt[edit]

Interesting, the notion of an Australian wheatbelt exists apparently, as well as the belts in states other than WA.

A recently updated disambiguation page - Wheatbelt claims from usage in articles: -

SA near Kyancutta
Vic near Sea Lake

and for the continent, a whole rainfall range area has been recently identified at Wheatbelt_(Australia), utilising two online sources of 'authority'. The plot further thickens when there is evidence that at Trove ( that the term for the Australian wheatbelt, if it exists in name on the web, simply has never been referred to as such, at least not in a general search.

So what to do? I reserve my doubts as to the veracity of the usage of the term in the SA and Vic articles, and the usage of the term at the new australian generic article. I would much prefer to see other informed australian editors offer their understanding of where the term starts and and ends, and where the body of evidence shows and allows for an encyclopedia article and title as such in a wide and general usage.

A similar looseness of usage can be found with the word Nullarbor - where imagination and the propensity to make 6 out of 2 + 2, has the nullarbor starting at Norseman and ending at Port Augusta, whereas in fact, the real nullarbor is a lot more confined in its actual reach. In the end I suppose it is whether fellow editors want to allow ranges of things from picked sources, to be allowed in an online encyclopedia, or we stick to the general term as it has been used in time to be understood as what it is generally accepted. JarrahTree 23:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)