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

29 March:

Swans supporters at the 2006 grand final
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:

self correcting BLP editors[edit]

I have no idea whether many other editors are finding this, but I have encountered an increase of subjects of BLP articles who seem to think they have inherent rights to correct articles about themselves... I am not sure whether other editors have encountered this phenomenon, it would be useful to get a sense of whether this needs to go up a step to a wider-scoped noticeboard - or whether there is a sense of inadequate templating inside BLP articles that clearly indicate the requirements of BLP articles... ? anyone with any thoughts of this? JarrahTree 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've encountered this. It's definitely a problem at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Vltchek (although it is not an Australia-related page). The subject, or someone close to him, keeps creating new users and correcting the content. The article has been tagged to reflect this. merlinVtwelve (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, on some articles self promotion is really obvious (cannot remember which ones right now) and there is almost always a conflict of interest. Maybe restrict BLP editing rights to confirmed and/or autoconfirmed users only? I doubt that these people will wait to make 10 confirmed edits to edit the article.--Dark-World25 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that kind of protection seems to be almost routine if the subject is literate enough to be aware of Wikipedia, and yet hasn't grasped the "encyclopedic" concept. Rags (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair use campaign: next steps[edit]

I am moving to close this discussion as there has been significant input from the community and a consensus has been established. To begin with, it is clear from this discussion that all parties involved value Wikipedia’s role in sharing information. It is invaluable and we have all invested countless hours in improving a global resource.

Any action which could be interpreted as political should be thoroughly discussed and scrutinised as it affects Wikipedia’s credibility. As such, it is important that WMF Legal have confirmed that it is “technically possible and legally feasible if there is community consensus in support” (own emphasis added). Establishing community consensus is integral to deciding the course of action.

The result of this discussion is that there is a broad consensus to have a banner for readers in Australia about the proposed change to Australian law. There is precedent for this form of advocacy, particularly around Freedom of Panorama. The consensus supports raising the awareness of readers in Australia, while ensuring readers are “empower[ed] … to get access to knowledge and information” (wording from WMF Legal).

Users have asked for evidence of how the change in law will affect Wikipedia since the servers are based in the US and obey US laws around fair use. This is a challenging question, but it should be noted that Australian uploading files to the US may be falling foul of the current law. If this is the case, or has perhaps prevented people from uploading content, this would directly impact Wikipedia. It is however, next to impossible to quantify.

The biggest bone of contention has been the role of Wikipedia in what is a political issue. Some editors feel very strongly that a banner supporting the change in the law would breach Wikipedia’s principals of neutrality. However, as a website hosting at least half a million non-free files and making them globally available the English Wikipedia has in effect taken a stance that it supports Fair Use. A banner supporting the proposed law change not only has consensus from the community, but reflects Wikipedia’s own practices. By running this banner Wikipedia is not supporting a particular party, but is stating an opinion on a particular matter. Creating a website which is based around open knowledge is indeed a political act. Where a policy change may enhance Wikipedia’s goal, it would be appropriate for the community to support it should they choose to do so. For those who remained concerned about neutrality, I recommend contributing to the draft article currently being prepared on the subject.

As is appropriate, Wittylama has stated that the banner and landing page will be factual and avoid hyperbole while still being advocacy. The weight of opinion in this discussion is in favour of having a banner. It is worth remembering that this is the first step in the process for approval (more details here). Thank you all for taking part in this discussion, and for remaining cool in a discussion which has got right to the heart of the ideals which are part of Wikipedia.

User:Wittylama has requested on WP:ANRFC for this discussion to be closed so I thought I would step in. For disclosure, though I have worked with Wittylama in the past this is my first involvement in the discussion, and I am not an Australian citizen, so do not have a stake in the outcome. Nev1 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've moved this sub-heading down to make this a new section to ensure visibility rather than it being lost in the earlier thread. Note: This proposal has been advertised by watchlist geonotice, Talkpage message to all 1,700 users in Category:Australian Wikipedians, on the Public Policy and Australian mailing lists, and on the WikipediaWeekly Facebook group.

As described in the above section "#Fair Use recommendation for Australian law, could WP have a role in this?" the Australian productivity commission recently handed down a report into Australian Intellectual Property law (Report), and one of its key recommendations was the introduction of the principle of Fair Use - to replace the current Australian system of Fair Dealing. This is not the first time a government inquiry has recommended this (e.g. the 2014 Australian Law Reform Commission's report Copyright and the Digital Economy). Several of Wikimedia's allied communities in Australia are fighting for this change - notably the public education sector (see for example the "Fair Use And Why Australian Schools Need It" documents published by the Copyright Advisory Groups (Schools and TAFEs)) and the Libraries sector (see the Australian Libraries Copyright Council submission into this enquiry[1]).

I propose that English Wikipedia supports this campaign with a banner which sends people to a campaign page on-wiki with more information about the wider campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia. I propose that this be limited by the following methods. The banner would:

  1. only displayed to logged-out readers, on the English-Wikipedia
  2. only on mainspace articles which include a Fair-Use image.
  3. only to people viewing from an Australian IP address.
  4. that the campaign be for a fixed period of a few weeks.
  5. that it have an "x" to dismiss (which stops that person seeing the banner again)
  6. that the banner not block/obscure page content.

(originally I proposed an image-overlay system but that's probably too complex to manage - let's just stick with our tried-and-true technology of banners)

Notably, Slaporte (WMF) from WMF-Legal department has confirmed that this proposal is technically possible and legally feasible if there is community consensus (see the above section #Note from Wikimedia Legal), and Damph from the Australian Digital Alliance (ADA) has confirmed it is willing and able to support such a campaign (with their staff and documentation resources).

I know that Neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia and political advocacy is something we are very hesitant about. However, I argue that providing free knowledge is not a politically neutral stance and Fair Use is something which the English Wikipedia community uses on a daily basis - even though it is currently illegal in Australia. If Australian Wikipedia editors are benefiting every day from that system because our website is hosted in the USA, then we should be willing to advocate for it in our home jurisdiction - especially if our library and education allies would greatly benefit from this copyright law change but don't have the visible platform to advocate for it. Wikipedia has done political advocacy before - notably in Europe, promoting Freedom of Panorama legislation and globally, against SOPA. I believe that Fair Use is "core business" to how we operate so it is valid for us to promote awareness of it.

Creationistas - Australian Copyright Is Broken

I've included here on the right an example of a video produced by the ADA in their 2013 Fair Use campaign "The Creationistas - Australian Copyright is Broken", which directed people to the dedicated campaign website (internet archive link) and their main site http://digital.org.au/. The ADA could potentially make something like this (or re-adjust this one) for a Wikipedia project page about this e.g. at [[Wikipedia:Fair Use for Australia]] (or something like that) and the ADA, in collaboration with WMF-legal and WikimediaAustralia could handle any mainstream media enquiries (as/when appropriate).

So, I know there's been some comments above, but now there is confirmation that this idea is legally and technically possible (equivalent to the Commons FoP campaign discussion or the MetaWiki Free Bassel campaign discussion) perhaps a straw poll here, would be the best way forward to determine Australian-community consensus? If you support this idea, or disagree with this proposal, have comments/questions, or would like to propose a design for such a banner please comment! Wittylama 11:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • support, obviously, as nominator :-) Wittylama 11:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support, Personally I believe fair use is an important tool for educational activities and in providing context establish clarity about subjects here. Gnangarra 13:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support, and can we do something about the ridiculous application of URAA to Aussie PD photos too... The-Pope (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support, I thought fair use still existed... JarrahTree 13:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
JarrahTree - Fair Use, a broad copyright exception, is not and has never been part of Australian copyright law. We [currently] have a different system called Fair_dealing#Australia in which the kinds of 'allowed' actions have to be specifically listed in the act, otherwise it's not allowed (e.g. it's only since 2006 that using a VCR is technically legal in Aus). Fair Use makes you apply a 'fairness' test to any kind of use of copyrighted work - which is what we do on Wikipedia any time we upload a fair-use image (we clarify that it's "small" and "only used once" and "can't be replaced with a free image" etc. etc.). We do this on english Wikipedia because the website is hosted in the USA, but the legality of australians utilising this american law, when uploading australian images while they're sitting in australia - is questionable. For that reason most of the other language editions of wikipedia don't allow fair-use images because most of their editors and readers are physically located in juristictions which don't have fair use (e.g. Germany). This proposal I'm making here will not change the way Wikipedia operates - but it would radically change the way the school and library sectors (among others) work. It would save them MILLIONS in fees they pay to the copyright agency for their "statutory license" they negotiate to have the right to use things which the public use for free (e.g. TV shows, websites) in public schools and libraries (that's the "par VB of the copyright act" notice you might have seen at the start of any printouts you received at university, etc. Wittylama 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support. Australia needs a proper fair-use. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support, I think this is an excellent idea and it's reassuring to hear that it's been legally vetted by ADA and WMF. --Sanglorian (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support, but why only logged-out users? Mark Hurd (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In short, because logged-in users are a very small proportion of the visitors to Wikipedia but are the ones most keenly affected by 'banner fatigue' from various surveys, announcements etc, and, after all, this proposal is aimed to raise awareness "in the general public" rather than within the wikipedia-editing community. Another way of putting it: no doubt some active wikipedians would complain that they weren't consulted and don't like ANY banners - hiding the banners from Wikipedia-editors would reduce their frustration without decreasing the visibility to the target audience. Wittylama 12:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
Further to this, I've advertised this discussion on the Australian Chapter mailing list, and on the WikipediaWeekly facebook group[2] - can anyone recommend other places to notify people (primarily targeting Australians, not merely for obtaining comments from those who won't be affected)? Wittylama 16:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment weighing in again on behalf of the Australian Digital Alliance. Now that we've made it through our annual conference, we'll have capacity to start working on the prep material for this whenever there is consensus in the community. In terms of timing - the public consultation on the PC recommendations has finished, and submissions are now being considered by government. It's not clear if we'll have a response in 3 weeks or 3 months (or even 3 years - some reports never really get responded to) - but I'd say that anytime in the next 3-4 months would be a good time to run the campaign. That way the messaging would be going to government as they are making decisions, and hopefully it will help to counter some of the public perception that fair use is just aimed at harming creators. We've got some new videos from our Forum last week that we're hoping to cut into short mythbusting FAQs, that could also go on the external website. I'll look at starting some ideas for the Wikipedia landing page on the campaign to share as an example, so people have a a better idea of what it would actually look like.Damph (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
For some comparison, here is the landing page of the 2015 Freedom of Panorama advocacy campaign in Europe, and these were the proposed banners accompanying that campaign. Perhaps Seddon (WMF), as the person with the most campaign banner experience on-wiki, can suggest some other examples that have been used for other advocacy campaigns around the world? Wittylama 11:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As a long term Australian Wikimedian, it's great to see this campaign happening, and fair use in Australian copyright law would have educational benefits at all levels. I don't see why we can't push for change, and add our voice to those in the sector already doing so. Orderinchaos 01:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I've noted previously, this is a good thing for individual editors and Wikimedia Australia to advocate, but Wikipedia itself should not be seen as advocating for a change in this contested policy area as it would raise concerns around its neutrality and reliability. For instance, would readers who see this banner really assume that the Copyright law of Australia article is going to be neutral? Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I thank you for your contribution Nick-D. To clarify - would you have also been opposed to the Freedom of Panorama advocacy campaign (if it had been applicable to Australia) and the SOPA-shutdown (which did happen in Australia too), or is your concern related specifically to this subject?
More generally, I empathise with your concern (which I understand to be akin to WP:NOTADVOCATE and the need to uphold WP:NPOV in what people see on WP). My response to this valid critique is that I believe that our core principle of advocating for "free knowledge" is NOT a politically neutral stance, and running a "free knowledge" encyclopedia is an inherently disruptive/political act (not as much in Australia as in, say, China, but still). I believe it is possible to make a landing-page that describes the facts of why "we" believe Fair Use is an important thing for Australia - and dispells myths about it being spread by the Copyright-lobby - in a way that is factual and the community feels represents/advocates for our values. See, for example, the landing page for the FoP campaign on Meta:Freedom of Panorama in Europe in 2015 which, in my personal opinion, did not put the Neutrality of the article Freedom of Panorama in question. I suspect that you won't be swayed by my argument here, and that's fair enough, but I thought I ought to put it down in words for the record nevertheless :-) Wittylama 11:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the political arguments around those other campaigns (the whole SOPA thing went over my head) or the balance of public opinion. I do have a mild degree of familiarity with the political arguments here, and am highly uncomfortable with Wikipedia being seen to campaign against prominent authors such as Anna Funder ([3]) and possibly the Australian Labor Party, which previously opposed changes to liberalise copyright laws applying to books. Wikimedia Australia and individual editors should certainly participate in this debate, but let's keep Wikipedia neutral. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Nick-D, the article you link to does indeed quote a noted Australian author opposing the introduction of Fair Use (published pre-empting the Productivity Commission's recommendation). Also quoted in that article is a piece by the SMH Economics editor pointing out that there were 5 (now 6) government enquiries over the years (commissioned by both sides of the political divide) which have recommended the introduction of Fair Use - so it's a bipartisan issue in that sense. However, that a fair amount of mainstream media publicity on the productivity commission report is actually focusing on the other main recommendation of the commissions' report relating to book publishers: the removing of Parallel Import Restrictions (see Parallel_import#Australia). This recommendation was in the same report, and affects the same peakbody (Copyright Agency Ltd - CAL) but is an entirely different part of law - its about trade restrictions, not copyright. This distinction is lost on the general public and CAL are deliberately conflating these two stories together to get them both shot down rather than deal with them separately on their respective merits (quick google search showing how the two stories are often mixed together). See this report in the SMH about the difference between the two, and how the Publishing industry is affected by each. Damph (from the ADA, above, who is also the copyright-advisor to the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee) tells me that she spends a lot of time/effort busting myths about Fair Use which are actually critiques of Parallel Import laws. This proposal for Wikipedia is solely about the Fair Use recommendation, not about Parallel import Restrictions. A major purpose is to demystify to the Australian public what Fair Use actually looks like in practice - since our infobox images of logos, album covers, movie posters etc are a perfect example of the system in daily use (and in a way that in no-way commercially disadvantages the copyright holder). Wittylama 11:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Nick-D, there's nothing apolitical about free knowledge: it is a radical force. And have you been sitting by for years thinking that the male, white, middle-class, anglophone underpinnings of en.WP weren't skewed in the first place? So, let's not be precious about "neutrality" when it comes to injecting sanity into Australia's antiquated and slightly corrupt system of copyright. Tony (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You are both making the mistake of thinking that I have some kind of opposition to reforms to introduce fair use in Australia: I don't, as long as the reforms are appropriately balanced to also protect the reasonable rights of content creators/owners (eg, the people who do the work to create the material Wikipedia is based on and have a right to be remunerated for their efforts). My concern is that as this can be a highly contested political space in Australia, Wikipedia should not be advocating for only one side of the debate. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear StAnselm, thank you for adding your voice, even if it is strongly against my suggestion :-) To clarify, could you elaborate? While I respect your opinion, my understanding of NotAdvocate is that it is about the content of the articles themselves, and that Wikipedia's very mission statement is 'advocacy' - for free-knowledge. As I asked Nick-D above, who expressed similar concern, would you have also been opposed to the Freedom of Panorama advocacy campaign (if it had been applicable to Australia) and the SOPA-shutdown (which did happen in Australia too) - on the basis that you're opposed *any* such activity? Or, is your concern related specifically to this subject - Fair Use in Australian copyright law? Wittylama 20:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was opposed to the SOPA-shutdown as well, and thought that it violated WP:POINT. Yes, I know WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:POINT are written in the context of articles, but I think they apply more widely - we should not be engaging in political advocacy. I have no idea where you get the idea that "Wikipedia's very mission statement is 'advocacy' - for free-knowledge". In fact, I didn't know we had a mission statement. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
you're quite right that wikipedia doesn't have a formal "mission statement" in the way that the WMF as a registered charity does. Nevertheless, in the imprecise sense of "this is what we do", the creation and dissemination of "free knowledge" (Especially in the libre sense of the phrase) is what Wikipedia[ns] does/do. I personally believe that the NPOV and Free Knowledge concepts are - in an era of fake-news and information paywalls respectively - inherently political/advocacy positions. I appreciate that this does not change your opinion on how Wikipedia's banner space should be used (or not used, in this case!), but I hope we can amicably agree to disagree on that point :-) Wittylama 22:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom. Would be useful for WP and other Australian organisations. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 22:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I also have similar concerns to the two opposes above. I don't think this at the level of SOPA or the proposed FoP laws in Europe, because this simply isn't mission-critical – whatever happens with fair use in Australia, it isn't going to change the way Wikipedia operates, no extra images would be uploadable to Commons, nor would any images have to be deleted. Fair-use would be nice to have, and would help out free-knowledge organisations etc, but I don't think Wikipedia itself should be doing the advocating. However, this isn't an outright "oppose" because I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing in terms of details. I could be more supportive if it turns out to be a relatively neutrally worded banner/landing page, that informs rather than advocates – i.e. says something along the lines of "this is how Wikipedia uses U.S. fair use, this is the situation in Australia (fair dealing), here's what supporters say, here's what opposers say, make up your own mind" (all appropriately linked and referenced). - Evad37 [talk] 00:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
That's certainly not what's being proposed as far as I can see. Yes, I'd be somewhat OK with that, although I don't really see the need. But we must not abandon neutrality just because it will be a banner rather than an article. StAnselm (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
StAnselm is correct in that this proposal is indeed one to advocate for a specific position - in support of the introduction of Fair Use in Australian copyright law. It would be disingenuous of me to soften that statement here just to try to encourage your support and then for you to be unpleasantly surprised later! I think a neutral description of the responses to the Fair Use proposals over the years could be a viable Wikipedia article (an expansion of Copyright law of Australia#Fair dealing perhaps?). However that said Evad37, I certainly DO intend that the banner(s) and landing-page text will be written in a way that is factually accurate and not hyperbolic - in keeping with Wikipedia's general 'voice'. While Damph will be the primary author (she's the actual Lawyer in this field after all) I fully intend for the banner message(s) and landing page to be commented-on/critiqued by the community for style-appropriateness and checked by WMF-legal and WMF-comms teams etc. (as per the relevant WMF policy on these matters). As I've just replied to Nick-D, above, a major component of this proposal is to demonstrate to the Australian public what Fair Use looks like in daily practice - and how our use of logos, album covers etc. is not harming the copyright owner.
Finally, you're right that if Fair Use were to be added to Australian law, it wouldn't change what content appears on Wikipedia (unlike the FoP debates in Europe). However it would reduce the sense of Forum shopping that we currently have - where Australians are viewing Australian content in Australia, but relying on an American copyright exception to do so - not to mention how it would save the public education and library sectors $millions in fees for the use of otherwise publicly available content. Wittylama 12:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wittylama: I'm not Australian. General comment, I'd like to see impact on Wikimedia projects front and center, as it's not nearly as obvious as FOP. You've made a few comments such as the one I'm replying to with some potential impacts; I think those should be expanded upon and form the core rationale for any action. Finally, tiny comment on "This image is illegal to view in Australia under copyright law" possible image replacement text. Is that really true -- illegal to view? Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer - the original suggestion of "This image is illegal to view in Australia under copyright law" was one of my very earliest suggested possible phrases and has been rightly critiqued given that the 'view' aspect is debatable (as you say) and that it's possible that in the particular circumstance of any particular image its usage might fall under one of the allowed exceptions in the Fair Dealing legislation (e.g. "section 41: criticism or review" - though perhaps not if viewed in the context of any downstream re-used of Wikipedia articles). What the text of the banner we do end up using should be has yet to be decided - and will be devised to be legally accurate yet 'pithy'! Possibly something very simple like "This image is Fair Use" which might provoke people to click the banner and read more. As for 'potential impacts' on english wikipedia directly - the thing is that we are already using an American system to operate our site - this legal change would normalise our actions for Australians in the Australian jurisdiction even if the content stays the same. There was for a long time the fact that the Copyright Agency Ltd. was ALSO collecting royalties for websites used in schools that were CC licensed - but they've finally stopped doing that at least... Wittylama 18:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Wittylama Ah, apologies for missing the existing critique above which I now see. I shouldn't have bothered mentioning the proposed text, but thanks for the patient explanation anyway. What I'm really interested in is the impact on Wikimedia projects aspect! Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer To that specific question - I would argue that English Wikipedia's use of logos etc. in relevant articles is probably the most visible use (other than google's snippets?) of Fair Use in action in Australia. There is much misinformation about what the concept would do to the local publishing industry, for example, so it is the very fact that wikipedia is already using Fair Use that is important here - as a "public awareness campaign" for our readers. This is why I'm increasingly thinking that the banner text should probably simply say "This image is Fair Use" (and click through for more info) because it is plain and simple statement of fact (not an overtly political-advocacy statement). Wittylama 15:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Formalising my !vote as reluctant oppose. I know I'm in the minority here, and I certainly do appreciate the sentiment of the supporters – but I just think think that Wikipedia should stick to being an encyclopedia, and only advocate on the most important issues that directly interfere with that. - Evad37 [talk] 00:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Australia needs to catch up with the rest of the world in this area. Twitbookspacetube 01:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I would happily advocate for Fair Use law in Australia personally, I'm reserving my judgement regarding the case for/against Wikipedia taking a position on it. I understand and appreciate the comments made by both supporters and opponents. --Danimations (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose : This is joke, isn't it? All this does is add less than useful banner pointing out the way people should behave by stinking filthy lawyers. Really, who needs it. As for Witty please stop with the unhelpful commentary and grooming as it can be construed as deliberate bias. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Admin Note - User:Arianewiki1, people have made cases against what's being proposed here without the need for personal attacks, especially the (hopefully hyperbolic) accusation of "grooming", which could easily be misinterpreted. Your comments are out of line and inappropriate. Please make sure future comments are in accordance with the civility policy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC).
      • @Lankiveil: Eh? There is no evidence of personal attack here, and you saying / accusing so avoids WP:GF. Your link to child grooming is disgusting slight, where my meaning for 'grooming' clearly refers to Wittyama attempts in influencing responses by further unnecessary comments towards Users. (Suggest you get a dictionary.) Either immediately remove this false accusation/implication of 'child grooming' or things will get really nasty. I.e. WP:ANI. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree that the recommended changes should be supported as described in the opening paragraph Ilenart626 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nominator. Resnjari (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per nominator. User:Ragingfreddy
  • Support as per nominator. Matt (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We should get behind this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as this site requires the progression of copyright law, as indicated by the SOPA shutdown and i believe we can take steps to ensure resources are available for this site by campaigning for a change in the fair use law in Australia.--- || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – can also be a highly misunderstood concept. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I was summoned by bot to express an opinion. I've been watching the conversation, feel generally supportive and do not have anything significant to add. I guess the one-word opinion is Support. --Scott Davis Talk 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nominator. Paul Foxworthy (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, has strong merit Screech1616 (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, has strong merit, I knew we had some kind of booby trapped fair use arrangement, my son just finished High School, and it was a real minefield for him to copy material for assignments Salbayeng (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wholeheartedly support. Fair use is an incredibly important concept to educational resources like Wikipedia, and has many other benefits besides. Opposition on the grounds that it "wouldn't change what content appears on Wikipedia" are ridiculous and America-centric. If the same debate were happening in America, it would affect what content can be displayed here, and on principle I believe that we should strive for laws which improve what would theoretically be available to Wikipedia, even if the particular country's laws don't directly impact the content on the site. I would also suggest that there is no particular reason to only display it to logged-out users. I would also guess that the technical capability already does exist for a full-page takeover, like the original proposition. They used it for SOPA/PIPA, remember? I would still support the banner system though, rather than a full overlay. The overlay would be more obtrusive than necessary in this case, I feel. --Sauronjim (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the support comment Sauronjim but just to clarify - the very original proposal was suggesting an 'image overlay' not a full-page takeover. That is, to somehow obscure the Fair-Use image itself with a message saying "this is Fair Use" (or something similar) until dismissed. That would have been technically feasible but would require some bespoke coding, whereas the geolocated banner is a standard piece of software (although we still need to restrict it further to be only seen on articles which also include fair-use images - which will be, 95%+ of the time, in the infobox). As for the "changed content on Wikipedia" argument - you mightn't agree with it, but it is nevertheless factually correct that even if the Australian law changes, what people see on the English Wikipedia won't change. Maybe just maybe it would cause other countries to adopt Fair Use too (like some countries are following us with plain pack cigarettes) in which case the Wikipedia language editions serving those countries might change their local wiki policy to allow Fair Use - but that's a stretch! :-) Wittylama 13:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah right, I misunderstood what you meant by the overlay. Nevertheless, I stand by my arguments against the "changed content on Wikipedia" argument. Yes, it may be factually correct that what people see would not change. But I believe on principle that if one country (most notably America) making the same change would result in a change for the better or worse to Wikipedia, then Wikipedia should take a stand in favour of or against any similar change in any country, or at least any country which primarily uses that language version of Wikipedia. That is to say, I believe that we should here make the same decision as would be made if America's current laws matched Australia's current laws, and America were considering making the same changes Australia is currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauronjim (talkcontribs) 18:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I disagree with Wittylama's assertion that

    our core principle of advocating for "free knowledge" is NOT a politically neutral stance, and running a "free knowledge" encyclopedia is an inherently disruptive/political act

We are (or strive to be) neutral in that we don't favour one political group or set of ideas over another. The fact that our principles differ from some political groups does not make us "inherently disruptive/political", and I don't think it helps our case by making such an assertion.
Our purpose (or "mission statement") is to "benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia", "to create a free encyclopedia"; it is not actually "advocating" for anything. In particular our purpose is simply to provide free knowledge, not to change anybody's mind about anything (including that knowledge should be free). There's a fundamental difference between doing something, and advocating that others should do the same thing. Our purposes is explicitly the former and not the latter.
I think a banner that advocates a particular view (no matter how much it helps our mission) is a blatant violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE and contrary to our principle of neutrality.
That being said, I agree with Evad37 that a banner that is neutrally worded, stating the facts (or a linking to a page that does) but not advocating a particular view, might be a reasonable compromise between our desire to advocate for what helps us, and our pillars of neutrality and non-advocacy. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nominator. -- Ham105 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsure about the banner, but I'd like to be kept informed myself of how I can support this campaign. I note that Wikimedia legal have no objection to it provided it has "community support". It certainly has mine. Andrewa (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I wonder if we've been approaching this from entirely the wrong direction. As an encyclopedia, what we should have done is create a really good article on the Fair use debate in Australia. There is nothing in the Fair dealing or Copyright law of Australia articles on recent proposals or criticism. Having an article would, of course, be the basis for a neutrally worded banner. StAnselm (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support strongly as it increases/improves the knowledge Wikipedia can make accessible Frances Di Lauro 19:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcia0423 (talkcontribs)
  • Support per nomination -- Whats new?(talk) 21:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I believe it would be good to note our support for a proposal. An article as suggested by St Anselm would also be good. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This can only do good things for Wikipedia; there's no downside. Josh Parris 23:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Seems positive for the wiki ric_man (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Agree also that Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE is about articles and content more than it is about Wikipedia's raison d'être. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for a range of reasons including: a) users - both writers and readers - of WP currently rely on the American law for access to the free information we all work hard to provide to everyone, including our own citizens; b) our laws should facilitate such access; c) it's important that readers realise what is required in terms of law, to keep this useful resource going; d) the lack of Fair Use in Australia hampers educators and since the encyclopaedia is essentially an educative endeavour, Fair Use is relevant from that perspective too. In short, the proposed step is relevant, fair, and hopefully useful. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per nominator. Fair Use should be protected in a country that (used to) takes pride in the philosophy of a "Fair Go". DISEman (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course, we've never had "Fair Use", so I don't think you can say it needs to be "protected". StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As an Australian, I support this by the nomination and will be beneficial to our area.
  • Support. My initial hesitations are in line with Evad37's concerns about a neutrally-worded banner and landing page, which I agree, should inform rather than advocate, following WP:NPOV. B.T.Riley (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Flickerd (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It’s mystifying that we don’t already have “fair use” provisions. The arguments about WP’s neutrality are completely vacuous. WP has a policy of advocating neutrality in articles. It does not have a neutral policy about everything in the universe. It clearly advocates for free access to information for instance. Would you oppose that just because of some Quixotic devotion to neutrality? —☸ Moilleadóir 06:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. TFlarz (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Doesn't §44 of the Copyright Act (1968) already provide a basis of usage on a site of education such as Wikipedia? it being an online encyclopaedia etc. - Imperator Talk 13:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a link: COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 44 : Inclusion of works in collections for use by places of education. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Imperator Honorius FYI: I've notified a bunch of friends off-wiki who are Australian copyright lawyers of your question, in case they can shed some well-informed light on this particular point. I should also reiterate what I've noted above that regardless of whether Fair Use is included in Australian copyright law, that will not change the actual contents of English Wikipedia (or Commons, for that matter) as we already operate the website under the rules of it's American jurisdiction. If, for some reason, an Australian wikipedian were sued for uploading a file to WP under our Fair Use practices (e.g. the way I personally uploaded the logo of the Copyright Agency Ltd itself - under fair use!) it would indeed be interesting to see how an Australian court would interpret §44 as potentially applicable. My guess is that §44 has limited applicability to Wikipedia because that clause requires (1.b) "the collection [of works] is described in an appropriate place...as being intended for use by places of education" and also that (1.c) "the collection consists principally of matter in which copyright does not subsist". Wikipedia certainly can be used in educational institutions and does include out-of-copyright content. However, we go out of our way to ensure that our content it can be used by anyone for any purpose (not just in formal education) and the majority of the content (on Wikipedia, and Commons) is in-copyright and using a share-alike license. Furthermore, section 44 (2) adds some seriously complicated constraints on the whole thing - saying that 44 does't apply if two-or-more works by the same author are included and the same publisher is involved in the preceding 5 years. Wittylama 14:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment Copyright geek (formerly with the ADA) chiming in, I agree with Witty section 44 won't apply to wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles also won't be covered by the slightly wider education exception in s200AB as it can only be used by a body administrating an educational institution. Trishhepworth (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a no brainer. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Cautious Support, keeping in mind User:Evad37 observation that getting an Australian fair use will not have any direct effect on Wikipedia. However, I think that generally speaking having a more sane copyright regime here in Australia would be of considerable indirect benefit to Wikipedia and the free culture movement generally. I also second User:StAnselm's suggestion that we write a fact-based article on the controversy, to sort out the misleading linking of parallel import laws and fair use. If we're going to have banners getting that article up and running should be a pre-requisite so that we can link to it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Support I note the concerns, in particular those raised by Nick-D but I believe that it is time for the law to catch up with the real world. Fair use is a vitally important tool for education. The reasoning by several that the core principle of Wikipedia to advocate for "free knowledge" is important. "Free knowledge" is unfortunately a very political stance, particularly in the current political climate in both the US and Australia. Wikipedia's raison d'être supports taking this action. AWHS (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportTony (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Ypna (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the Fair Use proposal affects much more in Australia than Wikimedia, and, I believe, would place an unfair burden on authors to legally defend their rights against breaches of the proposed law.----Design (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Freedom of speech is necessary. While it might not affect some other countries, fair use has been stepped on by other websites. I don't want Wikipedia to go down the same boat. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This concept is a notable omission from Australian jurisprudence, and as a service that's widely used in Australia, which partially relies on this concept, I don't see the problem with Wikipedia at the very least publicizing the connection between this sort of knowledge-sharing and Fair Use in the broader sense. shannonr (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As an intellectual property lawyer, I think Australian "fair dealing" works okay in practice, and wholesale replacement with a roughly equivalent, but different, legal principle imported from another jurisdiction and that has its own issues is not a sensible way to deal with any issues with the present law. It's not black and white. It's obviously fine for individual informed users to advocate for one or the other but I don't think it's the role of Wikipedia to advocate for either one or the other side in this. I also question the extent to which Wikipedia can produce quality advocacy that reflects the informed views of the community, given that many members of the community don't properly understand the issue. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Concern The concept of "Fair Use" is American, but the last thing we want to do is let Americans impose even more of their onerous copyright laws upon us. I realize that technically this is different, but politically if one US regulation is good, why arn't they all good? In practice Australian penalties and courts are not (yet) draconian, so the issue is of very limited relevance here as in the USA. (We can (very quietly) thank Trump that the Free Trade Agreement will not rewrite more of our copyright laws.) The mickey mouse act (70 year terms) would be a better target.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuntable (talkcontribs) 07:02, March 7, 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. In more than 10 years on Wikipedia and Wiki Commons, I've never experienced any issues due to the lack of fair use in Australia. In contrast, the laws around the expiry of copyright have been a significant barrier - for instance, in sourcing images of historic events. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The current situation seems to be that whatever copyright laws are made in the USA become Australian copyright law as part of the next Free Trade Agreement in the vain hope that we might be able to sell them a few bags of sugar or whatever. I do not know if FTAs actually benefit us or not, but we should not be trading off basic legal issues like this one. So calling it Fair Use is an issue. As I said below, the big one should be that works unpublished and unavailable to be purchased in Australia should not be copyrightable (which is the point of copyright -- to encourage publishers). That covers both things never intended for publication and things which publishers are playing games with.Tuntable (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Following the recommendation of StAnselm, Evad37 Lankiveil et. al, I've started a draft outlining the history of the Fair Use/Fair Dealing debate in Aus - in my usersandbox at: User:Wittylama/History of Fair Use proposals in Australia.
It's obviously not 'finished' but it's a start, and could be used as a standalone new article on the History of Fair Use proposals in Australia (or something to that effect) or an additional sub-section for any one of Copyright law of Australia#Fair dealing, Fair dealing#Australia, or Fair use#Fair dealing. Obviously I have a COI (in the Wikipedia-neutrality sense) on this topic so I will not be moving it to mainspace myself - someone else can when/if they think it is "ready". PalaceGuard008 & Trishhepworth - as a self-confessed copyright lawyers it would be really helpful if you could help improving that article!
Also, PalaceGuard008, in response to your concern, I want to clarify that it is for this very reason that Damph - the executive officer of the ADA[4] - would be the primary author of the landing page, and the person listed for any media enquiry etc.
Finally, Tuntable - you reference the Free Trade Agreement and how it extended the Australian copyright term to 70 years. In that draft article I just mentioned I've given several references for how both parliamentary enquiries at that time (2004) recommended Fair Use be adopted specifically to balance out that fact. See the section #AUSFTA. Wittylama 13:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Wittylama What you are saying could be interpreted as by trading off Fair Use the 70 year rule and other US imported measures are fair and balanced. I'm not opposing, but I would far prefer none of the US influences than making that type of trade off. Needs consideration. I would prefer specific changes to Australian Copyright that are our own, and NOT called Fair Use. One of those changes that would be fun is that works not published and available in Australia do not get copyright protection, as there are no sales to lose. In other words, a broader and non-US copyright discussion. Tuntable (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - While many have brought up concerns over Wikipedia advocating for anything political, I don't see this as Wikipedia advocating for politics, I see it as Wikipedia advocating for itself. Given that it's a relatively non-contentious issue (nearly all opposition has been against the concept of advocacy, rather than what would be advocated itself), I don't see this as being a intrinsically political statement, but rather an attempt to provide an informative platform for discussion and action, and to keep Australian Wikipedians aware of potential law changes that would affect Wikipedia and their usage of it. SellymeTalk 14:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Adam Suckling, CEO of Copyright Agency Limited that represents Australian copyright holders said “the Government’s Productivity Commission has taken a massive swipe at Aussie creators, influenced by US Big Tech, by suggesting we throw out our fit-for-purpose copyright system and replace it with a complex US doctrine that has enabled profitable enterprises in that country to use the hard-earned work of others for free.” Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nominator.Whiteguru (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nominator.Ghostieguide (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Imagine Wikipedia without fair use images. Laurdecl talk 09:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update: Subsequent to this discussion being admin-closed, a video-conf meeting was held including representatives of WMF, ADA, EFA to 'get the ball rolling'. Most importantly, the timing recommendation from ADA is that there will probably be other related legislation debated in federal parliament (regarding to 'Safe Harbours') in the near future - so Fair Use discussion will not be centre-stage until probably May. This is our working-theory timeframe for a banner campaign.
So as not to bore people here with ongoing updates - I've created a project page on Meta with a timeline etc. That will be, eventually, where the banners' landing page will be. For any really major updates (such as, that we're close to 'launch') I'll put a note here (and on the Australian mailinglist). Meanwhile, if you'd like to be involved in drafting the landing page etc, please watchlist that page on Meta.
Also arising from this discussion here is the draft History of Fair Use proposals in Australia page (currently in userspace draft) - help improving that before moving to mainspace would be appreciated.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion thus far, Wittylama 16:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

2016 census data release[edit]

Hope this discussion doesn't get lost in the noise above, but the ABS has announced that the official release of 2016 census data is scheduled for Tuesday, 27 June 2017 - see here. As thousands (tens of thousands?) of articles use ABS census data, updating these articles will be a massive undertaking and some pre-planning and preparation may assist in this work.

I am not sure what part of, if any, Wikidata project could play in this updating, but this may be a project that it could assist with. I understand that ABS data is released under a Creative Commons licence - see here. Happy to hear the thoughts of those much more au fait with Wikidata, the ABS and licencing than I. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it should be possible to get a datacube from the ABS (which will be suitably CC-licensed) and then strip it back to the stuff we want and then ingest that into a set of Wikidata property values. It is then just a simple matter of updating the population for every state, lga, town, suburb, locality to call on the relevant Wikidata property to provide the population information in the articles. While it is "simple" intellectually, it is likely to be a truckload of work in practice. I suspect we will need to modify the Template:infobox Australian place to have the option of using the Wikidata property for the population or to supply it manually (as there will inevitably be situations where the automated result fails, is wrong, etc). We will probably also need a templated sentence for use in the text to provide the population data with the same automatic-vs-manual options. In an ideal world, I would prefer if we didn't throw away the 2011 census data but save it for a population table or similar. When I update anything to 2011 data, I usually save the old 2001/2006 data in the History section. It would be nice to have tables or graphs in the article showing population data from 2001 to 2016. But yes we need to plan all this and it's good to start this discussion now. Kerry (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It should be possible to keep a history of the various population figures on Wikidata, see the entry for New York City for instance, which gives figures based on the US census. What may help is linking the various Wikidata items to the Census' own suburb identifiers (for instance, Chermside West, Queensland = code SSC30358), it should be possible to get a fair chunk of these by having a bot go through the articles and pulling them from the URL used in the reference for the census figures. The two main problems would be ensuring the data quality of the code-gathering process, and getting a suitable property set up at Wikidata to store this value. Then, once the census comes out, it should be easy enough for us to automatically add a "2016" value for population using the value of that particular property.
Sounds simple in theory, but probably there's a few spanners that would be thrown in the works in practice. The (potentially spicy) discussion about whether we then source the infobox data here at Wikipedia from the figures from Wikidata could then be approached. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC).
I've been working and preparing for this release on this for some time in Wikidata, putting in the 2011 census population with a "point in time" qualifier of 9 August 2011, and a link to the censusdata reference. The advantage of this is that it links each Wikidata entity to the SSC or other ID. The IDs will change for the 2016 release but the ABS provides a key to link across years. Once the ABS releases the data the quickstatements tool can be used to import the data fairly quickly. So I think the main tasks are to work out out how to make a Wikidata call in the infoboxes, then it should be possible to just update the populations with an import into Wikidata, and the Wikidata calls in the thousands of articles should update automatically. --Canley (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I can answer part of that. The template call {{#property:p1082}} should should return the value for property p1082 (population) for the article it is in. For example, a little experiment shows me that the property value for Bundaberg is the string "70,540±0". I don't know at this moment how we strip off the "±0" but I am guessing there is a way. So this is the call we would need to put the pop field in the infobox. Similarly we would have to extract the "point in time" and "reference URL" from the property value to get the pop_year and the pop_footnotes. We would probably want a template to put in the lede para to write out this information in a standard sentence. I think that where we have the population data in Wikidata this should all work fine. The problems are more likely to arise when we don't have population data in Wikidata. Kerry (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at Template:Wikidata for more information on all of this. Kerry (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I just experimented with it too and it worked really well. I'll investigate further about showing qualifiers and other details. Regarding the "±0", I have been removing them if I see them (they were originally applied by default to integers but that seems to have changed recently, or you had to include the ±0 to stop it from assuming a range of ±1), but I have seen a bot removing them for integer fields where there is no need for a tolerance range. --Canley (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Canley: Ahh, this is really excellent. Is this sort of thing what you had in mind for everywhere? Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC).
Ah, Glenorchy, I did that a few days ago! Yes, exactly that, but for EVERYWHERE! I have been adding populations, postcodes and areas for suburbs to Wikidata manually so far, but I've been building up a database of populations, postcodes, LGAs, electoral districts and divisions for every place in Australia. I have done some tentative bulk imports already such as all Tasmanian postcodes; cleaning up names, type of settlement and descriptions; and ACT electoral districts which have all worked well, so I should just bite the bullet and do it I suppose! I've been mainly concentrating on the electoral stuff so far which is probably why I haven't done it yet. --Canley (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Some estimate on the scope:
  • I extracted just over 5,000 entities which were subclasses of human settlement in Australia from Wikidata. Can probably use Petscan to pick up Wikidata entities which are not properly classified using the categories.
  • The 2011 census releases contain about 8,500 SSCs.
  • Australia Post lists 9,786 places with postcodes.
  • The Infobox Australian place template is transcluded 10,937 times on the English Wikpedia.
--Canley (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have the following comments based on the experience of starting a number of articles for suburbs and localities in South Australia as well as adding to articles started by others. Firstly, SSC usually have no resemblance to gazetted suburbs and localities and would appear to be based on ABS logistic requirements - please refer the article that I started for the locality of Custon, South Australia where I found that Custon and two adjoining localities share a SSC. Secondly, the same issue exists with postcodes as these can be shared by a number of suburbs and localities rather than by one specific place - a good example is localities on Kangaroo Island. Finally, I found that the only reliable useable data published by ABS is the population of LGAs. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be fantastic if we could take the opportunity of the 2016 update to ensure that our use of SSC census data is factually correct - because the SSC district boundaries have so little in common with the actual gazetted boundaries of the places our articles are on, using that figure without further explanation can lead to highly misleading results. A bunch of people have flagged this problem over the years and struggled to work out what to do about it, but (IMO) Cowdy001 is the only one so far who has come up with a good solution - see Ballast Head, South Australia for an example, which explains in a footnote that one SSC figure in fact refers to the total of ten localities on Kangaroo Island. I'd love to see that approach get rolled out nationwide. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, that's a really good way to approach it and I agree this would be the time to standardise how this situation is handled. The ABS works out the confidence value for the accuracy of SA1 boundaries, so perhaps we could set a threshold for use of the SSC (as "good enough" for representation of population or area) such as acceptable or higher (> 75%)—74% of SSCs meet this threshold in the 2011 data, 65.4% if threshold is good or higher. I can also work out which GLs/SA1s have been aggregated into SSCs, so that we know which articles to include the agreed text notes on. --Canley (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed re SSCs - once you get out of the metro area or even to the outskirts of one, they stop making much sense. In general they *do* work in urban areas though, although there can sometimes be disagreement between a suburb's boundary and the shape of a CCD. And in rural areas, only significant towns get their own CCD (and for those, it's better to use the Urban Centre/Locality population anyway). Orderinchaos 04:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Althea damage photos[edit]

Hi guys,

I recently published a new article on Cyclone Althea, one of Australia's most notable weather events that didn't yet have an article. It's a decent article so far, but it's seriously lacking images of the damage and aftermath in North Queensland. There are plenty of good pictures out there but none are free-use as far as I can tell. While this is a long shot, does anybody have any relevant photos they'd be willing to upload to Commons? I've put out a couple other inquiries in various places so hopefully I get lucky. Any help would be most appreciated! Best, – Juliancolton | Talk 03:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You can use {{External media}} to link to non-free-use images for the moment, and replace it with an actual image if/when any free-use ones turn up. - Evad37 [talk] 04:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Juliancolton: This one is CC-BY-2.0. That's all I could find Kerry (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Article needing cleanup and update[edit]

The article Manufacturing in Australia is out-of-date, mostly unsourced and has poor wording at times. This topic area is really not a speciality of mine. Would anyone with more knowledge on the subject matter be able to assist? AusLondonder (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Populations and the Template:Infobox Australian place[edit]

Following a comment on Talk:Malanda, Queensland asking why the population doubled between the 2006 and 2011 census, it highlights an ongoing problem. Many places (at least in Queensland) outside of the large cities are both towns and localities and therefore have UCL and SSC data in the census. So in fact the population of Malanda didn't double, it used UCL for 2006 and SSC for 2011, hence measuring populations over different areas. In this case, the UCL data is smaller than the SSC, but in large towns it can be the other way around (depending on whether the town fits within the locality or overflows into multiple localities, aka suburbs). I was wondering if we should have different population fields in the Australia place template to capture both of these to avoid this confusion. It's not that either one is "right" or "wrong"; it's just fallout from the way the govt re-uses town names as locality names. I do know of a few towns in Queensland which don't share their name with the locality but they are a tiny minority to the number that are gazetted as both town and locality. Kerry (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We already have multiple population fields in the infobox specifically for this purpose. |pop2= was added nearly 4 years ago. --AussieLegend () 19:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Is that the intention of pop2? I've only seen it used very rarely and my recollection is that it was used to show 2006 vs 2011 data (I assume so the reader could tell if the area was trending up or down). So what's the correct way to use them for SSC/UCL issues? I experimented Barcaldine, Queensland (see lede & infobox). Is this how people would like to see it? Should we standardise on which one is used for SSC vs UCL? Kerry (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's not a bad idea, although in many cases it's going to require some further explanation as to how they've defined either of the two (I remember trying to do one town, I think it was Moonta, South Australia, and discovering that they'd wildly changed the UCL boundaries between censuses.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no set use for pop2, it's just meant as an additional population figure, because it was obviously needed at multiple articles. At Clarence Town, New South Wales, it's used to show the population for the township versus the locality. --AussieLegend () 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Western Australia Tourism Awards / Sir David Brand Awards[edit]

Hallo, Elizabethan Village includes reference to its having won the Sir David Brand Award for Tourism in 1978. The article David Brand says that "From 1988 to 1995, the West Australian Tourism Awards were named the Sir David Brand Awards ..." (discrepancy of dates, and should it be "Western"?). The website at http://www.tourismcouncilwa.com.au/winners-and-awards doesn't list any winners earlier than 2010, nor the history of the awards. We don't have an article on the awards. Perhaps someone with local sources could create an article about the awards and clarify the question of when they were named after David Brand? PamD 15:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Most states do have noticeboards as well - linked this message on wa noticeboard JarrahTree 01:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Westfield shopping centre articles have been nominated for deletion[edit]

All of the Westfield shopping centre articles have been nominated for deletion. The AfD is a bulk nomination and may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Innaloo (2nd nomination). Westfield Airport West has been separately nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Airport West. --AussieLegend () 19:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've closed this nomination as it was out of process. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)