Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Perth)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia:

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

Vital articles: 100 Most Influential Western Australians is a possible starting point
Requested articles: Margaret Wylie • John Thomson (Australian businessman) • Tourism in Western Australia (see: Tourism in Sydney, Tourism in Melbourne, Tourism in Brisbane) • Energy in Western Australia • Nicholson, Western Australia • South Western Advertiser (see Trove page) • Robin Sarah Greenburg (see Crimenet page) James Hine (1848-1928, architect of Trinity Arcade [1])  • Chesters' Subdivision Conservation Area, Subiaco [2][3]
Missing topics: Plantae Preissianae • Piotr Rutkowski • Arthur Jenkins (Australian politician) • Beacon Island (Houtman Abrolhos) • See missing topics report for more
Seeking sources: William Harris (Australian civil rights leader) • Michael Kailis
Expansion needed: Busselton, Western Australia • David Parker • Economy of Western Australia • May Gibbs • Bill Hassell • May Holman • Barry MacKinnon • Ross McLarty • New Norcia, Western Australia • PGA • Pilbara historical timeline • Whadjuk • List of WA waterfalls • tourism sections needed in Western Australia • Thomas Hughes (Australian politician) - needs expansion from cultural sources
Requested images: Requested photographs in Western Australia • Requested photographs in Perth
Article cleanup: See Cleanup listing
Popular pages: See Popular pages listing (related changes) – improvements to (or vandalism of) these articles will impact a larger number of readers
Assessment: See Unassessed WA articles and Unknown-importance WA articles
Outreach projects:

WP:WA Noticeboard[edit]

Recently created articles[edit]

Article alerts[edit]

Featured article candidates

Requested moves

WP:PERTH task force
WikiClubWest logo Perth Meetup

Wikimedia Australia.svg
See also: Australian events listed at (or on Facebook)

Next Perth Meetup[edit]

For those page lurkers, or interested persons -

The Next Perht meetup is this Sunday in the State Library in Perth - Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/52

anyone most welcome - a range of activities - including the opportunity to speak with visiting WikiData expert Andy Mabbett and a marvelous opportunity to meet fellow wikipedians

See you there!! JarrahTree 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

pawn in a much wider game[edit]

Local editors should be aware that the 1944 scare during second world war is being worked upon the GA process for the article Western_Australian_emergency_of_March_1944 by the Australian cohort of milhist editors. In a lot of cases the details might have 'tothersiders making claims about things west australian that might need local tweaks.

Please help the process - and clarify or help editors who are not local. It is a marvelous opportunity for editors who do not venture into other states histories, to see how WA was a focus of attention in the latter parts of the 2ww.

For the newer and more adventurous editors, the more serious issue was the Western_Australian_emergency_of_March_1942 as a lot more was enacted and done on the ground, however the article in appearance is the opposite end of the Feature 1944 article, it is a mere stub in comparison. The fact that there is now more material in easily available sources about the actions of 1942 here in Western Australia.

As the project is concerned there is thanks to the Oz milhist cohort for improving WA history content - specially Nick-D who started the 1944 article. JarrahTree 23:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RAC --> Perth Arena[edit]

Local editors are invited to comment at Talk:RAC_Arena_(Perth)#Requested_move_13_October_2018. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


A new article on the heritage listing of the West Kimberley some years ago has appeared (with thanks to Kerry Raymond for her considerable effort to make sure that such an amazing listing has an article).

It would be appreciated if others can have a look, as there might be some inter-relationship with already existing article on the kimberley - so any extra eyes would be appreciated - thank you. JarrahTree 15:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If this how we are going to approach Indigenous culture then we are doing harm, that whole article is as politely offensive as possible while being the perfect example of how not to dump Australian Government databases licensed under cc-by into Wikipedia it make a mockery of the efforts of every contributor to neutral, factual. It should be deleted. Gnangarra 16:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad I didn't notice the offensive parts, well nothing more than the usual air of apologetics from a source like that. I agree that content should not be used as a text dump, although there are good leads for article expansion it at the very least forks from existing articles, is in an inappropriate tone, and swamps the legitimate content. cygnis insignis 17:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean it up but its not anywhere an encyclopaedic article. the whole basis is just the reason for heritage listing. It does nothing well but yeah it offers a myriad of starting points yet they are so obtuse and out of sinc that given credit as being based on a cc-by page dump is outrageous. As said the perfect example of what not to do with cc-by text from government departments Gnangarra 17:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places, which is where this stuff is being coordinated. As some of you have a lot of opinions about heritage stuff, it might be a useful place to follow. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub, it is not a heritage article in reality, it is a grab all over a range of disciplines and in reality is not relevant in a historic place project - it is more a parallel reality show to existing articles. Heritage landscapes of that size (as the deleted lead sentence had: It is a huge area. It is a vast area ) really should not have single articles on wikipedia like that.
It simply swamps an already wikipedia covered area - the bibliography does disservice to the rest of the material of the category
So although it might seem to belong to the historic place project - it is not. JarrahTree 23:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with you. I'm just pointing you to the best place to discuss it (since it's the project that made the article), and suggest that it's a page you might be interested to keep an eye on to participate in in future considering your areas of interest. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The best place to talk about Western Australian topics is at Wikiproject:Western Australia its where you'll find the known to put the whole picture together, Gnangarra 04:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Look, if you really want to focus on trying to have a turf war, do it, but it'll probably mean the issue stagnating without getting the outcome you could've obtained if you'd engaged. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
its a case of suggesting where you'll find the level of participation by knowledgable people needed to be informed about the topic and its relationships with the myriad of other topics related to the region and the state as a whole. Gnangarra 09:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that the whole article be moved out of article namespace and into draft-space until it can be cleaned up. While I understand the sentiment, section headings of "below to be removed after selective pieces are retained" are simply not appropriate in article space. (Related diffs: [4][5]) Likewise "under review". If the article is in such a state that it needs section headings like those, it's not ready for publishing. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Further issues, which suggest it's really not ready for main-space:
  • The scope of the area is ill-defined. The first reference [6] says "The West Kimberley spans 159,609 square kilometres", but the West Kimberley's lead section says "the 420,000 square kilometre region", citing a reference [7] that says "The [unqualified] Kimberley occupies more than 420,000 square kilometres". That same reference also uses "north Kimberley", "west Kimberley" etc, suggesting that the "west Kimberley" is only part of the 420,000. The rest of West Kimberley refers variously to or describes "Kimberley", "west Kimberley", "north-west Kimberley", "central Kimberley", as if the article can't decide what its scope is.
  • It really needs clearer separation between description of the land itself, and the people. For example:

... obligations to relocate to particular areas for ritual business.
Knowledge was the primary tool used by Aboriginal people to occupy and manage the Australian continent. Aboriginal knowledge systems, which support sustainable relationships with the land, have developed through many millennia of observation, experimentation and teaching

In the Kimberley, the diversity of the biological environment is paralleled by the diversity of the cultural and linguistic environment. Linguists have shown that languages spoken north of the Fitzroy River are different from those classified as the "Pama-Nyungen" languages, spoken everywhere else on the Australian continent

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Further to my above comment regarding the area that the "West Kimberley" nominally covers (420,000 km2 or 159,609 km2), I just added a {{convert}} (without changing the input value) to West Kimberley#Places of Interest; now it says:

West Kimberley is at about 19,200,000 hectares (192,000 km2) ...

So now we have 420,000 km2, 160,000 km2, 192,000 km2 to choose from. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
yeah its a problem because the base cc text is 10 years old, date would be older and more adhoc. Region shift according to the whim of which department wants what for what connection, whether its tourism, cultural, mining, political funding. Basically its what we encounter with every region in WA there is no absolute. As for some of the other issues yes there still is a lot of sorting to do and aweful lot of governmental report writing garbage, guff and fluff that needs to be removed. Gnangarra 09:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Heritage lists[edit]

There's an ongoing discussion about rolling out lists of heritage sites at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places, following on from the earlier discussion at WP:AWNB. Having been through these sorts of discussions with WA people before, it'd be useful to establish if we can find a nationally consistent way of doing this now, rather than ploughing through and having a bunch of arguments down the line - feedback there would be appreciated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just posted at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places discussion that I think it would not be a good idea to try to discuss, right now, all the issues that would be involved in setting up list-articles to cover all of Western Australia. These issues would include scope (whether to cover state-level sites only or not), regions (how to partition list-articles by geographical areas of WA), formatting of tables (which could depend on WA data fields available) and more. It's a pretty long post, sorry, at the bottom of this permalink version of that Talk page. I want to do Queensland first, and I think that only sometime later might it be productive to talk about list-articles for WA. Not to hide anything, I don't mean to complain about past stuff, but I did mention some recent/past disagreement about the Fremantle historic sites list-article, and I do think the fact of disagreement and/or incomplete discussion there is valid reason not to want to impose new stuff on WA editors right now. WA editors, like any editors, are welcome to watch and participate in the discussion now, and/or in a narrower discussion about Queensland. --Doncram (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)