Talk:Fremantle Prison/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deleted image

Any thoughts on whether we can we use

?

Seems a shame not too if the license isn't too restrictive. The source page states this:

"You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must complete the Request for permission form"

Cheers SeanMack 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See here for related discussion on using images from the NLA. -- Longhair 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As the author of this painting, Henry Wray, died in 1900, the painting has been in the public domain since 1950. Consequently any digital image of the painting is in the public domain too. The NLA have neither the legal right nor the moral right to impose conditions upon the reproduction of public domain images. We are entitled to use the image however we see fit. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Top image

It could just be my lousy browser, but the top image gets cut off on the right hand side. Anyone else getting that problem? Andjam 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I see (what I believe to be) the entire image, from the prison block, well past the outside shed and onto the lawn. Can you give us an example screenshot perhaps? -- Longhair 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. Andjam 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

File:FremantleScreenshot.png

The problem was with different screen resolutions I think. I have fiddled with the template. Can you do a hard reload and tell me if the problem is gone now. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 04:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Andjam 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Current usage section

The first paragraph reads a bit more like wikitravel than wikipedia. While it's commendable that wheelchair access is provided for some of the levels, I don't see it as encyclopedic for this article. Also, apart from a sentence on present use for marriage, why are the chapels listed under current usage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andjam (talk • contribs) .

Agreed, EditedGhostieguide 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the security level thing has {{{security}}}. Andjam 12:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont know how to fix that...Ghostieguide 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's way of telling you it needs a parameter. I have added "security=" to the template arguments, so now the Security Level is blank. If you know the security level, then by all means fill it in. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "Security" should be Maximum; I also think "Classification" is an American concept not applicable world wide. I am going to be bold and ditch it from the template. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Think its about there, I`ve re-worded a few things to make it more encyclopedic but I think disabled access detail is important so its still in. Im wondering if its getting a little 'BUSY' with too many pictures, I have placed a few more on commons but I think we need a cull. Ghostieguide 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is progressing wonderfully, however I agree we've become a little busy with images. Perhaps Moondyne Joe can disappear back to his own article. I think the main gate image and the cell re-creation are worthy of inclusion. I'm unsure what to do with the gallery. Any ideas? -- Longhair 02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one like the gallery section, it works well Ghostieguide 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Moondyne Joe

If no objecions Im thinkig of cutting the whole moondyne paragraph, his own page is excelent and I feel its unnecsasary here. Ghostieguide 09:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. -- Longhair 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

As per one part of the peer review I thought I'd add some info to the art gallery section to give it some background - however I've noticed that the references are a bit mixed up. Anyone know how to do the refs so that the numbers don't go out, the way they have now? Also, can we find out if we have pictures by the artists mentioned? Do they also deserve their own articles? Cheers SeanMack 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the artworks featured are anonamous, as for privicy reasons I cannot recearch or discuss any prisoner living after c1920 unless notorious or public knowlage e.g. Brendan Abbott. James Walsh however would qualify, I shall endevour to photograph his cell. Trouble is the perspex protection causes reflections making photograpy difficult.Ghostieguide 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimmy Pike would qualify as his time inside is public knowledge [1], [2], [3], [4], there's even a movie on him [5]. I can't find a lot on John Walsh but will try to get enough together for Jimmy Pike for a stub. SeanMack 04:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Refs, now working properly Ghostieguide 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the refs, I'm gonna start using this format now. SeanMack 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Untitled section

Why is this article in the category "World Heritage Sites of Asia and Australasia"? It's a heritage site protected by the Australian government, but it's certainly not on the UNESCO World Heritage list. Check for yourself: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/au

The only Australian building on the World Heritage list is the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne. Please remove this from the World Heritage category before nominating it for featured article status! Meconium 07:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is coming along very nicely, and has some great new images. Should we aim for a featured article? I think with a few tweaks and an expansion on facts, it's almost there. -- Longhair 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

pictures

I've attempted to address some concerns in the FA review. In particular, added to the lead and moved the pictures of the 6th commandment and tunnels nearer where the text talks about them, with better captions.

I think the gallery should stay, as the prison art is a significant feature of Fremantle Prison. I picked a photo almost at random from the gallery to put next to the Art section. It should really be art by John Walsh or Dennis Nozworthy to go with the text. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I voted oppose for this article last time (and regret this decision as I did not actively assist to fix my own qualms with it) but it has seen phenomenal improvement. I think the gallery should stay, just in a different location (perhaps further down, where it won't disturb the layout?). Congratulations to all involved. michael ^talk 02:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we have come a long way, I would like to try aggain for FA status, but it wouldn`t be right for me to nominate. Ghostieguide 03:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking forward to voting in another Aussie FA! Nice work. michael ^talk 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

An FA should cover all the obvious sources of information. Someone needs to read "Fremantle Prison: A Brief History" by Cyril Ayris, and incorporate any information and references gleaned from it. Snottygobble 03:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend not to use that book, although interesting, it contains some inaccuracies, for instance Ayris states that 47 people hanged at the prison, however due to aliases used by some of the men, the number is in fact 44. Ghostieguide 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

GA removed

Half of the article is not sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First Phrase

Fremantle Prison is a former Australian prison located in The Terrace, Fremantle, Western Australia somehow that dosnt read very well :) and its been through GA and FA? I would suggest a leading phrase should leave the word Australia out, and perhaps there is a better way of saying in The Terrace SatuSuro 09:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have said ON the Terrace, but I don't know, otherwise I think this is fine nigell k 07:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment in info box

Resolved

Surely this embedded, hidden comment suggests that there is a problem with the infobox. Ought we not fix the problem instead of applying a band-aid? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, turns out the Infobox had an undocumented (until just now) parameter for this - Evad37 [talk] 12:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Without any permanent gallows, later executions were held with portable gibbets

Resolved

Fremantle Prison#Executions says (with my emphasis here):

... first legal execution occurred in 1844... Without any permanent gallows, later executions were held with portable gibbets, ...

I suspect that there was no permanent gallows for the first execution either, and that the article wording needs some adjustment. Perhaps "his and subsequent executions were held with portable gibbets...". This would apply equally to the first paragraph of List of executions at Fremantle Prison. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done, I think that does make more sense - Evad37 [talk] 06:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"hanged" or "hung"

Resolved

I'm not sure which is (more) correct, but perhaps we should use the same word in all cases. Currently the article has both "hanged" and "hung". This applies also to List of executions at Fremantle Prison. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

According to my Concise Oxford Dictionary, hanged is the past tense form for "Suspend on gibbet as capital punishment", so I've changed the articles accordingly - Evad37 [talk] 06:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation of titles of people

Resolved

I suggest that at least some instances of Comptroller General, Superintendent, Director, Sheriff etc should not be capitalised, for reasons explained in MOS:JOBTITLES. This may apply to other related articles about Fremantle Prison. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've changed what I could see in this article, but have not yet checked related articles - Evad37 [talk] 10:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

... the prisoner bought coffee or cocoa

Resolved

Fremantle Prison#Diet mentions that

Breakfast ... a hot drink (tea, unless the prisoner bought coffee or cocoa) ...

but doesn't appear to mention how the prisoner would pay for coffee or cocoa. That information would be a useful addition to the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Stokes (1968, p. 15), they were paid for the work they did – between 50 cents and $1.60 per week, of which they were allowed to spend up to $4.00 a year. I do plan to add a section on prison labour, per the to-do list near the top of this page. - Evad37 [talk] 13:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a footnote to the article with the explanation - Evad37 [talk] 17:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Heading levels - Closure, Conservation, Restoration

Resolved

Currently, Conservation and Restoration are heading level 4, under Closure. I think that Conservation should probably be heading level 3 (with Restoration remaining at 4, below it). Ie Conservation followed Closure, but was not part of it (whereas Restoration is part of Conservation). (Currently Conservation does not appear in the TOC, but it probably should.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the whole Closure section, taken together as it is at the moment, is about the history since it closed as a prison - otherwise there would only be one or two sentences in the section. Is there perhaps a better title than Closure? Maybe "Closure, conservation and restoration" (like an earlier revision had) without subsections? - Evad37 [talk] 09:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In the context of a subsection of History, I don't think Closure is too small a section (cf Women's Prison, Hospital). The reason I raised the issue was that while reading the lead section (as part of GA review) I was checking coverage of the material raised in the lead - mostly by using the TOC, which does not mention conservation or heritage at all.

"whole Closure section, taken together as it is at the moment, is about the history since it closed as a prison"
I'm of the opinion that the conservation/restoration is not part of the closure - the prison was not closed so that it could be conserved/restored, it was closed for other reasons, and it could have been closed and demolished. Conservation/restoration is a separate chapter of its history, that occurred after - rather than as part of - closure. I'm still of the opinion that the heading levels should be:

==History
  === ...
  === Closure
  === Conservation
    ==== Restoration

Possibly "Conservation" should be renamed "Heritage listing", ie

==History
  === ...
  === Closure
  === Heritage listing
    ==== Restoration

because most of the text under Conservation is actually about heritage listing. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can see the argument for changing Conservation to Heritage listing, but Restoration isn't really a part of the heritage listing though, is it? So that should then probably then be a level 3 heading. And if conservation/restoration is not part of the closure - the prison was not closed so that it could be conserved/restored, then what do you think of the other not closure-specific information currently in the section? ie

There were divergent views in the community over the site's future over whether the site should be preserved or redeveloped. The ultimate decision was for conservation of the prison, but allowing for the buildings to be adapted for reuse by the community.^[38]:203
The Fremantle Prison Trust was established in 1992 to advise the Minister on the management of the site.^[19] Various new uses were found for different parts of the prison, including wedding services in the chapels,^[3] a Coastal Business Centre in New Division,^[15] and the Fremantle Children's Literature Centre in the hospital;^[12]:89 the prison also became a tourist attraction. A private company,^[19] the Fremantle Prison Guardians,^[39]:111 organised the tourist operation for ten years under contract, until the end of 2001; subsequently, the state government took control.^[19]

None of that is really part of the closure, its what happened after the closure. - Evad37 [talk] 09:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

but Restoration isn't really a part of the heritage listing though, is it? So that should then probably then be a level 3 heading.
Agreed.

what do you think of the other not closure-specific information currently in the section? ... None of that is really part of the closure, its what happened after the closure
One option is to simply insert a new section (before "There were divergent views..."):

==History
  === ...
  === Closure
  === Subsequent use [or Current use, or something like that]
  === Heritage listing
    ==== Restoration

but that leaves the Closure section quite short, and implies that Heritage listing is chronologically after Subsequent use, which is not accurate (although we could change the order to Closure, Heritage listing, subsequent use).

An alternative would be to rename the Closure section - keeping its current contents - to "Closure and current use".

(I hope we're not getting too side-tracked here. My main point is that heritage listing is sufficiently important that it ought to be level 3 rather than level 4.)

Perhaps Heritage listing should be moved up to level 2, on a par with Tourism. That would remove it from the History. After all, we don't list Tourism under History, yet that clearly only applies after closure, not throughout the entire history of the prison (as Staff and prisoners, Prison operation - also at heading 2 - do). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, I've changed === Closure ===→=== Closure and subsequent use === , ==== Conservation ====→=== Heritage listing ===, and ==== Restoration ====→=== Restoration ===. Heritage listing on its own would be a relatively small level 2 section. But what do you think of moving Heritage listing and Restoration together to a new level 2 heading such as Conservation? eg

== Architecture
  ...
== History
  ...
== Staff and prisoners
  ...
== Prison operation
  ...
== Conservation
  === Heritage listing
  === Restoration
== Tourism
...

Or possibly a different section order? - Evad37 [talk] 07:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"what do you think of moving Heritage listing and Restoration together to a new level 2 heading such as Conservation?"

Yes, that works (in the order that you listed). Conservation, Heritage listing and Restoration are all closely related, so it makes sense to group them into a single section. Mitch Ames (talk)

capitalisation of "main cell block"

Talk:History of Fremantle Prison#Main Cell Block - which discusses whether "main cell block" should be capitalised - applies to Fremantle Prison as well (perhaps more so). I suggest that resolving that issue would increase the likelihood of Fremantle Prison's current GA nomination succeeding. Given that the discussion is already under way at Talk:History of Fremantle Prison#Main Cell Block (and applies equally to both articles) I propose that it should continue there, and that the outcome then be applied to both articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for map

 Done

File:Fremantleprisonmap.gif (and thus this article) could be improved by adding:

• A clear indication of the location of the boundary wall
• An indication of what yellow denotes
• A compass rose, or at least a North arrow
• Street numbers to the houses on the Terrace

Instead of a compass rose, probably more effort, but possibly worthwhile, would be to rotate the image so that North was up, as is usually the case in maps (thus reducing the mental rotation that may otherwise be required by the reader). I concede that rotating the text 90 degrees so it remains readable might be problematic, given the N-S long axis of most of the major components. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've created a new map, what do you think of this? - Evad37 [talk] 08:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks.

It should probably use sentence case or title case (subject to Talk:History of Fremantle Prison#Main Cell Block) rather than ALLCAPS. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I could change to title case, which is what the article (or at least the Architecture section) uses at the moment, and the image can be update if/when the article text changes. - Evad37 [talk] 02:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for general interest, I've stuck that older map up at http://mapwarper.net/maps/5305 and used it to trace the buildings etc. into OSM: http://osm.org/go/sww2QSRey Sam Wilson 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

North of the gatehouse, located at 2, 4, and 6 ...

Resolved

The section Houses on the Terrace doesn't quite read right:

North of the gatehouse, located at 2, 4, and 6 The Terrace are cottages built in Victorian style. Number 10 is a double-story house, ... Number 12, ... Number 16 ...

Ie it starts by referring to 2, 4, 6 then describes 10, 12, 16 in detail. Is what was intended? Are 10, 12, 16 also Victorian style? Are they north or south of the gatehouse? (The only one explicitly described as south is 18, but it is "southernmost", so presumably others are also south of the gatehouse.)

(... Hence my suggestion for street numbers on the map.)

Mitch Ames (talk)

These edits should have clarified the situation. Further detail is (or could be) provided in the main article Architecture of Fremantle Prison. - Evad37 [talk] 09:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote?

Resolved

Most of the last paragraph of Fremantle_Prison#Routine:

... The day began with a waking bell at 6:45 am. ...

looks suspiciously like a quotation, but it is not formatted as such. If it is a quote, it should be formatted accordingly and attributed explicitly. If it's not a quote, the verb tenses need to be corrected. (Some of them are present tense, but ought to be past.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a quote. I have fixed the tenses - Evad37 [talk] 12:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not the stone's decision

Resolved

This sentence in Fremantle_Prison#Moondyne_Joe (with my emphasis here):

He was set to work breaking stone, but rather than permit him to leave the prison, the stone was brought in and dumped in a corner of the prison yard, where Johns worked under the constant supervision of a warder.

contains a dangling modifier - it literally denotes that the stone did not permit him to leave the prison, which presumably was not the case. (If anything, the pile of broken stone subsequently aided his escape!) It should probably be something like

He was set to work breaking stone, but rather than permit him to leave the prison, Governor Hampton had the stone brought in and dumped in a corner of the prison yard, where Johns worked under the constant supervision of a warder.

but I don't have access to the sources to check.

The same issue occurs in Moondyne Joe#Hard labour. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't Governor Hampton, according to a source I do have access to: Ayris (2003, p.37 (ref #11 as of now)) says "After protests by the prison surgeon the acting comptroller-general agreed to allow Joe out for a few hours each day to break rocks. The stipulation was that the work be done within the prison walls and that Joe return to the cell at night." - Evad37 [talk] 12:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed [6] - Evad37 [talk] 08:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

When did transportation cease

Resolved

According to Fremantle Prison#19th century with my emphasis here):

In 1868, penal transportation ceased in Western Australia, and numbers of transported convicts gradually declined, down to 83 in the mid-1880s.

If 83 were transported in the mid-1880s, it had not ceased in 1868. Some clarification is required. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"transported convicts" should be "convicts in the colony", or possibly just "convicts" - Evad37 [talk] 11:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed [7] - Evad37 [talk] 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fenians - whaleboat or rowboat, and other wording

Resolved

Fremantle Prison#The Fenians has a couple of problems:

• Was it a whaleboat or a rowboat, or were there two boats? If only one boat, the same word should be used each time, for clarity.
• In "Catalpa ... dispatched a whaleboat to the shore. ... The men raced ... to Rockingham where a rowboat was waiting" - if it was the same boat the second mention should be "the" boat, not "a" boat.
• "The rowboat faced difficulties on its return to Catalpa ... they again made for Catalpa but an hour later spotted the steamship SS Georgette, ..." - so did they make it to Catalpa or not? The article does not tell us explicitly, but it probably should.

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Above issues should now be fixed [8] - Evad37 [talk] 02:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

8, 18 The Terrace - mirror image?

Resolved

According to Fremantle Prison#Houses on The Terrace:

Number 18 is ... a mirror image of number 8...

The references [9][10] say the same thing, but the map shows that 8 and 18 are different shapes. Likewise Google's satellite view shows distinctly different shapes. Some clarification may be required. Perhaps they were originally mirror images, until 18 "underwent extensive additions in the 1890s". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now. Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When was the office of comptroller general abolished

Resolved

According to Fremantle_Prison#Administration:

In December 1877 the office of comptroller general was abolished... The position of comptroller general was split off from the sheriff's office in early 1911... In 1971 ... the position of comptroller general was replaced with director of the department.

If the office of comptroller general was abolished in 1877, why are there subsequent references to it in 1911 and 1971? Is there a difference between the "office" and the "position" that ought to be noted? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The position appears to have been recreated in 1911 – Saunders (1960, p.23 (ref #34 as of now)) specifically refers to it as "this new position" – Evad37 [talk] 02:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would imagine (but the sources don't specify) that the difference between office of comptroller general and position of comptroller general would be similar to the difference between an Office of the Prime Minister and a position of Prime Minister - Evad37 [talk] 13:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

references to Moondyne Joe

Resolved

The article is not consistent about how it refers to Moondyne Joe, after the initial use of his "full names" of Joseph Bolitho Johns and Moondyne Joe. All of "Johns", "Joe", "Moondyne Joe" are used. MOS:SURNAME includes this:

People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used.

suggesting that after the initial "Joseph Bolitho Johns, better known as Moondyne Joe" he should probably be consistently "Moondyne Joe".

(This also applies to some parts of Moondyne Joe, eg Moondyne Joe#Hard labour.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

However, he didn't become known as Moondyne Joe until November 1865, so before then it should be Johns per MOS:NAMES#Changed_names. I've made the changes to this article. - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

he didn't become known as Moondyne Joe until November 1865

There's something amiss with the timeline. Fremantle Prison#Moondyne Joe says:

After two successful escapes, Johns, by then known as Moondyne Joe, formulated a plan to escape ... to South Australia, but was captured on 29 September 1865

but Moondyne Joe#Australia bound says:

In January 1865... Johns was accused of the deed ... and sentenced to ten years' ... in early November he .. absconded from a work party. They were on the run for nearly a month, ... It was during this time that Johns first adopted the nickname Moondyne Joe.

The timelines of the last paragraph of Moondyne Joe#Australia bound and the first of Moondyne Joe#Escape appear to overlap, but combining them give me:

• Jan 1865, sentenced to 10 years for stealing a steer named "Bright"
• Apr 1865, sent petition to Chief Justice, received four years of sentence, but not happy about it
• Later Apr 1865, tried to cut the lock from his door (did he succeed? was this an escape or an unsuccessful attempt?), received an extra 6 months
• Early Aug 1865, escaped "again" (does this mean did succeed in April 1865? or is it a reference to the Aug 1861 escape from a previous offense), met 3 others, "roamed the bush around Perth, committing a number of robberies"
• Late Aug 1865, "one of the gang was captured" - presumably not Moondyne Joe
• 5 Sep 1865, robbed Toodyay store, then the gang started travelling east (to South Australia)
• 29 Sep 1865, Captured near Westonia
• Early Nov [1865] - according to Moondyne Joe#Australia bound - he and another prisoner absconded from a work party, on the run for nearly a month, ... during this time that Johns first adopted the nickname Moondyne Joe.

Do you have a timeline showing all the relevant dates, with attempts and successful escapes, and adoption of the nickname, in chronological order? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Moondyne Joe article not being in chronological order does make it confusing, but it looks like my placement of "by then known as Moondyne Joe" was mistaken. I think I may need to take a look at the Moondyne Joe: The Man and the Myth source (probably next time I'm at the State Library) to confirm what dates it has – especially since the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry says that his four escape attempts, three of which were successful, occurred between November 1865 and March 1867 - Evad37 [talk] 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline, per Moondyne Joe: The Man and the Myth - Evad37 [talk] 10:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

29 March 1865: Arrested for "killing an ox with felonious intent" – the steer "Bright", who had been let loose in late January 1865. Sometime in between he had put the evidence – skull, hide, and tailbone – on his employer's property. (pp. 41–42) 5 July 1865: Case tried, found guilty and sentenced to 10 years penal servitude (p. 43) 1 November 1865: Discharged to Canning work party. One week later, he absconded with another prisoner, David Evans (pp. 44–45) (1st escape) 20 November 1865: By this date has adopted nickname Moondyne Joe (p. 47) (adoption of nickname) The following week: Native policemen begin tracking the escaped prisoners, from a fresh lead. On the third day of the search the prisoners are found at Doodenanning, about 37 km east of York. (pp 47–48) Two days after the return trip to York, a Monday, appear before resident magistrate, sentenced to 12 months in irons - a surprisingly lenient sentence. (p. 49) One week later, transferred to Fremantle (pp. 49–50) 10 April 1866: sent petition to Chief Justice, received four years of sentence – informed 16 April (pp. 54–55) 21 July 1866: Holes in his cell door discovered, an attempt to remove the lock. Moondyne Joe moved to refractory cells, tools confiscated. A few days later brought before visiting magistrate, sentenced to additional six months in irons. (p. 56) (escape attempt, unsuccessful) 7 August 1866: Escaped from Convict Establishment. (p. 56) (2nd escape) By 12 August 1866: Moondyne Joe had three companions, absconders from the Greenmount road party. (p. 59) 27 August 1866: One of the absconders, Bassett, captured (pp. 66–67) 5 September 1866: James Everett's store in Toodyay (modern-day West Toodyay) ransacked by Moondyne Joe and accomplices (p. 73) 29 September 1866: Caught at Boodalin Soak (about 6 km north-west of modern-day Westonia). Trip back to York took one week. Governor Hampton ordered that they proceed to Fremantle, rather than Newcastle – arrived 9 October (p. 81) Moondyne Joe kept in yard, with his necked chained to iron bar of a window. (p. 83) Escape proof cell prepared – almost air-proof and light-proof. Moondyne Joe put on bread and water diet. (p. 86) After 4 days in cell: prison surgeon reported that poor ventilation was affecting health – a pane of glass removed from window (p. 85) After 2 weeks in cell: surgeon reports health is beginning to fail, and bread and water diet isn't suitable. (p. 88) After 1 month in cell: aurgeon advise that it is dangerous to keep him in there any longer. Acting Comproller General Hampton keeps him in the cell, but doubles exercise time to 2 hours and improves ventilation (p. 88) Early 1867: Due to ill health, allowed to work in open air, breaking stones. Stone builds up, over some time he is able take swings at wall (pp. 88–89) 7 March 1867: A prisoner escapes from Fremantle Bridge chain gang. Moondyne Joe is then immediately checked, but has escaped. (p. 89) (3rd escape) 26 February 1869 (soon after 1 am): Moondyne Joe captured in the cellar of Houghton Vineyard. Delivered to Fremantle Prison around 24 hours later (pp 111.–113) A few days later: Brought before visiting magistrate, charged with absconding. Sentenced to 12 additional months, six of them in separate confinement (p. 114) 22 March 1869: Again brought before visiting magistrate, charged with breaking and entering, received a sentence of three years in irons. (p. 114) September 1869: Wrote to comptroller general of full circumstances of his case, again protesting his innocence of the original crime. Four months later, having demonstrated good behaviour, remission of 5 years gang labour approved.(p. 114) A bit more than 1 year after capture: Begs for irons to be removed, but is ignored. (p. 114) 15 September 1870: Superintendent Lefroy recommends that Moondyne Joe be allowed out of irons, and be put to work in carpenter's workshop – approved by Comptroller General Wakeford. (p. 114–115) Soon after: Writes to Wakeford to ask when his sentence will end, receives no reply in 3 months (p. 115) 21 February 1871: Discovered attempting to create a key for his cell in workshop. Throws evidence over the wall, which could not be found, so magistrate dismisses a charge of attempted escape. (p. 115) (escape attempt, unsuccessful) April 1971: Wakeford discusses with Moondyne Joe his case – Moondyne recalls Governor Hampton's promise ("If you get out again I'll forgive you"). Wakeford verifies with Lefroy that those exact words were spoken. Governor Weld was informed of his predecessor's promise, and agreed further punishment was not fair. Wakeford evetnually releases Moondyne Joe on a ticket of leave, to Vasse depot, and told he would receive a conditional pardon after four years good behaviour. Joe sets sails for Busselton on 13 May 1971. (p. 115–166) Two months later writes to Wakeford, demands his freedom. Wakeford instructs Busselton magistrate to inform Moondyne Joe that previous condition still stands (good behaviour record until July 1875) After subjecting Govenor to "constant badgering", petitioning for his freedom. Receives a remission of 12 months, and potenitally another 12 month remission for continued good behaviour. (p. 116) August 1872: Arrested by Bunbury police – assaulted a constable after being discovered with a liquid "said to produce abortions", Spanish fly, and strychnine. Behaved badly while locked up, leading to questioning his sanity. A few days later, sentenced to 1 month in prison – transferred to Fremantle Prison. Found to be calm as long as his hair was left alone (rather than shaved off, as was typical for prisoners). (p. 117) Towards end of sentence, convinced Wakeford to let him spend his remaining ticket-of-leave time in Fremantle. Nine months later, Wakeford recommended to Governor that he be issued with certificate of freedom – becomes a free man on 27 June 1873. (p. 117)

Sequence and dates now fixed, here and at Moondyne Joe - Evad37 [talk] 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Main Cell Block

Moved from Talk:History of Fremantle Prison

 – Discussion is relevant to Fremantle Prison and all its sub-articles, not just the history one - Evad37 [talk] 04:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is "Main Cell Block" a proper noun? I suspect not (because requires "the" when used in a sentence, and proper nouns typically do not), so it ought not be capitalised. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Likewise "Refractory Block". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

From memory, different sources varied in whether the terms were capitalised or lower case. Perhaps the common nouns got turned into proper nouns as part of the tourist branding? - Evad37 [talk] 14:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it probably would be a proper noun in this case, as distinct parts of a heritage site rather than just describing parts of an ordinary prison. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a proper noun. Unfortunately Australian National Heritage Listing Gazettal Notice for Fremantle Prison is not very helpful - it is not consistent in its use of capitalisation.

(The same issue - capitalisation of Main Cell Block - applies to Fremantle Prison.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll review the sources I've used (later tonight or tomorrow) to see if a trend emerges - if so, we can follow what the majority of the sources use. Evad37 [talk] 10:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What the sources say – full citations at Fremantle Prison#References –

Proper noun

• various fremantleprison.com.au material: Main Cell Block
• Coley, McCarthy, & Richards 2004: Main Cell Block
• McGivern 1988: Main Division
• Megahey 2000: Main Division

Common noun

• Bosworth 2004: main cell block
• Stevenson 1983: main cell block
• Saunders 1960: the cell block
• Witcomb 2012: main cell block
• "Government releases maintenance..." media statement: main cell block
• Murray 2009: main cellblock
• Georgiou 1995: main cell building
• Daily News 1931: main block
• Stokes 1968: main block

Both

• Ayris 2003: both 'Main Cell Block' and 'main cell block'
• Australian National Heritage Listing Gazettal Notice
• Australian Heritage Database: both 'Main Cell Block' and 'main cell block'
• Hamilton 2011: both 'Main Cell Block' and 'main cell block'
• Gibbs 2001: both 'Main Cell Range' and 'main cell range' – Gibbs, Martin. The archaeology of the convict system in Western Australia [online]. Australasian Historical Archaeology, Vol. 19, 2001: 60-72. Availability: <http://0-search.informit.com.au.catalogue.slwa.wa.gov.au/documentSummary;dn=200204953;res=IELAPA> ISSN: 1322-9214. (via SLWA access to Informit, subscription required)

These are the ones I currently have access to that mention it - Evad37 [talk] 02:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The outcome of this discussion would almost certainly apply equally to Fremantle Prison, which has been nominated for GA, so it would be good to resolve it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we go with the majority, and use lower case. I believe that some publications capitalise common nouns for their own style reasons, but I know of no publications that uncapitalises proper nouns. Therefore it is more likely that the words are common nouns that some publications have capitalised for style reasons than it is that the words are proper nouns that some publications have uncapitalised. If they are common nouns, then Wikipedia should apply its own style rules (MOS:CAPS) - independently of what others use - and use sentence case. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>Would it not be the case that whether its a proper noun or not would depend on the context in which the Main Cell Block is being referred to, that commonsense is being sacrificed for the sake of consistency. Remembering that one of WP 5 pillars says that policies/guidelines/rules should be interpreted to the spirit not the letter where hinders then ignore the rule. Gnangarra 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the lead of WP:MOS does say "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia", which seems to mne like a significant part of the spirit of the MOS, along with "The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style". At the moment, there is no consistency within the articles because I was focusing on building content rather than format/style issues (if there is currently a pattern to the usage, it's by accident rather than design). Also, this is more of an issue for FA than GA, as GA requires only limited MOS compliance. - Evad37 [talk] 14:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it won't affect GA. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • I was coming to say much the same as Gnangarra. I think it varies in the sources because the context varies in the sources, and that ignoring that is - as they put it well - sacrificing common sense for the sake of consistency. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, what would these contexts be? Or rather, in the contexts it is used in this article and Fremantle Prison, which uses should be capitalised or uncapitalised (especially for statements where multiple sources could have been used as a reference)? - Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I mean, in the case of Fremantle, you can either refer to it as a proper noun (which most of the legal sources, notably, use), or you can refer to it as a shortening of "the prison at Fremantle", hence "Fremantle prison". Equally, one can refer to Main Cell Block (name of the building), or "the main cell block" (description of the building's purpose). Either of those contexts are appropriate, but I strongly prefer the former. I think using "Fremantle prison", especially, makes us look unprofessional, and like we don't know what a proper noun is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Another idea: If it was the subject of a standalone article, all the alternate names would be given in the lead – so why not have something like that here, but with a footnote? E.g. have

---

... the main cell block ...

---

(or another way around, depending on consensus) at the first mention - Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty silly idea. Our readers don't need an explanation to know that "main cell block" and "Main Cell Block" are the same place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If we decided that the article should use a mixture of lowercase and uppercase depending on whether it was a proper noun in that context (for any definition of "context"), it might be appropriate to add a footnote on first upper- and first lower-case use stating why the use is not consistent, eg something like "the term Main Cell Block was only used as a proper noun after the prison was opened as a tourist attraction; prior to that it was merely a description" (or whatever the case actually is). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

But that would be total original research. I don't understand the aversion to just using proper nouns. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an aversion to using proper nouns if the term is a proper noun. However, just because some sources capitalise a term (possibly for their own style reasons) does not automatically make it a proper noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that such a note would be original research, or original synthesis. At the moment I am happy with the interpretation that the Main Cell Block is a main cell block, and either the proper noun or common noun can be used, or both (as per the sources above). The appropriateness of each usage within our articles is something that may have to be closely scrutinised at FA level. I think the concern would basically be along the lines of (the last paragraph of) WP:Manual of Style/Proper names § Place names: "An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki was the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony." So if there is no indication that the proper noun Main Cell Block was used before the 1980s, is it appropriate for our articles to use the proper noun in contexts prior to the 1980s? Perhaps not as big a deal as a complete change in name, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like this came up at FAC. - Evad37 [talk] 05:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, original research. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS

Going back to MOS:CAPS, the top section says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. For whatever reason (to speculate would be OR), that's not the situation we have here. - Evad37 [talk] 03:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Conversion from sentence case to title case in reference titles

I disagree with this this conversion of title in reference from sentence case to title case where the original reference is sentence case. I believe we should not change the case of title (unless converting from all caps to sentence or title, per MOS:ALLCAPS) - we should reproduce the original faithfully.

Is there a specific MOS policy covering this? Are newspaper articles deemed to be "compositions" for the purposes of MOS:CT? I would have thought not. MOS:ALLCAPS strongly implies that headlines are not compositions, by advising us to "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to sentence case or title case". (If headlines are compositions, clearly MOS:ALLCAPS needs changing.)

(I'm sure I've this discussion before, but I can't find it just now.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the MOS that specifically discusses changes between sentence case and title case, though MOS:TITLE#Capitalization would seem to favour title case for titles. The reason for my edits to the refs is that Featured article criteria #2.c. requires consistently formatted citations (as does Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation_style, within a single article). The previous discussion, along similar lines, was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clackline Bridge/archive1#Comments_from_Imzadi1979. - Evad37 [talk] 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Use title case, per MOS:TITLE. We have our house style, and do not emulate the citation or publication styles of other venues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)