Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Shire of Serpentine–Jarrahdale listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Shire of Serpentine–Jarrahdale to be moved to Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Map/maps in infoboxes for WA suburbs

I recently came across the map in the infobox of Ryde, New South Wales which shows the suburb borders for Ryde through OSM. With the help of User:Samwilson, this has been replicated in Peron, Western Australia. I have added links on OSM for all City of Rockingham suburbs but have not yet added the OSM map because, I think, some consensus on this would be preferable. My query is, should the suburb articles remain as they are now, with the old style location map only (example: Rockingham, Western Australia), should we add the OSM map and leave the location map in place (as in Peron) or should the OSM Map be added and the location map be removed (as in Ryde)? I believe, the OSM map addition creates value for the reader but, at the same time, I'm a little weary of overloading the infobox with maps. Calistemon (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the location maps aren't that useful, because you can't see where a suburb is in relation to other suburbs, there aren't any roads, there aren't any geographic features shown aside from the Swan River, and you can't see the boundary of Perth's urban area. Fox example, looking at the map on Ellenbrook, Western Australia, you can't tell that the suburb is on the edge of Perth's urban area, you can't tell that to the west is forest and that the east is rural. Thats why I think the OSM map should just replace the existing location maps. Steelkamp (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Steelkamp. I find the existing map quite baffling, because there's absolutely no context unless you're very familiar with the area as to what you're even looking a map of, and shading and colouring of inner-metropolitan areas nowhere near the subject area is very confusing. It was only when I picked a suburb that I lived in for the better part of a decade that it was immediately obvious what the scale of the main map was; when I first looking at Peron, I thought it might have been the city of Rockingham. (I presume the small map is metropolitan Perth in southwestern WA, but again there's absolutely no context whatsoever for anyone not familiar with Perth/WA, particularly as the map subjects are not marked on there at all.) The OSM maps (at least in the way used in Peron) are ideal in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Anything is better than the massive old maps that have western australia or larger, with a small dot in the corner where the locality is positioned - OSM maps when added, are worth the effort. JarrahTree 08:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed on that too. Those maps are much worse than either option here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a problem, though, with having only the marked-up Open Street Map in the article. The problem is that you have no idea where the marked up place is unless you click on the "Show in full screen" box (which only says "Show in full screen" when you hover over it), and then zoom out. It's a pity that the Open Street Map software doesn't make clearer what you have to do to figure out where the marked up place is. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Interpreting the above posts as support for a move towards the OSM maps, I have changed the suburbs of the Cities of Rockingham, Kwinana and Cockburn. This is a bit of a time consuming process as first the Wikidata link on OSM has to be created. There is usually a 12-24 hour wait for OSM to update, I found, after which the corresponding Wikipedia article can be changed. On another note, the same can be done for LGAs, as I have done just now for City of Rockingham. Calistemon (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I've updated with their Wikidata IDs the 8 relations of the suburbs of Fremantle. Sam Wilson 06:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Just as an update, all but a handful of the suburbs of Perth have now been converted to the OSM maps. Three of the "unconverted" needed a minor adjustment on OSM and are awaiting the next update there while the eight suburbs of Bayswater just won't work. There is an issue there that I couldn't resolve or even identify. The OSM maps on those just won't work. As a further note, I have also begun work on the WA LGAs, which are still work in progress. Calistemon (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Local Government Elections

Almost unnoticed (by most), WA Local Government Elections have happened on 16 October 2021 and the results are publicly available here. I noticed that User:Steelkamp has started updating a few LGAs and I have updated two. Updating them all with prospective new or re-elected mayors will take a bit of time and effort, if somebody is interessted. Calistemon (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone think it is appropriate to mention political party membership for local councillors if membership is known? Bayswater and Belmont both release the political interests of elected members. [1] and [2]. Others are known on a case by case basis. Steelkamp (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
If the party affiliation is confirmed through a reliable source, as is above, i can't see why not. Calistemon (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yalup Brook, Western Australia: Does it exist?

Doing some ongoing OSM linking work, I have come across Yalup Brook, Western Australia, which states it is a small town located in the South West of Western Australia and is listed under towns at Shire of Waroona. Is it really? The coordinates actually point to the Alcoa Wagerup Alumina Refinery. Both OSM and Google do not show any boundaries for this "town". The area it is supposed to be in is actually Wagerup, Western Australia. The one and only source in the article mentions nothing past 1912. It doesn't look like a town, if ever there was, still exists and it is, at best, "a former small town" unless somebody has got some other information? Calistemon (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly has existed - see https://trove.nla.gov.au/search?keyword=yalup - it is mentioned in 1916 and 1948 ...
interesting as a place - https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-921422119/view?searchTerm=yalup&partId=nla.obj-921423950 JarrahTree 11:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
There is also the watercourse Yalup Brook which some of these may refer to as a location. There seems to have been some sort of settlement there but I don't think it exists anymore. Is it possible that the Refinery swallowed up whatever was once there? Calistemon (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
almost certainly did... JarrahTree 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I might make a small adjustment to reflect that it is a "former". Calistemon (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Trove records show clear signs of life for 1912 and 1948 -
1931 There were halls at Hamel, Yallup Brook, and Wagerup but the lot put together would not make a real hall "Waroona Hall". Harvey Murray Times. Vol. I, , no. 19. Western Australia. 27 November 1931. p. 3. Retrieved 26 October 2021 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) ... JarrahTree 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The Gazetteer of Australia still lists the place (search here). It has a set of coordinates for the townsite (-32.89851° / 115.90372°), which I have used to amend the article. Rather then pointing at the refinery it now actually points to a building on the South Western Highway, which aligns a bit more with the article text. Calistemon (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems like it's a townsite within the locality of Wagerup. Hack (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The townsite boundary is shown in the bottom right map here as near where Fawcett Road meets South Western Railway, within Wagerup Alumina Refinery bounds. Betterkeks (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Should Russell Woolf be described as Western Australian

Editors are invited to comment at Talk:Russell_Woolf#Western_Australian as to whether Woolf should be described in the lead sentence (and the short description) as a "Western Australian media personality", vs an "Australian media personality". Mitch Ames (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Paul Keaney

Can someone have a look at the article, the main issue i see is the first sentence with no references? Maybe im out of touch on wiki, but an allegation like that should surely have RS? Five Years 14:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE says we don't necessarily need references in the lead section. He's long dead, so BLP does not apply. I've reworded the lead paragraph. Give the ease of finding the details in the article (there's a clearly named section) and that the details in the main section do have citations, I don't think there's a need for cites in the lead. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Mitch - i wasnt sure on the procedures here, but it didnt feel right, thanks for clarifying. Five Years 01:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Perth suburb articles without images

I done a bit of a drive on the articles in Category:Suburbs of Perth, Western Australia to see whether more of them could be furnished with images and/or better images. I utilised the Wikidatalist template for this purpose and got it to compile a list in User:Calistemon/Wikidatalist/Suburbs of Perth. Of those 350 articles, 94 still don't have an image for the infobox. All these are listed in User:Calistemon/Wikidatalist/Suburbs of Perth without image. Both lists have the the ability to create an OpenStreet map with the Wikidata suburb coordinates through the GeoGroup template. If any Perth-based or -visiting editor comes into one of the listed suburb and feels like uploading a representative image it would greatly help in having images for all Perth suburbs. Calistemon (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI I'm currently collect video images of burbs, to put together like the CY O'Connor Beach one. Aiming to create for all eventually. Gnangarra 07:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Railway lines and services in Perth

Comments are requested on Talk:Airport railway line, Perth#I've had some thought. Steelkamp (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Please leave the thoughts here - as it is system wide, not just that line. Precedence, and general consistency across the perth lines is better shared here, and considering the level of responses to this noticeboard, the actual level of understanding of how railway systems are best represented, it would help to show the other states/cities of australia rather than the usual suspect US centrism in wikipedia JarrahTree 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Adelaide railways are arranged in the same fashion as what I am proposing. Grange railway line lists all stations between Adelaide and Grange. Same with Flinders railway line. See Railways in Adelaide#Railway lines. Brisbane has a more thorough separation between line and services, although they are still on the same article. See Redcliffe Peninsula railway line. Sydney separates lines from services, however Sydney has a far more complex and interconnected network than Perth. Steelkamp (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
excellent - thanks for that, adequate oz context - I would support your proposal - interesting no mention of melbourne at all JarrahTree 12:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Didn't mention Melbourne because I didn't get around to looking at that. Looking at it now, it looks like the Adelaide articles, with lines and services in the same articles. See how Glen Waverley railway line branches from other lines at Burnley railway station, but still lists all stations from Flinders Street to Glen Waverley. Steelkamp (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The primary focus should IMO be on the service (between High Wycombe and Claremont) and not the infrastructure built for it, or indeed the kind of vehicles servicing it (both of which are secondary). For example, does it stop being the Airport "Line" just because a bus is filling in for a broken down train along a part of, or even the entire, route? Does anyone care if it starts travelling on different railway track?
At the same time, the articles on services (such as Airport Line) and stations (such as Butler Station) ought to be renamed (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/Archive 12#Station article titles), because
  1. There is NO consistently adopted world-wide scheme for naming transport-related stuff. Everyone does their own thing, with some transit systems more organised than others (see New York City Subway nomenclature, MAX Light Rail and London Underground). It is what it is.
  2. Surely Transperth gets to decide what they call their stuff, and they get to change their minds as time goes by. If they want to call something Railway Station (perhaps for historic reasons) they can, and if they want to call it Train Station they can do that too.
  3. It isn’t unusual for Wikipedia to conflate distinct things ... that OpenStreetMap for example cannot. The fact is that there IS a structure "on the ground" called Butler Station that comprises a bus station (with multiple stops at which busses stop) and a railway/train station (with multiple platforms at which trains stop). If you want to talk about JUST the railway station part then it’s reasonable to call the article Butler railway station, but calling the article that talks about the larger station a railway station is simply confusing when it in fact isn’t a just railway station because the railway station is only a part of the larger station.
  4. Being accurate is more important than being consistent. It would be nice to do both and be consistently accurate, and I think we can, but to be OK with being inaccurate for the sake of being consistent doesn’t feel right (although I understand sometimes you have to in order to move on).
Betterkeks (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Betterkeks. Having written a Good Article on a railway station in Perth, and having another one nominated right now, I now more than ever believe that the stations and lines should be renamed:
  1. Because almost all sources use the naming system X Station, and X Line.
  2. Because after the first few mentions of a railway station in an article, I find myself writing "X station" because it is shorter and more concise.
– Steelkamp (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Can that please also include the regional services (Australind (train), The Prospector (train service), AvonLink and MerredinLink)? Betterkeks (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
What are you saying? That those regional services should be renamed (I disagree), or that those train services should be mention on Midland railway line and Armadale and Thornlie railway lines? (I agree) Steelkamp (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: I am saying that the articles for those regional services should ALSO be renamed at the same time to be consistent with the non-regional services. Currently they adopt the name of the service, suffixed with (train) for one (focusing on the vehicle), (train service) for another (focusing on service using a particular class of vehicle), and the other two have no suffix. How about renaming all articles to "<official name> (rail service)" consistently? For example, "Australind (rail service)", "Airport Line (rail service)". Betterkeks (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I was opposed to The Prospector Line, Australind Line, etc. How about the following names:

Adding (rail service) onto the end of each name would be unnecessary, because only two of these articles need that. Steelkamp (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Where does the Eastern Railway (Western Australia) fit in? That article seems to suggest the Fremantle and Midland services run on that line. Hack (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the Midland and Fremantle lines run on the Eastern Railway, and the Armadale line runs on the South Western Railway, Western Australia (uses comma disambiguation, instead of brackets disambiguation for some reason). All the more reason to change the Transperth line articles into articles on the service primarily, with infrastructure secondary. User:PhiH seems to have made changes relating to this on the Armadale line article. Steelkamp (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Didn't know about the discussion here. The situation on the Eastern Railway looks quite similar to the South Western Railway: Both are railway lines and the Midland, Fremantle, Armadale and Thornlie Lines are services running on them. --PhiH (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: I am in favour of renaming. I agree with all your suggestions except for the last two (The Prospector (train service) and Australind (train service)); for these I am in favour of
  • Prospector (rail service) – Use name only, without "The", and defocus vehicle, instead focusing on the "mode" for service (e.g., road , rail, air, sea). Even a bus filling in for a train will roughly follow the rail.
  • Australind (rail service) – Defocus vehicle.
Betterkeks (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Those titles are fair enough. Steelkamp (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: It looks like we achieved WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. In your opinion, are we good to go ahead and change the article names? Betterkeks (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Are we now able to rename the articles, or is a formal move discussion required? Consensus appears to be for renaming. Steelkamp (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
(a) Explanation for the 'Eastern Railway' - when the line from Fremantle was constructed in 1880s to Guildford - it was known as the Eastern Railway, and those lucky enough to see original documents in state records office - the titles on the plans have Eastern Railway, as Perth was not the measuring point in the system at the commencement of the railway system. However the question by Hack I suggest can be said that the line(s) were known as the Eastern railway historically, but for the purpose of the current status - that Fremantle and Midland lines are valid names, and in effect the Eastern Railway commences in Midland - beyond the metropolitan services.
Note that the wikipedia format for the three Eastern Railway routes between Bellevue and Northam, is a 'construct', but each item has the commonly used terms/names for each route.
(b) the process of discussing the naming above shows what is good and how it works in a constructive manner - the consensus seems to in positive terms - as long as there are no objections, it looks like evolution to terms/titles worth supporting.
(c) Betterkeks point about country services to rail is excellent - defocusing from 'train' is excellent!
(d) there are other links and articles about other railway lines in Western Australia, and there might be a reason to look at them as well... JarrahTree 11:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If articles were solely about the present day service, then the xxx Line name as used by Transperth would be appropriate. But articles are about much more than just the present operation. While there are some examples of separate articles for the physical railway lines and the services that operate on them, e.g. there are Bankstown railway line and Bankstown Line articles for the line and service respectively in Sydney, that is because the service operates over multiple railway lines. Not that I am advocating a split of the WA articles, that would be content forking.
The standard naming convention for Australian railway lines is xxx railway line. See no reason as to why WA articles should deviate from the established naming convention.
xxx railway station rather than xxx station is the established convention for all Australian railway stations, again see no reason why WA articles should deviate. Joondam (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are usually about railway lines and not about services which are only considered notable in few cases. The Armadale Line for example is clearly a service and not, as the current title Armadale and Thornlie railway lines suggests, a railway line. The same is true for services running on the Eastern Railway. In these cases an article solely about the service would be good, without detailed history about the railway line. On the other hand there is for example the line from Bayswater to High Wycombe which is currently covered at Airport railway line. The article about the ongoing construction project should be one focusing on the railway line, not one about a service that is expected to run on it. --PhiH (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a bad idea to separate the articles on services and articles on lines. This would result in two articles which are essentially about the same thing. With the Midland/Fremantle/Armadale case, those articles can go into more detail on the line than at the Eastern and South Western Railway articles, such as the details on the electrical system, and when stations were opened. There is no established convention on article names. We should go with the official names, rather than the current names, which aren't used much outside wikipedia. Anyway, I have made some of the moves, as this discussion has been going on for weeks. Some of the others have been requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I have yet to move the railway station articles. Steelkamp (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I am bowing out of this, as some of the assertions in the above discussion, to me feel unresolved, and despite some impatience, it is well worth getting to a point where all the editors who are working on the materials reach some sort of commons understanding. There seems to be a herd of cats here, Have fun.
So where attempts at discussion and consensus above fail, I think it is where a move is made -

Joondam moved page The Prospector (train service) to The Prospector (train) over redirect: no need for elongated disambiguation - I do mot think that reflects any part of the above conversation, as elongated disambiguation hadnt been part of what I was reading above. The cutting to bare bones may appease one editors ideas, but there was no discussion about whether qualifier words are useful or not. JarrahTree 09:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Joondam: "train service" is not an elongated disambiguation compared to "train", it's a different thing. I don't understand why you moved the page when the consensus here was going in a completely different direction. --PhiH (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going to start moving the station articles, seeing as there are two supports, one oppose, and all other discussion participants have not stated an opinion on this. Steelkamp (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That never has been anything that even approaches considered variations, and is 'not consensus - and the AKA/alternaive names and designations added in lead sentences are much much easier to resolve or revert than moves - think of consistency across the wikidata/commons areas as well - if the designation is current - historic and alternative usages/designations are as important for an encyclopediac entry - understanding the designations in context is important to show understanding how such items are designated over time. Train is a very recent appellation, railway was across the board only so many years ago... JarrahTree 12:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

? consensus

Hi guys, I'm not involved in this discussion and I know nothing about this topic. I'm here only because I'm a page mover and I saw Steelkamp's 3 requests at RM. I'm happy to help you guys with these moves if there is actual consensus for them. Can you please tell me if you do have consensus? Happy to help, Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@DrVogel: My analysis of the discussion is this: Myself and Betterkeks support the move, and Joondam opposes it. I think PhiH supports it as well, but I'm not 100% sure on their opinion. Other users haven't supported or opposed it. There was definitely consensus as of yesterday, but today, it is less clear, with 3 users supporting and 1 users opposing. Some parts of the above discussion are about something else (renaming railway station articles), which may make it look more confusing. I was the user who made those requests at RM though, so make of this comment what you will. Steelkamp (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for explaining that, Steelkamp. Shall we leave it a couple of days to see if anyone strongly opposes this? For clarity, these are the requests in question. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Dr. Vogel: as I explained at the WP:RM/TR page, this discussion is the wrong venue for a requested move, and is not sufficient to make the move even if it appears to have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. It needs to be opened into a full RM discussion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: thanks for explaining that, I'll know for next time. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The pages have been moved. However, do we still need to "turn this into an RM" as suggested by Jack Frost? Note that the requests are gone from here; see here. Betterkeks (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Betterkeks, the pages weren’t moved. After leaving the participants a note, I removed the discussion from WP:RMTR in line with usual practice as it was clear that the issue was contentious and that it didn’t seem resolvable in that forum. That’s the “Discuss 1” in the edit summary. Apologies for any confusion. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Frost: Thank you for clarifying. @Steelkamp and PhiH: I've never gotten sucked this deep into Wikipedia rabbit-holes before, so I have no idea (yet) how to take this forward (how to "turn this into an RM") to get the names to reflect reality. Could either of you oblige, please? Betterkeks (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Betterkeks: I will create an RM. By the way, you may be confused because I have already moved the articles I could move before the RMTR. Midland Line, Perth, Armadale and Thornlie Lines, Airport Line, Perth, and Morley–Ellenbrook Line have been moved to new names. Fremantle railway line, Joondalup railway line, and Mandurah railway line have not. Steelkamp (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with not doing RMs is that this is a very local consensus, if any. Almost all other parts of the world have decided not to cap "station", and most do not cap "line". To move toward capping those should require a showing of evidence that they're consistently capped in sources. I'm not seeing that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this should be done via RM. The process exists for a reason, and the existence of this discussion basically will not be taken into account in move discussions, so it really serves no purpose. Someone shoudl just go start the RMs and get it over with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree that there are issues with not doing this through a broadly notified process. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Category merge - Water supply in Western Australia

WA editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_4#Category:Water_supply_in_Western_Australia.
Mitch Ames (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

category names - Aboriginal communities in Western Australia by region

WA editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_2#Aboriginal_communities_in_Western_Australia_by_region. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Armando Giglia

I want to know what other editors think about the notability of Armando Giglia. Because he is a high school principal, I am immediately sceptical of whether it should be an article. Steelkamp (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

smells like WP:PAID - looking at the level of edits in other subjects/areas by the ed - puts the notability issue on notice - I would support a Prod or AFD - every headmaster in australia as a potential follow on? yuk - insufficient evidence of anything beyond the immediate school context... JarrahTree 11:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I've done the honours. Graham87 12:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Peer review

Kardinya, Western Australia is at peer review as a potential WP:FAC. Any and all comments would be welcome. Steelkamp (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Maps on Parliament House, Perth

Could someone who knows how remove the top map at Parliament House, Perth. Seems silly to have two maps in the infobox. Steelkamp (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: Done. Betterkeks (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: But maybe the map would be better at the top, which is where they now tend to be. This was an early adoption of mapframe, which has since evolved. Betterkeks (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability and conflict of interest

Seeking comments on notability and conflict of interest for article Brenton See. Half the references are from the subject, and it just seems like a CV on Wikipedia. Betterkeks (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Weirdness

It is plain to see that more eyes are needed at Perth and its talk page - the current conversation requires more/other editors to look at least, hopefully comment as well... JarrahTree 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Secessionism in Western Australia#80th anniversary

More opinions are wanted at Talk:Secessionism in Western Australia#80th anniversary. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Rottnest Island - Wadjemup or t Eylandt_ t Rottenest

Editors' opinions are sought at Talk:Rottnest_Island#Wadjemup_or_t_Eylandt_'t_Rottenest as to the mention of Wadjemup or t Eylandt_ t Rottenest immediately after Rottnest in the lead sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Help needed

Can some other people keep an eye on User:BUS2042 as well. They are making badly sourced edits mainly to schools in Western Australia. There are some previous edits of theirs that still need to be fixed and they are continuing with new edits as well. Thank you, Steelkamp (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay Will not do bad sourced edits to schools in western australia i will go factual BUS2042 (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This is complicated because many of the principal changes are warranted because the articles are out of date, but there is no source used. The changes to the student numbers appear to be not supported by sources however. Steelkamp (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed that Second McGowan Ministry be merged into First McGowan Ministry. You can see the discussion at Talk:First McGowan Ministry. Steelkamp (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Municipal Heritage Registers

For anyone creating or editing material about heritage, specially with extracting information from Municipal Heritage Lists - note that there has been a shift from the government to a new term - Local Heritage Survey. Also the usage of the term 'Local heritage places' should be noted.

For more see: -
https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2022/05/Funding-for-20-local-governments-to-identify-and-protect-local-heritage-places.aspx
This has impact upon heritage articles and subjects through the whole WA project... JarrahTree 03:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The generous allocation of A$317,500 for the whole state will just allow each LGA to buy one paperclip each to hold these lists together! Sounds like the state government is just handballing all the responsibility, nothing else.
I wonder however, if this could be positively used on Wikidata, where currently non-state heritage listed places have no "heritage designation" value. Maybe "Western Australian Local heritage place" could fill this void? Calistemon (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
A summary of the changes, which went into effect on 1 July 2019, can be found at https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2019/06/Stronger-protections-for-heritage-places-take-effect-on-July-1.aspx. Steelkamp (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Answer to Steelkamp - yeah thanks for the detail, hardly something that would have attracted attention at the time... The background to the 2019 move was that most of WA in the heritage industry knew about and used to joke that most LGA's were so unbelievably slack in updating their MHR, some were close to decades behind, the most years behind - the updating process had more or less collapsed on itself, and something had to be done.
Answer to Calistemon - we have to be very very careful, re terminology, worth digging and finding a recent report to see what currency there is to 'heritage place' designation.
Answer to Calistemon re expenditure... it hardly matches the James Street recovery... https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2022/05/State Budget delivering major $35 million revitalisation of the Perth Cultural Centre.aspx JarrahTree 05:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Help required

In commons there are substantial numbers of images of the state from satelite that have limited identification, it would be very useful if editors who like solving problems might like to assist in otherwise fairly useless images - fortunately some are identified, but...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Satellite_pictures_of_Western_Australia

Where the infobox does have a location indicated (against the feature line), that the place/feature might have the information assist in linking into categories in commons, or even usage in some english wikipedia articles, or even, be added to information in wikidata...

The possibilities are endless, and despite the obvious named items in the 1400 images, there are sure to be items worth bringing into discussion here in the WA project noticeboard... JarrahTree 09:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A fair bit of work there but you are right, some great images there. Found this one of Barrow Island. Better subcategorisation would help. Calistemon (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It is a lot of work, but not all of them are keepers either. This one is of the Perth metropolitan area. Betterkeks (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

City of Perth size

The City of Perth article currently states that its size is 20.01 km2, quoting a reference, but I'm not able to find this information there. I checked the 2021 census data and it has the size at just 13.7 km2 (https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/community-profiles/2021/LGA57080/download/GCP_LGA57080.xlsx). This figure is actually an increase from the 12 km2 stated by the 2016 census (https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/community-profiles/2016/LGA57080/download/GCP_LGA57080.xlsx), because of the 2016 expansion at the cost of the City of Subiaco. Which figure is actually correct, the 20.01 or the 13.7? Calistemon (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Calistemon: The area bounded by the ways in OSM relation 11343564 is 20.019 km2 (7.729 sq mi). I hope that helps. Betterkeks (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Betterkeks: Thanks for pointing this out, I think it highlights the answer: Looking at the OSM map, it includes part of Perth Water as part of the city while the census map only shows the land-based component of the city as part of it. The water component must be the difference between the two sizes. Calistemon (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Calistemon: Pleasure, and I think you’re right. ABS say their LGAs are "an ABS approximation of officially gazetted LGAs ... constructed from allocations of whole Mesh Blocks (MBs)", where MBs "broadly identify land use such as residential, commercial, industrial and parks etc." Betterkeks (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Increasingly difficult

Due to problems arising when implementing short descriptions/categories/project tags:

Fremantle Arts Centre
Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts PICA

(There may well be other situations in other locations in the scope of the WA project, there are certainly hundreds in the eastern states projects not attended to)

The articles are describing (in most cases) a heritage/historic building and the contemporary organisations that are housed in them. There may not be the enthusiasm to create separate the articles - but the confusion of the short descriptions/categories belie a problem worth resolving. JarrahTree 06:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue continues at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fly_by_Night_Club#Has_the_club_closed%3F and is in effect a problem that is australia wide where wikidata entries are impossible (conflating a building and a separate organisation/activity) and categories are not designed for multiple contexts as such. JarrahTree 04:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think all three of these articles are plausible candidates for separation and potentially having summary-style breakouts both ways (for the building in the organisation article and for the organisation/present use in the building article). The FAC article is particularly confused (trying to cover uses of the broader site during the period after the creation of FAC) but in general they'd all be clearer if split. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
similarly, the hospital at Point_Heathcote should be separated as well JarrahTree 08:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I also noticed this today - that one was particularly confusing/unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This goes hand in hand with articles like Mount Weld which apparently is both "a mountain and a mine site in Western Australia" at the same time, also its doing this from a distance of 14 km apart. The mixing of narrowly related subjects in the same article then goes on into Wikidata, like Spinifex Ridge mine, under the article, under the name of Spinifex Ridge at the time, was linked to the Ridge rather then having its own independent item for the mine there. Its more then a small problem and can only really be resolved by the manual labour of disentangling the articles and items. Calistemon (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the Tasmanian Mount Weld would be more notable than whatever the WA "mountain" is (caldera?). Hack (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I find the consensus here encouraging, because it enables a solution. Does anyone object to the below?
  • An article ought to be about one main thing, and it must be obvious from the article what that thing is. The short description is for that one main thing, as is the wikidata object.
  • The article may digress into other topics, but these are secondary. Each secondary topic may have their own wikidata object.
  • Not every topic may have its own Wikipedia page, but it probably ought to have its own wikidata object.
  • Articles may be untangled, such as per WP:SPLIT.
Betterkeks (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed! Calistemon (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Following this discussion, I've gone ahead and split Fly by Night Club from its original building, which for now I've put into Old Fremantle Police Station and Court House Complex, the broader heritage complex that it's located in, as the building content wasn't hugely long. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Betterkeks has outlined an excellent resolution above. Thanks !!! JarrahTree 07:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @JarrahTree:. Betterkeks (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
There needs to be a to do list, they're everywhere. JarrahTree 13:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree, because that would enable an organised and calm approach to this problem; that is, "work it" until the list is empty and then delete the list. One way would be a page with a list, another by "tagging" affected articles with a category. I like tagging, because then there isn’t a page to maintain, but is there a preferred method? Betterkeks (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Preferred is a sub page of the wa project - strong suggestion that it sits in:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/to do as a sub page
with the suggested scope as explained in this talk item
encouraging editors to identify where an article has mixed content/title issues JarrahTree 10:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to do PICA, Fremantle Arts Centre and Point Heathcote regardless, which covers most of the ones here. I'm less convinced that Weld Club necessarily needs doing given that the building was built for the club and which has operated there ever since and for most of its history. It's the kind of thing we might split if there was, for example, some good detailed CC-BY content, or someone with a serious interest in researching the physical building as distinct from the club, but makes enough sense in the article to stay there otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It needs to be a separate page within the project - and with the capacity to be specific to address the opinions of those prepared to be involved. JarrahTree 10:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and untangled Weld Club by splitting the Wikidata object but keeping a single Wikipedia page by treating the building as a secondary topic. I also gave the page an edit. When I came here to update, I saw the three responses above. Does anyone object to the change? Betterkeks (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: OK, but not sure yet how to create that todo list. Betterkeks (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Betterkeks, I think that's an ideal approach to a situation like the Weld Club - thank you! The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There is now a page and process... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Western_Australia/Split_topic JarrahTree 02:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There's a similar issue in the Peters Ice Cream article. The WA-based Peters and Brownes content are bundled into a separate company's listing. Hack (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Kambalda, Western Australia

Updating the population data for locations in Western Australia, I came across the Kambalda, Western Australia article. From a census point of view, Kambalda doesn't exist, only Kambalda East and Kambalda West do. There is a Kambalda West, Western Australia article, but no corresbonding Kambalda East, Western Australia article. What would be the best solution to this problem? Create a Kambalda East stub, like the Kambalda West one, or redirect both simply to Kambalda, Western Australia? Calistemon (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Calistemon: As the Kambalda West, Western Australia article is literally one sentence, it seems reasonable to merge it with the other and only have a single article. A similar situation came up for Jimbour East, Queensland, which has two infoboxen; maybe that's an option? There's the possibility of passing the |wikidata= parameter to {{Infobox Australian place}} which will mean the correct population is displayed. Do Kambaldarians think of themselves as East or West, do you know? (by which I just mean: are they actually distinct towns that share a name, or just one with a big gap in it?). Sam Wilson 08:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't really know as I have never been there. Looking at the map, there is a physical gap between the two halves. For the purpose of population figures, I just added up the two halves in the infobox of the Kambalda, Western Australia article. The current Kambalda West stub really doesn't have any information that the main article doesn't already have. Calistemon (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty clear solution here: three articles, with Kambalda, Western Australia covering the whole township area by the name it's commonly known and the earlier ghost town, and Kambalda West, Western Australia and Kambalda East, Western Australia for the specific distinct localities (with content like suburb articles in most places). They just need a bit of expansion, and Kambalda West wouldn't be the only one-line suburb stub in Australia. I am very much not in favour of merging localities together because as a practice it's just a recipe for a confusing mess. That a population figure would require original research is another reason why it's a bad idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: You're right, that does sound clearer! That'd mean that the general Kambalda, Western Australia article wouldn't show any population figure then, wouldn't it? Sam Wilson 08:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Yep - unless covered by a different ABS geographical area (haven't checked if it exists). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this would be a good solution. This would be a no-brainer if the two Kambalda's had different names in the way that Dongara and Port Denison do. Those two towns are even closer to each other than the two Kambalda's. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Also with regards to the ABS geographical data, the 2016 census "Urban Centres and Localities" data has a separate entry for each town. [3] and [4]. Any other ABS geography probably wouldn't make sense. Steelkamp (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the related issue raised in 'Increasingly difficult' further up this page - previously merged/conflated items that need separating so as to keep items in ABS and wikidata adequately separated. There are probably hundreds of articles where separate subjects/locations have been conflated into one throughout the oz project. JarrahTree 11:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The fact that there are two halves is interesting and noteworthy IMO, and I agree that there ought to be three articles ... if there is enough for three. Until the Kambalda West and Kambalda East articles are ready, I think putting the sum of the population count of the two halves into the overarching Kambalda article makes sense. I added it using templates. When the articles are ready we can stop summing them. (Or now if you don’t like it 😀.) Betterkeks (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I wrote a short article at Kambalda East, Western Australia so we could stop talking in hypotheticals. I also found plenty that would be useful for expanding the Kambalda West article (they're not just geographically separate and built at different times, they were also planned completely differently). The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Kurrawang, Western Australia and Kurrawang community

There currently is an article for Kurrawang, Western Australia and Kurrawang community. A look at the two shows that the coordinates are identical. Is this the same place or two separate incarnations, just at the same location? Either way, it is unusual that neither article makes reference of the other! Has anybody got any insight? Calistemon (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

same thing - the two articles about the same thing...

https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/newspapers?keyword=kurrawang&startPos=20

JarrahTree 13:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the coordinates for the community were incorrect, out by 2 km, I have corrected this now. I'm wondering whether there actually was a different town of Kurrawang that has since disappeared. Calistemon (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The creators of the community articles had limited interest in related items -

it could be that kurrawang is actually three things - the timberline community as well which might not fit with the town or the mission... Ewers, John K (1939), "Fuel for the Golden Mile (The Story of the Kurrawang Wood-Line)", Walkabout, 5 (4): 21–24, ISSN 0043-0064

JarrahTree 13:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Carmel or Canning Mills

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56054378 this data item is interesting, I photographed it today. The boundary between Carmel and Canning Mills is at the Water Authority gate on Mason Mill Road, the grave itself is 500m past that gate in suburb of Canning Mills. inHerit says 20 Mason Road Carmel, that being the official address of the Water Authority buildings at the dam because their letter box is actually up on Mason Mill rd 500m the other way from the gate, while co-ordinates recorded on the photos I took are definitely in Canning Mills. LGA's just make it worse and are no help as Kalamunda extends to below the Dam, yet the City of Gosnells maintains the walk trail between Bickley and Victoria dams. Gnangarra 16:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: According to OpenStreetMap it is within the boundaries of Canning Mills. The suburb boundaries were imported as part of this. Betterkeks (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

New Article

French Western Australia is an intriguing new article today - there are quite a few issues that arise that need other eyes to peruse...

Interesting there is already substantial material about the subject raised, but perhaps not as organised as in the one article. JarrahTree 11:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Geoffrey Drake-Brockman (artist)

I wonder whether Geoffrey Drake-Brockman (artist) is related to the Category:Drake-Brockman family. I couldn't find anything out, but if anyone knows, it would be good to know so that we can put that page in the category. Steelkamp (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Try https://www.drake-brockman.com.au/HDB.html it should be obvious. JarrahTree 09:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

New Article

Naval_Base_Perth might need quite a careful check as it belies lack of local knowledge - JarrahTree 14:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hamersley, Western Australia, Featured Article review

Hamersley, Western Australia, is up for a featured article review. The review page is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamersley, Western Australia/archive2. Steelkamp (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol

https://twitter.com/standupmaths/status/1602600138081378305. And eight minutes later, someone edits the page. Steelkamp (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Geology of Kimberley (Western Australia) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Geology of Kimberley (Western Australia) to be moved to Geology of the Kimberley (Western Australia). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WAFL umpiring

I currently working on the history of East Freo, I'm noticing that there is a lot events and incidents around umpiring and havent even got far into the 1900's. Checking the WAFL page and all the templates nothing appears to link to anything about umpiring does anyone know of any that exist. The Earliest call for police protection was in 1898 given the current mode around respecting umpiring showing how deeply ingrained the abuse has been and the issue its caused. Like a no show for game in 1898 when the teams had call on a player to preside with an agreement that if the League didnt like the decision the side that lost would forfeit the games so as to keep to result valid. thanks Gnangarra 06:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gnangarra:, I had a bit of a crack at improving some of the player-umpire biographies a while back but the coverage was pretty inconsistent apart from some of the more high profile individuals. Hack (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I've been finding it hard to thrash any depth on them. Gnangarra 05:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Canning Dam GA reassessment

Canning Dam has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Manypeaks and Frankland River: Town and/or locality?

I got a query in regard to the general opinion on whether Manypeaks, Western Australia and Frankland River, Western Australia should be seen as towns or localities, or both, or two different, separate entities altogether. Until recently, both articles had the standard OSM Maps and the 2021 census data for the Suburb and Locality attached to them. A month ago, a user on Open Street Map objected to this and removed the relevant Wikidata item from the Relation there, essentially killing off the OSM map in the articles. Now another user has created separate Wikidata items for the town and the locality, meaning the 2021 Census data for the locality has also gone from the article here as well. We now have:

Manypeaks, Western Australia:
The original Wikidata item Q116039373 that doesn't link to the article here. It covers the Census area and the locality and has the 2021 Census data and the locality map showing the boundaries of the locality
The new Wikidata item Q21896816 that links to the Manypeaks, Western Australia article here and is specifically for the little town itself, not the locality it belongs too. It has population data allegedly from the Census (has a reference but I can't find the relevant data there) but won't display on the article here. It has a single point location map with no boundaries.
Frankland River, Western Australia:
The original Wikidata item Q5491115 that doesn't link to the article here. It covers the Census area and the locality and has the 2021 Census data and the locality map showing the boundaries of the locality
The new Wikidata item Q116038452 that links to the Frankland River, Western Australia article here and is specifically for the little town itself, not the locality it belongs too. It has population data allegedly from the Census (has a reference but I can't find the relevant data there) but won't display on the article here. It has a single point location map with no boundaries.

Do we really need two separate Wikidata items and, potentially, two separate articles here, one for the historical town and one for the locality as a subdivision of the local LGA or is combining them, like it was until now, good enough? If splitting them is the solution, this will have to be done for hundreds if not thousands of similar articles on such locations in Australia, so it would have quite an impact. What is the general opinion on this? It is rather a difficult topic as the activities span three different projects, Wikipedia, Wikidata and OSM? Calistemon (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Splitting them is probably the worst option. Townsites, as defined by Landgate, don't have census data, and the boundaries have a lot of idiosyncrasies, such as Bunbury being split into Bunbury, Eaton and Australind, or parts of Busselton not being within the townsite of Busselton. Perth is a massive mess as well. The closest equivalent census geography is "Urban Centres and Localities", but that does not apply to towns below 200 people. In addition to the aforementioned technical issues, locality articles and townsite articles would have significant overlap which is unnecessary. I suggest we use common sense as has been done all this time, and have articles combine the town and the locality. Steelkamp (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, having a single article that covers both entities seems best. If that's the case, then I think the article should link to Manypeaks (Q116039373) (the locality) instead of the town as it is currently. That way, we get the population and geometry here in the infobox, and everything makes as much sense as is likely. :-) Also, commons:Category:Manypeaks, Western Australia should be the same (the only photo there looks like it's not in the town anyway). Sam Wilson 05:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
My preference is also for a single article, and even a single QID as it previously was (until it becomes unfeasible). These seem like multiple boundary-drawer's attempts to capture the same "thing". Do the boundaries themselves become a new "thing"? That's an understandable perspective, and is in some sense cleaner, but multiplies the number of items and makes them difficult to maintain. Even with a single item, for statements like population, you can qualify which geometry you are citing a population for with "P518: applies to part". Even if there are eventually multiple QIDs, as Sam says, we can choose which to be the "main" QID we are writing about on enwiki, even if we are actually writing about both at the same time. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I think there is a case for 2 Wikidata items as they are different, but for the town site vs LGA localities only one article unless there is a significant amount of information for each. Gnangarra 05:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I think what could help to clarify what entity the Wikidata item, and related article, are about, would be if it somehow identified what Landgate item it is covering, Localities LGATE-234 or Townsites LGATE-248, or both at the same time. If this was identified, some of the ambiguity might be removed. Calistemon (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • We have the same issues with Queensland (and probably other states). Localities (also known as suburbs in urban areas) are boundaries and all the habitable land in Australia is supposed to be within a locality (that is, collectively localities are the total coverage of habitable Australia). Unless the ABS chooses not to do so for its own reasons, usually the SSC data in past census and the SAL data in 2021 census are the appropriate values for a locality/suburb. But a town (and in some states, cities, village and other similar terms hinting at size) define not a boundary but a point denoting the centre of an urban area. Now if you happen to have a town centre within the boundaries of a locality, then there are four possibilities. First that the town's urban area entirely fits within the locality, second that the urban area extends across multiple localities (and we generally refer to those localities as "suburbs"), and third that we are dealing with a vast metropolis which has grown and consumed multiple towns (most of our capital cities have done this). The fourth is historic towns that no longer exist in practice (but may have Wikipedia articles because they were the location of a gold rush etc, but usually won't have present day census data). The UCL data gives you the population within the town's urban area but this is somewhat complicated to calculate as it involves an actual analysis of land use and the urban area of towns generally changes between censuses (through the addition of new residential subdivisions on the outer edges of the town), whereas locality boundaries tend to be more stable (most don't change from census to census, but unstable over longer periods -- residential subdivisions often create new localities/suburbs by splitting old ones). The ABS doesn't seem to be interested to calculate UCL for small towns (usually you only get SSC/SAL data). Note also that a town and the locality in which its centre point is located may or may not have the same name and some localities may have more than one town centre within them, but usually these are very small towns. Also it is not uncommon to find a large town spanning multiple localities has a central suburb with the same name as the town. So lots of scope for confusion.

So what do we do for Wikipedia. Well, I observe that when a town's urban area is within a single locality (and often with the same name), we just have one article which discusses both the locality and its town(s) with redirects where the names are different. Personally I make this duality explicit in the lede paragraph "Springsure is rural town and locality in Wherever", "SuchAndSuch is a locality in Wherever; it contains two towns: Smithville and Jonesville". Generally I use the SSC/SAL in the infobox for these situations but if a UCL exists, I think it's better to write an explicit sentence that in 2021 census, the population of the locality was Big Number and the population of the town was Smaller Number (both cited appropriately).

But once a town starts to span multiple localities, we often have articles for the localities (suburbs) and an article for the town as a whole. When the name of the central suburb is the same as the town name, I usually use a hatnote to make clear whether this is Ipswich, Queensland (suburb) or Ipswich, Queenlsand (town) with appropriate links to the other. I would use SSC/SAL for the suburb article and UCL for the town article. When we get to the metropolis of Sydney, then you really have to look through the various options provided by ABS and the corresponding map to see what is the "best fit" to the scope of the article. But in my experience, it is usually UCL that reflects the urban area. The use of the "statistical area" stats will often give you bigger numbers and there are always folks who want their place to be the "biggest" and will use those numbers but I would suggest those statistical areas rarely correspond to the of the average person's understanding of town/city (which tends to encompass the houses, the shops, the factories but not the farms, which is more or less how the UCL area is determined -- it's worth reading the ABS description of how they do it).

Megacities like most of our capital cities have gobbled up historically distinct towns and we have a number of census data choices for them. Here you may wish to use a number of these, but help the reader understand what they represent. It's unlikely you can really do this with just a value in an infobox as you can for small places. I guess my point here is that if you put a value in the infobox, it should match the town/locality nature of the article (UCL vs SSC/SAL). If it's both, then you need to be explicit in the article text and not assume people will make the correct interpretation of whatever ends up in the infobox.

How should Wikidata handle this? Well, towns and localities (even with the same name) should be different Wikidata items as they are of fundamentally different types (centrepoint vs boundary). This will mean that some Wikidata town-and-locality articles will map to 2 Wikidata items; some people believe that should not occur. My experience of ontologies is that the real world is complex and it cannot be made simple just because it might suit Wikidata if that were so. There probably need to be relationships within Wikidata to link towns and localities as towns being contained in localities, and localities (suburbs) being contained within towns, or contributing to megacities. I note that as all of these relationship hinge on actual urban land use, those concepts of towns and the relationships to localities and the boundaries of localities will change over time. The town of Ipswich in 1850 is not the town of Ipswich of 1950 nor the Ipswich of 2021 (the urban area has massively grown and now contributes to the megacity of Brisbane). So what do we mean by "the town of Ipswich", do we mean the 1850 town, the 1950 town, the 2021 town etc? At one level, they are the same (because they share the same centrepoint) but in terms of area and the set of suburbs they encompass, they are different over time. Wikidata and Wikipedia have different aims, so what makes sense to separate in Wikidata may not make sense to separate in Wikipedia. In Wikidata, there is a definite tend of recentism, that the town of Ipswich seems to be presumed to the current town, whereas the Wikipedia article will have a history section which acknowledges things have changed over time. Commons is even more complex as we don't generally have geo-coords for most photo, except for recent photos (where it's automatically included by the camera) or of an iconic place we know where it is (Uluru, Sydney Harbour Bridge) or its own work and the person remembers where they took it, so we are often forced to categorise and use photos based on vague titles and descriptions, "Ipswich farmland, 1880s" clearly can't be in the "town of Ipswich" at the time of the photo (because it's a farm) but equally what locality (as we know them today) does this photo depict? Is it a suburb today or still farmland surrounding Ipswich? We just don't know, so it ends up in some random category loosely related to Ipswich and may appear in random Wikipedia articles relating in some way to Ipswich. Messy, ues, but it's is nobody's fault, just the best we can do with the info we have. So the idea of one Wikipedia article, one Commons category, and one Wikidata item in perfect alignment is doomed as reality isn't like that and, when you take the passage of time into account, you realise you need Wikidata items and relationships that can reflect different points or ranges in time.

So, the extent of the coverage of an article needs to be made explicity (town, locality, both), its history needs to indicate it grew or shrunk or disappeared. If putting a value in an infobox is capable of misinterpretation, then it should be made clear in the text (if necessary, or even left out of the infobox -- remember the infobox is the servant of the article, not its master. Kerry (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Dryandra Woodland National Park GA reassessment

Dryandra Woodland National Park has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR Notice

Bayswater, Western Australia has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Black swan emblems and popular culture

Black swan emblems and popular culture has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Western Australian Electoral Commission boundaries website

When trying to check out the electorate border for Electoral district of Darling Range I found that the link to http://www.boundarieswa.com/ in the external link section now points to what appears to be a Chinese porn website. Apparently, the current maps are now under www.boundaries.wa.gov.au/electoral-distribution/current-boundaries. Not sure whether the historical boundary maps are still available online somewhere. Calistemon (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As far back as 2003 is online on the WAEC website. You can navigate to different redistributions at the bottom of the website. Don't know about further back than that. Steelkamp (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Presumably someone sufficiently motivated could search the Government Gazettes, because after each review "the final boundaries have been published in the Government Gazette". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I have updated Electoral district of Darling Range with "WAEC District Maps: Current Boundaries (2019 Distribution) Previous Distributions 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015". I would presume it affects quite a few more articles. Calistemon (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Just thought I should let the project know that I've done an overhaul of Transperth-related articles today. (this has been sitting in my userspace sandboxes for months). I've created Buses in Perth (missing topic for ages) and overhauled Transperth and Transperth Train Operations. Those articles have been really quite bad for ages. I've also made a requested move of Transperth Train Operations to Railways in Perth, I would appreciate people voicing their opinions at that RM. Sometime later, I will get around to creating Ferries in Perth, but that has not yet happened. Steelkamp (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried to get to history of metropolitan place names today and, it appears, the link in Template:LandInfo WA is broken or obsolete. I don't seem to be able to get to the page anymore, not sure if the page even still exists. Can anybody else please check and verify? Calistemon (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right, that page is no longer live. http://test03.landgate.wa.gov.au/maps-and-imagery/wa-geographic-names/name-history/historical-suburb-names can be used instead, although that page could disappear at any time as well. Steelkamp (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: Could it be archived in some way so it remains usable as a source? It is used in quite a few articles as a pretty important source for the naming history of places, its loss would be quite upsetting. Calistemon (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It's already archived on the wayback machine here. Steelkamp (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Good. Should the template link be changed to the archived version? Calistemon (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this version, and we can monitor that link to see if it goes offline. We should link to a non-archived page if possible. Steelkamp (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
As an aside, I never knew about that template, despite having used that Landgate page as a source in several articles. Steelkamp (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I've just fixed the link to it, using the non-archive version above. It's actually a pretty stable URL ... for now. Graham87 13:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
And that link broke too ... so I've switched to archived versions. I tried to make them relatively recent to capture newer suburbs, etc. Graham87 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair warning: incoming watchlist onslaught

So it seems that all links to Western Australian government media releases are now dead. I've asked for help cleaning this up; prepare for some much bigger watchlists for a little while. Graham87 11:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the media statements are all at https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/ now. Unfortunately, it is probably not possible to do some sort of automated update to the URLs as the new URLs have the full date in them whereas the old URLs only have the year and the month. They were otherwise so close to being able to be automatically updated. Steelkamp (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I can't find them all there ... the earliest I can find from the web interface is https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Support-for-young-offenders-to-turn-their-lives-around-20220731 ... but the 2023 links seem to work anyway, like https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2023/01/King-Neptune-statue-given-heritage-recognition-within-Sun-City-Precinct-.aspx. See my recent comment at the above-linked discussion. I probably should have mentioned this thread there and any substantive comments about the URLs should go that way. Graham87 15:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Fremantle Arts Centre

I notice that we have a recent name change from Fremantle Arts Centre to Museum and Arts Centre, Fremantle, on the basis that is the name in the official State Heritage Office listing. Completely disregarding the fact that the owner, the City of Fremantle has always called the building, the Fremantle Arts Centre (since the Maritime Museum moved) and that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Dan arndt (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking we revert the name change and if the editor feels strongly then it is brought to a discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
That seems like a good course of action. The names used by the heritage database can sometimes be a bit weird, and we should follow WP:COMMONNAME instead. It can be taken to an RM if that editor disagrees. Steelkamp (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
noting of course that the entry in the state heritage listing is eroniously claimed as official... a bit weird indeed, the entry (if actually read) clearly indicates the name, it is a matter of discernment I suppose, whether the term official is understood as a red herring open to misunderstanding at the first instance. JarrahTree 00:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I brought the conduct issue to ANI. Graham87 13:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

ESEAP // WikiClubWest

Hi Folks, as you all know I've been involved with trying to form an ESEAP hub for many years. For those who were in Singapore and heard the discussions the ESEAP communities are electing a committee to run the election of of a Hub board. see [5] . You will see I withdrew as a candidate there because of a lot of issues taking place in the background that just so complicated and IMHO corrupted by third parties. This process is on going we need to have asked a regional community to for permission to at cast a vote on some of the seats, I'd like your approval to cast a WikiClubWest vote representing the WA Community which has been running for many years, this doesnt impact any WMAU vote as WMAU can only vote for the affiliate seats. We have three votes in the community section I'd like you approval to support Johnny, Robert, Yongjin as three people I know want ESEAP to succeed and will help steer this next step forward. Gnangarra 05:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

for anyone needing translation of what this means, please ask. I would endorse Gnangarra's effort on behalf of wikiclubwest community to support the people mentioned. JarrahTree
I note that on the webpage it states voting "ends on 23:59 UTC, 3 September 2023. Votes casted after the deadline will not be included into counting." so I'm guessing we are too late to vote.... Dan arndt (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Voting starts on 00:00 UTC, 26 August 2023, and ends on 23:59 UTC, 6 September 2023. Votes casted after the deadline will not be included into counting. for the community seats 115.64.205.164 (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: The end time is different for each of the three categories: affiliate seats ; community seats ; and individual seats . I was confused too. Sam Wilson 08:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
My bad. I was looking at the individual seats, as thats where Gnangarra had previously nominated for. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Perth Airport (suburb), etc.

After finding out about the old Perth suburb of Newburn, I noticed that Newburn, Western Australia was a redirect to the Perth Airport article, which made no mention of the old suburb. I went and created a very small section at Perth Airport (suburb) § History that mentioned Newburn so the redirect could function properly. Feel free to expand the Perth Airport suburb page. (Also see a relevant old discussion). I changed another counterintuitive Perth Airport redirect, Munday Swamp, for now so it goes to an article that mentions the swamp in question. The idea that redirect titles should be mentioned in the redirect target is very strongly enforced at redirects for discussion these days. Graham87 14:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

List of Bunbury suburbs

I recently came across the List of Bunbury suburbs. The article states no references, just states The Greater Bunbury sub-region includes the local government areas of City of Bunbury, Shire of Harvey, Shire of Dardanup and Shire of Capel, and comprises the following localities (suburbs). Now, to call this a list of Bunbury suburbs seems very misleading. To me, any locality or suburb within the City of Bunbury obviously qualifies for inclusion (easy to reference through this Landgate map), but anything in the shires around really needs a reliable source to qualify. It seems bizarre to list a rural locality in the Shire of Harvey like Hoffman, Western Australia here. In my opinion, this list should be reduced to what can be reliably referenced as a Bunbury suburb. What is the general opinion? Calistemon (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of the title if it included localities that are not exactly that. Nuke any dubious items. JarrahTree 06:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Does that list even need to be a standalone article. Bunbury isn't that large. That list could probably survive on the Bunbury, Western Australia article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
One possibility is to redirect it to City of Bunbury#Suburbs, but I don't want to do this without some consensus first. Alternatively, the table from there, with an added intro, could be copied there. Calistemon (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The specific title of the original form of the list is 'Bunbury' - and over time it evolved into the Greater Bunbury - which includes the neighbouring localities in adjacent LGA's.
When the wa project was developing 15 years ago or so - there was always the hope/thought/ambition that there would be follow-up and development of articles - in most cases they stayed as they were. Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Albany and Bunbury all have since had greater or larger planning formats compared to the editing era of 2007 or 2008 or so. The original title says Bunbury - the internal qualifier has expanded it to greater/larger area with very diverse quality locality/places.
To answer Calistemon's question - it depends - if the title is adhered to - the limit of Bunbury suburbs might be easy to fill, as Steelkamp is suggesting.
However if the internal qualifier is kept then that allows the 'greater' bunbury region - then the title probably should be changed. The same issue might be existing at the regional centres - Albany, Kalgoorlie, Geraldton - worth a check, look... JarrahTree 07:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
If kept, it should be renamed to something along the lines of List of localities and suburbs in the Greater Bunbury region to reflect the list's content, but, as a minimum, it needs a reliable source to verify that these localities are part of the region. Currently the article title misleads. Calistemon (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
There are enough items to qualify the term and its existence - https://trove.nla.gov.au/search?keyword=Greater%20bunbury%20region - if someone is interested in even creating a new article JarrahTree 07:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Turquoise Coast and Wheatbelt

Is the Turquoise Coast (Western Australia) part of the Wheatbelt (Western Australia) or the Mid West (Western Australia) or both? (The map at Turquoise Coast (Western Australia) does not help - see Talk:Turquoise Coast (Western Australia) § Map labels.)

Should Category:Turquoise Coast (Western Australia) be a subcat of Category:Wheatbelt (Western Australia) or Category:Mid West (Western Australia) or both?

Currently the category tree is: Islands of the Wheatbelt is a subcat of Turquoise Coast, but Turquoise Coast is a subcat of Wheatbelt and Mid West. Perhaps all the islands of the wheatbelt are in a small part of the Turquoise Coast? But we currently have Category:Islands of the Wheatbelt (Western Australia) as sub-sub-cat (via Turquoise) of Category:Mid West (Western Australia) - which makes no sense. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, the official website lists towns from Cervantes to Green Head as its locations. Cervantes is in the Shire of Dandaragan (Wheatbelt (Western Australia)) while Green Head is in the Shire of Coorow (Mid West (Western Australia)) so my guess is that it stretches over both regions, just as the Jurien Bay Marine Park does which pretty much seems to take up the same stretch of coast. Calistemon (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Changed the categorising, not all islands in Category:Islands of the Wheatbelt (Western Australia) are on the Turquoise Coast as far as I can see. Lancelin Island isn't, for example. Calistemon (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Localities and suburbs displaying wrong population data because of Wikidata edits

I don't know if anybody noticed but, because of the addition of Urban Centre and Locality population data to Wikidata items for suburbs on localities, the articles that draw their infobox display directly from Wikidata now seem to display this value rather than the localities and suburb one. Point Samson, Western Australia, Donnybrook, Western Australia and Onslow, Western Australia are just three examples! Calistemon (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that the issue is created by the specific instance of in the wikidata context, and so far is being corrected by manual corrections there, and as a consequence it is not an english wikipedia problem. If others who find similar examples who are not wikidata users, it is well worth reporting here, so that the wikidata entries can be followed up. JarrahTree 01:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
That's right, the UCL should only be shown if the item is an instance of town, that's the way the population module works[6] – if the settlements are suburbs, changing the instance in Wikidata to suburb or locality should display the SAL population. --Canley (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@JarrahTree and Canley: Replied at User:Canley's Wikidata talk page, to keep the issue where it originated. Calistemon (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia/Archive_13&oldid=1198252475"