Jump to content

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 41

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Hungry Jack's slogan.png

file:Hungry Jack's slogan.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a silly nomination really. It's a PD-textlogo that has been nominated because it's lacking source information that wouldn't be verifiable anyway because it's originally from a 2004 version of the website that's no longer available. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why Sfan00 even nominates PD-simple/text images for deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with tables

On Sydney Mardi Gras some editors have been adding lists of award and competition winners. I converted some into tables and a new one was added today. I tried to make them collapsible and to keep a good layout but I failed. I'm questioning if we need five yearly lists (Senior elected officers, Poster designer, Chief of Parade, major performers and Hall of Fame winners) as well as history section. Comments? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the people seem non-notable so I don't see any purpose in listing them. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You need notability to get an article about yourself, AFAIK there's no requirement for notability to be mentioned in an article. If someone is keen enough to prepare these lists, why not let them? Kerry (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian English: do we capitalise leadership titles such as Premier, Governor-General and so on?

In Monarchy of Australia, an article with a strong national tie to Australia, a template is posted advising editors to use Australian English. One editor - a Canadian - has been changing terms like "Governor-General" to "governor-general" when referring to the specific office. This grates on my eyes, because it is not usual practice, especially when used by government publications. A google search shows this well, selecting the government results as they come up:

Rather than go to war with Canada, i'd like some Australia opinions, please. --Pete (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a disingenuous presentation of the matter. Geographic location is irrelevant. WP:JOBTITLES is a section of Wikipedia's manual of style and Wikipedia follows its own Manual of Style, not what doesn't "grate" on someone's eyes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I always thought it depended on the way that the title is used, whether generic or specific. For example, "Kevin Rudd was an Australian prime minister", whereas "Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said today ... ". So, in terms of the WP guidelines, I think Miesianiacal is correct. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. "Julia Gillard is a prime minister" is correct. But "Julia Gillard is the Prime Minister" is also correct. If we are talking about a specific office, we capitalise. We say "Elizabeth II is a queen" and "Elizabeth II is the Queen". We don't even need names if we are talking about a specific office: "The Prime Minister announced a new tax today, the Treasurer smiled and rubbed his hands, the Foreign Minister said he had nothing to do with it." So yes, if it is general, we use lower case: "A squabble of prime ministers", "A college of governors", "A fleet of premiers". But if specific, we capitalise. --Pete (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking around the Wiki, I find that the Australian way is very common: Government of Australia, Government of South Africa, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Government of France, Government of India and Government of the United Kingdom all seem to use the system of capitalising specific offices. There are many more examples. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Indigenous Australian firsts

After working on this on and off for a while, I finally decided to release List of Indigenous Australian firsts into the big world. As you can see, there are enormous gaps in the list and plenty of examples where I couldn't find a reference (eg. I know David Unaipon was the first Indigenous Australian to get a patent but can't find a reference). I'm sure you can all fill in some gaps. --Roisterer (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It may well not pass consensus so comments are invited, but I find your article a tad offensive - first abo to walk upright, first abo to chew roo and scratch bum at same time, first abo in Antarctica et al. Where is the first to spear an invader; first to spear sheep or cow; first to die of smallpox; first to bear half-caste child etc. Too Europocentric and patronising, by half, IMO. Indigenous Australian achievements may well form an article. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a bit of an over statement given that Roisterer has noted that the article is full of gaps. Adding non-European related 'firsts' would be good though, as this is obviously the largest gap. It might also be worth noting somewhere that historically many Indigenous Australians didn't publicly identify as being Indigenous in order to try to avoid discrimination, meaning that there are likely to have been even earlier 'firsts'. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I started the list because I saw List of African-American firsts and realised there wasn't an equivalent for Indigenous Australians. It's Eurocentric at the moment because that's all the refs I could find. I thought the offensive bits were seeing how late some Indigenous people got the vote. --Roisterer (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bustard?

Ok, had the Ride'N'Rock in Wagga Wagga late today, a few notable people in the ride (Jake Stone of Bluejuice was missing) but there was one person whom is on the ride, Paul Bustard, but never heard of him. Any music nut/fan/followers know? Bidgee (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Australian politics/name/Industrial Labor Party

... doesn't seem to be valid. --Griot-de (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but it was a legitimate political party in the thirties with elected representatives. If you're talking about the redirect itself, you're probably best off asking the editor who redirected it first. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC).
Correction, started by Grahamec, has been finished now. There were problems with the form, not with the content. And the intention was not obvious. But analog cases as Template:Australian politics/name/Liberal National and eight others have shown the right form. --Griot-de (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oswald or 2013 Queensland floods

Could people please give their opinions here on if we should have an article for TC Oswald or just have the Queensland floods article or possibly have up to 4 articles Flooding in NT, QLD, NSW and Oswald. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

State demonyms

There is a discussion underway at Talk:New South Wales about demonyms. The discussion has ramification for other states so a few extra opinions would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone feel like making a phone call?

I don't think this dispute can be solved solely on wikipedia, the difference in expectations of what is able to be done or controlled are just far too great. I'd call him, but I'm not a real person, just a figment of your collective imaginations. The-Pope (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't verify if it is really him over the phone and anyway we have to use published sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Might need an admin to revdel the edit with the problematic edit summary. Hack (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just deleted that text. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've started an ANI thread regarding this matter as well. --Rschen7754 07:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've rung him. He's on the road and will ring me back later this afternoon. I'll continue this on ANI once I've heard from him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Meetup with Sue in Brisbane

While Sue is in Brisbane for the Australian Library and Information Association conferences, we will have a meetup at State Library of Queensland on the Monday evening after New Librarians Symposium - 11 February 5-8 PM.

We are using CiviCRM for registration for the first time. If you can make it to the meetup, please register here:

http://civicrm.wikimedia.org.au/civicrm/standalone/index.php?q=civicrm/event/info&id=1&reset=1

A Wikipedia username is mandatory as numbers to the meetup will be limited, and we need to ensure wiki people dont miss out. Please inform any Brisvegan you know who isnt already in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane, as I'm about to spam those lovely folk now. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bendigo workshops 2013

Can you help? Wikimedia Australia will be holding an introductory training day for editing Wikipedia and related projects. With support from La Trobe University and Bendigo Community Health Services, it is for health information professionals across the region. It will also be open to other information community groups as well (regional historic societies, librarians and the like). The workshop is on Thursday, February 21, at Latrobe University Bendigo. If you can help, please contact Leighblackall or Peterdownunder, or register directly at the Wikimedia page.Peterdownunder (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Powderfinger FAR

I have nominated Powderfinger 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. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Book:Australia

Can we get a few eyes to look at the huge addition with articles like Australian two-dollar coin to Book:Australia. Pls see Book talk:Australia.Moxy (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Australia (2008 film) a "Western"? -- redux

This topic has been archived off the page, now here. Despite there seeming to be a consensus both here and at the article discussion page for List of Western films of the 2000s to remove Australia (2008 film) and most other Australian films from the "Western" genre, they remain so listed. Any edits I make there are reverted immediately by the one editor who holds the contrary view. 202.81.249.209 (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated Portal:Geography for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Geography. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

image:LieutenantGeneral Royal Australian Army.jpg

file:LieutenantGeneral Royal Australian Army.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This image appears to be from [1] (exact same filesize and dimensions), and as such is blatant copyvio, can an admin please delete it? Liamdavies (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader has uploaded numerous other images[2] that are all tagged now as CSD#F9. He has also created a couple of articles that duplicated existing articles. These are now nominated for deletion or redirected. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This editor is of concern to me, of the four new pages that they've created three (that I can prove) are copyvio or incorrect splits; "Ranks in the Australian Defence Force" was before my almost complete blanking lifted from these two army.gov.au pages; [3] and [4]. "Education in New South Wales" before being made a redirect was cut out of New South Wales#Education without saying so in the edit summary, as was "Shabbat Shalom (NCIS)" from "NCIS (season 10)", although minor, this is incompatible with the license of which all wiki content is under (attribution is a must). I'm not sure where to go with this, but we may have to go through all this users edits to cut out the copyvio/unlicensed content, any ideas people? Liamdavies (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You can always ask at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if this hasn't been cleaned up yet. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland)

I have just proposed that the new article Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland) be merged with the main article University of Queensland. If you are interested, I would be very grateful if you could comment on the merge proposal over at Talk:University of Queensland. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Field of Mars Fires

I've prodded Field of Mars Fires for deletion on the grounds of notability. DexDor (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Proposed renaming of Prisoner X article

An editor has proposed renaming the Prisoner X article to Ben Zygier (currently a redirect). Please comment on the proposed move at this RFC. - Evad37 (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Australian university groups

Category:Australian university groups contains one article, one content subcategory and five template pages. I don't think this is a useful category for readers and I would like to have it deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the place to list it for discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Mitch Ames belief is wrong in principle - too many Australian categories get changed without anyone in the Australian project ever being notified or alerted - there is nothing in CFD territory that gives adequate information about such changes to the Australian editor in general, unless if they have a particular category on their watch - Alan Liefting is actually providing the Australian project with a good service by doing that, usually CFD is mushroom territory, and as a consequence he should be congratulated on bringing it here, specifically to this noticeboard. Thanks Alan. sats 08:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
While the category isn't useful at present, it's a shame that there aren't articles on these groupings as they each have a small secretariat (a reasonable sized one in the case of Universities Australia and the Group of Eight) and are notable in their own right. I'd write articles on them, but I have a slight COI from a former job. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the category WikiProject. It is of interest to both parties. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the category title was not self explanatory, it refers to formal groupings of universities, as in 'innovative' 'group of eight', this is clearer on the template 'University groupings in Australia' Paul foord (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
So lets delete it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories of Australian universities exist to define cohorts - i.e. universities that are comparable or that have similar goals. In some cases these are self-elected categories in others membership by definition. The "Group of 8" universities are the big 8 research institutions. Australian Technology Network are med-sized institutions who focus on technology courses. There is also a Regional group defined by geographical location. Because it is a newly created category that is not fully populated does not mean it is invalid. Government documents and media releases use these term, and the universities use these groupings to lobby Ministers as collectively they have more power. I would oppose deletion. Stellar (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What said. These are significant organisations and this is a perfectly logical category in which to house them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Fred Krahe - possible problematic article

Can someone who knows a bit more than me have a look at Fred Krahe. It's not a BLP (Krahe died in the 80s), but there are plenty of allegations of wrongdoing and corruption with what looks to me like some pretty flimsy sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC).

Wikimedia in Higher Education symposium at The University of Sydney on Friday 5 April 2013

This is open to Wikipedians, students, teachers, academics... If you are interested in attending or presenting, please see the wiki meetup page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/5 April 2013. The call for papers is has a deadline of 27 February (soon!). --99of9 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder - get in quickly if you want to present something. --99of9 (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sydney Tower

An editor, who is alternating between his IP and registered account is adding content about "Ivan Ooze", "Megazords" and "Ectomorphicon Hornitors", as well as reverting addition of links and restoring contractions at Sydney Tower. More eyes would be welcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Australian Aboriginal tribes

Category:Australian Aboriginal tribes and 5 of its sub-categories, which are all within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Australia Vegetation map.PNG

image:Australia Vegetation map.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Potaski - first Jewish Pole in Australia - dubious

The Joseph Potaski article had for some time made the claim that he was the first Jewish Pole to arrive in Australia. This was a relatively obscure fact hidden in a low traffic article until the ascension to power of Denis Napthine, an apparent descendant. The Age in a profile piece overnight has reproduced the claim that Patoski was Jewish, however I have not been able to find any evidence for the claim outside of Wikipedia mirror sites. I have done a fair bit of searching through sources reliable and otherwise but have come up dry. A second, or third, pair of eyes would be appreciated. Hack (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a fairly extensive article about Potaski (by Des Cahill of RMIT University) archived on Pandora at the National Library here—impressive given little is known about Potaski or his origins. Here is a quote from the article about his religion (emphasis mine): "While he was nominally Roman Catholic, religion seems never to have played a part in his life nor that of his immediate family." --Canley (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
How do we tell The Age they're wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Usually there's an editorial email address listed. I would have sent an email already but I wanted to make sure I had eliminated all the possibilities (hence the posting here). Hack (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Think I've found the source. It's a family newsletter with a recollection from an elderly relative. Not exactly a reliable source. Hack (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian cadastral

{{Infobox Australian cadastral}} is used in 372 articles and uses fields that are already present in {{Infobox Australian place}} with only minor differences. Is there any reason why the two templates can't be merged. This would have the added benefit that it would protect WP:IAP even further from those seeking to replace it with {{Infobox settlement}}. I'm just throwing it out for discussion at the moment. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Greektowns in Australia

I have never seen one. Comments Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Its not legitimate. Mansfield is just a typical suburb in south east Brisbane. According to the 2011 Census, it doesn't even have a significant greek population. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
And Category:Ethnic enclaves in Australia - hundreds of the buggers out there, begging for our attention, are there not? Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This issue needs attention rather than hyperbole - a whole category tree of somewhat dubious creations - with hardly a WP:RS for veracity or verification, creating a whole set of potentially unverified 'creations' should not go unchecked - I am suggesting that it is dismantled bit by bit unless some more exacting verification of the claims is offered. These claimed items of demographic phenomena are potentially slippery/rubbery figures department unless caught by genuine ABS (or others) quotes. sats 09:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a single "ethnic enclave" anywhere in Australia? As I understand it, while recent migrants tend to be concentrated in certain broad areas (eg, South-West Sydney), the various ethnicities don't cluster in particular suburbs but are spread across these areas along with all the other groups. I could be wrong though. I've just removed Ryde, New South Wales from this category as the statistics provided to support its inclusion actually showed that about 60% of the population are Australian born and only speak English at home. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Australian-born and speaking English at home is clearly an ethnic trait (I usually speak English at home, apart from occasional gibberish, and most of my neighbours do likewise), hence Eaglemont, Victoria is an ethnic enclave of US (whatever the category may be) Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"19.4 percent of the population of Ryde is of Chinese ancestry" - is it not an enclave?Otkdna (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really: 80.6% of the population are of various other ethnicities. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The figures would define Ryde as a Non-Chinese enclave of Australia due to the minority of such ethnicity, in common with one or two other localities one may discover, so let us have a category for those as well?? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It depends how you define "enclave". One might define Sunnybank, Queensland as an "Asian" enclave, with prominent signs in Asian languages all over the place, but even then demographically less than half the population is "Asian". Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC).
Box Hill, Victoria as well (walk on left at your own risk!) but NOT an ethnic enclave Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Would 51%+ be an ethnic enclave, if the population is not mostly English speaking only and British Isles/Irish in terms of ancestry? Considering the majority of Australians have that ancestry and only speak English.Otkdna (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A statistic pulled from the census would not define something as an enclave for Wikipedia purposes. A collection of Multiple, reliable, published sources clearly stating "Fooville is a Barrian enclave" is the only thing that would. -- saberwyn 11:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Ryde's 51.8% female population does not make it a female enclave.--Melburnian (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Toowoomba Region edits

Could someone with some local knowledge take a look at the December and January anon edits to Toowoomba Region - vandalism obviously in the case of the change of amalgamated to 'burnt', but from this side of the Tasman I can't judge the others.Piwaiwaka (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The first two edits were reasonable although poorly executed. I've fixed the errors and reverted the vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Southern cross book 1928.jpg

image:Southern cross book 1928.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved as PD-Australia and can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. I've emailed the original uploader user:Camerong. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
and thanks to the IP person for alerting such items - they are very easily lost in the chaos sats 09:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Torbay resigns

There is quite a bit of work to be done in light of his resignation, and I am not very familiar with political topics, and to boot I am conflicted on this topic as he was my Chancellor until this morning(he was to resign in April[5], but that has been brought forward[6]). The infobox on his article will need to be changed now that he isnt a sitting MP, and we probably need to add the by-election on List of New South Wales state by-elections at some stage, but maybe we need to wait for the formalities. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently he resigned immediately, so presumably the paperwork should be finished today. There's no harm in starting a by-election page at Northern Tablelands state by-election, 2013 since there will inevitably be one, although there's no need to rush either. Frickeg (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the usual suspects

An intriguing Afd discussion - [7] - classic low edit IP involvement suggests some longer term editors might have a look at this one... sats 10:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Australian english

On the 24th, a script assisted change was implemented upon some Australian articles - with a Use British English at something like 7 articles a minute.

I challenged the editor, and requested a stop. I have hand reverted a small number. And copped some flack.

To date 17,000 articles + have Use Australian English [8] - I fail to see why with no apparent reason, a number of Australian articles are having Use British English applied. sats 01:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that it may not be "with no apparent reason" - see the documentation at Template:Use Australian English, part of which comes from User:Ohconfucius/USE disclaimer. Would it be appropriate to rewrite the disclaimer so it's all in some variety of English instead of Latin? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Fairly aggressive lobbying by Satu. Could you outline the differences between written AusEng and BrEng, please? Tony (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Some of the differences are in word usage and grammar, things which don't easily lend themselves to computational treatment, but useful advice for manual editing. e.g. some Aus/Br differences seem evident for the treatment of music group names per WP:BANDENG essay. Dl2000 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Dl2000, that essay of yours is pure invention! I'd correct the plural for a British band. Tony (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, some Aus/Br comparisons are noted in the Australian English article. Dl2000 (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this has the makings of a storm in a teacup. I tried to make sure everything was covered in the script and template documentation. All this may have been avoided if anyone had been bothered to consult it before raising a hue and cry. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed - 'script and template documentation' suggests that there is only one way of viewing the issue. Just because there had been not much conversation about the subject, when the script assisted change started happening, the average punter might not have understood what was going on on their watch list. My suggestion would be that the script creator could have, as a matter of courtesy, simply left a small message here, and indeed the storm in a teacup (in the script maker - template makers words) might not even gone further than here. sats 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing 'sudden' about it. As I already pointed out to you on my talk page, the script-assisted spelling-changes and tagging of 'commonwealth' articles in this fashion (after WP:ENGVAR) has been taking place since 2010. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 08:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, my apologies, so I got quite a few things wrong - the problem is now, at this time, we have 2 systems - Use Australia English (17,000) and your current User British English... on the watch list right now, incremental journey through Australian and New Zealand articles... even if there has been the background ENGVAR project for three years, we are still looking at two systems, and in effect that should have been my one of my queries and another query... where is the fine line distinction (if there is one) of using WP:TIES In the edit summary, when we see very specific Australian subjects and items edited to British English - and you read... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TIES#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic  ? I am sure I am missing something. sats 08:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that the 'use Australian English' tag has been around for ages and there are a few minor differences between British and Australian English ('programme' vs 'program' for instance; the former seems to be the common usage in the UK while the later is probably more common in Australia) it would be best to apply the 'Australian' tag here. But it's not that huge a deal IMO - the main advantage is tidiness. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a new thing, I've been finding British English tags on entirely un-British topics for a while now. As there is an Australian English tag in common use, it should be used in preference to British, not because there are lots of differences, but because we don't know how it will be used in the future. It is likely to be used by scripts and bots, and to avoid any inadvertent future problems, it just makes sense that plainly Australian topics should have an Australian English tag on it. The "commonwealth" is only relevant every four years when Australia wins lots of gold medals in the Commonwealth Games. The-Pope (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with most of the above, and I'm glad someone did raise this issue. The Australian English tag should be used on all Australian articles, or be eliminated completely. Tagging Australia-related articles with a British English tag and linking to WP:TIES in edit summaries is both contradictory and confusing. IgnorantArmies 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree, the Australian English tag should be used. It's true that Australian English and British English are almost identical, but that may not be the case in the future (one of our two major political parties is the Labor (sic) Party). There are also numerous words where both British and American spellings are considered correct, or words from both variants can be used, or neither. If we only tag Australian articles with the Australian English tag we will be better positioned to deal with the change of our variant of English if/when it occurs. I would also suggest a good look at Australian English which highlights the many very minor usage differences that Australian English has before deciding which tag to use. In case anyone things me mad, it appears we had strong pushes to adopt SR1 leading to Minister Doug Everingham renaming his department the "Department of Helth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdavies (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There are several points which would indicate it's a non-issue, although SatuSuro threatened to take me to ANI or DR because (s)he was upset over my tagging. Let me reiterate that I have no problem per se with articles being tagged {{use Australian English}} (or {{use Timbuktuan English}} for that matter); this tag won't get replaced when I run my script. But for productivity reasons, I will be tagging with only one tag, which could be {{use British English}} or {{EngvarB}}. My script only works on spelling, has a limited vocabulary, and will not change those words which are not common to British and Aus codes. In addition, Dl2000, who created the 'Australian Eng' tag and who single-handedly tagged the 17,000 articles, will undoubtedly reprocess any articles that fall within the scope of this project but 'wrongly' tagged. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 15:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
All that may be true for now, but what you're doing may require much cleaning up later, and editors may change Australian variants to British, assuming that the tag is correct, this is not productive and will lead to disputes. Wikipedia:TIES, which you're using as justification states:
"In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive."
"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change."
What you're doing is creating a dispute over which English variety is used. And are finding out that there is not consensus to the contrary. Australian editors want articles with strong ties to Australia to retain Australian spelling, as they have has through consistent established usage, that is until you tag them with British English. To you it may be a non-issue, but it is obvious that to others it isn't, and for that reason you should stop tagging articles within the scope of WikiProject Australia, until consensus to use British English is reached. Liamdavies (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I notice that you've tagged Holden VE Commodore with British English, this means that the correct thing to do vis a vis ENGVAR is to change all instances of ute to pickup truck. These are the types of problems that you are creating in the long run by not tagging Australian articles with Australian English. Why can you not run your script inserting Australian English into the page rather than British English? Liamdavies (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Could another option be for someone who is passionate about Australian spelling to step up and help Ohconfucius with this task for Australian topics? GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Or, could another option be for someone to create a bot that tags all articles within WikiProject Australia with {{Use Australian English}} and {{Use dmy dates}}, so people can use the appropriate scripts later? GoingBatty (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't feel that I'm deliberately working against you. I would welcome any such help as suggested by GB. I have already noted the efforts of Dl2000 who is doing a lot more tagging of Aus articles and at a much faster rate than I am. I am sure Dl2000 would also welcome such cooperation. I would much rather work on making the substance of spelling consistently non-American than worry about the form of the tagging. As I said, I do not change Aus tags to Brit, nor do I change 'program' to 'programme', so let's not get too excited. And if I were to change 'ute' to 'pick-up truck', it would be for reasons of WP:Commonality than ENGVAR. ;-) (just to reassure, I'm not about to do that) -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 00:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Ohconfucious for explaining yourself here, that is a small mercy. And to realise that even when you are doing gnome like things it is worth actually talking about it. That is appreciated sats 01:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we're talking about two different things here. I think I should clarify and say that I (and I'm sure all of us) am grateful to you for the copyediting work that you're doing, and that the work you're doing is correct as far as Australian English goes, thank you. My concern is about the long term implications of having Australian articles where an "English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article", in this case Australian English are being tagged as British English, and what others (not you) may change later on. I think you are dismissing this concern when you really shouldn't.
I would ask that you do one of two things: 1) Stop placing a ENGVAR tag on the articles (I see that you've already been doing this for some articles since this discussion has started. 2) Start placing the "Use Australian English" template, this is consistent with your placing of the "Use Canadian English" template on these two articles here and here.
Why is it that regarding AusNZ articles: "...for productivity reasons, [you] will be tagging with only one tag, which could be {{use British English}} or {{EngvarB}}.", but for Canadian you will tag with Canadian English? Why can you not break up the AusNZ articles into Aus and NZ, placing the national variety of English into each? Why should we Australian editors be expected to either preemptively tag articles, when your script could tag them with Australian English, or clean up the incorrect tagging due to your "productivity reasons"? Liamdavies (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the obvious answer is that CanEng is much more different from BrEng than AusEng is to BrEng (in spelling, only one word is different, in my experience, and the BrEng spelling is kind of acceptable in Australia if you're old-fashioned: program/me). This is a storm in a teacup: we want simplicity, not needless complexity. Tony (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking through Canadian English it seems to be very similar to Australian English, the only big difference that I could find was the use of z in place of s. Which is moving back towards British spelling in Canada, whereas I would argue that it's moving towards American spelling in Australia, organize is becoming more common. If/when it becomes acceptable (which it almost is) we're going to have thousands of articles incorrectly tagged, this is what I'm objecting to (for the record, I would prefer Australia to use it's current form of English, or move closer towards British English spelling, but that is not what this is about). If Australian English and British English diverge further we will have troubles. Troubles that we can avoid now by tagging Australian articles with Australian English, or simply not tag. I fail to see why some articles are tagged with a flavour of English but others aren't, can Ohconfucius simply not place a engvar tag but still do their cleanup work? Liamdavies (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No, Canadian English uses ize, but is moving towards Brisish ise, read the link. How do you know that either Australian or British English wont diverge? Organization is already highly used in The Age, not as much as organisation, but still high usage, this trend will likely continue. Also as has been said before, the Australian English template could have other future uses for bots. Liamdavies (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The Age uses -ize for organisations who use -ize, outside of Australia. And constructs like married secondly, and had issue are not Australian English Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have created a {{EngvarAu}} template that redirects to the Aussie one, so that you can fix up the bad tags easily. Tony, there are lots of words and phrases in common use in Britain that aren't used in Australia and vice versa. The existence of the 17000 articles with the Australian English cat shows that there is already a baseline of differentiation. We simply don't know how this tag will be used in the future, so unless you want to try to merge the Use Australian English template into Use British English, based on your assessment that they are basically the same (and good luck with that), this discussion shows that it is against consensus to tag obviously Australian articles with the British tag. Please stop, Mr Oh. The-Pope (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Norman Selfe

Hi all,
I've just listed the article about the fascinating 19th Century Sydney engineer Norman Selfe for FA class (nomination). This is the second time I've listed it as the first time was recently closed due to lack of commentary. I was advised to notify some relevant Wikiprojects this time to ensure wider visibility. So, if you're interested in reviewing the biography of the fellow who won the second Sydney Harbour Bridge design competition, please do! :-) Wittylama 09:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

NSW alphanumeric route shields

At the moment there are two styles used on Wikipedia for the new NSW/ACT alphanumeric route signs:

  • SVG file, with a white border
  • PNG file, with white border and outside green border

As can be seen from commons:Category:Diagrams of route signs of New South Wales, there isn't a complete set of either style. So what I want to know is:

  1. Is there consensus as to which style to use?
  2. If so/when there is, will someone make and upload a complete set? The routes needed, from RTA maps [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], are:
  • M1
  • M2
  • M4
  • M5
  • M7
  • M23
  • M31
  • A1
  • A2
  • A3
  • A4
  • A6
  • A8
  • A9
  • A15
  • A20
  • A22
  • A23
  • A25
  • A28
  • A32
  • A34
  • A36
  • A37
  • A38
  • A39
  • A40
  • A41
  • A43
  • A44
  • A49
  • B23
  • B51
  • B52
  • B53
  • B55
  • B56
  • B57
  • B58
  • B59
  • B60
  • B62
  • B63
  • B64
  • B65
  • B69
  • B70
  • B71
  • B72
  • B73
  • B74
  • B75
  • B76
  • B78
  • B79
  • B81
  • B83
  • B84
  • B85
  • B87
  • B88
  • B91
  • B94
  • B95

It may also be worth considering creating creating a "full range" set of, say, M1-M10, A1-A50, B50-B99 so that we're ready for future route upgrades or additional routes. - Evad37 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to being different formats, the dimensions are completely different. Is there some sort of standards document that provides dimensions and layout of what a standard shield is supposed to look like? Regardless of which style is ultimately found to be "correct", all the shields should be in SVG format; this will allow the shields to be used at multiple sizes without any loss of quality. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
What style do the RTA use, shouldn't we just use the same as they do? Liamdavies (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm using the RMS guidelines for the shields, though you can see the very format on the RMS' alphanumeric information page. I'm intending to create the full list of shields when I have some spare time. Bidgee (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks like the RTA will not use these route markings as stand-alone signs - they would always be on a sign with a green background and other info. Therefore, both the white border only version and white border and green border version could be considered correct, and there is also version with no outline on one of their website graphics [17]. Other graphics on the RTA website have all the markers using the same width rectangle, while photographic evidence [18] shows that the rectangle is narrower for single digit routes like A1 and M1, and wider for the two digit routes. - Evad37 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the RTA use only a white border, but as they place them on green signs the white is contrasted and shows up, causing the effect visible in the second picture. On a taste level I like this one better, but it doesn't come down to taste, it comes down to what reliable sources show. The photos and fact sheets do show a green sign with a white inlay border, and a green outer border, that is the visual effect most see, and what I feel should be used, both from an accurate and aesthetic position. Liamdavies (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no green border, never has been with the National route shields as well. The "green border" is in fact the sign, not part of the shield. Bidgee (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think my question was overlooked, or perhaps misunderstood—is there any sort of drawing like this one that we could use to make the graphics from? If it is not available on the website, it may be worth it to contact RTA to obtain one. This would be more reliable than website graphics, because those could have been made by a graphic designer with only a vague idea of what they're supposed to look like. ("Yellow text, green box, right font, good enough for me!") —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bidgee, wording was bad or misunderstood, the photo I was referring to was the one(s) Scott5114 posted. The signs, due to being the same colour green as the shield, show a green sign with a white inlay border, and a green outer border. The RTA website shows a green sign with a white border, but... they are never presented that way, they are affixed to signs that are green, which leads to the illusion. Inversely, if you only have a white border and present it on a white background it doesn't appear to have a border, and just looks like a Victorian all green shield. That is why I think it should have the green outer border, it highlights the white which would be absorbed into the white background otherwise. Liamdavies (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I've had a look around and specs seem pretty light on, the RMS just have fact sheets. I did find this, but I can't find the state shields in there, only old ones. They have a grey border around the white to highlight it, maybe it could be a green background with white border and very thin grey/black border to highlight it. If I find standards I'll post them here. Liamdavies (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks, and we don't have any information on the graphics apart from the RTA website and the photos of the roadsigns. Moving forward, the options we have to consider are:

  • Outline: white border only, or also include a thin green border (so that white actually shows up when the images are used)?
  • Width: keep everything the same width, or use a reduced width for single digit routes (as per the photos)?
  • Letter height: The letter height in the current SVGs seems a bit small, compared to the photographic evidence. What should the letter height be?

Keep in mind that the shield graphics don't have to perfectly reflect the real life signs (and can't if we don't have standard drawings, such as the US Interstate drawing linked above). As long as they are representative that is fine, though being closer to real life versions is better. Also, it looks like commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot will be able to make all the shields we need, if we can provide it with an example svg template, and a font to use. - Evad37 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

With a lack of proper example I suggest we use the samples on this page as a template, but put a thin light grey border around the edge to highlight the white (much like is done on the template of the old one). Liamdavies (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Contract mining

is contract mining a big business there in Australia?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.151.83 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The-Pope (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell & East

I would like to see articles on some of the defunct Queensland stores, such as Mac & East; Bayards; Piggotts; Barry & Roberts; Mcleods; Pikes-there is a category Defunct Department Stores of Australia. Mac & East is interesting as it was a victim of the Ariadne events and impacted on a number of workers and their benefits.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_department_stores_of_Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGC59 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be interesting, would you be able to help write them? All the info and help you require can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, you can also consult the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to see how things are formatted here. If you need any help Wikipedia:Help desk are always there to help you, as I'm sure some members of this board are. Liamdavies (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for assistance

[19] - there seems to be an issue here that could require an admin adept at dispute resolution sats 15:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

New WikiProject for Australian Roads

I have started setting up WikiProject Australian Roads, a new collaboration aimed at improving the coverage of Australian roads on Wikipedia (at the moment the highest rated road articles are two GA class articles, with the majority of the rest being start or stub class articles). Everyone who is interested is invited to join the project. Some project features are still in the process of being set up (such as assessment), but will hopefully be sorted out soon. - Evad37 (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Darling Hotel and Spa

Why don't you mention the Darling Hotel & Spa on your Australian Wikipedia page for Darling Quarter ? And why don't you mention Luminous at Darling Quarter, the interactive LED facade which has captured the imagination of many around the world? Are you ashamed of them?

I've tried adding these two landmark attractions in, in good faith. But your page does not respond to change. Oh how disappointing - Wikipedia's open and honest founding principle seem to have been corrupted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallura (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't mean Luminous at Darling Quarter would you? Moriori (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

CfD

An editor has nominated the following categories for deletion:

All of these are listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 10, and I expect more to follow. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I was correct. The following have joined them:

These are all listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 11. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

YMCA Youth Parliament articles

Hi, If you have a chance to take a look at Talk:YMCA Youth Parliament#YMCA Youth Parliament articles and provide your opinion, it would be much appreciated. The short history is:

  • There was an article titled YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament that was deleted for notability issues (discussion here).
  • The YMCA NSW Youth Parliament had the same sort of notability issues, use of primary and unreliable sources.
  • I expanded the YMCA Youth Parliament to include information for each state, integrate material from reliable sources and removed notable content. That included moving over reliable, cited content from the NSW article and creating a redirect to the main article.

There is an attempt to bring back the NSW article and it would be great to get your opinion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal for 'Electoral results for the district of Portland'/'Electoral district of Portland'

Due to complete information mirroring, I've proposed that all info from Electoral results for the district of Portland be moved to Electoral district of Portland and Electoral results for the district of Portland be made a redirect to Electoral district of Portland#Election results. If anyone would like to join the discussion it's at Talk:Electoral district of Portland#Merger proposal. Liamdavies (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Following discussion I withdraw the request. Liamdavies (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Population in lead

Can anyone confirm or deny that having a sentence about the census and population for an Australian place should be in the lead section of an article? I was under the assumption that it was a key fact and does belong in the lead. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To me, the place for it is in the lede. Where the place is and how big it is seem to me to be the key facts anyone would expect to see in the lede ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise key points and population is the first figure we show in {{Infobox Australian place}}, straight after the locator map that shows where the place is. It seems natural that both location and population are shown in the lead. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool District Hospital 1918.tif

file:Liverpool District Hospital 1918.tif has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The uploaders username is 'South Western Sydney LHD', when Googled that comes up with South Western Sydney Local Health District. In my mind that makes the user name is improper and it's also probably COI. Liamdavies (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sydney 2000 Olympic bid logo.png

image:Sydney 2000 Olympic bid logo.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Angry Summer

The current bushfire season is covered here and the Tasmanian outbreak is also covered. We don't have one for specifically for the record-breaking heatwave, although there is this stub. Is that a good place to expand on the heatwave (with a possible rename) or is it better to expand the bushfire season article? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There are already pages covering previous heat waves: 2009 Australian heat wave and the heat wave just past did get a lot of attention - enough to pass GNG - so I think you could safely expand the Angry Summer article (but the name needs to be changed, I never heard it referred to as that). Liamdavies (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the name was a joke at first - it seems to have been prompted by a report by the Climate Commission and seems to have got a little bit of traction in the media. Hack (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
We need to come to a consensus on a better name and mention Angry Summer as alternative name for the event. 2012–13 Australian heatwave may be best. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Heatwaves maybe? Heatwave generally refers to a short period of sustained hot weather. This is a pattern involving a number of heatwaves. Hack (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Plural is probably best. I will start work on improving it over the next few days. It deserves more attention. I have already increased the importance from Low to Mid. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

NSWToCBunton.jpg

image:NSWToCBunton.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

William Dawes

The article on William Dawes - the first external link is broken

Just letting you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:6080:6118:8FB:AF3C:999F:BE45 (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have confirmed this and removed the link from William Dawes (Royal Marines officer). --Canley (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:No worries/GA2

Please see Talk:No worries/GA2.

The article has not principally changed or been degraded in quality in any way since it passed for GA, yet its status is being challenged by a user who does not understand the use of secondary sources I used or the amount of research I did to gather plenty of secondary sources, virtually none of them coming from Australia itself, therefore the sources do not provide any sort of "Australia only perspective" but rather a good worldview perspective.

Can anyone help somehow advise me how to proceed or help to provide input?

No one at Talk:No worries/GA2 or the article's talk page have provided any other secondary sources to back up their assertions or challenging anything in the article.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For an article that supposedly has an "Australia only perspective", it sure uses a lot of American spelling. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) and others

Have nominated these for deletion in the belief that most are now incorrect and it is the job of Australia Post to maintain a correct version, not our responsibility. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks for putting that here - sats 11:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
All of the articles were nominated separately so I added a note at each pointing to the related articles, but "attendence" has been sporadic and all AfDs have now been relisted. For anyone who hasn't had the chance to participate, or has only participated on one or two, the AfDs for each state may be found at the following links:
Come one, come all.... --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jervis Bay Territory

Somehow, Jervis Bay Territory escaped having an infobox. Recently, an editor added one, using {{Infobox country}} but this doesn't seem right. {{Australia state or territory}} seems more appropriate, but doesn't seem to lend itself to use in the article, because it requires parameters that don't apply to Jervis Bay Territory. The other option is WP:IAP, but I was wondering what thers think. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That was me, I followed the lead of the Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Christmas Island, which all use the country template at this point in time (not saying not to change if there are better options, but just giving my reasoning, and 3 more articles that may be affected) - Nbound (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes things more clear. I actually ended there because another editor who wants to add the ability to use relief maps in WP:IAP also wants to add Jervis Bay Territory to the states and territories catered for by the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mount barker road 1900.jpg

File:Mount barker road 1900.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Yet another clearly non-copyrighted image that was nominated because it was lacking source information, which took two minutes to find. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the people who are tagging these for speedy deletion care how easy it is to find sources, just that they don't have any in the proper template form and no URL at the moment they looked at the file page (whether some person deleted it from the file page, or appears in some unacceptable format, such as on the description line, in the edit history or upload history, or is a non-URL source) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Danny Green

An article about an Australian boxer, Danny Green, has been listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, but it appears that the nominator has left Wikipedia. Is there anyone from this project who is willing to take up the nomination and address the issues if I review it? Oldelpaso (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks in fairly good shape, so I'll probably be able to do any cleanup that you find. The-Pope (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian road

There's currently a discussion about converting from {{Infobox Australian road}} to {{Infobox road}} at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads#Infobox. Given the two lengthy TfDs and discussions on the template's talk page, those who contributed to those discussions may wish to weigh in at the current discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

At this stage the discussion is focused on identifying and trying to resolve the issues with infobox road template (There is no proposal to implement as-is, and any implementation proposal should only be made if identified issues are resolved) - Evad37 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't surprise me that same "blind fold" is being used, US roads have clearly hi-jacked Australian roads and highways. As of now, I'll be no longer uploading my highway photos on Commons or any other site under s Creative Commons license. Bidgee (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

Nbound (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place

I've proposed some changes to {{Infobox Australian place}}. The discussion may be found on the template's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo request

This is a call out to Adelaide Wikipedians. I have just created the article for the South Australia Aquatic and Leisure Centre. I have done a quick search and there doesn't seem to be a freely available image of the centre. If someone who lives near Oaklands Park could pop down and take photo of the centre (something like this image would be great), upload it to Commons and add it to the article that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Auscoi.jpg

image:Auscoi.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Central Time Zone

The usage of Central Time Zone is up for discussion, see Talk:Central Time Zone (North America) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Stockton Ferry

Dear Wikipedia.


Ahoy.......


Are you interested in a story & info on the Stockton ferry that operated on the Hunter River between Stockton And Newcastle NSW

Australia. Built 1939 Sydney Harbour. I purchased it and rebuilt it as Pittwater's first and only cruising restaurant.

I can supply a interesting history on this well known ferry. I have lots of old pixs as the ferry and then after it's rebuild as a cruising restauranton Pittwater Broken Bay Hawkesbury River NSW Australia.

Thousands of Newcastle people traveled it and lots dined on it on Pittwater and some got

married on it and many visiting tourist cruised the magnificent waterway of Pittwater aboard it.

I was the owner operator starting in the early 80ties

selling it in the mid 90ties. Later it went down with a bus load of tourist aboard. After salvaged it's now a nice live aboard exferry.

I have it's history and lots of info and Photos. That's if you are interested.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.90.100 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked the Stockton Ferry still operated. You appear to be talking about a particular vessel that serviced that route. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
We are always interested in any history, but one of the key policies here is that we don't allow any original research. This can be confusing, confronting and even offensive to some, but because of the anonymous nature of this site, we can't just take your word on what is true or not. What we require is that the information has been published in an independent reliable source. Most commonly this is a book, newspaper or a website - but not a self published site like Facebook or a personal home page. Please reply here or on my talk page if you have any questions. The-Pope (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Department of Natural Resources and Mines Queensland place names online search URL is broken in template

As currently found on wikipedia: http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/property/placenames/detail.php?id=

As it should be: http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/property/placenames/details.php?id=

N.B. the s

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamanto,_Queensland

The link "^ Place name details" fails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.237.202 (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So, fix it (hit the edit button and the rest is easy). Help is always welcome. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Cutajarc has added an external link of Realtime Electrical Demand Information on the Australian Electrical Grid (AEMO) to many power station articles. I believe the link is not appropriate, for many reasons (see my talk page), but the main ones are it's a "personal" website (gotdns.com), not an official site (Cutajarc has previously admitted that it is "his/her website"; it's a wall of numbers, no analysis, trends or interpretation, with no evidence of accuracy or any evidence of permission to reproduce; and it isn't directly related to each individual power station - you don't know if they are contributing to those numbers or not... and even if you knew, so what. A (referenced) mention in the text of what proportion of the average/peak power grid each station provides would be sufficient, IMO. Cutajarc obviously disagrees, so I would like some 3rd opinions. The-Pope (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#EL11 addresses the addition. "Links normally to be avoided" include "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." This seems a clear case of a link that should be avoided. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok - The page is directly and indirectly relevant to the articles linked to, but mostly relevant. - The page is on topic, and clearly has valid source of information mentioned (AEMO or their data service NEMWEB) - Stated on AEMO's page, data CAN be used at "own risk" (http://www.aemo.com.au/About-AEMO/Legal-Notices) - The site, hence the name is providing realtime data, not an analysis, trends or interpretations. - Your basing the unappropriatness on your own opinion, not Wikipedias policy. - AEMO does not provide data on individual power stations, but generation and demand as whole (state regions). The linked page summerises this into a simple format.

Cutajarc (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Cutajarc


MAY I point out that the personal webpage article defines a personal webpage as "contain content of a personal nature rather than on behalf of a company, organization or institution.". The page ive linked contains data on behalf of AEMO, a company.

Cutajarc (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Cutajarc

It wasn't appropriate to add that link to so many pages. The page doesn't provide knowledge about the subject of the articles to which it has been added. Now I understand why it was misplaced so often, because it was their website. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ill admit that it was inappropriate to add the link to so many acticles at once but as I just mentioned this does not fall into the "links to avoid criteria" as it is not a personal webpage which is defined as "contain content of a personal nature rather than on behalf of a company, organization or institution." (data is provided on behalf of AEMO).

Cutajarc (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Cutajarc

I don't think you understand your error. Australia's Current Electricity Demand doesn't provide any information about the Gladstone Power Station. Therefore it is not an appropriate link to add to that article. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The link doesn't seem to provide any information at all on the power station, though if you understand the logic of electricity, after viewing that link it gave a good idea of the contribution that power station makes to Queensland. It is quite an interesting resource though not sure if its 100% relevant 149.135.147.89 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Bombers

Cutajarc & his farm of 149.135.147.* IPs are re-adding the link to list of power stations by state as well as a few of the individual power stations (Shiftchange has removed it from most power station articles) and power companies. Rather than edit war or try to get a 3RR, can we get some more input and consensus here on whether it is an appropriate link to be added to all, some or no articles, (the list is basically here: Special:Contributions/Cutajarc) or do I need to go to WP:ELN? The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The contribution history of the IPs warrants something a bit more severe in my opinion. A quick check of Tuesday's edit histories shows the same edit at multiple articles by multiple IPs in a short period:
12:48, 30 April 2013 149.135.147.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12:49, 30 April 2013 149.135.147.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12:51, 30 April 2013 149.135.147.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12:52, 30 April 2013 149.135.147.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
13:00, 30 April 2013 149.135.147.6
17:15, 30 April 2013 149.135.147.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Four different IPs in four minutes looks like he's deliberately changing IP's or editing from multiple devices to avoid being accused of edit warring. I'm going to do a bit more investigation, but I think it's only going to end up at WP:SPI. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

HAHAHA your gonna do an investigation dude that's sad lol get a life you wikifag geek. do you have anything better to do than stalk up address and investigate made up articles lmao you're am embarrassment to Australia. Don't call your self an Aussie legend mate, FAR FROM IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.54.159 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)

For the record, the IP adresses listed above, including 58.165.54.159 are Telstra addresses, as are the IPs that just vandalised my talk page.[20][21] In fact, all of the additions of this link, and contributions to this discussion have come from Cutajarc or Telstra IPs. Cutajarc clearly has a range of addresses available to him and posts like this, where he talks about Cutajarc in the the third person make it clear he's no longer interested in contributing constructively. He just wants his link, which I feel fails the requirements of an external link, added to articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a small range, and clearly from the one user, go to SPI and WP:RANGE 149.135.147.xxx. The link being added - although potentially useful - is simply WP:LINKSPAM, and the contributor doesn't seem to be acting in good faith. Liamdavies (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It does look like he's gone past any good faith link addition. Rather than rangeblock and possibly prevent others who share those IP addresses from editing, can we instead blacklist the web address that he's trying to add? The-Pope (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It's possible, but after the continued vandalism of my talk page and that of another editor who reverted his vandalism, I've opened an SPI discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You bunch may think what you want to, I've lost interest in having that link added to any articles and can be removed from where ever it was added to by me if you think it is against the policy (check my contribs for the list). I'll also like to point out and I'll only say it once, those attacks were not by me (as frustrated as this made me) and I have no idea who this person is claiming to be me which is VERY annoying. In relation to the Telstra IP address's, I'd like to point out that over half of the 12 million Internet connections in AU are Telstra services. I really don't appreciate the accusal merely based on observation and coincidence. But if that isn't enough to convince you guys ill be terminating my account because my contributions to Wikipedia seem to be nothing but unhelpful. (Ps I've also donated to help keep this site running so its a shame) Cutajarc (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Cutajarc

Disappointed that a working link about energy contribution (found quite interesting) was removed from Wind power in Australia yet multiple links on that article (4-5) are dead or 404 links. Are we supposed to be building this encyclopaedia or limiting resources and leaving unusable or irrelevant links current?

Mitchy89 (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Mitchy89, welcome to wikipedia. I'm glad you are interested in building the encyclopedia, but you should know that external links are one of the least important parts of the encyclopedia. The content of the articles, and the references that directly support the content, are much more important than the external links. I'm very impressed that for your first edit here you've been able to find the history tab to discover that a link has been removed, and then find this discussion board. I'm sure that with that kind of intuition and investigative skills you'll be a great help with article creation, article referencing and other cleanup tasks, and not worry at all about whether or not a single external link is there or not. Thanks for creating an account and hope you hang around to help out. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey mr pope, oh thankyou for that heartfelt message and oh was it enjoyable to read with that touch of sarcasm. Well you see I didn't think external links were much of an important part of Wikipedia either, but apon reading through this discussion I couldn't help my self to realize that a few "investigations" had been launched to my amusement. This gave me the impression these external links have a much broader importance than first thought. Any who apon realising a link first accessed a few days ago had been removed, I checked the edit history to discover that there was a discussion underway. It doesn't really take a genius to do what I did, but if you consider it "skill", you really need to look up the definition of skill. Mitchy89 (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source

The references to the website "http://www.waynes-world.tk/" on the article HMAS_Tobruk_(L_50) has been removed as they come under point 11 on the links to be avoided policy. This is NOT a reliable source nor is it an official website. "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." The user AussieLegend refused to acknowledge this fact.

121.214.10.244 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be someone bent on harassment, for which he was warned by other than me.[22] Dare I suggest it may be somebody we have seen before? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont understand where you're coming from? Somebody you have seen before? I dont understand why you keep removing the section from your talk pagea and continuously change the subject. Wikipedia is not a place for links to personal websites, instead source from an official service like the actual manufactorer of the ship.

121.214.10.244 (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


The reference is hosted on a "non-reliable site", but the information itself appears to be reliable in nature. The information was not (as best as can be known) independently created by the site's owner/editor, it appears to be a photograph or scan of official drawings. It's fine until other sources call it into doubt IMHO, we wouldnt reject a freely licensed photograph of say Parliament House, if it were hosted on the same site. If an equivalent official source is available, we should use that, but otherwise we use the next best thing.- Nbound (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be a completely different story if he were posting his own opinions/claimed facts from said site - Nbound (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The information seems reliable though the site could go down at any moment hence the reason there are so many dead links around Wikipedia. A more reliable source should be searched apon 121.214.10.244 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if there us a bigger picture or other dispute aspect to this, but as far as I can see, AussieLegend added those links over 4 years ago and hadn't edited the article since! And the reference itself is perfectly valid, even without a web link (offline refs are acceptable), as it is the ship drawings and launching ceremony brochure that is the ref, not possibly unreliable info from a personal website - it is just hosting a copy of it. I would be more concerned about the copyright legality of that site hosting the information, rather than naming and trying to shame a user who added it years ago. The-Pope (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Definately agree, but there isnt any point removing the current link until such time as the new source is located - it reduces the verifiability of the article - or essentially, it would as if the potential link rot had already occurred. If you can find a more reliable link (say from the Navy, or a government department), then just swap out the link with the official one, I doubt AussieLegend (✉) will have any problems with that. And if the official one ever disappears, we always have his image assuming the site stays online. I would also agree with The-Pope (talk) about the copyright issues, though I would assume that would be upto AussieLegend to handle personally on his own website (for all we know it could be free for research purposes). - Nbound (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I was wrong on my assumption, WP:COPYLINK says we shouldn't link to sources reasonably suspected of being copyright violations. I do not know how this would affect the image, because I am unaware of how it is originally licensed, and if AussieLegend claims fair use, etc (He may be the copyright holder for all we know). If it can be found that such an image could be in violation or remains uncertain, then remove it. Of course, the best way around this is as per the original reply - find a better source if available. I would also suggest that this discussion now be moved to the articles talk page. -- Nbound (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Source below is a scanned PDF from slipway company containing said image, I would probably err on the side of caution and remove the link to the references (sorry AussieLegend if you are capable of giving permission for its usage). The reference information itself is fine, its perfectly acceptible to link to a (potentially) copyrighted source. Its definitely not unreliable though, given its the official launch brochure! - Nbound (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Carrington Slipways was bought out by Forgacs shipyard in 1997, 17 years after the booklet was printed. They weren't even aware it existed and didn't want to claim copyright, although they did ask me if I could send them a copy just out of interest. That's why the PDF was created. I happened to have one because my brother-in-law was in charge of construction and we were guests at the launch. I really don't care if it's in the article or not, just as long as the IP doesn't harass me any more. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough to me... Ill edit the article to remove the direct link. (Unless you want to bother going through OTRS, but ill leave that upto you) -- Nbound (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the harassment I saw n my talk page, and all of this discussion, is related to Cutajarc's website. I added the site to my unreliable source list, which the IP has referred to. I've just discovered that another IP (probably one of Cutajarc's many IPs) was restoring the link at around the same time as the harassment. Although it's pretty much a foregone conclusion, I might have to raise this at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god mate give me a break, what crap are you on about now? Yeah I restored the links to a few pages that weren’t even part of the discussion such as the national electricity market page (just a tad odd) but oh well now they seem to be included. Jeez stop with your assumptions, that’s all you base you argument on. What IP has referred to my link? Anyway off that, you have added my link to "unreliable sources" yet your own webpage isn’t? Just a bit biased. A website which contains pages such as "http://waynes-world.tk/pages/idiot.htm" (yeah very mature mate) seems nothing but unreliable and not trust worthy. If personal web servers are labelled as unreliable and not allowed, heed your own advice and don’t be a hypocrite.

Cutajarc (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sailors Home Sydney.jpg

File:Sailors Home Sydney.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, "free published source" is not adequate for us to tell when it was taken or if it is public domain! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The source site mentions state NSW Records has reproduction rights... I dont know if this is a blanket statement (as it should otherwise be PD in the US and AUS (series is pre 1920), or if it is legally enforcable. - Nbound (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

took all of two minutes to find its c1880[23] image that makes its pd-aust and pd-us I have removed deletion notice and tagged it as ok to move to Commons Gnangarra 23:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I found it there too, but I did a search at NSW state Records but couldn't find that particular image. I did find a similar image that I think is better,[24] but it doesn't have a date. However, it is tagged with a "No known copyright restrictions" license. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have updated the table with all the information provided in the searches from us here. It should be noted that the "no known copyright restrictions" restrictions release, does not guarantee that the image is out of copyright. I have therefore stated a Wikipedia user (which links to Gnangarra), beleives it to be so, "due to the reasons outlined in the licensing section below". I am still curious as to what NSW state records mean when they state they have reproduction rights. Nbound (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I am also bringing these "No known copyright restrictions" images, to the attention of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia village pumps (discussion is happening on Wikimedia: here) - Nbound (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
In this case, the appearance of the building was extensively altered in 1926 (see images here), so even under the worst possible scenario this photograph must have been taken prior to 1926 which would make it PD in both Australia and the United States. The only circumstance I can possibly imagine where the image would be copyrighted is if it's a post-'55 reproduction made to look like something pre-'55, but if that scenario is enough grounds to cast doubt on an image then most of Commons will probably have to go. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC).
Agreed, just saying the "no known copyright restrictions" should be backed up by further information, rather then relied upon alone (its essentially a "we are pretty sure, but..." in regards to PD). This image was definately pre-circa 1920 according to State Records, so its a pretty clear case for this file IMHO. Feel free to add to my discussion on wikimedia linked above if you would like to add anything to the discussion there :) - Nbound (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
not pretty sure its Absolutely certain there is no copyright issue, the image is PD according to the Australian copyright act. Photographs taken before 1955 are out of copyright, irregardles of whther the author known or not this is what is referred to as PD, or "No known copyright restrictions". Gnangarra 05:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes this is a clear cut case, there are images not so clear cut, which also state "No known copyright restrictions". (Example: [25], taken in AU in 1956 by an AU organisation, unknown if published in AU or when, released as "No known copyright restrictions" by UK national archives, as is part of a UK public record - It probably is PD in AU for one reason or another, but its definately not as simple to decide as the file in question here was). Also keep in mind that even if files are PD in AU, they may not be PD in the US where wikipedia/media is hosted, generally files need to be PD in both to be acceptable. -- Nbound (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Essentially, in regards to the original 1880 image, its not PD because its released with "No known copyright restrictions", its PD only because its a pre-1955 image. Its on wikipedia/media, because it is also PD in the US. Both Flickr and the various participating sites state that those using these images should check copyright applicability themselves. See here. Why? Because photographs have different copyright statuses in different nations. - Nbound (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I may revert back to the previous version depending on how the discussions go at Wikimedia. Gnangarra, if you, for whatever reason, no longer wish to back the file as being PD if a revert is done, let me know. (This isnt necessarily a statement of intent on my behalf, just giving Gnangarra an option if this is the case) - Nbound (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Instead of the above I have added a flickr template to it which mentions the "No known copyright restrictions" stuff, It shouldnt be reproposed for deletion unless there is cause to suspect it is under US copyright, which is in my personal opinion, very doubtful -- Nbound (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no doubt because the Australian copyright is very specific and this is PD, under the URAA images that were already PD in the country origin remained PD in US, the issue between PD Aust/ PD US is the period between 1946 and 1955 as images in this range could have had an application to restore copyright in the processed, but I checked and no Australian requests made based on the information available, even still we upload a limited number of them here with the PD-Aust tag rather than Commons, to erase that doubt where fair use may also be applied. I think if you have doubt then you should be nominating the image for deletion and let user who have been dealing with copyright issues look at it. Gnangarra 11:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have consistently stated this is a clear cut case and the image is both PD, in AUS, and in the US. All Im claiming is that PD isnt given by the words "No known copyright restrictions" on Flickr (they state that themselves), claiming that as permission is misleading. This is all I have claimed... is there reason to beleive that is not correct?. In the post you just replied to I even stated there is no cause to propose it for deletion. I cant see where I have created any doubt to this file's PD copyright status, or proposed its deletion. Is there any reason why my edits to the image in question should remain reverted? -- Nbound (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
In short, its not PD because a site claims "No known copyright restrictions", its PD because of <reason>. The reason in this case is fine (pre 1955 PD-AUS, and also PD-US, though the {{PD-Australia}} tag with the US part disabled covers both), lets make the image information clear on that. Its specifically stated on Flickr commons that users should check that images are PD for their own usages. Lets show, clearly, that we have taken that step. Not every image from Flickr commons will be so clear cut. - Nbound (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
You have no idea what you're talking about! You've created doubt on the photograph's PD status by creating uncertainty that doesn't really exist. In this case only {{PD-Australia}} should be used and {{PD-US}} doesn't need to be added. Bidgee (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Which is what I specifically stated in the post above "though the {{PD-Australia}} tag with the US part disabled covers both", the template i added was to clear up the Flickr source {{Flickr-no_known_copyright_restrictions}}, per Flickr Commons copyright page which does not guarantee PD status to any image hosted on Flickr with "No known copyright restrictions". The main point is that the fact that it has known "No known copyright restrictions" is being used in the Permission column, when it is hardly such, in and of itself. The template was added for further clrairty and it does not detract from PD-Aus, and infact relies on it for its intended purpose! Please re-read the discussion, before you open with "You have no idea what you're talking about!", you will see I've never stated there should be a PD-US tag. - Nbound (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
To clarify for any new editors entering the conversation, and remove any doubt for anyone, the changes I would like are those shown here, which can be viewed as would be displayed here. I am not challenging the copyright status of the file. - Nbound (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that Commons, where this file is proposed to be moved to, understands the two dont equate, which is as I have stated: [26]. Especially the discussion with George Oates, Flickr employee heading The Commons. (direct link: [27] ) -- Nbound (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
And very very specifically (though there is plenty more interesting stuff) from the email discussion: Actually, "no known copyright restrictions" doesn't mean that the photos are in the public domain. In fact, it's not even a license per se. - George Oates (Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM) Then suggesting we supply link to: here and also the rights statement of the institution in question which would be: here in this particulat case (I hadnt added this earlier, but it really should also make an appearance also). Is there any reason why we should not follow their wishes and also treat the "no known copyright restrictions" statement the same way they are - Nbound (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So how about the following:

Summary

File information
Description

Old Sailors Home circa 1880

Source

Sydney Bethel Union, it can also be found via its original source (State Records NSW) digitally here, or also via a release on Flickr: The Commons

Date

Circa 1880, or between circa 1870 and circa 1920

Author

An unknown officer of the Government Printing Office.

Permission
(Reusing this file)

State Records NSW, have released the image with "no known copyright restrictions" on Flickr: The Commons. This alone does not necessarily mean the image is in the Public Domain for any particular usage. Users should assess the applicability of any copyright independently.
For further information see:

We believe the image to be in the public domain for our particular usage, due to the reasoning outlined in the licensing section below.




Licensing
{{Flickr-no_known_copyright_restrictions}}
{{PD-Australia|commons}}

( Nbound (talk) )

Permission and {{Flickr-no_known_copyright_restrictions}} is not needed, again you're creating uncertainty that clearly doesn't exist. Bidgee (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Its been requested by the guy who is heading Flickr Commons, and not every file will be so clear cut. Im not creating any uncertainty, Im showing that we have assessed the copyright for our own purposes, as requested by the Flickr Commons usage statement, rather than relying on another institution. How does this create uncertainty in any way, what specific part is casuing the uncertainty for our usage?

It should be noted the permissions section already exists stating "State Records NSW, have released the image with "no known copyright restrictions" on Flickr", despite the fact the following has been stated: "Actually, "no known copyright restrictions" doesn't mean that the photos are in the public domain. In fact, it's not even a license per se." - quoted from George Oates (Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM).

This isnt controversial over on commons where this image is likely to be hosted, why is it here? what is the cause of the uncertainty? if anything, IMHO, it makes the already clear case even stronger. -- Nbound (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
{{Flickr-no_known_copyright_restrictions}} could probably be removed if the permission section was left as or very similar to, what I have suggested above. - Nbound (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to drop this, if this isnt what people want, but... Im failing to understand the reasoning so far. And have had my argument misunderstood by others on several occasions. Both are why this discussion is unfortunately dragging on. -- Nbound (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion states the file is PD, because it is AU Pre-1955, and only because it is AU Pre-1955. Not due to any other implicit reason at all. The current state of affairs is more confusing because it states:
State Records NSW, have released the image with "no known copyright restrictions" on Flickr
When "no known copyright restrictions" doesnt mean anything legally at all. Even by their own admission.
No we arent required by law to state what Flickr: The Commons have suggested. If it were the case that Wikipedia stuck 100% to the letter of the law, without shows of good faith towards sites with similar goals, we'd have alot less templates, and probably less image contributors. -- Nbound (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it! All you're doing is being an armchair lawyer who is creating unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. It isn't needed here or on Wikimedia Commons. Bidgee (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps if you feel the wording is creating doubt, we could state: The image is in the public domain for our particular usage, due to the reasoning outlined in the licensing section below.

(Emphasis only added to show changes) Nbound (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The image is in the public domain no other explanation necessary. Gnangarra 02:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Bidgee, I didnt have anything to do with what commons states on this (If thats what your saying? Im not sure). Regardless I have stated repeatedly I didnt understand why my edits were controversial, and requested clarification. I didnt expect the conversation here to be so drawn out as I stated earlier.
  • Gnangarra, as a compromise could we remove State Records NSW, have released the image with "no known copyright restrictions" on Flickr from the permissions section. This is my main point of contention, and if The image is in the public domain no other explanation necessary is the rationale we will be using when considering this and similar cases, then it should be considered extraneous and removed. -- Nbound (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Or to be clear for all involved -- Nbound (talk)
Summary

File information
Description

Old Sailors Home circa 1880

Source

Sydney Bethel Union, it can also be found via its original source (State Records NSW) digitally here, or also via a release on Flickr: The Commons

Date

Circa 1880, or between circa 1870 and circa 1920

Author

An unknown officer of the Government Printing Office.

Permission
(Reusing this file)

See below.




Licensing
{{PD-Australia|commons}}

I am happy to work further on the example above if you deem possible changes as necessary for your support -- Nbound (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The version I edited to 3 days ago when I checked the licensing, and the source when it was nominated for deletion is all that is necessary, every other change thats occurred creating confusion and doubt, saying it may not be PD has come from you. Gnangarra 05:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)




Where?
  • I have repeated multiple times the file is both PD in Australia and the US, and the {{PD-Australia|commons}} template alone covers this. At no stage have I removed, or even suggested to be removed the pre-existing licensing tag.
  • I have conceded my position on the extended permission statement and template may create doubt, and have instead suggested a compromise which allows for even less doubt than what currently stands.
Is there any reason to leave a statement with no legal bearing on the file's actual status in the "permission" section? Given your statement above:
  • "The image is in the public domain no other explanation necessary."
would seem to at least, in principle, support this, Im confused as to why the sentence cannot be removed. The only difference between the two, is that we now have more complete source/authorship information. -- Nbound (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You've created this drama, you added "The image is in the public domain no other explanation necessary.", along with the other unnecessary confusion and uncertainty in the permission field. I'm removing it. Bidgee (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Not on its own I didnt, it was relying on the context of the rest of what I added at the time. But yes, with it removed (as I suggested above), I am much happier with the current state of affairs. Thank you -- Nbound (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not wish to do either, nor have i ever wished to do either of the things you have suggested. I would appreciate a reply to the questions in my previous post. It is not necessary of you, if you do not wish to. I agree that further discussion is pointless, and should therefore be stopped. I do not agree with the link you have linked to above as I have not made any disruptive edits to any images here (I have left your revert untouched), or from the linked page:
A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that s/he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition.
I would appreciate the links removal - Nbound (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"I agree that further discussion is pointless, and should therefore be stopped.", funny that you're the one who started and is continuing this. I don't think that Gnangarra should remove the link to WP:POINT, just because you don't like it. Bidgee (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Im not asking him if he'll remove it because I dont like it. Im asking him to remove it if he wasnt aware of the connotations of the link. My previous encounters with Gnangarra have been, in general, positive. And I am giving him a chance to make clear if there was some kind of mistake.
If (and only if) he was aware of the connotations, then I wont be requesting its removal by official channels, I would prefer it to be on display as such uncivil statements generally bring the accuser into greater disrepute than the accused. -- Nbound (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
After being here for 8 years, being an admin here for 6-7 of those years when I point to policy its for a reason, also note that I've been an admin on Commons for 5 years I seen every pointless argument about copyright, I've seen some of the worst editors around. When choose to direct you to a spceific policy its for a reason, this page has had 5-6 edit by me, and similar number by Bidgee you have made over 40, you are the only one thats wants to say anything about that beyond which it is, you are the only one that is creating the problem and the only one that continues to say that there is any doubt that the image not PD-Aust, PD-US nor even PD-Old as I said before your point has been noted either restore it to the version 3 days ago when I verified the licensing or nominate it for deletion. Gnangarra 06:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
you are the only one that is creating the problem and the only one that continues to say that there is any doubt that the image not PD-Aust, PD-US nor even PD-Old - WHERE? Ive had to go on and on, due to statements like this. This should have been cleared up much sooner. I make multiple edits on every page (even articles) I have anything to do with (check my contribs!), usually because I see how a statement could be further clarified or improved. This discussion has never left this spot, I have never reverted an edit, I have never claimed the image wasnt PD, I have never stated the image should be deleted. Im trying my best to get a point across that falls on deaf ears. Bidgee has edited the page, with what should have been an relatively uncontroversial by your own reasoning, I purposefully didnt do it myself. What more should I have done? I specifically stated since the start that I was after the opposite of things I have been told I was suggesting or doing, with little or no clarification of why I was being told why I was suggesting these things. Please everyone, re-read from the start, and count, how many times ive had to reiterate something because I was told I was suggesting the opposite. This is doing my bloody head in! -- Nbound (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Consider this my absolute final statement here, on this topic - Nbound (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

16th May,

  • my edits after verifying licensing and source [28]

18th May

    • Nbound edit [29] added source for an alternative version, with a permission that said no known copyright restrictions, and added date range of 1870 to 1920. Also stated in the permission field flickr doesnt guarantee the image to is inthe public domain anyone wishing to use the image that copyright isnt being infringed upon... that User:Gnangarra believes that this image to be in the public domain.
    • I removed the confusing permission statement [30]
    • Nbound added a template saying no known copyright restrictions repeating the warning about flickr(image wasnt sourced from flickr by the uploader)[31]
    • Nbound then added the image has also been released with "no known copyright restrictions" linked it to flickr[32]
    • I removed the template as there was no doubt over copyright[33]
    • Bidgee removed the Flickr link[34] because it has nothing to do with the image

all of which is visable in the images edit history, I note that not did you start this discussion but you expanded it over to Commons because apparently noone else agreed with what you are asking for.. thats called forum shopping. Its taken three days to get to the exact same point we were at three days ago. To quote WP:LISTEN ' The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Can we now call this resolved? Gnangarra 07:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Train station photos

can you find some pre: 1972 photos of t he smithfield Train station ADELAIDE SA Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.92.209 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not the place for this sort of enquiry - you should try http://trove.nla.gov.au/ - its is more likely a point of entry into the wonderful word of enquiries about such items... best of luck sats 15:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I had a quick look, and couldnt find anything related to the station, there were however two images from a derailment circa 1870s between Salisbury and Smithfield, which may or may not be of use to you. [35] [36]. Due to their age these images should be Public Domain. - Nbound (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Clean Energy Finance Corporation

Clean Energy Finance Corporation was recently speedily deleted because of A7 and G11. It wasn't overly promotional but it wasn't a good article either. I added its importance to the lead, removed the excess ext. links and provided references. It is part of the current governments plans to mitigate climate change and will be dealing with billions of dollars worth of investment. Its also been in the news recently because the Coalition may scrap it. I would of removed the speedily deletion tag had I known I could. Is it possible for an administrator to reverse this and get a proper discussion going. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just left a note with the admin who handled the speedy deletion (which is always a good first step with this kind of thing). I agree that it should be restored so that it can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is now restored. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Working on it now. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed a large amount of WP:COPYVIO copied from http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/about-us.aspx from the page. The history shows that the copyvio material, added by User:Clean_Energy_Finance_Corp replaced other content, which should probably be reviewed and placed back into the article. Liamdavies (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Australia

An editor has removed images of two flags in Flag of Australia, first because they were in a gallery.[37] I restored them, pointing out that both had valid FURs for the article. The same editor has now removed them again, citing WP:NFLIST,[38]. I'm going to restore them again, as they are the subject of commentary in the article, but some eyes on the article are needed because i expect them to be removed again. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC) The same editor has also removed an image at List of Australian flags, leaving a hole in the table there.[39] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Maryjerram.jpg

File:Maryjerram.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Note, File:Mary Jerram.jpg was deleted earlier this month -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

William Schey.jpg

image:William Schey.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

D-class roadways in SA

Before I nom the pics for deletion, can anyone give an official source that D96, D95, and D83; are all official route designations in SA.

By proof of SA goverment official documents, or by photographic proof of it being used to mark the route. If it is not being used to mark the route, we should not have an image of it, though it could be mentioned that it is an internal designation for the road in article prose.

Ive tried google but it aint much help...

Nbound (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Files removed from articles. If no evidence can be found within a week or so, I will likely nominate said images for deletion. - Nbound (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a poke around SA Government websites and can't find any reference to the D-class route numbers. There are a few references around the web that match, but nothing that I'd consider reliable. I'm going to write to the relevant government department to ask for clarification, but in the meantime I concur that these route numbers should probably be removed as unverifiable for now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

Good idea, Lankiveil... Havent done that yet - I had a pretty decent look, and it doesnt seem to exist anywhere other than on roadgeek sites. If the designations are true, but unposted (and therefore internal [whether an administrative internal designation also exists is largely irrelevant]), we shouldnt be posting images of non-existent route markers, though it could of course be mentioned within the article itself (like any internal designation). I checked where possible on Google Street View at the terminii of the roads and couldnt find anything there either, well before I suggested their removal. - Nbound (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did the same thing with Google Maps and also drew a blank. I did find this site which lists them, but notes that they are "Unofficial (and unsigned)". I suppose some well meaning person has seen a reference on the internet somewhere and gone and added it in, not realising that they're not official. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC).
Ah-ha, do you think it would be premature to propose deletion of the route markers in light of this, or did you still want to see what else could be dug up? - Nbound (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that this affects several other articles that have written things based on these being signed routes (eg. Highways in Australia) and editor-created images which show the routes using a marker (eg List of highways in South Australia)
Im going to go ahead and remove the D-class section from Highways in Australia and Route number, no point keeping it if, for now at least, if the signs dont exist in the articles. - Nbound (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
List of highways in South Australia has had D markers removed, and map of roads in SA has had D-class shields removed. - Nbound (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've gotten an email from DPTI to confirm they've received my request and passed it along to the appropriate area. I think it's probably best to sit tight for now, even if they are not physically signed they may still be official designations. If/when I get a response we can then act appropriately. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC).
Ive logged the changes in the above replies so they can be undone if need be. If it isnt posted marker, we shouldnt have a marker image on display (as it doesnt exist), but it can of course be mentioned in the infobox, as it should be per the WP:ACCESS requirements for shielded routes anyway.
In other words, what previously should have been:
File:New South Wales detour route 83.svg Testcase Track (D83)
would instead become:
Testcase Track (D83)
with an appropiate comment in the code, mentioning why there is no shield.
Of course if it isnt official, then it shouldnt be mentioned at all.
- Nbound (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Any updates from DPTI? -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Not yet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC).
Further to this it would appear that SA uses the D-prefix routes for detours (like the other states)/ See here for image. And here for usage information. - Nbound (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Images proposed for deletion at: Commons:Deletion requests/SA D-class routes -- Nbound (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian road code updates

This message is to let anyone who wasn't aware know that there is a proposal to upgrade the code for {{Infobox Australian road}} currently underway. The proposal includes a number of completely optional functionality enhancements and some very minor layout changes but otherwise, the code is 100% backward compatible with the existing version of the template. The code has been built from code recently and successfully incorporated into {{Infobox Australian place}}. If you'd like to join the discussion, even if it's just to ask a question, please click here. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

SLNSW's first DYK? The 1813 crossing of the Blue Mountains

I just came across this article created by two of our wikilibrarians at SLNSW yesterday. It looks fantastic. Would someone like to help take it through DYK? --99of9 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just renamed the article to 1813 crossing of the Blue Mountains (without "The"), per WP:THE. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the copyedits too. --99of9 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that the 200th anniversary of this expedition will be over on June 6th, so it would be nice to rush it through and get it on the front page on that day. So here's the nomination, with a hastily constructed hook: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/1813_crossing_of_the_Blue_Mountains. Feel free to suggest a better one. --99of9 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hook-wise, there could be something about the expedition opening up what has become Australia's oldest highway (will need more sourcing though). Hack (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to throw in a suggestion. --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Can anyone formally review this? If possible I'd like this to go live on the 5th of June - the 200th anniversary of their return. --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, but the key part of the hook needs a citation ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, done. --99of9 (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Animals Australia

...just needs a little tidying & emphasizing the 3rd party refs to get it out of AFC hell. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

and removal of the copyvios. Some of the content is very close paraphrasing from the Animals Australia website. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Mitchell Library (WWI and beyond)

Hello All,

I have a meeting next week with the Mitchell Librarian (at the State Library of New South Wales) about how Wikipedia can work with its Mitchell collections and especially about the forthcoming focus on World War I. The Library is currently preparing a big World War I program. For example, they are advertising for a person who will "Coordinate the planning, development and implementation of a Library-wide program of activities for the WW1 Project that will span 2014-2019, to deliver a comprehensive and varied program of events, exhibitions, learning programs and regional activities." My Residency at the Library will finish soon but we can start planning our contribution and engagement. What would people like from the Library in return for working on World War I articles? What would make a WWI editathon there appealing to you? Ideas about our engagement that I can take to this meeting? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Anonawinn.jpg

image:Anonawinn.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A bit of digging has found the image to be a cropped version of: http://elvirabarney.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/anonawinn.jpg (or similar) Have been unable to find a date for the image. Maybe someone else will have better luck -- Nbound (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A different image dated to 1947 would make me think (IMHO only), that the above image is Pre-1947, see: http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Twenty_Questions
Its also probably going to be hard to know whether the image was created in AU or the UK.-- Nbound (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk featured article nomination

I have nominated the McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk article for featured article status, and its nomination page would benefit from additional reviews (this article covers the features and service history of a fighter aircraft operated mainly by the Royal Australian Navy). I'd appreciate it if editors with a view on whether this article should be promoted or not could post their views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk/archive1. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the old Skyhawk. Boy, have I got some stories about those. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Witches are not eye doctors

The category Australian occulists needs to be moved to Australian occultists. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Graham87 07:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo Finish

Invented by Charles Aldos father of Lucette Aldous famous ballet dancer should be in the Australia inventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.36.205 (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Aldous is the name: I thought Bert Pearl but if you have a ref go ahead and edit (see WP:BOLD. Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
A quick Google search finds that the photo-finish camera was invented by:

template:Rugby League in Australia table cells

{{Rugby League in Australia table cells}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Planned editathons

Several editathons are planned in collaboration with the State Library of New South Wales. They are:

To find out more and register your interest, go to the project pages linked above.

Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Australian Roads is after more editors

Hi WP:AUS members, as most of you are now aware there is now a wikiproject focusing on Australian roads. We are always looking for new members, feel free to join us if you are interested :).

It would particularly handy to have members who focus on roads in QLD / VIC, or portions thereof, as they are so far unrepresented in our participants listing. Of course new participants will be welcomed no matter where they call home :)

-- Nbound (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Liverpool District Hospital 1918.tif

File:Liverpool District Hospital 1918.tif was nominated for deletion two months ago and is still being discussed. The following was just posted on my talk page.[40]

Sadly, Stefan2's assessment of the image is correct. As an unpublished image it's not PD in the US, the only ways to prevent is being deleted are a) add a fair use rationale (but meeting NFCC8 needs to be addressed in the article), b) see if the photo does have a known author and find out when they died or c) check if it has ever been published and if so when. NtheP (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how to determine whether it has been published. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist count

I remember three or four years ago my watchlist count was around 900. Any more than 1,000 and the list would become too lengthy. Now I have let my watchlist expand to closer to 3,000 and its still not too large. Has anyone else noticed this overall decline in editing activity via their watchlists? Or is the variability more dependent on which type of pages are on watchlists? How many articles are other Australian editors watching? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My watchlist is 567 pages and I have a hard time getting through it each day. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think a lot depends on the watchlist composition, such as how many of these you are watching. I have 9,075 pages on my watchlist, but a lot of those are relatively obscure plant species.--Melburnian (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
My watchlist is over 2,000 pages (must try to cut it down) and the numbers each day haven't really changed over the years. Dan arndt (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, you lot need to be helping me combat the vandals and IPs on TV articles, where my life is typing "unsourced", "WP:CRYSTAL", and "rvv". --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the same thing recently: I'm up to 4699 pages. I imagine that a lot of these are old AfD discussions and article review nominations, but it does seem to have blown out. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a constant decline of vandalism and low grade positive contributions, which usually get reversed. People increasingly leave editing to the "experts", which makes our lives easier, but means that editors are getting older and fewer.--Grahame (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately, I am young* and I am many. (* in my own mind)
My watchlist is currently 8,554. It's never less than 7,000, and was once nudging 10,000. I do go through it a couple of times a year and weed out some old stuff that's crept in there. But it always creeps back up, and the length doesn't bother me, AussieLegend. I don't even attempt to get through it all each day. I'm able to distinguish the keenly-watched articles from the vaguely-watched ones. I'm sure there are some articles that have been on my watchlist for over 7 years with next-to-zero activity on my part. That's the price I pay for having a very broad range of interests. I just can't bring myself to unwatch certain articles in case some terribly inaccurate text gets in; but that doesn't mean I check in more than once a decade. Weird, I know. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Maude Bonney

... is not a "women". (Maude Bonney becomes first women to fly from Australia to England.) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, but not sure why you didn't just do it? Stephen 04:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

New article on gender studies lecturer Nicholas Chare

I've created a new article on gender studies lecturer, Nicholas Chare.

Further help with expansion would be most appreciated.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

template:Aust PM

Just to let every one know I have protected the template {{Prime Ministers of Australia}} as its already receiving good faith edits to add Kevin Rudd. Until KR is sworn in by the GG which could take another day or two given there's also the likely hood of a no confidence motion sometime tomorrow. Feel free to unprotect and make changes once it confirmed. Until as its not a highly watched template protection will enable editors to focus on the KR, JG and 100 or so other articles that will need to be updated. Gnangarra 10:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be an idea to check Australia as well, for the same reasons. there have been some dubious edits today. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Reserve

An IP editor is repeatedly removing images from Charles Darwin Reserve. I agree that the images could well be replaced if better ones are available, but meanwhile they are relevant and they do provide some visual enhancement to the article. I do not wish to get into a revert conflict and would be grateful for some third party comment or intervention, even if you disagree with me. Thanks. Maias (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As has been explained to you patiently at quite some length user:Maias, and with reference to the guidelines that you're choosing to ignore, the present images are completely irrelevant and misleading, and therefore should not be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.124.83 (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2013‎
I agree with the IP editor, the images arent directly relevant to the article and are misleading. Take a picture onsite. -- Nbound (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement with the IP, the photographs aren't from the reserve. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah clearly all looked at by tothersiders, just a short drive to get piccies, not. The reserve is out in the territory the eds from overseas repeatedly put 'photos needed' tags on. The locality is isolated. sats 01:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Having been in the unique position of actually having passed thru the reserve on a number of occassions, the Euros photo isnt representative as the terrain isnt dominated by spinafex in the photographs nor is the ground the light orange colour. Yes the Malleefowl image has obviously been taken in "zoo" type enviroment but neither image adds to the understanding of the area if you want a photograph thats representative of the area try File:Yalgoo Shire.jpg which was taken on Great Northern Highway near Mt Gibson... I'm more than happy to return to take photographs in the reserve but given the costs involved if you want them done "now" then I need those cost covered otherwise the article will just have to wait until free photos are available.. Gnangarra 02:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
sats, we have isolated areas over on the other side too :), and they dont have pictures either, unless a wikipedian with a camera happens to pass by. The point of the photoneeded thing isnt that an image must be found ASAP, just a reminder for someone to get one, if possible. You can even attain GA status without images. In the mean time, if it hasnt been attempted already you could fire off an email to Bush Heritage Australia and see if they are willing to release some of their imagery in relation to Charles Darwin Reserve (or just in general) under a CC license. :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I see the points made by both sides here. There's a request on the talk page for photos, but when somebody adds a photo, they're removed as irrelevant. That the photos are not taken in the reserve is correct, but the intent of the photos seem only to be indicative of the creatures found in the area, not necessarily the area itself. At List of creatures in Primeval a number of non-free images were used to identify the actual creatures portrayed in the television series, but non-free image Nazis insisted the images be replaced with free "equivalents", even though the free images didn't actually portray the creatures as they were depicted in the series. An example is to the right. The creature in the series looked nothing like that, and the background shown was never used, but that's not what is important. The arguments against the images here are pretty much the same. The subject of the image is what is supposed to be relevant, not the background, unless attention is drawn to it in the caption, so I do see Maias' point. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Thats a good point AL, perhaps considering this article is about a place itself (so unless otherwise stated, belief that an image was taken there would occur), perhaps a solution can be found that includes the pictures, yet notes, or implies that they arent locally taken. eg. "Euros similar to the one pictured above occur in the reserve", as opposed to the previous "Euros occur in the reserve". Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
My annoyance about assumptions that arise from requests pics of isolated locations comes from a non australian ed who used to list almost every geographic location article for various states, including uninhabited rocks off the coast of tasmania that are lucky to see any human access in decades let alone a camera wielding wikipedian in the short term. It was undiscriminating and suggested a truly geographically challenged understanding of what photos required is in the end really about. As to comparable biota found within a specific range, I dont think the average punter has any understanding of the expected indigenous animals or vegetation in the upper north east edge of the wheatbelt, although in the public domain recently, the issue of wild cats and their decimation of what used to be found is an issue... Many non-encyclopediac websites have extensive 'poetic license' with images of things found 'near' identifiable features; as long as spoecific text is made in images of animals or plants that are associated with the location, I see no problem here in wikipedia. sats 08:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has made constructive comments and suggestions. I have implemented a compromise solution which should answer criticisms. Maias (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Behind walls

Have just noticed that Perth Now a News Limited publication has gone behind a subscription wall, this will cause issues with sources that currently use them and our ability to use them in the future. Would presume that other New.com.au publications will follow suit if they havent already. Gnangarra 08:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Metro Light Rail"

The usage of Metro Light Rail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Metro Light Rail (Phoenix) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

{{NSW TrainLink Station alt}}
{{Infobox Sydney Trains station}}

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 6#NSW Station infoboxes. Bidgee (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What is going on with Visual Editor, etc.?

OK, I admit to be a technoimbecile but I have no idea what is happening now with editing. I understand that Visual Editor is WYSIWYG but where do all these <nowiki>'s come from? I notice that now other editors com along and remove them, which seem to me to be a bit counterproductive. Also, none of my links work (including the one to the left), even under "source edit". Check out Geoff Rosenow for an example of the mess I have somehow made to the page. Can someone please explain what has changed and perhaps speculate why Wikipedia programmers have decided to change the way one edits to make it more difficult for chumps like myself. --Roisterer (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You can "hide" Visual Editor in Special:Preferences, under Gadgets, Editing.
You also leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of fixing your nowiki tags, so your signature comes up properly, among other things. Nowiki tags mean that everything that follows them is interpreted as straight text. Graham87 03:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks people. I'm sure I'll eventually understand the new editing format but please expect a few messes on the way. --Roisterer (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

MelbourneVictoryColours.png

file:MelbourneVictoryColours.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:STS068-258-80 Sydney.jpg

File:STS068-258-80 Sydney.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone moved it to commons -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Alan McNicoll FAC

Hi all. Sorry to spam the board, but I've had the article Alan McNicoll at FAC for over a month and a half now with relatively limited feedback and no comments of any kind for the last month. McNicoll was a career officer in the Royal Australian Navy who rose to become the service's Chief in the mid-1960s, before accepting the inaugural posting of Australian Ambassador to Turkey. If anyone has a few spare minutes, comments or reviews or any kind against the featured article criteria would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cowra POW Camp.gif

image:Cowra POW Camp.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Alphanumeric Markers

All Australian Alphanumeric Markers are now redone, representing the largest highway marker update thus far by WP:AURD. Please advise of any missing shields at WP:AURD/S. This set contains all of the existing shields from the current set, plus a few others (mainly the NT ones). {{AUshield}} should be used where possible to link to the correct shield, and ease future maintenance.

The new set can be found here: Commons:Category:Diagrams_of_Australian_alphanumeric_route_markers (Total - 420 images)

-- Nbound (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It would also be appreciated if shields found using the older AUshield syntax were updated per the current docs -- Nbound (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Paddy Island 1868.jpg

the copyright status of image:Paddy Island 1868.jpg is under discussion, see the linked NFCR discussion on the file page. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool hospital images

have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these were the same images that were previously deleted. They appear to have been uploaded with different names.[41] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Then South Western Sydney LHD (talk · contribs) may be a problem user? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
There are warnings on the user's talk page about these images. The fact that they were deleted and re-uploaded under different names is a bit of a red flag for me. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Had of known about these, I would have photographed some replacement photos. I was only a block away from the hospital yesterday! Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Inspiring Australia

(non-member wave from the other side of the planet)

New, actively being worked on stub that I 'assigned' to you guys...seems like something that could be easily improved, and probably of higher 'importance' than the low I gave it by default. It's not my work, but the author had {{help me}}d about getting improvement assistance, and eyeballs from the same hemisphere could probably do more than the 'generic' advice I can give. Revent (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

MarkOliphant.jpg

image:MarkOliphant.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be PD-US -- Nbound (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Problem is, I added this image 7 & 1/2 years ago, when the rules of images were very different (and simpler). Of course I have no memory of where I obtained the image or of the other information now required to keep it from being deleted. Shame. --Roisterer (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an all too common problem. I had a similar issue with an image that was sourced from a website that explicitly allowed free use of the image. It was discussed at length on several talk pages as well as the image's talk page. I subsequently uploaded it to commons where it was later deleted because the copyright page link went dead. Some of the people deleting these images really need their mum to cancell their WoW account.[42] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Some things end up for deletion for the sole reason that it isn't using a properly filled out template. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cite It's an Honour

Just wondering why Template:Cite It's an Honour doesn't contain a url to the It's an Honour website. I asked the question at the actual template but have had no reply. Hack (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Graham87 10:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Hack (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ipa-map.gif

image:Ipa-map.gif is up for review at NFCR, see WP:NFCR for the discussion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know what OGL is? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
OGL - Open Government Licence - it's something the British came up with. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Though it's known as AusGOAL (Australian Government Open Access and Licensing) in Australia. Example sites that use AusGOAL is Geoscience Australia and Australian Bureau of Statistics. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I guessed wrong. At least I discounted "Oman Gas & Light". --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thérèse Rein

Please have a look at the article Thérèse Rein. An editor insists that Spouse of the PM is an office worthy of topping the infobox. I don't recall any such consensus. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no official position in Australia so it shouldn't be in the infobox. Claiming it's an unofficial position is equally ridiculous. Political spouses have no more relevance than the wife of the local garbo. I suspect that the new editor is logging out and editing as an IP to get around the 3RR warning on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia is slightly more significant than wife of the local garbo - but Spouse of the PM in an honorary title, not a recognised "office", so I agree that should {{infobox officeholder}} should not be used. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The editor has now made this change to many Prime Ministerial spouses' articles. I changed a few back and he is now reverting, despite your warnings, with the sheepishly mispelt "We have been over this, regardless of wether it is formal or informal, it is still a recognisable office." Seems we have a stubborn bastard with a real bee in his bonnet. I don't want an Edit war. He needs to be blocked. Somebody please? HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've submitted an AIV report. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The guy is back again, using yet another IP address. He's been blocked repeatedly, but just ploughs on with no idea of consensus or negotiation. I've reverted him (most PM spouse pages) but I'm sure he will keep going again until he is blocked. Ho hum, the joy of being a Wikipedia editor ... WWGB (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Now he's back again! As User:Hellomynameisandrew19991999. I wonder if 1999 is the year of his birth. That would make him 13 0r 14 years old. And I wonder if we have case of genuine incompetence here? Surely it's time for a much longer block. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Table of contents?

I seem to be having trouble with the table of contents layout lately. See Willaura for an example. I have no idea what I have done to the article to make the table of contents layout look like that. Help would be appreciated. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been noticing this problem across a whole range of articles this morning. The table of contents box is extending right across the page. I'm assuming it's just a temporary glitch, hopefully fixed soon.--Melburnian (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
See discussion here.--Melburnian (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Asylum in Australia

This newly created article, Asylum in Australia needs integration with the other related topics. It was listed as the first top story of Google News this morning and is a candidate at In the news so it may get some traffic. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to that article. It needs an awful lot more than just integration with other articles. Correct grammar would be a start, and implying as it does that the history of the topic began in 2001 is not satisfactory. A classic case of WP:RECENTISM. I shall have a play there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
How about a dyk nomination? Any suggestions for a good hook? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Userbox Ideas

I think this project needs some more identifiable userboxes, for people to advertise their involvement with wikiproject Australia. If anyone could turn these into actual infoboxes that would be greatly appreciated.

This user wants to Axe the Tax

This user supports the Convoy of no Confidence

This user wants to Stop the Boats

Thoughts? ★★RetroLord★★ 04:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are serious I would say most of us are beyond that stuff. Its best to keep political stuff like that to more appropriate forums. I can't see how it improves things or helps us edit. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
So you don't like them? :( ★★RetroLord★★ 04:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like those userboxes as much as I like this one, not much. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
User boxes were taken seriously in the first 5 years of wikipedias main history - now there is such a drastic shrinkage of actual active co-operating editors in the Australian project (or even those who simply know this noticeboard exists, and then to either watch it or use it) - time and effort could be more profitably utilised to keep the main project and its child projects in working order, rather than worrying about what goes on user pages... sats 04:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I dont like the idea in general, but if you were going to roll them out, you would at least not make them all Liberal Party one liners :P. Besides the witch has already been ditched, and the tax has been axed :S -- Nbound (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well we could have some labor ones I suppose for balance. How about:

This user supports Happy Little Vegemites, with a reference perhaps to [[43]]?

Thoughts? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 05:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Its a start, but like the other users, I dont think things like this are really appropriate, they are more likely to cause division between editors than foster co-operation. -- Nbound (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any of these are good ideas. From a personal level I think all your suggestions highlight the exact problem with Australian politics - thought has been reduced to lame one liners that must uncles would be ashamed of. On a policy from I don't think any of these ideas sit well with WP:ISNOT or will produce a collegial atmosphere - we are meant to be NPOV, publicising our reactionary tendencies hardly helps on that front. Liamdavies (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Users can already have userboxes like "This user is a communist", "This user supports a free Tibet", I don't think these are any more divisive than those. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really think that matters, your asking for input, I gave it. I would also note that those are far more generalist than the ones you are proposing (and in a number of ways less controversial or possibly offensive). Liamdavies (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You should stop with them altogether. Per WP:POLEMIC those userboxes will probably get you banned! PantherLeapord (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I, too, think that the suggested infoboxes are a bad idea, and contrary to the spirit of WP:UPNOT, and specifically contrary to WP:POLEMIC. They are all obvious points of view, which is not how we want people to be "involved with wikiproject Australia". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
What policy bans POV userboxen? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The userboxes you're proposing clearly breach WP:POLEMIC and Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions. This discussion alone highlights other users thoughts that your proposed userboxes are 'statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities', 'inflammatory or divisive', and 'propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics'. You have come here with ideas, your ideas have failed to reach consensus. I would suggest you learn from that, don't implement them and move on. Liamdavies (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It is really disapointing to see the comment I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all, in response to the comments. (1) WikiProject Australia is about contributing to an online encyclopedia (2) creating user boxes has nothing to do with that (3) collaborative projects (as this one has aspired to in the past) - if they exist - require members of the community to to take note of general advice (and actually take it on), and perhaps understand that some directions or activity are in fact detrimental to the project. I would strongly suggest that the editor proposing the activity as exhibited above - take note of what this project is actually about. sats 15:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, at least he won't be creating these infoboxes for the next 20 hours, he's been blocked for personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia

I have tried and tried again to explain this. Everyone knows that being the Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia is not an official office. It is not an official role in the United Kingdom either, however Samantha Cameron, and all other Spouses of Former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom have their infoboxes naming them as office holders. All I am trying to do is give people who look at The Spouse of the Australian Prime Minister information as to when they came into the unofficial office, who their predecessor and successor is, who their spouse is etc. as done with the Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I am new to wikipedia and I am trying to contribute like everyone else is, but i don't understand the issue with updating the Spouse of the Prime Minister's infobox and saying when their term started/ended, who their predecessor/successor was, as done with the Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellomynameisandrew19991999 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This guy has, against consensus, gone and changed about 40000 articles (a minor exageration) to reflect his POV. Is this grounds for blocking yet? His talkpage is littered with warnings. I think he has had enough rope. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that before you start this again you have a thorough read of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OTHERTHINGS. You made changes, they were reverted and you were asked to discuss them, this is to create a consensus on what the articles should, or should not contain. The general feeling is that it is inappropriate to include 'Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia' as a title, arguing that other pages do it is not accepted, you must convince others (build consensus) as to why it title should be accepted. Continuing to edit war will only get you banned and will have zero chance of getting your changes accepted. Take it to a talk page and try to build consensus. Liamdavies (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that this user has been blocked for 2 weeks, so entertaining his requests may not be the most productive use of our time. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You forgot WP:OR and WP:V. Claiming that somebody is an officeholder in their infobox, when there are no verifiable sources confirming that they are an officeholder violates both of these policies. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
True AussieLegend, thanks for the addition policy requirements. Retro, even withstanding the ban it is still good to explain why the changes have been reverted and a policy based solution/explanation to how changes that are contested are made. It is highly dismissive to say that as the user has been banned there is no point explaining policy to them. With a better understanding of policy and conventions we may be able to help this user productively contribute to Wikipedia. Liamdavies (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This user and his obvious IP sockpuppets have been advised several times, by several editors, over several days, to use Talk pages to discuss the edits he has been repeatedly making. He hasn't done so yet. I see no evidence that he is capable of or intending to learn or cooperate with our policies. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
To separate the issue of accuracy from the unacceptable editor conduct here, there isn't a position of "Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia" or equivalent. Traditionally the PM's spouse performs various charitable roles (some of which are, under the individual charities' conventions and traditions, earmarked for the spouse) and accompanies them on major international trips when invited by the host government. I think that the spouses receive some support to undertake these roles from staff in the PM's office as well as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on an ad-hoc basis, and they can also claim travel expenses associated with the tasks (mainly so that they're not left out of pocket). But it's not considered a formal position like the First Lady role in the US is. Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I know this user has been troublesome with their edit warring, and has been warned, but I don't see any harm in laying out all the policies their actions go against. I to have little faith that this user will become productive, but we are still at least meant to strive to AGF (although that boat is sailing) and one last ditch attempt at explaining the situation can't do any harm. For the record, I oppose the changes, the position doesn't hold weight in Australia. Liamdavies (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to try to educate this person. I've gone way past the limits of my good faith with him. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Central Gardens Nature Reserve and Nurragingy Reserve hHave both been tagged with copyvio templates and require attention from editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation of Crikey being a reliable source as a film review

Hi! Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Review_of_short_film_from_.22Crikey.22 and give feedback just to make sure Crikey's an RS in regards to a film review. I used the content at Verax (film) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Geographic names in article titles

As I recently posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/July#Australia, the existing wording for the naming convention for Australia had several issues. Following some discussion there, I have updated the convention as follows:

Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than [[Sydney, New South Wales]]). The cities of Perth, Western Australia, and Newcastle, New South Wales, need to be disambiguated from their namesakes in the UK. State/Territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles.

Localities (other than suburbs) and places such as roads, train stations, parks, etc., may be disambiguated, where necessary, by reference to city rather than state (e.g., The Rocks, Sydney, rather than [[The Rocks, New South Wales]]; St Kilda Road, Melbourne, rather than [[St Kilda Road, Victoria]]).

Local government areas are at their official name. Where further disambiguation is required, the local government area name is used in parentheses following the state name: [[Town, State (Local Government Area)]] (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).

This reflects the former, whilst fixing several inconsistencies and simplifying to avoid repetition.

If anyone has any feedback on this, please respond here. —sroc 💬 23:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on most of that, but haven't you heard that for just over a year Perth, Western Australia is the primary topic and ruler of the Perth world. All shall now bow to us and bask in our glory. The-Pope (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
not. A very stupid and time consuming almost decade long war with corpses strewn around comes from that pointless primary topic issue, the only way to resolve the issue is to trounce primarytopic rather than Perth in respect of those who were lost in the battles. clear part of wikipedian history that shows good reason why some policies need reviewing at times... sats 01:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've deleted Perth as an example. —sroc 💬 03:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Australia section had remained very simple until it was "modernised" in April.[44] Further edits in June added more of the content that has caused confusion.[45] The "explict theme" section was removed by another editor,[46] but he was reverted, ironically with an edit summary asking if the changes had been discussed.[47] The recent changes are an improvement on the "modernisation". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

AWLA 70th Anniversary Brooch.jpg

image:AWLA 70th Anniversary Brooch.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Arckaringa Basin

I think this article Arckaringa Basin which is still basically a stub could probably do with some love. It looks like it contains 20 trillion dollars worth of oil (about the same as saudi arabia) and it's on the australian mainland. I'm guessing that the importance of the article is probably going to become more than the current 'low'. EdwardLane (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see the importance level going up to much until some actual production begins in this area. As far as I know, this was big news when announced, but nothing has actually happened there yet? I may be wrong on that lost note though. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 09:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
any potential oil shale reserve is a possible controversial subject, and does require both careful watch and expansion as the source materials become available. sats 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

South Australia's Piping Shrike

The Piping Shrike is the term used for the bird that appears on the South Australian flag. The SA Govt says that

The State Badge was notified by a proclamation gazetted on the 14th January, 1904. This proclamation declares the Badge of the State to be a Piping Shrike, the original drawing of which was carried out by Robert Craig of the School of Arts in 1904 and a later drawing in 1910 by Harry P.Gill who was the Principal of the School of Arts.

[The picture on the badge is very clearly the same as the one on the flag, so there's no distinction in my mind.]

However, I've found some Trove sources from before 1904, for example, "THE GOVERNOR'S ENSIGN". The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954). NSW: National Library of Australia. 16 March 1903. p. 7. Retrieved 25 July 2013., which are about the Governor's ensign (same bird), and clearly already give H.P.Gill the drawing credit:

The emblem on the flag was suggested in the first instance by Governor-General Tennyson and was designed by Mr. H. P. Gill, director of the school of design. It is a piping shrike, which is commonly known as the Australian magpie

Have I got something muddled, or should we out-history the SA Government? --99of9 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Robert Craig was still passing his exams at the end of 1905: "PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD". The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 3 November 1905. p. 6. Retrieved 25 July 2013., but did later become a modelling instructor at the school of design, when he had his foot run over by a horse and carriage while riding a bike: "CYCLISTS RUN OVER". The Register (Adelaide, SA : 1901 - 1929). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 24 August 1908. p. 4. Retrieved 25 July 2013.. --99of9 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting find. It seems that the story behind its creation is quite muddied, with Frances Jane Warhurst another claimant to the original design.[48] I think it would be good to mention all documented claims in the article, but be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH.--Melburnian (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I've done a first pass at updating Piping Shrike. If anyone else is interested it would be good to get this right. --99of9 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Woggabaliri somebody's little, semi-racist joke?

I discovered Woggabaliri as a link in Association football. I have this horrible suspicion that it's all a con.

See the final item on the article's Talk page for a little more detail, but in summary, the name looks awfully like an attempt at Aboriginalisation of the word wogball.

The major sources are books, that I can't look up, and the contents (and the illustration) are very similar to (or stolen from) marngrook. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty well sourced and the refs seem to support the content. Apparently it means play in the Wiradjuri language.[49] I can't help but think that someone along the line has taken a lend of an anthropologist. Hack (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
My feelings exactly. I'd expect the source of the joke to an Aboriginal person. Many I know have a sense of humour just like that. Do we really think that the Wiradjuri people used five syllables for play? HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the name is legit but is of Ngunawal origin (meaning play seemingly). I'm sceptical because all of this seems to have magically appeared around about the time of Australia's World Cup bid and has been propagated by groups likely to benefit from a successful bid. It's a PR/marketing perfect storm - build a mountain out of a nugget of truth. Hack (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The Australian Sports Commission says that the game is played in the "Bogan and Lachlan River areas".[50] This is just too suspicious. We may have to revise our consensus on what to call association football in Australia, maybe change the name of the national association football team to the "Woggabalirioos". --AussieLegend (✉) 04:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all we really have is a word collected around 1900 that allegedly meant play in the Ngunawal language (no mention of a ball), a background image in an etching from another time and another place with no explanation, and hence no obvious connection with that word, and some creative marketing work from 1999 onwards. I really don't think that's enough to justify the existence of this article. It's mostly a creative work itself. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to the article is based almost entirely on the name used. There is no dispute over the existence of the name Woggabaliri as it was first recorded in 1904 although translation from Indigenous dialects can be a problem as the "G" was likely to be a sound in between a "G" and "K" rather than a true "G" and what we translate as "B" is often a sound between a "B" and "P" and can be translated as either depending on the translator (ie: Woggabaliri, Woggapaliri or Wokapaliri would all be acceptable). Ken Edwards, whose area of expertise is sports history, confirmed his book is written from research he conducted.

"I have an bibliography of almost 4000 entries on indigenous games and sports based on research from all around Australia over many years (over 26 file cabinet drawers). I did the research and the book for the ASC...I am far too busy to become angry dealing with some of the absurd comments I have read. For those that have chosen to make personal attacks on me without any real reason then that is their prerogative but I choose to ignore them. I do not mind if you pass on my sentiments but I would add that the traditional games book clearly states that the games are taken from original (not always accurate accounts) or incomplete records are designed to outline the intent or purpose of an activity observed. I have almost 1000 separate accounts on ball games. I did not combine any of them although I had up to 7 different versions of the same game from the same area – these observations over time are a bit like the changes to a game of backyard cricket and are context, observer and historical time influenced. The process for the ASC book involved extensive consultation with traditional owners of games and indigenous organisations around Australia. They just did not get made up and there are signed legal documents. What the ASC chooses to say and do about the games now is something I have little control over as they have copyright." — Ken Edwards PhD. DipT. MSc.

The Australian Sports Commission may have hyped the game up to be more important than it really was but the WP article is fully cited and no one has come forward to dispute the claims. Wayne (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The only observation I will make is that he's not a historian in the formal sense. His qualifications are in teaching and human movement. Hack (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The Australian Sports Commission acknowledges his work in sports history here. Wayne (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like a mutual admiration society. We still have an article based on a word that doesn't mean ball game, and a picture with absolutely no connection to that word in either time or place, all claimed to have some connection to modern soccer. My bullshit alarm is still sounding. (That picture, BTW, is also used to illustrate our Marn Grook article! It cannot possibly be both.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The picture is a painting of a scene near Merbein, Victoria according to the artist. Marn Grook was never played within 400km of Merbein so it is highly unlikely to be a depiction of that game. Merbein is around 120 km east of where the source says Woggabaliri was played. The sources say it is "more likely" the game is Woggabaliri than Marn Grook. It's quite likely it is another game that we don't know the name of but we have to use what the sources say or we get into WP:OR. If people are only objecting because of the use of the word "wog", it may be relevant that the Wogaibon people live next to the Wiradjuri[51] and that Wogil is the Aboriginal word for "hot", so the letter combination is not uncommon in that region. Wayne (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"Marn Grook was never played within 400km of Merbein" - How does anyone actually know that? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sports historian Gillian Hibbins was commissioned to research Marn Grook for the AFL's official account of the game's history for football's 150th anniversary celebration. The research also indicated it was improbable that either Tom Wills or the Djabwurrung people had ever played or heard of Marn Grook so the Marn Grook article is using the painting and Djabwurrung connection based only on anecdotal evidence. The first mention of a connection between Marn Grook and Aussie Rules Football apparently dates only to the 1980s. Wayne (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Improbable doesn't mean it never happened. It's not like there were any ruins of Woggabaliri or Marn Grook grandstands to check. Aboriginal history is largely oral and oral history is very unreliable. An old lady I once knew (she's dead now) had an incredibly detailed and accurate history of the local area tucked away in her head. Of course, if you believed her accounts of the height of floodwaters in the early part of last century, you'd expect that there'd be a dirty great ark sitting on the top of a local hill nearby, but I've looked on the top of Mount Ararat and there's nothing there. Even before AFL managed to get a foothold in NSW, there were still occasional games but ask any New south Welshmen and we'll deny it. Stating that Marn Grook was "never played within 400km of Merbein" is not really supportable without concrete evidence. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what to think. It's possible that the name is the result of a simple misunderstanding, with someone taking a description of the activity to be the activity's name. I've seen this happen before. I personally know of at least 2 Aboriginal sacred sites in the NT that are not sacred at all. Casual descriptions of rocks that looked like the dreaming animal of a particlular clan were taken to be statements that they were actually sacred. It was essentially the same as somebody saying "Hey, that cloud looks like an elephant" but someone taking that to mean "That cloud is an elephant". It could also be that the game really was called Woggabaliri, as the result of the local whitefellas calling the similar soccer game "wogball". And then again, maybe we only started calling soccer wogball because it was like that Aboriginal game called woggabaliri. Sranger things have happened. It could even be that the similarities are entirely coincidental. Nigger Head was once nominated for deletion because of the purely coincidental racist undertones in the name. Mind you, I still have doubts, especially since the Australian Sports Commission says it's played by bogans (or Boganites or whatever you call people who live in the area). --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of the absence of written Aboriginal languages, along with the disappearance of the spoken forms, and the way Aboriginal society was destroyed by the arrival of white folks, it's incredibly difficult to be certain about historical connections. At a minimum, what's wrong with the Woggabaliri article is the certainty with which the whole thing is presented. I would like to see it written in much more cautious language. Connections should be described as possible, not as if they exist without doubt. That picture should probably disappear from both this article and the Marn Grook one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That would require original research, however I have reworded the reference to the picture to reduce the certainty which is supported by the sources. I have had a look around and found a reference to the picture in the Geelong Advertiser by Roy Hay, who researched the origins of football in Geelong for a 2009 book on the history of the Geelong Football Club, (Footy facts July 31, 2008, p. 21) where he says that the connection of Marn Grook with the painting is a Myth as the pictures description applies to soccer not football. He also says that the evidence supports that Tom Wills based his game entirely on English rugby and linking him with Indigenous games is also a myth. I also found a book dedicated to Indigenous games and their links to soccer which includes material on Woggabaliri; The Aboriginal Soccer Tribe by Professor John Maynard. Maynard is a Worimi of the Litijus-Mordy skin group and is head of the University of Newcastle's school of Aboriginal studies, a member of the Executive Committee of the Australian Historical Association, a member of the New South Wales History Council and is Deputy Chairperson of AIATSIS. Wayne (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
What would be original research about my proposal? I'm simply suggesting that the article should not imply or suggest definite links where such certainty does not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There is only one definitive statement that may be in error, that it was played before European arrival. This is the oral history of the Indigenous inhabitants of the region so do we reject the Indigenous inhabitants as a RS?? Wayne (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_41&oldid=1144429564"