Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

User:Crocodile Dundee is becoming quite a long term, persistent pain. It's worth keeping an eye on high profile Australian articles such as Australia, Crocodile Dundee and John Howard and revert as this pest strikes. I've been blocking as I go, but he's not bored yet. Page protection just sends them to another article. -- Longhair 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Here we go... (msg left on my talk page). "Just wait until I get my vandalbot running. At 211 page moves per minute, you'll have some cleaning up to do once the sleepers wake up ;) -- Bloake down under 10:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)" -- Longhair 10:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to hunt down one of the CheckUser folks. We're perfectly capable of playing whack-a-mole. Ambi 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/RU_Severe -- Longhair 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This should be fun... I'll keep an eye on Special:Log/newusers.--cj | talk 10:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How's that checkuser going? He's quite easy to spot and block, but the effort is ongoing, and I need a coffee :) -- Longhair 11:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He's really getting fired up at the moment. Fortunately, there are many others getting to him before I can.--cj | talk 11:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've got the coffee now and am ready for more. He's very easy to spot (as long as he uses the Aussie usernames he is anywyay) at Special:Log/newusers. Checkuser anyone? -- Longhair 11:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Phew! I've placed a comment at WP:AN/I asking for some checkuser assistance. -- Longhair 12:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This is quite eye-opening to witness. Keep up the good work, guys. pfctdayelise 12:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow? How fitting. The Aussie vandalism stops, and Willy on Wheels (also known as WoW) begins. -- Longhair 13:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a lot of good work. Most of the time it was all happening so quickly that it was difficult to see what was being vandalised before it was reverted. Two usernames with vaguely Australian sounding themes that were created during that time were Shrimpy777 and Ssurfer. (he or she made edits about throwing shrimp on the barbie). It might be worth keeping an eye on them. I have to log off now. Good work everyone involved. -- Adz 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adz. It's sometime a tough call what to block. I've blocked Shrimpy777, looking at the other now. We don't want any collateral damage. -- Longhair 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back, but using less obvious names. I guess he figured it out that we could see him coming.--cj | talk 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been a debate on the Lyrebird article page, where an editor keeps taking information about Australian folklore, dating back to the late 1800's with regard to lyrebirds, and transferring the information to the Talk:Lyrebird because there is no given source to go with the folklore comment. The debated issue is an item, put on the Lyrebird article page by another editor, and tells about:

a lyrebird who regularly stopped logging operations by mimicking a fire alarm.

I feel that the information should be on the main article, and not just 'tucked away' on the discussion page, where people who may be interested may not be able to find it. Folkfore is handed down from generation to generation by 'word of mouth' and, as such, deserves its place on the main article, irrespective of whether, or not, there is a verifiable source for the information.

Could I please have input by other Australian Wikipedians about this, and whether anybody knows of any source material with regard to this. Thank you. Figaro 16:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Lyrebirds are certainly known for their mimicry. This Museum Victoria article refers to them mimicking chainsaws and cars see [1]. This NSW National Parks article says that they have been known to mimic alarms see [2]. Capitalistroadster 22:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input about this. I appreciate it very much. The lyrebirds' amazing mimicking ability is well verified and comments to this fact have been on the page from the start. There are numerous references, and external links (including a link to the article you mentioned) to articles about this, some of which have links to actual recordings of lyrebirds' calls, where the person who clicks onto these can hear the multitude of calls made by lyrebirds.

Even when the story was first put into the article about the lyrebird, it was made explicitly clear that the story may not be true. The original statement read:

"Australian folklore is rich with tales of lyrebird mimicry: if the story of a male lyrebird that used to regularly halt 19th Century logging operations by mimicing the fire siren is not true, a hundred others are."

The editor under discussion removed the statement because of a lack of verifiable source. It would appear that the comment that the editor has a problem with, when he has been removing the comment, is the lack of verification of the story about bird's calling actually stopping the logging.

The last time that he removed the comment from the article, the information had been placed in a separate subsection called Fact or fiction. In that subsection, it was again made explicit that the story may not be true, but that it was a part of folklore. It read:

===Fact or fiction===

Australian folklore is rich with tales of lyrebird mimicry. One is the story of a male lyrebird that used to regularly halt 19th century logging operations by mimicking the fire siren. Even if these particular stories may not be true, a hundred others are.

The editor immediately removed it as an "unverified anecdote", in spite of the explicit remarks that the story may not be true.

I have absolutely no doubt that if the story is placed on the page under the section heading of "Urban Myth", the editor would still remove the story as an unverified anecdote. This is the reason why I am asking for help with this. What is to be done now, when even explicitly describing the story as folklore is not enough to satisfy the editor under discussion? Figaro 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, I reckon there needs to be verification that the tale is part of the folklore (ie has made it into dead trees). Andjam 02:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is the 'yardstick' whereby the item should be measured as being a viable entry onto an article page, could somebody please help with this, if it is at all possible. I have spent hours searching for the verification which is being asked here, on both the internet and with books (which can be seen from the large number of references and external links I have put on the lyrebird article page). I was not the person who mentioned the logging incident on the lyrebird article. I am just trying to help. It is easy to ask for verification, but difficult to put in the 'hard slog' to get results to prove such verification. There are also many lyrebird books out there to be read. Figaro 05:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Could a Wikipedian Administrator please comment here about whether it is absolutely compulsory to have verification, or whether the comment about 'folklore', with the subheading of 'Fact or fiction' - or 'Urban myth' - be enough for the comment to be acceptable on the article page. Thanks. Figaro 06:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I too get annoyed when the propeller heads start seeking verification on certain types of statements that simply do not need them. With over 500,000 articles in en.wiki, we can all be assured that at least 10% of these are about idiotic subjects (source not verified) and/or make idiotic claims - so the reference police should be tracking these 10% or more down rather than worrying themselves about a harmless little story about a lyrebird's legendary capability to mimic. Having said that, the original line that was in the article could probably be made to sound a bit more encyclopaedic and less like a fireside yarn - but I see no reason why its basic substance could not be contained within the principle article, as opposed to the talk page. As an example of propeller head verification, the talk page of the aussie rules article recently had one of our compatriots asking us to verify the claim that aussie rules had been as popular as the two rugby codes in the ACT and south-western NSW over many decades - why should something as obvious and well known as that require any form of substantiation? Articles in wikipedia would become unreadable if everything as obvious as that was going to require citations. Sydney is on the east coast of Australia (so says the Jacaranda Atlas). Indonesia is to the north of Australia (so says the Jacaranda Atlas). The principal language of the Netherlands is Dutch (or so we are able to gather from their daily newspapers). Sicily is triangular in shape (Mario Puzo says so). Elvis made a lot of corny musicals in the 60s (implied in the Encyclopaedia of Rock, heaven forbid should any of us think that at all). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pippu that having citations through the article like that is a bit ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that more things shouldn't be substantiated, with citations in a list of references at the end. I think the folklore comment really does need some sort of verification, not because I don't believe, but because if we don't draw the line here, we're heading down a slippery slope. JPD 17:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, Pippu. Citations aren't neccessary, but verification is. Andjam 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, fair enough, I apologise. I still wonder whether verification is necessary for information that is widely known. Do all challenges need a response, or only those that provide a cogent argument that provides an indication that the information may be incorrect, or at least flawed in some way - or is it enough for someone to simply say: show me where that is written (as if seeing something written somehwere represented some sort of magical harbinger). For instance, I recall reading a book written in the 1930s by an emanate Australian academic advising against accepting immigrants from Sicily because all traces of nordic blood had been infected by inferior african and asiatic blood. Does this form the basis of a sound encyclpaedic article simply because it was published in a book? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• One of Wikipedia's foundations is that the information is verifiable and sources should be cited. They should certainly be cited by an editor when challenged which is the case here.

Wikipedia:Cite sources states

Providing sources for your edits, in particular for edits that are challenged by other editors, is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy.

Citing reliable sources serves several purposes:

* To ensure that articles are accurate and credible

* To show that your edit isn't original research.

Until there is a third party source, the folklore should not be in wikipedia. The onus is on the editor to prove it is not original research. Unfortunately no other editor so far seems to be able to help with a source or even corroborate this piece of folklore.--A Y Arktos 20:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have already commented, I was not the person who put the information on the article in the first place - and also, as I have already commented, I have attempted to find verification for the comment, both on the internet and in printed form. I have also already written to the person who did supply the information, on two separate occasions, both times requesting source information. Figaro 01:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well if they can't source it, it has to be removed. They wouldn't have to show that it actually happened, they would just need to point to a collection of folklore where this was written down. If it hasn't been written down though, then there's no way to prove the original editor didn't make it up. --bainer (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you could put this in Australian folklore which I just started Astrokey44 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently writing an article on Cleaver Bunton, the independent NSW Senator who replaced Lionel Murphy and thus played a part in the 1975 constitional crisis. He lived to the ripe old age of 96 which leads me to wonder whether anyone else who has served in federal, state or territory politics has lived longer than Bunton's 96 years and 262 days? I've had a scout around our articles on Australian politicians and found no one older but lord knows we are still missing a few. Thanks in advance. --Roisterer 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Lots of information here, for the federal scene only. Snottygobble | Talk 04:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, there is no central list of records for politicians. Capitalistroadster 10:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I am reliably informed by a senior person within the Biographical Dictionary Unit in Parliament House that 96 years would indeed represent the record (for a federal politician). However, it should be noted that their expertise is more on the biographies of senators than members. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we mean the greatest age attained while serving, or in retirement? Adam 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• In life, I assume. Billy Hughes would hold the record as a sitting member as he was still a member of Parliament in his 90's. BTW, I understand from my contacts that Parliamentary Librarians request such information from time to time from other libraries but no record from all states and territories has been compiled. Perhaps it is something that we can do some lowkey lobbying on as it would be useful for researchers. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a set of the Biographical Registers of all the state / colonial parliaments, which give birth and death dates for most members, but it would take a lot of time to go through them all looking for longest-lived members. I don't think I feel inclined to do it. You can't really expect the Parliamentary Library to do it since the information is of curiosity value only. Adam 02:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I meant the greatest age of anyone who ever served as an MP, rather than the eldest serving politician (if that makes it at all clearer). I might keep a definitive statement of Bunton being the longest living former politician out of the article for now with an eye to including it at a later date if still relevant. --Roisterer 02:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• It has just occurred to me that none other than the Big Fella himself lived to 98 years and 280 days. I don't know if that means he holds the record but it beats Bunton by 2 years and 18 days. --Roisterer 06:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Other parliamentary biography websites are available on the NSW Parliament website see [3]. The Queensland Parliament has something similar see [4]. South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT don't have anything on their websites and I am still waiting for the other states and territories. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Browsing through the Qld state parliament pages, I noted there was a Robert Travers Atkin who served in the Qld state parliament and died aged 30, which might be hard to beat for the not sought after title of "shortest living politician". --Roisterer 08:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam has a bunch of records for the federal parliament over at his Election Archive, including the oldest/youngest politician when first elected, and the oldest/youngest at departure from parliament. Doesn't cover oldest living though. --bainer (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that Reg Swartz is still with us at age 94. I'd be pretty certain he is the oldest living ex federal Parliamentarian. Clyde Cameron is 92, Frank Crean will be 90 in February, Gough will be 90 in July, and Kim Beazley Sr will be 90 in September 2007 (just in time to see his son become PM). Adam 08:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Or not. :>). Thanks for the info, Adam. Capitalistroadster 08:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Judging by these results, I think I can comfortably make a prediction on how to live to a ripe old age:

1. Get elected to federal parliament

2. Become involved in a dispute that either ends in the dismissal of a Labor PM/Premier or, as in the case of Billy Hughes, a Labor PM getting expelled from the ALP.

Reg Swartz appears to be the only hole in my otherwise watertight thesis but with some thought I'm sure I can incorporate him in somewhere. --Roisterer 06:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Reg was a loyal Menzies factotum all his life and was notoriously the most boring man in Parliament. When things were getting hot in QT, the Libs always asked Reg a question about dams and pipes and he would drone on for hours and put everyone to sleep. This seems to be a recipe for longevity. Adam 09:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The great Gough Whitlam is still going strong at 89, let's hope he can set the new record. Rogerthat 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do any of you budding journos know anything about the "Walkley", allegedly the most prestigious award for Australian journalism? It would seem we don't have an article on it and I'm wondering if we should. Snottygobble | Talk 12:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We do! Walkley Awards. Agnte 12:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny I couldn't find it; how embarrassing. I've added a disambig to Walkley, so it will never happen again. Snottygobble | Talk 12:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwax is a useful Wikipedia searching tool. For example, I typed in Walkley and "Walkley Awards" popped up. There's no need to be embarrassed by the the breadth of Wikipedia's content.--Commander Keane 23:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointer to wikiwax - it looks really good--A Y Arktos 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The link Walkley now points to the suburb in Sheffield, UK, where I was born, not to a disambig page. Bduke 23:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

G'day everyone. Can someone please give us an update on the revamping of the notice board. I know that Cyberjunkie had a proposed new layout as well as thebainer. The archived discussion is here. I was for the revamp but we have heard nothing since mid-November. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Both proposals looked good to me - I probably slightly preferred User:Thebainer/AWNB as including more info compared with User:Cyberjunkie/Lab - a largeish image of the flag and info about meetups so prominently featured wouldn't have my priority. I am not uncontented with the present arrangement. --A Y Arktos 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I like cj's version, potentially anything could be put in the place where the flag is currently shown- featured Australian related pictures would be nice. thebainser's version probably makes better use of the space. I do think the board needs a redesign, the bulk of the stuff at the top of the current one is probably not used at all.--nixie 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In a small voice: I use the stuff at the top as a useful reference--A Y Arktos 00:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the links to regioanl notice boards and the huge TOC mostly.--nixie 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I use the regional notice boards link occasionally if I want to seek advice from Wikipedians from a certain background. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The RfA section on both of them could probably be changed, something like "Australian candidates at X" where X can variously be RfA, FAC, FPC etc. --bainer (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I also have User:Cyberjunkie/AWNB that I was working on. Per somebody's suggestion, I was implementing hide functions to various sections; so far To-Do can be hidden. Discussion does not need to have a background if people don't wish. With User:Cyberjunkie/Lab, I like Peta's suggestion of using featured pics in the Main box, but I'm still unsure of what do with the box on the left. It doesn't really serve any purpose as yet, and wastes space. Any suggestions. In the other version, I just eliminated them.--cj | talk 02:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the main change I would make to your design would be to squish your two top boxes into one, and add the Australian WikiProjects to the top line, and where it was include some sort vastly reduced to do list, similar to the CSB to do box.--nixie 02:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done guys - both pretty good - I'll go with the flow. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If possible, could some of you drop by and support the nomination of History of the Australian Capital Territory for featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Australian Capital Territory? It's currently at risk of failing, not because anyone has actually objected, but because so few people have commented at all. Ambi 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst people are there, could they also consider Dietrich v The Queen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dietrich v The Queen/archive1?--cj | talk 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone see this? Pretty amusing! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

lol. thought it was a real article for a second. There was a comment there about the page being linked to from John Laws. Is that right? Astrokey44 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The link has been removed from the article and placed on the talk page. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiporn! Haha. It'll be the next big thing. pfctdayelise 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you didnt see it, Waterfall Gully, South Australia is on the main page today. Should watch for vandalism Astrokey44 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

John Ducker Adam 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, we do have a separate page for such announcements...--cj | talk 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Duly added -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If possible, could someone update this article with all the recent developments? Even though I wrote it last year, it only really goes as far as the 2002 election, and a lot has happened in recent months that really warrants mentioning. I'm sure I'll get to it eventually, but I have a lot of projects on my plate, so I'd much appreciate it if someone beats me to it. Ambi 08:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I am in a deadlocked discussion over everybody's favourite Australian institute of higher learning, Greenwich University. It appears my opponent and I have little chance of finding a consensus on our own. A wider community view would be appreciated; see Talk:Greenwich University. Snottygobble | Talk 12:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Barry has been taking some fairly heavy vandalism for weeks from some North American schoolchildren who keep replacing it with an attack page about their teacher. One of them sent me an email this morning vowing to keep it up, so I'd appreciate it if a few of you could keep an eye on this page and revert any vandalism ASAP. Ambi 04:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

can't a sysop zap the little shits for a few months? in scn.wiki, I never muck around, I let them have it between the eyes first time they come along. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's coming from several different IPs, which aren't even in similar ranges. If it keeps going it might be worth doing something. --bainer (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been going for a while, so if you see an IP or username that keeps it up, feel free to zap them. In the meantime, any help with reverting as quickly as possible would be much appreciated. Ambi 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not protect the article for a day or two? --cj | talk 14:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently re-wrote this article, and was wondering if anyone knows whether I can use this photo in it. The whole ACCC site is under Crown Copyright, so if you could offer any knowledge on whether this image is needed and could constitute fair use I'd really appreciate it.

I have written to the ACCC website's director of publishing, who is the person it directs your copyright questions to, but don't know whether or not he'll get back to me. Please reply either at the article's or my talk page. Thanks in advance. Harro5 00:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone out there know Italian? The italian wikipedia has been asked by an english wikipedian to translate their article on this topic (don't ask me what it's about). So I've started a stub and I'm doing a full translation at User:Pippu d'angelo/Magnetotactic bacteria, anyone with the wherewithal is invited to come by and have a look. Otherwise, why not visit the translated article as it grows and see if my translations are making any sense from a scientific point of view. In case you haven't worked it out, I'm no scientist, I'm not much of a translator either, in fact, I ain't much chop at much really! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You might want to try it:Wikipedia:Traduzioni or en's version Translation into English to find some editors who can help out. --bainer (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Google would be a better translator than me, but I'd be willing to look at the finished article. Andjam 08:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be great - thanks very much! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats to those who edited Australian Aboriginal flag

• 13 contributors made 39 edits
• See how it changed

Voting was tied with eight votes each for Sydney Olympic Park and Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. There will be a 24 hour special voting round. Please vote for which one you would prefer here ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race was the winner, 7 votes to 3. ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we have an article on the (disgusting) incidents in Sydney? I notice some editors have been addding information about the events to Cronulla.--cj | talk 14:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From [5] Cronulla was possibly Australia's biggest racist protest since vigilante miners killed two Chinese at Lambing Flat in 1860. Agnte 17:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't let them get away with rubbish like that; now I'm going to have to write an article on the Kalgoorlie race riots of 1934. Snottygobble | Talk 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed it's been started, at December 2005 Sydney Suburb Unrest. Cnwb 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I created one called 2005 New South Wales race riot, I couldn't continue because I couldn't add to Wikipedia from my home PC. I'll go and delete it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now at 2005 Cronulla race riot. Experience suggests it may keep moving of course. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now at 2005 Sydney race riots. If it gets to the point of being silly -- as happened with 2005 civil unrest in France -- it may be worth protecting the page from moves, unless clear consensus to do so can be shown.--cj | talk 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It got silly for a while[6]. Seems to have settled down now at 2005 Cronulla race riots. Ben Aveling 08:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It got silly again. Now 2005 Sydney Race Riots. riot<->race riot<->riots<->race riots<->civil disturbance and Sydney<->Cronulla<->Cronulla beach, plus all imaginable combinations of capitalisation and at least two redirects overwritten with new articles. I realise that all these moves are a vital part of deciding what is actually happening. OTOH I feel that most of the moves are people trying to talk up/down the importance of these events. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to Sydney race riots, lower case this time. Can someone please move-protect it for a few days? Thanks, Ben Aveling 06:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the capitalisation. I think it's settled now, but, after fixing all the redirects, if someone moves it again without support, you can be sure I'll be rolling it back.--cj | talk 07:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• On a related note, Bra boys is listed on Articles for Deletion for today. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking very speedy keep. Ben Aveling 06:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Melbourne article is now being peer reviewed. All comments and help to improve the article to get it to FA standards would be appreciated. Harro5 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that our postcode lists were a bit messy, so I spent tonight cleaning up list of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory. Some of the other states' pages are in even worse shape, so perhaps some of you might think about table-ising soem of the other pages along similar lines. Ambi 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• BTW, this article is now on AfD. It is a useful list speaking as a resident of the ACT. Capitalistroadster 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A newly created to-do area with template is at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/19xx in Australia and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/19xx in Australia - missing years. A lot of work has already been done, but there is more to do, and having just started to dabble in this area and having a go at 1959, I can vouch that it exercises the brain cells and wikipedia sleuthing skills :-)--A Y Arktos 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Where can I find information about Australian naming conventions? Somebody has just moved Toowong, Queensland to Toowong and is in the process of going through and changing all the wikilinks in other articles that point to Toowong, Queensland. Am I right in thinking that it was in the right place to begin with and shouldn't have been moved? Thanks. -- Adz 01:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Place name conventions are at: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#Australia. The convention was arrived at by discussion on this noticeboard.--A Y Arktos 01:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. -- Adz 01:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The record of the debate is at Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/Archive 6#Again on Disambiguation--A Y Arktos 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As of five minutes ago, we now have two more featured Australian articles: history of the Australian Capital Territory and Dietrich v The Queen. I never thought we'd be able to make a workable article on the first, and it's nice to see that we've finally got our first featured law article, so kudos to all involved. :) Ambi 05:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Three more, White's tree frog is an Aussie frog.--nixie 05:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to all who worked on History of ACT, it's brilliant. --bainer (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I must say this is very impressive! Well done folks :-) Ta bu shi da yu 16:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a photo of or live near an echidna crossing sign that they could take a photo of?--nixie 07:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Who wants to help me document this shyster? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Had a fair stab at expanding the article. It probably isnt a stub anymore. Any copyedits would be appreicated. novacatz 02:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Sydney Morning Herald articles: Somebody must have been like the Ancient Mariner at a dinner party it would seem - see recent Opinion article. Also Wikipedia gets high marks on science, a more encouraging article which reports that Nature states the Wikipedia comes close in accuracy to the paid-for Encyclopedia Britannica in its articles on science--A Y Arktos 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting for humor value, but shows that the guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. Most important topic we can imagine? Quasi-religious fervor surrounding its "rightness"? Bah. Ambi 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Journos, from the very premise of their occupation are trying for a 'line'/or POV, we don't need em telling about what they think of wikipedia, as they'll go for the odd bits or unusual, rather than the sheer hours of life given voluntarily to create something more positive and long lasting than they'll ever do!!vcxlor 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, he states that:

They also use the most charming of debating techniques, which is to allow you to make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up your argument, and then ignore them completely. Then they respond with something along the lines of "Are you being paid to say that by Microsoft, or just doing a mate a favour?" (to quote one email received this week on the topic of open source software development).

Is he referring to Wikipedia, or is he referring to the open source movement? This whole opinion piece seems very confused to me:

"That has led to a furious period of navel-gazing at the site, with people arguing about whether things should be deleted or kept, and whether anonymous editing is a good idea, or whether pseudononymous editing is OK."

Then he writes:

"But it's always worth asking yourself, before launching into the 124th flame of the evening for someone who has dared to question the rightness of your pet project, whether the other side might, for once, be right in their criticism. It is a radical idea, I know. But that's the only way cult thinking gets broken down. Personally, I'm all for it."

So what is it? Are we navel gazing, or are we trying to deal with a particularly bad problem? No offense to Charles on this one, he does make some valid points (we do get rather hot and bothered when we get criticised sometimes... I do!) but this really doesn't sound like it was thought out that well. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Meh. WP is remarkably well-mannered, as far as projects for internet obsessives go, from what I've seen. He says On all sides you will find people who are willing to argue to the death. I don't think people argue on WP with any more or less passion than they do about anything else. Take politics for example. The only difference is on the web, everything is recorded forever (or at least, a long time). If you have a heated argument in a pub for half an hour, at the end it just floats away into the ether. So maybe it just looks more heated than it really is. pfctdayelise 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, SMH needs fresh talent...--cj | talk 17:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about trying to tackle the schools issue in Australia recently, and since I've got a bit of time, I'd like to try and do something about it. I like the way we've done things with List of schools in the Australian Capital Territory, which has created quite an informative table, and I'd somehow like to roll this out across the rest of the country.

However, all the schools in the ACT only fit onto one page because it's small, and I'm not sure how to divide up the pages for the other states. List of schools in Geelong? List of schools in north-east Victoria? Any other suggestions? Ambi 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the best thing is to look at the category that each of the Departments uses. For example, NSW divides its schools up amongst a number of regions see [7]. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the same for Victoria. Does anyone know if they exist, and if so, where I can find them? Ambi 03:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/schoolsonline/Regions.asp but I think it's only got govt schools. pfctdayelise 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is something that I have been working on for a while now. Firstly, a bit of background. Initially, there was just the List of schools in Australia which was created by User:Lukeisham on 17 April 2004 and had the six states and the two territories as section headers and a handful of schools under each. After adding a few schools from my home state of New South Wales, I soon realised that that list was going to be far too large. So on 7 September 2005, I broke up the list into 8 separate pages, namely:

• List of schools in the Australian Capital Territory
• List of schools in New South Wales
• List of schools in the Northern Territory
• List of schools in Queensland
• List of schools in South Australia
• List of schools in Tasmania
• List of schools in Victoria
• List of schools in Western Australia

In addition to the above, I also created 8 categories:

• Category:Schools in the Australian Capital Territory
• Category:Schools in New South Wales
• Category:Schools in the Northern Territory
• Category:Schools in Queensland
• Category:Schools in South Australia
• Category:Schools in Tasmania
• Category:Schools in Victoria
• Category:Schools in Western Australia

(with all of the above being subcategories of Category:Schools in Australia)

as well as an Australian school stub and an appropriate category:

• Template:Australia-school-stub
• Category:Australian school stubs

I then moved all of the schools to the appropriate pages and then just listed the 8 pages (similar to Lists of high schools in the United States). You then moved the page, Ambi to Lists of schools in Australia on 18 October 2005.

So, then I started working on List of schools in New South Wales. I then devised a table, which Ambi alluded to above, which lists the school's name, the suburb or town of where the school is located, the years that it caters for eg. K-6, 7-12 etc, the year that the school was founded and link to the school's website (if available).

I planted the table on the ACT list to see what kind of reception that it would get. I'm glad to see that it was picked up and now that list is looking great. So, I definitely feel that the table should be used on the other pages.

Now, in regard to whether the lists need to be broken down further, well I don't know. We could make "List of schools in [insert capital city]", but clearly defined capital city borders do not exist, which is why I chose to break them up into the states and territories. However, we could list them as Government and Non-Government schools (which looks like the way NSW is going to go). We also have an addition list called List of selective high schools in New South Wales (where these schools also appear on the full list).

So that where we are currently. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like Capitalistroadster's idea, as it would allow us to basically stick to the ACT format (keeping both government and non-government on the one page) and would order things rather nicely. I think that would most likely work well for NSW, because the official regions actually make logical sense. I'm not so sure about the Victorian ones (does anyone else refer to "Loddon Mallee" as a region?) however. The other thing we could do, apart from going the way of listing all government schools together and having pages divided by letter, is to do the city thing (List of schools in Newcastle, List of schools in Coffs Harbour), but that might have the potential to get a bit disorganised. Ambi 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if people could comment on Talk:Creative and performing arts high schools in New South Wales. enochlau (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a dispute with an anonymous editor who reckons certain rumours about Kate Ritchie's extracurricular activities should be mentioned on the page. Could others weigh in on this one? --Robert Merkel 04:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The infamous video? Believe it or not, that's all many people outside Australia know about Ms Ritchie. It's probably worth mentioning, although care should be taken not to give it undue weight or treat it salaciously. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Get a proper source, if you want it added. And no, I'm not talking about some stupid "celebrity nude" site or whatnot: a reliable source, such as a newspaper or printed magazine (though some of those could be counted as pretty unreliable also). - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What is with the existence of {{AustraliaGov}}? It seems strange to me, if something is under Australian crown copyright then it is not free to be uploaded to wikipedia. That is unless (like all other copyrighted images) it is accompanied with {{fairuse}} and a reasonable fair use rational. What can we do about re-licensing or removing all the images that currently use this tag? --Martyman-(talk) 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Furthermore, not only is it pointless, it is also incorrect and misleading. Although the crown can hold copyright in Australia, it is not crown copyright. Australia does not have crown copyright in the sense of special copyright rules and conditions that apply only to material held by the crown. Snottygobble | Talk 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think they do actually. Photographs held under crown copyright expire in a shorter tim ethan normal copyright. But that is a differnt case to this which is essentially stating that the photo is still under copyright and shouldn't be here. --Martyman-(talk) 22:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Most templates similar to this have been deleted, I think it'd be best to apply a better tag to the images in the category (there isn't many) and then list this on tfd.--nixie 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Martyman is right, I was wrong. An good analysis of crown copyright in Australia can be found here. Snottygobble | Talk 23:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mbrandall has contested that orders written by a commanding officer in the Australian Defence Force are not covered by copyright. Can anyone back this up with any real evidence? Or should I take the fact that this exemption doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere as evidence that these orders are covered under crown copyright? --Martyman-(talk) 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives only has two entries? Why, even John Howard isn't listed there! Is it being decommissioned or something? Snottygobble | Talk 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I suspect people haven't been aware of it. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also Category:Australian politicians which is more populated. These categories need to be cleaned up. Perhaps Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives can go there too. It currently sits under political office holders.

I've also been trying to get my head around Category:Australian Parliaments. It currently acts as a repotitory for lists of the composition of parliaments (and state parliaments via subcategories). I think it should be a category which contains articles about state parliaments (and the Commonweath Parliament), although it has also been suggested that those should sit under Category:Australian legislatures and that we should leave the Australian Parliaments category alone. I haven't done anything about it yet. I'm still pondering the best structure. -- Adz 01:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly it is a bigger problem than just this one page. I agree that Category:Australian parliaments should contain the lists it does; and that the houses of parliament should be elsewhere, although I would prefer Category:Australian houses of parliament over Category:Australian legislatures. Unfortunately, the more you look at it, the more complicated it gets. Snottygobble | Talk 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

- which is why I have been reluctant to change anything. i have this feeling that as soon as I chaneg something, it will have to be changed back again. There is also Category:Legislatures_of_subnational_entities and Category:Parliaments by country to look at. You'll see thatunder teh former there are sub-categories for US State legislatures, Canadian legislative houses and Belgian Parliaments. Australian parliaments is tehre too, but in our case, it means something diffenrent (although the state parl articles are listed there together with the composition of Federal Parliaments. -- Adz 02:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What would you think about Snottygobble's suggestion of Category:Australian houses of parliament? Ambi 23:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually think that Australian legislatures works better. Houses of parliament is vague. It implies the chamber or house rather than the whole institution (as in, Legislative Assembly, House of Assembly, Legislative Council, Senate, House of Reps - ratehr than 'Parliament of South Australia'), but it could imply the building - Parliament House Canberra, Spring Street, North Terrace - wherever. I think Australian Legislatures works better. -- Adz 06:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think we should make a Category:Historic political parties in Australia as a subcat of Category:Political parties in Australia and Category:Political history of Australia (which also needs to be made)?--nixie 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Which category would the Democratic Labor Party fall under? Andjam 02:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• That article seems to be about two parties of the same name- either put it in both categories, or break it into two articles.--nixie 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Both categories sound good to me. Ambi 02:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've started some recategorisation, help would be appreciated.--nixie 03:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I've about got the handful that you missed. Ambi 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Should strikes go into the political history cat?--nixie 04:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There could be a labour history cat for these things, which could then be a subcat of both Australian labour movement and this. Ambi 08:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So far only Little Creatures, Mountain Goat Beer and Piss Beer have articles that I can tell (two of them just created tonight) -- far less than the number of fabulous microbreweries we have.

• Australian beer
• Category:Australian_breweries
• WikiProject Beer

--mordemur 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

G'day all, does any know what's the situation regarding the tax deductibility of the Wikimedia donations? Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the answer is no:

"Most categories have conditions that the fund, authority, institution, or organization be endorsed as a gift-deductible recipient by the Commissioner of Taxation, issue appropriate receipts for donations, conduct self-reviews of its status and be 'in Australia'." [8]

It's not specifically mentioned in the legislation, I wouldn't think it has an ABN for us to use to look up [9]. A quick glance at the type of tax treaties Australia has with the US doesn't seem to mention donations at all. TINLA. IALSBNAL (I am a law student but not a lawyer :P). enochlau (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Enochlau is right. Wikimedia foundation would have to be approved by the tax office as not-for-profit charitable organisation, would have to be subject to audits and (I think) certain management structures, require a constitution and so on. And would need to be in Australia. ... and I don't know about international treaties, but I don't think that any apply. ... It briefly occurred to me that we (in the very general sense) could establish an Australian foundation for the purposes of tax deductibility, but it would require establishing a board with a constitution, get recognition from the tax office, etc ... and then I quickly stopped thinking about it. if anybody wanted to kick the idea around, perhaps i could be persuaded to give the idea some more thought. -- Adz 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to help in anyway way as to getting things going for this. An issue to consider though, from my rather hazy memory, the German WP chapter got into difficulties because, due to their tax status, they could not transfer monies donated to them to the larger WP foundation. They were required to keep the contributions within German due to their tax arrangement.

We need to balance the added incentive to donate from being a registered NP organisation vs. ringfencing problem (although, some would say this is a plus! more money for the Aus WP). Possibly set up a project page for this hashing details ? novacatz 01:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See wikimedia:local chapters. I'm not even sure that there's a category of Deductible Gift Recipients (DGRs) that the Foundation or a local chapter would fall under: [10]. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

From my reading of the page, I think that we don't fall into any of the named cateogories (unless there is a rather liberal interpetation of 'library'). However, we might be able to argue to be put on the list of "Register of Cultural Organisations" but this will require some work. It would involve a lot of admin stuff. Not sure if it is worth the trouble -- but would be nice to have. novacatz 02:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it will require lots of work! I think under 'Register of Cultural Organisations', Wikimedia Australia would have to have a finger in all those pies, however we'd have to say one main thing that we do or could do. EG: "The purpose of Wikimedia Australia is to produce ..." However, the main criteria which applies to us would be 'literature' as an encylopedia is a piece of literature. I think we can try for it, certainly before the end of the next financial year (June 30 2006). Our ABN industry is probably Communication Services/Education/Cultural and Recreation purposes, and I think we would be an incorporated entity, if not a company or a partnership. But if there's a Board of Trustees, does that mean that Wikimedia Australia is a trust, then (like the main Wikimedia Foundation)? What kind of trust? There are at least half-a-dozen categories! Hope law students and lawyers can help!

--EuropracBHIT 04:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

I don't think there is enough Aussie wikipedian's around to make this work. Looks like there is a lot of admin and registration work and without the needed critical mass for a chapter -- idea probably won't fly. bummer. novacatz 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What do universities fall under? Is there some kind of an education category? enochlau (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, going out on a limb here... I would guess universities would fall under the "Public University" classification (under Education) :) :) :) novacatz 05:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With the new Wikiversity coming soon (or so I hear), we'll easily fit there! Haha, nah, but shouldn't we at least fit into "Education"? enochlau (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The categories are listed here: [11]. Unfortunately, the "education" section is pretty much limited to universities, TAFEs and high schools. Cultural organisations would be our best bet, but we'd need to get on the Register of Cultural Organisations, as said above. Here's a PDF of every organisation on the register. It might be worth contacting them for advice about whether a hypothetical Wikimedia Australia would qualify. Before then, it might be worth setting up a project page on meta along the lines of m:Wikimedia UK. Anyone interested in helping? --bainer (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in helping. I have read the 'Register of Cultural Organisations, particularly the seven criteria under which they need to be established. And also it's a good idea to create a page on the Meta. EuropracBHIT {talk}

What's with the recent additions of "Religion" to the infoboxes appearing on Australian PMs' articles? User:Australia boy seems keen to add this in, but I wonder whether it's really sufficiently relevant to highlight in this fashion (for what is s'posed to be a secular society). Any thoughts?--cjllw | TALK 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be there. For one thing, we don't know the religion of many PMs (or especially politicians). I believe John Howard's supposed to be Anglican, but how often does he go to Church? Should we put him down as "Anglican"? "Non-practicing"? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

According, to this Compass interview of all political leaders about spirituality John Howard said this [12]:

Geraldine Doogue:

Was religion perceived to be at the core of this? A spirituality or not?

John Howard:

In the background. I think it’s fair to say that both my own upbringing which I come from the Methodist tradition of the Christian church. Although when I do go to church now, which is more often than Christmas and Easter, but certainly not once a week. I tend to go to an Anglican church. I don’t really care what denomination it is.

How you would summarise this succinctly in a talk box escapes me. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Leave that kind of deatil for the text.--nixie 02:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Should be taken out. Seperation of church and state and all that. Should not be relevant to their governance, nor the article. --Canley 02:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• If we were writing this in the 1950s, some may want to know which denomination of (Judeo-)Christianity they were, but the differences within denominations is nowadays greater than differences between denominations. Unless Buddhists, Zoroastrians or Muslims make it to the top, it'd be about as useful as mentioning gender. Andjam 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed; given the consensus apparent here, I've reverted all of the changes thus far made, and also left a message with User:Australia boy to invite him to discuss further on this page, should he wish to argue for its reinstatement. If an individual's religous beliefs can be demonstrated to have played some formative or influencial part in their public life, then that could be appropriately covered in the body of the article itself.--cjllw | TALK 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I remember reading a while back a discussion about whether an article should mention that its subject is homosexual, and they all agreed that it should only be mentioned if that's an important part of that person (i.e. they fight for homosexual rights etc). So, unless the politician's religious affiliation affects his role as a parliamentarian, then leave it out. enochlau (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is getting two issues crossed. Should a politician's religious affiliation be mentioned in the infobox? No. It's not that important, particularly in the religious environment explained above. But should it be mentioned in the article? Absolutely. There's no excuse for hiding perfectly pertinent information. (Incidentally, the example Enochlau mentions is a nonsense - there is no such consensus on LGBT issues, and if anyone tried to do that, I suspect it would be fiercely reverted). Ambi 10:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My memory serves me wrong then. Although, why would it be fiercely reverted? Suppose Joe Doe is a person well known in the stockmarket. It just happens he's a homosexual. Why should that be mentioned in the article? Do we mention that John Howard is heterosexual in his article then? I don't mean to change policy here, but I'm just curious as to the distinction. enochlau (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

...because he is. We don't censor people's articles. Ambi 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm mulling over the questions raised above (with respect to whether things should be mentioned in an article) for a different reason. Today, I found out via Sun-Herald: Questions for Torah Bright that snowboarder Torah Bright is a Mormon. As she volunteered the information in response to a separate question, I concluded that it wouldn't be a violition of her privacy to mention it in her article. But that doesn't answer whether mentioning her religion is relevant to the article. I guess I found the tidbit interesting as snowboarders are perceived by some as brats and yobbos, and that (non-lapsed) Mormons are perceived as being unlikely to be brattish or yobbo-ish.

To get to the point (too late!), I guess one reason people may mention that X person is from Y ethnic/sexual/religious group is so that people doing their own research can confirm or deny their idea of what people from group Y are like. Andjam 11:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can cite it, then it belongs in the article - simple as that. Wikipedia is not censored. Ambi 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we do mention that John Howard is married, and say a bit about Janette. That sort of personal information about partners, etc could be included in any biographical article, although the statement "X was/is homosexual" probably isn't worth including by itself. Religious beliefs/affiliations are similar personal details that should be mentioned, but aren't somethign that belongs in an infobox. JPD (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

After several edit conflicts: It's not quite as simple as censorship or no censhorship - there is the issue of relevance. But most of these things are relevant in a biological article. JPD (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(Biographical? pfctdayelise 12:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Given the subject, I think he was right the first time ;) --bainer (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah! I need to get less impatient after repeated edit conflicts! Biographical, of course... JPD (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk about coincidences! The next day, papers had the following to say about Torah:

A part-time model, Cooma-raised Bright is also a practising Mormon and the antithesis of the archetypical snowboarder.

(Rising hopes on slopes) Andjam 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys and girls, look what I made. Rate my template. Is it suitable for inclusion on all uni pages? I made it because the only thing like it was Template:Group of Eight, and that struck me as needless elitism. So comment away, check for errors, ommisions, send praise, death threats etc. - Randwicked 12:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Australian universities

Nice! Great work, Randciked :) Ta bu shi da yu 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good catch! Would you be able to format it and give it a background though? It's not very eye-appealing as it stands. Ambi 12:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of updating the group of 8 template to something a little more visually pleasing - that one and this one are very "minimal". I've also got to say I don't really see the point of a template where there are good categories- it's just more metadata.--nixie 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's good, but as Ambi says, perhaps some formatting will be good. Could you move it into the Template namespace please so we can all start tweaking at it? :) And what should we do with the Group of Eight template? I'd suggest get rid of it, it's unnecessary; instead just have Group of Eight as a category? I wouldn't say it's extra, unnecesary metadata - it encourages people to jump around and explore. To give it some utility, perhaps the template should group them by state. enochlau (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, see Template:Australian universities. I didn't bother with grouping by state, as several of them are multistate already. - Randwicked 12:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that Go8 is unecessary. There are several non-overlapping ways of grouping the Australian unis: Go8, ATN, IRU & NGU. See

I wasn't ever sure if such a template was necessary. I created {{Group of Eight}}, {{IRU Australia}}, and {{Universities in South Australia}}. As to the format, I changed them recently upon seeing it on the German Wikipedia. I don't see anything wrong with it (it does look better in article namespace, where its background is white). Because these use the dynamic template (unlike {{Politics of Australia}}), the title bar is grey. I can change this in MediaWiki to make it the standard #ccccff.--cj | talk 06:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

cj, the images on those templates aren't displaying correctly for me. They're being covered by the title bar. I don't know if this is a firefox error. - Randwicked 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

While the template is not strictly necessary, it does serve as an easy on-page navigation guide. Categories like Australian Universities, which only have a few tens of members, are ideal for representation in a navigational template. If there were a few hundred universities, then only a list or category would be viable. But as there aren't, and as long as the whole thematic category can be displayed in one place (without the user, who may be unfamiliar with categories, having to move to another page) it should be.
And could one of you guys fix up the colouration? I have little to no interior design skill or taste. - Randwicked 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What colour do we want? Green and gold look a bit bawdy perhaps :P Typically these boxes are dull gray, but we can be creative... enochlau (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy new year. I might start testing this in articles soon. - Randwicked 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If anybody needs something to do, I have just written an entry on the inaugural federal election (listed in Wikipedia's most requested article list) and there are still a lot of articles that could link to the page but currently don't (eg. politician's pages, electorates etc.) I'm now in the process of linking articles to the page but I always appreciate a fellow co-worker.

And before anyone changes it, yes I have referred to Labour (rather than Labor) throughout the article. The sources I used refer to the party as Labour. Cheers Roisterer 06:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

All of the 75 original divisions now link to the election. Also, the article on the ALP says they adopted the name in 1908, under the influence of King O'Malley, so at 1901 the proper spelling probably was correct. --bainer (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the likes of Kenneth Kennedy and Cedric the seagull-slayer, the copyright of most photos of Australian Winter athletes has not expired. The National Sport Information Centre Sports Image Library places restrictions on their photos that are presumably incompatible with wikipedia's rules (eg no commercial use without prior consent). Are there any other useful sources of photos out there, or are the only options taking your own photos (impractical) and fair use/dealing (eg a low-res scan of a person's biography)? Andjam 11:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Taking photos yourself isn't necessarily impractical, however. It would be to do so for everyone, but it may be feasible to take photos of at least the most important people, as long as you've got a semi-decent digital camera with some form of zoom. That's what they've been doing with baseball (and probably other sports) in the US, and I think the same would be feasible here. I plan to take some photos when the 2006 Commonwealth Bank Trophy season starts, but as I'm sans my own camera at the moment, I'll probably be only to do so at the Melbourne games. Ambi 11:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So taking photos is legal even for sporting events with telecast rights? I guess the short track speed skating qualifiers means photos can be taken in Sydney for them, but for the rest we'd need either an Aussie willing to travel to the northern hemisphere (I'll volunteer if funded!) or help from others. Andjam 11:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're a bit screwed for the Winter Olympics articles. I guess there's two things you could do there - either try and get hold of any interested people in the right countries to go take photos, or write to their agents to see if you can get hold of a free photo. Ambi 12:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The original article that led to the RfC is not an Australian article, but as the RfC is being brought by two Australians, I thought you guys might like to know about it. Your comments would be most appreciated. enochlau (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to take this opportunity to wish all my fellow Australian Wikipedians a merry and safe Christmas. Like most of you, I'll be spending the day with friends and family, eating too much food. After Christmas, I'll be going on a week-long Wiki-spree, adding a lot of photos from around Melbourne. But we should all spare a thought for those who aren't as fortunate as us, both within our shores and abroad. Cnwb 07:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Here, here - well said - ditto from me - bon natali a tutti ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! File:Christmas decoration.jpeg -- Astrokey44|talk 12:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And a happy chanukka and whatever else to the rest of you! jnothman ^talk 13:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And in case there is anyone still unaccounted for... happy Athiest Children Get Presents Day :) -- Chuq 08:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. The German Wikipedia has a lot of Australian track and field athletes we don't have here. Interestingly, nearly all are women and therefore creating the articles would help countering systemic bias. The athletes in question are Judy Amoore, Norma Croker, Brenda Jones, Pam Kilborn, Joyce King, Jenny Lamy, Lisa Martin, June Maston, Marlene Matthews, Elizabeth McKinnon, Stanley Rowley, Jane Saville and Norma Thrower. I might do it sooner or later but help is appreciated. click here to access de:wiki

Punkmorten 22:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone who edited Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. We have a nice article for the start of the race today.

• 11 contributors made 70 edits
• See how much it changed

Sydney Olympic Park has been selected as the next ACOTF -- Astrokey44|talk 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats to everyone involved - I regret that as the original nominator, I didn't get a change to actually edit this one. However I hope to provide some photos of the finish - depending on what time of day they arrive, that is! -- Chuq 08:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have created an info box for Austration towns. It can be found at Template:Infobox_Australian_Town and its usage is illustrated and described on the discussion page. I have the data and am in the process uploading for some New South Welsh towns, including Batemans Bay, Gundagai, Tumut, Queanbeyan, Captains Flat, Cowra, Young, Moruya, Narooma. I am on somewhat of an enforced wiki go slow as I am on holidays dialling up on very unreliable connections - not sure whether it is the ISP or the phone line - as a result I won't be able to engage in much discussion on the info box until after the new Year. Seasons Greetings to all--A Y Arktos 21:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am against the use of this infobox. I see no reason we can't use Template:Infobox_Australian_City for these places. Note: some of the places you have listed are actually cities. I also feel this new town infobox goes into way too much detail that would be best covered in the text of the article. --Martyman-(talk) 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The city info box would be inappropriate to my mind to use for smaller cities such as Queanbeyan and Nowra, although I note that it is in use for Queanbeyan. The term for example in relation to such places is not "Jurisdiction", but "Local Government Area"; as major cities encompass several LGAs, it is obviously a clear distinction between the two types of locality targetted. When people are researching Queanbeyan or Nowra, they are unlikely to be trying to establish the timezone offset. When or whether the railway reached the town/ small city, which highway(s) it is on, and details of its establishment are all useful information that apply equally to Queanbeyan or Bungendore. The town info box recognises that some places have been declared cities. All parameters (except name) in the town info box are optional. As data gets added to the article in prose form, it could be removed from the info box, however, I think the data in the info box is a useful at a glance summary. Looking at Gundagai for example, it is not too lengthy even though it duplicates material in the article, it summarises it. There is no way the City info box would be useful for the Gundagai article, nor is it likely that it could be developed such that it would be equally useful for say Adelaide and Gundagai.--A Y Arktos 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument. How can you argue that these almost trivial historical dates and facts are relavent for the infobox of a small city and not for a large one? I agree there is a problem with the wording in the city infobox not being applicable across non-capital cities and it should be fixed. I think the advantage of having a consistent infobox across all city and town articles is not something to be thrown away lightly. There might possibly be room to expand the city infobox slightly to better suit smaller cities and towns. I would appreciate it if some others could voice an opinion on this, but it seems pretty quiet around here at the moment. --Martyman-(talk) 11:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Martyman has fairly well summed up my thoughts. Ambi 11:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the above opinions, I think this infobox is too large with some un-necessary parameters for any article. I think there might be an argument for a towns infobox to fill the void between the City Infobox and the Suburbs Infobox. Any such template should be formatted in similar style to those two, however.--cj | talk 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Austlocalgovtarea}} should also be considered in relation to this, which I notice is being used on some town articles instead of LGA articles as intended. eg. Tamworth, New South Wales. --Martyman-(talk) 23:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not fond of that one. As we generally have articles on the municipality and the town, I think it confuses we issue if we're using the same infobox on two different articles which cover two different areas. Ambi 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the town box all an infobox should provide is the basic details of a place. Additional optional fields could be added to the city infobox to add any additional details needed for a town article.--nixie 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The big fella has died, and we need an image which is either fair use or copyleft. Canm anyone help? Harro5 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I would doubt that many of us would have had personal access to Packer :) Fair use - we could get a low-res promo photo? That's how we have photos of politicians. Wikinews needs an article on his death as well. enochlau (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What about a tv screenshot under the fair use licence? -- Longhair 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

TV screenshots are only fair use when used to discuss or critique the TV show. Using a TV screenshot to show what Packer looked like would not be fair use. Snottygobble | Talk 06:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Related question: so are the two images up the top at Voluntary Student Unionism legit? enochlau (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, technically they do not fall under the blanket of fair use and should probably be deleted. --Martyman-(talk) 08:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Frank Packer is atrocious, and could really do some with some attention, and James Packer, while not too short, also needs quite a bit of help. Australian Consolidated Press, if anyone's interested, could also do with a hand. Ambi 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of my work on the Kerry Packer article, I've noticed how key Australian TV presenters have not received much attention. I refer to stalwarts such as Brian Naylor, Peter Hitchener, Peter Harvey, etc, who have no articles yet. Check out the List of Australian television presenters, which I've only just started. Rogerthat 10:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is Ian Henderson (ABC) the sort of thing you're looking for? Harro5 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've wikified and copyedited the article, and even categorized the article, but I'm worried by the fact that there are no noteworthy verifiable citable sources for the content of which I'm aware. Someone more "in the know" than some guy (me) in Wisconsin, please add either a References or External links section (if not, hopefully, both) section to the article so that it doesn't look like a total violation of Wikipedia's prohibition against original research... Thanks. Cheers, Tomer^talk 13:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Has been addressed AFAIS. novacatz

Yup! Thanks all! Tomer^talk 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello All,

I am interested to know if anyone else feels that we should create a category for Australian Sports People. I had a look around and it does not appear to exist on a board scale. Any feedback would be great.

Regards...

Do you mean Category:Australian sportspeople? Most articles will be located in a finer category underneath that. PS. Please remember to sign your discussion page posts with 4 tildas ie. ~~~~ --Martyman-(talk) 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks, can any fellow aussie wikipedians comment whether this guy is notable or not? The article looks a bit on the non-notable bio side -- but I don't know much about religon could be wrong. novacatz 09:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd personally vote delete if it were put on AfD - he's not particularly notable. Ambi 09:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Paul foord, who has done most of the work on this article, to make the subject's notability clearer. pfctdayelise 15:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Barry Chant is the author of what I believe is the first history of Pentacostalism in Australia and co-founder of Tabor College, Australia, now a national network of colleges, also a published author - major notability no, but these I thought would make him deserving an article. How strongly do we want to start AfDing Australian articles? Paul foord 04:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I only came across this page because I was doing my usual 'click on random pages to see if there are any iffy pages' check. When I went through the article -- I did have the feeling he was not very notable. If it was from some other country I probably would have let it slide but then being from Sydney, I have not heard of this guy - which is why I was suspicious of the notablility. novacatz 04:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since there is a category of Christian ministers and all the other categories he's listed in, I'd let it slide. Rogerthat 05:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In The Games (Australian TV), John Howard (the actor) is described as liberal. I know the word is not non-existant in Australian English, but it is a bit confusing. One problem is that it means something different to the US English meaning. The Australian meaning would translate to the US word "libertarian" (in that it usually supports laissez faire economics), while in the US, the word is also used to describe those who support government welfare. Another problem is the difference between the "small l" and "big l" liberal.

Is John Howard a liberal in the Australian English sense of the word, or merely in the US English sense?

Are there any stylistic guides on wikipedia for Australian English? The only thing I can find related to the topic is List of words having different meanings in British and American English . Andjam 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

See small-l liberal. The sentence context also suggests this meaning. Dysprosia 02:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone heard of Ms Paula Rizzuto? I've been deleting the content, however am now being accused by the article's author of being unfair to her claim of notability. I suspect the article has been created to discredit her more than anything else. Comments? -- Longhair 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the article in question:

Paula Angela Rizzuto (born 6 December 1972) is an Australian political activist and unsuccessful candidate in local government elections in the City of Moreland, Melbourne, Victoria. She is an elected delegate to the State Conference of the Australian Labor Party, the supreme policy making body of the party, one of two major parties in Australia.

She attended Macrobertson Girls High School and the University of Melbourne where she obtained a Science degree and an MBA.

She works as a non-union project management contractor.

She is a proponent of abortion, campaigning for its legalisation in the state of Victoria.

I think a Google search shows that she is pretty well known in ALP circles. I don't think anything in there is critical at all. StephenBengHo 08:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrators may also view the deleted article history and the original link reference. -- Longhair 08:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I see Longhair is deleting a link to a parody site which is clearly labelled as such. I'm quite confused about why that would be. There seem to be many such links on Wikipedia. StephenBengHo 08:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Refer to the article's talk page for my comments. Enough trolling please. -- Longhair 08:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of her and I don't find a failed attempt at local election plus being a delegate to the State Conference of the Labor Party notable. Heck, my father has been a delegate to the Liberal Party's conference at least half-a-dozen times, and he'd never qualify as notable (except maybe to me:)). Furthermore, if this was AFDd I would probably vote delete on the strength of the author's bizarre and sickening fixation with her evidenced in his offensive blog. That, for me, tips the scale. Sarah Ewart 09:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a pointless tug-o-war. AfD it is. -- Longhair 10:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it by a minute or so. Ambi 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is so weird, I saw Ms Rizzuto on the tram this morning! I only recognised her because I saw her photo on that awful "parody" blog. Doesn't make her any more notable though. --Canley 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to list articles for deletion in just one place, instead of both here, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia. Ideally, one of the two places would just reference the other. --Rob 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, but we only list the links here, not the actual debates. pfctdayelise 11:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)