Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 61

< Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Daceyvillain in topic Daceyvillain - Eastern Suburbs (Sydney)
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63

RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago125 comments41 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is not a firm consensus one way or another, although discounting or devaluing some of the responses in the survey as clearly at odds with the MOS/Guidelines or having no policy based rationale there is a weak consensus towards supporting the inclusion. Reading through the responses it does become clear, however, that there is a stronger consensus for inclusion when the name is used and reliably sourced. Now what exactly constitutes used is going to be a tough nut to crack in some circumstances, but that's for individual talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


Should the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names for locations be included in the lead and infobox of articles? Poketama (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Clarifying note: This is not an attempt to create a blanket rule. It is to clarify if this could or should be done, pending further discussion on the details. Poketama (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Poketama: you should've left the RFC tag in place, until it expired (which would've been about the end of June). By removing it on June 15, you potentially prevented 'more' input from those who didn't or don't have this notice board on their watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know I followed the RfC guidelines. Sorry if you feel like any ideas were excluded, doing my best! Poketama (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Why is alternative name policy (WP:OTHERNAMES) along with guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Emphasis not enough here? My reading of policy is that these names are likely to be in most situations culturally “significant”, and NCPLACE is clear enough about other languages. If the place has a clear indigenous name, it should be included, whether in prose, a parenthetical or a footnote. — HTGS (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    To expand: I, like Aircorn above, have strong reservations about blanket rules. These sorts RFCs tend to be interpreted by some as allowing, and by others as requiring these names. I support the application of OTHERNAMES for nationally significant languages, and especially for ethnically significant places; however, I also oppose the creation of any new standard that requires indigenous names for every Australian place. Similarly, any discussion here that decides against including indigenous names (a ban of sorts) would likely be in opposition to OTHERNAMES, which is disallowed per WP:CONLEVEL.
    Realistically this RFC is poorly formed, and should either be elevated to discussion on clarifying OTHERNAMES at WP:AT's talk, or discussed per case at each page. Much of the opposition here appears to be around whether or not certain names are appropriately applied to certain places (and thus their Wikipedia articles). These discussions are best made at the article level, page by page. (For those arguments, I support including names which may not apply literally to the place, but with explanatory notes that advise readers of how these names are and have been used.) — HTGS (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    If there is a more effective and faster way to solve this matter, it'd be great if you could assist in doing that. Discussing the initial issue of if this is allowed on each talk page is not really an option, it's what has been done so far and it devolves into edit wars. This RfC while maybe flawed is as far as we've got with this long-standing issue, because no one seems to know how to or be willing to navigate the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Poketama (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Poketama were RFCs called at these contentious articles?
    I appreciate the desire to elevate the question, but it feels like the questions involved in these cases are more specific than should indigenous names be mentioned in the lead?, with the underlying question being closer to: Does this indigenous name refer to the relevant area or place, and can we confirm this with reliable sources?. I am speculating a little here, as I haven't looked into any of this more than skimming the above discussion, so please correct me if I'm seeing the problem wrong. — HTGS (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah that is only one part of the problem. There are multiple editors within this RfC and across other discussions who have repeatedly reverted any changes that include Indigenous names in the lead because they don't agree with the concept of including them at all. Yes there is policy to show that this is allowed, but I am unaware of what to do if users keep ignoring the policy.
    The question you are asking about does need to be explored and answered, but the fundamental question is a recurring issue that has drawn all work to a standstill. Poketama (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are 100 doubts, discussions, definition problems, spelling problems (different aboriginal names for the same), source problems, technical problem and 100 more problems with aboriginal names. First problem: Australian cities did not have an official Aboriginal name as native even for a single day. Aboriginal names apply to areas and regions, not cities, and cannot function as native names for cities. According the standards, including an example of the city of Gdańsk / Danzig in Wikipedia:Manual of Style: Danzig was official name of the city. The area where the city of Gdańsk / former Danzig is Polish "pl:Kaszuby" (region). Article of Gdańsk will never show name of "Kaszuby" as native name for city because this is name for historical region, not a city. A perfect other example is New York City above: if New York City lies in an area that 500 years ago was called "The Great Swamp", it does not mean that in an article about New York you should write: "New York City (formerly The Great Swamp) - city in the United States... (...)". It doesn't matter what the Indians (Native Americans) called the region, the city is a different entity. The Aboriginal name "Gabi" refers to certain areas where Sydney is situated, does not mean that "Gabi" = "Sydney". Sydney is city, "Gabi" is Aboriginal name for area. Second problem: it has already been noticed before that the introduction of Aboriginal names on a mass scale is ethno-political. Even a few users argue it this way, like "part of redress for past wrongs is the rediscovery of names and their reapplication". In addition, almost all (several dozen) countries of New World (like Australia) do not use the indigenous name for area in the first sentence of the article about cities. Third problem:: if there are 20 sources: 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as area / region and 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as a city, we are not allowed to choose just 10 sources that are in line with your point of view and you are not allowed to enter name of "Gabi" only as a city (in intro or/and infobox) relying only on the sources you choose, which are in line with your own opinion. This is breach fundamental rules of Wikipedia, i.e. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the city of Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area), it is too controversial and obscure to use the name in the intro or / and infobox in the article of the city. Fourth problem: cities in Australia have a complicated definition. For example "Perth". The word of "Perth" is an ambiguous word, there are sources that describe them as a City of Perth, region, statistical unit definied by Australian Bureau of Statistics, Perth (suburb), Greater Perth, Perth metropolitan region. So, even if exist source who wrote "Perth (Boorloo)" it is not known what version Perth is written about. In addition, there are sources using this Aboriginal name for City of Perth (LGA), not Perth metropolis. This quote says a lot: "There is no equivalent Noongar terminology for the Perth metropolitan area; it is sited primarily on Whadjuk country, which extends approximately[note 1] north to Two Rocks, south to Mandurah, and east as far as York.[17][18][19] Boorloo (also transcribed as Boorlo or Burrell) referred to Point Fraser[20][21] in East Perth, and means "big swamp",[21] which describes the whole chain of lakes where the CBD and Northbridge are sited.[22] As is the case with Perth, depending on the context Boorloo can denote[citation needed][improper synthesis?] the central business district,[23][24] the local government area,[25] or the capital city in general". So, we have a purely technical problem here, we cannot use the Aboriginal name in the first sentence and infobox of main article of Perth because the Aboriginal name refers to other/different types of Perth. This is just one example, there are probably several dozen such debatable matters. Next problem: a new idea must meet the requirements Wikipedia:Core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (incuding WP:SYNTHESIS) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Core content policies "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". Considering Perth case, some of these rules have been broken, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability (the sources have been questioned because the name refers to different things) and Wikipedia:No original research]] incuding WP:SYNTHESIS (synthesis - an attempt to explain the problem based on various sources). Many Australian cities has problems with the Aboriginal name. Now, big problem is Aboriginal name of Brisbane, see: Talk:Brisbane/Archive 6#Meanjin (and other spellings). Problem in Sydney name, there are two names: Dharug: Gadi;] Greater Sydney, Dharug: Eora. Two aboriginal names in first sentence of the most important (in the World) Australian city? ...and more issues in Talk:Sydney#sydney name. Previously also Perth (Talk:Perth#Aboriginal_name - problem solved - Aboriginal name removed from first sentence). Similar problems will be in dozens of articles. First sentence of article or infobox is not a place for controversial and very debatable things. The Etymology or History sections may be used to describe these names. Using The Etymology or History sections for Aboriginal names is the best compromise. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No: needs more discussion - This is not a Yes/No question. It is poorly phrased and takes way too much for granted. We should be guided by established Wikipolicy on placenames and reliable sources etc. In some cases we have Indigenous placenames that were noted by the European settlers even though they chose to name a settlement after some British notable or an English descriptive name. Although pre-colonial Australians did not have permanent settlements, in some cases their name for a geographical location can be more or less directly equated with the modern city, or even the original tiny settlement. Sydney has been many sizes over the years but at any time we may point to what is generally accepted as the settlement/village/town/city/urban conglomeration known as Sydney regardless of what parish, council or administrative name it might have had. We cannot be petty and nitpicking in throwing out all Indigenous names.
On the other hand, some names have no historical sourcing, or refer to areas that are not recognisably equivalent to modern settlements, or are just plain wrong. How many of us are authorities on such matters? We need reliable sources and I suggest that if we accept a modern source such as a city council or a heritage board or whatever, we need to look at what their sources are rather than say that these groups in themselves are knowledgeable in the relevant Indigenous languages, culture, and history.
Contemporary Australians of Indigenous ancestry - if we are looking at race or ethnicity as some sort of fundamental way to pigeon-hole people, a dangerous and unreliable basis - are also overwhelmingly people of European ancestry as well, and more importantly are not the same people as those who were around before the British arrived and took the place over. If we are looking at culture, then it is worth noting that we are having this discussion in English, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and I feel on safe ground in saying that everyone in this discussion is fluent in English, is comfortable with modern computing and communication technologies and is in every respect a person grounded in modern Western culture. Merely having Indigenous ancestry does not make any one of us an authority. Wikopedia welcomes editors of all backgrounds but we still need good sourcing for our content.
Should we have Indigenous placenames in lead and infobox? No, not as a blanket rule because then we are going to have editors whose mission in life is to tick that box no matter what. We've all been around long enough to recognise the level of obsession displayed by some editors. But also Yes because there are some situations where the indigenous name is well-sourced and appropriate.
To be in the lede and infobox I think we need something special. Something like "Gdansk/Danzig", "Istanbul/Constantinople", or "St Petersburg/Leningrad". Otherwise include it in the history or naming section where it is appropriate and uncontroversial. We shouldn't throw away useful information - we are an encyclopaedia, after all - but nor should we give that information prominence it doesn't deserve. --Pete (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia has clear guidelines that allows for Alternative Names, specifically mentioning 'historical names, and significant names in other languages'. Where these names can be appropriately referenced as applying to a specific location, it is entirely appropriate and in-keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines to include them. Not including Aboriginal names as alternative names seems to be based on the mistaken idea that these are historical cultures that have not maintained continued connection to land and language, when that is not the case. Automatically relegating Aboriginal names to Etymology/History sections where they are clear alternative names for locations in use promulgates an idea that these names are purely historical rather than in continuous use. The Logical Positivist (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    promulgates an idea that these names are purely historical rather than in continuous use: Most Aboriginal languages are no longer in daily use, and for a specific word for a specific location, this would be even less so. That idea you're concerned about promulgating would appear to be largely accurate, no? Endwise (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    While a significant number of Aboriginal languages have been lost as a result of colonisation,there are a number still in use - the National Indigenous Languages report found that 123 Aboriginal languages are still in use in Australia. There are quite a number of schools that are teaching local Aboriginal languages to primary and high school students now too. So it is certainly not the case that Aboriginal names are purely a historical matter. The Logical Positivist (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    They're not purely historical in every case, but in most cases it would seem to me they would be names not used regularly by anyone. Regardless though, I think this cuts to the point of the RFC -- If some of these are historical and some aren't, why should there be a blanket rule for all Australian articles if the Aboriginal language altnames are of differing significance? Or even better, why does there need to be Australia-specific rules beyond what is given in MOS:ALTNAME/WP:NCPLACE? Endwise (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    The simplest answer to that question is that MOS:ALTNAME has been repeatedly ignored or disputed by editors opposed to the question in this RfC. My argument would be that there is not a need for more specific rules, as inclusion of Indigenous names, historical or otherwise, is already approved by MOS:ALTNAME. So this is more about clarifying whether that is the case. Poketama (talk) Poketama (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – If the Indigenous name is a genuine alternative name, then yes, but if it is historical or not clearly or commonly used, it belongs in § History or § Etymology. As mentioned by other editors above, even if these names are used by Indigenous people today putting them in the infobox or lead can be undue importance in many cases. I also echo concerns that this RfC is not well-phrased, since this is not a binary issue. The reasons raised in opposition to this proposal are serious and with merit, and the discussion hasn't fully addressed the many cases they apply to. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have some further comments to make after seeing other editors' responses. Anybody arguing something along the lines of "we ought to do this to acknowledge history/change views" should consult WP:NOTASOAPBOX. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to change views but to reflect them. I've also had difficulty finding any example of Indigenous place names that are currently used to refer to a city. The examples I've encountered are all historical in nature. They are not alternative names, and we should not present them as such. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    The more I consider this, the more convinced I am that no Indigenous place names should be in the lead or infobox. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia. We are on the English Wikipedia. Indigenous place names have hardly any recognition in everyday language and communication. The value of adding these names to the lead or infobox would be minimal and would palce undue importance on what is by any objective measure an incredibly niche name. These names belong only in § History or § Etymology depending on their present usage. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    I know I have already made three comments on this RfC so far but I feel as though another is warranted. The real issue here seems not to be "should alternative names be in the infobox/lead". It doesn't seem (at least to me) like the editors opposing this are arguing that Indigenous place names are alternative names but shouldn't be in the lead. It's the issue of whether they are alternative names to begin with that is the problem. Consider the naming convention for geographic places, which states: Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out. If there are more names than this, or the lead section is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. Consider also MOS:ALTNAME, which states Archaic names, including names used before the standardization of English orthography should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name), and should not be placed in the first sentence. I have not encountered a single Indigenous name (during this discussion or elsewhere) which meets the standard of "used significantly often". It's less the question of "do we include alternative names" and more a question of "are Indigenous names alternative names". The answer to the first, which most in support appear to be addressing, is unamibously yes. The answer to the second, in my opinion, is a resounding no. I am unconvinced by the arguments to the contrary that have been presented here. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as per the usual guidelines for alternative names, where these are solidly sourced. This has been one of the more troublingly racist discussions (at least from certain quarters) that I've come across on Wikipedia in a long time and so I've steered clear of jumping into the fray, but ultimately, the answer lies in cutting the emotion out of it and going back to the guidance in MOS:ALTNAME. I'd also add that some of these !votes (especially the red-named new accounts) seem to have political opinions that directly contradict Wikipedia naming policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Why must we always poison the well with the racist card. Aircorn (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - As referenced above, this issue is a policy issue that is already clear. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says that "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted". As far as I see it, any further necessary discussion is around the legitimacy of sources and how this information is written, not about the legitimacy of the inclusion. For the sake of it I'll argue a few points:
Opposing argument #1 - There can be multiple spellings of Aboriginal placenames and multiple names and this makes it impossible to include these names.
Counter-argument - It is true that this is an issue, but not that it precludes including the names. Spellings are something that are often still being sorted out, but I don't believe spelling issues should disqualify the content. As for multiple names, it is standard in many Aboriginal cultures to have multiple names for a place and all names should be included. Multiple names in a lead is acceptable in the MOS.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322413717_Multiple_Aboriginal_placenames_in_western_and_central_Victoria
Opposing argument #2 - The name should only be included if its an official name.
Counter-argument - There hasn't really been any reason or policy given for this argument. However, this stipulation would wipe out virtually all Indigenous placenames which would not fit with a balanced NPOV. It is inherently political if a government adopts an Indigenous placename, and this is very unlikely to happen in many places. However, the government's decision not to make a name official does not mean the name is not in use.
Opposing argument #3 - Aboriginal names apply to areas and regions and so there cannot also be the same native names for cities.
Counter-argument - This is logically incorrect. The City of Port Phillip is in the same area as Port Phillip Bay. Both share the same common name, as well as a number of other current and historical regions known as Port Phillip. In the same way, metropolitan Melbourne is referred to as Naarm by contemporary Aboriginal communities, despite the historical usage of Naarm to refer to Port Phillip Bay. If it can be shown that an Aboriginal name is in use for a city, this argument isn't enough to deny that fact.
There is also further argument that is not settled about whether the seperation of a historical region from a current region or city is reasonable at all. One user above has mentioned that Gadi refers to the region that Sydney now occupies. Another user has argued that Sydney is a settlement that continued on from and merged with the existing Aboriginal settlement and community. In my opinion, Sydney is inseperable from the region known as Gadi. They are both regional terms, referring to the same location. Sydney, the city, is inseperable from Sydney, the region. In the same way that Gadi, the settlement, is inseperable from Gadi, the region.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Phillip_(disambiguation)
Opposing argument #4 - Indigenous names are not used in other countries articles and this is evidence that they shouldn't be used here.
Counter-argument - I have not been shown policy that shows that this kind of comparison is appropriate for deciding policy. In any case, Australia's closest neighbor New Zealand uses Indigenous placenames extensively. New Zealand has a fundamentally similar culture and history to Australia and if we are comparing precedents, it is a far better example than Poland or the USA.
Opposing argument #5 - This feels like a political issue and Wikipedia shouldn't get involved.
Counter-argument - This issue has the potential to be influenced by politics. It does not mean that it cannot be sorted out through looking at existing policy. If a name can be backed up with sources, it should be included. The decision to scrap the whole idea entirely would not be removing the politics from the situation - it would be an example of supporting Systemic Bias and a lack of NPOV. This is because it would lead to only including the position taken by European opposers to the policy, which is to only have the European name.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Opposing arguments #6 - Various statements around what constitutes a reliable source for inclusion of a name.
Counter-argument - This is something that needs to be looked at and worked out. I believe as a community we can work out what is acceptable sourcing to show that these names have been used by Aboriginal communities. This is not an insurmountable issue and should not preclude a wider policy of including Indigenous placenames if they are well-sourced. Poketama (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support As per MOS:ALTNAME, as the resource of knowledge that Wikipedia is, it is very appropriate that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names for locations are included in the lede and infoboxes. How wonderful to have this layer of history and references available to the readers who want to know more. (From MOS:ALTNAME - 'When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.) I look forward to the discussions about suitable referencing although I can't see this to be different from any other statement of fact within Wikipedia. Pakoire (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already have suitable guidelines for this, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Emphasis and MOS:ALTNAME. Implementing a blanket rule that prevents editors from considering the specifics of an article is unhelpful WP:RULECREEP - particularly since no editor in support of this proposal has explained why these guidelines are inadequate. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    • The nominator has clarified that This is not an attempt to create a blanket rule. I oppose any attempt to create a blanket rule, but I support the use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names where appropriate, such as at Port Phillip Bay. However, I oppose any change to guidelines, as the current wording already supports the use when appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support MOS:ALTNAME already expects the inclusion of the names in parenthesis, these names are clearly significant otherwise we wouldn't be having a month long discussion about them twice a year, but also the names are in current use and increasingly used among the non-Indigenous community also as the names begin to gain recognition. There was the New Zealand example earlier in the discussion too which works just fine. It doesn't take anything away from the articles to include a few words in parenthesis, it absolutely creates an opportunity to increase reader engagement because they may not have known about the cultural history of the places and the continuing diversity of the places. In a similar note, Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, and including the names is an opportunity to share knowledge which improves understanding of the places and their cultural diversity & what makes the places what they are today.
As much as I would love to include the names everywhere, and wish Wikipedia had a way of handling oral history given what happened to my ancestors (for example, my grandfather would refuse to write things down in fear of his & our safety, only telling us knowledge orally), I completely understand the need for verifiable sources, so as long as the names have sources, I strongly support their inclusion in parenthesis. I'd caution against relegating them to history because we still exist and we still use the names, it's not ancient history. GadigalGuy (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • New Zealand is being offered as an example. The problem with that is that the Maori had a civilisation with settlements and strongly-defined names. They farmed the land and it was important to them what usage specific pieces of land had. The British settlements can be more or less precisely mapped onto pre-existing Maori settlements where the names can be reliably sourced using contemporary records. That wasn't the case here in Australia where there were no Aboriginal settlements at all. Not saying that's a good or bad thing just that there's a massive problem in sourcing that doesn't exist in New Zealand. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how that situation is much different? Maori people did not have their own writing system, and there is information that shows Aboriginal settlements including with stone dwellings, aquaculture, and agriculture. For example: Budj Bim heritage areas Poketama (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - {My statement is currently being composed... to my standards... *grumble*(oh how I hate my standards!!)*grumble*} IronBattalion (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:ALTNAME and the many detailed arguments made above. The arguments against including suitably verified Indigenous place names are not persuasive. Issues around the sourcing and applicability of specific place names can certainly get complicated, but that kind of complexity is best dealt with through the ordinary process of collaborative editing. -- Visviva (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - MOS:ALTNAME is pretty clear that this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but it does seem as though it's worth having that spelled out somewhere for this specific context to avoid any ambiguity. New Zealand's articles are a great example of how this can work in practice. Turnagra (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
UTC)
  • Strong Support - as per the reasons outlined by others above. The native name of places is an option in infoboxes pertaining to towns and cities (among other landmarks). I’m shameless in that, in my view, Wikipedia should be used as a means to shift the overton window, which has already been shifting within the last few years when it comes to the acknowledgment of indigenous history of the land but it’s not about being ‘woke’ either. It’s about acknowledging history that, whether you agree or not, has been actively pushed into obscurity and whitewashed. If the indigenous name of a place can be verified and backed up by a source (which may not always be possible as, as another editor mentioned, Aboriginal languages are oral rather than written), it should be included in the infobox under the common name of that place in addition to being expanded upon in the history section. Geelongite (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – The rules are clear: MOS:ALTNAME says "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." and WP:NCPLACE says "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses" and "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." And yet incredibly some opposers are citing these very guidelines as supporting their opposition! I do think this needs a nuanced, possibly case-by-case approach, with appropriate referencing, and most importantly that the name or names are confirmed as appropriate/accurate traditional names by the relevant Indigenous Australians (land council, Aboriginal corporation, etc.), and the language is known, and ideally that it has significant contemporary use. I wouldn't support an absolutist approach of every article with a "known" name having it in the article, but I don't think anyone, including the post that kicked off the discussion, is actually suggesting or proposing that. The small number of opposers are advocating for an absolutist approach of no traditional names in the lead or infobox ever – there seems to be no level of referencing they will accept; no willingness to compromise on their position or cooperate to reach an acceptable consensus; no good faith for those who disagree with them to the extent that accusations of vandalism, destruction and activism are made regularly. Even worse they suggest actual Indigenous Australians have a "bias" and should not be commenting on their own language. They repeatedly appeal to "logic" rather than referencing their own arguments (hard to prove a negative I suppose), or cite strange interpretations of the rules mentioned above (such as that alternative names must be in English) or of historical documents. Lastly, they seem compelled to reply to every single opposing comment on multiple talk pages, blowing out these discussions to epic proportions, so thanks to @Poketama: for trying to organise a comprehensible RFC and move replies and rebuttals to a threaded discussion section. --Canley (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The good news is that wiki policy and wiki guidelines cover this topic well, meaning there is no need to waste time debating what to do. The bad news is that many editors , in good faith I am certain, are desperate to ignore those rules and inject as many articles as possible with their own personal opinions. Look at this comment that displays a predetermined decision based on personal opinion. "This is important information to Aboriginal peoples is lost when these names aren't represented". I agree, but so what? I should add that there is an enormous misunderstanding of wiki rules. Here, for example, from mos:altname used to justify indiginous names in the lead: 'When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.). This means significant alternative names in the English language, not significant to the indiginous group or to the editor who wants to promote their cause. That is why Danzig is significant and can be put in the lead but Roma is not, so we stick with just Rome.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger - The article for Rome does, in fact, present Roma as an alternative name in the lead sentence.The Logical Positivist (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
My understanding of this discussion is that it is being disputed whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names should ever be used in the first sentence as an alternative name. The two positions being forward are, it seems to me, that they should be included as an alternative name when the name appropriately applies and can be sufficiently referenced; while the counterargument is that they should never be used as alternative names. As there is a clear Wikipedia guideline on this that with MOS:ALTNAME that provides for 'historical names, and significant names in other languages', it is still unclear to me why we would not follow that policy for Australia, as can be seen in plenty of examples for places in New Zealand and South Africa. To treat Aboriginal names as somehow lesser seems highly inappropriate to me. The Logical Positivist (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Roger, let me quote the line from MOS:ALTNAME you just quoted to us: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." You seem to have some strong opinions that just aren't supported by policy, and Wikipedia isn't a place to push your particular ideological barrow. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Roger 8 Roger Your position seems to misinterpret the MOS. English names have prominence and are usually the only ones that should be used for article titles, but alternate names in other languages within the first sentence are almost universal. See: Beijing, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Tokyo, Japan, Wellington, Ireland, New Zealand, and so on. Poketama (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger, If you’re going to quote me, quote me fully. Don’t misrepresent an entire argument by selectively quoting. Not only were two books linked in the quote you draw from, but I also said that there are multiple reasons for including Aboriginal place-names, and I continued, “Regardless of how one feels about Indigenous histories of place, this is information that should be included in an encyclopedia entry that is discussing the history of/information about a place.” Other editors have also clearly shown you why and how MOS:Altname fits here, and have given you multiple examples of it in action. —Hobomok (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
First, my Rome example was not a good one, so yes I made a mistake, so sorry. Second, just because very many articles put the foreign name of a place in the title, does not make it correct - wikipedia is not a source. The only reason why it can be justified under wiki rules is if that foreign name is significant. Take a step back and consider. Significant in what context? Significant to the speakers of that language perhaps, or significant to English speakers only in some limited cases. The second I suggest is what it means for obvious reasons: this is an English language encyclopedia. Now also consider the malaise of copy-cat mass standardisation that afflicts wikipedia. That habit could well have led to all these foreign indigenous names being inserted without question. Example where a foreign alternative name is justified in the lead would be Bruges/Brugge or Falklands/Malvinas because both are significantly relevant to English speakers. Thus, no, I do not think I have misinterpreted the guidelines, rather some editors here have. I have no issue with indigenous names being used in the article, just not in the lead or infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
MOS:ALTNAME specifically makes clear that significant names in other languages go in the lead and editors have cited a huge amount of examples of that guidance being in use on some of the busiest place articles on Wikipedia, so trying to define that guidance out of existence (for example, it says absolutely nothing about being significant to English speakers only) won't fly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Close as bad RfC: Per HTGS and Aircorn. As I said above, if there is an indigenous name for the city in use amoung the indigenous people and that can be backed up with reliable sources then the name should be placed in parenthesis next to the primary name as per the alternative names policy. HTGS is quite right: this RfC can be interpretted as either allowing or requiring a name to be added, and that WP:OTHERNAMES is enough and should be applied in these cases. I am also extremely skeptical of arguments that involve "shifting viewpoints" or acknowledging history": Wikipedia compiles information and presents it in an encyclopedic format. Wikipedia does not lead any change, but rather updates it's content accordingly. --Spekkios (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    As per Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment It is very rare for an RfC to be closed soon after it starts, unless the RfC initiator has agreed. In most circumstances, editors who find issues with an active RfC will explain their concerns about the question in their response, so that their comments can be understood correctly. Many editors read the comments from previous editors before posting their own replies (but not usually comments on other pages or in other sections), so these explanations may counteract any issues with the initial statements.
    I'll do my best to make it clearer in the future, for now I think whoever writes the formal closing summary will understand the context from the discussion. Poketama (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose such names should not be place in the lead sentence. However if they are supported by reliable references they can go in infobox, and in a later part of the article. The reason for not having it in parenthesis after the English name, is that using these names in most cases is undue, as the name is not from a language widely spoken in the city. The examples given above eg Beijing, or palces in New Zealand do not apply to the Australian case. Better examples to follow might be Canadian cities eg Vancouver, where a name given by the Squamish people is in a Name section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose As aboriginal languages predate all cities in Australia, there are no genuine aboriginal names for any of the cities in Australia. The recent presentation of aboriginal geographical names (fake names) as alternatives names for Australian cities is ill-considered and against Wikipedia:Naming conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simulaun (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    Simulaun, you say “there are no genuine aboriginal names for any of the cities in Australia” - I guess the cities of Canberra (Ngambri), Parramatta, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga, Nowra, Geelong (Djilang), Wangaratta, Mandurah, Karratha and so on do not exist? GadigalGuy (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    The original settlers named these new settlements, so they are not bona fide Aboriginal names for these cities. Further, these names are non-aboriginal adaptions of Aboriginal words, thereby further distinguishing them from genuine Aboriginal words/names. So these cities do indeed exist, just not their aboriginal names (never have, never will). Simulaun (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh come now. English-language place names change over time. There are a great number of Australian place names with clear Indigenous origins. If the original European settlers gave their village that name then that's the name of the village. It may not have been an exact equivalence, and it may well have been a mistake like those occasional signs we see saying "The translator is on holidays". Maybe Wollongong means "What did you say, white dude?" but well, that's the name that stuck. My beef is where Indigenous names are being offered for cities that obviously had no pre-existing names, there being no permanent settlements apart from the TSI people working their way down Cape York. If you are going to argue against something then use reason and logic and Wikiprocedure. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not what is being asked here. It is a poorly-framed question that will most likely result in confusion and uncertainty. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I thought it would go without saying that everything on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced. In creating an RfC I tried to keep it succinct, as per the guidelines. Poketama (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support. My reasoning is as the above supporting comments. Indigenous names are obviously supported by Wikipedia policy. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Where there are sources to verify that an alternative-language name is in ongoing use, then this is a pretty clear-cut case where MOS:ALTNAME applies. For place names in regionally appropriate Aboriginal languages, including the name parenthetically in the lead sentence is both appropriate and explicitly permitted. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. I don't really know what's actionable here, since the nominator notes that This is not an attempt to create a blanket rule but also that it is to clarify if this could or should be done, pending further discussion on the details. My only reading of "this" is "some rule", so I'm not even sure what the nominator is proposing. But, even if a blanket style rule were being proposed, this is the wrong venue to do so; the manual of style and the WP:PLACE guideline are a collections of widespread community consensuses and consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. It is true that Wikipedia guidelines say that names other than the common name, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. This is the rule—and WP:CONLEVEL explicitly notes that participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. In other words, a WikiProject cannot just go off on its own with a local consensus that goes against a greater consensus, and it seems like the only thing this RfC is asking is whether or not to create a special rule for Australian leads and infoboxes that's different than the leads and infoboxes for everywhere else on Wikipedia. And, on top of that, not all relevant WikiProjects have even been notified of this (for example, WP:WikiProject Cities), which makes the CONLEVEL issue even more concerning.
As such, we need to use global guidance for the lead and the infobox. With respect to substance, if a name for a place is a non-English alternative name that does not have significant English language use, MOS:LEADLANG offers guidance to include the non-English name in parentheses only when [i]f the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language. In a global context, Australian places are almost entirely associated with English and English-derived names, just as people associate the English name of Manhattan with the island instead of the similar-sounding Lenape name of "manaháhtaan". There may well be places in Australia that are primarily inhabited by indigenous people and are closely associated with a non-English name, but this would likely be the exception more than the rule. And, as MOS:ALTNAME advises, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first sentence when there is a section on the naming of a location (with the exception of when the name used by locals is different than the common English name). As for the infobox, this is the sort of thing that would blow the information's importance to the article subject out of WP:PROPORTION in basically all cases except for land that has a substantial indigenous population—we do not put "Wilno" in the infobox for Vilnius, nor "Smyrna" in the infobox for İzmir, nor "Danzig" in the infobox for Gdańsk. We don't have "Königsberg" in the infobox for Kaliningrad, nor "Lwów" in the infobox for Lviv nor "Վան" in the infobox for Van, Turkey. An affirmative preference towards including native names that are not used by the locale's residents seems to be well out-of-step with how the project handles native names that English-language speakers by-and-large do not associate with a particular geographical entity. Making Australia an exception to this is incoherent and outside of the remit of discussions on this page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mhawk10: I agree vehemently with your first paragraph, but I find troubling your implication that indigenous names should not be used unless the place is primarily inhabited by indigenous people. These are people who still exist, they are not some historical tribe that has been long exterminated. If a name is used by contemporary speakers of these indigenous languages, we should absolutely include it (following everyone’s caveats about reliable sourcing etc.). These are languages significant to Australia’s modern existence, as well as its history. — HTGS (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm in agreement that we should include a name in the lead if a name is used by contemporary speakers of these indigenous languages on the condition that the people who speak that language still live in the relevant area and represent a substantial proportion of the population there. While I am not particularly familiar with the history of Australia (or New Zealand, which has been referenced in the conversation above), my use of primarily was imprecise and I do not mean to argue that natives needed to be a majority (or plurality for that matter) of residents for such a name to warrant mention in the lead (even when a "name" or "etymology" section exists). My apologies for my miscommunication. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Indigenous names if sourced well may be included within brackets and italicised in the first sentence of the lead alongside their language as is standard practice, but they are rarely common names and hence should not be used in infoboxes nor bolded which goes against MOS:BOLDLEAD. Names ought only to be in bold if they are "formal or widely accepted". In cases where dual official naming exists, they may be bolded (and italicised, again alongside their language) and featured in the infobox as a native name as is done with Rottnest Island. This accords appropriate recognition without excess which would bring into question an article's neutrality. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    You are misreading that MOS page. MOS:BOLDLEAD refers to the title of the page then being used in the lead, in most instances this isn't relevant. MOS:BOLDALTNAMES says that "significant alternative names ... are placed in bold". And there's the rub because significant is up to interpretation. Poketama (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Entirely support inclusion of indigenous names where relevant, and to be honest I cannot see any reason why they should not be at least mentioned somewhere in the article in every case, assuming the alternative name can be reliably sourced, but the should not automatically be included in the infobox and lead in every case, but instead only where it's a name which is widely accepted (relative to the main name) per MOS:BOLDLEAD. A reminder that Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it really the case that the indigenous name will be the "original" or "first" name of the place, or even a "significant" one, since many settlements simply did not exist before the arrival of European settlers and the indigenous name(s) for the place will be later creations that exist only as part of listicles. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Needs more discussion

In regards to people saying that this is not a yes or no matter, I understand that and this RfC is not intended to be. Feel free to say maybe. However, the idea is to resolve the initial question of if it should be done before delving into the secondary questions through additional RfC's on when and how it should be done and what constitutes acceptable sourcing. Poketama (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I feel that having names in ledes and infoboxes needs strong sourcing and historical usage, otherwise it is WP:UNDUE. To that end I proposed above - a long way above in a previous subsection - that we only do this if we have a very good historical source in the "Name" or "History" section. Or we get consensus on a case by case basis. This is obviously a matter of strong feelings and we need to take care to find a workable policy that doesn't result in ongoing cultural warfare amongst editors battling for one team or another. Let there be justice, equity and unity.
If you are proposing a blanket policy of having Indigenous placenames in the lede and infobox of every Australian geographical article, then my answer is No. The matter is not about inclusion, it is about prominence. It is not a matter of a city having alternative names over time and in different cultures, it is simply that before European colonisation there were no cities of any kind so it's not like saying that the city of Istanbul was once known as the city of Constantinople. What was the city of Melbourne called before Europeans arrived? The answer is nothing, because there simply was no city there at all.
The matter is nuanced and controversial and I feel that any sort of binary Yes/No view is going to be arbitrary and unsatisfactory. This needs discussion, certainly, but within established Wikipolicy regarding sourcing, NPOV, and so on. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, although I'd probably disagree with Skyring on some individual cases, I don't see that there's really an alternative to the case-by-case approach he proposes without taking a stance that would be both a drastic WP:NPOV and drastic WP:UNDUE approach either way (though, to be fair, I haven't really seen anyone here pushing for the all-in approach). It's a nuanced subject and there's not a standardised system, so it fairly logically comes down to determining each case on the available information. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Poketama, To "Counter-argument #1", I qoute: "As for multiple names, it is standard in many Aboriginal cultures to have multiple names for a place and all names should be included" - yes, all aboriginal names may be included in the article, but this need not be the first sentence of an article about the city. Please be serious. To "Counter-argument #3", I qoute: "Another user has argued that Sydney is a settlement that continued on from and merged with the existing Aboriginal settlement and community. In my opinion, Sydney is inseperable from the region known as Gadi. Sydney, the city, is inseperable from Sydney, the region" - the fact that something has something to do with Sydney does not mean that you need to write about it in the first sentence of the article. To "Counter-argument #4", I qoute: "I have not been shown policy that shows that this kind of comparison is appropriate for deciding policy" - are you serious? It's not policy, it's standards of the Wikipedia. The fact is: almost all (several dozen) countries of New World (like Australia) do not use the indigenous name for area in the first sentence of the article about cities. To "Counter-argument #5", I qoute: "The decision to scrap the whole idea entirely would not be removing the politics from the situation - it would be an example of supporting Systemic Bias and a lack of NPOV" - the same problem with you, no one suggests removing Aboriginal names from the article. The discussion is only about putting multiple names in the first sentence of articles. Your problem is that you treat everything as black and white. You are trying to argue that Aboriginal names are valid, but have not given a single strong argument to insert these Aboriginal names (often many) into the first sentence of your article on Australian cities. I support the use of Aboriginal names in the article, but not in the first sentence. Apart from honoring the Aboriginal people, these names have no function in the first sentence that is meaningful to the entire city or international readers Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 07:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think discussing this between us any further is going to be productive, which is why I've opened up the RfC. Please be civil and assume good faith. Poketama (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Oppose should only be mentioned I the body if the current name is derived from an indigenous word ....
    This is the norm all over. Moxy-  03:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Woke editors. I see the comment above:

Second problem: it has already been noticed before that the introduction of Aboriginal names on a mass scale is ethno-political. Even a few users argue it this way, like "part of redress for past wrongs is the rediscovery of names and their reapplication".

Just where is the wikipolicy on this? Is Wikipedia some sort of force for social change? Are we making a political statement? I don't mind if we include political material that is well-sourced and conforms to WP:NPOV etc. but I do feel that using Wikivoice to push for cultural change in some sort of politically-correct fashion is not what we are here for. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there Pete, can you explain to me what you mean by 'woke' in this context? I only ever hear this used as a pejorative, mostly by far rightists, so I'm not sure why you would use it here to refer (apparently) to me, particularly if you want to suggest that I'm 'making a political statement'. How is using a far right pejorative not waving a big political flag yourself? ҉ Randwicked ҉ 16:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Randwicked, who I believe made the original comment regarding redress can obviously speak for themselves, but I think they are being taken out of context. I interpreted their comment as around how Australia is rediscovering and adopting Aboriginal names more widely as part of addressing past wrongs as an explanation for why these names are now being used significantly more commonly, rather than that itself being the argument as to why we should use them on Wikipedia. So I don't think anyone is arguing that we should be using Wikipedia to force social change. The Logical Positivist (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Logical Positivist. This is exactly it. I was explaining the context of why these names are coming into prominence, and why some anon editors might be removing indigenous names, to an editor who seemed unaware of that context. Very weird that one part of my comment got extracted sans context and used as evidence that I'm 'woke', whatever that is supposed to mean these days. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree here with The Logical Positivist. My reasoning for inclusion of these place names above, for example, is not at all what the quoted portion above is claiming. There might be some users who do this to WP: Right Great Wrongs, but including reliably sourced place-names in the lead and infobox, especially if those names are included elsewhere on a page, only makes sense. I get the feeling that the editor you're quoting here feels very strongly in one direction about this given frequent polemics on the subject, but they haven't spent much time listening to the other side.--Hobomok (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with The Logical Positivist and Hobomok above. It's just a matter of going back to basic policy principles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this issue should be a large element of the discussion but should be a point of caution. The way I see it, it is a NPOV issue that has the potential to be politicised by both sides. I believe you agree, if it's sourced well there is precedent and policy to include the names. I think not including the names would not be NPOV - as it would be contradicting existing policy and intentionally removing well-sourced information that a user disagrees with to suit a ethno-centric bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#:~:text=The%20systemic%20bias%20of%20Wikipedians,bias%20is%20noticeable%20throughout%20Wikipedia.
In terms of talking about 'woke' Wikipedians, yes their POV may be biased and they need to back up their statements with evidence. It is also evident the opposing side is also potentially politically motivated. For example user @Muzi above has a userbox that says they are a 'Constitutional monarchist' across several nations. In general, the right-wing of politics has been opposed to Indigenous recognition. As such, hopefully this RfC can pull comment from people outside of Australia and different political bubbles to discuss the issue as a matter of fact and policy, not as a matter of politics. Poketama (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There are some who are wedded to their own views and will never change their minds, regardless of facts or Wikipolicy. In discussion these views are generally identified and rarely gain consensus. I would say that the desire to have no Indigenous names at all is one such position, as is the view that every lede and infobox should have an alternative Indigenous name sharing equal prominence, if not renaming the article entirely. I have seen both views expressed and I think both are equally unworkable. --Pete (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC tag removal

The tag for the RFC shouldn't have been deleted by an editor. It should've been kept in place, until the expiration date. At which time, the bot would've deleted it. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Other longstanding cultures

How should we deal with other established alternate naming systems? Many Australian places have names within the SCA Kingdom of Lochac which also includes New Zealand. These are names in current use, and have a direct one-to-one mapping with towns, cities, and states, as per this map. There are a myriad of reliable sources for these names, such as the ABC and SMH. --Pete (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Pete, you’re just trying to make a point, so here is the counterpoint you’re looking for: indigenous languages have a cultural and national significance that foreign languages do not. If you’re trying to be smart, why don’t you ask why we don’t list the Chinese name for Perth as well? The answer to your questions has been presupposed by everyone else at this point, so I personally would appreciate if you don’t play games, but instead make the argument you want to make. — HTGS (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This comment makes it pretty clear where Pete stands in this discussion, IMO. This is apparently an insincere and disrespectful attempt to get a rise out of people, or as the kids call it, trolling. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 11:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my intention. I'm opposed to crusaders inflicting their political or cultural views on our encyclopaedia. Names that are not in everyday use don't deserve undue prominence. I'm more than happy to see Indigenous names and meanings explored at length in an article's history section. Not so much in lede and infobox which is where we give a quick blast of information. If someone is looking up the name of a town, it's unlikely that the ancient location name is what they are looking for. Or the SCA's feudal name. Both are names of minority interest unless one is pushing a cultural barrow in which case they are all they care about. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I cannot see how it is helpful or constructive to attack other editors with language like "crusaders inflicting their political or cultural views on our encyclopaedia" and "unless one is pushing a cultural barrow in which case they are all they care about". HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
For the record I don't believe Pete is acting in bad faith or trolling. He's making a point. A bad one, but just a point. — HTGS (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion planning

Unless someone has a better way to work out the intricacies of this issue, my current idea was to continue doing RfCs to answer individual parts of the larger question. If you have any feedback on questions you would like answered, or how they should written, please chime-in.

  • So after this current RfC there would be:
  • 2. Are there times when Indigenous names should not be included in an articles lead?
  • 3. What constitutes suitable sourcing for including an Indigenous name in the articles' lead?
  • 4. If Indigenous names are not clear on their location how should they be handled? (ie. Does Meaanjin refer to Brisbane CBD or Brisbane)
  • Side note: Should a reference to 'Brisbane' be interpreted as a reference to Brisbane (the broader metropolitan area). I would argue it would, in standard Australian English.
  • 5. Can an Indigenous name be included as the name for a location, if there are other sources saying it applies to another location? (eg. Naarm is the contemporary word for Melbourne, but also is historically recorded to refer to Port Phillip Bay).
  • 6. If not, how can the conflict be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketama (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
For items 4, 5, I suggest that Perth's Etymology section, 2nd paragraph, is a good example. Disclosure: I wrote that paragraph, so I am biased as to its merits. At least one other user disagrees with the paragraph; see the article history, article talk page, and earlier comments on this project talk page for details. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Two key contentions in that paragraph are unsourced, the key contention that is sourced relies on two not particularly clear one-sentence mentions by the same author and then basically contradicts itself through muddled phrasing, and then questionably frames the modern usage through use of weak or questionably-described sources. It's a pretty good guide of what not to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
2 is an unanswerable question because they need to be discussed on a case by case basis. 3 is similar: there is not a uniform, formal approach, so it needs to be hashed out in each case. 4 is just a question of what the sources say. 5 is similar: we describe what the sources use, and if the sources verify that it's the contemporary name it is absolutely not the place of Wikipedians to disregard sources based on their own opinions. These all basically fall back to the same point: take the opinion and emotion out of it and assess each case on the available sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
So far discussions on these issues on a case-by-case basis has led to a standstill and edit-warring. Do you know how to proceed in those instances? eg. the Perth article has been fighting about this one for quite a while. Poketama (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Was there an RfC held for the Perth case? That would've been the best option in my opinion. --Spekkios (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Having an RfC every single time these questions comes up seems to me to be a poor use of resources. The same arguments are had again and again and again across virtually any page with an Indigenous name or proposing an Indigenous name. Is there no way to establish a precedent? I'm not saying 'all pages must have an Indigenous name without question', I just would rather not have to deal with arguments like 'Parramatta cannot be called Parramatta because there's also a Lake Parramatta' one hundred times. Assuming that argument is incorrect, if a user can just use it to block editors who are contributing names until a RfC is done - they will use it as a weapon to filibuster progress and people will give up editing. I've seen this happen enough in this space already to know that would be the case. Poketama (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The precendent is already established in MOS:ALTNAME. If there are relevent non-English names for a location and a consensus develops to include the name based on reliable sources then the name is added. If no consensus develops then it isn't. If consensus can't be established then an RfC should be called. Spekkios (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
What Spekkios said. There's not a way around this because it's not like there's a standard uniform system of recognition of indigenous names, or any standardised way it could be approached - it's something that's inevitably going to be worked out case by case. One thing that perhaps would be useful is an RfC on establishing some specific guidance, such as knocking on the head the racist assumption that the boundaries of Aboriginal place names can't evolve over time in the same way Anglo place names do all the time, which would seem to run through some of the opposition to referencing well-sourced contemporary names. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback you two. Poketama (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
"…the boundaries of Aboriginal place names … evolve over time in the same way Anglo place names do all the time…" As in Sydney referring to a city a great deal larger than the original settlement? Yes, but how exactly would this work for Indigenous place names? The place names of the original residents referred to geographical features. A bay, a valley, a river, a mountain. Those things don't evolve over time. There were no Aboriginal towns or cities that are entities distinct from the land. Any name for a settlement would have to have come after the settlement was established. Are there any instances of that situation? And, on that note, do you have examples of Aboriginal place names evolving over time? This all seems very hypothetical to me. --Pete (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
"So far discussions on these issues on a case-by-case basis has led to a standstill and edit-warring." Perhaps this is an indication that there is a problem? Trying to mandate that every Australian place has an Indigenous name in the lede and infobox is unworkable IMHO. The real problem is that only a few names are going to achieve consensus through sourcing, established usage, and geographic equivalence. There are a few crusaders who are doing their best to sneak as many alternate names in as possible by a variety of methods. One I highlighted earlier was the mass cut-and-paste of heritage board listings to replace established Wikipedia text. So much for our work over many years; now for many articles we just have slabs of text from some council website. A copyright headache at the very least. Can we not work together instead of trying to sneak things past? --Pete (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you link to some examples where this is happening? I havn't run into any occurences of people trying to mandate anything, but I have run into a lot of wiping of names by uninformed users. If what you say is happening I'll pitch in to help correct it. Poketama (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of articles on heritage-listed places and objects in New South Wales and Queensland which were auto-generated using CC-BY licensed text from the websites of those states' heritage councils. I presume these are what Pete is talking about? As I said, they are CC licensed so there is no copyright issue, didn't replace anything, and they were generated years ago so have nothing to do with "crusaders" trying to "sneak things past", or with this debate or traditional names at all as far as I can see. --Canley (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm also baffled as to what Skyring is referring to here - if he's referring to the heritage sites project, that a) had nothing to do with indigenous issues and b) didn't touch any city/town articles because it was entirely focused on buildings and specific sites. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "2. Are there times when Indigenous names should not be included in an articles lead?" Answer: Yes. While Indigenous names for geographical areas can/should be used in the lead, there are no bona fide Indigenous names for Australian cities. There is a recent trend, however, of using Indigenous names of geographical areas instead. These should, however, not be presented in the lead as bona fide Indigenous names as that would amount to disinformation. Rather, they should be presented and explained in the body of the text as aberrations.Simulaun (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

User Pete wrote: "So far discussions on these issues on a case-by-case basis has led to a standstill and edit-warring." Perhaps this is an indication that there is a problem?" - exactly. From the beginning, inserting Aboriginal names generates nothing but trouble. Also, I qoute: "There are a few crusaders who are doing their best to sneak as many alternate names in as possible by a variety of methods" - that's also absolutely right, I noticed it too. I also agree with user Simulaun, I qoute: "there are no bona fide Indigenous names for Australian cities". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
As someone who has spent plenty of time in the well known Australian cities of Wollongong and Canberra - I have to disagree with the notion that “there are no bona fide Indigenous names for Australian cities”. GadigalGuy (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"Joshua John Moore, the first European land-owner in the region, named his grant "Canberry" in 1823 after the Canberry or Nganbra tribe" Simulaun (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes but there are also similar names locally. Jerrabomberra for example. I'd like to see some original sourcing on the matter. So many of the sources offered are current contemporary rather than anything we can reasonably document as pre-existing settlement. --Pete (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whilst agreeing that this is a poorly constructed RfC I would like to note: (a) that geographical locations and local landmarks rather than cities are the articles most likely to get indigenous names associated with them. (b) Looking at the Uluru page there is a "native name" entered in the infobox so there is somewhere that it belongs. (d) No matter what this will be decided on a case by case basis. This matches what can be seen on the renaming of places in South Africa.Gusfriend (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Given the many viewpoints and intricacies presented here can I suggest the development of a WP:ESSAY on the topic which can then be shared and used as part of the discussion when individual articles are being changed?Gusfriend (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea.
1. Indigenous place names are appropriate in articles on Australian topics.
2. Where there is a reason to use it - for example in discussing aspects of settlement or history or there is a clear Indigenous component to the content.
5. Indigenous place names should not be given equal prominence to the established place names without a very good reason:
5a. There is a good historic source for the name
5b. The name has been in wide use over time.
6. Indigenous names are always appropriate in the history section of a location article and are encouraged, along with good sourcing and some mention of the pre-colonial people: who they were, any "first contact" events or difficulties etc.
Just my thoughts --Pete (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would also be good to include a couple of examples like Kata Tjuta/The Olgas and Uluru which is officially gazetted as Uluru / Ayers Rock as part of a dual naming policy plus noting that the consensus has changed over time as can be seen for those places.Gusfriend (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
'Uluru' highlights what I think is one of the problems with dual/alternative naming. The current WP Uluru lead starts with "Uluru (/ˌuːləˈruː/; Pitjantjatjara: Uluṟu [ˈʊlʊɻʊ])...". This is 1) duplication of information (2x 'Uluru') and 2) information (Pitjan-something or other) that is of little or no immediate relevance or interest to the vast majority of people perusing the page in question.
This appears to be a common issue (e.g. "Wrexham (/ˈrɛksəm/ REKS-əm; Welsh: Wrecsam; Welsh pronunciation: [ˈrɛksam])") and I do not believe that it is expedient to start out with what is essentially a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Pedantic details do not belong in the introduction/lead. Simulaun (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Something else that would fit nicely in the essay. Gusfriend (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Simulaun, you raise a valuable point. Consider this:

Hobart (/ˈhoʊbɑːrt/ ⓘ[1]) (Nuennonne/Palawa kani: nipaluna) is the capital and most populous city of the Australian island state of Tasmania. --diff here

This is one of numerous examples. We are an encyclopadia, our mission is to supply useful information, and the lede is where we try to be as useful and information-rich as possible.
Without wishing to offend anybody more than they desire, this information aboput Indigenous names and languages and tribes and nations is not sufficiently useful or practical information to warrant such prominence, especially for those who use Wikipedia for actually finding stuff out rather than scoring political points here and elsewhere. If I'm on the road and I ask Siri to pull up information on a place, I'm going to have to wade through all this cruft before my phone screen (or Siri's querulous voice) gives me anything useful.
I am not saying that this stuff shouldn't be in the article but realistically it is information that refers to a time and environment of centuries past and the cultural and political environment of having to worry about tribal boundaries and names and what Indigenous language was spoken where has long ceased to have any immediately practical purpose. It is now effectively a political battleground, and I am heartily sick of all this unhappiness and unproductive manouevring about who is planting their team's flags in our fabulous information resource. Instead of being on the peak of the summit of an article, perhaps it could be more usefully presented in the body in a "History/Entymology" section, something of that nature? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
It could be worst. This could be an RFC related to gender pronouns, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, gender pronouns are things that we've got to get right as well. In my eighth decade, I've seen mainstream culture change to an extraordinary extent, and nowadays people commonly use pronouns and names and gender identities and preferences that would have been unheard of when I was a girl.
Indigenous placenames are another topic, and one we need to get right. I don't want to see extremists throw rocks at each other, but nor do I want to see poor scholarship passed off as solid information. Gusfriend, you suggested an essay and I think that is a bloody good suggestion. I think it needs to be a cooperative effort with some solid grounding in Wikiprocess with the objective of being something we can all take ownership of as a way forward. How do we proceed from here? --Pete (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
There are several levels and types of essays Wikipedia:Essays starting with user essays in user space, then essays in wikispace, through WP:ADVICEPAGE going all the way to official guidelines and polices WP:GUIDELINE.
My quick reading of them leads me to think that creating a namespace essay is probably the best way to start as I think that it will take a bit off back and forth to get started. Then at a later stage we can work towards having it as an Australian Project advice page.
If no-one has an issue with the approach I will start something so that we have something to start with in the next day or so and then let everyone here know about it so that we can work on it.
Gusfriend (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm seeing a lot of goodwill in the discussion above. Crusaders taking hardline positions, not so much. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I haven't got involved in the above long discussion and only have time to skim it briefly now, as I'm going away for a while tomorrow. Starting with the essay and moving towards advice or guideline about naming sounds reasonable to me. I am wondering whether the draft style guide that I started writing up several years ago could be incorporated here as well? The background work looks long, but actually the thing itself could be considerably abbreviated. Either way, I'm happy to be involved in the project once it gets going. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've kicked off something here. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Macquarie ABC Dictionary. The Macquarie Library. 2003. p. 465. ISBN 1-876429-37-2.

When will this RFC be closed?

I wonder, I honestly do wonder when. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Clyde River Indigenous name

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
  Moved to Talk:Clyde River (New South Wales)
 – Canley (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved to relevant talk page

I've reviewed the Clyde River (New South Wales) article and moved the information about Indigenous naming and first residents down to a "History and naming" section. The sources given are rather thin in nature and there is no support for the claim that the Indigenous name is widely used; they all note the historical significance rather than a name in wide use currently.

User:GadigalGuy promises better sources supporting more prominence but until then I'm not seeing things like national park notes as being sufficiently authoritative to justify taking up most of the lede. What sources did they use? What evidence is there that "Bhundoo" is used enough to justify it as an alternative name? As a Canberran I'm often down that way and even in the wokest of Canberra circles the references are never to anything but "the Clyde".

I've removed one of the sources: a high school website where the four school houses are named after four local rivers: Bredbo, Clyde, Molonglo, and Snowy. The Indigenous name for Clyde is given in passing in background notes. This is very thin.

And again, if I may get some further input or comments on my draft essay on this topic. I'd like to get some solid policy foundation on WP:LEDE, MoS and so on. --Pete (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You didn't move the information and citations, you deleted all of it. You didn't review a random article, you went to my contribution list and have started targeting me multiple times. Are you going to just remove every single thing I contribute now Pete? I disagreed with your approach while actually agreeing with you on a talk page, explaining that people read Wikipedia for various reasons and that your claim that they're not reading it for the Indigenous names can't be justified because I and others do take an interest in learning about those - that some people do find that information interesting and useful, and immediately since you've begun going out of your way to target me quite vindictively, saying I'm being disruptive and woke and removing anything and everything I contribute. I've provided valid sources from government agencies, historical records from archives like the National Library dating back to the 1800's like you wanted, even including news articles which reference the widespread current usage locally that you asked for. Quite frankly, I don't see the point in giving up my own time to be targeted, name-called, attacked with racial stereotypes such as condescending notion that you shouldn't have to educate me and shut down by you time and time again. You made me feel so unwelcome a year ago which was the whole reason I stopped contributing for ages, and just when I start to give contributing another go, you're at it again. I don't know where or who I'm meant to report the behaviour to because quite frankly, you're not a team player, you're actively driving me away from Wikipedia - I want to be able to contribute and improve Wikipedia, well, I think I do anyway, I'm questioning why I should bother now... if someone can please point me in the right direction here. This is beyond a joke, and no amount of fake moral high ground will convince me you're doing it in good faith anymore, I should've learnt that last year but fool me once I guess. GadigalGuy (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
As the RFC ruling was to handle this topic on a page-by-page basis. Would I be accurate in assuming you've gained consensus for any additions to pages? If you have? Then reversions of those additions would be problematic. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The page isn't a high profile one, and some of the things he has removed (including the name Bhundoo) have been there since 2008 so I'd say there was consensus. GadigalGuy (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I see. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Pish. A WP:SPA conducting a crusade needs to be monitored. Looking at the talk page, nobody has raised the issue of the crap sourcing until now. If you think that because nobody noticed that a high school web page on school house names was being used as a source and that constitutes a consensus for keeping it, then think again. We need good solid sourcing. Do the research, get it right, you'll be a Wikipedia hero and we all bask in your reflected glory. Insist on shit highschool webpage sourcing and you'll be the opposite, bringing us all down. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
"Pish"? Really that's what you think of my concerns? I am not 'conducting a crusade', and with this single article, my edits were specifically finding and adding sources, not putting information in the lede as you are claiming I've done. You seem to be stuck on this one single source which was one that I could find specifically explaining in the etymology section only, that the word Bhundoo means deep water, it is not a source to say that it is the name they give the river. It was a source for the meaning of the word in the etymology section. I find it extremely concerning that you seem so intent and feel the need to 'monitor' me. That makes me so uncomfortable and I'd like to openly ask you to stop doing that please. It doesn't matter whether you've been editing Wikipedia for 2 years or 64 years, it is not your job to 'monitor' me - we are meant to be equals here - and surely you've got better things to do with your time than to effectively go after everything I contribute to. For the last time, please leave me alone and stop going after me. GoodDay has given some good advice below. GadigalGuy (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Canley, for pushing the discussion to the article talk page. My intention in raising the issue here was to be as open as possible on an important topic because the article itself is a bit of a backwater. I'll respond to GGG here, if I may.
GadigalGuy you are a single purpose account. Let me quote a pertinent passage:

If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing out that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed.

I've been editing Wikipedia long enough to be rightly suspicious of accounts pushing barrows. All too often they are aiming for increased visibility for a website or pushing sales of a book or product, or promoting some niche political view. Of course sometimes these accounts are editing in their areas of expertise but may I say that those sort of editors adopt a more scholarly approach and their contributions aren't at all controversial. If you want to gain my trust, simply adopt the latter approach and be the best goddam' researcher you can be instead of pushing shallow sources such as National Parks booklets and school websites. If you quote a contemporary source then why not go and hunt up the sources that they use? And something that you could do if you share my opinion that this topic is important to Australia in many ways is to contribute to the discussion here, which is something I'd like to have broad consensus so that we don't go around throwing wikirocks at each other and we can actually improve the Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
To defend my reputation here and apologies if this comes across a bit stressed: I am not a single purpose account, I try to contribute to a variety of topics but I am someone who doesn't edit much because every time I do, I get harassed and followed around by you - so a lot of the time I look at something and think 'why waste my time when it's probably going to get deleted' and close the page, and the other times I do go through with editing, sure enough you've shown up - there is a reason why I've only actually edited something like 5 articles this year and then spent the majority of the time on talk pages frustrated that you keep harassing me. The couple of edits I made recently when I decided to give this a go again was finding and providing citations only, not new or original information - I had no interest in doing anything more than that research because I thought it would be the safe option where I wouldn't step on anyones toes - obviously not. You have never given me the benefit of the doubt, you started going after me when I first signed up to Wikipedia at the start of last year - and yes, the experience was so horrible that I haven't forgotten your name, so seeing it again now when I wanted to get back into this again was an instant 'why me? can't this guy leave me alone' feeling. I get it, you think I'm uneducated and unscholarly, you've made that clear. Why would I want to gain your trust when you have shown me time and time again that you have no respect for me. I don't trust you and I doubt you're going to try and gain my trust or treat me with an ounce of respect. In fact, I don't want to gain your trust because I simply do not want to interact with you and I would appreciate if, going forward, you stop monitoring (stalking) me as you've so kindly confirmed above and through your actions that you're going to my contribution list and showing up in the articles that I contribute to. As I previously said (for the last time), please leave me alone and stop going after me, I am very uncomfortable with the increasing behaviour. If it continues to happen I will report it. GadigalGuy (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
If you feel you have been poorly treated, don't let me stand in your way. I see one editor pushing one line on one topic and not paying much attention to wikipolicy such as WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. I don't respond to you in private. I go for as open and transparent a forum as I can find - such as this one - and I confine myself to comments on policy. Like it or not WP:SPA is a thing. I'm sad that you feel aggrieved but if we as editors put personal feelings ahead of policies and conventions worked out over many years of often difficult negotiation, we wouldn't be the success we are with many editors working together. If I see something that is against good wikipractice, I should remain quiet for fear of creating offence? --Pete (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Chucking around the insult 'woke' isn't confining yourself to comments on policy, Pete. Right-wing vice signalling ain't neutral. Following the two Aboriginal editors on this website around like you're a Dubbo cop is WP:HOUNDING. Making droll little comparisons between the encyclopedic inclusion of Aboriginal languages here and made-up nerd stuff like SCA, or worse, vandalism on road signs, is offensive trolling. Why don't you think about your own behaviour a bit before turning around and declaring yourself the paragon of encyclopedic neutrality? Editors owe you precisely zero trust, nor explanation for their editing interests. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Be careful Skyring/Pete. You don't want any editor dragging you to WP:ANI for stalking, harassment, or whatever their impression is of your actions & posts. This ain't the Wikipedia of 10–20 years ago, trust me. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's a good reference, which also gives its sources: Bhundoo Hill at the NSW Geographical Names Board – yes, this is about a hill named after the river, but the background information says "Recorded as local Dhurga (native) name of the Upper Clyde River by Surveyor Thomas Florance in 1828. Also recorded on Mitchells Map 1834 as Clyde or Bhundoo along the lower reaches. Records State Archives NSW, Mitchell Library, Surveyors field notebooks." As to whether it's widely used, it seems pretty clear that it is, there are plenty of uses in media and government, here are some examples: ABC, Transport for NSW, NSW National Parks, many tourism websites. I'm really not sure why you trotted out the "I've never heard of it" argument, surely you're experienced enough to know that means nothing in this context. --Canley (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Look at the sources you give. Once again, nothing original, just a reference on a webpage. What about the sources those people used? Do you not think that the topic demands that we have the best possible sourcing? No, instead you want to settle for something that is one or two or three steps away from the original, each time filtered and interpreted and subject to error. I trust that you'll agree with me that this is a topic area we want to get right.
I haven't heard anyone use this name in the way that (say) Ayers Rock is now commonly referred to as Uluru. You're creating a synthetic argument here that because a few modern sources reference the name that it must be widely used. That's woolly thinking. Show me a source that states that the name is widely used. Something like this:

Almost all Australians now refer to it as Uluru.

Can you find something like this for the Clyde? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The NSWGNB listing cites several references for NSW State Archives records, why dismiss it as "just a reference on a webpage"? That's exactly how citation and referencing works in Wikipedia, academia, publishing, and media, but that's settling "for something that is one or two or three steps away from the original, each time filtered and interpreted and subject to error"? The other links I posted were merely some examples of contemporary usage in media and government. NSW National Parks says "Bhundoo as the locals call it"—it's a bit of a high bar to set Uluru as the standard here, this river is not a high profile entity and "most Australians" would not have heard of, or ever refer to, the river by either name, so local usage noted by a reliable source is sufficient. And again, "I haven't heard anyone use this name in the way...", why even say this while in the same paragraph accusing others of woolly thinking, synthesis and shoddy referencing? --Canley (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You miss my point. I'm local. The Batemans Bay area is a frequent destination for Canberra residents, myself included. I've never heard it referred to as anything but the Clyde. I have certainly heard of Uluru, now in almost universal usage amongst Australians. Arguing that a name is widely used and not being able to find any source actually saying that is not how things work around here. It's your opinion not backed up by any source.
Again, if we are using second or third hand sourcing for something important I must ask why the hell are we doing this? Why not go to the sources those folk are using? Can you say why you think the best source is not good enough yet we should use something not as good? It's like those who insist the King James Version is the definitive Bible source when it ain't. You do see the point I'm making? --Pete (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Pete, if you said you were a local to people in the town on the basis of being a Canberran who visits occasionally, you'd be laughed out of town. You're not a Batemans Bay local, you're a tourist from a city two hours drive away and from what I can see online, the relationship between Canberrans and Batemans Bay locals is considered 'rocky' - What gives you any authority just because you personally have never heard of it? I've actually heard it be used, does that somehow make me an authority, or are we not equals here? As someone who has spent more than my fair share of time in Canberra, I can confidently say that when people talk about 'the Clyde', they're referring to the mountain, not the river. The actual Batemans Bay locals do in fact refer to the river as Bhundoo as the links above from Canley show. You said "Show me a source that states that the name is widely used" - Canley has provided one that says quite plainly "Bhundoo as the locals call it", if the locals call it that, that is wide use. With a quick bit of googling this morning I can see that there are plenty of Tourism websites, the local Council, news articles, posts on social media, all referring to the river as Bhundoo, that is wide use. GadigalGuy (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point you're making at all. I think the Geographic Names Board, which has also cited its primary sources, is a good source. Wikipedia is supposed to use secondary sources over primary ones as you well know. What are you saying is the best source? I'm sure you're not saying it's your opinion as a Canberra local, but that's what's coming across to me because I've provided the state naming authority as a pretty good secondary source, which you are dismissing while mentioning three times that you've never heard of it [the name being used I mean], then saying I'm pushing my opinion without any sourcing. Look, this is going to clog up the noticeboard again, I think we should move the discussion to the talk page (where there is already a thread). --Canley (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Joondalup city vs suburb

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wondering if anyone has an opinion on how to resolve the difference between the suburb of Joondalaup in Perth, and the 'city' of Joondalup (which is different from the LGA called the City of Joondalup) — I've started a thread here: Talk:Joondalup#Wikidata_sitelink. Thanks! Sam Wilson 12:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Australia/AAL/What

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is no information where to request. If it has subpage at Wikipedia I would think that they have dedicated subpage at Wikipedia and it's possible to open enquiry at Wikipedia page. There should be atleast general information where to request. Eurohunter (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Australian governors

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

An RFC was held 'bout a year or so ago', with the result being that Australian governors are not heads of state. An editor at Governor of Western Australia, is 'now' going against that result. This editor has for years, pushed that the Australian monarch wasn't the country's 'head of state' & in the last few years, has pushed that the governors were heads of state. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The RFC-in-question occurred in August 2021. It was closed by @TheSandDoctor:. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The closing editor had no idea, thinking that you were making an advocacy move for the Australian States Anti-Monarchy Movement, a non-existent organisation. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Please, there's potential trouble brewing, over in one of the Irish pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cynna Kydd

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Cynna Kydd 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Monkeypox

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure if there is a need (yet) for an article on monkeypox in Australia but I have the bones of one sitting in my sandbox if anyone is keen to take it on. User:Hughesdarren/sandbox/2022 monkeypox outbreak in Australia. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Olivia Newton-John

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, there are a number of sourcing issues keeping Olivia Newton-John appearing on the main page. Please see the discussion here. Any help with sourcing some of the tours and television sections would be much appreciated by all those wanting to see this posted. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ministerial positions

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

How do we go about tracking and tracing the ministerial appointments of Scott Morrison? In his article, in the relevant articles on the positions and in infoboxes and succession boxes? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate to discuss at Talk:Scott Morrison. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
There is already a discussion at WT:AUSPOL. Steelkamp (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it has an impact on a wider range of articles to be honest. Happy to be corrected if others feel differently. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Olivia Newton-John has an RFC

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Olivia Newton-John has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Australian High Commissioners to India#Requested move 18 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Australian High Commissioners to India#Requested move 18 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mediaweek (Australian magazine)#Requested move 13 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mediaweek (Australian magazine)#Requested move 13 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Great resources for older Australian drama series

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coin945 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

WMAU Community Meeting 14 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. I'm Wikimedia Australia's Communications and Project Coordinator and I wanted to invite everyone to next week's open meeting. We'd love to hear what you're working on, so please come along and give an update on anything Wiki. This is also an opportunity to meet some fellow editors and hear what else is happening around the community. You can add yourself to the agenda here: WMAU Online Community Meeting 14 September 2022.

You may ask, what is Wikimedia Australia? We are the Australian chapter of the international Wikimedia Foundation and run training and events throughout the year around Australia. There's more information here on our website, including opportunities for grants and other support. Please feel free to get in contact anytime. All of our details are on the website.--Jimmyjrg (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ten Network Holdings#Requested move 16 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ten Network Holdings#Requested move 16 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A number of articles relevant for this project (including Eureka Flag) currently use the image EUREKA JACK INSET.jpg, which is a cropped version of Union Jack at the Eureka Stockade.jpg. There is currently a deletion request for the latter (deletion request page), due to a possible copyright violation. The copyright status of both images is unclear at this time, and it appears likely that both will be deleted soon.
If you have any information regarding the issue, please comment on the deletion request page. Renerpho (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Australian Radio Network#Requested move 21 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Australian Radio Network#Requested move 21 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mediaweek (Australian magazine)#Requested move 22 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mediaweek (Australian magazine)#Requested move 22 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not change the topic to MediaWeek, by which style the Australian magazine is uniquely known. No moves needed. PS. I changed a link to the wrong mag. in Bluey (2018 TV series). Are there more? Doug butler (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

William Buckley (convict)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A suggestion to change the title of the article has been made. Other editors might be interested in commenting on this, or recent edits. Nickm57 (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Honda Accord article

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article's English variant was changed per talk:Honda Accord#What English variant should the article be written in? to Australian English as the article was first created by an Australian. The article had recently been changed from a hodgepodge to British English. I noted that the article had been created by and Australian, so I stated the talk page discussion and just changed the template to {{use Australian English}}. I do not have a grasp of Australian English. Would someone who does be willing to change the article's variant? Thank you for your time! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Good question! I assume it means saying "sedan" instead of "saloon" in the second sentence. StAnselm (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed most of it, but I'm not quite sure what to do with "horsepower". Is there a revhead here who can help? StAnselm (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I also need help with headlamp/headlight/taillamp/taillight. StAnselm (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, StAnselm! BTW: your change of "wings" to "mudguards" was reverted here. No idea what Aussies call them. You know why chicken coups have two doors? If they had four doors, they'd be "chicken salons". Cheers Adakiko (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see this, about a possible DYK, relating to Australia. 2603:7000:2143:8500:CD4B:DD83:2234:A6CF (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking for consensus on edit (Federal Politics)...

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

G'Day, Looking for people to weight in on an edit I'm proposing on the article: Teal Independents. The discussion is on the articles talk page. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 13:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A Wikidata celebration at WMAU's next Community Meeting, Wednesday 12 October

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikimedia Australia's next Community Meeting will be held online 12 October and will feature three presentations around Wikidata. Everyone is welcome to join. Tamsin Braisher will discuss the NZ Thesis Project, and Margaret Donald will show how to improve biota articles. The meeting runs from 7:00 pm to 8:30pm (AEDT) this Wednesday 12 October. For other time zones and details, see the event page here.

Wikimedia Australia is the Australian chapter of the international Wikimedia Foundation and hold regular monthly meetings open to all.Jimmyjrg (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: Tim Sherratt's presentation has been rescheduled for November's meeting. --Jimmyjrg (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Local politicians

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Do Australians use the term "local politicians", like other countries? At the moment, Category:Local politicians in Australia by state or territory has subcats called "local government politicians", but these could be speedily renamed without "government" if that works for you. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Local government in Australia is a specific thing, separate from state and federal government; i.e. "local" has a specific meaning in that context. Possibly Category:Local politicians in Australia by state or territory should be "Local government politicians..." if that is the intent. However I notice that at least some members of Category:Western Australian local government politicians were state politicians not local politicians (Henry Kenny (Australian politician), Alexander Robert Richardson). Some clean-up is required. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The ABC News (Australia) seems to use local politician to mean State and Federal. I can find nothing in their style guide.
But SBS (Australian TV channel)SBS has the slang term local pollie/polly referring to a councillor. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a difference between the terms "local government" and "local politician". Local politicians represent their constituents, regardless of the level of government. For example, my local politicians are Matt Thistlethwaite (federal), Michael Daley (state) and the three South Ward councillors on Randwick Council. But I have one local government area, Randwick. WWGB (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Local politicians represent their constituents, regardless of the level of government In that case "local" is superfluous in "Category:Local politicians in Australia by state or territory" - they are all "local" to someone - and we might just as well use "Category:Politicians in Australia by state or territory", which is less ambiguous (in that it does not include the word "local" whose meaning is context-dependent). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Aborigine/aborigine a slur?

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments8 people in discussion

There is an incident discussion, which the admins can deal with, so I am not going to ping the people involved, as they have another forum The incident mentioned a few times that aborigine/Aborigine is a slur and as such continued use is worthy of a TBAN.

So this topic is just about the whether aborigine is considered a slur, Is it the Australian N* word. I have reposted below what I commented on incident, but removed my opinion, re-arranged it, and added a few more references.

  1. The Amnesty article (cited as saying offensive or slur in the incident) : ‘Aborigine’ is generally perceived as insensitive, because it has racist connotations from Australia’s colonial past, and lumps people with diverse backgrounds into a single group. You’re more likely to make friends by saying ‘Aboriginal person’, ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Torres Strait Islander’.
  2. But this Aboriginal lecturer disagrees and thinks it's theatre https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-15/dillon---political-correctness3a-an-impediment-to-reconciliati/3731552
  3. Article about young creatives : Even though they require capital letters, consider these words adjectives. For example, try to avoid just saying ‘Aboriginals’ or ‘an Aboriginal’. You should always follow with a noun, for example, ‘Aboriginal person’ and ‘Torres Strait Islander people’. Do not use the outdated term ‘Aboriginie’.” So maybe it's a young/old thing?
  4. Reconciliation.org.au) : "Ensure that the following terms are avoided when describing/referring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as they can perpetuate negative stereotypes:  ….. Aborigine …."
  5. Indigenous X : “Aborigines has largely disappeared in favour of Aboriginal people/s (except for a few older people who haven’t kept up with the times and a few racist commentators trying to make the point that *checks notes* they are cartoonishly racist).”
  6. Amnesty style guide "Indigenous Peoples Always capitalise the word Indigenous when referring to Indigenous Peoples and Aboriginal when referring to Aboriginal Peoples. Distinguish between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Use ‘Aboriginal person’ or ‘Torres Strait Islander person’ if referring to a singular person. Do not use the nouns aborigines, natives, islanders or indigenes
  7. The Guardian : Aboriginal (only use as an adjective, never as a noun. Never “Aborigine”) Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander peoples (not “people”)
  8. Australian Government Style Guide : Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Using ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ is most often considered best practice. ‘Aboriginal’ (and less commonly accepted variants such as ‘Aboriginals’ or ‘Aborigines’) alone is also not inclusive of the diversity of cultures and identities across Australia, for which reason it should be accompanied by ‘peoples’ in the plural. Similarly, as a stand-alone term, ‘Aboriginal’ is not inclusive of Torres Strait Islander peoples, and reference to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be spelt out where necessary.·The acronym ATSI should be avoided as this can be seen as lacking respect of different identities. First Nations and First Peoples Other pluralised terms such as ‘First Nations’ or ‘First Peoples’ are also acceptable language, and respectfully encompass the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and identities.
  9. ABC (National Broadcaster) : Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander references Always upper case Aboriginal and Indigenous in reference to First Nations people or cultures. Avoid using Aboriginal as a noun. Avoid Aborigine outside of quotes. Where possible, describe people the way they wish to be described. This could be a specific community or language group: a Yuin woman, a Bundjalung elder. It could be also more general: the Torres Strait Islander woman, an Aboriginal man. Avoid regional descriptors (e.g. Murri, Koori) unless it’s a stated preference. In collective reference: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, First Nations communities, Indigenous people, etcbnal and Torres Strait Islander population, which includes a broad range of nations, cultures and languages. Opinions often differ on the most appropriate ways to refer to people. When talking generally, terms such as Indigenous Australians (always capital I for Indigenous people in the Australian context), First Nations people, First People/s or First Australians  may be used.Aboriginal people is acceptable when not talking about Torres Strait Islanders.Do not use the outdated term Aborigine, which offends many people. Black in reference to Indigenous Australians is also considered offensive by many. It should not be used as a noun. Adjectival use should generally be avoided but is allowed when it is considered and respectful. When writing about individuals, respect their preferences. It is often best to refer to some one by their language/cultural group (a Wurundjeri man, a Warlpiri woman .Others may prefer to be known by a regional term, such as Koori (plural Kooris) in Victoria and parts of NSW. Some elders may use Aunty  or Uncle  as a term of respect. Aunty Joy Miles would become Miles  on second reference. Use lower case for elder, traditional owner, stolen generations
  10. https://www.narragunnawali.org.au/about/terminology-guide  : "Using ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ is often best practice when referring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people generally. ‘Aboriginals’ or ‘Aborigines’ are generally considered to be outdated terms, while ‘Aboriginal’ alone is not inclusive of the diversity of cultures and identities across Australia. ‘Peoples’ or ‘people’ should always follow.
  11. https://www.monash.edu/about/editorialstyle/writing/inclusive-language : Some Aboriginal people refer to themselves as 'blacks' or 'Aborigines', but others consider these terms offensive. If you are not an Indigenous Australian, avoid them.
  12. apsc.gov : Terminology can change over time and, where possible, it is best practice to find out what the preferred term is from the respective Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander group or individual you are referring to.
  13. WP ethnic slurs : plus i think nearly anything external groups called Americans of Colour. .
  14. In WP the disamg was : changed by one of the participants in the discussion to (Aborigine is an archaic term that is considered offensive by some) . The has been a minor revert battle going on for a while.

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I mean almost my entire primary school education this was the word used. I understand the usage has changed but I think it falls into the "insensitive" (or rather tactless) category, and possibly offensive for my progressively-minded inviduals. I do not know of many who would consider it a slur. I don't think it should be used, but I also don't think it's a slur or on the same level as the N-word or other racial slurs. If I used "Aborigine" in everyday conversation I might get some frowns or a correction but I can't imagine being called a racist for doing so. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    How long ago was your schooling though? Poketama (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Insensitive. Not generally a slur, because those who use it mostly do so out of ignorance of what's most common and accepted today, rather than having any intention to offend. It's nowhere near being in the class of the N-word in the USA, where they can't even handle the real name of a famous historical dog who wasn't even American. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    • It's nowhere near being in the class of the N-word in the USA, where they can't even handle the real name ... — Furthermore, in Australia we can even say/type the word nigger, in a discussion about the word, without having to bowdlerize it. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      • I try to use it, in discussions about that dog, and other historical uses, and about censorship itself, but it's dangerous. I got put in Facebook jail for a week recently for doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
      But Americans be crazy :-) and some of my best friend. I don't mind the N* prohibition as it is constant, and well known. THe dog's name raised my eyebrows many years ago when I read it, so that's not a new thing. For me, if someone would yell it as they tried to kill someone that's not political correctness, that's just fair.
      The Wikipedia list of Aboriginal ethnic slurs I pointed to are in the same class. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Activists like Marcia Langton refer to the “Aboriginal flag”.[1] Is the adjective good but the noun is bad? WWGB (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Not a slur, but largely superseded in usage by "Aboriginal". The addition of "people" is redundant and ought not to be done unless in the same situation it would also be done with other ethnic denotations. "Aboriginal Australian" is perhaps less redundant. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Style guide. Wakelamp and others: This background to the style guide that I have been banging on about and trying to get discussed for years, might be of further help. It lists some of the sources you have mentioned and more. (Find "Aborigine" on the page.) If we could manage to get a basic guide agreed ( draft here), it would help to avert these repeated long discussions and endless reinventing of the wheel. We could also refer non-Australians to it. Generally I only "Aborigine" in a quote, and "Aboriginal" should only be used as an adjective, never a noun. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Lawyer X Royal Commission

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

After working on it for a while the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (i.e. Lawyer X Royal Commission page has been published. I have some hope of eventually getting it to GA but regardless would appreciate any thoughts / comments / changes to it. Gusfriend (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It's very interesting (although the article had Layer X .... she must have been a bad egg... boom tish!)
I can't work out how many reviews/enquiries there were there were and which triggered which Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I will take a look at that. Ideally some of the other reviews or enquiries should have their own pages. Gusfriend (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
have added review on talk Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hamersley, Western Australia Featured article review

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Hamersley, Western Australia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussions in the wrong place?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Shouldn't the three recent discussions on the talk page be moved over here? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, no response, so I am just cutting and pasting those discussions below this one. Dates will be out of order, but it seems clear to me that they belong here and not on the talk page, as they are not discussions about the noticeboard, and should be further discussed if necessary, and archived with the rest of the discussions here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Health information in suburb articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An editor has inserted health information into the Green Square, New South Wales article with this edit. I personally don't think we should include such information in suburb articles but posting here to get the community's thoughts. LibStar (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue as long as the citations stand up. Arguably "Mirvac high-rise apartments in Green Square have a high focus and emphasis on health and wellness" isn't cited, and the first citation for Green Square health stats actually links to Zetland stats. The only other issue I have with including health information is that it says "In Green Square, 5.5% of residents have asthma", but it should make clear that data is based on the 2021 census, and link to or describe the census in more detail so the data has context. Jimmyjrg (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Will include citations and reference the 2021 census. Ampamci (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Good article review of Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of Chlamydosaurus to Frilled lizard

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Chlamydosaurus#Requested_move_26_October_2022 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

New article

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, if anyone is interested to contribute to Draft:Pacific Maritime Security Program help would be much appreciated. Fermiboson (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Central Australia

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There is a DAB page for Central Australia, with the primary topic being the region in the NT. I think this is a problem, not only because I found it confusing when I first came across it, but because I see the term used loosely applied to the interior of the continent frequently. Few non-Australians, and I think many Australians, would not be aware of the narrower definition. This ABC article published today illustrates my point. I guess this belongs on the talk page of the article, so I'll copy this there as well, but I wanted to raise it here as more editors with useful knowledge of geographic term and long experience will see it here, I hope. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Jameel the Saluki has done some good work there, and I need to get back to it, but it would be good to have some more opinions on this. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Quoting maiden speeches

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments7 people in discussion

I don't do much editing on politicians, but Jacinta Price includes what seem to me like overly-long quotes from her maiden speech. Isn't this WP:UNDUE? Please opine on the talk page if you feel like going there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pretty rare that we include quotes in political biographies unless it's either something very famous or very profound because it's otherwise of low value, but it's not that uncommon to see people with an agenda trying it on as a means of trying to spin an article to promote the ideology of the subject (whoever it is). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there can be agendas, but I actually don't mind balanced quotes or prefacing comments with "their maiden speeches was in general line with ...the 2022 party platform ... except where they said .." A maiden speech may all that we ever hear about politicians (especially state) because of the decline of news rooms and local papers, and the reduction in debates.

As an aide, has anyone ever used or seen a quote from a Hansard speech (not question time) in WP or media? 110.174.252.112 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've never used it, but there's the template {{Cite Hansard}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
2nd reading speech lots of times, other stuff, rarely outside of press release & other promotional type stuff. Find bruce (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I've quoted a maiden speech on Alannah MacTiernan, but in that case, the maiden speech was quoted in a secondary source and the maiden speech was calling for the abolition of the Western Australian Legislative Council, quite a radical position for someone on the Legislative Council. Steelkamp (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Hardly "radical". The Queensland Legislative Council voted itself out of existence in 1922 because a majority of its members were part of the so-called "suicide squad" whose purpose on being appointed was to vote it out of existence once they had the numbers to do so. So it's been done before and presumably could be done again. Kerry (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I have noticed there is a new WikiProject related to Australia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Victorian Transport. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that - in the old days the council would require some consultation and checking from the Australian editing community - state exceptionalism is quite unfortunate, there are other states that could actually do with a consolidating of material about transport - nevertheless best of luck to it JarrahTree 11:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I would have prefered to see something more along the lines of what I suggested a year ago in Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 59#Idea for a new Other Australia-related WikiProject. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Project wise - that would have been a much more sensible result - the current started (and not consulted anywhere, or the council) is on reflection a problem waiting to happen, due to the state specific scope - it is not possible that there are adequate resources for each state to have its own transport project. JarrahTree 11:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@JarrahTree, that is the reason why I have decided to bring it to the attention of this project instead of joining that one. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I do have plans to rebring the project back as "WikiProject Australian Transport" I did originally start up the project and it mostly ended up flopping primarily because of the lack of consulation I did have plans to get rid of it all together but Jarrah tree pointed out that the project maybe needed so instead of getting rid of it I decided to move it back to the proposal stage. I have attached a like below the the proposal link
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Australian Transport NotOrrio (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter: I note that the proposal doesn't mention the WikiProject Australian Roads with which there is an obvious overlap, given road transport predominates throughout Australia including Victoria. And the roads project seems active based on its Talk page. I think you might need to clarify the relationship. But, seriously, we have loads of inactive WikiProjects. I don't see a lot of point in trying to start a WikiProject with only one supporter and a substantial overlap with an existing project. You mention on your user page that there are others with similar interests in Victorian railways. Maybe a better approach is to get some of those folks up and running as contributors to Wikipedia articles about such topics and then you would be a stronger position to create a WikiProject on Victorian railways as there would be an existing team of supporters with a track record (excuse the pun) of contributions to that topic area. Creating a WikiProject doesn't mean contributors will be magically attracted to do (the many moribund WikiProjects demonstrate that). Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia content on Victorian railways whether or not a WikiProject exists. This forum is a fine place to have discussions until such time as it is so active with Victorian railway discussions that it's evident a new WikiProject is required. Kerry (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: I am NOT the person who started this WikiProject, and as I have stated on my talk page, I want NOTHING to do with it at the moment.
I note that Wikimedia Australia is currently running weekly drop-in sessions (on Zoom) where you can seek advice, training, etc on all things Wikipedia related. See here for details. Kerry (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Trove newspaper citations - interface changed

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For those of you using Trove newspaper articles, be aware that there has been an interface change. The citations (including the Wikipedia citations) are no longer under the first icon on the left-hand tool bar (a "i" symbol) but are now the second icon (looks like a bookmark) on the left-hand tool bar. I think the citations themselves have not changed, just the user interface for accessing them. For reasons unclear to me, they updated the interface without updating their help/documentation. Kerry (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kerry. This was quite baffling at first when I first noticed it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

List of office holders RFC

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An RFC concerning Australian office holders lists, is being held. Your input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Tyler Cassidy proposal to rename page

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I notice that the proposal to change the title of the page Killing of Tyler Cassidy to Death of, or Shooting of has attracted comments from a range of editors worldwide. I wonder whether a few more Australian opinions might be helpful, particularly as Australian attitudes to firearms and firearm deaths can be quite different to - for example US views.Nickm57 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Bill D'Arcy

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just noticed that our article on Bill D'Arcy (former Qld Labor MP and convicted sex offender) was a POV quagmire of massive proportions and reverted it back a few years to find somewhere to even start. It seems that some years back, it got a rewrite from someone with some very strong views that his (still-upheld) criminal conviction was unjust, other people tried to salvage it but weren't thorough enough, and it's gone to and fro at times ever since without ever really cleaning up the original mess in full. This could really use some eyes on it (and even better if someone is feeling like doing a more thorough cleanup than my just reverting the article back a few years). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not the first time it's happened. The contribution history shows a familar pattern of a bunch of edits to unreliable sources (at best opinions) by the same user, followed by someone (e.g. you, me, others) ripping out about 12K of the article mentioning the same concerns about reliable sources. I wonder if it warrants a topic ban. Kerry (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Only just saw this now - is there someone we can take it to question if that's necessary? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Storm Sanders#Requested move 6 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Storm Sanders#Requested move 6 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Warren and Brown

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article on this old-established and later revived Melbourne engineering company has been closed as delete. See

The company is now a supplier of Australian-made equipment to NBNCo and won a place in the Victorian Manufacturers' Hall of Fame, a state government award. It has been draftified as

The company became a Repco subsidiary in 1949 after the success of their patent tension wrench (still manufactured) then disposed of in a management buyout c. 1985. The draft needs info on this restructure before resubmission. Nothing on Trove. Information is sorely needed on several of the company's latter achievements only mentioned in their blurbs:

  • Renaming as Warren and Brown Technologies Pty
  • Shift to Maidstone, with support from Vic. government
  • Exercise equipment for Institute of Sport
  • Portable clinical respirators
  • Coaxial cable strippers for Telstra
  • Subsidiary in India

Also of interest: during WWII the original company developed and manufactured precision equipment related to the manufacture of .303 cartridges, no details found. Doug butler (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC) / 22:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Open Party#Requested move 9 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Open Party#Requested move 9 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1902 VFL Grand Final#Requested move 25 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1902 VFL Grand Final#Requested move 25 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Of OSM, wikidata and places and things

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A FYI regarding OSM, wikidata and town/locality issues - conversation at

the WA project noticeboard...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia#Manypeaks_and_Frankland_River:_Town_and/or_locality?

JarrahTree 01:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Of impact to the larger project

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a FYI to fellow editors regarding usage of Trove:

National Library of Australia’s free digital archives may be forced to close without funding

With only six months worth of funding left, library’s director general faces ‘very big decisions’ on the future of Trove

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jan/06/national-library-of-australias-free-digital-archives-may-be-forced-to-close-without-funding JarrahTree 01:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yikes!
We need to be writing some firmly worded notes to Minister Tony Burke don't we?
MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Peter Wherrett (aka Pip Wilson)#Requested move 30 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peter Wherrett (aka Pip Wilson)#Requested move 30 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello,
Please note that Canberra Marathon, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Renotifying people about the proposed wikiproject australian transport

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For those interested in any forms of transportation I suggest checking out the proposal here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Australian Transport. If you do want to join such a project list your name under the support section and maybe even consider notifying other editors about the project NotOrrio (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Which demographic data do we include in Australian suburb articles?

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments8 people in discussion

Over the years I have edited many suburb articles, typically the demographics section includes data from Census like population, languages spoken and ethnic heritage. I have noticed in a few Perth articles the inclusion of extra information such as income, employment type, and household size. E.g. Subiaco,_Western_Australia#Demographics, Shenton_Park,_Western_Australia#Demographics. Is there a consensus on what we include/don't include from the Census? LibStar (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

By precedent if the detail at Shenton park and Subiaco remain, the whole Australian project is at risk - with all 12000 locality articles having the potential of unwieldy and rapidly redundant information making updating worse than....

I would strongly support removal of anything more than basic (or even less than) details in the text, for the sanity of editors who brave the census to census detail updating - anyone reading this unaware of the project last year - might need to understand the processes around the project - a good start is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:PopulationFromWikidata/doc JarrahTree 02:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think only population and perhaps ethnic heritage should be included. You're right that this makes it unwieldy for all 12,000 articles (I note most locality articles haven't even been updated for the 2021 Census). LibStar (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I noticed @The Drover's Wife: did this revert when the additional detail was re-added [2]. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Over the years I have edited many suburb articles, typically the demographics section includes data from Census like population, languages spoken and ethnic heritage. I have noticed in a few Perth articles the inclusion of extra information such as income, employment type, and household size. The reason why those articles have a larger demographics section than most is only because someone bothered to write all of that. You will notice that those articles also have larger history, transport, politics and geography sections than most suburb articles. That is also only because someone bothered to go through and expand those articles. Most suburb articles are much shorter, and that is simply because no one has bothered to expand those articles. The majority of Wikipedia articles are really badly written and really fall short of being comprehensive overviews of their subjects. We shouldn't be looking at Wikipedia's shortest articles, or even the average articles, as a basis or a template for longer articles. Instead, we should be taking inspiration from the best articles. Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory, is a featured article and passed featured article review in 2021. That article has a large demographics section which goes over incomes, occupations, education, house prices, rent prices, languages, ethnicity and more. Steelkamp (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
At what point do you stop adding Census data, do you include information on whether or not residents have a disability, participated in voluntary work, martial status, Defence force serving, what health conditions they suffer from, Country of birth of parents, what mode of transport they took to work? Wikipedia is not a repository for every statistic.LibStar (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The slippery slope will always apply to any demographics section, and in fact, anything on Wikipedia in general. There always has to be a cut-off, whether the cut off is to have less information or more information in the article. This argument does not support the viewpoint that there should be less information in demographics. Steelkamp (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Misses the point, there should be no inspiration to tied to a census text explanation of data in good or bad articles - It might be fine for reviewers of the articles (who do not have to ponder the issues that arise when another census occurs - and in most cases are not even australian editors) - but for manageability, there is no functional use of dated specifics where it falls on later editors trying to fathom what to do.

The maintenance of Australian articles is abysmal, updating for dated and time specific material is something very very few editors are interested in at all. To encourage large demographics sections tied to a census is nuisance creation. JarrahTree 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with JarrahTree, given my previous observation that most Australian locality articles have not been updated for 2021 Census. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I know about the issues with updating these articles. I take responsibility for updating any demographics sections I have written to the latest census result. The only reason I haven't yet for these articles is because of the limbo we're currently in. Since LibStar removed a large part of the demographics on Subiaco and Shenton Park and others, I want to wait until this discussion has reached a resolution before doing the updates. Steelkamp (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
You reverted all my changes. but did not revert the change by Drover's Wife. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Mainly because I try not to do two reverts in a row on the same article. That article obviously also hinges on the outcome of this discussion. Steelkamp (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Like all discussions on wikipedia, when in process - removal or deletion of items under discussion does not help. For that reason I have not touched the Yarralumla demographics section, however tempted. The problem of Steelkamp's personal responsibility claim, ( I am sure that as one of Australia's better current content and context creators that he is), - is unlikely to be able to deal with items out of his watch list within the 12,000 australian articles that have been created... I do not think that there is a managable solution to allowing the sections to stay in the articles - it is close to a level of detail that the majority of articles in the current australian place/locality framework simply could not be workable in any sense. Which is why when claiming a feature article can allow such detail of dated and immanently redundant information is counter to what australian localities require. Possible remedies do not jump out from anywhere at this stage. JarrahTree 04:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC) )
On a similar token, someone has only included in almost all South East Queensland locality articles, the geographic coordinates of every park/beach/school surfing club etc. This again is unworkable to include for all 12,000 Australian locality articles.LibStar (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of writing these articles is to be useful to readers. The more content there is, the more likely it would be useful. So census demographic info is good to have. However it should not be just from the latest census, but cover all censuses that included the information. It does not matter if it is out of date, and it is not essential maintenance to update it. Just make sure that the changing information has a date. Parks, beaches, schools and surfing clubs are worthwhile additions. And are not likely to rapidly change. However coordinates are more suitable for Wikidata, and a map or a description might be a better way to present the location info. So I will say if someone goes to the trouble to add referenced, true and useful content, don't remove it just because you don't want to update it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"However it should not be just from the latest census, but cover all censuses that included the information." I think Census data exists from 1981 online. Do you realistically think we need to provide data from all 9 Censuses since then in every Australian locality article? LibStar (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
You don't need to do that, but it would be useful for someone to put in an article. The same for election results, just the latest, is not complete. For this sort of data, semi automated tools may help to look up the information and create a suitable wikitable. That would reduced the manual effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I rescued the Yarralumla article because I lived next door in Deakin for many years and not far away now. I also maintain some of the demographic and political info in some other Canberra articles (sometimes simplifying it) created by others, but I agree it is not feasible to maintain them all. Still I don't think there needs to be a hard and fast rule. Grahame (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
let's bring this back to policy. We all contribute according to our interests. Some of us are more interested in census data than others. I am less interested and unlikely to add more than basic population numbers, but if someone wants to add more and it's appropriately cited, I don't know of any policy reason to justify deleting it, just because it may not interest me (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And I don't think we can dismiss any census data as "trivia" given the millions of dollars spent by the govt to collect it. So live and let live. If you like census data, add as much as you want. If you don't like it, just leave it alone and write about whatever interests you. And nobody should criticise anyone else for adding more or less than they would have done. Inevitably many Australian place articles will have differing amounts of census data compared to others, just as they have different levels of coverage of geography, history, football clubs, bird species, etc. After many years on-wiki, I think our greatest problem is the shortage of contributors and one of the reasons we lose contributors is conflict. So let's all do our best to contribute on the topics that interest us and be tolerant of what interests others. Happy contributors means a healthier Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTSTATS may apply: "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." Mitch Ames (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure I've seen any article with census stats that are "terribly lengthy" but, yes, that is good advice for someone wanting to go into a lot of detail. Kerry (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking into expanding the individual Local government areas of Victoria pages as most are just stub/start pages. I thought about adding demographics and what ones to include that would be relevant, I have come to a conclusion of just using age (0-4, 5-9, ... 80-84, 85+) and religion (based on what is listed on Religion in Australia). I'm presenting these as both a table with 2016/2021 data and a pie chart to better show percentages for 2021 data. An example of these can be see on this test page: User:ThylacineHunter/Colac Otway#Demographics. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

we should start a stub for Erchana Murray-Bartlett

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We should start a stub for Erchana Murray-Bartlett.

- https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/marathon/marathon-woman-on-last-leg-of-150-runs-c-9462851

- https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/marathon/the-chick-running-marathons-around-men-c-9371970

- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/erchana-murray-bartlett-breaks-marathon-record-running-from-top-to-bottom-of-australia-wcth9mfb9

- https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jan/16/i-dont-want-this-to-end-runner-hits-melbourne-after-covering-length-of-australia-in-150-consecutive-marathons

- 189.122.243.241 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikimania 2023 Singapore travel scholarship process for Australians

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Wikimedia Australia community

Important information on Wikimania 2023 travel scholarship process for Australians.

Wikimania 2023 will be held in Singapore 16-19 August 2023. Scholarship applications are open now. The deadline for applying for scholarships is: Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 23:59 AoE (Monday, February 6th 2023 22:59 AEDT)

Wikimedia Australia (WMAU) has budgeted to support 4 scholarships for Australian community members to attend Wikimania 2023 in Singapore. If you wish to be considered for a WMAU Wikimania scholarship you MUST apply through the global Wikimania scholarships process at: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2023:Scholarships.

WMAU will NOT be running a separate application process.

Please, check the scholarship application questions at: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2023:Scholarship_Questions

Note: To be considered for an Australian scholarship you must tick: Yes, share my application

When you have prepared your application: Click here! to apply for a Wikimania 2023 travel scholarship

The form will ask "Do you intend to apply to any local chapter or other movement organization(s) for scholarship funding to Wikimania 2023?" Please tick "Yes" and include Wikimedia Australia in the response. Note: The answers submitted on the application are considered final and cannot be edited.

If you have questions, get in touch with Belinda (WMAU) eo@wikimedia.org.au or the Wikimania Scholarships Team wikimania-scholarships@wikimedia.org Jimmyjrg (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Alan Neaves

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

An IP added the claim that Alan Neaves (a retired Australian judge) has died ([3]). But they haven't supplied a reference. I can't find any news coverage about this. Can anyone confirm? Also, is this Alan Reginald Neaves record the same person (the dates match well enough, and it's a fairly unusual name)? Is VWMA a reliable source for the birthdate? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Death of a former judge is almost always the subject of a condolence notices from the court & relevant bar association. I have reverted in the absence of a reliable source. -- Find bruce (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
There's a death notice here in the Canberra Times for an Alan Reginald Neaves with an 8 January 1925 birth date (which matches the VWMA record). Would be good to have firm confirmation it is the same person though, via a news story or tribute from an organisation. --Canley (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm unsure about the reliability of VWMA, but the National Archives, which are a reliable source, have this detail on Alan Neaves with the same date of birth and service number. Because of the uncertainty of his birthdate, I would want a reliable source to confirm the connection. I have put out some feelers to the bar association. I should have added that a Federal Judge cannot work past age 70, so his retirement on 8 January 1995 means that he cannot have been born in 1924 & is consistent with his DOB being 25 Jan 1925, but that is synthesis & I am being cautious. --Find bruce (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Found a few more morsels:
  • The National Library of Australia gives his year of birth as 1925 not 1924.
  • The Australian War Memorial has a page about Henry Herbert Neaves, which has a bit of detail on the service record of his son, Alan Reginald: "Alan Reginald Neaves enlisted in the RAAF on 16 February 1943 and was discharged on 11 February 1946. Alan went on to also get a Bachelor of Law from the University of Sydney and work in the crown solicitors’ office. He was head of the Attorney-General's Department between 1979 and 1983, and as a Federal Court judge between 1983 and 1995." – this links the military service in the RAAF to the AGD secretary and Federal Court judge.
  • The enlistment and discharge dates at AWM match the record at World War II Nominal Roll maintained by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (and the VWMA record), which also matches the date of birth. --Canley (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Section move discussion for Hereford House#History of Glebe

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An article, Hereford House#History of Glebe, has some content that is proposed to be moved to another article (Glebe, New South Wales). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Hereford_House#Section_move_proposal. Thank you. - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia adding Australian content by bots?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I'm not sure who to contact for this.

These are the same pages about Spion Kop in Tasmania:

They've both got seperate Wikidata entries:

It'd be good to merge the Wikidata pages, but I need to remove one Wikipedia page link. I'm not sure which one though. Jimmyjrg (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of crappy data on Wikidata that has come from those bots. I see this all the time with QLD places. Places listed as towns that aren't towns etc. The source used by the bots is not authoritative for QLD places, so the bot adds rubbish to Swedish Wikipedia which is then mindlessly copied to Wikidata. Then error messages get thrown up on English Wikipedia saying some value in an infobox based on authoritative sources doesn't match something held on Wikidata. Then someone removes the content from the infobox on English Wikipedia with a note that the data will now be automatically populated from Wikidata without bothering to check where that data originated from. Yes, there are situations where this is a reasonable thing to do but not without considering the origin of the material on Wikidata. And there is no consideration of whether the scope of the data is the same on English Wikipedia and Wikidata. Something with the same name might be a town in one but a locality in the other which require a different interpretation of things like population, area, coords, etc. Kerry (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR Notice

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bayswater, Western Australia has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems a strange nomination.--Grahame (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for St Kilda, South Australia

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

St Kilda, South Australia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Summer Hill, New South Wales

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summer Hill, New South Wales has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wagga Wagga

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wagga Wagga has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

native_name in Infobox_river

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Australian editors might interested in Template_talk:Infobox_river#native_name_title. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This has come up a few times in the past but the parameters meaning / purpose is misunderstood in this case. Moxy-  02:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Jackaroo

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Australian users may be interested in a requested move to rename this page [[Jackaroo (disambiguation)]] and make Jackaroo (trainee) the primary topic. Further inputs are needed. Doug butler (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Evermore (band)

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Evermore (band) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

South-Eastern Sydney

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An editor has been changing some suburbs to be in South Eastern Sydney instead of Eastern Suburbs (Sydney). It appears to me that South Eastern Sydney is just a subset of the Eastern Suburbs. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The Eastern Suburbs conventionally extends all the way south to La Perouse, and suburb maps of Sydney all generally agree on where the Eastern Suburbs begins and ends. I am not sure why the editor is apparently trying to limit the definition of the Eastern Suburbs to only include the northern tip of it. As a random example, here is what REA considers to be the Eastern Suburbs. https://www.realestate.com.au/rent/in-eastern+suburbs,+nsw/map-1 Daceyvillain (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's another example showing the Eastern Suburbs Lines for Sydney's historic trams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Sydney#/media/File:Eastern_trams.png Daceyvillain (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Come in Spinner#Requested move 6 February 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a request current for the article Come in Spinner to be retitled Come In Spinner on the basis of MOS:5. There has been a long, and occasionally interesting, informal discussion at WP:Reference desk/Language#MOS on Title Case but so far no votes. Save this request from being relisted ! Doug butler (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

2019's Archibald Prize winner Tony Costa

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tony Costa is the only person on the Archibald Prize winners list who doesn't have their own Wiki page. I noticed there is a Draft, but it was rejected due to a COI non-disclosure. Draft:Tony Costa (artist). I'm not brave enough to get involved with that, but if there's any art lovers here maybe they can try and rewrite and save the article? Jimmyjrg (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Trove need help

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Trove, the online collection of Australian newspapers/magazines and photographs. It is quite simply one of the best primary sources of the historical record in existence. Currently it looks like having its funding cut and Trove will disappear from the internet, a tragic loss for all historians.
In early 2023, it was announced that the current funding arrangements for Trove would cease in July 2023 leading to the closure of Trove, unless further federal funding became available.[1]
Petition to Australian Parliament
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "National Library of Australia's free digital archives may be forced to close without funding". the Guardian. 2023-01-05. Retrieved 2023-01-13.

NBL being dunked on.

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't have the time or the patience to fix the tagging carpet bombing that an IP has done to National Basketball League (Australia) since January, other than fixing the opening paragraph to remove the Pty Ltd bits. They've used 4 different IPs, so blocking isn't an option, and maybe some of the tagging is appropriate, but I can't review it all. I reverted it all once, they just put it all back plus more. Anyone willing/able to clean up 115.42.x.x's mess? The-Pope (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The National Basketball League article was a mess, written in sports journalese. The article confused the NBL entity and its competition and referred to the NBL's competition as the NBL! The article requires a lot of re-writing. The editor who posted the message above didn't engage with comments left on their Talk page or with the issues noted in edit summaries but sought to protect the page and drum-up support here when it was they who engaged in edit warring to push their POV. Their salient statement is "maybe some of the tagging is appropriate" but then they admit they "reverted it all". That is not constructive editing. 115.42.1.170 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I've restored the last stable version of the lead and opened a talk page discussion. – Teratix ₵ 14:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Australia and the American Civil War

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has been listed for reassessment as a Good Article because some copyright material was added after its listing as a Good Article, although this has now been deleted.--Grahame (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chatswood railway station#Requested move 22 February 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chatswood railway station#Requested move 22 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Would appreciate comment on ACCC article name

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion, here, about whether to include the ampersand (as used in the ACCC logotype) or the word "and" (as used in the commission's name, enabling Act etc etc) in the title of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission page. Since the only person to respond to an earlier proposal appears to be inactive, your comments would be most welcome. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 05:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Squatters

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prompted by these edits [4][5] by Mujinga, I suspect that Category:Squatters and possibly Category:Squatting in Australia should be split, or sub-cats created, to distinguish between squatting in/on "an abandoned or unoccupied area of land or a building, usually residential" and squatting (Australian history) on Crown land (which was not unoccupied or abandoned by the Aboriginal people) to graze livestock. Thoughts, suggestions, volunteers? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Stony Head, 41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors are asked to contribute to a discussion at Talk:Stony Head, Tasmania § 41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E, as to whether:

  • It's worth mentioning that an arbitrary non-notable geographic point is within Stony Head
  • If it is worth mentioning, whether a citation is required to verify that fact

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The GLAM Wiki Road Map Event

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, this event might interest anyone here from NSW who is free Thursday, 6 Apr 2023 from 10:15 AM

Mike Dickison from Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand will be speaking at State Library of NSW about GLAM, copyright, and licensing.

This presentation is targeted towards galleries, libraries, archives, museums, and other knowledge institutions who want to engage with the global Wikimedia movement. It's a free event, but bookings are essential: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-glam-wiki-road-map-tickets-596261142127 More information is available at that link too. Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Euoplos dignitas

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've created an article for Euoplos dignitas, a newly-described species of spider found in Queensland. I've tried to write it in British English, but I may have made mistakes. If someone can give the article the once-over to fix anything, that would be great. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Reads nicely now. Looks as though others may have corrected any mistakes. Meticulo (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment - Australia and anglosphere

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place about whether the term "anglosphere" should appear in the article on Australia. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the talk page of that article. Thank you. Meticulo (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gareth Ward

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Interested editors may like to weigh in at Talk:Gareth Ward#Residence. In particular, is a "locality as enrolled" to vote synonymous with a "place of residence"? WWGB (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Daceyvillain - Eastern Suburbs (Sydney)

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Daceyvillain has being unnecessarily destructive editing and removing factual and well cited information from the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) page. From the start the page has acknowledged that the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) as a whole is Watsons Bay to La Perouse with 5 LGAs. It then goes into detail about how the northern part of the Eastern Suburbs which are east of the CBD within the Waverley and Woollahra Council neighbourhoods vary from the south-eastern suburbs within City of Randwick and eastern parts of Bayside Council. They have different roads, federal divisions and are different socio-econimically and demographically. The official Australian Bureau of Statistics also acknowledge the different regions of the Eastern Suburbs and cuts it into Eastern Suburbs - North and Eastern Suburbs - South. Daceyvillain from the start hasn't liked any reference nor acknowledgement to this distinction regardless of references and citation as he believe the eastern suburbs is just one simple neighbourhoods/region from Watsons Bay to La Perouse with no demographic distinction whatsoever. He's now edited the page removing the well cited and factual 'Sub-Regions' section altogether. He's been pushing his own agenda and opinion from the start ignoring facts in front of him which he doesn't agree with. The Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) page reached an accurate and reliable compromise of information with the edit made on 15:21, 4 April 2023. This edit acknowledged the region as a whole is Watsons Bay to La Perouse but then went into detail about governance, sub-regions and neighbourhoods. All this information has now been removed by Daceyvillain as from the very start his biased opinion of the Eastern Suburbs not having any sub-regions nor distinction between areas is all he cares about pushing onto the page. Can this be mediated properly by an unbiased editor and this editor stopped from his agenda pushing tirade. If you check the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) talk page and previous edits You'd see the mess that has unfolded. 2405:6E00:289:B4FC:64B2:E702:CFE6:10EC (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This is already being discussed here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Daceyvillain_-_Eastern_Suburbs_(Sydney). LibStar (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Please stop spamming Wikipedia and trying to create duplicate discussions. Daceyvillain (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_61&oldid=1150779659"