Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Standards

I realise there are indeed workforces/projects that have valid WP:MOS guidelines that probably give excuses for such excess, but really is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_A-League A valid article to have in the Australian project?

Surely we need to draw a line on such extravagance? I would have thought that wp en is not meant to be a scoreboard? Interested in others apoplexy and/or apologetics satusuro 16:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not supporting or opposing the A-League article but just pointing out that it isn't much different to 2013 AFL season. Perhaps the details could be hived off to a sub-article similar to 2013 NRL season results. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We need to be careful of WP:NOTSTATS. Also, note that most football (soccer) articles worldwide do not contain this detail, and the full results can easily obtained from stats sites. Eldumpo (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And I think it's quite ridiculous to have individual articles on each model of locomotive ever used. Each to their own. To me, the intent of NOTSTATS is we shouldn't have detailed stats that are constantly changing, that are so much easier to manage in a database linked site. Hence game results (fixed once played), and player games or goals is about the limit that I think is reasonable to maintain. There is an occasional debate at WT:CRIC about the time required to maintain the multitude of standard cricket stats, specifically averages, but I see nothing wrong with the A-league, nor the equiv AFL/NRL articles. Collapse the match results section if you wish. The-Pope (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this seems to squarely fall foul of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Aside from that, we need to remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. I can't imagine that so much detailed statistical information is ever going to be of any interest to anyone but the most hardcore fan. Anyone else interested in the season would be just as well served by the existing header and a few lines of prose listing the major players, major events to date and the finals matches when they occur. IOW, we could remove the stats entirely and produce a far better encyclopedia article. So I'm going to tag it with the "overly detailed" template pending cleanup.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:The-Pope, collapsing article content is a violation of MOS:COLLAPSE if the information isn't available elsewhere in the article. As it happens there is a parallel conversation occurring at WP:FOOTBALL about an issue with this article. Hack (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This debate is dopey. I couldn't care less about soccer (or really pretty much any sport), but if I wanted to read about a sporting season, one of the things I'd be most interested in is having the basic match results. To remove that is to make the article intentionally pretty useless. This isn't a matter of encyclopedic content, this is a matter of trying to remove encyclopedic content that personally disinterests the OP, and that's daft. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hangon - I asked for people to comment about whether the size and content of the A league article is acceptable within the australian project - I had hoped that other examples might be brought to compare - and whether it is acceptable for sports articles to have the dimensions like that, and here are the various responses. I fail to see how it is trying to remove encyclopedic content - the intention of this was trying to see if anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to guidelines for size or format of the larger sports articles around. I dont think knee jerk deleting or tagging is the way to go. Discussion was hoped for it looks like it hasnt really gone anywhere though. satusuro 14:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You called the current content an "extravagance". As I said, I am no soccer fan (or indeed sports fan), but if I were looking for an article on a season, I'd be hoping to see what is here - player and coach changes, records, match results, and such. It tells me everything I'm likely to want to know about the topic as a general reader without delving into obsessive detail. This is a great example of what I'd hope to see in an article of this nature. Removing content that an average reader is likely to expect to see in an encyclopedia article on this topic because it doesn't interest you personally (as, indeed, it doesn't interest me personally) is just daft. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I see an excessive amount of statistics in the article. Match results are fine but listing the manufacturers of the players' clothing? Really? How does that affect the outcome of the matches? That was just the first example I picked up on. How many "average" readers really expect such detail? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To compare there are also the articles in Category:Australian Football League seasons, Category:Seasons in Australian rugby league and Category:Seasons in Australian rugby union. Hack (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of sports have (to me) ridiculous numbers of articles with ridiculous levels of detail about players and matches. I'd say the same about articles on individual episodes of Seinfeld or Pokemon characters and many other topics. No doubt elsewhere on Wikipedia the followers of A-league and Seinfeld and Pokemon are complaining about all those articles on Australian geography. Who could possibly care about the maximum rainfall in Broome or the population in Wagga Wagga? I note that (unlike match stats) weather and population stats are constantly changing and need frequent updating. Shrug. Live and let live. Kerry (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of TV episode articles that have been deleted or redirected because they contain an excessive amount of plot information. The TV project accepts that you can provide too much information, which is the problem with this article. Rainfall, and weather in general, is something that affects 7 billion people and billions of dollars are spent on weather every year; it's obviously something that a large number of people want to know about. Who made the shirt that a player wore just doesn't have anywhere near the same relevance. I doubt anyone sat there during episode 28 of that show about nothing (which contained exactly that amount of comedy) thinking "I wonder who made Seifeld's shirt". Just because there is room in the encyclopaedia doesn't mean we should fill it up with crap. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I need to place a big [original research], [NPOV] and [citation needed] tag on that comment AussieLegend. TV companies and big business spend billions on sport every year too. Major shirt sponsors can be the make or break of a club. I can't influence the weather, my cheering might improve a player's performance. There is only 1 weather channel, but 8 sports channels. The weather is last on the news, after the sports. Sports are "obviously something that a large number of people want to know about". Different folks, different strokes. Someone's crap is gold to others. The-Pope (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

To answer the original question which was (with my emphasis added here because it seems to have been lost in most of the above discussion):

"... is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_A-League A valid article to have in the Australian project?

Assuming that "the Australian project" is Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, whose project scope "... generally considers any article related to Australia to be a valid topic" (emphasis in original), and given that "The 2013–14 A-League is the ninth season of the Australian A-League football competition ..." (my emphasis), I would say that the answer is generally "Yes". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia in Higher Education at USyd (round 2), 9am-1pm Monday 24th February

I'm just writing to let you all know about another Wikipedia in Higher Education symposium at USyd. A brief meetup page can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#Wikipedia_in_Higher_Education_.28round_2.29.2C_9am-1pm_Monday_24th_February, and I will try to add details as they are confirmed. Sorry for the short notice, but the keynote speaker's fellowship was only approved at the last moment. We understand if only Sydneysiders are able to attend, but anyone is welcome. Also, let me know if you would like to give a talk, and we'll see if we can fit you into the program. --99of9 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance burden aka updating redundant information

Arising from a few conversations lately, I have began to be concerned about the issue of maintenance. Once Wikipedia was a blank slate that needed filling. While there is still plenty more content to add to Wikipedia, the existing content is starting to create a maintenance burden. I think we need to look at ways we can make maintenance processes more efficient, including automated and semi-automated methods. Obviously change can come out of the blue and we cannot anticipate it. But we can predict some change and prepare for it. We know there will be a 2016 census, we know there will be new weather data, we know many articles will need to be updated as a consequence of these. I think we need to move increasingly to structure this kind of information to make it more amenable to automated-updating or semi-automated (e.g. AWB). We already have the situation where some places have 2011 census data but others have 2006, and really everywhere should have 2011, but it's big job. I am not proposing any specific suggestions at this point, but seeking to open up the conversation of maintenance on the questions of:

• preventation - when and how should we avoid a maintenance situation (is there information that changes too frequently to store it in an encyclopedia?)
• minimisation - when and how should we minimise a maintenance task (how can we best structure information to facilitate its easy updating?)

Kerry (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are so few editors left in the Australian project who do any of this any more, and the few that do would probably not recognise what they do against this question. Also they tend to be misunderstood easily by other editors...

Maintenance can mean a whole lot of things to a whole lot of editors, important to determine meaning.

• Standardising the formatting and language of an article in the Australian project by adding the Au Engvar and DMY tags at the top of article pages to guard against...(done manually so far)

noting... The project generally considers any article related to Australia to be a valid topic. As of 17 February 2014, there are 107,281 articles within the scope of WikiProject Australia of which, there are 393 featured and 544 good articles. This makes up 2.41% of the articles on Wikipedia, 5.82% of all featured articles and lists, and 2.8% of all good articles (See:WP:AUSFG). Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 248,586 pages in the project.

• Do you mean article correcting? - there are a very large number of articles that have never been touched or corrected from maintenance tags for years - see [1] - This can also be ambiguous - some editors really enjoy placing a tag rather than doing a correct/update or fixing the text or article issue.

noting This is a cleanup listing for WikiProject Australia generated on 16 February 2014, 12:11:55 UTC. Of the 108247 articles in this project 29030 or 26.8 % are marked for cleanup, with 43430 issues in total

• Do you mean project maintenance ( a large number of editors do not seem to have any understanding that talk pages are places where it is possible to put relative project tags ) - which means not just a project tag, but assessment as well... - see [2] currently 3,678 untouched - this seems to be untouched

Updating as identified above is in some editors eyes very different from maintenance

• To address the issues about updating, or redundancy of information - that surely goes well beyond the capacity of any one country project, and is not really maintenance at all.

To guide against inherent redundancy is where new articles need monitoring carefully to make sure the issues of 'recentism' do not plague articles, and various other article creation issues...

But that is one particular view. I fail to see how 'prevention' and 'minimisation' have anything to do with the links offered in this reply.

But the census issues mentioned above simply is part and parcel of being an on line information source - the projects are only as good as the dedication of the editors prepared to do the fix.

We have far too editors, and the backlogs are growing, first things first, more editors with time to simply have the interest to do the very thankless task of reducing the issues in hand. satusuro 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean by maintenance. I mean the need to update information in a Wikipedia article to reflect a change in the real world. An example is all the climate tables we have with things like "Maximum temperature". When we get a new maximum temperature (as many places in Oz are currently experiencing), many articles need to be updated. Similarly population data in infoboxes derived from census records. An example (not a suggestion) of prevention would be to NOT include this data in Wikipedia articles but instead have an external link to Bureau of Meteorology's data for that place. An example (not a suggestion) of minimisation would be an automated process to scrape the BoM data and update the Wikipedia data at some regular intervals (say once a month). However, to do that automation, we would need to ensure climate data in article was presented in a standard format to facilitate that automation. My concern is exactly the problem of too few editors and that maintenance tasks like this may be seen as boring (personally I'd rather write new content than update census and temperature data, but I may not speak for everyone).Kerry (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Kerry the data your talking about from ABS, BoM etc should now all have been transferred to Wikidata for this very reason. Gnangarra 01:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Up-to-date-ness" of articles would be another way of talking about it, to distinguish it from the other activities you mention that are more internal to the mechanics of Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

internal mechanics of wikipedia - I would beg to disagree - they are project based tasks that need editors to work on - someone crazy or sane enough to reduce their weight.

I think your usage of word 'maintenance' for your very valid proposal suggestion is problematic. We need to work out what could be better to work on the built in redundancies in articles and how best to update information. The word 'maintenance' is best left to what I have just identified. satusuro 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your point is a very valid and well worth pursuing - something that is a cross-wikipedia issue, updating information - is something that requires support and encouragement. satusuro 00:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Gnangarra, I agree that wikidata is probably part of the solution and I can understand that we can upload tables of data to wikidata, but the bit I don't understand is how we get the updated data from wikidata into articles. If there is already a way to do this, I would love to know how. Kerry (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To make this more concrete as an example, let's suppose I am writing a new article today on the Queensland town of Notmuchtodohere. Is there some magic template that I can add in the text or in an infobox e.g.

The population of Notmuchtodohere is {{population|Notmuchtodohere}}.

and what renders on-screen is

The population of Notmuchtodohere in 2011 was 1,234 people[some citation to 2011 census, or to wikidata].

and that nobody will need to do anything once the 2016 census becomes available as it will magically then render as:

The population of Notmuchtodohere in 2016 was 1,456 people[some citation to 2016 census, or to wikidata].

This would be the ideal solution, but I don't know how close we are to it. Kerry (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Templates can use the {{#property:}} tag to pull information out of wikidata, see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Infoboxes (Phase 2) - Evad37 [talk] 01:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As for keeping up with BoM data, I agree it's a nightmare, and have also sometimes questioned whether Wikipedia is really the right place for it (especially since certain data, especially average rainfall, actually changes slightly every month). It's also worth noting that new records or temperatures go through a quality control process that can take a few months before they are entered into the BOM's climate database. Graham87 10:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

for BoM average data 10 or 25 year averages are sufficient and they dont need updating every month someone can do it on an adhoc basis its only the extreme events that need changing as Graham pointed out even those take time to be authenticated its also why we provide the source and when the information was collated. Someone needing up to the minute information can go to the source. Gnangarra 23:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Historic buildings

I've noticed some fantastic work being done on historic buildings in a few different places around the country lately, and I've been thinking about having a crack at a couple of towns myself. I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be much consistency with list articles though, and the result often comes out looking like List of Heritage listed buildings in Geelong, which is a confusing mishmash of buildings listed on the state register, the local register, and those classified by the National Trust. This also results in a range of different formats for articles basically on the same theme (see also List of heritage places in the Shire of Toodyay and List of heritage places in Fremantle for another couple of examples).

I was thinking we might be better off with a consistent structure for all the state and territory historic registers along the lines of the National Register of Historic Places articles in the US, but I can't for the life of me think of a naming convention that works. I would like to see an article format that specifies a) a Local Government Area, and b) which register they're actually on, so we don't have articles that are really unclear about what should be listed there, and what exact area the article covers. Anyone have any thoughts on this? The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

totally against a one size fits all approach for these lists, in WA its relatively easy to obtain the information be it National Trust, Municipality, State, Federal, UN or some other group heritage list but unlike some other states its not just buildings on WA lists. Data for all these are available from http://stateheritage.wa.gov.au/ it gives a reliable sources for the list creation without running into WP:SYNTH issues. Defining areas needs to be the articles creator judgement, as the list for City of Fremantle is 3921 places[3], that impossible to be made into a single LGA level list where as the City of Armadale has just 154 so an LGA level would be the logical. Gnangarra 14:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I definitely take your points, but I wonder if we could find some way of more evenly standardising these articles - even if we don't run with a one size fits all approach. I don't think WA is different from the other states in this regard - I think people are working just from the WA State Register of Historic Places, no? That has equivalents in all other states and territories. I think it'd be good to have a discussion about the notability of some of the levels of recognition (especially local), which for me counts against having a "stuff which is in the database" approach (although at least Victoria has the same database if that's what we wanted to do.

What would you think about a locality-by-locality approach (see Kerry's post below), where we list them in the locality article and spin it out if it gets too big? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Queensland legislation requires a state register (the Queensland Heritage Register) and that every local government maintains a local heritage register, e.g. (the Brisbane Heritage Register). The QHR is online but copyright. However, following several months of discussions with them, I am expecting it to released as a spreadsheet under a CC-BY license in a couple of months time (fingers crossed). Local authorities are a mixed bag when it comes to local registers, some have them on-line (like Brisbane), some have them locked in a cupboard guarded by a tiger, some don't appear to have one. I think things on the state register are probably worthy of an article (their QHR entry is usually pretty fullsome so the material is there). When it comes to the local heritage registers, I think we take a case-by-case approach. I think listing implies a certain notability but many of the properties are likely to lack other sources so it may be hard to find material to construct an article. For example in Annerley, Queensland (a suburb of Brisbane), the heritage listing section has a mix of QHR and BHR entries. Here I've assumed the QHR entries will have their own articles, but I was just adding a sentence about the "significance" of the BHR entries as the material just isn't there for an article. Aside: the Rockmount House at the bottom of that section was added by someone else, I'm not keen on non-heritage properties being in such a section but it was a new editor and I didn't want to revert a good faith contribute so I just made clear it wasn't heritage-listed.

Generally I have been adding a heritage listing section to each town/suburb/district that has anything to mention and, in the case of Brisbane CBD itself, on individual street articles, e.g. Queen Street, Brisbane. If the heritage list in any place article gets really long, I put it out into a separate "List of heritage sites in WhoopWhoop" article and link it from the Heritage Listing section of the place article (case-by-case judgement call on the length). I sort the heritage listing sections by street address (which means QHR and local HR entries are mished-mashed together). I do this because I am thinking of the mobile user (perhaps a tourist) walking around a place, in which case it makes sense to group them by address (or the photographer that I hope will be taking photos of all these places for Commons!). Also, heritage properties are often linked by their proximity so sorting them by location helps retain any such interrelationships. The other ways we could sort them would be alphabetically by name (can't think of a lot of use for that for the reader -- they have Find in their browser), or by which heritage register they are on (I can see some argument for this on the grounds that the state entries have greater significance, but I am not sure most readers will care). If we feel strongly that the reader must know which heritage register, I'd prefer to sort by street address and add something explicit about which register, e.g.

• 2 Main Street, residence 'Emohruo' (Queensland Heritage Register)^{[ref to QHR]}
• 5 Main Street, residence, built in 1880 by Fred Snork (Brisbane Heritage Register)^{[ref to BHR]}

Kerry (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I probably should add that I am not keen on organising heritage by local government area. Having just spent months on the former local government areas of Queensland (with plenty more work to do), LGAs are a moving target. 4 new LGAs deamalgamated in Queensland on 1 January this year and I spent many hours updating town/suburb articles to get them into the correct LGA (thankfully the QLD Govt gave me a spreadsheet of the affected places to help me know which ones needed updating). Others did massive amounts of work to update the 2008 amalgamations of LGAs. Heritage properties don't move much, but LGA boundaries do. While suburban boundaries do move a bit, their movement doesn't usually affect too many heritage properties each time. I think we will have far less maintenance (at least in Qld) if we keep our heritage organised by town/suburb than by LGA. But other states may have more stable LGAs. Obviously when LGAs amalgamate, their heritage registers often amalgamate too, but if we use templates for their citations (as I do), then it should reduce a bit of the effort in updating. Kerry (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a really good point. Would doing it by locality be better? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Western Australia state government is currently in the process of trying to reduce the number of metropolitan LGAs by merging some of them, as described at http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/Page.aspx?PID=MetropolitanReform. The target date for completion is July 2015. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in WA and aware of this, but yes, again, point taken. How else would you organise them? The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

the best way is to let the editor who is creating the list decide what is best for the situation they are in as I pointed out already City of Fremantle has 3921 places with heritage listings, that makes an LGA list impossible, like wise for Perth, Swan, Bunbury, Albany, Kalgoorlie-Boulder... but for places like Toodyay, Waroona, Stirling, Armadale, Busselton LGA is the better option in some case it may actually be more practical to do it for a already defined region ie Kimberley, Murchison and have separate tables for each LGA even a major centre. Gnangarra 23:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't that leave things in a bit of a muddle, though? What do you think about what Kerry has done in Queensland with sorting them by locality, and then breaking out where necessary? This seems to me like it might work for all of these cases? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean suburb/town, not locality which has a different meaning... Yes amalgamations are a pain they will cause work but Queensland's experience isnt the same as WA's. Having made a number of these lists for WA I had no issue choosing the appropriate boundaries using solely common sense. Which is what I said in the first place a one size fits all approach doesnt work, its impractical. From my experience lists under about 30 items tend to get deleted and replaced by categories that would mean most of the suburb lists in Perth would be deleted, as would many town and locality lists, which means that you would then be creating LGA lists and merging articles adhoc. Gnangarra 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont know the situation in other states but in WA the LGA is the primary authority on the conditions, maintance, usage, preservation etc of heritage places(its not just buildings in WA). LGA's like Stirling have very strict conditions that enable them to take action at the owners cost without consultation to protect a building, where as Gosnells and Swan are at the other end of the scale where demolition by neglect is disputedly practiced (Maddington House, Guildford Hotel). That also makes LGA list the perfect format with exceptions for Freo like situations because these are subjected to same regulatory requirements. This also addresses the issues of suburbs like Mt Lawley where the suburb is divided between three different LGA's, that wont change with the proposed amalgamations assuming that Emperor Colin will get his way. Gnangarra 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

url field in the Australian Places infobox

The local government amalgamations in Queensland in 2008 left behind many URLs in infoboxes of articles of former LGAs. For some years, those WWW sites were kept operational but now most of them are deadlinks. However, many (all?) are archived, so I want to update these URLs in the infoboxes, but there does not seem to be a provision for an archiveurl, just a url. Should I just put the rather long and ugly archive URL in to replace the deadlink URL? Should I remove the URL field from the infobox and put a normal web citation with archiveurl in the external links flagging it as the official website? Is there an option to update the infobox template to accommodate an archiveurl and an archivedate field? I experimented with the first two options on City of Redcliffe as an example. Let me know what you think? Kerry (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This might be unpopular, but I don't think that archive links for websites for defunct entities like the City of Redcliffe belong in infoboxes at all. My preferred way would be to remove the link from the infobox, and add the archive URL in the external links section. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

That's certainly my preference of the first two options. The first option displays a long archive URL in the infobx which is really ugly and it seems to force the infobox to be wider to accommodate it. Kerry (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Illegal execution in Australia

On this day in Australia (above) suggests Ronald Ryan was the last person to be legally executed. Were there illegal executions carried after his demise? Hack (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any crime gangs that have executed people? They're the only illegal executions I could think of that might have occurred since Ryan, although I think the more appropriate term for those would be "murder". --AussieLegend (✉) 06:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That usage of execution is usually tabloid-style hyperbole. Hack (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

One of my pet hates is the phrase 'execution-style killing', with no good definition and often used to describe a variety of murders that are planned in advance for a variety of reasons. Maias (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Cyclone Joy on FAC

Hey there. I'm from the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, and we currently have an FAC on Cyclone Joy, which was a notable Australian cyclone. I wanted to post a notice as I wrote it from the point of view of a tropical cyclone editor, but I wanted to make sure that other associated Wikiprojects know about the FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Joy/archive1, especially if there are any problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Edmond Boucher. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Pyne (politician). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pyne isn't notable. I'm not sure of the process for dealing with that at AfC. Frickeg (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've declined the submission for lack of evidence of notability. Hack (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Turtle Moves!

The big hunk of steel that will soon be identified as HMAS Canberra (LHD 02) moved under her own power for the first time today. She's currently active around/off Port Philip, and a photo of the ship underway would be nice. In addition, she's going to visit Sydney on either Sat 15 or Sun 16 March. If anyone can help me work out which from this or other sources, I will get up on North Head and take lots of photos as she enters the harbour for the first time. Any advice appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll check my other sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like she snuck in on Thursday. -- saberwyn 19:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

She did indeed. I'm not sure how long she'll be there. How long does paint need to dry? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The answer to my question is, apparently, 2 weeks. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Brett Peter Cowan

Interested Australian editors may like to consider whether Brett Peter Cowan warrants a standalone article apart from Murder of Daniel Morcombe. Even Ivan Milat does not have his own article. WWGB (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

God, Milat deserves an article. You are probably correct that Cowan, on the other hand, does not. Frickeg (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIO1E says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Cowan's role was certainly a large one. The question is whether the event is "highly significant", because "... when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident." Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Kerry (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that now, when this is still all over the news, is probably not the best time to judge properly whether Cowan as an individual is a suitable topic for a standalone article from the crime that he committed. I note that Jarrod Bleijie is publicly musing on the usual law-and-order stuff to keep people like Cowan locked up for a long time, if any of the appeals are successful or the state government legislates on the matter, then there may still be new material to include for a long time yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

I agree with Lankiveil that it's probably worth waiting and seeing about Cowan, but that Milat doesn't have an article is ridiculous. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we used to have an article on Milat, but it was merged and redirected following this discussion in 2008. It was probably long enough ago that you could revert if you were feeling bold ;-). Although, you'd need to do something about all those "citation needed"s, especially since an article about Milat would still fall under the BLP provisions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

Reservoirs and dams

User talk:Rangasyd recently organised Australian reservoirs and dams into Category:Reservoirs and dams in Australia with similar sub-categories for most of the states and territories. User:Hmains has subsequently created Category:Reservoirs in Queensland add added it to a number of articles on the basis that that is how it is done in other countries. This separation allows for the reservoir category to be placed within the lake category branch. Can we have a discussion on how best to categorise dams, reservoirs, weirs, storages and lakes? - Shiftchange (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is no reason to have Australia different from every other county in WP. Its dams and reservoirs and not unique. Hmains (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful here. Not all dams and reservoirs are lakes, not all lakes and dams are reservoirs, and so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Images

In reviewimag images tagged as PD-Australia I hit a small problem- The source for File:GFC1800s.jpg seem to be a dead link, I've had this issue with a number of other images as well.

Perhaps it's something the Australian Wikiproject can look into.

I was reviewing which images also met Commons Criteria, and assistance with this would be appreciated.

Catscan query for finding images that need reviewing.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick check found the source for this image. Archive.org is your friend. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ballast Point

We currently have two identical articles Ballast Point (New South Wales) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ballast Point Park (New South Wales) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ; BP was copypasted to BPP in 2013, but since 2011 BP has been requested to be merged to Birchgrove... so something should happen. At the very least the two BP/BPP articles need to be combined into one, at whatever title is better. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Stereosonic scrubbing

An editor with limited contributions to music and music events articles has for the second time removed sourced material from the Stereosonic page related to drug offenses, the use of the New South Wales riot squad and poor patron behaviour. Its actually the third time part of that has been removed. This action has been conspicuously absent from edit summaries and mischaracterised most recently by "Removal of unsubstaniated bias material from competitor that isn't relevant." I can't imagine any event with that many arrests or resulting in the calling in of a riot squad as being irrelevant. Is there any doubt this is a scrubbing for promotional purposes? I am mentioning it here because there has been no response on the article's talk page. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you. The citation seems reliable and a Google search finds other newspapers carried similar stories. I don't think the article expresses a POV or gives undue weight or any of those things. I added it back in. Kerry (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

very much a promotional article, nothing of any substance about the concerts just lineups and a couple of attendance figures. At AfD it may even struggle to address notability Gnangarra 02:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ask A Librarian links in WP_Australia

Hi all. Does anyone have further feedback on or objection to "Ask A Librarian" links in the WikiProject boxes on Australian talk pages? Following feedback from User:Satusuro last time I came here, there is now a "What's this" subpage for documentation (feel free to add to it). The current mockup shows how it might look depending on which state subprojects the talk page is already tagged with. Is anyone in support of or opposing going ahead with this? --99of9 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Earlier comments always come back to haunt us - that is what I like about wikipedia.

I strongly support adding these links to the project tags on the condition that

• an internal australian explanatory page is created to help explain the services and the way to reduce the possibility of misunderstandings of the scope of a librarians capacity to understand issues of editing wp...

I think the boxes relate to my own list really well : -

• http://www.nla.gov.au/askalibrarian exists at the nla
• http://yourenquiryservice.slwa.wa.gov.au/reft100.aspx?pmi=9hxpv6aKki exists in wa
• http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/services/ask-librarian exists in vic
• http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=387 exists in sa
• http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/services/ask/index.html?HomeLink=Ask_A_Librarian exists in nsw
• http://ntl.altarama.com/reft100.aspx?pmi=1yiFGEWBI7 exists in nt
• http://www.linc.tas.gov.au/research/services/askus exists in tas
• http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/services/ask-us exists in qld
• http://www.library.act.gov.au/functions/contact_us (may be the act/canberra version)

Also I suggest User:Wittylama is included in this conversation in that he is well placed to make a more understanding comment from inside the NLA bureaucracy. satusuro 11:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, User:Wittylama was at the editathon where we brainstormed this, and he has been writing much of the text of the internal explanatory page. --99of9 (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to leave my comments all in one place rather than intersperse them throughout. See below. Wittylama 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

out with the witty whip then - it needs more text for the punters who might not be as savvy as long term online wikikpedians... satusuro 13:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but I think we need to do a bit of risk management here:

1. it needs to be made clear that this is help with article content and not with Wikipedia formatting, etc (but that shouldn't be too hard to do)
2. we need to check with each library involved that they are happy about having their Ask Us link promoted in this way
3. we may need to mention any major constraints on the use of the service (to make each of the libraries happy). For example, State Library of Queensland's service is for Queenslanders unless the interstate enquirer is asking material that is only available in Queensland. Note they make no mention of assisting international enquiries at all. If we add a link without noting such constraints, I think we risk making the library and the editors unhappy (waste time on making an enquiry that is not responded to).
4. the Ask Us service (at least in Queensland) is not anonymous - they ask your name, your address, etc -- some editors may take exception to this

Some of our libraries are "friendly" to Wikipedia. Maybe we should try to get one of them who is willing to pilot this Ask-Us link to see how it works before approaching the others. Clearly if the library gets over-run with enquiries (beyond their resourcing) or the enquiries are not appropriate in some way (the nature of the questions, constraints on who can receive the service), we'd need to re-think and re-test the approach before any wider roll-out.Kerry (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• ! - that is why I am asking for more detail in the explanation page
• 2 - hang on = as if there is going to be a rush - not needed they advertise... so
• 3 - ? - first we have an explanation page, ...
• 4 - so what? the user in real life does not have to identify a specific article or their user name - the query does not go any further and the library system has to abide by privacy lawas - no system is going to tie the enquiry with the real life name - then the user name - in public

The response is assuming a big take up. First check out the stats for australian editing at the moment, unlikely that some states even have 5 active editors, then next stat, the number of editors who even bother with references, then the next stat, the number of editors who dont use trove, and then the intermix of the number of editors who even (a) create new valid articles (b) the number who might want help to find more refs apart from afd rescuers. I would suggest the actual number of users who would utilise in the short term is so small that the ask us stats in some states would be 0 for 6 months. To be too cautious and polite with the services is of course good protocol, to be be aware of the abysmally small number of takeups of this system would be of little concern to the libraries, and probably encouraged considering how keen they are to have the KPIs improved by a very small group of wikipedians. satusuro 23:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you say about the likely realities, satusuro. But Wikimedia Australia has relationships with a number of the libraries and hopes to extend these to other libraries, in which case how will it look to those libraries if we proceed without a conversation? That's not the way to manage relationships. Kerry (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is wikipedia - wikimedia australia is not wikipedia australia project - conflation of the two separate operations can be problematic. If wikimedia australia has a relationship with a library - that is totally different. To determine actions on wikipedia australia directly to relationships with libraries and wikimedia australia could be a small mis-reading of the separateness. I fail to see how any library would have problems with the proposed attachment when in fact it means better kpi and better stats.

Thats another - check out the usage and state of australian libraries at the moment - another cause for concern - state govt and federal government middle management cretins pulling staff, services and information management infrastructure - anything to support by using I can only see as a plus. satusuro 00:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If a library is going to be happy about it, then what's the problem with asking them? If a library is going to be unhappy about it, then what's the risk of not asking them? I note that the Wikimedia Foundation Strategic Plan talks of the importance of relationships with the cultural institutions and explicitly talks (in a couple of places) of the role of local chapters in those relationships, so I think it is a legitimate concern if an action taken by "Wikipedia" could be harmful to the relationships that the Foundation wishes to have. I don't think there is anything more I can add to this conversation. Kerry (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The National Library are onboard and are going to collect statistics for a while. Since they will be hit roughly seven times harder than the others, I think we will know early if we're going to cause an overload problem (although my forecast is similar to Satusuro's... I expect very low traffic). If you really think it's necessary, we can turn this on in two steps - NLA first, but I don't think any of the State Libraries will even notice. I agree that Kerry's points 1 and 3 should be documented as well as possible (feel free to jump in on the documentation page). --99of9 (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"If a library is going to be happy about it, then what's the problem with asking them?" I don't think there's a problem, just a time sink trying to explain it and get "approval" for something of minor consequence to them (a link to their site!). IMO they have better things to do than try to monitor who is promoting their services. --99of9 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:99of9 here. I could understand asking permission if we were giving access to something secret or not generally available, but in this case all we're doing is linking to publicly available webpages. If libraries didn't want these services used, they wouldn't put them online. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

This coding needs to be implemented and on the road, otherwise this will feel like the classic 'bogged down by doubts' level of inertia and go no-where. If there is an issue that arises - deal with it later, as for staffing levels at any library in Australia as to whether they have any means of ascertaining enquiries reasons that included 'for wikipedia research' great, but I strongly suggest that to go through bureaucractic processes with libraries about permission links to their service, think of this one - my state library has facebook and twitter tags inside their catalogue, that to me suggests their usage is so low they even try to get queries to be social media tied in, simply to up their KPI's... satusuro 06:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Wittylama (NLA)
Hi all, I'm glad to see this discussion going along at pace! I'm writing here both as Wikimedia involved in GLAM outreach but also in my professional capacity as social media guy at the National Library of Australia (NLA). I have also briefed the Reader Services team about this conversation thread thus far. I'm going to write here rather than inline above in order to keep my comments in one place.

Yes, the National Library 'ask a librarian' team is well aware of this proposal, is very happy about it, and helped draft [User:99of9/sandbox2#Documentation|the documentation]. The team is keen to see if it generates greater awareness of this publicly-funded service the we offer to people who are researching Australian topics. Providing a 'one-click' link from people discussing Australian-related WP articles to the team of reference librarians able to help find footnotes and resources is [I hope] a perfect match!

To answer some specific points raised in comments above:

• Although international enquirers are not specifically mentioned, assume that, regardless of where you're located, a state library will respond if you have a question about their state-specific materials. The NLA frequently receives and responds to international enquiries and, when appropriate, forwards suggests customers ask state-specific requests of the relevant state library reference team.
• It is correct that the 'ask a librarian' system does NOT require a real name or put anything in public. Once a Wikipedian clicks on the link to go to the 'ask a librarian' service they are within the Library's privacy policy etc. and will be responded to by private email. a Username is acceptable as a means of addressing someone. The library staff would like to know if the question is coming from Wikipedia for their own stats, but that's not a requirement. See [User:99of9/sandbox2#Documentation|the documentation].
• While Wikimedia Australia (the Chapter) does have projects with several state libraries - I know, I helped set many of them up - this is a Wikipedia proposal and does not impinge upon those relationships. There is nothing in this proposal that requires the libraries to change their systems - it's an external link from en.wp and therefore not a Chapter-related partnership.
• While it would be nice, I don't expect there will be a huge takeup/popularity of this service. In fact, it would be nice if it would grow slowly/organically.

These points are important:

1. The NLA reader-services team have agreed to share relevant statistics after a few months to gauge if it is a useful service for both groups. At that point, if either the library or WP wished, we could revisit the concept. It is not possible to definitively say if any given enquiry is coming from WP which is why it would be nice if the enquirer would say which WP article(s) they're working on.
2. The NLA was already intending to talk to the reader-services departments of all the state libraries when this discussion on-wiki had taken place (rather than pre-empt consensus here). We also think it would be better if this came from the NLA rather than from Wikipedians as it will be written using the relevant terminology and a communication among people who already work with each other closely.
3. Originally the idea was for this 'ask a librarian' link to go only to the NLA as only the NLA was forewarned about it. However 99of9 thought it would be good to put in links to all State libraries (when the state is indicated in the wikiproject template). The NLA are happy with this idea and, as mentioned immediately above, are intending to talk to all the state libraries about it. However, here is a question for you! Before the NLA contacts the state libraries, would you prefer for the link to go to the NLA (and only the NLA) in the mean time - as a trial? If you would prefer that then the NLA is quite ok with that and we won't raise it with the state libraries unless/until you want to expand the system.

Wittylama 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Wittylama - it is excellent in that it clarifies things well.

As for the last point and the question - as a very heavy trove user, I am aware of the various quirks from state collections that have not been collected in the Trove net yet (even librarians and libraries have backlogs...) - I would use SLWA henrietta as a check point before the Trove entry for some WA subject queries - and from that personal experience I believe that if it was possible to have either/or options (some new users might find the delightful experience of putting a query on a state catalogue query, only to see the cannot find it here? try trove comments on state catalogues) flexibility would be preferrred than being too singular.(I am not for trove only links)

So the answer/suggestion to the last point and question - why not either/or - WA/trove, in the coding on the WA template. If that is not a problem - then there is the potential for a user to see that there is more than one way to seek answers to questions. again thanks satusuro 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the Trove and Ask a Librarian services... The staffed reference desks is for personal/tailored assistance whereas websites like Trove or library catalogues are tools for people to search within. For NLA reference librarians, Trove is one tool among many, and they spend quite a lot of time looking at other Library's catalogues too. Maybe one day in the future there will be a single national [virtual] reference desk that all libraries will operate from but that is not how it works (technically or organisationally) at present. Wittylama 01:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not so much as confused as thinking aloud that australian editors (the ones counted on the other hand) that use trove could be joined by a few more with encouragement if it was provided... satusuro 02:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days, and a few more discussions have started below this one on the noticeboard... With my NLA-hat on, what is the consensus on whether: a) the NLA reference team should contact the other state library reference teams to explain what is happening here, b) the template should only point to the NLA (at least in the mean time), or c) the concept has not achieved consensus? Wittylama 01:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This item is getting lost in the usual awnb crud - suggest that we start with (a) yes, and where are you 99? - we need to say yes and get things moving before it gvets lost. As for consenus, say that to the current population of eds who dont even know what the word means. satusuro 02:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll put in an edit request on the template page. --99of9 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the template adjustment request has now gone through, as per Template_talk:WikiProject_Australia#Ask_A_Librarian_edit_request. Thanks all! I presume this will now take a little while to propagate trough all the articles? The NLA will now contact all the state libraries and keep them in the loop, if in a while there's something to report stats-wise we'll do so. Equally, we might like to publicise this relationship in a NLA blogpost/tweet etc. if that's ok. Relatedly, I don't suppose it's possible to move the "what's this?" superscript documentation link to the end of the new text rather than in the middle of the sentence? I probably should have thought of that earlier... Wittylama 07:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just purged some talk pages to get it to show up, and it seems to have quickly propagated to all that I've later looked at. Personally I think the "What's this?" is in the right place, but then again, I put it there :). What do others think? --99of9 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me - the explanation is quite useful. It will be interesting to see what the uptake of this feature is: I suspect that it won't be huge, but it's a good service to link to. The folks involved in making this happen might want to consider alerting the Wikipedia Signpost newsletter to see if they'll run a story. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I second nicks recommendation for a Signpost item - it is an excellent innovation and looks good - please consider ways of letting either this noticeboard any feedback or results. More power to such innocvations - lets hope it goes well! satusuro 10:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Both from a personal and professional point of view I too would like to see a signpost mention (and a "this month in glam" and also something in any newsletter the 'Wiki loves libraries" folks have. However, I'd like to let it settle in, embed, for a week perhaps first. That way we can see if there's any unexpected uptake (I too don't expect much, many of the wiki project templates are 'collapsed' by default too) and generally take it softly softly until the state libraries have had their weekly team meetings! I also would like to publish a blogpost with the reference team on the NLA blog about this - and why the library (and other libraries should) see local wikipedian reference assistance as prime territory for supporting. Wittylama 11:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Restrict to article pages?

Should the Ask a librarian links be restricted to article talk pages? I don't think it would be of much use to anyone on other pages, such as templates or project pages. I've added the restriction code to the sandbox version [4]. Should the main template be updated with this code, or is there any other namespaces where the links might be useful? - Evad37 [talk] 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinging participants from previous discussion: @99of9, SatuSuro, Wittylama, and Kerry Raymond:, @Lankiveil and Nick-D: - Evad37 [talk] 05:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Evad37, this was also pointed out by satsuro but I hadn't got around to implementing it. Thanks for doing so. I agree to your change. --99of9 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done in live template [5] - Evad37 [talk] 09:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Opera House

Sydney Opera House has had a {{Disputed-section}} tag since 2012 and attempts to remove the tag have been rejected by the editor who initially added it. As the issue is 15 months old now, Australian editors are asked to review the section titled Sydney Opera House#Reconciliation with Utzon; building refurbishment and the discussion at Talk:Sydney Opera House#Recent revert - 3 December 2012 with a view to resolving the issue once and for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Return of Australian knighthoods

Customarily, knights and dames are referred to by their titles as soon as there is an official announcement. Is there any indication that this has continued with the announcement of honours for Peter Cosgrove and Quentin Bryce. I note that The Australian has referred to Sir Peter and Dame Quentin in coverage of today's announcement. Hack (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The article on news.com.au suggests that it is still not formally in place yet? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Everything was simpler without these pointless titles. But in regards to this specific case, Bryce is a dame already (from today, 25 March) and Cosgrove will become a knight when he succeeds to the office of Governor-General. Details here. Frickeg (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Shall we start preparing the additional text that will be required when Abbott gives John Howard his knighthood? And I guess Tony will now expect one himself down the track. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Abbott can't give anyone a knighthood. At least not unless he becomes the monarch. And since I haven't received my Order of Australia yet I won't be voting for him. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your pedantic point, but have there ever been cases where the monarch has rejected the recommendation of the PM for the award of honours? HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Under the Westminster system such a thing would result in a constitutional crisis, so no, although the Queen apparently refused to personally bestow the honour on Mick Jagger as she disapproved of his receiving the honour. Frickeg (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The announcement of Cosgrove's impending knighthood seems to be an anomaly. Usually letters patent have been issued by the time an official announcement has been made. Hack (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Atlas of Living Australia Science Symposium

Thought that I would share that Wed 11 June in Canberra, the Atlas of Living Australia is having a symposium. Registration link. Not sure if there is some GLAM type conversations that could be had at the event. While I would have liked to have got there, not going to be possible for me. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability of National Trust classified historic sites

I thought I'd have another attempt at getting some sort of standard for what people think is an appropriate level for historic sites to have their own articles, and what people would defend at AfD if someone were to push it. We seem to have consensus around state registers - what about properties that have been classified by the National Trust? The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

any place put on a register has the potential to be notable, though it still requires sourcing for an article to be written. Gnangarra 23:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any thing has the potential to be notable but not everything is. That's why we have WP:GNG. That's the notability baseline. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

For a place to be registered there would need to be sufficient documentation to justify the registration - the real issue will be getting public access to that documentation. Dan arndt (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the general comments about notability and sourcing. But I think the question was really more about the reliability as a source of the range of heritage registers out there. In that regard, I think National Trust would be as good as a state govt register. I think the test of reliability would be a reasonable process for nominating and selecting without any conflict of interest over things that were within the scope of interest of the organisation maintaining the register. For example, there is an engineering heritage register that I would think a reliable source for engineering heritage, but perhaps not for sites of unspoilt natural beauty. I would not regard it as reliable if you could "buy" a heritage listing or a real estate agency was creating a heritage registers of properties that they were selling. Kerry (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the state registers: considering that, following the abolition of the Register of the National Estate, the state heritage registers are now the highest level of heritage protection available for the most of Australia that falls outside the very narrow criteria of the Commonwealth Heritage List and National Heritage List, I think it's reasonably safe to apply the precedent of the National Register of Historic Places in the US and assume that sites listed on the state registers are going to be intrinsically notable. (I think it's also pretty obvious - as Dan says - that they'd all meet the GNG too, especially with the advent of Trove.)

I'm trying to sound out if there's any consensus around other listings, in the hope of establishing some sorts of consistency for what we view as notable. I feel like the National Trust listings might be but I'm not sure. I note that the WA people are acting like they are, and the Qld articles are acting like they aren't (and I'm getting pretty frustrated with the deeply unhelpful responses of some of the other WA editors every time I try to bring up the subject of maybe deciding notability on a less random basis). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Notability is very clear being on a register of some sorts helps to establish that notability, but it still comes down to being able to find sufficient sourcing for articles. If your talking just at AfD discussion then yes being on the National Trust register is sufficient and I'll argue for any that are listed on http://stateheritage.wa.gov.au/ as all WA sites are there. If basing it on available sources is unhelpful live with it but dont expect people to be helpful when you chose to attack people because they happen to live in WA and disagree with your opinion. Gnangarra 08:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I can find bunches of buildings on the WA state heritage database that are patently not notable for Wikipedia standards and wouldn't stand a chance at AfD. The Victorian database (which includes exactly the same sets of listings) is exactly the same. This is why I'm trying to find some sort of ground we can all stand on to improve our coverage here. You're always going to get a decent number of articles that don't fit any guideline but are notable, but I'd really love to see at least a baseline for notability that we can all agree to defend in advance and save having to have similar arguments at AfD ten million times. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, WP:GNG is the baseline for notability. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". The keys here are "significant coverage" and "sources". If a subject has received coverage in multiple sources where it is addressed directly and in detail (i.e. far more than a mention) then it is notable. That's the guideline that is applied to every article on Wikipedia. Listing in a register is not significant coverage and it's only a single source but if the building has received coverage in multiple sources then the register aids the establishment of notability. As an example of an article that I don't think establishes notability, see Victoria Theatre (Newcastle). --AussieLegend (✉) 09:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

yup WP:GNG is it for all articles, for a one line high impact at afd a register entry is good example of notability. The Victoria Theatre you refer to makes some big claims s poorly sourced but just looking at the Australian Heritage Database it shows 6 sources it used for the assessment making a good link at AfD where you have only a week to demonstrate notability. The claims there arent as definite as in the article, the article needs work for it establish notability but indicators are its notable. Gnangarra 10:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I could really care less what AussieLegend thinks about notability if he thinks the Victoria Theatre article doesn't establish notability. That just means he's likely to be an outlier in any AfD discussion. I care much more what editors actually working in this area think. I'm just not sure why you seem to object to trying to get WA and Vic on a similar page when we're working off a database that's using the exact same inclusion criteria. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're unaware that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and that attacking other editors is not collaborating. You asked for opinions and you got one. Now I understand an earlier comment made by another editor who said "dont expect people to be helpful when you chose to attack people because they happen to live in WA and disagree with your opinion". Regardless of what you think of my opinion, the fact is that the article doesn't establish notability. Sources that are fortunately listed at the heritage listing might, but they're no good unless they're verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How is it helpful to pop up in a discussion about trying to establish specific notability guidelines in an area with your personal view that's wildly out of line with any of Wikipedia's guidelines on notability? You've contributed nothing to the discussion apart from making clear that you'd vote to delete most articles in this area and fail to gain any sort of consensus for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

examples of content and raising questions is the best way to find agreement, dismissing questions that help people understand isnt helpful to any discussion/. Gnangarra 11:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"your personal view that's wildly out of line with any of Wikipedia's guidelines on notability" - I do not see how what I've said is in anyway out of line since I've directly quoted from the actual Wikipedia guideline that determines notability of all subjects.

" making clear that you'd vote to delete most articles in this area and fail to gain any sort of consensus for it" - Can you please point me to the discussion that you're reading, since it clearly is not this one. I have not in any way stated what you claim I've said. I gave a single example of an article that fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia's notability guideline. On the other hand, you've argued that there are "a decent number of articles that don't fit any guideline but are notable", when that clearly isn't the case. If the articles don't at least meet WP:N then they shouldn't exist. WP:N is our baseline notability guideline. Specific project notability guidelines are supposed to be supplement WP:N, not replace it. An example of this is WP:NACTOR. While a lot of actors meet WP:GNG, they don't meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR and are therefore not considered notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

All of the articles I'm talking about would pass the GNG, as would the article you raise. I have really little time for editors who suggest that articles on topics with major and obvious claims to notability should be deleted because of minor flaws in their referencing that could be fixed with relatively little effort. Not only is this a jackass move towards both readers and writers in that area, but it's also invariably out of line with what actually happens at AfD. Accordingly, this is the point at which I become very disinterested in your ideas on more detailed issues of notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"I have really little time for editors who suggest that articles on topics with major and obvious claims to notability should be deleted because of minor flaws in their referencing" - Since I didn't suggest any article should be deleted, I don't see the justification in your disinterest. As I have clearly explained, I was responding to your claim that there are articles that don't meet any guideline. If subjects don't meet GNG then their article should not be created. If you can't demonstrate that an article passes GNG, it simply won't survive AfD. The example I gave was of a notable building whose article filed to establish notability. This sort of article is a big target for AfD and they often fail at AfD, so we need to ensure articles are ell referenced in order for them to survive. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably the most active editor on Qld heritage properties and I don't have anything against the National Trust's Hritage Reigster in principle, but the problem is accessing their heritage register: "Queensland National Trust. This register is not available on-line. The Heritage Information Officer is available Tuesdays to Thursdays to answer enquiries." followed by a broken URL, whereas the Qld Heritage Register is online and soon to be CC-BY licensed. So any perceived bias is purely about accessibility of the register. Kerry (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's so annoying. I'm used to WA and Victoria where basically anything relating to heritage is in a state database. Wasn't meant to be suggesting bias by any means either - was just noting that you were doing it differently to the WA people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

there in lies the problem of one size fits all guidelines because online isnt the be all of notability and every state does things differently anyway Gnangarra 10:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

But, where possible, it would be nice to do things with some consistency, and WA is very much not alone in doing things the way they do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree that not everything on either the WA or Victorian heritage databases is notable enough for Wikipedia standards, and that it might be helpful to come up with some sort of agreement on what is? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

heritage data bases are a starting point because someone, more precisely a group of someones independently thought these place are worth being noted and protected, sourcing determines whether there is sufficient information for an article... arbitrarily throwing something away which has already been identified as worthy of note isnt productive except for those that are more interested in deleting content which is all such guidelines end up doing. Gnangarra 11:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's completely not my goal here. I want to make sure Australian heritage gets as thoroughly developed as possible, and that as much of it as possible falls within Wikipedia's notability criterions. I feel like it gets a lot easier to stand down any attempts to delete this stuff if we've got some sort of consensus on what we feel is definitely notable, and I'd rather forestall these arguments before I really plow into the area since I'd rather not get work deleted. I am also not for a second arguing that things that don't fall within those registers/listings/categories aren't notable if there are other sources, since many others may well fall within the GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I note that the GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list", but it doesn't say anything about those sources all being cited in the article. As written, notability is a criteria about the topic, not a criteria about the WP article on that topic. Since the Victoria Theatre (Newcastle) has been mentioned as an example of not establishing notability, I went over and took a look at it. It had 2 sources (not cited in-line). I had never heard of that theatre until this discussion, yet easily found three more sources (that I have now added as in-line citations). There's plenty of source material available for many heritage properties online and offline; what we lack are having enough editors with the time to write the articles and cite the sources. Having made a submission to get a local church put onto the Brisbane Heritage Register, I know the process involves filling out forms and telling them what I knew about it (with citations) and then their heritage team further investigates and makes recommendations on listing to the council (I'm still waiting for an outcome but that's another story). I believe this is the sort of process most of these registers go through. Any property with a heritage listing will almost certainly have a pile of research with sources, but that research may or may not be accessible to us :-( Kerry (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

GNG is a guideline for creation of articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy (not just a guideline) that deals with issue of referencing. It requires that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" and further states that "any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The Victoria Theatre article was specifically chosen as an example of a subject that is notable, but whose article fails to demonstrate notability by failing to support content that is likely to be challenged with inline citations. It is these sorts of articles that often end up at AfD. The problem that The Drover's Wife sees is not so much a need to establish notability as ensuring articles demonstrate that notability. To avoid articles ending up at AfD they need to be well referenced. If you're creating an article, it stands to reason that you would have references for content you're adding, so why not include them in the article? Inline sources demonstrate that an editor has verified the content and generally stop articles ending up at AfD in the first place. It's not "what people would defend at AfD" that is the real concern, it's stopping articles ever going to AfD by sourcing them properly that needs to be the focus. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If more people like you actually contributed to the encyclopedia instead of nominating for deletion material that you know to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria because you're too lazy to do it yourself, we'd have a far superior encyclopedia to use. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Australian politicians by party by state or territory

Hi everyone! Does anyone know if there is a reason that most states only have a Liberal and a National category under Category:Australian politicians by party by state or territory? I just assumed that no-one had done it yet, but then I thought it could be related to the different state structures that each party uses. -- Chuq (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's because it was implemented without discussion and a few people disagreed with it, but no one cared enough to go back and undo it. I personally think it's an imperfect system, although goodness knows Category:Australian Labor Party politicians is huge enough and only going to get huger. I would really prefer, rather than the current "New South Wales Liberal politicians" format, "Liberal Party of Australia members of the New South Wales Parliament". If we're in the mood for a big reorganisation, I'd also like to hear opinions on whether the "[party name] politicians" categories could be renamed "[party name] members" or "members of the [party name]", so that we'd have somewhere to put people who are party members but not really politicians. Frickeg (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Frickeg's idea is a really good one, though I am very much not volunteering to do it. I'd also note that the current Liberal categories are confusing due to the differing pre-1945 meanings of "Liberal". The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to work to get all Tasmanian state MPs consistent, although all the other state ones and federal MPs are beyond me! -- Chuq (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Pedant's issue: "New South Wales Parliament" or "Parliament of New South Wales" as with the article? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Parliament of X" - since some other states, eg. "Victoria Parliament" or "Tasmania Parliament" don't look/sound right. -- Chuq (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. One of the worst things about the current system is that it includes things like "Tasmania Liberal politicians" or, even worse, "Victoria (Australia) Liberal politicians" (because otherwise they could be talking about the Victorian era, you see, and we can't have that). If we take it to CfD they probably know more about how to do this sort of thing - I think it's usually done automatically, so if we nominated all the Liberal and National ones for renaming (and the parent categories) I think that would take care of a lot of the work. Then it would just be the huge ALP category to deal with (I'm more than happy to take on the lion's share of this work), and we can start categorising people like Clive Hamilton and Nancy Wake, too, which will be nice. Possibly the categories WikiProject could help. Frickeg (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

From memory, the "Victoria (Australia)" thing is a reflexive disambiguation against Victoria, British Columbia. Yes, it's bonkers, but we lost that particular argument. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

That is even sillier than the Victorian era thing I thought it was. Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Couple more questions: where would Hamilton and Wake (above) go in this structure, and what would happen to the ton of people in the general ALP politicians category? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What I would envisage is that there would be a big parent category for each one, say "Australian Labor Party members" or "Members of the Australian Labor Party". This would encompass all the more specific categories for MPs, and people like Hamilton and Wake (or, in this case, someone like Jessie Street or Paul Howes, I guess) would go directly into this category. Then the current ALP category would get split into the multiple categories for each parliament. (This is where the vast majority of the work will be, unless there's some kind of script that can do it automatically by matching up the overlap between this category and the existing "Members of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly"-style categories.) Frickeg (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyclone Joy on FAC

Hello all! I currently have an article on FAC for a tropical cyclone that affected Australia in 1990. There was a recent comment that I wrote the article in US English, not Australian English. Is there anyone here who might be able to assist in ensuring it's written in Australian English? As I've never been to Australian, I'm not really sure what the major differences are. If someone, anyone could assist, I'd be happy to provide some copyediting/reviewing in the future! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The FAC discussion is here, for those who don't want to go hunting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

Why only churches, and no other places of worship?

I am new to this, so please redirect me if this is not the right place to ask this question.
I have been reviewing and updating the entries for Sydney suburbs I am familiar with. Many of them seem to be built from the same model, using the same headings etc. In particular, they all have a heading "Churches" which includes only Christian churches. There is no place for the Jewish synagogues or the Buddhist temples, etc. If it was just one or two I would simply change it, but this seems to be some kind of common standard.

So my question for the more experienced editors is twofold. First, can you see any problem with changing these headings to something along the lines of "Places of Worship" or "Religious Centres" and adding the non-Christian places of worship? And secondly, if that is acceptable then is there some source that these articles are drawing their structure from, which could be changed to make future articles more inclusive?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Places of worship would be more appropriate. To be honest, I wonder if you need to list every single place of worship. How do you justify inclusion of one over another? For some of the more religiously diverse locations, you may end up with a long list of groups. Hack (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Churches would have just been considered generic description when the articles were first being created, but a heading of places of worship is probably more correct. The reality is that if you look at Carlingford, New South Wales then compare it to the featured article Hammersley, Western Australia you will see that those sections like Places of Worship which are currently just external link lists need to be converted to prose anyway, and then you will find that many of them just dont merit coverage anyway. Gnangarra 14:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. For now, I will continue to use "Places of worship". And when I can, I will attempt to upgrade the articles beyond mere lists to something a bit more engaging.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Australian history films

Dear Australians: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a useful list, or is the content covered under some other title? Should it be saved and improved, or let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment for South Sydney Rabbitohs

Hey! I've nominated for GA community reassessment for the article above due to dead links, empty/unsourced sections and WP:NPOV. I nominated it a month ago but no one replied to the issues. You can see it here. Cheers! FairyTailRocks 11:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Re-using sections from existing articles

G'day. I am relatively new here, so please re-direct me if this is not the right place to ask my question.
I have a question which really boils down the correct Wiki-ettiquette. The background is that I am editing the article for Epping, New South Wales to add information about community facilities. One of these is the "Epping Community Centre", and I happened to notice that there is already a good section covering this on the page for Hornsby_Shire#Epping_Community_Centre.

So my question is: is it appropriate to copy that existing section and paste it into the Epping article, where it obviously fits well? Or is there some other approach that would be preferred? --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The editing guideline that is relevant here is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which requires appropriate attribution for content added to pages. When you copy the content to Epping, New South Wales, an appropriately completed copy of {{Copied}} should be added to Talk:Epping, New South Wales, underneath {{WP Australia}} to provide that attribution. If you have problems, post here and somebody will help you. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again, @AussieLegend:. I will include that on both talk pages. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again; let me know if there are any problems! --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Census data

I've been updating populations in a few places to use the 2011 census via QuickStats. But I am a bit bewildered in some cases by the choices on offer, e.g. Beaudesert (QLD) is available in 10 different flavours, ranging from Statistical Local Areas (levels 1 through 4), Urban Centre, State Suburb, Gazetted Locality, State Electoral Division, plus a couple of indigenous options. What options are usually best chosen for what kinds of places, e.g. towns, suburbs/localities? My question has been triggered by an IP editor changing the population of Beaudesert to 6000 (no change to the citation), which is pretty close to 5999 reported for Beaudesert as a State Suburb, but a long way from the 12000+ people that was the previously listed population based on the Statistical Local Area. And, having encountered a few cases of this, what do you do with a locality that doesn't appear to have a census entry at all, but is getting reported as part of one (or in some cases more than one) adjacent suburb/locality (based on the map being displayed); does one not bother about population in these cases? Kerry (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that the areas for which the ABS produces statistics don't necessarily reflect, and often don't come close to reflecting, the actual, gazetted locality. Beaudesert is such a case. Quickstats for most places also have a "Gazetted Locality (GL)" option. This overlays a red border representing the actual, gazetted locality, on the Quickstats area. In the case of Beaudesert, the GL option calls up the Quickstats for the "State Suburb", which has a population of 5,999.[6] Unfortunately the ABS changes areas each census. The 2006 data for Beaudesert (State Suburb) shows a population of 5,383 covering a completely different area.[7] In effect, it's editor preference as to which area to choose. Personally, I try to use the GL option to work out which population to choose, as that most closely should reflect the actual location. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have mostly been using the GL which often redirects to the State Suburb in any case. I think that's the reasonably obvious choice for suburbs and bounded localities. But, I guess the problem with a place like Beaudesert is that it is (like many towns in Qld) both a town (covering a number of localities) and a locality (usually the old centre of the town) and our WP articles on towns generally don't draw out this distinction. Is it possible to put two sets of population data into the infobox (obviously it can be done in the narrative) to cover both situations? I am guessing that "urban centre" might be the appropriate choice for the "town" of Beaudesert and GL/SS for the "locality". Kerry (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are both pop and pop2 fields in the infobox. Clarence Town is an example of an article using both fields. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Brisbane Metroads - proposed moves, redirects and merges

There is a discussion regarding moving/redirecting/merging the Brisbane Metroad articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads#Brisbane Metroads - proposed moves.2C redirects and merges. Please comment there if you are interested. Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sheppard (band)

made a stub - anyone want to expand? Sick to death of "Happy"......also Geronimo (song) ....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

County of Mackenzie

A discussion has been opened on the WikiProject Alberta talk page about moving its counties to their undisambiuated names, provided that they are the primary topic. Mackenzie County, Alberta, has never gone by the name "County of Mackenzie", is County of Mackenzie, Queensland, ever referred to as "Mackenzie County"? Are both these articles the primary topic for their names? 117Avenue (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

County names, in Queensland at least, are not in common use, they're generally only used in land titles. When I worked in the home credit area at Suncorp many years ago, the land administration divisions were always described as "County of X, Parish of Y", without exception. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

Photo request: Qantas headquarters in Mascot, Sydney

Are there any Wikipedians in Australia who are willing to photograph the Qantas headquarters in Sydney? The address is 203 Coward, Mascot, NSW. Please photograph all four buildings: Qantas Building A, Qantas Building B, Qantas Building C, and Qantas Building D

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the building photographed by User:Bidgee in File:Qantas Building A on the corner of Bourke Road and Coward Street in Mascot (1).jpg and File:Qantas Building A on the corner of Bourke Road and Coward Street in Mascot.jpg? Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's one of them! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Where to source the area of a suburb?

I'm sure this has been asked and answered many times, but I can't find it so please find it in your hearts to forgive one more: I was looking at Lindfield,_New_South_Wales. The Infobox says that the area is 5.17 km², but the second paragaph starts "This suburb of 7.21 square kilometres..." I never knew where to source this information about the area of a suburb, and now I need it to resolve this discrepancy - is there a standard place to find it? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• given the discrepancy I have found http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/About_Ku-ring-gai/Land_and_surrounds/Suburbs_maps which states 7.51 km² which yeah is another value differing from the two others. Gnangarra 13:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The suburb areas on Wikipedia are usually from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data. It's not in the QuickStats but in the Community Profile Excel files which says Lindfield is 5.1 km² in area. I'm not sure but my guess would be the higher area may be including East Lindfield which according to the ABS is around 2.4 km². The 7.21 figure seems to be from here, the Ku-ring-gai Council website—East Lindfield is not listed on the suburbs in the local government area on that page so I would guess the Council has counted them together. --Canley (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it is 7.51 as Gnangarra says, which pretty much exactly matches the ABS areas of Lindfield and East Lindfield (5.1 + 2.4 = 7.5). The 7.21 may be a typo? --Canley (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the ABS areas are based on their census collection districts which often don't match the gazetted locality. Lindfield is one of these cases.[8] At that link the gazetted locality is in red, whil the ABS are is in blue. SIX maps is the authoritative reference for locality borders in NSW. To find a particular suburb, once the application opens, click on the drop-down box and select "Advanced" search, click on the "Suburb" tab and type in the name of the suburb you're looking for. I just checked Lindfield and came up with an area of 5.187 km². You're never going to get an exact area because of the way the suburbs are measured. Lindfield's borders follow (generally) the centre of the river and that alone causes measurement errors because the centre of the river isn't always obvious. You actually have to take two areas into account; the actual area and the ABS' area. The latter has to be used to calculate the population density. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the real estate industry's area. It often differs considerably from reality, but because buyers prefer the name of the suburb they like to think they have bought in, it tends to eventually become reality in some cases. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers and links! I may have been a bit naive to think there would be a single preferred source. I suspected that East Lindfield might be the difference, and this information supports that. So for now I will use the ABS figure for consistency, with a reference to show where I got it from. I will also copy this disucssion over to the Talk page, in case somebody else has the same problem. Thanks again!--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAP nominated for redirection

WP:IAP, which has been a redirect to {{Infobox Australian place}} for over 7 years has been nominated for redirection. Per normal, we weren't notified when it was nominated four days ago, despite being the primary users. The discussion is at here. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian flags

There is a discussion about the use of flags in List of Australian flags at Talk:List of Australian flags#Omitted flags. This discussion could do with some extra eyes and comments as it will also affect Flag of Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Callala Beach New South Wales

Dear Australia experts: Is Callaba Beach a different place from Callaba Bay? Or should this old Afc submission be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Callala Beach (not Callaba Beach), is apparently a village of 774 people adjacent to Callala Bay (not Callaba Bay),[9] which has a population of 2,121.[10] Callala Beach lies within the Callala Bay Urban Centre/Locality.[11] According to the Geographical Names Register, Callala Beach is a holiday resort.[12] --AussieLegend (✉) 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The AFC submission isn't very good and there is no pressing need for an article, although somebody might want to create a decent article some time. It seems easier to delete the submission.--Grahame (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There's not enough recoverable information to warrant moving it into article space and then having to fix it. It's better to start from scratch. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the spelling mixup. I will let it go. Thanks for taking time to look into it. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of homesteads, pastoral leases and stations

I have been watching some of the articles about Western Australian stations, and I noticed that at least some of them are in all of:

• Category:Homesteads in Western Australia
• Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia
• Category:Station (Australian agriculture)

But Category:Homesteads in Western Australia is a subcategory of Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Station (Australian agriculture). Thus - if the category hierarchy is correct - according to WP:SUBCAT those articles should only be in Category:Homesteads in Western Australia, not (directly) in the two super-categories. There are also some articles that are in Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia and Category:Station (Australian agriculture) (but not Category:Homesteads in Western Australia), which similarly ought not be directly in Category:Station (Australian agriculture).

Or should Homesteads and/or Pastoral leases be non-diffusing subcategories?

I'm primarily interested in WA, but it looks like this applies equally to pastoral leases in other states.

Any comments, suggestions, or objections to my removing the articles (directly) from the super-categories? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • homestead are a specific place, pastoral leases can cover large areas of land -- in WA they are created and administered under Land Administration Act 1997. Stations are not always pastoral leases, but pastoral lease are commonly referred to as stations. The way I see it Stations should be the top and default, pastoral leases as a subcat of that with a requirement that the pastoral lease be clearly supported in the article with a citation for verifiability. There are also some aboriginal land operations which fall under the station identifier others will do because of historical links. Homesteads are a separate entity though in many/most cases the homestead will be no more notable than the station of the same name and very much indistinguishable in the sources. There are exceptions with homesteads where the homestead no longer part of the operational property ie Mangowine, Blythewood, Woodbridge, Avondale and few others. I could live with homesteads ebing a subcat of stations and houses in WA Gnangarra 08:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • oh dear another one of these. STRONG objection to bringing it here and STRONG objection to playing with this.

The whole thing is missing the point of the complexity of the historical issues. To play with them is denying the real-life issues of where (a) there is no necessary direct connection between a homestead name, station name and a pastoral lease name (b) to even consider playing with the categories and sub categories of these is fraught with unwanted chaos - the question should in WP:AGF be withdrawn and closed. I will be meeting with the questioner in real life on the 5th May and will attempt to explain the reasons for objection to playing with any of this. satusuro 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a prima facie conflict between the current direct inclusion of articles in multiple of the above-mentioned categories, and WP:SUBCAT's statement that

A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing ...).

If you think that WP:SUBCAT is wrong, please say so explicitly - and take it to WT:CAT to fix that guideline.

If you think that one or more categories should be non-diffusing, please say so explicitly.

If you think WP:IAR applies here, please say so explicitly, and why.

If you think there is not a prima facie conflict, please say so.

Please explain the "point of the complexity" that I've missed, so that I might better understand why they are categorised the way they are. I don't think that just saying "I disagree - it's very complex" helps improve the encyclopaedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved in WA issues but Mitch does have a point. An article in Category:Homesteads in Western Australia doesn't need to be manually added to Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia or Category:Station (Australian agriculture) because it's already in those cats by virtue of Category:Homesteads in Western Australia being a subcat of both categories. Similarly, an article in Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia doesn't need to be added manually to Category:Station (Australian agriculture) because it's already in that category by virtue of being in a subcat. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Homesteads" appears to be WA-specific, but a quick check of each Category:Pastoral leases in other_state shows that many of the articles therein are included directly in both Category:Pastoral leases in other_state and Category:Station (Australian agriculture), the former being a subcategory of the latter. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Many Stations are a mix of mostly leasehold but some freehold land, not all of a station is necessarily part of a leasehold. In fact places that were historically named stations in the wheatbelt, south-west and great southern of WA are completely freehold and really just ordinary freeheld farms. The homestead is also a subset of the station (as is the leasehold component). Historically stations derive their names from having depots that sell stores and were basically small settlements. The current categorizations, while maybe not ideal, are suited to the topic. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

At our "Perth" meetup yesterday, we generally agreed that:

• Homesteads are not necessarily on pastoral leases.
• Pastoral leases do not necessarily have homesteads.

Thus Category:Homesteads in Western Australia ought not be a subcategory of Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia, nor vice-versa, but they should be cross-linked with {{Category see also}}.

• The term "station" may have different meanings in different states.

Thus it may be appropriate for Category:Station (Australian agriculture) to be container category containing only state-specific sub-categories Category:Station (Western Australian agriculture), Category:Station (New South Walse agriculture), etc.

Possibly homesteads and pastoral leases ought not be subcategories of Station (state) or vice-versa. Although again, {{Category see also}} links between them may be appropriate.
Possibly Category:Station (state) should be the plural Stations - based on the current contents of Category:Station (Australian agriculture), it looks like a "set category" rather than a "topic category". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

CSIRO ScienceImage Library

The CSIRO has released its entire ScienceImage library under a CC BY 3.0 licence. [13] --Canley (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I posted about this to the Australian Wikimedians mailing list on the 6th. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2014-May/date.html Mark Hurd, who works there, has offered to try to get in touch with the relevant people internally to see if they will provide a database dump (and potentially do the video mp4->ogg conversion), rather than us trying to scrape the website. It would be nicer if CSIRO would actively 'give' these images to us rather than merely 'allow' us to scrape the site. We'll see how the conversation goes over the next little while. Wittylama 03:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only get the WM-AU digest which I just received an hour ago! Definitely better to get the raw files directly than to scrape the site. Hope the conversation with CSIRO goes well. --Canley (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

New users and female architects

Just FYI. There appear to be a bunch of new users (accounts created this month) writing/updating articles on Australian women architects and their works. Based on one of the user names involved, I suspect we might be seeing a university assignment taking place. Their wiki-editing skills are definitely in the "newbie" category. I just mention it in case you stumble onto one of them and want to lend a hand (remember, we don't bite the newbies!) Kerry (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe - it depends what they are doing, surely... satusuro 09:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress on Premiers of the Australian states

A discussion is taking place about whether the article currently entitled Premiers of the Australian states should be renamed to First ministers of the Australian states.

The discussion is at Talk:Premiers of the Australian states#Requested_move, where your input will be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

One of your articles is this week's article for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Forests of Australia, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

AfC submissions 13/05

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pethebridge and Bell.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Australian Jazz Quartet/Quintet. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

IP edits on Greek Australians

124.188.227.45 (talk · contribs) has apparently spent the past nine hours or so trawling Category:Australian people of Greek descent to make sure members of that category are introduced as "Greek-Australian", rather than simply "Australian". This has, in some cases, extended to changing non-Greek names to their supposed Greek equivalents (Peter to Petros, Stephen to Stelios, Steven to Stavros). My understanding is that we generally only include nationality, not ethnicity, in the opening sentence – MOS:BLPLEAD states "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." In this case, a lot of members of that category have no strong ties to Greece other than a Greek-sounding surname, and I doubt the IP can source many of their edits. Would anyone suggest anything other than a blanket reversion? IgnorantArmies 14:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It would have to be a massive coincidence if 124.188.227.45 was not HellenicLiverpudlianCR7 (talk · contribs), but I'd love to be proven wrong. IgnorantArmies 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be proven wrong. Other changes have been addition of unsourced material and changing "[[Australian Labor Party]]" to "[[Australian Labor Party|Labour Party]]".[14] The vast majority of the edits are straight MOS:BLPLEAD violations so they should be reverted but interspersed in the edit history are a very few reasonable edits so a blanket reversion would be inappropriate. I've been bold and removed the MOS:BLPLEAD violations that actually started before yesterday's 9-hour stint. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I guess "Greek (or whatever)-Australian" is a reasonable description for Australians actually born in Greece. IgnorantArmies 08:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but not in the lead. Even for such people it's not appropriate to refer to them as a Greek-Australian member of the federal parliament. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've always used the "[country]-born Australian" construction for historical articles, especially where the person spent a significant portion of their lives in [country] before coming to Australia. I would think that the "[country]-Australian" construction would be appropriate in the rare cases where the person had equal notability as a part of both nationalities. Frickeg (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Most Australians of Greek descent like to be referred to as such. A person born in Australia with a Romanian surname objected to being included in a list of Romanians on Wikipedia, claiming he was born in Australia. Here the question is tricky. This man was a minor public servant, and probably wasn't notable enough for a Wikipedia entry anyway. The fact that he was of Romanian descent should be included in a Wikipedia article about him if he was a notable person. This is not in breach of BLP policy. Victorian former Premier Ted Baillieu is listed on the Belgian Australia article, and a comment was made in a newspaper story about him that his family moved to Australia before Belgium even existed. Nothing wrong here. A person's descent is legitimate to include in a Wikipedia article, and the Baillieu family are included as of Belgium descent in a book written by a Belgium-born late Librarian of the University of Melbourne, a very distinguished man. A recent article on abortion in a labour history journal claimed Steve Bracks, a Catholic of Lebanese descent (and he has pointed this out himself), would never have allowed abortion legislation to be introduced into the Victorian Parliament while he was Premier. I thought initially a supporter of Margaret Tighe was saying this, but a book published a couple of weeks ago by Carolyn Hirsh, a pro-abortion former Victorian MP, made the same point. I think that if known it is legitimate to include an person's ethnic background in a Wikipedia article. I have never known an Australian of Greek descent to ever disown their Greek background, and there are very many distinguished Greek-descended Australians.101.160.130.32 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Here though an IP was changing (typically) "Australian" to "Greek-Australian" in the lead, when MOS:BLPLEAD specifically says, "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". --AussieLegend (✉) 13:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Signpost article about NLA/Trove/Ask a librarian

For anyone not subscribed to Signpost - but interested in the way the Australian project has developed an extra dimension to its project tags...

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-14/News_and_notes - a good sign that WP Australia editors need to advertise and encourage others to use the service - and acknowledge the hard work the people at NLA get into that actually improves methods of access to information. satusuro 09:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out here Satu. Equally, for those who've not seen it, there's also the blogpost from the library about the project which is linked from the signpost article too. :-) Wittylama 11:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in major Australian cities

Why have we allowed articles like Tourism in Brisbane, Tourism in Sydney, Tourism in Melbourne and Tourism in Perth to be lists of tourist attractions? Isn't that equivalent to having Economy in X, Y and Z which listed successful businesses in those places or Transport in X, Y and Z to be a list of the most popular transport hubs? It would be better if we focused on who are the tourists, the economics, history, employment statistics, related government departments and organisations and notable promotions. Then once the subject has been discussed have a section with a couple of paragraphs mentioning the most notable attractions. We shouldn't be creating these tourist attraction lists which serve as a tourist guide. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the existence of [WikiVoyage], I think there's even less reason to have content intended for tourist readers on Wikipedia than there might once have been. Possibly overly-touristy content could be shifted to the relevant WikiVoyage article and an external link added in a similar manner to Commons link (I'm seeing a few of these popping up already). As you say, there is still plenty that can be said about tourism as an industry in each city left for the Wikipedia article. Kerry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate file changes

Just bringing to everyone's attention that there have been some recent changes affecting File:Australian Coat of Arms.png and File:Australian Coat of Arms shield.PNG. Both of these have been the subject of en masse changes by a couple of editors who have replaced them with SVG versions that were recently uploaded to commons. These images are, in my opinion and the opinion of another editor, not superior to the PNG version (please feel free to disagree) and en masse changes are contrary to commons:Commons:Transition to SVG which specifically says (in bold even!) "PNGs should not just be replaced en masse the instant an SVG replacement becomes available. It is often sufficient to label the image description page with a {{vector version available}} tag, and it will be migrated over to the SVG version by editors where appropriate." --AussieLegend (✉) 20:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karoonda hwy

Dear Australia experts: Last year when this draft was declined, the highway hadn't been built. Is this a notable transportation route, or is it still too soon? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It does exist as a state-controlled road per [15] and there does seem to be coverage of the then-proposed rename to "Karoonda Highway" [16][17][18]. It was also identified as one of the worst roads in SA [19][20]. So if such information and references are added, then there's probably enough for a stub or start-class article – but it does needs some cleanup. The existing reference in the AFC draft is from a self-published source, and so either needs to be tagged as such, or preferably removed, as non-SPS refs can be used for the route description. - Evad37 [talk] 05:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to analyse this. Now that it has been edited by Shiftchange, it won't be deleted for six months. That should be time to get this done. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

South Sydney Rabbitohs

Greetings! I have nominated one of your articles for a GA reassessment, mostly because of dead links and original research. It would be great if you post your opinion in the reassessment discussion so that we can reach a consensus if this is worth keeping. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/05

Draft:Chiltern Mt-Pilot National Park, Victoria, Australia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

At first glance it appears to be a surprisingly well written article for someone's first edit. That said, I see multiple MOS:BOLD, WP:REFPUNCT and MOS:CAPS violations immediately and it's definitely a breach of WP:NOTGALLERY (25 images total and 20 of those n the gallery). There's some rather flowery language as well. One ref is marked as "invoked but never defined" and another is missing the closing "ref" tag. There are no conversions and worse, the article uses "kms" instead of km. That's a pet peeve of mine and, IMHO, justifies sentencing the offender to be hung, drawn and quartered, shot, boiled in oil, flayed alive, forced to watch sequential Toddlers & Tiaras, Dance Moms and 16 and Pregnant marathons for a month with a good old fashioned horse-whipping thrown in for good measure, although not necessarily in that order. After all, how long has Australia had the metric system? ... Otherwise, it's not too bad. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've declined the submission because there is an article already at Chiltern-Mount Pilot National Park. Hack (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've merged most of the content to Chiltern-Mount Pilot National Park, which was previously just a stub with a single reference. I've made a start on the cleanup, but there's a fair bit more to be done.--Melburnian (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FC nominated for removal of FA status

I have nominated Central Coast Mariners FC for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bencherlite^Talk 19:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Oceania may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Australian road route table templates nominated for deletion

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australian road routes table

Template:Australian road routes table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australian road routes table extended

Template:Australian road routes table extended has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Evad37 [talk] 10:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Australian flags

There's an ongoing issue with the use of Australian flags in several articles. One editor is periodically removing flags, citing WP:NFC, which doesn't actually support removal in most cases. The removals are actually disruptive in some cases. For example:

• At Flag of Australia, removal of flag variants that have valid FURs and are the subject of commentary
• At Torres Strait Islanders, removal of the Torres Strait Islander flag from the infobox
• At Indigenous Australians, removal of the Torres Strait Islander flag from the infobox, misrepresenting Torres Strait Islanders by leaving readers with the impression that the Australian Aboriginal flag represents Torres Strait Islanders.

Even the "correct" removal of images by this editor are in some way disruptive. File:EddieMaboportrait.gif was used at multiple articles without the existence of appropriate FURs. Instead of creating FURs, or notifying somebody of this flaw, the editor has removed the image from several articles where the use seems appropriate, such as Australians and Indigenous Australians. At Flag of Australia I suggested in April that the editor needs to discuss the removal. Instead, he waited until today to remove the images again, without discussion. The removal of these images is not being noticed, or acted upon, by editors so some eyes on these articles are needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) The editor who keeps removing the flags has opened a discussion about File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg at WP:NFCR. Comments would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, as an Australian citizen, I find it ridicilous our government or any private citizen can claim copyright on official flags. But sadly that is not the legal situation at the moment, so I am going to stay out of this entirely. JTdale ^Talk 02:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an absolutely absurd situation that an individual can claim copyright over an official flag of the nation. However, that's where we are and complaining about that copyright being enforced is probably a complete waste of time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

More importantly, the discussion at NFCR has nothing to do with whether or not something should be copyrighted, it is about use of the image in articles to which it is highly relevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Can someone with the appropriate permissions delete the redirects at Hansonville, Victoria, Greta South, Victoria and Bellarine, Victoria? All three of these topics are supposed to be on the towns of those names, but redirect either to totally different towns or to a region because someone was clearing red links and was lazy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. :) Somno (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

why?? seemed quite appropriate; the problem here is turning navigation templates (which should be blue-linked) into exhaustive redlink lists, which will need dealing with. Can we have redirects back, please. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Because they're misleading, and mess up Wikipedia's content: in the case of the first two, redirecting one town to a totally different town might make tables and articles look prettier if you really, really hate red links, but it's completely useless either a) if you're trying to find out anything on that town, or b) if you care about our content being actually accurate. In the latter case, it's a totally useless redirect that's actively inhibited Wikipedia getting any information on that suburb: it caused whoever went through and did articles on all the Geelong suburbs to miss that we did not, in fact, have anything on that one, because it was a false blue link. Some genius with a problem with red links resulted in Wikipedia not having any information on that place for four years. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you desist from your nasty habit of using the term SOME GENIUS to refer to your fellow Wikipedians, as soon you will get a polite response. Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to get a bit frustrated with editors who actively inhibit the development of Wikipedia content for pointless reasons, though I'm not sure why you're taking that comment personally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We do tend to take it personally when SOME BLOODY GENIUS like you gets in our face. Over and out. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That genius may have thought it was better to have someone who typed in those names end up at the regional page rather than a "we don't have a page on that topic, so you can't learn anything about it". If the redirect target didn't mention the towns, then that's a minor problem, but an easily fixed one. And deleting redirects because you hope it will prompt someone to make the article isn't really that good either. If it means so much then you should have just edited the redirect into a stub article. The-Pope (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this tells people absolutely nothing. A person looking for a town who gets referred to an article on a region that merely mentions that the town is in the region is going to think Wikipedia is useless for this topic and have to go elsewhere. And this doesn't even get to the matter of the first two, which were redirected to different towns entirely. I will get to writing articles on them in due course, but intentionally directing people looking for information on a subject to pages which contain no information on said subject is completely unhelpful.

Having a red link, however, makes clear that we don't have anything - and that we need to. The Bellarine case is a great example of why creating useless redirects is not only unhelpful to readers, but inhibits the development of actually useful content - where every other suburb in the whole region had articles written years ago, this one got missed by that editor because of the redirect, and now in 2014 we still have no useful content on that subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, the links are gone. There are points for and against redirects that have been made in umpteen discussions like this and rehashing them again doesn't resolve anything. What would resolve the problem is to either recreate the redirects or create the articles. Or, maybe nothing needs to be done. Not every location needs an article. Regardless, anyone can do what ever needs to be done, so do it. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, it seemed pretty clear that the redirects didn't meet any of the usual purposes for redirects, nothing linked to those pages, they had no edit history other than creation of the redirect and met redirect deletion reason number 10. I didn't expect there to be controversy. Happy to undelete so they can be listed on redirects for discussion if required. Thanks, Somno (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of homesteads, pastoral leases and stations

Resolved

I have been watching some of the articles about Western Australian stations, and I noticed that at least some of them are in all of:

• Category:Homesteads in Western Australia
• Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia
• Category:Station (Australian agriculture)

But Category:Homesteads in Western Australia is a subcategory of Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Station (Australian agriculture). Thus - if the category hierarchy is correct - according to WP:SUBCAT those articles should only be in Category:Homesteads in Western Australia, not (directly) in the two super-categories. There are also some articles that are in Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia and Category:Station (Australian agriculture) (but not Category:Homesteads in Western Australia), which similarly ought not be directly in Category:Station (Australian agriculture).

Or should Homesteads and/or Pastoral leases be non-diffusing subcategories?

I'm primarily interested in WA, but it looks like this applies equally to pastoral leases in other states.

Any comments, suggestions, or objections to my removing the articles (directly) from the super-categories? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • homestead are a specific place, pastoral leases can cover large areas of land -- in WA they are created and administered under Land Administration Act 1997. Stations are not always pastoral leases, but pastoral lease are commonly referred to as stations. The way I see it Stations should be the top and default, pastoral leases as a subcat of that with a requirement that the pastoral lease be clearly supported in the article with a citation for verifiability. There are also some aboriginal land operations which fall under the station identifier others will do because of historical links. Homesteads are a separate entity though in many/most cases the homestead will be no more notable than the station of the same name and very much indistinguishable in the sources. There are exceptions with homesteads where the homestead no longer part of the operational property ie Mangowine, Blythewood, Woodbridge, Avondale and few others. I could live with homesteads ebing a subcat of stations and houses in WA Gnangarra 08:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • oh dear another one of these. STRONG objection to bringing it here and STRONG objection to playing with this.

The whole thing is missing the point of the complexity of the historical issues. To play with them is denying the real-life issues of where (a) there is no necessary direct connection between a homestead name, station name and a pastoral lease name (b) to even consider playing with the categories and sub categories of these is fraught with unwanted chaos - the question should in WP:AGF be withdrawn and closed. I will be meeting with the questioner in real life on the 5th May and will attempt to explain the reasons for objection to playing with any of this. satusuro 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a prima facie conflict between the current direct inclusion of articles in multiple of the above-mentioned categories, and WP:SUBCAT's statement that

A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing ...).

If you think that WP:SUBCAT is wrong, please say so explicitly - and take it to WT:CAT to fix that guideline.

If you think that one or more categories should be non-diffusing, please say so explicitly.

If you think WP:IAR applies here, please say so explicitly, and why.

If you think there is not a prima facie conflict, please say so.

Please explain the "point of the complexity" that I've missed, so that I might better understand why they are categorised the way they are. I don't think that just saying "I disagree - it's very complex" helps improve the encyclopaedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved in WA issues but Mitch does have a point. An article in Category:Homesteads in Western Australia doesn't need to be manually added to Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia or Category:Station (Australian agriculture) because it's already in those cats by virtue of Category:Homesteads in Western Australia being a subcat of both categories. Similarly, an article in Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia doesn't need to be added manually to Category:Station (Australian agriculture) because it's already in that category by virtue of being in a subcat. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Homesteads" appears to be WA-specific, but a quick check of each Category:Pastoral leases in other_state shows that many of the articles therein are included directly in both Category:Pastoral leases in other_state and Category:Station (Australian agriculture), the former being a subcategory of the latter. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Many Stations are a mix of mostly leasehold but some freehold land, not all of a station is necessarily part of a leasehold. In fact places that were historically named stations in the wheatbelt, south-west and great southern of WA are completely freehold and really just ordinary freeheld farms. The homestead is also a subset of the station (as is the leasehold component). Historically stations derive their names from having depots that sell stores and were basically small settlements. The current categorizations, while maybe not ideal, are suited to the topic. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

At our "Perth" meetup yesterday, we generally agreed that:

• Homesteads are not necessarily on pastoral leases.
• Pastoral leases do not necessarily have homesteads.

Thus Category:Homesteads in Western Australia ought not be a subcategory of Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia, nor vice-versa, but they should be cross-linked with {{Category see also}}.

• The term "station" may have different meanings in different states.

Thus it may be appropriate for Category:Station (Australian agriculture) to be container category containing only state-specific sub-categories Category:Station (Western Australian agriculture), Category:Station (New South Walse agriculture), etc.

Possibly homesteads and pastoral leases ought not be subcategories of Station (state) or vice-versa. Although again, {{Category see also}} links between them may be appropriate.
Possibly Category:Station (state) should be the plural Stations - based on the current contents of Category:Station (Australian agriculture), it looks like a "set category" rather than a "topic category". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've resurrected this discussion from the archive because I think there is still a problem. I'll try to come up with some definite proposals for change soon (or a least before the bot archives it again!) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The current category heirachy is

• Category:Farms in Australia
  • Category:Station (Australian agriculture)
    • Category:Homesteads in Western Australia
      • Category:Lists of homesteads in Western Australia
    • Category:Pastoral leases in New South Wales
    • Category:Pastoral leases in Queensland
    • Category:Pastoral leases in South Australia
    • Category:Pastoral leases in the Northern Territory
    • Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia
      • Category:Homesteads in Western Australia
        • Category:Lists of homesteads in Western Australia

(Note that Homesteads in WA appears twice.)

I propose changing that to:

• Category:Farms in Australia
  • Category:Stations (Australian agriculture) - changed from singular to plural, because it is a set category
  • Category:Homesteads in Western Australia
    • Category:Lists of homesteads in Western Australia
  • Category:Pastoral leases in Australia - new container category
    • Category:Pastoral leases in New South Wales
    • Category:Pastoral leases in Queensland
    • Category:Pastoral leases in South Australia
    • Category:Pastoral leases in the Northern Territory
    • Category:Pastoral leases in Western Australia

If someone wants to create Category:Homesteads in other state, then we could create the container category Category:Homesteads in Australia similar to Pastoral leases in Australia.

Does anyone have an rational objections or better suggestions? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There being no objections, I've made most of the changes, and should finish in the next day or two. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for renaming Category:Station (Australian agriculture) is at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 6#Category:Station (Australian_agriculture). Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The aforementioned category has now been renamed. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Serial Aussie IP vandal

Could someone take care of User:124.168.189.93‎? He's been adding false stuff to articles on a few Sydney rail lines for a while, and clearly the people who've been reverting him don't have the admin permissions to get rid of him. -The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Editors need to warn of such vandalism appropriately. Aside from your request to stop adding incorrect information, the only other warning was a level 4 by Jenks24, who has now blocked the IP for two weeks. At North West Rail Link, the IP had breached 3RR by a significant amount but nobody had reported the IP to WP:AIV or WP:AN3. The editor was using multiple IPs and had actually breached 3RR with this edit but made another 8 reversions over the next 7.5 hours before being blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Making reports at places like WP:AIV or WP:AN3 is not easy, and is certainly not an obvious pathway. For as long as our processes remain as arcane as they are, these types of misdemeanours will often stay unreported. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

AIV reports are incredibly easy to make with a tool like Twinkle, which also warns the offending editor, both of which I did last night.[21][22][23] Twinkle also does AN3 reports, although I prefer to use the AN3 helper tool in concert with a text editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of editors have never heard of Twinkle. I run into repeat vandals in the areas I edit about once in a blue moon. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle does a lot more than vandalism. It's a very handy tool to have, even for such things as removing templates,[24] and replacing a template with a better template.[25] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A regular check of your preferences in your user space can alert you to added facilities to not have to think about looking for a friendly admin - at first instance. Check them out and find what you can do. Also get someone to check your rights, you can access more, the more rights you acquire without having to become or find an admin. Also due process requires going through the levels of warnings, before going to at WP:AIV - satusuro 05:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why it's not worth the hassle of learning about this entire culture just to stop someone adding obvious crap to a few articles. I'm just glad I edit in areas where it comes up just about never. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? what an incredibly defeatist attitude - the place needs defending as well - the entire culture is hardly a problem if you are given a few more rights and take a few minutes to look inside your preferences list - a few minutes and you could be better equipped... satusuro 06:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm with The Drovers Wife here. It's ridiculously easy to see idiotic vandalism. It's much harder to do something about apart from simply reverting. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What a sad day for Australian wikipedia - we have so few regular editors left, and the ones who are seen intermittently look as if they dont even know where their preferences are, or the simplest process of taking time to go through the sequence to get problem editors blocked. Oh well, maybe someone will forget to turn out the light. satusuro 06:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You missed my point. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is hard or difficult about giving warnings and going to AIV? satusuro 06:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And show me the active admins on the Australian project.... and top 10 active editors... are there any? satusuro 06:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If there aren't enough people keen to use the tools you so love, the fault could be with those people, or with our tools and processes. You can't change all those non-interested people all that easily, so maybe the tools and processes need to change. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. If you've got systems in place with the intention of trying to be polite to people blatantly trashing the place that, in practice, are too difficult for many regular editors to navigate, then that's a system that probably could do with being a bit more welcoming to the editors. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of not biting the newbies, even an editor who has been around for a while can be a "newbie" when it comes to specific areas, such as dealing with vandalism. I am certainly one of them. There is a significant learning curve associated with this, and I don't think insulting people who raise the question is the most helpful, respectful or productive approach. Instead, what can be done to make the processes simpler, or better explained, or more accessable? --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: You don't have to start out at the very polite level 1 warnings - eg the vandalism warnings range from {{uw-vandalism1}} to {{uw-vandalism4im}}. See WP:UWLS#Levels for more info.

@Gronk Oz: what can be done to make the processes simpler, or better explained, or more accessable? Use Twinkle. It makes processes semi-automated and actually quite easy – rollback multiple edits in one go, automatically open the user's/ip's talk page, and warn them by selecting options from a GUI. Plus lots of other features to make life easier for other areas of Wikipedia, eg CSD nominations, adding tags such as {{globalise}}, requesting page protection, and more.

Also, this isn't really the place to discuss reforming the processes – widespread issues need to go to a widespread venue, ie the Village pump. - Evad37 [talk] 09:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

All this stuff feels a bit like learning Russian, but I think I've managed to install Twinkle, so I'll see how I go! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle is good. I've only just discovered it yesterday after being pointed there by another editor after attempting my first nomination for deletion.Alans1977 (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD on Ron Manners

An AfD on Ron Manners has been started here. – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

1. Jack Ahearn: de:Gestorben 2012

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be sorted out, de version was wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

College of law

Does this institution have an article on Wikipedia? Should it? It does not appear to be the same as ANU College of Law and it does not seem to be included on List of law schools in Australia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I didnt find sourcing via the lazy ass google/google news checks where I'd expect something, even vaguely reliable for an operating establishment that makes it Notable... Gnangarra 09:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  Surely they must exist if, as claimed on their website, they are the largest provider of practical legal training in Australasia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned in numerous University websites as a provider of post-degree legal training (http://www.unisa.edu.au/Business/Law/About-us/GDLP-and-admission-to-practice/) and news articles (the age, financial review) cover either that they exist, or that they successfully sued ANU over a naming dispute. They are a private company (from what I can see) filling the training gap between law school and legal practice, that I presume used to be covered by entry level jobs elsewhere. Can't find much independent about them other than that they exist and provide this training. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

They're one of only a very small few providers of practical legal training, which is a formal requirement for law graduates to go on to actual legal practice. It's a very small and very important field, and it's one area where private providers are very definitely notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability is defined by policies not by the service they offer no matter how specialized. Gnangarra 09:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Australia at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

www.premierpostal.com

Information taken from premierpostal.com[26] has been added to numerous websites (eg Point Lookout, Queensland, Port Douglas, Queensland, Plainland ). As far as I can tell, this is the commercial website for a philatelic auction house. The auction house has listed post office opening dates, in what I initially assumed was a form of Google bombing. The website doesn't note where it obtained its dates from. There's no evidence of any fact checking process or editorial process either. In fact there's precious little information about the organisation itself.

I've been assured by the editor in question that the website is reliable and used as a bible by Australian philatelists. While I don't have any reason to doubt that, the issue is that I'm not seeing any way to verify that the information is accurate. At this point, as far as I can see they may have been invented by the person who owns and edits the websites.

The whole thing seems to fail as WP:RS. Even if Australian philatelists do know that this information is accurate, I'm not convinced that we should accept Australian articles of a lower standard than articles for other parts of the world just because we are a small group. Being told that I am a pain-in-the-arse newcomer because everyone has let this slide for a decade and it's going to be inconvenient to change it all now hasn't really convinced me otherwise.

So at this stage, it would be really nice if someone could find something that confirms that www.premierpostal.com meets RS. Evidence that the author is an expert in postal history, evidence of fact checking and editorial oversight, evidence that Australian philatelists consider it a Bible. Because failing that it looks like all that material is going to have to be removed from dozens of articles because it's not verifiable.

Thoughts? Mark Marathon (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how much work you do in Australian local history, but it's not a topic that generates a lot of peer-reviewed publications to cite. As stated in WP:SOURCE, "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context". Local history is a field where much of the research is done by passionate hobbyists who are interested in a particular place or a particular topic. A lot of it is self-published because it's not financially viable for a commercial publisher. I've no connection whatsoever with this Premier Postal site or anyone who operates it. But when I first saw User:Crusoe8181's edits, I did take a look at Premier Postal because of the commercial nature of the site. While I would have liked some info about the folks behind the Premier Postal site, the list of sources does suggest that this is a database compiled at substantial effort from a range of reputable sources. The dates I am seeing for post office openings etc seem generally consistent with the area's general establishment, based of other indicators such as school openings, etc. While the development of this database may serve a commercial purpose, it doesn't mean that it still isn't a useful resource for other purposes too. Similarly I often take a look at the editor's contribution profile -- what I see here is an editor with a long track record who has created or contributed a lot of content on places in Australia (and beyond); again, I see nothing that arouses my suspicions. Kerry (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This site is an incredibly comprehensive, detailed, high-quality work, and my numerous attempts to verify things on the site that didn't look right to me at first glance have inevitably wound up in me proving them right and me wrong. It would be nice if it wasn't hosted by a commercial operation, but I don't think that ultimately impacts on its reliability as a source, and it would be an absolutely enormous loss to our coverage of Australian local history - bastardising our coverage of thousands of topics and creating a task that would take a biblical workload to try and replace. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

:A bit of background on the site: in 1988 Gary Watson, John Webster and David Wood (the principal of Premier) published The Post Offices and Hand-Held Datestamps of Victoria Volume 1 (Introduction and A to B) after many years of archival and field research, establishing the operating dates of POs, their location and the details of their postal markings (the latter being somewhat beyond our concern). A few years later volume 2 (C to G) was published. No further volumes were published as they were moved online where they reside today. This is the seminal work on Victorian Post Offices and there is no faintly comparable written work. For the other states the detail is taken from various published works, monographs, journal articles etc as exist and constitute the sum of the most recent research. For Queensland the Joan Frew book is a reasonable alternative as it was published quite recently but even it is outdated as POs have closed/relocated since; for other states the Premier site is the only readily-accessible reliable reference. For those concerned by my role in using the site as a reference may I state that I am a commercial competitor of Premier and see no particular disadvantage to me or advantage to Premier consequent upon my edits, so any thoughts one may have about spamming may be dismissed. My reason for adding PO dates to articles is to corroborate other history details (quite often unreferenced) with concrete referenced detail on the establishment of Australian towns, townships and localities or at least make a start where nothing else has been done. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)>

Just to be clear here people really think a source like this is comprehensive and of use to our readers (it just lists dates)? Perhaps I am missing something here. Why would we not link our readers to real information like here on p16 that actually tlaks about the Port Douglas post office not just some date. We need to think of our readers and the credibility of the sources used - dont send readers on a wild goose chase to find nothing. -- Moxy (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely are missing something. This database means that we can pin down exact opening and closing dates for at least one key piece of infrastructure in every single town in Australia at the click of a button. This is really important information, especially in smaller towns where online sources are scant. It tells us both the time the settlement started to take off and when it entered serious decline. You managed to find one example where the local council had more detailed information, but for the vast majority of Australian towns, this information is not replaceable (at least without an unjustifiable amount of offline research in every single individual case). You're not "thinking of your readers" by removing reliably sourced, very useful information and replacing it with blank space. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If we have other sources with better information, then we can use them, especially for specifics, where often there might be (say) local histories published. Now that Premier Postal's own sources have been explained, then I see no problem making use of their information. Obviously I would prefer that we source our data from more authoritative sites, but if a stamp dealer is all we have, and their data is good, then that's fine. My point about links - which we need for sourcing, obviously - is that each outbound link from a highly-ranked site like Wikipedia raises the search engine profile of the site linked to. Crusoe8181, you are boosting your competitor every time you use them as a source - what a splendid example of selfless editing you set! --Pete (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am not sure about this matter of boosting credibility for search engine purposes. I recall reading somewhere (but of course cannot recall where) that Wikipedia does not allow crawling of citations and external links by search engines, precisely so that it isn't raising their "page rank" so that Wikipedia is therefore not attract to spam in that area. But, as I say, I cannot swear to this because I can't find where I read it. Kerry (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have just been on an intricate and sometimes puzzling journey through SEO policy - I'd never heard of "PageRank sculpting" until a few minutes ago, and I'm not sure that I'm the better for it - but it appears that you are correct. nofollow seems to tell the story that outgoing Wikipedia links do not increase PageRank. --Pete (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WMF-approved IEG-funded research project in Women and Wikipedia seeks women editors for an interview

For details of the project see here:

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_and_Wikipedia

The project seeks women editors who self-identify as a woman on Wikipedia (e.g. on your user page) and have been very active for a least 2+ years or moderately active for 5+ years? The process is painless having done it (one hour interview by phone/Skype/hangout). If you are interested, please contact Amanda Menking amenking@uw.edu Kerry (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Useless editwar over notification of photos

There seems to be a slow edit war over whether or not we should be notified about the existence of a load of new photos uploaded in this category: C:Category:Photographs from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Flickr stream. The user may be banned, but once another user supported keeping their edit it should be left in place, rather than reverting and rereverting several times. User:Russavia has been blocked for over a year now on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Russavia is banned by the community, that ban was reconfirmed only a couple of weeks ago at WP:AN/I policy is that banned editors dont have the right to edit all edits should be reverted, those restoring the edits of banned users can be considered as WP:Meatpuppets. Gnangarra 13:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That sort of reasoning gives us logic that anti-war protesters are allied to terrorists. Pure rubbish. If the photos can be of use, why would you remove notification of them? Just because the notification is from a banned user? I don't see any sort of logic to that. Alans1977 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: so I expect that you will not be using a single image which has been permission obtained by Russavia, or which he has successfully had relicenced, or which he has uploaded. Perhaps you should take things one further, and nominate every image Russavia has uploaded to Commons for deletion, so that his name needn't be seen on this project again. As the IP below notes, you have taken the meatpuppet guideline and bastardised it for your own selfish reasons. 109.74.200.208 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

if there is an image made available by someone in good faith under a suitable license thats been upload on commons which is appropriate for an article I'll use it. This has nothing to do with Commons or activities on Commons this is purely that a user has been banned from this project for violation of policy, and the ban was only recently reconfirmed at an/i during that discussion the use of IPs by the banned user was noted. Gnangarra 09:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite sad to see this from an administrator, Gnangarra. WP:MEATPUPPETS probits recruiting new editors to influence decisions, and threatens sanctions against a new editor who "engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose," or against "editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement." Yet somehow to you this seems to mean that anyone who, on their own initiative, restores something Russavia did is a meatpuppet, which both a blatant disregard of WP:AGF and a thinly veiled threat. You either don't know what the term means, or are just making shit up to push an agenda. Either is disturbing. 180.94.64.78 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that the policy regarding edits made by and on behalf of banned editors is WP:BANREVERT. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How to delete a list of issues at the top of a Wikipedia page?

Hi there, I have been given the task of updating Victoria University's (Melbourne, Australia) entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_University,_Australia), and someone has added a list of 'issues' at the top of the entry. I want to delete this list as part of the copy update but do not know how. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Below is the 'issues' copy I would like to delete:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2013) This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (November 2013) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (November 2013)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.245 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

These can be removed when those particular issues have been addressed. If you like, if you save your update without removing the template, I can have a look and see which ones can go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Each of those issues was placed there by previous editors who thought that the article had problems. Fix the problems and you can delete the issue. BUT, if you are related, or employed by the University, then you MUST read and comply with the WP:COI guidelines. You shouldn't be making any controversial or "cleansing" edits. A neutral point of view is required, which can be difficult or impossible if you are associated with the subject of the article. If in doubt, post your suggested edits to the arictle's talk page. And thank you for your disclosure here, but it would be best if you created an account here, and stated your COIs on your user page. The account doesn't have to be your real name, pseudonyms are allows (as my name and Drover's wife show!) but you can't have anything that looks like a shared account - it must be personal to you and only you. Please reply here or on my talk page if you have any more questions. The-Pope (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article "appears to be written like an advertisement" and that you "have been given the task of updating" then I feel like these two things are related... As previously mentioned, Wikipedia has quite extensive conflict of interest guidelines and most importantly, these say that you should not be directly articles on behalf of your employer in a way that is anything other than mere fact-correcting. If you want to more than that then you should place your suggestions on the 'talk' page and see what people say about them - declaring your affiliation to the organisation in the process. Best, Wittylama 11:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Renaming Port Fairy railway line

I've put a move request on the Port Fairy railway line, and I'd appreciate any feedback there. This line is one of the major regional lines in Victoria, but it closed past Warrnambool decades ago, and the track past there was torn up decades ago. It's always seemed very odd to me that we have an article on one of Victoria's major railway lines named after a town that has been linked to the actual railway line by twenty kilometres of grass since well before I was born. I think this would be thoroughly confusing to most people under the age of about fifty without a knowledge of railway history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Australian rock" music article in need of knowledgeable editors

The "Australian rock" article needs the assistance of editors knowledgeable about Australian rock history. It covers a lot of breadth, but suffers form a severe lack of sourcing and sloppy writing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ping User:Shaidar cuebiyar and User:Dan arndt, our Aussie muso experts. The-Pope (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Damien Miller

Just FYI! (t) Josve05a (c) 19:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This one has been promoted, but I've raised the general issue of rewarding banned editors for creating socks by nominating their articles for DYK. - Bilby (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe is a topic we can have an RfC about Bilby? (t) Josve05a (c) 11:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

RfCs can't override policy, and WP:BMB is the applicable policy. It is clear that articles created by banned users should be deleted on sight, though I sort-of agree with Tiptoety (talk · contribs)'s decision to reinstate the article per WP:IAR given that the subject is clearly notable (I disagree with their assessment that it had been the subject of significant edits from others though). Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Brands

Pacific Brands has been subject to considerable WP:COI editing over the past couple of weeks. I reverted it all and then reverted myself because I thought I was a bit heavy handed. I invite others to look it over.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree it's COI but on the other hand I don't think what was done was too bad. Most of the changes appear to be factual (location of HQ) and addition of dates and citations. There was no removal of the "controversial" content. Personally I don't have a problem with the images you removed in your last edit. I think for a lot of readers making the visual association between a branded store they may have seen in a shopping centre and the company which owns it is quite helpful. And every article is better for having a few photos. OK, I'd rather they didn't use naked URL for citations, but at least it is much better cited than it was. I agree we need to keep an eye on these COI situations but I don't think this is a "puffery" or "whitewash". Kerry (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia Govt Works (URAA) or not

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PRA1953.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=584430798

Stefan2 says this was restored, but applying the same logic that was used for British and Canadian items, I am assuming good faith about Australian crown copyright expiring globally. Does anyone want to get an offical response lodged in OTRS? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

List of people who have run across Australia

Article is apparently experiencing a rip-roaring edit war (dispute over particular participants) and could use some watching/intervention as needed. Dl2000 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The edit war is about the inclusion of Sarah Mycroft to the article. If you follow this sort of stuff, (the sport of running) your input would be greatly appreciated. I have started a discussion on the talk page.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiWednesday in Sydney this week

Hi, this Wednesday there will be a WP:WikiWednesday at the Australian Paralympic Committee HQ (Sydney Olympic Park).

5:30-8:30, come any time. FREE PIZZA ;-)

Signup at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/July 2014.

If you're coming late, let us know and we'll put some pizza aside for you. ;-)

Please please please come if you can make it. There will be a lot of APC staff and colleagues, and help is desperately needed.

p.s. we had a smaller workshop on Sunday at the end of round 1 of Women's National Wheelchair Basketball League . See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/20 July 2014 for details of that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey John. Help doing what? What will the APC staff/colleagues be trying to do? --99of9 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

user:99of9, they need help editing Wikipedia; uploading photos to Commons; etc, etc. The Commonwealth Games begins the following day, the Wikipedia page for the event barely mentions Para Sports, and I'm pretty sure 90% of the para sport participant bios dont mention they are competing in the Comm Games. Also, Para Sport competitors often are reclassified just before a major event to reflect changes, so that is another type of edit to the bios that are needed otherwise we are confusing the reader with outdated info. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

PD Australia Images tagged for Commons

Firstly a link, Catscan

Hi, the {{PD-Australia}} license tag was recently updated to take into account restored copyrights (in relation to URAA). With this in mind a review was being undertaken of images that were tagged for commons to ensure they were actually safe to transfer. In the process I was also attempting to expand on the information in the descriptions (and fix a few source links that seemed broken..)

However, it's taking a little longer than expected and I would appreciate the assistance of contributors that are more familiar with the subject matter to help clear the backlog.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been seeing the URAA stuff come up a lot but this is the first time I've seen it in specific relation to Australian content. I fully admit I've not done my homework-reading on the topic of how URAA works on Commons, and I understand it's still highly contested (n.b. the recent debates on Wikimedia-l about the Israeli government PD images being deleted from Commons due to URAA). But... can I ask a simple question: is the new magic number for PD-Australian images to upload to commons "1946"?? It used to be that we could clearly remember "any Aussie photos prior to 1955" was ok, is that now "any Aussie photos prior to 1946" instead? Wittylama 08:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Essentialy, yes. However, I seem to recall someone saying Australian Govt images were subject to a 'They won't enforce' rule. Was this official confirmed to OTRS? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

based on commons discussion, pre 1946 is PD, the period between 1946 and 1955 is being deleted there as recent cases in the US have ruled that copyright has been restored in the US as of the URAA date of 1996 and therefore dont comply with the Commons requirement of free in country of origin and US. As WP servers are also in the US we still need to follow US copyright but we have free use provisions here... For images after 1945 and prior to 1955 use the PD-Australia template here and also include a fair use rationale noting that PD in Australia isnt a sufficient reason under current policy.... When the URAA provisions were first being implimented there was a requirement that for copyright to be restored the works had to have been registered in the US(there was even site that had them listed) but recent court decisions have made that requirement unnecessary. ... The Israeli issue has similar circumstances but a greater effect on the Hebrew WP which didnt have local uploads and who's policies where based according to Israeli law, its a problem many other language wikis face ... Gnangarra 09:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO: copyright is an issue which we can only guess at and make our own interpretations what it really needs is a more definitive directive from the WMF legal eagles on these issues. Gnangarra 09:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Marshall

This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

association football (soccer)

See talk:Australia national association football team where the usage of "soccer" or "association football" is under discussion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)