Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney)
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

11 December:

Richmond Bridge, Tasmania, May 2006
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 · 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 · OneAustralia ·

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

Quality watch:


I haven't shown my face around the 'pedia for some time, years in fact. I thought I'd pop back in to check the current happenings. Some familiar faces still kicking about which is good to see. I was once very active, kicked off and created WikiProject Australia back in the day, worked a lot on bringing the article classification system to Australian content (which is still in use to this day I notice), among many other things. I'm sure to need a reeducation since this place changes so much, but if I can be of any assistance while I relearn the ropes, feel free to gimme a yell. I'm back. -- Longhair\talk 12:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back! The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
One of my favourite all time editors, a true mentor, back in the day. We need you. More than that Wikipedia needs reform. Paid operatives are ruining things, especially our political articles. They are paid to inject political speech and propaganda. This is a real mess that the community will have to address. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
One of the first things I noticed upon my return was the inactive status of many of the past political content creators, although some appear to call past from time to time, they're certainly nowhere near as active as they once were. While I do have an interest in politics, the former very active editors I refer to really had their hand on the ball back then and kept those articles well watched. What makes you think a professional hit team is at work here, or is it that obvious? I don't have many articles under watch lately but if there's issue with political content I am wise enough to see what's propaganda and what's reality and I'll offer to help combat any nonsense if I'm made aware of it. Have you reported the issue to any noticeboards to give the problem a wider set of eyes perhaps? -- Longhair\talk 07:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Because the paid editors admitted it to me. It would be naive to think paid editors are not wrecking our political articles, just like all other internet media platforms are being co-opted and corrupted. The past political content creators have been driven out. Notice how problematic the National Broadband Network article has been, an awful read. Notice above, no response to the policy of No propaganda of any kind. Paid to look the other way. Notice the weakness of the WMAU? Complete selective quotations and insistence of justification for banned material. We are not a battleground so no to payments to inject propaganda. How about we include the CEO of General Motor's statements about his work or what he thinks of the competition? Ridiculous because we can't be used for promotional purposes. From WP:ASSERT, "A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves" and also see WP:FALSEBALANCE. From Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, "People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals,”. This is the paid editors playbook for workflow. We must make the necessary assumption that a politician will badmouth opponents and not pretend this is remarkable for an encyclopedia. Help me fight for Wikipedia so it is knowledge based. We trim back the work that was paid for and the articles get much better. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR – Maybe you would get a better response to your grievances if you could put your point more succinctly, supported by some some well chosen diffs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't dared look at the NBN article yet, but could imagine the mess its in. I'll offer to help fight back the crap... it wouldn't be helped by mainstream media often helping the propaganda process along eh? No need for diffs... in the current political climate I'm sure it's quite widespread right across the entire Australian political content landscape... -- Longhair\talk 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Its this sort of thing. The article covers a report from Freedom House that explains the aim is to develop pro-government “astroturfing” (a fake grassroots movement). Recently “the practice has become significantly more widespread and technically sophisticated, with bots, propaganda producers, and fake news outlets ensure high visibility and seamless integration with trusted content,”. So our paid editors would be model Wikipedians trying to create a fake movement for political purposes. This is exactly what I dealt with last year on Safe Schools Coalition Australia and when I turned to this board for help, crickets. The wider problem, that is, propaganda producing and its integration to Wikipedia is exactly what I have recently identified here and exactly the thing that some regulars to this noticeboard will not touch. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're talking about. Interestingly, Wikipedia rates a high mention in this video. It's not an easy topic to understand overall, but with noise continuing to be made about it, at least it'll be spoken about until it eventually sinks in... -- Longhair\talk 02:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the circular sourcing issue feeds into the much wider problem of disinformation. As the video demonstrated, people turn to Wikipedia early in the search for more knowledge. Our paid operatives would be sneaky and risk averse. They would try to create echoes on Wikipedia covertly by blurring the lines of the trivial and significant. They would try to add quotations about politicians for example, and justify the inclusion, even when that is against our established and unequivocal policy. If that conduct occurs by an editor who otherwise follows policy it would be a red flag (idiom). To enable this behaviour or turn a blind-eye to it when we know other major internet platforms are being subverted would be weakness and counter-productive. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw a quote similar (here I think) just the other day... being that "it's a given that politicians will shit talk each other"... I hear ya... I've yet to come across any suspects yet myself though, but I'm sure they're out there waiting to pounce. -- Longhair\talk 00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's a field report of sorts of something I've been quietly observing... I won't say where just yet as I would prefer to be 100% informed before I bring out the block shaped hammers and start naming names and whatever. Here's the scenario concerning one interesting series of events I've cottoned onto.
Pick any politician of the up and coming variety. As a public figure, they're often in the media for both good and bad reasons. A new editor comes along, makes a mundane WikiGnome style edit, looks over his shoulder, then sneaks back in to make another, while removing a negative reference at the same time. They'll continue making minor edits hoping to bury the evidence.
Before you think I'm quietly sitting back condoning it, I've blocked plenty of them just recently, for other reasons. Am I getting warmer and now seeing what you're trying to bring attention to? I've now seen it for myself on a regular basis just this week and I smell shit people in the 'pedia. -- Longhair\talk 04:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's see what happens when you walk right up to the bear and poke it... (that's just one of many accounts I've observed)... -- Longhair\talk 04:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The paid editor who I am most familiar with was quite excited by the departure of User:Orderinchaos. That example may be instructive. Obviously User:B20097 is their sock puppet. User:Max.Moore another, paid to inject propaganda statements. Once you see these editors repeatedly ignore warnings you see their bias for what it is - paid work. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to stop throwing around baseless allegations, especially in relation to some of your stranger claims (e.g. any explanation of what anyone or anything believes, supports or opposes on a political article being "propaganda"). You know from our initial encounters that I'm as frustrated with the behaviour of people like B20097 as you are, but this is getting beyond the pale. This is a prime example: B20097 and Max.Moore have vastly different edit histories and opinions beyond both being conservatives, and they're somehow getting subsumed into this grand conspiracy where they're supposed sockpuppets of someone who isn't even a conservative at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What crimes are you talking about with this conspiracy nonsense? Try to be more rationale. Our policy is no propaganda of any kind, okay? What are you suggesting I benefit from by making up something? I've been asking about the inclusion of propaganda in our articles, you know the bias? Do you want that fixed or not? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The personal attacks on editors who do not agree that articles on political parties and politicians should be expunged of any information about their specific views continue to be very frustrating. It is neither propaganda or bias to explain the specific views of political parties and figures, and these baseless allegations of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry against people who disagree on this point must stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily page views[edit]

I didn't know about this, and haven't seen it in widespread usage around the place, so my apologies if this is already known. You can view traffic statistics for any article, or any page for that matter, by following the easy to use instructions available at Template:Graph:PageViews. As an example, here's the traffic for the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, this page, for the past 12 months. The template can be added to talk pages to provide an overview of traffic an article receives. -- Longhair\talk 00:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What happened late March early April ? Aoziwe (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No idea, but I did some fiddling with the graphs over on the pages of the big two political parties here in Aus (LNP and ALP), and they show similar spikes as well. -- Longhair\talk 02:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
March may have been § Fair use campaign: next steps - Evad37 [talk] 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A way to identify and recruit new members for WikiProject Australia[edit]

We often say here that we are short of editors. One of the problems is that new editors don't really have a way to find out about WikiProjects. I'd been writing on Australian content for some years before User:Lankiveil told me about this noticeboard (those of the TL;DR camp may regret Lankiveil's actions in this regard).

This article in Signpost describes a tool to help WikiProjects identify editors who may be of interest to a project based on their pattern of edits. WikiProjects can then do personal invitations to try to recruit the new editor.

Any objections to signing up to get this info? I don't know anything more about this than the Signpost article above but it seems like it might be useful. Too many people (and I speak from some personal experience in this matter) first encounter WikiProjects by beaten over the head about some rule/convention that the WikiProject has established, which is not conducive to people wanting to join the project. So finding a nicer way to do it "hey, you did some great edits on Some Aussie Topic, wanna join our project?" might be a good idea. Note, I would suggest not having a template welcome with three thousand links to guidelines, etc. I think sending a few "thanks" on their edits or a WikiLove and then invite them more personally to join the project would be more likely to be effective. Kerry (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick question, because user behaviour often determines the reasons why projects fail... what was the cause of you, Kerry, not being informed about WikiProjects until somebody told you about them? Did you never visit talk pages where the information is often right up the top of many, not read the notices perhaps, I'm curious how something so visible (and I realise some folk don't ever visit talk pages, but I'm guessing Kerry has been to many since her time here) slipped right past a very active editor... -- Longhair\talk 05:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Paid editors do not like WikiProjects because they create collaboration and potential obstacles against their "work". They are in principle against this sort of organising and qualitative assessment because it might highlight their "work". - Shiftchange (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you make an invalid assumption here. Although I have had an account since 2005, I have only been relatively active since 2013, which coincides with my retirement. As I say, I did know projects existed because I was told I was breaking their rules. No invitation to join those projects occurred and indeed I remember telling someone that WikiProjects appeared to be groups of unpleasant people who went around behaving like dogs, marking their territory with their giant banners on Talk pages or like real-world vandals with their tags. The members of WikiProject Australia that I had encountered left me with no interest whatsoever in being part of it. To expand on the Lankiveil story, in response to some face-to-face conversation (note, not on-wiki) around the time of my retirement, he mentioned the Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard. As I didn't know what it was, I googled it, found it, and started engaging in it. But what I did not realise that the Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard was the Talk page of WikiProject Australia because it isn't called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Whatever. So I engaged in this notice board for some time (probably a year or so from memory) before I worked out the relationship with the project. So I became a de facto member of this project through ignorance (and my name still does not appear in the list of Members). One of the problems we have as a regular contibutors is that we know how things work (although I still discover things I didn't know about how Wikipedia operates all the time) and so we lose the ability to perceive it as newcomers see it. It's probably doubly true about someone who created some of the infrastructure in the first place :-) Just to illustrate this. Last weekend I showed an editor who first edited in 2005 how to turn on preferences to get one of the advanced tool bars in the source editor (interestingly it was again in a face-to-face situation not on-wiki). This person did not have the citation wizard on their tool bar. For 12 years, this editor has written citations without forms, without templates, doing manual formatting to look like the other ones they see in articles, unaware that most of us make citation with wizards and Citoid and pasting Trove citations etc. (If anyone reading this does not have Citation pop-up forms on their toolbar, please contact me and I will tell you how to enable it). Believe me, there is a lot that regular contributors do not know. Because I do face-to-face training, the experience and perceptions of working with a constant stream of new users means I remain exposed to the new user experience. To turn the question back the other way, User:Longhair, as a returning contributor, how do you find the Visual Editor? Do you know it exists? Are you aware of other changes in your absence? How do you go about finding out? Kerry (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't making any assumptions, more offering examples of where the project is very visible. A brief reply for now (I see what you mean by the TL;DR reference ;-) ), a tool that does exactly what this new tool offers has existed for years, and it's nothing to do with myself either in case anyone suggests I am pushing my own barrow here. This list scans articles tagged with the project template, and also those articles without so they can be tagged too, and also offers in the same list the author of the article for invitation to join the project if that's what you want to use it for. No signup to anything required. I'll reply in more length later this evening if I get a chance, and I am in no way knocking your efforts Kerry to build the project, or suggestions for change or otherwise, but speaking up more in the interests of process creep where we find ourselves complicating all sorts of things just because it's possible. Simplicity is the key to keeping people interested. Oh, and I fully agree with the Welcome process... it's crap, and needs a serious rethinking. -- Longhair\talk 08:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
(Reply to the rest of Kerry's comment left earlier): I'm no modern day expert here. I had to go looking for RecentChanges upon my return actually, because it's now buried under a pile of stuff nobody ever reads. Believe it or not, I still compile references by hand, have no idea what Visual Editor or Citoid is, in no rush to find out. The only tools I make use of are TWINKLE and that edit comparison tool you mentioned here a week or so back Kerry (the one with the delta symbol). I remember back in the day when we had very dedicated editors who would guard articles like hawks. Most of them were excellent editors who generated a heap of great content between themselves despite their... I just remember them ok. :D
As headstrong and vigilant as they were, they're gone, probably burnt out for all I know. They sure were passionate, but hardly the type you'd want to meet day one here. Perhaps you crossed paths with one of those types when you say "I did know projects existed because I was told I was breaking their rules. No invitation to join those projects occurred and indeed I remember telling someone that WikiProjects appeared to be groups of unpleasant people who went around behaving like dogs, marking their territory with their giant banners on Talk pages or like real-world vandals with their tags.". I never had any issues here, despite two ArbCom cases in my earlier days (where I was cleared of any wrongdoing on both occasions, or just a witness to the crazy). It's people like you we need here Kerry with a focus on new folk and their needs, because as you say, those with experience behind them can often lose sight of how things were when they began. I'm a realist, and right here now saying "we need to simply the place", because the problems are obvious, at least to me. That said, not everybody edits in the same way, and only a day or so somebody said to me privately "you make more edits in half an hour than some do in a year", but it's not about the quantity, the bulk of what I do here is throw the dickheads out the door who aim to wreck the place, and I've been doing that since forever, and I can spot, maim and exit them quick. Meanwhile the quiet achiever working on a much needed article is adding more value than myself filling RecentChanges with "get out of here dick, for the nth time today"... some people call past once a day, some return months apart. They're both valuable editors despite their activity. Some don't even get social online, some talk too much, and some never talk at all. As long as we make the place welcoming, easy to understand, they'll come if we build it. But don't expect everyone to have the time to participate every single day. -- Longhair\talk 10:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Very good suggestion from Kerry, which I support. Problem is that new editors who stay do not fit into any easy pattern. From some accounts new editors come from real life meetups and pieces of paper - again even most face to face training and intro projects appear to fail to gain new regular editors as well.
Any attempt to help new users find their way is good. One small problem for Australia is we have all the state and specialist projects that are very low involvement (mostly), Australia by itself is a small catchment, state, city and specialist sub projects need considering as well. JarrahTree 04:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with recruiting them into sub-projects/task forces etc if such groups are active (as WA's is, and Aus politics is, etc) but not into the moribund ones. Kerry (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Kerry, thanks so much for a brief reply (sic). I very strongly disagree - the potential for otherwise moribund projects is a wikipedia wide phenomenon which is a very self destructive and negative trend, it signals to new users the project is inactive/dead etc. Most new user havent the faintest how to ressurrect or be involved in them. In the Australian case, the long timers on the Tasmanian, Television and some others have long disappeared - we need to keep them open and encourage more people to pick up the baton and carry on the good work... JarrahTree 04:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

As the bloke who brought a lot of what's here alive (not this Noticeboard, that predates me along with a fair bit of other local stuff I adapted into the WikiProject guts and bones way back when...), but the Wikiproject stuff, the menus, the coding for locality etc, I dumped all that crap here long ago. Can I add it's a total mess here, a user interface nightmare, and that's in criticism of most of the work I left behind myself over 10 years ago now so don't be offended, I'm dissing myself.

Back in those days I was an analytic geek working in IT... looking back it's an over-complicated mess. I have ideas, but I have nowhere near the time I had back then to help make things for the better. I'm short on time right now, but I'll come back to this topic later when time is on my side.

KISS... keep it simple stupid; if my former self introduced who I am today to this mess, I'd probably throw a stapler at it and tell him to go back to User Interface Design 101 class... complexity drives folks away. -- Longhair\talk 05:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest there's an even bigger discussion to be had here, and perhaps we should move that discussion to a more relevant area, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia 2.0 or similar? I've been gone 6 years, just walked back in the door, and my god did I see some shit I'd prefer tearing down while simplifying a lot as well. Project infrastructure talk can get technical when it comes to bots, assessments and what not, and it'll only isolate newbies or disinterested parties further. I'd love to renew the entire project, time permitting, with your help. When I left Wikipedia behind many moons ago we were one of the leading projects looked upon by others as an example of what collaboration can produce. We're certainly not there now are we, and we can do better to bring back the people and keep them here if that's the intention of this discussion. -- Longhair\talk 08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested to see/hear what you have in mind – but remember that assessments, project banners, bots, etc are for the most part bigger than any one wikiproject. E.g. m:Community Tech/Popular pages bot works through the banner (wouldn't want to break that), as do other tools like my WP:RATER script. And there's been some discussions on widespread banner reform at Template talk:WPBannerMeta you may want to look at. - Evad37 [talk] 08:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't got anything in mind at the moment of where to go from here, apart from what I've said already, but I do know many people since my return have all said the same thing to me... "we've lost a lot of people Longhair, why, and how can we get them back"? As for the bots and whatnot being bigger than the project, I am fully aware of the backend and legacy stuff that need not or should not be changed. However, if you're a coder... you'll come in handy if we ever come up with something better. I am technical minded, but my days of sitting up at 3am swearing at perl scripts are long over... but you my friend... stick around eh? :D -- Longhair\talk 09:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll admit something I've never dared say here at Wikipedia, but it's been one of my pet hates since day 1... the entire language used about the place is isolating... WikiLove, WikiGnomes, WikiFairy, WikiElf, Barnstars, I'm sure it's all touchy feely feelgood stuff in line with branding the place(remember, this all came about long before social media was a thing, and it's showing it's age I think. Facebook coped well for a long time with just one button of praise, the like button). When I first walked into the door here in 2004, I had to read what the plate of cookies was doing on my talk page before learning why I had a handful of barnstars thrown at me... just last week somebody handed Jimmy Wales a kitten at his talk page. Reckon he has time for that, good intention reasons aside? It's lingo, inner lingo, and nobody, newbies especially, have time to read the important stuff let alone keep up with the feelgood stuff. WikiProject Australia is one of the very few projects I've ever worked on that I couldn't even stand the name of. Am I alone in thinking this? Newbies wouldn't know a barnstar from a WikiGnome to a WikiProject if you asked them, unless you threw the manual at them a month prior. -- Longhair\talk 09:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia is one of the very few projects I've ever worked on that I couldn't even stand the name of. — There are (were?) worse names ... Mitch Ames (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Simplifying entry level explanations, and leaving most infrastructure intact with acronyms and stupidities inherited, is probably a way to go - but it requires not word bombing newbies or even using terminology that old hands use.

The skill set of the members of the Australian project should be by now advanced enough to codify much simpler friendlier entry, I do not think the project and all the other parts of its mechanisms really need that much change - it is more, a simpler entry play room (for those intimidated by words and bulks of links of things to be thrown at them) is long time needed. JarrahTree 09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This guy gets it... user interface design research has shown people get that puzzled look in their eye when offered more than say 5 or 6 menu options... Google took over the interwebz with one of the most featureless pages ever as their main page... that's where we need to head in my opinion, and exposing people to knowledge about the project only when they seek it. -- Longhair\talk 09:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
As a starting point, I've put a couple of minimalist ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/2.0. - Evad37 [talk] 11:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
"Commencing countdown, engines on...". I've left some notes over at your minimalist mockup 2.0 talk page, merely suggesting we pick this place apart and find the faults before we rush ahead with the design phase, but we won't ever have liftoff without a start. Nice work. I'm all for Kerry's idea about fixing the Welcome process as well, but perhaps not yet... let's get the place functional first then invite the mob over. -- Longhair\talk 12:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've lobbed the existing Welcome text intended to bring IP editors into the project over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/2.0/Welcome. Grabbed via WP:Twinkle, which I'm assuming grabs it from a template here someplace. Long, verbose... burn it with fire! I use it often, but it's my way of saying checked your edits, you pass muster, next :D -- Longhair\talk 03:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"someplace" is {{Welcome}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the generic version. The Australian project makes use of two variants, one for anonymous editors, the other for accounts. They won't be hard to find. Both in need of repair. -- Longhair\talk 04:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
{{Welcome-au}} is what you're looking for - Evad37 [talk] 05:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup - Sunday 10 December 2017 at The Edge, State Library of Queensland[edit]

If you are in or near Brisbane, please join us on Sunday 10 December 2017 any time from noon to 4pm at The Edge at the State Library of Queensland. For more details and to sign up, please go to the meetup page. See you there! Kerry (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on a presentation for a meetup but its not yet complete. The title will be something along the lines of Paid operatives: the characteristics of those among us. Would the group of assembled editors be interested do you think? Or do you have no answer because that would be risky? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne (Metro) railway stations[edit]

For those reverting (too many to contact while the anon continued sorry) the anon editor mass changing Melbourne railway stations to Metro stations, I've handed them a brief 3 hour block so the mess can be cleaned up and hopefully they'll use the time to drum up a discussion on their talk page meanwhile. They didn't respond to any warnings about edit warring and just continued on full steam ahead. I'm guessing this is borderline promotional editing hence the reverts from several editors? -- Longhair\talk 09:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Returned today. -- Longhair\talk 23:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Solar power stations[edit]

I have found a collection of web sites and news stories (mostly predictive) about big solar power farms and grid-connected batteries, but can't find reliable news stories or premiers and energy ministers bragging about grand openings for things that were predicted to have been opened by now. Can anyone else confirm that these things either exist, are still being built, or failed to get off the ground?

  • Lyon Battery Storage [1]
  • Lakeland Solar & Storage Project in Queensland (supposedly built and sold by Lyon Group to Conergy)[2][3]
  • Riverland Solar & Storage Project near Morgan in SA, also developed by Lyon Group, to open this year[4][
  • Kingfisher, near Roxby Downs (precursor to hte larger Riverland one)

I can't find progress or completion indications from sources I would expect (premier press releases) or trust (mainstream newspapers or AEMO) that these things have progressed beyond thought bubble stage. I don't recall hearing about them last year or in March this year when these stories seem to have surfaced. I don't feel inclined to write Wikipedia articles based on what I found, if it's all just "fake news", but Wikipedia is missing somethign big if they exist but aren't in the relevant energy in <state> templates and articles. --Scott Davis Talk 10:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There's been talk of "Australia's biggest" solar farm just outside of Mildura for close on 10 years now, and as far as I know nothing ever came of it. I've never seen it and I pass by now and then. There's also one proposed near Moree but I'm unsure if that ever got past got past the proposal stage either. I must admit to enjoying a bit of a laugh to read the Mildura project article here at Wikipedia mention it was canned due to "low wholesale electricity prices" :D -- Longhair\talk 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
That Mildura article also mentions "four smaller solar power stations established in central Australia". -- Longhair\talk 11:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Moree is up and running apparently. Half the size of the Mildura plan but said to be one of Australia's largest [5]. -- Longhair\talk 11:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like some lists that could be used to cross-check the templates and articles might be found in the spreadsheets of AEMO Regional generation information pages and AEMO NEM Registration and Exemption List. It's too late tonight for me to try to pick out the data I want though. The regional lists seem to have existing, committed and proposed categories. Existing and Committed with an in-service date should probably all be included, I realise that I have written a couple of articles recently for things that are only "proposed", I think, but the data is now five months old, and I haven't found definitions of committed and proposed. --Scott Davis Talk 13:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes Looks like there could be some big gaps in Australian articles. One very simple example is List of power stations in the Australian Capital Territory. The ACT now has a few decent sized solar arrays for example. For example, there are mentions for the Royalla Solar Farm in a few places, but they are poorly, even confusingly, placed, for example in Royalla, New South Wales. Is there a way a few of us can divide up the work so we can minimise bumping into each other ? Aoziwe (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I dont think there should be two articles on Royalla because they are basically the same place. Very few people live on the ACT side of the border, so there is no point calling it Royalla, Australian Capital Territory.--Grahame (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I was not suggesting a separate article. It just seemed a strange place for an ACT facility to be described. Aoziwe (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be easy to split the articles, with the ACT article basically being about the solar farm. I recently created a Uriarra, New South Wales article, because I didn't think it was appropriate to discuss the locality at Uriarra, Australian Capital Territory.--Grahame (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel like this would be about the most useful example of breaking with the naming convention and moving the article to Royalla, being that it spans a state boundary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
There are 4 solar power stations in the ACT, all mentioned at Canberra#Utilities.--Grahame (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. What I was trying to get at is the apparent current inconsistency of the subject area. Aoziwe (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I have now gathered the ACT info together in Energy in the Australian Capital Territory.--Grahame (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ESCO Pacific have a website with projects such as this one at Finley, New South Wales. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

These project do sometimes eventually develop. I was sceptical of the Majura Valley one but it now exists.--Grahame (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to process the list of generators for South Australia on my sandbox and was surprised that I found articles for most of them, and existing red links for a few of the smaller peaking plants. We did not do so well on proposed/planned/not yet finished generators. Everything that our template says exists is in the list. The data is dated from June, and since then there have been at least two announcements about gas fired power stations (both have short articles), plus the state government's own gas/diesel reciprocating engines installed at the former Holden site and the desalination plant (neither has an article or even a red link that I know of). A few questions for discussion or clarification:
  • What is the minimum size for a "power station" on Wikipedia?
  • Do we typically have articles for liquid or solid waste processing plants? Apparently there are small power stations at one of our sewage treatment facilites and the large metropolitan landfill, both powered by waste methane.
--Scott Davis Talk 10:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we have specific notability guidelines for power stations. I would assume WP:GNG applies. Obviously once upon a time a power station was a single "big thing" and probably was notable. Today it can be a plethora of small solar arrays, wind generators and methane collectors etc and I agree that it's hard to see them all as notable. But I assume the ones that pass WP:GNG are probably the larger facilties, the "firsts of their kind" or have some other innovation that results in reliable sources. I've added the occasional mention of one of these small facilities in their suburb/locality article which I think suffices for the more run-of-mill facilities. I find a reasonable approach to be start adding them to their town/suburb/locality article initially and then, if the content about them becomes big enough, burst them out into a stand-alone article. Kerry (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Aubrey Murphy (mayor)[edit]

Are mayors automatically notable? I don't think so right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talkcontribs) 01:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Usually not. While WP:POLITICIAN mentions nothing on the topic of mayors, the notes at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians infer notability is judged on a case by case basis. Now that you've listed the article at AfD, you'll soon have a definite answer on that article at least. Can I ask that you sign your posts please using 4 tilde symbols after any comments you leave thanks? You may wish to go back and edit your signature into the AfD's you've created also. -- Longhair\talk 02:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
And fix the AfD templates. Aoziwe (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

When a person's citation for the award of Member of the Order of the British Empire states that it was presented for being Mayor does that not suggest that the person is a notable Mayor? Castlemate (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think an MBE is sufficient to demonstrate wiki-notability. A GBE would, and a KBE probably should too. People who receive an OBE or CBE are potentially notable enough for the activities that earned them the award, but not always. --Scott Davis Talk 05:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As you aren't entirely sure "I don't think" I look forward to a more informed comment on the matter. Maybe we can seek consensus. Castlemate (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised it isn't codified anywhere that I can find, but there is a long history of people whose only claim to notability is having an MBE going down in flames at AfD. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I also cannot find it explicitly stated (although I thought I had read it before). WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES looks usefully relevant - the penultimate bullet under Politicians Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesman for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone. --Scott Davis Talk 05:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody seems sure, you can't find it, you are surprised it isn't codified and yet you delete anyway. In less than 8 days and minutes after a press picture of a mayor with the Queen that made him a Member of the Order of the British Empire for being a mayor you delete a bio. The nominator arrives on Wikipedia this week and starts a rush of AfDs supported by another editor with a throw away name and this is called consensus. Is their something like a Royal Commission in Wikipedia? If so who appoints it? Castlemate (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Except Scott did cite some WP pages, unlike your deliberately illogical arguments on the various AfDs. I have shaken hands with a Nobel Prizewinner and a Prime Minister, and been in the news for winning some prizes, and I am not notable. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned the lot up, and notified the content creator (x9), and strongly considering as my next step a sockpuppet investigation. While I try to assume good faith, and I understand why said articles have been listed at AfD, as noted on your talk page, it's quite a leap for a new editor to jump straight into the AfD process in such a big way. -- Longhair\talk 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
While the nominating activity is suspicious, it's also worth saying that they're not wrong about Castlemate. I've been encountering dubiously notable articles by them for years but had never put together the common thread - going back and checking, sure enough, it all makes sense now! (Caveat: Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that every article they've created is automatically non-notable, and looking at the AfDs I see at least one or two that have some claim to notability. Not Murphy, though.) Frickeg (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I support Longhair's and Frickeg's comments. When I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Scott Fletcher, I was very concerned about the abuse of process. While is legitimate to propose the deletion of an article on grounds of notability, there are obligations on the nominator BEFORE doing so which appear to have been overlooked. You can read my comments at that discussion if you want more detail. Kerry (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
While the nominator's motives might've been questionable, he's still not wrong about most of these, even if he arguable got a bit too enthusiastic about one or two. I have more reliable sources about me than most of these creations do (and I'm so far from notable!). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The nominations can be correct procedurally but still be undesirable at the same time. In this case, the use of what is clearly a throwaway account to make the nominations pseudoanonymously, and the massive assumptions of bad faith in a lot of the nomination statements, shouldn't be something that we encourage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "I have more reliable sources about me than most of these creations do (and I'm so far from notable!)." Who are you? What are your sources? Why would an anonymous editor of an a wiki be notable? Why would we be interested in you? These types of statements bring into question your judgement in such comments. It is certainly difficult to assume good faith after this offering. Castlemate (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an abuse of process. AfD is not an exclusive club. Besides there's an overdue cleanup underway by the looks of things. This is why I don't play chess with pigeons. No matter how good you are, the pigeon will just knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and strut around like it's victorious. Which is how I keep feeling about this targeted hit and run. BTW, the sockpuppet investigation bore no fruit either. Nobody lost an eye did they? :D -- Longhair\talk 03:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this list could do with going over. As I said I'm sure some of these are notable, but given that the criteria for creation appears to be "went to Newington and had a vaguely impressive job" rather than anything in our notability criteria, I'd bet there's a big chunk that aren't. (I want to clarify that editing from the standpoint of wanting to write more articles on alumni of a school is fine, even laudable, but it's the consistent disregard for notability that is the issue.) Frickeg (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please go over any any bios I have created with a fine tooth comb but please do so a little more carefully then some of the current crop of AfDs which often just needed updating. At the same type look back far enough to be reminded of the last attack on Old Newingtonins by the same editor under a different name in 2007. The reason AfDs exist is because there is often disagreements on notability. Castlemate (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a bit rich to suggest that they just need "updating" - frequently they made no claim of notability at all, and would be better suited to a school alumni page. Even where they did make some suggestion of possible notability, this was usually completely unsourced, with the few sources devoted to school-cruft. If you don't want these articles getting nominated for AfD, I strongly suggest going back and finding sources to back up their notability instead of focusing on what they did in high school. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Each biographical article should contain at least one well-sourced sentence that asserts the notability of the person beyond their neighbours, friends and colleagues. --Scott Davis Talk 05:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty rough to insinuate that an editor who has created 250 articles over the course of a decade is trying to flood Wikipedia with non-notable articles. So what that he finds these people because of what school they went to? That is an area that interests some people in a similar way that Australian rules football interests me and so on for just about every editor. To also nominate over half a dozen of them and say defend them all in the space of a week, while also making some bad faith allegations in the nominations, is not very fair. Jenks24 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As I think has been made pretty clear, there is no problem at all that an editor has a particular area of interest and has been creating articles in that area - that is commendable. What is an issue is that the articles have been created without any consideration of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as is very clear from even a cursory glance through them (or the defences presented at many of the AfDs). Frickeg (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Good night. A selection of the good faith comments made of late in relation to Murphy and others who happen to have had the bad luck to have me as their bio-creator:
Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter, members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro (interesting to note the last two have been confirmed as notable.
did you really think a Blogspot blog was going to help?
but I was not about to spend the time working through all the struggled OCRing (No idea what that means!)
failed candidate nor Newington old scholar
The contemporary Victorian lawyer seems to have a better claim to fame from that. (No idea what that meant?)
this fellow got 2% in his electorate. Clearly his political profile was highly insignificant to the locals. Further, the local councillor's job is to promote local small businesses, so simply lobbying for some ornamental things to be built is no evidence being above the run-of-the-mill council politician
This is just a run of the mill school teacher and amateur sports coach, who happens to be remembered by some folks in a rich social circle at some private schools. It is typical for people at these places to think that their local sports competitions with other private schools are automatically of high quality, which they are not
Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate who writes articles about non-notable people
Local road naming, even in the ACT, signifies only necessarily local notability: there are millions of streets named after Joe Bloggs who had a farm in the area once or sat on a local council in 1862. Not one of the streets I lived on in the ACT was named after someone notable for Wikipedia purposes (and hell, even on your own argument - they named a lane after him, not a freeway).
naming roads is a dime a dozen. I can name 20 people who have roads named after them in Detroit, Michigan alone who are no where near notable (great to see local knowledge and expertise aren't required)
The bar is raised when the notability issue is raised, as it is a matter of evidence, not opinion
Except it still has no independent source except an obit by his son. (Which just happens to be listed on the World Wide Web by a democratically elected government)
No achievements disclosed unless being the brother of a prime minister and voting for the opposite political party makes him notable. (As published by a notable newspaper)
An archivit's (sic) choice to include items in their collection is not the same as a curator's choice to include artworks in a museum's permanent collection. (Even though we have no evidence of why the archive was purchased by a major museum except that it might just be notable. Who decided it was an archivists choice I don't know but as a low pay grade public servant from another jurisdiction tells me so I will just have to presume it is offered in good faith.)
And the weird attempt to inherit notability based on single comment by former student/photographer is another reason for delete. (Is that really an established policy for deletion?)
I have more reliable sources about me than most of these creations do and I'm so far from notable!. (A truly credible argument in an AfD and indicative of the competent discussion endeared this week.)
it just rabbits on about Trove as if being a dude who supported its development in the course of his (non-notable) job results in inherited notability (since confirmed to be a notable librarian of international repute)
Irrelevant and illogical argument. A famous photographer happened to have this guy as his English teacher (totally unrelated to the actually notable person's achievements), therefore the non-notable schoolteacher becomes notable because the famous photographer found him interesting/fun (thank you for your polite response)
Flagrantly not notable (here endeth the lesson). Castlemate (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject[edit]

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Trove seeking your feedback (forwarding email received today)[edit]

Dear National Library research community,

Assessing the needs of Australian researchers

Follow this link to the Survey: Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

The Library is seeking your feedback on the extent to which our digitised material and online collections meet your research or study needs. We would like to know the following:

  • how you hear about online versions of our collections
  • how you search Trove to find them, and
  • what you use them for.

We encourage you to forward this survey to your research networks.

About the survey

  • Approximately 10-15 minutes to complete
  • The survey will be open from 5 December 2017 to 31 January 2018.

Your responses will help us to develop our collections and services to best meet your research needs. Our apologies for cross-posting.

Survey updates will be posted in the Trove Help Centre.

Thank you

National Library of Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerry Raymond (talkcontribs) 07:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Kerry. To help highlight the importance of this resource to the coverage of Australia in Wikipedia, I noted in a couple of the free text fields that the main reason I use trove is for Wikipedia editing purposes - other editors might want to do the same? Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I used the free text fields in Other to describe myself as a Wikipedian at the question about "are you are a student, a professional researcher etc". And I used another free text field later to say that I used their pre-formatted Wikipedian citations all the time and love them. And took advantage of some of the other free text fields to make comments about using Trove content for Wikipedia and for Commons. So, yes folks, if you use Trove in your Wikimedian activities, please complete the survey and add mention of the role of Trove in your Wikimedian activities. Even if you are totally happy with Trove, do at least give them that feedback. Kerry (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Suburban bus routes in Sydney[edit]

Another user and I can't seem to resolve a question of whether Suburban bus routes in Sydney exist yet. I think it's clear from the references in the article, but perhaps it could do with the view of a third party? Mqst north (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As an outsider, I can't even work out what this article is supposed to be about. It reads as if suburban Sydney has eight bus services. Additionally, what is there is so poorly sourced that it's impossible to tell from a source check that more than two of these actually happened. (I'm assuming from the article text that they did, but without inline sourcing who knows?) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Also as an outsider, I am also struggling to understand this article. There are only nine bus routes through the suburbs in Sydney? I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps there is a lot of public transit jargon in this article that is stopping the average reader on the street from understanding it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
From looking at the sources, the underlying problem seems to be that the NSW Government appears to have given its new(ish) network of frequent bus services which link key parts of Sydney the confusing and rather under-whelming name of 'Suburban bus routes' (the vast number of routes which roam the suburbs are apparently 'local routes'). This does seem to warrant an article, but would benefit from a clearer explanation. Whether this is the same thing as is covered by the Rapid bus routes in Sydney article is also a good question. That said, writing about public transport in Sydney would be a nightmare given how confusing the government policies on the subject are (constant new proposals and announcements, including for entire train lines, many of which never actually eventuate or are re-announced under a new name, etc). Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all, great feedback. It can be hard to gauge clarity when I’ve been looking at it for so long. Will see how I can improve it. Mqst north (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Katter's Australian Party[edit]

We can see paid operatives want to ensure the announcements by Katter's Australian Party (pure propaganda) are included on their article. I will be here to highlight the issue of paid operatives inserting propaganda until it is resolved. I will be sure to continue to make suggestions regarding the matter as I see fit. Also has anyone met User:The_Drover's_Wife in real life? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently anyone who disagrees with Shiftchange about anything is now a sockpuppet in some grand conspiracy, and because I believe that Katter's Australian Party should explain what the politics of the party are I must be a "paid editor". This is ridiculous. (And yes, quite a number of people have met me.)
I think this is has hit the level where it needs to go to WP:ANI (or some other equivalent process). These personal attacks and threats need to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Just follow our policy. Content hosted in Wikipedia is not for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." We remove what doesn't belong. We question those who insist on violating our policy. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The material in question here is obviously a factual summary of the party's positions and is appropriately sourced. There is no reason to remove it, and especially not to replace it with an unsourced paragraph as you have been doing ([6]). I agree that the personal attacks warrant a block, and would impose this if I wasn't WP:INVOLVED from previous interactions. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What I removed is not a summary. It seems only two other political parties in Australia with federal representation have lists of policies. These are the Jacqui Lambie Network and the Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). The editors of the rest of the political party articles must not of felt inclined to violate our policy on no propaganda and writing in prose using Wikipedia's first voice.
Liberal Party of Australia - no list of policies, National Party of Australia - no list of policies, Liberal National Party of Queensland - no list of policies, Country Liberal Party - no list of policies, Australian Labor Party - no list of policies, Australian Greens - no list of policies and rated B class (comprehensive), Nick Xenophon Team - a small section on political positions, Pauline Hanson's One Nation - no list of policies and Derryn Hinch's Justice Party - no list of policies. Those seeking specific policy detail need to check the party's website just like a reader of a local train station article needs to check with a relevant authority about train times. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
By explaining what a political party tries to do, I'm not advocating for them or trying to recruit for them. I'm writing a Wikipedia article that contains the most obvious information people would expect to read. This is pretty obvious. I'm rolling my eyes at the suggestion that, as a queer woman, I must be trying to "recruit" for Bob Katter by trying to explain his barmy policies in the article. This crusade against political articles explaining political views - and the inevitable threats and slurs against editors of all stripes who disagree with you - has to stop. Nick-D or anyone else: what's the best way to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator to deal with this? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say you must be recruiting for Katter. Its not a crusade, its about following policy. I didn't remove the section. The infobox and remaining section provide the knowledge you were after. It is you who wants to include a list (not prose) of announcements by a political party (propaganda), both contrary to our policy. We write in Wikipedia voice. We don't write statements for political parties as a surrogate or scribe. We don't copy and paste political statements. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have now taken this issue to ANI, as Shiftchange's continual personal attacks are getting out of hand and he was previously warned about the same behaviour on this same page in October. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if I want to get involved but anyway: I would argue that since by definition a political party exists to have policies on how the electorate should be governed, run, developed, etc., that a political party article without a(n NPOV) list of policies for that party would be fundamentally deficient. Further it would I suggest be fascinating reading a history of policies for political parties seeing for example how some of them have done complete reversals in some policy areas, and also whether they actually tried to follow through on stated policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talkcontribs) 12:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

All propaganda (trying to restart discussion in good faith)[edit]

has to be removed according to our policy.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.

No exceptions. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

And, for the umpteeth time, explaining the specific major political positions of political parties and figures is not "propaganda", "advertising", "recruitment", aimed to "influence an audience" or "further an agenda". Noting the core policies of a political party or political figure does not, merely by the act of noting them, "present facts selectively", "encourage a particular synthesis", or "use loaded language": it just details basic information to our readers. Also for the umpteenth time, the insistent personal attacks on users who disagree with you about this point are getting very old. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So what explaining is done by Wikipedia when we publish "The party's first policies announced by Katter include...Government must ensure and limit against corporate monopolisation."? What we explained is what the party announced and that information is trivial. We didn't explain their political position, did we? We explained a statement made by a political party. Can you see the distinction? We didn't treat the announcement with objectivity, did we? It remains as propaganda, a trivial copy of a statement made for a political agenda. How about we do the same selective inclusion with Ford's announcements on their latest automotive products? No, because that would be promotion. When we copy quotations, statements, announcements or narrate such things we are not attempting to describe the topic from a neutral point of view, are we? Likewise for Trumballs opinion of the opposition parties or what the ACL says about marriage equality. Propaganda doesn't belong here, all kinds of it are banned. If someone doesn't renounce propaganda on Wikipedia I question their integrity, just as I would if they violated any other policy. Kerry could you please explain why you think Malcolm Turnball's stated opinions of opposition parties should be included on his page? I really don't understand what is motivating you to suggest that is appropriate. There is nothing extreme is asking such questions. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
My most immediate thought here is that calling this propaganda is not very useful. This is, surely, a NPOV issue. Which is already a thing. I have watched this whole affair with increasing bewilderment, and can only agree with The Drover's Wife above. Let's deal with inappropriate material as usual, but not at the cost of sensible, relevant information. Frickeg (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not worth engaging with Shiftchange given the fairly extreme harassment they're engaging in. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I second Frickeg's statement, that calling it propaganda is not justified and not helpful to a sensible discussion. The list of policies in the current version of Katter's Australian Party is probably excessive, and WP:UNDUE, but Wikipedia's statement that "the party's policies are: [long list]" is not propaganda. I do think that the long list of policies needs to be reduced and/or summarised somehow, perhaps by limiting it to the more notable ones (perhaps some get more press coverage than others?). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No disagreement here about it still needing further work. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So you think the list is excessive, needs to be reduced, summarised or limited. Yet when I do that, you revert. Its not prose, its not written in Wikipedia voice however you add it back. If you want to explain their political positions I would be unlikely to revert. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Language speakers vs ABS data[edit]

I'm looking at Nyungar language and find particular piece of information quite disturbing in its inaccuracy because of the source being used and the way in which the source asks the questions. ABS only asks one question and that is "what language spoken at home". It offers 9 predefined options plus other. None of the 9 options are Indigenous languages to record those it requires a person to select other and then write the name of the language down. The default selection was english. So when we say there are 232 speakers we are providing a unrelated figure. Worse still is that when the data was ported over to WikiData it became referred to as "native speakers" ie people who have spoken the language since birth. At this stage we should removing ABS data from the information box and clarifying that what the ABS collects is not actually the number of speakers. Gnangarra 15:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the question is worded that way in the census, isn't is worded as "Does the person speak a language other than English at home?"? Then there is another question about how well they speak English (which includes the option "not at all"), so English is not the default of a "language spoken at home" question. Also, I think there are only 6 predefined options. Finally, the Wikidata item is coded as P1098 ("number of speakers", not "native speakers") with the qualifier "primary non-English language spoken at home". --Canley (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You can see the sample 2016 census form (the paper version) here and the specific question and its ways to answer are on page 6 (of the PDF). The question is "Does the person speak a language other than English at home?" The instructions are "Mark one box only. •If more than one language other than English, write the one is spoken most often". The first option is "No, English only", then there are options for Mandarin, Italian, Arabic, Cantonese, Greek, and Vietnamese, followed by "Yes, other (please specify)". The immediate following question asks "How well does the person speak English?". I think Gnangarra has a valid point. A person can really only speak another language at home if there are other speakers of that language at home. Even the presence of a single non-Nyungar speaker in the home may switch them to speak English (or whatever else) at home. The question is whether to change what's written in the article to make clear exactly what the statistic represents or to find a cited statistic for the actual number of Nyungar speakers (not sure where). Kerry (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
According to this ABS webpage, "The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS), a separate statistical collection to the Census, also includes detailed information on languages spoken, but also reports on cultural identification and participation." The last one of these I can find is from 2014-15 and is available at [7]. I went and took a look and found there is a spreadsheet about language but it is only asking how much/well they speak "an" Indigenous language but don't provide any statistics on specific Indigenous languages. So no joy there about the specifics on Nyungar. Kerry (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I had a quick look in ABS TableBuilder, and as far as I can make out the most recent data they have for Nyungar "spoken at home" is 369 (from the 2011 census). I think it is fine to use the ABS/Census figures as long as the qualification is made about the wording of the question, particularly if it is the only estimate available. There is a comment in the article about the "rigour" (or lack thereof) of the ABS figure and says it is "believed to considerably higher"—the citation points to a radio story about Noongarpedia. I haven't listened to the story, but the intro says there are "less than 250 fluent speakers" which is pretty much in line with the 2006 ABS figure. --Canley (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The intro is quoting the ABS so they should be pretty much the same, which is a classical know your sources sources. Following a similar discussion else where the Wikidata item has been changed since I raised this question which would be why there was discrepancy in what I asked and what you read, the item has been refined further to now reflects the ABS question. The issues is the infobox specifically says "speakers" thats not true for the data nor the source. NATSISS survey only covers Indigenous persons, not non indigenous person like myself again that data though an improvement wouldnt be complete either. I know for want of a better source ABS is all we have that doesnt make it appropriate to use those figures as a definitive fact. Gnangarra 05:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If the information can't be easily summarised into an infobox field, perhaps just leave it out of the infobox entirely, and explain it in prose with the proper context/clarifications. - Evad37 [talk] 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't offer an opinion on the reliability of the source, but given that it is the source for the number shown in the infobox, I have restored the reference, and marked it with {{better source needed}}. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of reporting obviously misleading information because the ABS reports it and it would be otherwise be convenient - we've had to do this before when the ABS released cooked census districts for the 2011 census, and this discussion is highlighting a bunch of really obvious problems with this data on this point. We can explain the various pieces of information in prose - wildly under-representing speaker numbers does our readers no favours. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)