Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian WikiProject Triple Crown[edit]

Hey all - for those who don't already know, Durova (talk · contribs) is offering a special WikiProject triple crown (a variant of the original triple crown).

"To qualify, the WikiProject must have five or more members who qualify for a standard triple crown on the basis of editing work for that project."

That basically means we need five people who each have at least 1 GA, 1 FC, and 1 DYK to come forward. I'm throwing my hat in to start off, so we now need four more. Let's become the first triple crown winning WikiProject! Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also one, as is Blnguyen, and Spebi also (if I remember correctly). Daniel 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No DYKs for Spebi :( Spebi 00:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's 5 people! I've notified Durova. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 00:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some other names - we have lots of active participants in the wikiproject--Matilda talk 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of users who qualify[edit]

Please ensure that the FA, GA and DYK listed relate to Australia.

List of users who don't qualify[edit]

...but are very close to qualifying. :)

Is this good?[edit]

Sample triple crown award.

Congratulations! You'll be the first WikiProject to qualify. I'll add new recipients whenever more people qualify. Is this image satisfactory? Best regards, DurovaCharge! 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed these out and have more waiting whenever you're ready. Warmly, DurovaCharge! 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, go team! Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have David Boon with a crown (and a tinny) instead? Or would that be even more cliché than a koala? =) Lankiveil 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that'd be a bit too far... :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've caught up with all the current recipients. Let me know as others qualify! Best regards, DurovaCharge! 04:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by my count we qualify for two and a half of these, so maybe we can get Durova to make them all special, unique snowflake awards =) Lankiveil (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown Reasearch challenges and antipodean style recognition[edit]

How far back into the archives did the search for DYK's, GA's and FA's go? I'm aware of a few very early DYK's missing from my tally, (Remand (imprisonment), Truro murders are some that come to mind), which means there's possibly other articles omitted from the tally for editors that have been around for a few years? -- Longhair\talk 09:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? - OK for creating the DYK, GA and FC - but there is a lot more to keeping a project going than that - there are some individuals who never go for the brass crowns ( they might not show up even in standard assessment schemes ) and if they didnt do the maintenance and unglamorous work - some projects go up in smoke/ether/vanish because they dont have the backroom workers - so they probably dissappear in this scheme of awards - I can think of at least 5 oz eds who deserve something more fitting - due to their capacity to do the hack work - some of which requires quite a lot of going out of their way to support/create/code new sub projects - and who by their commitment have kept things going which doesnt even venture into DYK, GA and FA territory. It says something that recipients have made little comment about crowns - they are about as relevant to australia as extinct wombat species. Anyways - good to see that the few hard workers of the oz project are identified - there are others too! SatuSuro 10:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I have offended anyone by including them in the list of nearly qulified - it was meant to be a holding place for more criteria to be added as much as anything else in my mind - it took me far too much time to do the research that I did. I guess you only need one of each (DYK, GA, FA) to qualify for the triple crown but the participation in GAs and FAs or equivalent takes 10 lines or more with cites or some similar criteria - trying to plough through editing history for that level of contribution eventually got beyond my balance of real world commitments vis a vis wikipedia. I would really like to see peer recognition take off. Crowns may offend some of our republican sensibilities. I feel barn stars are also a sign of cultural imperialism and urge the continuing development of antipodean style recognition. That recognition might also extend to recognise that we support the project in different ways as pointed out by SatuSuro--Matilda talk 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just to clarify - I personally have no problems with any style of award for recognising the very few editors who actually get the fa/ga/dyk trifecta - more power to them - and any form of recognition is good regardless of the cultural symbols used - I am concerned that the oz project is able to sustain its own unique ways of recognising its workers who are in a different place than the trifecta area - so there is no offence - its more that we make sure that we have ways of letting know those who have done things that we have noticed - however mundane and behind the scenes it is SatuSuro 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

There are a number of editors who have started/maintained and sustained the project and sub projects that have never touched dyk fa or ga in their edit history - I believe someone should put up a drovers award for them - quite a few have been on the oz project and have left wikipedia for good for a whole range of issues - I think they are as important as the crowns - and I have no doubt that durovas thingo is a good one - but I do think there should be room for some acknowledgement of editors who have done the backroom work that in most cases never get acknowledged - but if they didnt do it - the projects that they are contributory towards would end up being on the scrap heap SatuSuro 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well just such an award now exists. See User:Moondyne/Drover's Award. —Moondyne 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great artwork! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Its just been pointed out to me that the Wikipedia logo is unfree (the irony!) and that that "no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation.". I've modified it accordingly. —Moondyne 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia logo being nonfree is possibly the worst piece of irony on this site. Nice award though :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Aboriginal mythology[edit]

Can somebody seriously cleanup Australian Aboriginal mythology its shocking thanks. Perhaps somebody could find some sources an references an aim at writing an article? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant to, and fall's within both within the scope of my background/expertise as an Australian anthropologist, and the scope of the work I have only just initiated documenting north-east Queenslands cultural landscapes - particularly geological/mythological features within that landscape.
I would therefore be glad to make a start tidying up the article, and I think I'd also like to post advice that this article is being upgraded/re-written on the WikiAnthropology projects page .. so inviting others from there to participate. Probably make a start over this weekend?! Bruceanthro (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK echoing the words of John Hill -good luck with that!! Thanks all the best ! ♦ His Baldness ♦ Volcano? 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Newsletter[edit]

User:Spebi/Sandbox/NL

I've created a sandbox with a sample newsletter for the WikiProject, shown above. I think it'd be really good idea to have a newsletter handed out to those Australian Wikipedians who want to know what has been going on recently. Of course, I only plan to deliver it monthly, and not to everyone on the Members list (perhaps just a list of most active, or new members, we'll sort something out). Feel free to make changes to the test that I've made above. Thanks, Spebi 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on writing/delivering the newsletter because I'm too lazy, but sign me up for receiving it :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a GA/FA section. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly POV FA section appears to have been added ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a GA section now up. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An excellent start and a good supplement to tracking the noticeboard --Matilda talk 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Rank Strangers question[edit]

(Reposted by Orderinchaos 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC) from WT:AUS)[reply]

There is a relatively new article on the Rank Strangers, an Australian bluegrass band from the late 1980s and early 1990s. I was wondering if anyone here could verify some of the claims in the article and/or the band's notability?

There are several red flags for me here, however these could just be errors of new editors. For example, the article cites the book by David Latta titled "Australian Country Music" as being written by the publisher, i.e. "Random House’s 1991 book Australian Country Music declared the Rank Strangers to be among the major figures of the 1990s Australian music scene...". While this is a real book, I do not have access to it - does anyone who could check it?

The article also claims the group was the subject of a feature article in the magazine Bluegrass Unlimited before they had released any albums, and that it reviewed all three of their albums. The issues are listed, does anyone have these and if so could you look them up? The article also lists the Bluegrass Unlimited and International Bluegrass Music Association websites as external links, but I could find no mention of the group at either website (and precious little about them on Google).

There appears to be an error in the article as it claims that "In 1988, the Rank Strangers swept the Australian Gospel Music Awards in Tamworth, New South Wales, winning Best Group, Best Male Vocalist, and Best Composition." but a check of the Australian Gospel Music Awards web page says "Technically, the AGMAs were launched in Sydney in 1994." so it appears there were no awards to win in 1988 or for six years after.

Finally, the book rather prominently plugs a book by a former member of the band (complete with ISBN), but fails to give the names of bands formed by other former members. The band member has an article too, and his notability seems to hinge on the notability of this band (and both articles were written by the same editors, who seem to be single purpose accounts).

I am reasonably certain this band existed, but lots of bands exist that are not notable enough to have articles here. I am asking this question both at Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia in the hopes that someone can verify these claims.

Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard from Bluegrass Unlimited and while the albums were reviewed, there was no feature article on it. `Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian collaboration of the fortnight[edit]

Yet another fortnight has slipped past in my life. I think I even forgot to announce that Media Watch (TV program) ever became the WP:ACOTF. Sorry - thankyou to the people who doubled its size despite not being reminded.

This fortnight, 1967 in Australia has won the guernsey of collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. Unless someone else rolls it over, this one may be current for more than two weeks - my calendar is looking pretty full around the time it would be due (the night before Christmas Eve). We might have two "fortnights" spanning five or six weeks.

Please also consider voting for or nominating other articles, if you want to see the WP:ACOTF continue - it's getting pretty thin again.

Thank you for reading and contributing. --Scott Davis Talk 13:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on the collab, Scott. I wouldn't mind an extended collab, but 6 weeks is rather long - anyone willing to end it at about 4? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back by four weeks, I expect. It just might not happen until after Christmas Day. The latest I can imagine would be the first weekend in January, but I'd hope to find time to switch it before that. I meant the two fortnights might be a total of five or six weeks between them. --Scott Davis Talk 08:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Perry[edit]

I just stumbled across this article. Can anyone confirm if the first two Perrys are different people, and if the second is notable? After that, I'd be happy to split into 3 (or 2 if the 2nd is nn) articles - just need some other opinions first. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second two mentions are to the same NN person, and was a vanity addition a year and a half ago. Now removed. --Stephen 01:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why I didn't look in the history...thanks Stephen. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the other one gets a mention at Mallard BASIC. But that doesn't make him notable enough for a WP article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter: December 2007[edit]

WikiProject Australia's first newsletter, December 2007, has been published. Click [show] above to read it, or subscribe for it to be delivered to your talk page at the subscription page. Spebi 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Former Prime Minister Howard'[edit]

As something for everyone to look out for, I've noticed that a lot of articles on Australian public affairs are being edited so that John Howard is referred to as 'former Prime Minister Howard' or similar. In many cases the only thing which is being changed is the insertion of 'former' before Howards name, and this is making nonsense of the text by implying that someone who used to be the prime minister did something rather than that it was done by the then prime minister (for example, "the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, recently began a study into the issues surrounding an increase in Australia's uranium usage" - this implies that the study was launched by Howard after he left office). --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've also noticed a lot of weird mixed-tense stuff relating to the election where one bit has been updated, one was in the thick of the election and the other is leftover from previously. Just a call for vigilance, I guess. And yes, that "former" business is a little strange Orderinchaos 07:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be altered indiscriminately, and "former" shouldn't be used in all circumstances where an alteration is called for. "Former" should only be used in relation to discussin things that Howard does or has done since he left office. For things with a clear temporal scope that occurred entirely within the Howard governments, there's no need to alter the text. For things that run across the Howard and Rudd governments, for example, "then" should be used rather than "former". --bainer (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I hear the "Prime Minister" is to make some pronouncement about something or other, I am still wondering what silly wedge issue John Howard is trying to drive into the ALP. Then I remember, and I smile. I've noticed a few articles doing this too, there's been no drama thus far with just reverting/fixing it though. Lankiveil (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I don't know if even that's needed - this is an encyclopedia, not a news source, so in general 'Prime Minister Howard' or equivalent should be enough as we can assume that people know that he's no longer the PM. The only exceptions might be for instances where the election has led to a sudden shift in policy, and even then it should be possible to word things to not need to change Howard's title (eg, the Liberal Government headed by Prime Minister Howard... Following the 2007 Election Prime Minister Rudd's Labor government...). We don't refer to 'Former Prime Minister Menzies' or 'Former President Lincon'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As they used to tell me back when I worked in the public service, we talk about offices, not people. At the time Howard the person did these things, he was the Prime Minister. Therefore the Prime Minister as an office did these things, and we make a note it was Howard in the role for clarity. Now that Rudd is the Prime Minister, it will be the same - 50% of the things they do will be the same anyway (i.e. one prime minister would do the same as their predecessor) as they're either official requirements incumbent upon prime ministers, or just plain common sense. Others are different and mark the style, but I think noting "Howard" is sufficient in that instance. Hope that made sense - I've had a long day :) Orderinchaos 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Issue[edit]

There is an opinion piece in TBI this week about how Wikipedia's random function seems not very random. :) --pfctdayelise (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haven't seen the article but ... People often mistake how Randomness works - see for example this article on the iPod Shuffle - I believe Apple had to actually program an ainti randomness so that two tunes wouldn't play too close together because that would be perceived as not random!--Matilda talk 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Technical FAQ. I must say though, it's a bit sad that TBI would be covering Special:Random, of all things... — Dihydrogen Monoxide —Preceding comment was added at 01:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was Looby's opinion piece, not exactly "coverage" of the random function. Just what happened to take his fancy that week I think. --pfctdayelise (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurlstone Agricultural High School[edit]

More eyes needed here please....A disgruntled SPA, likely a parent who is doing legal action or something, keeps on filling the article with massively recentist POV criticism. The school is selective, so it has been rated as one of the best in NSW, but the SPA keeps on inserting microdetail about every mishap the school has. Judging by the SPA's version of the article, it is one of the worst schools. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive got this one watchlisted. I did revert this user once, and left a message on their talk. They appear to be rather disgruntled former students. Im going to have a go at re-writing the controversy stuff. Twenty Years 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me if it continues and you need a semi-protect. Daniel 10:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium naming[edit]

As people may or may not know, Telstra Stadium is due to be renamed to ANZ Stadium on 1 January 2008. It has been suggested in the past that stadium articles be located at their non-corporate-sponsored names, and the sponsored names be added as redirects. Since we will be changing many hundreds of links on or after Jan 1, perhaps it would be a good idea to come to an agreement on this before that date, to prevent us going through the same ordeal in the future. As an example of how this would work:

  • Telstra Stadium will be moved to Stadium Australia
  • Existing links to [[Telstra Stadium]] will be changed to [[Stadium Australia|Telstra Stadium]] (or just [[Stadium Australia]] if pre-Telstra naming rights period)
  • The way future links will be written will depend on the time period being referenced:
    • The 2000 Olympics opening ceremony was held at [[Stadium Australia]].
    • A 2006 FIFA World Cup qualifer was held at [[Stadium Australia|Telstra Stadium]].
    • The 2008 NRL Grand final will be held at [[Stadium Australia|ANZ Stadium]].

Other stadium articles Telstra Dome, Suncorp Stadium, etc may then go through a similar process - but I think it is more of a priority to fix up the Telstra Stadium situation first. Also note that in this case, ANZ Stadium is a former name of the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre, so it may need to be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. Suggestions/comments? Should this be discussed elsewhere? The closest WikiProject seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports facilities but this only seems to include U.S. sports grounds. -- Chuq (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a great idea. The stadium hasn't really been known as Stadium Australia for years, and I'm not sure anyone looking for it would necessarily think to look there. As much of a nuisance as it is, I think it might be better to move it to ANZ Stadium with a disambiguation header for the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre. Rebecca (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with the proposal. If the official name is Stadium Australia then that's what the article should be called with redirects as suggested. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue came up previously at Talk:Kardinia Park (Stadium). We agreed to use the stadium's original name rather than go with the current sponsored title of the day. -- Longhair\talk 01:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AussieLegend and others that we should adopt the neutral names with redirects. Firstly, Wikipedia shouldn't be seen to support any particular corporate sponsorship. Secondly, I believe that the stadium is actually referred to as Stadium Australia when events are played there which would violate the sponsorship agreement - eg. if a major sports series is played there that is sponsored by Optus or something like that, the international media will refer to the stadium by its non-commercial name as to support Telstra in the naming rights violates the sponsorship agreement that Optus would be the only telco advertised in the series as the major sponsor. That's why you hear Telstra Dome referred to as Docklands Stadium and so on. JRG (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The non-sponsored names can also be found in ABC news reports - they tend to use the "neutral" names. -- Chuq (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a side-issue, references to Telstra Stadium should still be marked up as [[Telstra Stadium]], not[[Stadium Australia|Telstra Stadium]], per Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. Hesperian 04:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a hypothetical - what if Telstra decides to sponsor another stadium and that one becomes the new "Telstra Stadium" - as ANZ has done in this case? -- Chuq (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support the approach of using neutral (non-sponsored) names. Otherwise there will need to be pages moved every time a naming rights sponsor moves on. This approach would also be consistent with other major event articles, such as Melbourne Cup (not Emirates Melbourne Cup, which is the official name). WWGB (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this proposal with Hesperian's modification. Daniel 04:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support also. I know in one case (Lang Park) that nobody calls the stadium by its sponsored name, except for the sponsoring organisation and the various teams that use it (and only then to keep the sponsor from whining about it). The bus terminal out the front is even still called "Lang Park". I've seen instances of people who moved to Brisbane after the renaming being sternly corrected when they don't refer to it as "Lang Park" =). Lankiveil (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Support this proposal, also with Hesperian's modification, on the basis in part that the non sponsored name *is* the venue's name. Also what does happen if Telstra decide to sponsor another stadium? Orderinchaos 08:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We follow normal disambiguation procedures, of course. Either [[Telstra Stadium]] becomes a disambiguation page, or it redirects to the article on the more prominent stadium, which is tagged with "'Telstra Stadium' redirects here; for the other stadium see ...". Hesperian 11:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and of course if Telstra Stadium becomes a disambiguation page, then we'd need to disambiguate the links a la [[Stadium Australia|Telstra Stadium]]. Hesperian 11:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other WikiProjects we should inform before making these changes? -- Chuq (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Standardising indexes of MPs[edit]

There's been a few of us going around creating indexes for individual federal and state parliaments lately, and while this is great, it seems that we're all using different styles or formatting, and it's starting to look a bit messy.

I wonder if we could all come to an agreement for these pages about:

  • Footnote formatting: there's about five different methods being used at the moment; we should pick one
  • General table formatting: there's about three styles being used at the moment; ditto
  • Navboxes: these used to be standard across all of these articles, but someone has created an odd foldable one for a couple of jurisdictions.
  • What information to put in footnotes: some mention previous service in another parliament, some even mention previously representing another electorate
  • Any more information that should be put in the tables: for instance, some I've noticed mark new electorates at that election with an asterisk or such
  • Any other formatting: such as colour-marking seats that have changed hands, which someone else is doing

Any thoughts? I'm not usually one to bother much about formatting, but it's looking messy enough that I'd really like to see some consistency across these pages. Rebecca (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the benefit of those who haven't been going around creating indexes, could you point us (read: me) to some of these conflicting versions - just for some idea of what we're talking about? Thanks, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of the early Members of the Australian House of Representatives and Members of the Australian Senate are done quite differently to the ones from the 60s-80s, which are in turn done somewhat differently to the ones from the current parliament. The ones for the Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and Members of the Victorian Legislative Assembly also differ a bit, and I'm sure there's a few other different ones floating around. Rebecca (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real opinion on which format is "best", since they all seem to have their merits, but can we please make all of the tables sortable in whatever format we decide upon? Can we also order them by default by last name descending instead of the quite arbitrary ordering that many of the lists seem to have right now? Lankiveil (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I rather like Thebainer's pink boxes, but I don't think they should be compulsory for state lists. I think we should stadardise on <ref></ref> rather than <sup></sup> references because you have to be a very old hand to understand <sup></sup> references, but I don't see that the <sup></sup> references needed to be brought up to date immediately.Grahame (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Sorting on first name is silly.--Grahame (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grahamec, like this: Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1919-1922 ? Lankiveil (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what I meant.--Grahame (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1919-1922 has different formatting from Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1901-1903 for example because when I started the latter we hadn't invented <ref> formatting and things like that :) Obviously that's now the standard and they should all be changed to use that type of footnoting. On colouring boxes to show seats changing hands, I added that recently to some of the ones I did to distinguish someone being elected for the first time and succeeding an MP from their own party and someone taking a seat. --bainer (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, why does the page for Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1901-1903 have a redlink to Members_of_the_Australian_House_of_Representatives,_-1901? It seems to be saying that there were members of the House of Reps prior to 1901. --Roisterer (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is due to the template which I created years ago, which auto-generates the nav box with links to the "surrounding" lists. MediaWiki's template coding features are much more advanced now, so possibly someone more skilled than myself could fix it up? {{AusFedMPs}} is the direct link. -- Chuq (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some ParserFunctions stuff to fix it. That's another thing we didn't have back when these pages were started! --bainer (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second oldest city?[edit]

Is Hobart the second oldest city in Australia as claimed in the article? Or is it Newcastle as also comes up in a Google search? Is Launceston the third oldest as claimed in the article? I can't find any references.. Should we abandon these claims? Barrylb (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up in Launceston, I was always taught that Sydney was the oldest, Hobart was the second oldest, and Launceston was the third oldest. If Newcastle was established first, perhaps it was not proclaimed a city until after Hobart and Launceston? -- Chuq (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Newcastle article, while Newcastle was first explored in 1791 it wasn't until 1804 that a permanent settlement was established. Hobart was established the year before so the claim that Hobart is Australia's second oldest city would seem to be true, even though none of the three were actually cities at that point. Launceston wasn't established until 1805 when settlers from George Town moved there, meaning it was established after Newcastle. I couldn't find any authoritative reference to confirm it so I don't know what basis there is for the claim that Launceston is the third oldest city.--AussieLegend (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a timeline of events I've collated:

  • Sydney - 1788
  • A "short lived" settlement in Newcastle that closed in 1802
  • Hobart - 1803
  • Newcastle - March 27, 1804
  • George Town - November, 1804 (George Town Council claims "Australia's third settlement" but this source says that Lieutenant-Governor Paterson landed in November 1804)
  • Launceston - 1805

I get the impression that the short-lived settlement in Newcastle "doesn't count" so Hobart can claim 2nd oldest city. I would give third oldest to Newcastle. It doesn't appear that Launceston is the third oldest city even if it claims to be related to George Town. I don't think George Town is right to claim it is the third oldest settlement but I may be missing something. -- Barrylb (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Newcastle City Council website claims in no uncertain terms "Newcastle is Australia's second oldest city". Barrylb (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobart City Council website claims in no uncertain terms "Hobart, the nation’s second oldest city". Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're always going to find contradictory information that makes such claims questionable so it's probably best to leave the claims out and just present the facts, although not presenting the right facts can be just as bad. Newcastle & Sydney's population figures are two such cases. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parramatta, New South Wales, Windsor, New South Wales and Richmond, New South Wales were all "settled" by 1794, but not proclaimed towns to later, but nor were Hobart, Newcastle, Launceston or George Town.Grahame (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are about a zillion different ways that you could interpret "second oldest city", and each city is of course going to use the one most favourable to it. I personally would argue that Newcastle doesn't count because the first settlement was abandoned, but that's just personal opinion. Maybe it would be best to abandon the claim as suggested by the original poster. Lankiveil (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide was Australia's first city (its corporation failed, and it wasn't reincorporated for several decades) in 1839, and Sydney its second (in 1842) only because Governor Gipps realised Melbourne was going to do so and decided to preempt them. Melbourne and Geelong rapidly followed. However I believe this should read "second oldest settlement". Orderinchaos 05:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobart and Newcastle WP articles should both say "claim to be Australia's second oldest city", but neither should say "is Australia's second oldest city", because that would be taking sides in what is apparently a contentious issue. There should possibly be a discussion of the claims later in the articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Kosky[edit]

Can someone with Victorian knowledge fix Lynne Kosky please? It's loaded with cruft about ministerial releases and is to a large extent out of date, although I'm not sure what positions she now holds in the Brumby Government. Orderinchaos 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this a bit later and see if I can sort it out some. Rebecca (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a try at rewriting the article - you're right, it was like a string of ministerial press releases and was quite out of date. I've added quite a few refs and some more biographical information from a very comprehensive article in The Age. --Canley (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood an' Zorba[edit]

I made stubs for Hollywood an' Zorba but someone's slapped a tag on the former. Refs appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for a ref, you mean ;) --Stephen 08:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other Hollywood :) Daniel 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian capital cities as a Featured Topic[edit]

Advance Australia!

OK, Canberra is already FA, now for the others....anyone interested? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Brizzy is seeing some action, I'm keen on doing Sydney and a few folks I am sure would do Perth...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a very fruitful collaboration as it will involve people from all over. I'm sure I could rouse the Monkey and the ... other one *ducks* ... for Adelaide :) Daniel 11:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who? ~ Riana ⁂ 11:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riana contributing content...zomg. Brisbane indeed needs work, mainly in getting those damn sources - I'm mostly adding to it slowly when I'm sick to death of my other FT (that's 3 going at the moment for this project) - Powderfinger albums. But yeah, I'll summon the Brisbane cabal when I'm done with that. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Perth cabal are busy with other stuff at the moment - the Perth article truly is a mess and has been for ages, mainly due to frequent but uncontrolled additions/changes. I'm busy with WA politics and old Victorian LGAs at the moment. Orderinchaos 13:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help. Sydney didn't go so well when we attempted to collaborate on it a while ago, and Brisbane looks good, but Canberra was promoted in 2005 if I recall correctly and the standards were much lower than current standards so that might need revamping. I'm thinking Melbourne or Darwin, or I'll try and get List of Australian floral emblems featured. Spebi 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canberra needs a full on ref-drive to keep it FA. Especially as it is the nation's capital it needs to be a proper FA for this topic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Australian floral emblems isn't actually a capital city ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the flora would disagree with our speciesism on defining capital cities here :P Orderinchaos 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's been sitting in my sandbox for a while and I have no idea what to do with it, so I thought it was worth a mention :( Spebi 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There there, Spebz. ;) I would love to work on Darwin - having lived there for 3 years (recently) I'm one of the closest we have to a Wikipedian from the area :P And Adelaide would be fun too. CJ, Beneaththelandslide and a bunch of others have consistently put in good work for Adelaide and SA-related topics. ~ Riana ⁂ 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny to think I've probably done more editing for Adelaide, Central Coast, Newcastle and Melbourne than I have for my own city (apart from scoring an FA for it in March). As for Darwin you should talk to User:Piano01, he's been doing some fantastic work up there. Orderinchaos 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, getting it to FA isn't much :P User:Spebi/Sandbox/List of Australian floral emblems is a good start (again off topic) - nice to see a lead and some sourcing, and there's potential there definitely. But I still don't think it's a capital city! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some reliable sources that state that the floral emblems of Australia are not capital cities. It's everywhere. We should at it to the template. Spebi 23:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I found it, Its in one of those states where they're a bit "different". aliasd·U·T 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Classic :) Orderinchaos 09:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bwahaha. Took me a second. Although as a parochial Queenslander I should be blinded by rage, I'll let you off this time ;-). Lankiveil (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sue v Hill[edit]

There's a rather long and detailed GA review at User:Miranda/SuevHill - Bainer might need some help ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I've blued a lot of links by creating Section 44 of the Australian Constitution? Lankiveil (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte Beach[edit]

If anyone can improve this new article please do. Nick mallory (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Island (Queensland)[edit]

This article was moved from Palm Island, Queensland to Palm Island (Queensland). As I see it the article is more about the community than the Island per se and therefore it should be disambiguated with the comma rather than the brackets. What do others think? Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 21:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with your reasoning here. Orderinchaos 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw comma...I also thought that was the standard naming convention for articles about places...? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to report here - I moved it back, after checking the mover's talk page it appears he's been moving quite a few worldwide, so this was a non specific move. Orderinchaos 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia related article growth[edit]

As at the end of November, 1.92% of articles (or 40,549) in the en-Wikipedia were tagged with the WP Australia template. This is the first month that we haven't seen some growth in this series. —Moondyne 02:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was more about tagging than anything else. Because the increase in tagged articles hasn't been as high as usual the past month. Given the FA and GA growth in the past 2-3 months, I'd be surprised if the grass-roots were slowing. Do we have a bot to recurse through some Aussie cats to tag articles? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is where my comment was leading. What can we do to find untagged articles? Perhaps this is a task for the automation department? —Moondyne 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giggabot (talk · contribs) went through and tagged a lot of Queensland and Australian music articles in October (there were more than 1000, that's just an example), and I haven't been running it much this month. Probably contributed a bit...in any case, I'd be happy to whip it up if there were any categories that needed tagging. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult. This would get some of the new ones. AWB also works apparently but I don't have IE (not one that works). User:LostBot used to stamp certain subcats of India with the India tag, maybe we could get the code and adapt it to Australian ones. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few of us went mad tagging articles for various new projects in previous months, so it's probably just a reflection of the fact we're all on wikibreaks :P Orderinchaos —Preceding comment was added at 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the % is interesting when compared with say Australia as % of world GDP - 1.6% by IMF calculation. I suspect though that there is still an excessive weitghting to north America and significant under represenation of other countries.--Matilda talk 03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well by PPP Australia has about 1.2%. Although if you look at it that was, China has about 16% but in terms of Wikipedia stuff, it has much less. Also, articles on WP are subject to being tagged for multiple countries in some cases, so the sum > 100%. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out User:Moondyne/AU categories - if we could get some help with removing false positives, I have my bot tagging all of these for the project. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just doing a survey of weak spots to find where the highest density of untagged areas are. I went through some cats of AFL footballers - the cats for Adelaide Crows and Brisbane Lions. Picked about 30 random players. All were tagged for WP:AUS. The cricket stuff seems about 80% tagged. I think it must have been basically due to Longhair Moondyne and Mattingbgn who enjoy these sports. However, when I went through cats like St. George Dragons and Brisbane Broncos players, Central Coast Mariners players, the % was < 20% tagged, in some areas, maybe 10-15% tagged. Most Test rugby league and union players are not tagged, even the big name likes of Matt Giteau and Israel Folau that even the non-rugby ppl like me have heard of, so it's probably likely most stacks of first-class players and whichever suburban league teams there are around like Bonnyrigg White Eagles. The same goes for basketball. So those are the places where people can search without finding that everything has already been done and they are easy pickings/happy hunting grounds if people are looking around for tag-harvesting areas. Also New_South_Wales_Rugby_Football_League_season_1948 and all the other 100 of these NSWRL seasons are all untagged! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian rugby league players was 90%+ untagged. I've gone through the first two subcats: the Test captains and the Adelaide Rams. If anyone wants to unleash a bot or do it quickfast, then by all means welcome. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind chipping in on the Rugby league articles. I can check/update the WP:RL templates as I go. I'll start at the back end of Category:Australian rugby league players. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Islamic school?[edit]

I'm wondering if the proposed Camden Islamic school should be an article.Google News Search There's so much happening out there. Kevin Rudd is joining the protest. Pauline Hanson is campaigning on the issue. The Rev Fred Nile providing colour. Flag waving. Pigs heads. This is turning into a story that will live on in Australia's history. Lester 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think time will be the test of that. I think it will all blow over reasonably quickly, the school will be built and life will go on. Any article on the school at this stage is likely to become a coatrack for POV pushers either attacking Muslims or attacking Fred Nile, Pauline Hanson and the other blow-ins from outside Camden attempting to push their own barrows. An article about the school may be a useful addition when the school is actually open or actually built or even actually received planning permission. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is slow news day stuff.... aliasd·U·T 03:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the school never gets built, there have been enough events already to make it a noteworthy article. If you look at that Google search, you'll see it's getting a lot of international attention.Lester 04:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure how 800 right-wing guys being rowdy is any different to a 800 rowdy-left wing guys shouting, unless you propose to have articles for every uni student rally.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even have an article on the Iraq protests in 2003 and that was closer to a million. Orderinchaos 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems much more appropriate for Wikinews (at least, coverage of the protest does) than for here. As Matt said, if the school is built, it may warrant an article (in fact, it almost certainly will get some RS) but that protest in itself is more "news" than "encyclopedia". — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people write about schools as part of an article on the suburb. Maybe that'd be one way to have a few sentences without turning it into a coatrack. (BTW, is there anything that can be done about the riot at this article? Andjam (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Australian deletions[edit]

The bot that updates the Australian article deletion section of this noticeboard (above) is not running again and hasn't for the past five days. Is this section really needed at this noticeboard when we have this page dedicated to the task? The deletion section is hardly informative when the information is often out of date. -- Longhair\talk 22:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I use the page dedicated to sorting Australian related deletions and no longer look at the section on this noticeboard. I think we could use the space better for something else. --Matilda talk 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat undecided. I agree in the sense that the information is usually out of date (partly the bot's fault, it often has problems, although in the past it used to update the page once a day) and that it takes up unnecessary space at the top of the page, but it shows a basic overview of the current deletion debates, rather than a direct tranclusion which can be rather long and make it hard to see what's being debated. I think what we should do is remove the anniversaries section and move the XfDs into its spot, add a function at the top of the page to hide all the announcement/news etc frame and talk to Chris G to see if his bot can update the page between 2 and 4 times a day. Spebi 06:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really desperately need the noticeboard thingy when we have Delsort as well. The header section is already rather large; I'd much prefer to have a smaller header (maybe a link to delsort somewhere) than to have the AfD info 0 clicks away (as opposed to 1). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with this opinion - I pretty much always go to WP:DSA. Orderinchaos 08:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate having the list of pages up for deletion in the AWNB header, as I've never been one to use the deletion sorting pages - it's really useful for pointing out when an actually important one is up for discussion for those of us who generally don't care too much about AfD. Surely we could fix the bot rather than having to get rid of it (or, indeed, go back to doing it manually?) Rebecca (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it useful I get to check the deletions, FA noms and these discussions all in one click which was wonderful over the last couple of weeks were technical issue forced me back to a 56k line with some page loads 4-5 minutes. Gnangarra 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the bot hasn't been active of late, the author of the bot has. I'll drop him a line to let him know the bot has failed for now. -- Longhair\talk 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maelgwn has already asked I see :) -- Longhair\talk 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and set up a clone of the bot in the next few days, to do the above. It wont be great but should be good enough. -- maelgwn - talk 14:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Renaming/Deleting Oddly Named/Not Particularily Notable Article[edit]

I stumbled upon Rugby league club Eastern Suburbs first match, which is an awkward title of an oddly written article about something that may not be incredible notable. Should we be renaming/editing/deleting? --Roisterer (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed tags requesting notability/references info. My next best suggestion would be working out which of these clubs is being referred to (there are two Sydney ones), and placing {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags on the articles to propose a merge. -- Chuq (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The event is notable in the context of rugby league history but it isn't linked to by other Roosters articles. I've dumped the article content onto the Talk:History of the Sydney Roosters page as that article seems the best place for it. The match is already mentioned in the History article, but could be expanded. •Florrie•leave a note• 03:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured topic candidate![edit]

That's right guys - we have a candidate for the first Australian featured topic! Check it out at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Powderfinger albums. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Farrer Medal[edit]

Opinions please while working on Eric Underwood I stumbled on [1]. Is this worth an article and by definition would the recipients of medal be considered sufficient to establish notability. Gnangarra 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recipients at [2]: The Medallist is chosen by Trustees of the Farrer Memorial Research Scholarship Fund from the ranks of those persons who have rendered distinguished service in agricultural science in Australia in the fields of research, education or administration. The recipient of the medal is invited to deliver an oration on a topical subject of his/her own choice. I suspect that articles on the recipients woudl start to fill in a probably gap in our coverage of agricultural science - I doubt whether notability criteria would be failed for recipients but I am not sufficiently au fait with the area to make a call. Had a look at the 1967 recipient (given the current ACOTF) - Professor Underwood has an entry in the ADB - would presumably definitely meet notability for our purposes. I remember learning about cobalt deficiency at school - but wikipedia has nothing on 'Denmark wasting disease', the article on Cobalt briefly mentions the impact on grazing animals, the article on grazing is very very short for a topic of this nature, Eric Underwood is yet to get an article but he is a redlink at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia/100 Most Influential Western Australians as needing an article. Based on the link for one year I think an article on the Farrer medal might be worthwhile and its recipients are probably mostly notable. --Matilda talk 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aaagh - I was so carried away with my random research that I failed to realise that Gnangarra was actually writing the article on Underwood - it is too early! Nine people included in the ADB are recipients of the Farrer Medal. Presumably many recipients are still living. Notwithstanding that I managed to hit on the topic Gnangarra was researching, I suspect still worthwhile.--Matilda talk 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be an article Farrer Memorial Medal. (I fixed the external link above too). – Diverman (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already started at User:Gnangarra/Farrer Memorial Trust opted to work on the trust as it does more the just award the medal, we(i) can do daughter articles if the need arises..Gnangarra 12:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<---

Update what ever crazy suggested an article about the Farrer Medal should be taken out the back and shot. Seriously the more I dig the more it looks like every recipient should have articles anyone at a loose end looking for something to do.....come join the fun... may even start Wikipedia:Wikiproject Australian Agriculture Gnangarra 14:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and its now at Farrer Memorial Trust Gnangarra 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There are 100 pages in this section of this category"[edit]

I, for the life of me, cannot work out which article is the new one in Category:GA-Class Australia articles, but we've made 100. Congrats all! Daniel 00:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerprints: The Best of Powderfinger, 1994-2000 seems to be the one - Congratulations to H20, Sebi and all the other obsessives at WikiProject Powderfinger - Peripitus (Talk) 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I need to check back with an article I put on hold about Powderfinger... Daniel 01:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Fingerprints was #99 (having checked said count shortly after it was promoted). The answer to our question should be visible at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australia articles by quality log - I'm gonna go force the bot to run it, but it may be a while before the results get spat out...but yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Fingerprints, and Parables (which Daniel alluded to in his above message) seems to have been #101...so yeah, let's wait for the bot! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very confused, but congratulations all! :D ~ Riana ⁂ 04:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! The winner is 2 Hearts (proof here; Fingerprints passed before (I checked when it passed and there were 99), Parables passed after (today)). Yay! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yay us! Now for 100 FAs :-) -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....by the end of the year? ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I doubt it :P I'm trying to fire up WA politics though. Orderinchaos 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... *irrelevant comment* It's the latest trend to dress up your signature for Australia Day: Spebi :) And I've made the everyone else signatures as well: Daniel, Peripitus (Talk), Riana ⁂, -- Mattinbgn\talk, and for DHMO: — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review), green and gold, so stop calling me Bluey :(

Spebi 02:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
/me starts to sing What About Me to Spebi. — E talk 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E, your sig is already in multi colours. And bluey, that disturbed me beyond belief. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everybody...Maybe 250 next year. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Northern Territory[edit]

I've created Portal:Northern Territory, and due to the quality of most of the articles, I've been having trouble putting it together. A lot of articles don't have lead sections long enough for me to use in Selected article sections and even the introduction, so I would appreciate some help in trying to summarise them and further the portal to its completion stage. Also, if anyone knows of any DYK hooks relating to the territory, they should feel free to add them to the non-existent DYK page. Thanks, Spebi 08:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add a couple of NT articles to Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight for expansion? There should be plenty of material to write on for the territory, for eager editors to help with. Lankiveil (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Might I suggest creating a bit of a to-do list for interested people to work on? I've been doing a bit on the NT, but so much of the content is at a really basic stage that there's not necessarily a whole lot of a guide as to what else needs doing. Rebecca (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened on Template talk:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale[edit]

On 30 November, the {{Mapit-AUS-suburbscale}} template was modified per a discussion elsewhere to a one line version which listed the coordinates, rather than linked to the maps and so on directly. The justification given was that the maps were only one click away and were now centralised on the toolserver. I've opened an RfC on the template talk page to determine if there is consensus for the Australian one to return to the pre-November version. Orderinchaos 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded off on that page. It's quite disappointing that those who made the changes did not first obtain a clear consensus, or seek wider comment for a template change that has affected so many articles. Lankiveil (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's quite disappointing that discussion is being duplicated in a Template Talk page instead of the wider Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Geolinks-cityscale discussion. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That conversation explicitly limits itself to the template it names, and was initiated by its creator. I have commented there as well, just as non-Australians have commented on ours. Orderinchaos 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Aboriginal deities[edit]

Although I'm still pretty much a novice Wikipedia editor/contributor, I have responded to request near the top of this board/page .. plus additional requests .. asking for the Australian Aboriginal mythology article to be expanded and/or upgraded.

I have since encountered a number of ad hoc 'stub' articles entered with no/very limited sourcing .. simply naming and simplisticly (?) labelling some highly signicant Aboriginal creator and/or other ancestoral beings almost wholly out of context, and almost wholly unlocated within relevant parts of the Australian continent and/or local landscapes. Many of these articles have been listed here.

I'm not sure how to go about it, but this does seem to hold the potential to be a large WikiAustralia project begging for some care and attention from Australian Wikipedians?!.

I myself believe I may be able to contribute to a project of this kind, though I'd have to start from North Queensland (being the region of greatest familiarity to me), and I would be keen to make a start, but I also think some article naming conventions (see comments I've made here), plus possible, purpose specific (mythical beings) infobox template may be useful and necessary .. should anyone be agreeable and think they may be able to assist??

I await comment, advice, and possible assistance in relation to the above?!? Bruceanthro (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a pretty big job. Having a look at some of those stubs, almost all definitely do need sourcing and improvement, especially in terms of establishing context (I assume that a deity of Cape York Aboriginal people would not necessarily be recognised as such by Perth-area Aboriginal people). Unfortunately, I'm not the most knowledgable on the topic, so the amount that I could contribute to the articles would be minimal. However, I would suggest perhaps taking two articles relating to NQ deities and raising them to stub or B-class articles to see how much effort would be involved, before going all out and starting a new project.
I also concur that once more context is gained, the list can be divvied up by region/tribe/whatever, and would be a useful entity on its own, without being merged. Lankiveil (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps a broader approach would be better and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians covering all aspects of Indigenous Australian history and culture would be useful? (And its a blue link! That is something I did not know!) -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank both Lankiveil (talk) and Mattinbgn\talk for your suggestions. I see Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous Australians is quite a new project, still 'under construction', so, for the time being, I'll drop a comment on it's talk page. In the mean time I might start an article of the kind Lankiveil (talk) referred to, from the North Queensland .. and so see what's involved!! I'll post further once started?! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed" National Parks[edit]

Does anyone know the process of proposing a National Park within Australia? I ask because I discovered the article on Mary River National Park earlier, created way back in May, 2002, which states the park is proposed. External references such as this one and this one appear to confirm the proposed status still stands. That's a long period of consideration... -- Longhair\talk 06:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how it works, but considering it has to go through government, I doubt anyone has a specific answer =/ — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 06:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea either - but this appears to be the homepage of the park, and they have a tourism business. FWIW I found it by searching for "Mary River" - maybe the article should be renamed to "Merry River Park?" I can't access some of the site because of the Flash content so I can't verify all the info ... there appears to be an NT birds mailing list as well which could be interesting. Actually I wouldn't mind if the WMF would pay us to have a holiday up there so we could find out more about the place - it'd improve the encyclopedia. :-) Graham87 07:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The homepage appears to be a website for a "family owned and operated eco-tourism complex" located within the park, not the park itself. -- Longhair\talk 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the Mary River Park link because it is a private operation that is near to, but not connected with the proposed National Park. --Melburnian (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough. Graham87 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from personal experience (in Queensland re: Ngarrabullgan), the gazettal of a National Park is most usually a decision made by State Governments, in accordance with relevant State legislation ... The legislation for which can be accessed from relevant State Government web sites.
In Queensland (and I strongly suspect this is also the case in other States) there is no formal legal category or status such as 'proposed national park' .. rather there is only the bureaucratic 'intention', (or, even, sometimes, ministerial 'intention') to see an area formally gazetted as a national park in accordance with the State legislation and regulations.
Some 'proposed' national parks have been intended for a very long time, and may even be formally signalled in regional strategic planning documents etc, but, given the many political, administrative and legal hoops such stated 'intentions' need to pass through, it can never be certain a 'proposed national park' will actually be gazetted, and ought not be considered anything more than an intention! Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Mary River National Park is "proposed" because it has been identified as one requiring a joint management agreement between the NT Government and its traditional owners but registration of this agreement was delayed until an objection was heard in the Native Title Tribunal. Joint management agreements are a mechanism for settling outstanding native title claims over national parks. Without a joint management agreement, the Mary River Park cannot be gazetted as a national park.
The joint management agreement was registered in October 2007 but the Park has not apparently been gazetted yet (there may be some outstanding boundary issues). I'm not advocating restoring the link to a tourist firm, but this is (or will be) a genuine national park fairly soon. Euryalus (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian GAs[edit]

Following up from this earlier discussion, it seems we are now at 90 GA articles plus 2 A-class articles that have passed the GA process. TISM is the latest success. The target of 100 is in sight! Well done all. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the noms at WP:ACOTF (Brisbane, for instance) are also quite close, and as I'm going for a Powderfinger albums featured topic these holidays (ambitious, but yeah!) that's another 6 potentially. We could still make it! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Don Tallon only needs a lead. Bill Lawry, Mark Taylor and Bob Simpson need a bit of ref cleanup and so do Allan Border. Hmm, pays to have good habits and ref straightway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don Tallon could do with some non-Perry sources, wherever possible, to make it easier for those who don't have access to the book to still find some further reading/information. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This month: 10 GAs -> GA rate 0.83 per day ->Currently 91
Required GA rate 9 GAs in 19 days --> 0.4737 per day.
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now 92 with 1947 Sydney hailstorm listed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translating Bln's comments into English - it seems we're on track to make it :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class GA's[edit]

See Template:AU-GAcat. We're now only three away! :) Daniel 09:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two now! -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those counters one sees around the place counting things like Australian FA's and GA's no longer need to be updated by hand. I've arranged for a bot to maintain the counts from now on. All appears to be working well. -- Longhair\talk 13:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gained one Caulfield Grammar School, lost one (well, promoted anyway) Internationalist (album). so still 97! -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, Wikipedia recently promoted its' 1000th Featured picture. A mere 36 of those 1000 are tagged as originating from Australia. I suspect there's many more if anybody feels up to the task of wading through them all. -- Longhair\talk 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_28&oldid=1088206274"