Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology

Is it really appropriate to refer to 'Australian Aboriginal deities', 'gods' and 'goddesses'? I mean, we're talking about a religion that is essntially animistic, as I understand it, right? So 'gods' and 'goddesses' aren't really accurate terms in that context, are they? I'm going out on a limb here, I could be wrong. And I'm not sure what alternate terminology to use in the place of these. Anyone? -Dalziel 86 13:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The current heirarchy following reformatting by JPD is

• • Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology (30 articles)
    • Category:Australian Aboriginal deities (2 articles)
      • Cat:Aboriginal godesses (12)
      • Cat:Aboriginal gods (22)

There are some deities who seem to be specifically goddesses according to the article such as Kunapipi. However, given the relatively small numbers why have a subsection below Category:Australian Aboriginal deities? I propose a merger of Cat:Aboriginal godesses and Cat:Aboriginal gods into Category:Australian Aboriginal deities which would have 38 articles, not too large and removes anachronism as per comments by Dalziel --A Y Arktos (Talk) 19:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume the original purpose of the gods and goddesses categories was to have them as subcategories of Category:Gods by culture and Category:Goddesses by culture, which seems worthwhile to fit in with the general scheme. It is also true that some of the articles use the words "god" and "goddess", but on the whole the standard of these articles isn't that high, so someone with more knowledge might well be able to recommend renaming the categories to Australian Aboriginal male deities/spirits or something better. JPD (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Public Domain images from NLA

Previous discussion copied to Template talk:PD-Australia

Please clarify - what is the rule for newspaper artwork such as cartoons and illustrations? Adam 14:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

For artistic works other than photographs and engravings (so including drawings, paintings, sculpture) it was "life plus 50" and is now "life plus 70". If the creator is unknown, it was "first published plus 50" and is now "first published plus 70". So if the creator died before 1 January 1955 or is unknown and the work was first published before 1 January 1955, then the work is out of copyright. This "in general" applies even if the creator was an employee of the newspaper which holds the actual copyright. See the tables of the duration of copyright datasheet for more info. Geoff/Gsl 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks the information in this thread is handy enough to be in its own article linked to this noticeboard... great stuff... Agnte 23:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Template talk:PD-Australia. This page is now due to be archived as it was 65kb long and this particular thread was starting to get very lengthy to follow.--User:AYArktos | Talk 23:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard back from a senior legal officer at Copyright Australia and they said that the National Library has probably not created a new work through the process of scanning the images and placing them online. So the images are still under public domain. If you where to approach the library for a high quality reproducation they may place you under contractual restrictions as to it's use. I will also post this on the above mentioned talk page. --Martyman-(talk) 01:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

As my eyes glaze over at the first sight of anything even remotely legalistic, I'd like to recap the situation abd ask for clarification. I understand that I can use this 1950 [1] image of Sir Thomas Playford from the NLA site as it doesn't give details of who the photographer was and ergo his/her date of death. I can also use this NLA [2] image of Thomas Playford II dating back to early 20th century. However, can I use this [3] image of Frank Walsh from the Parliament of South Australia website? The image was presumably taken later than 1955 but the site says "Apart from fair dealing permitted by the Copyright Act, the Parliament of South Australia grants visitors to this site a licence to download and display its copyright material for private and non-commercial purposes only", which to my non-legal mind indicates that we can display the Frank Walsh image on Wikipedia.

Any clarification would be gratefully accepted. --Roisterer 08:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Jimbo [4] non-commercial use images are no longer permitted. The pre-1955 photos are in the public domain -- it doesn't matter who took them (though it would be polite to give attribution where possible) or when it was published, if at all. Any photo taken after 1 January 1955 is not going to even begin to contemplate the merest thought of possibly being public domain until 2025 so you have to get the approval of the copyright holder to release it under a free licence. I don't know whether you can argue it is "fair dealing" to use a copyright photo of a person in an article about that person. Geoff/Gsl 10:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• As per Geoff, the Wikimedia foundation does not accept any restriction such as non-commercial use only. You would need to claim fair use. To understand more you really need to look at Wikipedia:Copyrights. The way to navigate is really going to be Fair use - if you claim Fair use, you need to ask whether anyone will challenge it? As per the discussion about media releases, I would think not.

I came across this page Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission which has some proformas for requesting permission and Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission which is where you need to file successful permission requests. --User:AYArktos | Talk 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Crown copyright

I don't know if the same has been happening to you guys or not, but a large number of Canadian government-related images (portraits of political figures, etc.) have been deleted under an apparent conflict between the provisions of Crown copyright and the provisions of GFDL. I have requested clarification on the extent to which fair use can be applied. (Wikipedia is governed solely by American copyright law, because that's where the servers are located, so fair dealing isn't applicable.)

Consequently, I'm hereby asking for some Australian participation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Crown copyright. Thanks. Bearcat 00:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne and Sydney meetups

Hello Australian Wikipedians. :)

I'm going to be in Australia for the X|Media|Lab conference in November, and it would be great to meetup with some Wikipedians while I'm there, so please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne and/or Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney. Angela. 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous categories

The cycle in the Indigenous Australian categories is now broken, and the graph is mainly in line with the proposal above. Th main differences are that I left A.A.music as a subcat of A.A.art, Native Title has not been renamed as yet, and I.A.leaders and I.A.politics are separate categories on the same level. It occurred to me that it might be worth making a new category:Indigenous Australian history. JPD (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Australians at RfA

Two Australian editors have been nominated for adminship: Tony1 and Scott Davis. Please take the time to consider these nominations, and perhaps lend your support. Voting for Tony end October 31st whilst voting for Scott ends November 3rd. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Congrats to Scott for the successful RfA; as for Tony1, it was one of the more interesting RfA's I've witnessed. --Roisterer 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou to everybody who took the time to consider my RFA. I trust I will live up to your standards. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

College admissions

I've expanded the Australian section at this page (and created a redirect from University admission) - please add to it as you see necessary. Cheers Natgoo 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

State Route Shields

File:AU-SR.png

State Route Shield Template.

Just letting anyone know I have now added an attractive template of a general state route shield for use on roads. This design is based on many different ones used on Wikipedia, and I believe this is a good standard one to use for all states and territories using state route shields. Comments are appreciated on the design. I will soon complete a set of these of all the state route numbers used in Australia for use on all wikipedia articles on Australian roads. I am using a general Bold MS Sans Serif font which is generally used on Western Australian roads. The older style, thicker font is being is being phased out Australia wide for state route shields, so this was the most appropriate. Boochan 08:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we ever use blue shields in South Australia. We use green shields with yellow text prefixed by a letter. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Scott - I've seen the green with yellow text used in SA, Vic, Tas and NSW, generally for all road/highway signs like this. -- Chuq 10:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well its still relatively widely used in Metro Areas of all Capital Cities, and Rural areas of WA, NT and some of QLD. SA, TAS & Country/Main Routes of VIC use the alphanumeric system. NSW just has a lot of National Highways. - Its just the previous ones were low quality JPGs or have very unusual formatting, so I just created a new cleaner, more accurate template. Boochan 11:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Links

Does anyone know why blue links are sometimes underlined and sometimes not? is there a formatting edit war going on somewhere? Adam 10:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Industrial Relations

What do you all think about merging WorkChoices into 2005 Australian industrial relations law reform? While I think WorkChoices certainly warrents an article, I also think much of what is said in it should be said in the more general article and that a consolidated article is perhaps better at this stage. Thoughts?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The OED defines "reform" as "the amendment of some faulty state of things... a change for the better... improvement or rectifying of something faulty or inexact." The word therefore cannot be used of Howard's legislation, since it is hotly disputed whether it is "a change for the better." It should be Australian industrial relations legislation, 2005, and if someone doesn't move it there, I will. Adam 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've saved you the trouble, though like AYArktos says, someone will have to move it again when the bills make parliament. J.K. 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be called by either the name of the bill or the package. Is it called the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill 2005? The article's name should incorporate the word Australian as per the example of Australian Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005. I agree the article on WorkChoices should be merged with 2005 Australian industrial relations law reform. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the bill is called, since it hasn't been introduced, tabled or even published. We might be able to find out another way, but I'm unsure how. It will probably be an amendment to the Workplace Relations Act 1996. I think we can say pretty safely that the Liberals won't have the words "industrial relations" in its title: they'll use their PR term - "workplace relations". --Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is also the problem of the Howard Government's increasing tendency to give legislation propagandistic titles. The bill might well be titled the Happy Future for Everyone Bill 2005, and I don't we could call our article that. Australian industrial relations legislation, 2005 is accurate and neutral. Adam 08:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The DPMC is terming the bill Workplace Relations Amendment (Reform) Bill (.rtf) in its legislative schedule. The House cites five amendments as follows:

• Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) 2005;
• Workplace Relations Amendment (Extended Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) 2005;
• Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal Reform) 2005;
• Workplace Relations Amendment (Right of Entry) 2005; and,
• Workplace Relations Amendment (Small Business Employment Protection) 2005.(.pdf)

Given the number amendments, I think Adam's title will suffice for the time being. Still, what about the proposed merger?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ACOTF

Well, it's that time of the fortnight again. Sport in Australia received the most edits and editors since I've been doing ACOTF, even though it was longer to start with than most. It was ACOTF from 16 October 2005 to 30 October 2005

• 24 contributors made 62 edits
• The article increased from 2.12 kb to 5.39 - 3 times longer
• See how much it changed

The new Australian collaboration of the fortnight is the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

I'm also wondering about changing the tie-breaker rules - comment at the talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian Featured Article Candidates

There are currently two Australian articles up for featured article status at the moment. Waterfall Gully, South Australia and Canberra, please feel free to drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to lend your support or suggest improvements. --Martyman-(talk) 00:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne cup

Which horse are you betting on tomorrow? :) I created this 2005 Melbourne Cup article with a table of horses Astrokey44 12:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing non-free images

Adam Carr has informed me that I need to request the permission of this group to edit certain articles. Therefore, I am requesting your permission to remove some images from Template:Prime Ministers of Australia. As the images are not under a free license, they fall under the "fair use" rules. Those rules state that non-free images cannot be used anywhere but directly in articles; use on templates is forbidden. I would like to remove the following images:

• Image:Ac.johnhoward.jpg
• Image:Pkeating.jpg
• Image:BobHawke.jpg
• Image:Malcolmfraser1.jpg
• Image:Goughwhitlam2.jpg
• Image:Billymcmahon.jpg
• Image:JohnGorton.jpg
• Image:Johnmcewen.jpg
• Image:Haroldholt.jpg
• Image:Benchifley.jpg
• Image:Frankforde.jpg
• Image:Johncurtin.jpg
• Image:Arthurfadden.jpg
• Image:Robertmenzies2.jpg
• Image:Earlepage.jpg
• Image:Josephlyons.jpg
• Image:Jamesscullin.jpg
• Image:Stanleybruce.jpg
• Image:BillyHughes.png
• Image:Josephcook.jpg
• Image:Andrewfisher.jpg
• Image:Georgereid.jpg
• Image:Ac.chriswatson.jpg
• Image:AlfredDeakin.jpeg
• Image:Edmund Barton.PNG

--Carnildo 04:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

We had a discussion on this very page on which images we can use (see "Public Domain images from NLA" above) and the response was that all pre-1955 images are in the Public Domain. Ergo, many of the images you list would be public domain (at first glance, at least 10 PM's listed died prior to 1955). Unless, as usual, I have completely misunderstood something here. --Roisterer 05:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

move them to the article then or remove them from the template, the actual image doesnt need to be deleted Astrokey44 05:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it OK to use a photo in an article but not in a template? Adam 05:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea behid the template image purge is that there is no justification for fair use if you stick a fair use image of Bob Hawke on an unreated article like Edmund Barton.--nixie 05:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

American Fair Use entitles you to use copyrighted material in articles directly about the copyrigthed material, for such uses as parody or critique. Copyrighted photos of other prime ministers on a specific prime ministers page would not qualify. Australia's fair dealing criteria may be different, but I am not sure if that couts as we are uploading to the US. --Martyman-(talk) 05:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of them are not even copyright. Xtra 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced the copyright status for all of teh images pre-Menzies as they are in teh Public Domain. Not sure about any of the newer photos. --Martyman-(talk) 05:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Xtra previously posted on this page:

Under international copyright treaties a country will only recognise foreign material as copyright if the country it is from recognises the copyright. Therefore if it was made in Australia and Australia does not recognise copyright in it, then no other country will.

I have been unable to find a reference to support this, and remain of the view that images in the public domain in Australia are not necessarily so in the U.S. I am concerned that these images are being incorrectly retagged. Snottygobble | Talk 05:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have all sorts of qualms over the Australia-PD template, especially if people are using it on unpublished images released by the NLA or NAA that under Australian law are copyright in perpetuity.--nixie 05:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is only for photos taken after 1969: "Photographs taken after 1 May 1969. An unpublished photograph holds copyright in perpetuity". It then says that copyright is "50 years from making" for "Photographs taken before 1 May 1969" [5] Astrokey44 09:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The DMCA contians the following text which seems to imply that the US does not protect copyright once it has lapsed in it's home country:

Restoration of Copyright Protection
Both treaties require parties to protect preexisting works from other member
countries that have not fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through
the expiry of the term of protection. A similar obligation is contained in both the
Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.

Also I am under the impression for photos taken before 1955 in Australia their publishment date does not come into the equation. --Martyman-(talk) 05:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright is a national right, not an international one. The only reason why America recognises Australian copyright is because they have signed a treaty known as TRIPS, which is compulsory for countries who want to be members of the WTO. If you look at your local copyright act you will notice indicia of this. See for example s32(1) of the Australian copyright act which defines an author as an Australian - a qualified person is an Australian (see s32(4)). This only extends to foreign works due to application of TRIPS. Hence, copyright only exists internationally if it is recognised locally. Xtra 05:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This PDF document gives the copyright durations for various publicaitons in Australia. --Martyman-(talk) 05:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There's also the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Article 5(1) supports Xtra. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned, my eyes glaze over at the sight of legalese, so if someone could wake me up at the end of this discussion and tell me whether all the pre-1955 images I have been adding to various articles are fine or need editing, removing or photoshopping in an image of me in the background holding a rubber chicken. --Roisterer 06:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What he said. Adam 07:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see why you didn't complete law. If there is no copyright in Austalia, there is no copyright in the US. see Martyman's link above for what is no longer copyright. Generally, anonymous works pre 1955 are no longer copyright. If the author is know it is 50 years after the author's death if pre 1955 or 70 years if post 1955. Or something like that. Xtra 07:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not what we were told previously. We were told that images created in Australia before 1955 were absolutely free of copyright, regardless of the author/photographer's identity or date of death. Do you believe this not to be the case? (One of the reasons I didn't continue with law was the realisation that lawyers can never agree about anything). Adam 07:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This may be the case for other copyrighted works, but photographs are simple. Pre-1955 = Public Domain fullstop. --Martyman-(talk) 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a replication of sections 33 and 34 of the Copyright Act

33 Duration of copyright in original works

(1) This section has effect subject to subsection 32(2) and to section 34.

(2) Subject to this section, copyright that subsists in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work by virtue of this Part continues to subsist until the end of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the author of the work died.

(3) If, before the death of the author of a literary work (other than a computer program) or a dramatic or musical work:

(a) the work had not been published; (b) the work had not been performed in public; (c) the work had not been broadcast; and (d) records of the work had not been offered or exposed for sale to the public; the copyright in the work continues to subsist until the end of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work is first published, performed in public, or broadcast, or records of the work are first offered or exposed for sale to the public, whichever is the earliest of those events to happen.

(4) A reference in the last preceding subsection to the doing of an act in relation to a work shall be read as including a reference to the doing of that act in relation to an adaptation of the work.

(5) If, before the death of the author of an engraving, the engraving had not been published, the copyright in the engraving continues to subsist until the end of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the engraving is first published.

34 Duration of copyright in anonymous and pseudonymous works

(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the first publication of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is anonymous or pseudonymous, any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part continues to subsist until the end of the period of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a work if, at any time before the end of the period referred to in that subsection, the identity of the author of the work is generally known or can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.

A photograph is an artistic work (section 10(1))

Please ignore the 70 for pre 1955 images, as the Act was ammended.

But it demonstrates that if the author is known, the relevant date is their death. Xtra 08:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Known to whom? Adam 08:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not correct. See the top of page 3 here. Photos are treated differently to artistic works at least if produced before 1955... --Martyman-(talk) 10:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

please refer me to the section of the act that makes this distinction. I reproduced the relevant sections above verbatim. Unless you can show me some other section within the act that contradict my assertion, that document means nothing as the act makes no distinction. Xtra 10:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There is this section, but it only applies to photos that are crown copyright.

180 Duration of Crown copyright in original works

(1) Copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work of which the Commonwealth or a State is the owner, or would, but for an agreement to which the last preceding section applies, be the owner:

(a) where the work is unpublished—continues to subsist so long as the work remains unpublished; and

(b) where the work is published—subsists, or, if copyright in the work subsisted immediately before its first publication, continues to subsist, until the expiration of 50 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the work was first published.

(2) Subject to the next succeeding subsection, copyright in an artistic work of which the Commonwealth or a State is the owner, or would, but for an agreement to which the last preceding section applies, be the owner, continues to subsist until the expiration of 50 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the work was made.

(3) Copyright in an engraving or photograph of which the Commonwealth or a State is the owner, or would, but for an agreement to which the last preceding section applies, be the owner, continues to subsist until the expiration of 50 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the engraving or photograph is first published.

Xtra 10:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You admit that the 70 years is wrong because teh act has been amended.. The date from which copyright counts down has also been amended. I will find the reference for you if you want. --Martyman-(talk) 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. if you read my posts from a while ago I commented on the effects of the FTA. my point here is that it appears, on my reading of the act, that if the author of the photo is known it is 50/70 years after death, if not known 50/70 years after publication, if the government 50 years after publication. Xtra 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

For non-government photographs: photographs (if taken before 1 May 1969, 50 years from the end of the year they were taken; on or after 1 May 1969, 50 years from the end of the year of first publication); thus the interpretation that images made before 1955 are ok- however it would appear that this doesn't apply to government works. For works made by the goverment it's 1969 (or the year made) + 50 years, and after 1969 it's the year first published + 50 years. What a mess.--nixie 10:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the links posted by Martyman, before this year the law was that photos taken before 1969 were copyright for 50 years from the year that they were taken. This has now been changed, but copyright for photographs taken before 1955 had already expired when this change occurred, they are now public domain. The law does not recreate copyright that has already expired. For more references, you'd have to check the relevant part of the law before the 2004 amendments, which I suspect is the original 1968 version. JPD (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the best place to start with a law is the sections of the Act. Read sections 33 and 34 to define the duration of copyright for non-government photographs. Xtra 10:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the relavent act is the one before the 1968 one, which I can't seem to find. I don't know why you are arguing this. I have had confirmation from a chief legal officer at Copyright australia that all photos before 1955 in Australia are in the public domain. It get a lot more complicated after 1955 but we won't have to worry about that for a few more years. --Martyman-(talk) 10:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But that was superceeded by the 1968 act. once something loses copyright it is gone forever, but the change in 1968 would not have affected 1955 copyright. Xtra 10:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sections 33 and 34 say things like "copyright that subsists ... continues to subsist". Copyright had already expired for pre-1955 photos before these clauses were enacted, so the clauses do not say anything about these photos. JPD (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

these were what was ammended by the FTA (US FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT 2004 SCHEDULE 9)

120 Subsection 33(2)

Omit "50 years", substitute "70 years".

121 Subsections 33(3) and (5)

Omit "the expiration of 50 years after the expiration", substitute "the end of 70 years after the end".

122 Subsection 34(1)

Omit "50 years", substitute "70 years".

there was no change to the day when you calculate the duration from for photographs between the publication and the death of the author. Xtra 11:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong and if I could just find a copy of the unamended act I could prove it. I highly doubt you have somehow managed to outsmart copyright australia in the interpretation of the Copyright Act. --Martyman-(talk) 11:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I just spent 45 minutes looking for that. If you can find it and back up your point fine by me. But the only thing that I know for certain is that Crown Copyright expires 50 years after publication, irrespective of when it was published. Xtra 11:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

here is a site that spells out the rules pre FTA. Just because the government has gone to great lengths to hide and pre-FTA copyright legislation doesn't mean that they don't exist. I have been informed directly from Copyright australia that all photos taken in Australia before 1955 are now in the public domain. This was a phone call with a chief legal officer. If you are calling him a liar and claiming to be better at law than him go ahead, but I feel you are greatly overstepping your grounds in claiming we can't use {{tl:PD-Australia}} and you are just adding to everyone's confusion. --Martyman-(talk) 11:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

See: [6] --Martyman-(talk) 12:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. well, s33(6) (which made a separate category for photos) was repealed by the FTA. So pre 1955 it doesn't matter who created it for there to be no copyright now, but it would be preferable to use the Crown copyright tag for government photos as that refers to the the applicable law as crown copyright is different to regular copyright. Xtra 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

All the above photographs were held under crown copyright and are therefore no longer copyright. Xtra 11:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have made a new template which can be inserted in relevant photographs above. Template:PD-Australia-CC Xtra 11:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

do you want to use a wiki to work this copyright business out? I just made Australian Copyright Expiration using bits of what people have been saying. hope you dont mind ---- Astrokey44 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Great work Astrokey44, much easier to follow. Though I'm still not sure if I can download images from the State Library of Victoria's picture archive, then upload them to Wikipedia under public domain claims. It seems that I can, but the wording at the SLV website still scares me. Cnwb 12:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It scares me too, maybe it would be better to put them in a low resolution, small size, just to be on the safe side so they cant claim economic loss. You only need a 250px or so image to use in an article anyway. Astrokey44 13:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Cropping of images

One thing is that I would probably remove the black border (and text labels) from around any image you download from the NLA. They may possibly have grounds to claim copyright over that part of the image. --Martyman-(talk) 21:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I very strongly oppose reducing the quality of images - particularly when we don't appear to have a very good reason apart from fear backed without much evidence. It harms the article, it particularly harms Commons, and it's just unnecessary. Ambi 00:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I crop these photos for aesthetic reasons, not out of fear. Adam 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to Astrokey decreasing the resolution of images. Ambi 01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

dont worry, Im not going to now Astrokey44 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• By cropping the images, you are removing the source of the image. It is important for reference purposes to source the images at the very least in the summary table. You should be honest about the source of the image and if your are frightened of copyright or reproduction rights (whatever that can mean without copyright), don't upload.

Any fool can crop the image, if it is an attempt to disguise the source, you won't because the metadata will probably reveal the source unless you go through even further machinations. I disagree that aesthetics are significantly improved by removing the NLA info which reveals the source - obviously a matter of personal taste.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 01:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't an attempt to disguise the source, as that is stated clearly and obviously on under the "source" section, in the proper place. This is the way we source images on Wikipedia. As to the content of the metadata - why would that bother anyone, when we're not trying to hide the source of the image? If you're too lazy to do it yourself, at least have the courtesy to stop uploading images so that people don't have to go around and clean up after you. Ambi 02:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't want photo credits to be visible from article pages. From Wikipedia:Image use policy:

9. Don't put photo credits in articles or on the images themselves; put them on the description page.

In light of this policy, we should be cropping source credits out of images we upload.

Snottygobble | Talk 02:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you Snottygobble for explaining why credits should not be placed on images and what the authority for your view is, ie not mere aesthetics. I am anything but lazy about uploading images. I have gone to the trouble of creating a template for the Mildenhall pictures, written a stub on the [[photographer and written a stub on the collection. I find the personal attack alleging laziness above extremely upsetting.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 07:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The policy says '... Don't put photo credits ... on the images themselves'. I did not place the credit on the image. I simply did not remove it. It would be wrong to crop or manipulate an image first published by somebody else, for that would destroy or distort information in the image.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 08:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to give a source for a PD photo at all? Adam 08:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is quite clear on citing sources. Reasons given on the policy page include: "To enhance the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia." "To credit a source for providing useful information." Citing your sources does not only apply to words. The provenance of a photo is important, who took it, when they took it, in the case of historical photos, who now owns it, is it part of a collection, who has uploaded it and in what way they have manipulated the image all add information.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 09:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the NLA distorted the image by adding the border in the first place. Cropping the image back to the actual image is only returning to it's original state as the photographer intended. I would see the black border and text as a graphical frame rather than part of the image itself. I can also envision cases where cropping images helps highlight the information you wish to relay with it, I hardly think removing unwanted parts of a public domain image is in any way "wrong". --Martyman-(talk) 08:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• The NLA owns the photo and reproduced it. I have taken their image and uploaded it on the basis (a) it is public domain and (b) they have given their permission. I am using "wrong" in the sense of contravening moral rights. I do not believe it is appropriate to manipulate an image generated by someone else. In the case of the photo of the Capitol Theatre for example, it could be "improved" not merely by taking out the NLA tag, but reducing the foreground, using some software to remove the watermarks, straightening the image, placing a pretty 1920s style border around it, a montage of a car for interest's sake, sepia tone for "authenticity" to demonstrate age - where do you want to stop? All legally allowed. Morally - you go for it - not me - and not because I am lazy.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 09:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, they haven't given permission. I got the go ahead from a layer at Copyright Australia who said that we are right to use images that are in the public domain off their website. Public domain images are freely manipulatable by anyone. I see no moral problem at all in enhancing croping or whatever if it would make it a better illustration for the wikipedia. I don't understand this "moral" objection at all. --Martyman-(talk) 09:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Moral objection is some silly european idea. NLA is good to provide these photos, but they have no rights over them. Xtra 11:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Moral rights are most certainly not a silly european idea. The moral right of the author of a work to be recognised as such should be upheld even for public domain works. The fact that Shakespeare's plays are in the public domain does not give me the right to pass myself off as the author of Romeo and Juliet. But in the case of these photos, the NLA are not the author. All the NLA did is archive someone else's photo, scan it in, whack a border on it, and credit themselves. They have earned no moral rights in doing so. On the contrary, one could argue that the NLA's practice of tagging public domain images as though they are the NLA's property contravenes the moral rights of the author. It can certainly be seen as an attempt to defraud the public of their copy rights. Snottygobble | Talk 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright of Photographs in Australia

• Photographs taken before 1955 are now in the public domain
• Photographs taken since 1955 will not be in the public domain for at least 20 years (and so are irrelavent)
• Photographs taken since 1955 will not be in the public domain for at least 20 years unless under crown copyright which expires 50 years after first publication.

That is it. It is no more complicated than that. I wish people would stop trying to confuse matters. --Martyman-(talk) 12:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not it. Crown Copyright was and continues to be 50 years from publication. And photos taken after 1955 are copyright until either 70 years after the death of the author or if the author is unknown 70 years after publication . Xtra 12:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will give you that. So try again... --Martyman-(talk) 12:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have put this up the top of the page. Xtra 13:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks, great. --Martyman-(talk) 13:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not it. part two. I maintain that Wikipedia cannot host photographs unless they may legally do so under U.S. law, and I remain unconvinced that an image being in the public domain in Australia implies that it is in the public domain in the U.S. Snottygobble | Talk 22:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Under the Berne Convention an Australian copyright holder could take action under Japanese copyright law if copyright in a work was infringed in Japan, for example. But if the copyright has expired in Australia, there is no Australian copyright holder to take action in Japan. AUSFTA did not revive any expired copyrights. PD in Australia is PD everywhere. At least, that is my understanding based on [7] [8], IANAL and all that. --bainer (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have done some research, and I am satisfied that you guys are right. Works published outside the Unites States before 1978 that are in the public domain in their home country are in the public domain in the United States. This link is a useful reference. Snottygobble | Talk 23:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Federal IR Laws

ACTU Secretary Greg Combet denounces the Howard Government's new industrial relations bill, Parliament House Canberra, 2 November 2005

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says that Labor will oppose the Howard Government's legislation "in every respect, at every stage" until the next election, Parliament House Canberra, 2 November 2005

Terrific Adam. It's already been added to a number of articles, with no moaning about copyright :). Don't suppose you can get some shots of the rats in Parliament? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

AFL WikiProject

There seems to be some action happening at Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL, but it looks like it needs somebody who's done it before or at least knows where the templates are to make that page look like other wikiprojects. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

expanded {PD-Australia} template

I have proposed an expanded version of above. See Template talk:PD-Australia -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sixth largest Australian city?

There are currently three wikipedia articles (that I am aware of) with conflicting information about the sixth largest Australian city. Newcastle cliams that it is, and Gold Coast and Queensland both claim that the Gold Coast is. Both articles seem to be using different source data, although not properly referenced in either case. Relevant ABS data for 2003 is located here [9], although the Gold Coast article claims that G.C.'s population surpassed 500,000 in 2005. - is anybody able to help resolve these conflicting claims? Adz 07:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd just use the 2003 ABS data rankings, and mention that according to recent estimates population may have risen to x. It'd be good if you could find the reference for the new estimate.--nixie 07:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that finding a reference for the Gold Coast pop still wouldn't help for as long as there weren't figures for Newcastle pop? Do we have to compare like with like? Or is it enough to say that the most recent stats suggest that X is bigger than Y used to be, therefore it is bigger. I'll see if I can find something. (note that I didn't add the info to either article in the first place). Either way, i think I'll just reword GC and Qld articles to remove reference to sixth largest city, and hopefuly not upset anybody. Adz 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, unless you use a common data set like the ABS 2003 data, you can't really compare them.--nixie 07:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Australian city area references

On the subject of Australian cities - does anyone know what source is used for the statistics in the Infoboxes that are on city articles? I'm trying to use the same infobox on some regional cities but want to keep the data consistent. -- Chuq 11:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

For Canberra I used the area figure reported in the 2003 ABS National Regional Profile for Canberra, there are profiles for all major areas, just do a keyword search for [city (Statistical Subdivision)], area is the first thing reported in the excel spread sheet. --nixie 01:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Davido in Western Victoria?

Does anybody know how to prove a town never existed? Somebody has written a real-sounding article about Davido, Victoria and somebody else has linked it from List of ghost towns (twice, I reverted the first time). There seem to be clues this is a hoax, but I don't want to bite the newbies if it IS real. Geoscience Australia don't have a record of it. Second opinion before I list it for AFD? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to come up on Google, although that of course doesn't mean it wasn't real. I suggest putting the template:not verified template on it for a day or two - which might teach the newbies that people are keeping an eye on them, while not frightening them off. In the meantime, let's try to find out if there are any historical societies in Vic who might be able to answer the question. Maybe an email to the Vic Museum or something. Lets put it up for VfD on Monday or Tuesday. ... it is vaguely ammusing I guess. ... if anybody is aware of a template that says something along the lines of "this article is a suspected hoax and will be put up for VfD in a few days if it isn't varified" - that would be better. Adz 12:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The government creates a gazette of place names which I had need to refer to in employment some time ago. I don't remember the department responsible or the name of the gazette, but this info might help prove your point. -- Longhair | Talk 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Smells like a hoax to me. I'd put it up for AfD. Ambi 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm up that way shortly. I'll ask some locals ;) -- Longhair | Talk 12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost certainly a hoax. If it is not on Geoscience Australia which does have localities no longer extant such as Homebush, Victoria or Dondangadale, it is extremely unlikely that Davido was a recognised place name. I would have thought a hoax could be speedily deleted but apparently criterion G1 excludes hoaxes so AfD it must be. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 20:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll be studying in the State Library of Victoria over the weekend, so I'll look into it. I have a few books on Victorian ghost towns, but none for that region. It sounds like a hoax, but I'd be reluctant to speedy it just because none of us have heard of it. --Cnwb 22:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Some recent developments which administrators may want to keep an eye on:

A recent edit lead me to investigate a little further with some interesting results. The new version of this article was created by User:David Foley. An annon user with IP 203.51.162.131 removed the Not verified claiming that it was verified in a "list of 1800's western victorian towns". User:David Foley claims to have read about it in "a book". IP 203.51.162.131 was also used to create some vandalism/creative editing on the Hamilton, Victoria page on 26 Oct 2005. Earlier that day, two other edits were made by User:Millions and IP 143.238.48.232 Among the edits was a claim that a local boy named David Foley shared a name with a Canadian actor, and a photo, claiming to the that of David Foley was added. I wonder whether User:David Foley and User:Millions aren't sockpupets, using PC from home and school. Although I'm fairly sure this is a hoax, if there really was a town called Davido and if the article was written by a kid with a creative imagination then it would be nice to tidy it up and keep the stub. Adz 13:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

After a couple of reverts taking away the not verified template, I left a note within the artocle for the phontom editor asking him (or her) to use the talk page instead of leaving notes in the edit history. He or she then left a note saying citing the following text book: Broome, Richard and Frost, Alan. The Colonial Experience: The Port Phillip District, 1834-1850. The book exists in Google. Cnwb, if you have time, could you look into it while you're at the Library on the weekend. If it turns out to be true then I think we may have done a good thing by not scaring off a newbie and teaching him/her about citing sources and how to use the talk page. If it is a hoax then I'm sorry for wasting your time. Adz 13:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The book cited by the editor, The Colonial Experience: the Port Phillip District 1834-1850 seems to be a school textbook, consisting mainly of diary entries of Victorian pioneers, covering the timespan 1834-1850 (obviously). The Davido article states that the town's active period was between 1867-1871 (beyond the timeframe of the textbook). There is no index in the book, and so I scanned the pages for mention of Davido - but there seemed to be nothing.

I checked the indexes of numerous books on nineteenth century Victoria, particularly those covering the Hamilton area, and found no mention of the town. I also checked the index volumes of the Victorian Hisorical Journal, which dates back to 1911, and this also revealed no mention of Davido.

Finally, in the genealogy room, I found Angus B. Watson's excellent and addictive book Lost & Almost Forgotten Towns of Colonial Victoria: A Comprehensive Analysis of Census Results for Victoria 1841-1901. This book includes all towns and villages as defined by the Government Statist for collection of Victorian censuses from 1841 to 1901. This includes settlements of as few as 13 people, yet there was no mention of Davido, which the article claims had a population of 1,500.

My conclusion is that the article is most definitely a hoax. If anyone wants to put this up for AfD, feel free to use the information I've just supplied. -- Cnwb 06:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the effort and researching it Cnwb. Although it turned out to be a hoax I'm glad we went to the effort to check. Thanks too for persevering with the prankster ScottDavis. Methinks you're going to make a good admin. (congrats on that too by the way!) -- Adz 13:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davido, Victoria. Thanks Cnwb for your research.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 07:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order

There are now two more featured Australian articles: Waterfall Gully, South Australia and Canberra. Thanks to everyone who worked on either of them - they've both turned out brilliantly. Ambi 07:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed the whole FAC process for these, but I must say that both articles look fantastic! Waterfall Gully is a fine example of what's needed for Australian suburbs, and the Canberra article illustrates the ways in which other major cities (e.g. Sydney) need to be expanded upon to reach the same level. Congrats to all involved with both articles. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Australian photos nominated for Featured Picture

Whilst we're all exhausted over the image copyright discussion, there is some lighter news regarding Australian imagery. I thought I'd point out that there are two photographs nominated for Featured Picture; Melbourne Yarra Afternoon and State Library of Victoria - La Trobe Reading Room. --Cnwb 22:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Reproduction rights: National Archives and National Library

Although, as per the extension discussions above and in the archives of this page, Australian images produced before 1955 are copyright free, if the images are uploaded from the National Archives, they state : "If you use a digital image, the National Archives must be acknowledged as the source and the image must be identified by its item or image number." They do not charge for reproducing digital copies. (NAA copyright and use fact sheet)

I have sought permission from the National Library of Australia to upload Historical Photos of Australia made before 1955. Permission was granted with reference number NLA05/1532. Further information is at commons:Template talk:PD-Australia--A Y Arktos (Talk) 23:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have added the following comment at Commons:Template talk:PD-Australia, explaining that User:AYArktos's voluntary decision to be bound by the NLA's conditions does not affect the rest of us; and noting in particular that AYArktos' agreement to "limit the resolution to a level unsuitable for publication-quality printing" contravenes policy at Commons:Image and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy:

  Contributors should be aware that although AYArktos has agreed to be bound by these conditions, no other contributor is under obligation to conform to them. Public domain images may be used freely by anyone, so public domain images made available by the NLA may be uploaded to Commons / Wikipedia, and no permission or agreement with the NLA is necessary. In particular, contributors are encouraged to upload images at the best available resolution, in conformance with Commons:Image and Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Snottygobble | Talk 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that AYArktos has asked the NLA for permission to use PD issues from their catalogue. As has been established, they have no right to demand that people ask their permission, and doing so in one case increases the chances that they will make a fuss in other cases. Adam 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AYArktos reminds me of this quote from Blackadder II - Captain Rum: "Opinion is divided on the subject - all the other captains say it is - i say it isn't!". PMA 00:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• There seems to be a confusion between copyright and reproduction rights. The NLA page on permissions is here: http://www.nla.gov.au/catalogue/pictures/copyright.html If you don't want to abide by their conditions for reproduction, I suggest you don't use their site or their pictures. Same goes for the National Archives. Why not create your own pixels? Neither instituion may of course enforce their reproduction rights, that applies to the enforcement of all sorts of rights and obligations.

I am happy for others to seek their own permission from the NLA (or any other institution) with their own conditions. I note that downloads from the NLA are not in a form for publication-quality printing. I download to the best available resolution and conform with the condition.

As for the Blackadder comment above, having already been accused of laziness on this page, would contributers like to reflect on Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't enjoy the abuse. I am trying to act with integrity in relation to the work of others. I take my own photos where possible, I am interested in using historical images and wish to conform with conditions put on those issues by those who created them and those who made them available to me. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 00:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I believe that the confusion is on your part. Copyright is the right to reproduce. The NLA conditions are a joke and an insult. Snottygobble | Talk 01:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned I will copy away any image that is clearly in the public domain (ie anything before 1955) and upload to Wikipedia ... but I will reference the place I get it from as the source. We shouldn't have to ask them for permission. They don't own the copyright for it after all! Nomadtales 11:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne-Sydney rivalry

Now I'm sure everyone has heard of the "legendary" rivalry between these two cities, and it has been suggested before that we create an article about it. I would love to create said article, but the problem is, while everyone seems to agree that there is, (or at least was), a rivalry between the two, (there's no denying it was the reason Canberra was built—"I want to be capital!" "No, I want to be capital!"), it seems to be one of those things which is very hard to define. So far, all I've been able to think of is a vague introduction. What kind of encyclopedic content could go in an article about The Rivalry, without it degenerating into a "My city is better" contest? Besides Canberra, what actual events are there which can be attributed to it? What, in fact, caused it in the first place? (Besides the Gold Rush.) Or is there no hope in making an article out of something like this? Comments are welcome...

" The two largest cities in Australia—Melbourne, capital of the State of Victoria, and Sydney, capital of the State of New South Wales—have, since the foundation of the younger Melbourne in the 1830s, been considered rivals in many respects. Both cities have enjoyed positions of material prosperity from which they have stood above the other, while both Melburnians and Sydneysiders are willing to extol the virtues of their city over their northern and southern rival respectively. "

TPK 10:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the background is as follows.

At foundation, a deal was done in which the site for Canberra would be slightly closer to Sydney than Melbourne, but while Canberra was being built, Melbourne would basically be the seat of Government. Which was good for Melbourne, while it lasted. Another deal done at federation was tarrifs and inter-state subsidies. Because Melbourne was the industrial heart, it did well out of tarrifs, while they lasted. The roll-back of tarrifs hit Melbourne disproportionately, but it, along with Sydney, has had to keep funding the smaller states. (NSW pays $13B in GST and gets back $10B. Don't know the figures for Vic.)

Having lived in Melbourne, my experience is that Melbourne Sydney rivalry is real. Living in Sydney as I now do, my experiences is that Sydney Melbourne rivaly almost doesn't exist. PK said that it's Sydney, or the bush, and most Sydney siders would agree with him. They only thing they disagree on is where Sydney stops and the bush starts.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that Melbourne-Sydney rivalry is something the media likes to beat up on. But then again, I live in Sydney. I wasn't even 100% certain that Canberra was the result of Melbourne-Sydney rivalry or whether some of the less populous states may have had reservations about the capital being in one of the two largest cities. History of Canberra#Choice for capital city location puts forward yet another theory, that several states had different preferences for the capital, rather than only NSW and Victoria having opinions.

Some other potential examples of rivalry may be the hosting of "events" (eg sporting events), attracting certain businesses (eg film studios), or building (bio)technology hubs. But that involves several cities, not just Melbourne and Sydney. Andjam 12:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Sydneysider, I can proudly say it is better than Melbourne. By far. And this is not very encyclopedic, but earlier this year a terrorist (with an apparently australian accent) made threats to melbourne specifically, to which some sydney news reporters seemed not to be happy about. Their reports were given with a hint of disdain or disappointment because the threats were not made towards the larger Sydney. --Ballchef 12:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Andjam, I think you're right about the smaller states not wanting to see either Melbourne or Sydney gain the capital. Remember too that the senate was originally intended to represent states rights, and is heavily weighted towards the smaller states. Yes, all the capitals compete for prestige events, but Sydney somehow feels less desperate (if I can use that word) to win. Winning or losing any individual event just doesn't make so much difference to us - after all, we're still Sydney. Who cares?

As Tim Freedman from The Whitlams sang, "you've gotta love this city, for its body, not its brain". And it's true. This is an absolutely drop dead beautiful city, but it isn't always real deep, if you know what I mean.

And Ballchef, don't get too upset about the terrorists. They almost certainly meant Melbourne (Florida) or some other Melbourne. So no need to feel too slighted.

Regards, Ben Aveling

Perhaps there could be an article on Australian rivalries more generally: there is the South Australia/Victoria rivalry, the Tasmania/mainland rivalry and the Perth/everywhere else rivalry. --bainer (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They're all fairly one-sided though. Can a rivalry be one-sided? Vics stopped caring about SA decades ago, Mainlanders have never given a shit about Tassie ('cept to tell 'em what to do with their forests), and Perth's to far away for anyone to care. Perhaps an article on Australian parochialism? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 00:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There's more parochialism in Australia than just the Melbourne-Sydney rivalry. As a frequent visitor to SA, I've noticed there's a certain attitude towards Victorians (at least in my experience), which came to a head when we stole the Grand Prix. But even still, there are TV ads in SA which play on this attitude. A beer ad comes to mind - something about Vics coming to SA and thinking there are no pubs (?). --Cnwb 00:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Hobart-Launceston rivalry is more visible than any Tasmania/mainland rivalry! -- Chuq 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There's definately rivalry mentality surviving in SA with regards to Vic ("kick a Vic"), but it died in Victoria some time ago. Vics are fixated on Sydney now. And you didn't steal the Grand Prix, we lent it to you so we could watch you fall on your faces :P!. As for TV ads, you wouldn't believe how much the destroyer contract has been played up (as though it were vengeance for the Grand Prix).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I keep waiting for someone to suggest that the article title should be Sydney-Melbourne rivalry not Melbourne-Sydney rivalry. :) Snottygobble | Talk 00:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Haha :) But really.. surely there's a naming convention for titles where items in the title can be in any order? Alphabetical or something? -- Chuq 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sydney-Melbourne rivalry definitely was an essential factor in the Constitution providing that the capital be in NSW but over 100 miles from Sydney. I refer to this paragraph on George Reid in his article on the PMs website see [10]. "The Federation impasse was resolved at a ‘secret’ premiers’ conference at Melbourne’s Windsor Hotel, opposite the Spring Street Parliament House, held over six days from 29 January 1899. The compromise clause proposed by Tasmanian Premier Edward Braddon meant the Commonwealth must return to the States a proportion of all tariff and duties. To Reid’s satisfaction, the ongoing battle between Victoria and New South Wales over the siting of the national capital was also settled. Under the compromise, the site would be in New South Wales, but not less than 100 miles from Sydney." The constitution had previously failed to win a minimum level of approval at a referendum in 1898 with Reid earning the nickname of Yes/No Reid due to his equivocal position. The location of the capital led to the revised constitution passing in 1899. For that reason alone, Sydney-Melbourne rivalry is worth an article.

For my money, Queensland vs New South Wales is the most pronounced rivalry given the Rugby League State of Origin. However, an article on interstate rivalries would be worthwhile given the disputes.Capitalistroadster 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

From here it's SA vs Vic. Also state-of-origin football, exascerbated by them stealing "our" Grand Prix, and SA getting the contract to build the Air Warfare Destroyers over the Williamstown dockyard. Perhpas you're right, it should be a general interstate rivalry article, not a particular pair of states. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It really does depend on where you live. When living in Victoria, we bemoan to the north, however when I was living in SA, we'd pick on the Victorians. I'm sure the Tasmanian's have their own issues with the Victorians as well. Having never been that far up north, I didn't even know a QLD v NSW rivalry existed. Australian state rivalries seems like a good point to start with. I'd be happy to contribute what I've observed. -- Longhair | Talk 01:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As a true blue hardcore Sydneysider I can tell in true NPOV form, that the fine city of Sydney is far and away the greatest city in the world nay the universe! :)

Seriously though, there has been some great discussion over this issue with many good points raised. I'm think that "Australian city/state rivalries" would be the best, that way we could mention all of the them.

Let me tell though, around Rugby League state of origin time, there is massive amount of rivalry. The Daily Telegraph love nothing better than reporting the QLD Maroons in a negative light.

By the way, can anyone recall who won the Grand Final in the AFL this season. You know, that "football code" that they created and play in the South. The game that is apparantly the "national code" and "Australia's one true game". Anyone remember.. oh yeah, that's right.. the MIGHTY SYDNEY SWANS!!!!

I fully support this article -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it you've adopted the South Melbourne Football Club then :-) --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anything less than Australian Regional Rivalries, is going to be a monumental waste of wiki space and time, with all the specific hobby horses taking up vast amounts of talk pages and editors time on reverts. The sub heading should then be between states, and regions. Be bold, think big. Get out of the specifics or the talk pages will jump out and strangle us!!!vcxlor 03:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea for the title, I started it at Australian Regional Rivalries. I can just see an edit war between people moving the page from Sydney-Melbourne to Melbourne-Sydney otherwise Astrokey44 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Astrokey44, I admire the way you get the ball rolling on issues discussed here. You did the same thing with Australian Copyright Expiration. -- Cnwb 05:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Both times were a really useful conversation people were having which deserved their own article Astrokey44 05:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I recommend John Docker's Australian Cultural Elites and Jim Davidson's The Melbourne-Sydney Book for anyone thinking of embarking on this topic, which is indeed very interesting, but about which a lot of nonsense is frequently talked. Adam 03:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Forest River Mission

Forest River Mission is claiming town status, but I can not verify it. There is a Forest River in the Geoscience Australia placenames, and I have found a couple of references on the web. Is there a definitive source for Australian town names? IanBailey 05:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The name of the mission was "Forrest River Mission". See the talk page. Graham/pianoman87 talk 07:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the name used these days is Oombulgurri. I therefore updated and moved the article to reflect that. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Good work Graham. IanBailey 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics

I'm working on an article on Australia at the Winter Olympics, and have listed in the talk what could be included. I'd be interested in some other views on what could be in the article.

Thanks, Andjam 06:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Andjam,

I have left a message on the Talk Page. I think that you are off to a good start. However, I have suggested including info about the AIS winter program and the Winter Paralympics especially Michael Milton winning four gold medals in the 2002 Winter Paralympics at Salt Lake City. Capitalistroadster 08:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Brisbane Grammar School and Anglican Church Grammar School

Brisbane Grammar School and Anglican Church Grammar School have had vandalism up to pussy's bow (I love that saying). I've been reverting them like mad, but there's obviously some inter-school rivalry going on. I just thought I'd spread the news, so others can keep an eye on these articles. --Cnwb 09:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dyson Heydon

does anyone know why Dyson Heydon is the only High Court Justice without an AC, Other than Susan Crennan who was only just appointed? Xtra 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

He was only appointed to the NSWSC in 2000, they probably just haven't got around to it yet. However, Gaudron hasn't got an AC either as far as I'm aware. --bainer (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

AWNB re-design

Hi all. I've created a redesigned version of the Notice Board in my lab based on a portal format used on Wikipedia française. It's by no means final, but I thought I'd put it out there to see what others think. I was thinking of adding "watch" links to the boxes, and adding boxes for Peer review and FAC. The discussion section could also be moved to a separate page (as the Canadians do) and transcluded (which the Canadians don't). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Cyberjunkie,

Looks good to me. Capitalistroadster 04:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mate, I absolutely love it. I was actually thinking of a bit of revamp myself but this far better that what I had in mind. Great work Cyberjunkie!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks great!! Nicely done Astrokey44 05:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks great but do we have to use transclusion? It's bloody annoying and harder to edit in my opinion.--Commander Keane 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that might be an objection to the design, but I disagree that it is harder edit. Hiving off sections to separate pages and transcluding them avoids users having to navigate through masses of code to just update a list. That's one of the reasons I'm thinking of creating a discussion section (or using a metatemplate for the top section). Also, three of the boxes are shared with The Australia Portal. I thought people might object to transclusion due to a preference for centralisation. Adding watch links to individual boxes may mitigate that concern. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What is transcluding and how does it work? -- Adz 05:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion uses the template mechanism to import content from another page. So instead of incorporating all the contents of Portal:Australia/Projects, you import it with {{Portal:Australia/Projects}}. Geoff/Gsl 07:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not very fond of the new version, as it strikes me as being fairly unnecessary; a solution without a problem. For starters, please don't remove the discussion from this page and bury it on a rarely read talk page or subpage; it would get rid of the best venue we have for discussing Australian issues and projects, not to mention the to-do lists. I really fail to see the point of doing this; nothing is gained, and important things are lost.

Moreover, the present version already buries the notices in favour of things that were already easy to find in the earlier version, or belong somewhere else. Firstly, I don't think we need the two templates from the Australian Wikiportal page; if we want to read them, we can watchlist that page as well. Secondly, there's a lot of wasted space; the archives don't need to receive half the monitor space without scrolling, and the RfA box doesn't need to be anywhere that big. However, if you must go ahead with this, how about expunging the (useless) top two boxes, as well as the ITN, merging the archives and stub templates section in with the projects, and cutting the page back to four boxes (Projects, AfDs, RfAs, COTF). As it is, though, it's just overkill, and risks smothering some of the most useful aspects of this board. Ambi 07:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)Perhaps you should take another look. Discussion is most certainly not expunged in the new design; part of the reason I bothered with this at all was because discussion on AWNB at present is buried beneath a ton of notices. I was merely floating the idea of creating a discussion page - the design doesn't do that yet. The whole point of it is to condense the notices in an attractive fashion so discussion can be more clearly found. All that is presently on AWNB (aside from the un-maintained to-do list) is in the new version, but formatted in a way that makes it IMO very much easier to read.

There are three boxes used from the Australia Portal: Projects, ACTOF and In the news. Of what was already on the page, In the news is the only new addition. As for the archives, I was just experimenting. That box is actually supposed to be used to provide a welcome message, but I wasn't feeling creative enough to write anything. I would note, also, that the archives are more compact than they are presently. But I doubt they'll stay there.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

While this page has a lot of details up above the notices, it clearly hasn't smothered discussion; the new page, though, seems to change things like the AfD candidates from being a minor note to the focus of the page. This is reinforced by adding things like the news box: in effect, you're changing this from being the Australian answer to the Village Pump, Reference Desk, and Goings-on, to just being the latter. Furthermore, I'm not particularly amused that the first time anyone raised any issues with this page was to completely reorganise its focus, rather than sitting down and seeing what we can do about them (i.e. fixing the to-do list, rather than killing it). Ambi 08:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits if you want more info on how it works and its cost. The transclusion design means you will have to have all the of the subpages on your watchlist. It also creates a higher server load - do we need the translcusion if it slows down Wikipedia for everyone? Cyberjunkie, could we still have the "edit section" button if we used a non-transcluding page?--Commander Keane 08:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the page will impact on servers. We could have an edit link in each box, but without transcluding, it would be to edit the AWNB as a whole.

Ambi, I really don't believe that the design is re-organising AWNB's purpose in any way (and I know that as the Wikipedian who established this board, you're more likely to see this than others). Nor do I see how Afd candidates will become the focus of the page. If anything, I am emphasising the aspect of the page you belive most important: discussion. Which, I might add, is in direct contrast to many other regional notice boards that have decentralised and shifted discussion elsewhere, and maintained the notice board for notices only.

And I'm not resigned to killing the to-do list (which remains linked in the design). I think there is a legitimate argument for a list (even if it does distract from the purpose of a "notice board"). But it had become bloated and out-of-date, and was not necessary for the proposed design.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this? It includes the to-do list, which is a useful thing to have, although it could use some trimming. Depending on the length of the to-do list, the whole top part takes up less than two screens. There's also the option of having the table of contents at the top of the page, so that the discussion is easily visible. --bainer (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

7 screens at my resolution.--Commander Keane 12:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's infinitely better: it simply makes the existing content much more appealing to the eye rather than changing its focus. Once the massive to-do list was properly trimmed (back to, say, five articles in each category), it'd be a much more effective introduction and wouldn't take up *too* much screen space. Ambi 12:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How (specifically) does the other version change the focus?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Several thoughts in close to random order after reading the conversation to this point in one hit:

1. Condensing the top/notices part of this page seems like a good idea.
2. The to-do list should stay, as a separate conversation on improving it may start. In fact the articles-to-create part is reasonably active, the main problem with the rest is lack of guidance on when to add or remove items.
3. A concern I have with transclusion is that the subpages have to be on a watchlist, meaning watchers never see the whole page (eg a section not on their watchlist), and it becomes a set of unrelated pages.
4. To Ambi's comment I'm not particularly amused that the first time anyone raised any issues with this page was to completely reorganise its focus, rather than sitting down and seeing what we can do about them, Cyberjunkie and Bainer have not completely reorganised this page, they've started a discussion and shown examples of what a redesigned page could look like to compare.
5. Should the stub links be to the categories as well/instead of to the templates? I might copy the template from here, but would never link to the template from here, but might browse what I can expand.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 13:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

See here also. In this one the top boxes have been compacted into one, archives have been moved to discussion, and a shrunken to-do list is included. The to-do list is still far too large IMO.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"To improve or expand" is still at least twice the size it needs to be. One section I just realised we should have is candidates for featured article/image, near the RFAs. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

FTR, I've trimmed the main list down to twelve in each column; it was way too huge and maintainable before, and even now it still looks large. Ambi 01:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If by "we should have is candidates for featured article/image" you mean we should have boxes for them, I have floated this thought above, along with peer review. Alternatively, given that Austalian candidates are only on RfA and FAC every now and then, the RfA section could be substituted for a FAC section when need.

Ambi, good work in trimming it down, and I agree that it's still too large. If one of the designs is implemented, the to-do list will be smaller with the removal of the ACOTF notice. But to shrink it further, I think we need to do the same thing to each section as has been done to "need images" - that is, encourage users to go to the complete list (which I think is under-utilised). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it at all possible that we can do this thing where clicking on a link causes it to expand within the page (without reloading)? I don't know what it's called but I've seen it on some messageboards. It's a way of easily hiding/showing information without reloading or having separate pages. I haven't seen it on WP so maybe we don't have the capabilities for it... it'd be nice if we did, though. Something like this. Users without Javascript just get the whole lot expanded, otherwise you can collapse/expand sections as you please. pfctdayelise 01:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Wikipedia does not have this capability. However, we have just swipped a feature from the German Wikipedia that allows us to hide templates in the same manner as users can hide the contents menu. This isn't applicable to either design at the moment, but it could potentially be implemented.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of AWNB Version 2.1 now with the smaller to-do list? I'm thinking of following Scott's suggestion and replacing the stubs with stub categories (or categories in general).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That one works much better than the other version. The only change I would make would be to take the general discussion out of the table, so that it's just on the normal background, just to distinguish the discussion from the header stuff. Otherwise it looks really good. --bainer (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind this design, but I prefer just having a bulleted list of "current event" articles rather than the prose "in the news" (ITN). Also, I would prefer to put all the largely static content at the end of the page, well at least the list of specialised stubs, and the archives links. And I don't go much on the colour scheme, but that's a minor quibble. :) pfctdayelise 14:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As well as keeping tabs of Aussie articles on peer review and featured article candidates, I'd be in favour of having the option of peer review by Aussies prior to submitting it to the general wikipedia audience. Also an Australian equivalent of an Article Improvement Drive would be good (unless Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight is supposed to handle that). Another thing that might be good is a "statement of intent", where individual contributors can note their intent to make article X a featured article (something that could be culled if that individual fails to contribute to the article in the past month or so). Andjam 10:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that that (Aus Peer Review) needs a special box. I've seen people several times start topics just saying "Would anyone mind having a look over this article", I don't know that that needs to be formalised. pfctdayelise 02:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's not a bad idea - the "to review" section of the to-do list is meant to serve this purpose, but doesn't do a very good job of it. Creating a subpage to work as an Australian version of Wikipedia:Peer review could really work quite well. Ambi 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Article for deletion? Rod Cook

Not having put an article up for deletion before, i thought I'd first ask for guidance. I came across Rod Cook a while ago when somebody wrote several paragraphs about him in the Sports and Recreation section of the Cairns, Queensland article and put up an external link - which I deleted. [11] The only significant link to the article comes from Jung Sin Yuk-Do - a newly created style of martial arts created by Rod Cook. it looks like somebody has created these articles in an effort to gain recognition. Not knowing much about martial arts, I don't know how significant either Rod Cook or Jung Sin Yuk-Do are, so am reluctant to put them up for deletion. Any suggestions? -- Adz 05:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd AfD it. Ambi 07:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Alphax ^τεχ 12:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

ACOTF: Rabbit-proof fence

Well done to everyone who helped expand the Melbourne Cricket Ground article.

• 13 contributors made 45 edits
• The article increased from 3.3kB to 14.8 - 4½ times longer
• See how much it changed

This fortnight's collaboration is the turn of the Rabbit-proof fence. There was also a suggestion to include the Dingo Fence at the same time. After the next rotation, I will be on holidays for a while, and probably unavailable to rotate the following few. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

John Farnham Vandalised

There seems to have been a bit of systematic vandalism occuring to the John Farnham article. There are two apparently hoax albums currently listed for deletion and a lot of the recent additions to the main article seem a bit questionable. I am not sure, but someone who knows a bit more about him might want to check over it. --Martyman-(talk) 03:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• It seems OK as far as I can see although it needs a cleanup. The band needs verification. There have been NPOV issues listed as well although those escape me at the moment. I might have a go at it over the weekend. I also note that the bogus albums have been added although I will remove them now. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia used as a source on news.com.au

I've added this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005, but thought I would mention it here as well - article at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17281864-36596,00.html links to Jemaah Islamiah -- Chuq 01:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - today's (ie Friday's) Mx newspaper (also associated with News Ltd) mentioned wikipedia in the computer section, and had questions about the six o'clock swill and the rabbit proof fence in the quiz section, both of which are candidates (or actual) collaborations of the fortnight. Andjam 12:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Age now regularly uses W'pedia for its 'fact of the day' and 'born on this day' sections on the comics page at the back. (Don't know if this is already listed amongst the press sources, and if not I don't know where to add it anyway...) TPK 09:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald mentioned wikipedia yesterday, and again today (with a photo of User:Angela with a laptop)! Andjam 07:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion required

Hi, could interested Australian Wikipedians please check out and comment on my proposed change to {{History of Australia}}. I proposing several shorter more topical templates to take the place of the long one- which currently takes up over a screen of premium right aligned space. Talk about it here. --nixie 03:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians

I put Indigenous Australians up for peer review here Wikipedia:Peer review/Indigenous Australians/archive1 Astrokey44 05:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

State histories

New from me: History of New South Wales. Note that we still have no History of South Australia and that History of Victoria is very weak. I haven't looked at the others. We should make it a priority to get these articles up to scratch. Adam 09:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

History of Adelaide should probably be split. A lot of it is beyond the metro area, or general colony history, but I can't work out how to split it and leave a coherent story about Adelaide. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of it is more general SA, but most of it is in context. The problem is, the history of Adelaide composes the substantive part of the history of SA. However, that can be worked around, much as Adam has worked around the history of New South Wales being a significant component of the history of Australia.--cj | talk 09:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that History of Adelaide as it is currently written could be renamed History of South Australia with very few changes, and I propose we do so. Adam 05:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Canberra is currently working on splitting History of Canberra from History of the Australian Capital Territory, if that can be pulled off, I am sure you should be able to do so with Adelaide. ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 09:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I created History of Tasmania quite a while ago. It started as timeline form, and I have gradually been trying to rewrite it as prose at User:Chuq/History of Tasmania. However it is a pretty long, and I haven't done much work on it for a while. A lot of the items are Hobart specific and therefore would be suitable for a History of Hobart - if anyone has time on their hands that is! -- Chuq 06:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI - Cinema awards coming up

The Australian Film Institute (a stub) is soon having its annual AFI Awards , and not long after that, the people who run Inside Film magazine will be having the IF Awards. If you know anything about the Australian film industry (and if you don't), feel free to edit of course. AFI has a fair bit of background info on their website, and the IF Awards only seem to have been going since 2000, which is not too onerous. --pfctdayelise 15:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I created an article for the IF Awards a few weeks ago, though I called it Inside Film Awards. Perhaps IF Awards is a more acurate title. Anyone? Cnwb 23:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I should've checked! I made IF Awards a redirect. Nice work, anyway! pfctdayelise 04:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

New from me

St James Old Cathedral, Melbourne, St Francis Catholic Church, Melbourne. Adam 04:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Australian Rules Football"

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_20#Australian_rules_football (actually a nomination for renaming, not deleting). --pfctdayelise 05:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Wiki Meetup

G'day all, I would just like to report that the Sydney meetup on Sunday was a great success. For a report on the day and the discussion points raised see here. Also a reminder that we getting together again tonight for dinner. The meeting point is the steps of the Sydney Town Hall at 6:30 PM. All are welcome!! Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible vandal with no user page

Hi, this is probably not the right place to ask this question... I have reverted a few edits by 58.104.82.22 and then by CandyNetwork2005 that looked like vandalism in Global Positioning System and Billy Brownless. They look like the same person (judging by the edits). I wanted to leave a friendy message on the users talk page, but they don't seem to have a user page at all. Does this mean the user has been deleted or something? Thanks IanBailey 06:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it just means that one hasn't been started. Sarahe 06:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, use these links: User talk:58.104.82.22 or User talk:CandyNetwork2005. Also, you can just follow the redlink to their blank user page, then in the tabs at the top you can click on "discussion" to switch over to the talk page. --bainer (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks people. I have done that. I was just surprised that there wasn't one already existance. IanBailey 07:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Gowings photos

Gowings is about to be "Gone to Gowings". Photos of the store should be taken before it gets converted. Andjam 02:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe there is no Gowings page. there should be, as it is a bit of a Sydney institution and perheps Wikiproject:Sydney people should get this happening. Also there should be some good old photos around that could be got for the history section. Nomadtales 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thought I would just start Gowings anyway. Haven't got time to fill out at this stage, but will later. There is a good reference back to a PDF which I have included and will use to expand. Found some good old photos too on [www.pictureaustralia.org] but can't upload yet (image server down). Nomadtales 03:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're uploading anything which can be covered by Template:PD-Australia then you can (should?) upload them to the Commons, so they can be used across projects. Image server's down there too for the moment, however. --bainer (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to start another copyright discussion, but seeing the SLV's reproduction permission legalese, I have to ask - do they have any legal basis for that? If something is PD, then surely a photo or reproduction of it must be too, if it is not a new artistic creation but just a mere reproduction... pfctdayelise 06:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The SLV claims to own its images, but that is not correct. It owns the physical version of the images it holds, and if you steal those physical objects that is theft. But ownership of the image per se is a different matter. Ownership of the right to reproduce an image is called copyright, and we have already established that there is no copyright on images created in Australia before 1955. By placing those images on its website, the SLV (and the NLA etc) place them at the disposal of the public and they cannot require anyone to ask their permission to reproduce them. Adam 07:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

They say: It must be stressed that obtaining permission to reproduce an item is not the same as copyright. The State Library of Victoria often does not hold the copyright for items in its collections. In such cases it is the responsibility of the author or publisher to obtain the consent in writing of the copyright holder. This is wrong?

It seems to me: Only the copyright holder can license a work. If a work is in the PD, there is no copyright holder (or, everyone holds copyright collectively) and therefore no one can license the work... which is what SLV is trying to do. Would that be an accurate assessment? pfctdayelise 07:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Haven't this been discussed ad nauseam already? There is a long discussion on Template talk:PD-Australia. As far as I am concerned places like the SLV and NLA can claim till they're blue in the face that they have sort of copyright hold over the work, but as stated before they do not have any hold over works created before 1955. end of story. I will reference them as the source when uploading (and yes uploaded to the commons .. thanks bainer) but that's all. Nomadtales 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

On the radio

Those canberra wikipedians listening to Radio National this morning (obviously the elite) may have heard a nice interview with Angela Beasley(?) of the Wikimedia Foundation who is attending the Melbourne meeting some time soon. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A link to RN story is here you can also listen to it through RealAudio. Nomadtales 01:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Alas, RN's brief entry on their site for this under-reports the no. of current WP:en articles by half. I've sent 'em an email for correction. Otherwise, it's good to see the publicity...--cjllw | TALK 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Angela is also featured in a Sydney Morning Herald article see attached. [12]. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice! We showed that to Angela (or rather, Tim Starling did) when she arrived in Melbourne. Incidently, I might be frequenting this board more often now... :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Australia-related proposed move

It's been proposed that List of Australians in international prisons be moved to List of Australians imprisoned outside Australia. Andjam 08:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Australian rules football

For those interested, there is a willing debate going on at the moment about the influence of Gaelic football on aussie rules. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Australia's alleged East Timor cover up

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Australia's alleged East Timor cover up. Comments on the issue are requested there.

Content dispute at Australia article

We have an issue at the Australia article (see Talk:Australia#NOT GENOCIDE IN LAW), in which a particular PoV warrior is bordering on disruptive behaviour. Could other Australian editors please comment there. The individual has already taken a disliking of me, so I'm recusing myself from the discussion lest I get more trouble than it's worth.--cj | talk 02:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

ACOTF: Australian Aboriginal flag

Congratulations to all who edited Rabbit-proof fence and Dingo fence.

• 12 contributors made 46 edits
• The article increased from 327 bytes to 9981 bytes - 30.5 times longer
• See how much it changed
• Astrokey44 also more than tripled the length of Dingo Fence

The new Australian Collaboration is Australian Aboriginal flag. Thankyou to everybody who is supporting the collaboration since it became regular again.

I will have gone on a wikibreak before the next fortnight is up, so I've asked Astrokey44 to look in if he/she can. Of course, anybody is welcome to select new collaborations from the voting lists after it falls due - the instructions are on the page. I might be able to drop in sometime, too. Fear not, I will return sometime in January. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary of Australian Biography 1949 Online

• Project Gutenberg has a copy of the 1949 Dictionary of Australian Biography 1949 published by Angus and Robertson and edited by Perceval Searle online here Dictionary of Australian Biography. This could be a very useful resource for writing 19th and early twentieth century biographies. Capitalistroadster 11:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow is all that non-copyright? Maybe a list could be included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles A template like "this article incorporates text from the 1949 dictionary.." would be good to have for this. Astrokey44 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ambi (I think) is well ahead of you this project page has been up for some time.--nixie 02:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice, it probably should still be linked from the wikiproject, Ive added it there now Astrokey44 02:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think that they are two different projects. The Australian Dictionary of Biography is a longterm project by the Research School of Social Sciences at the ANU see [13]. It contains 10,000 articles on notable Australians who died between 1788 and 1980 and is still copyright with the first volumes published in 1966 and a new volume just being issued. This was an earlier project called the Dictionary of Australian Biography published by Angus and Robertson which is now out of copyright. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The page has the wrong name, but it is a list of the entries from the Searle book.--nixie 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK. No problems.Capitalistroadster 03:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

We have stubs on both projects: Dictionary of Australian Biography and Australian Dictionary of Biography--A Y Arktos 10:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Live music photos

I've been in email discussion with the photographer Sam Bala, who has a bunch of live music photos on http://www.nakeddwarf.com.au/ and also his personal site http://www.cheesenugget.com/ (which only seems to work occasionally for me). He has very generously agreed to license any photos we want to use under GFDL. This is a good opportunity to replace some fair use images with some great free ones. I'm going to send him a list soon of ones we'd like, so he can send me the hi-res versions. If anyone wants to have a look at either of the sites (he has some non-music ones on his website, but I can't view them :( ), if you see some images you think would be suitable, drop me a line on my Talk page and I will make sure I ask about them.

I haven't found a way to find all his photos on the nakeddwarf site, but his are marked with (C) Sam Bala so if you see some, you will know. (eg. he took all these at Sydney Come Together festival)

cheers, pfctdayelise 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to take a look, but I fear alarm bells will start ringing in the server room if I try to access nakeddwarf from my work computer ;-) Cnwb 22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Education in Australia

I've been having a revert relay on the above article for 3 days now - who wants to help me keep an eye on it? An anonymouse using a few different 84.152... IPs (Deutsche Telekom) persists in reverting to s/his incorrect, NPOV, badly written, Geelong Grammar-touting version of the Primary and secondary section. Any help greatly appreciated. Cheers Natgoo 22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)