Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Board | List | Portal | Projects | To-Do
.jpg/100px-HSK_Kormoran_(AWM_053867).jpg)
| Discussion | |
| Archives | |
|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|
[edit] An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community
Hello folks,
The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit also to be held in Cebu, and which the Philippine Wikipedia Community is a Implementing Partner in. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to network with leaders from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)
If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. To register for the Open Source Summit, please contact CEDF-IT. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.
The Philippine Wikipedia Community
WP:PINOY
[edit] HSC course in studying Wikipedia
If anyone needs some easy credits! [1] --Stephen 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why in heaven's name is Privatemusings speaking on our behalf? Do we not have any controls at all on who represents us? Hesperian 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that the whole wikimedia australia thing was to include a specific media contact person - if any ed feels like talking to the media - what great fun that will be SatuSuro 02:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I read the comment as a personal opinion and didn't see Privatemusings as representing Wikimedia Australia or the Australian wikimedia community. I'm not sure we should make this into some sort of brouhaha; I would say Privatemusings was asked for his/her opinion and he/she quite reasonably gave it. There was nothing controversial in the comment and I don't see the issue. Certainly I don't hold myself bound to forward all requests from the press for comment to WMA, as long as I stipulate that it is my opinion only and not the views of WMA or Wikipedia as a whole. My opinion may or may not differ from any official line and I feel I have the perfect right to put that forward if I choose. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And how did Privatemusings and the interviewer find each other? I'll bet my boots that privatemusings has responded to a request for media comment directed at the Australian Wikipedia community, e.g. Wikimedia Australia. If so, then someone has fucked up. Privatemusings is the last person who should be representing us in the media. Hesperian 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Mattinbgn's point is excellent. In theory - however from my own eexperience - I know at least one journo who would love to get 'the dirt' on wikipedia - and would press particularly hard if he knew he could get the right situation to press an ed on something to 'make a story' - and another thought he'd make great gossip column story simply by reporting on a slowly removed item of vandalism - in other words made a story out of a diff.
As a consequence I think it would be good practice to not make a brouhaha about any of the above - but have some sort of guideline built in the WMA operation that lets it claim to be the official source - that still allows Mattingbn's line and opinion for whoever wants to follow it - and also gives journos and others an idea whether they are speaking to informal or formal spokespersons. It might even help them if someone on wma actually made contacts to say ' we are the formal avenue' SatuSuro 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- This "news" actually broke almost a year ago ... /Archive 26#HSC English. Interestingly enough, I recently decided that WMAu was near enough incorporation to start making contacts with the BoS, and on Friday got around to posting a letter to them (you can see the letter at m:User:ConMan/NSW BoS Letter and read about my decision to post it on wikimediaau-l). I kind of wish the Herald had contacted me about it (we haven't incorporated yet, and even if we had I'm not on the currently-inactive Press Committee but I am on the currently-inactive Education Committee and I'd probably direct them to User:pfctdayelise anyway since she's already had some dealings with the press). I do agree, however, that privatemusings' opinion does seem to be presented as just that - his opinion - and the fact that it mentions the "soon-to-be-formed local chapter" means people know about us now, which is a good thing. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, if it's the chapter you're talking about, that's been in the works for a long time now, and is getting very close to fruition (we almost incorporated but the Victorian Government wanted more from our Statement of Purposes). For those who haven't seen it, the relevant page is on meta at m:Wikimedia Australia. Everyone is welcome to get involved, and to start thinking about our first order of post-incorporation business: a 2010 Wikimania bid or Wiki Asia-Pacific convention (please head over to meta, or the mailing list wikimediaau-l to actually discuss the idea). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- AFAIK there was no 'chapter' contact for comment. And although a chapter may be an easy to reach contact for 'official' comment, it's certainly not going to stop journalists talking to random editors if they want to. I have no idea how they found each other, but I don't see it as disastrous. --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
<-- I think it's rather better than disastrous, personally! Mention of the local chapter in this manner might help, I reckon. Fully support calls for a broo ha ha embargo, and Hespy - you are both rude, and you owe me your boots! I'm also hopeful that further 'blue-sky' stories like this might come around in due course...... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reasearch on collaboration
- I am only curious as to whether other editors have had a request to participate in research on how collaboration is managed. Mattinbgn and I both have. The researcher is named Schroeder and he is currently with City University of Hong Kong. --Matilda talk 06:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Another
Interesting? or not Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#Category:Rebellions in Australasia up for CFR SatuSuro 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia#Australia-related Categories for Discussion. However people might also like to note Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin which is a continuation of a series of recent nominations made to rename 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' . I feel this renaming has relevance also for the articles dealing with Australian Fooians, ie those at Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia (which currently have no naming convention applied - bit higgledy piggledy. Is there support for renaming the articles and associated categories found at Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin to Australians of Booian descent? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics of Australia#Cats:Fooians of Booian descent --Matilda talk 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Before I go mad...
Could some please a) fix the references at Hugh de Largie and b) tell me why the references aren't working when I am adding them the same way I usually do (which tend to work). Even references that work in other articles don't work in de Largie when I import them. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bewdy but I still don't see how the inline referencing I've been successfully doing in the past suddenly didn't work. I'll chalk it up to a mystery of life. --Roisterer (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The main problem seemed to be that ref name = de Garis needed to be ref name = "de Garis" throughout, the quotes being needed as de Garis is two words, rather than a single word like Smith --Melburnian (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mike Kelly
Can I suggest that this whole debate be moved to its appropriate location, Talk:Mike Kelly (politician). This is a noticeboard to advise many experienced editors of issues on Australian related pages, not to solve them. The-Pope (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Done Moondyne 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Future Melbourne
The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Melbourne#Invitation to edit the Future Melbourne wiki & possible meetup opportunity may be of interest to editors. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Popular culture
Recently some articles that I have hadon watch have had a couple of Australian locations articles inserted 'in Popular Culture' where it is clearly (a) not Australian popular culture (B) but the 'other place' -
- Is there any interest in this issue at this point - my personal feelings I will not vent here - but am very interested in the few editors who seem to read this noticeboard anymore - as to whether either - instant removal due to a total misrepresentation - or qualification that it is not Australian popular culture that it refers to, or some other strategy - any feedback would be appreciated. SatuSuro 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- My strategy would be to remove if I disagreed with an assertion. If the factoid was reinserted tag with {{fact}} demanding that the assertion be verified with a reliable source --Matilda talk 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit, you lost me with: "(B) but the 'other place' -". I wouldn't mind seeing an example of what you mean. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Marbles - I consider the addition there symptomatic of the whole 'In Popular Culture' pathological syndrome in wikipedia - however others might see it in another light SatuSuro 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Remove all such instances most emphatically in my view.--Matilda talk 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- There are others - but they get sneaked in :( and I have forgotten which the others are for the moment SatuSuro 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, you all moved faster than me. I was wondering what was wrong with the Marbles, and realised the offending section had already been ripped out. In popular culture is largely equivalent to trivia, and yes, excise it. Passing mentions are not encyclopaedic, and there is rarely a reference to back up the inclusion. --Stephen 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- We have to admit, though, that a fair chunk of Wikipedia is actually dedicated to "popular culture" (whether that enthuses us or not). Rather than have a blanket policy that it shouldn't happen (because it is already quite widespread), we should perhaps be thinking about what sorts of "additional info" is acceptable and what isn't. In all honesty, Bill Bryson is a fairly well known author, and the fact that he happens to sell a lot of books shouldn't necessarily mean that he gets dumped in the "too-low-brow-for-an-encyclopaedia" category. Isn't that sort of mention more akin to a "Curiosity" you often come across in wikipedia articles? Is it a massive problem mentioning that this location scores a guernsey in the doodlings of a well known author? Where should we draw the line? We would stick with existing wikipedia policies, e.g. self-promotion; sources which lack credibility; references to "authors" who lack notability, etc. etc. On that basis, it seems to me that the Bill Bryson reference should remain (if, indeed, it checks out). That seems like a common sense approach. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- As an example, I just had a look at Mount Kosciuszko - very neat and informative article - but it surprised me that there is no mention of the influence the mountain has had on the Australian imagination, on art and culture, etc. We know there are celebrated paintings on the subject, we know there's some celebrated verse, and we know that Midnight Oil named a song after the mountain - is all of this stuff completely irrelevant? πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like the basis for Mount Kosciuszko in popular culture! And should every place mentioned in Bryson's, or any other notable writer's, books have it referenced in the article? No. --Stephen 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the influence on Art and literature is not necessarily "popular culture". So do we end up with articles on Mount Kosciuszko in high brow culture and Mount Kosciuszko in low brow culture? or is a small mention in the original article sufficient? (and, I think we are all aware that this sort of thing is common throughout wikepedia, and in all the major languages). I take your point that I would hate to see every place he's been to mentioned in every corresponding article, e.g. Bill Bryson has been to Canberra and hates the joint - that would be tedious in the extreme. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 04:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Popular culture encompasses both art, literature, and mass entertainment, as to suggest otherwise would tread on the toes of neutrality. --Stephen 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Popular Culture says: "It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, consumption, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature. (Compare meme.) Popular culture often contrasts with a more exclusive, even elitist "high culture...". So I am wondering whether the issue is: 1. a reference to low brow culture in a serious geographic article; 2. a reference to any extraneous material that is related to the subject matter on the margins; or 3. a concern that the English wikipedia is dictated by the whims of pimply American kids. If it's the latter - man, that battle was lost a long, long, long time ago. I apologise to everyone for incorrectly signaling a minor edit previously, it's a nervous habit I have developed from being an administrator on another wikipedia. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Popular culture encompasses both art, literature, and mass entertainment, as to suggest otherwise would tread on the toes of neutrality. --Stephen 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the influence on Art and literature is not necessarily "popular culture". So do we end up with articles on Mount Kosciuszko in high brow culture and Mount Kosciuszko in low brow culture? or is a small mention in the original article sufficient? (and, I think we are all aware that this sort of thing is common throughout wikepedia, and in all the major languages). I take your point that I would hate to see every place he's been to mentioned in every corresponding article, e.g. Bill Bryson has been to Canberra and hates the joint - that would be tedious in the extreme. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 04:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like the basis for Mount Kosciuszko in popular culture! And should every place mentioned in Bryson's, or any other notable writer's, books have it referenced in the article? No. --Stephen 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- As an example, I just had a look at Mount Kosciuszko - very neat and informative article - but it surprised me that there is no mention of the influence the mountain has had on the Australian imagination, on art and culture, etc. We know there are celebrated paintings on the subject, we know there's some celebrated verse, and we know that Midnight Oil named a song after the mountain - is all of this stuff completely irrelevant? πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have to admit, though, that a fair chunk of Wikipedia is actually dedicated to "popular culture" (whether that enthuses us or not). Rather than have a blanket policy that it shouldn't happen (because it is already quite widespread), we should perhaps be thinking about what sorts of "additional info" is acceptable and what isn't. In all honesty, Bill Bryson is a fairly well known author, and the fact that he happens to sell a lot of books shouldn't necessarily mean that he gets dumped in the "too-low-brow-for-an-encyclopaedia" category. Isn't that sort of mention more akin to a "Curiosity" you often come across in wikipedia articles? Is it a massive problem mentioning that this location scores a guernsey in the doodlings of a well known author? Where should we draw the line? We would stick with existing wikipedia policies, e.g. self-promotion; sources which lack credibility; references to "authors" who lack notability, etc. etc. On that basis, it seems to me that the Bill Bryson reference should remain (if, indeed, it checks out). That seems like a common sense approach. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
<--- going back/unindent
The question is what does fictional writing contribute to the understanding of the subject, take a book I just finished reading Tommo & Hawk by Bryce Courtney. Set in Hobart, Sydney, New Zealand and aboard whaling boats during the 1800's should it be covered in each of these articles. To me the answer is no its a fictional story though the author will try to convey an authentic feel and culture of the period there's no presumption of accuracy as such the information conveyed isnt necessarily accurate. The question is how does "Popular Culture" sections become consistant across all articles not just one, to me the article Hanging Rock, Victoria addresses this issue in an encyclopedic manor. There needs to be something where the use in popular culture(fictional writting) has had an affect on the real life place before its encyclopedic to include coverage within the article, otherwise we end up with list 100 of lines in length of WP:OR where editors decide whether an author is sufficiently notable to have their book included in the list. Gnangarra 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's an excellent example - surely the reference to the book and film belongs in an article on Hanging Rock - who could contemplate thinking about the place, without thinking about the book and/or film? (also renowned for a very fine annual racing event) πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Tommo & Hawk thing is a good example, and I don't think it's all that useful to chronicle every time a particular place, object or concept is referenced in popular fiction. "Hanging Rock" is clearly different as it is very strongly associated with the book/film, but few people would think "Bill Bryson" when the Devils' Marbles are mentioned. I do perceive that I'm more strongly opposed to trivia and "popular culture" sections than the enwiki norm, though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
-
- The enwiki norm is to cross reference every Simpsons and Family Guy mention into every corresponding article. So deviating from the norm is not necessarily a bad thing in this case. --Stephen 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
I have been out today and to come back to this is disconcerting - editors from many countries specifically have a problem - they thing that their 'popular culture' is universal - it is not - 'In Popular culture' should be a removable commodity in wikipedia unless it adequately qualifies with good references (the usual WP:V, WP:RS, WP:V as mentioned at the top of this section - it is impossible for such a concept to be 'universal' in wikipedia and will always have severe limitations where it claims to be a universal - unless it is sufficiently qualified within the country it claims to represent or exist in SatuSuro 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- No need to be in a disconcerted state - I honestly don't think that what you have said in your last post is far removed from anything I have written (of course it's possible that I am not the cause of your disconcertedness). So, this really is about pimply American kids imposing their superficial, narrow, unwordly norms on what is and isn't culturally important. Don't be shy - come out and say it! You're amongst friends now! πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What's that saying .. Wikipedia in not paper?! Me, I've watched with some remote fascination .. the popular culture section of Irukandji Jellyfish come, go, and come back again!
Such sections towards the end of an article are a little bit like other "resource" sections of article - such as "external links', "bibiliography", "see also"", & even "references" .. only these sections instead locate the context or media/medium through which many people might most likely first encounter the subject: not a bad objective really! .. Often the sections are interesting!! I guess it's a fine Wikipedian line between general (verifiable) interest and notability?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Having looked at that particular section, I think that that particular example is a textbook example of an "in popular culture" section that adds very little to the article. Someone who encounters the Irukandji through, say, an MMORPG isn't likely to require a section in the article itself to read more about it, if they're interested. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Australian dogs -- Australian National Kennel Council
The Australian National Kennel Council article needs some dog-knowledgeable help; some links to news sources or something other than the website. --Hafwyn (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NSW Geographical Name Board: external links
There are a lot of links of the format "http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name/extract?id=xxxxx". These are broken and need update to "http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search/extract?id=xxxxx". Just a heads up. Circeus (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think that would be the preferred method unless somebody wants to change all 428 manually. Whoops, make that 427. I just did the one at Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] too many refs?
I would appreciate the views of others as to whether one can have too many refs. I removed one of two refs from the article on Kevin Rudd on the grounds that the assertion was uncontroversial and it needed only one ref to support it. My reasoning is that there are over 100 refs for a man only 6 months into prime ministership and I believe only one reliable source is required to support any non-controversial assertion. My views have been challenged and I would appreciate the opinions of others. --Matilda talk 05:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is always better to have more not less and it certainly applies to references. IMHO the article is well referenced but not overreferenced (with the possible exception of his chinese name). There were 2 refs from different media outlets with different articles citing Rudd made Time's 100 most influential people. If the (non-bare) refs are there, and only 2, why remove them? Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- We can reference uncontroversial facts as well. In fact it would be best to have the source of every fact referenced in some way so that the trail of information can be followed. It is also good to reference the authoritative source of the information so that the greatest trust can be placed in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not proposing that we not reference uncontroversial facts, I am suggesting that more than one reliable reference for an uncontroversial fact is unnecessary. This is particularly so when there are nmore than 100 references for the article which can be expected to grow in size based on precedent of other articles on other prime ministers. User Timeshift9 would seem to agree in part that 5 references are too many for an uncontroversial fact but 2 is OK - I think 1 is sufficient.--Matilda talk 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- But removing one from two when it's already there is silly, there is no reason to. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think it is "silly" to reduce the number of references when there are over 100 of them on the article and they are unnecessary - additional references do not improve verifiability and therefore do not add value, in fact they detract from the article. That is why I have not acceded to your request to replace the reference and I have asked for the comments of others.--Matilda talk 06:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that one ref for uncontroversial edits is more than sufficient and people should probably resist the urge to add a second. However, I don't see anything wrong with having a second as backup in case the first goes dead. It's amazing what people will slip a {{fact}} tag on. I probably wouldn't remove it but I wouldn't complain if another editor did. Three references for uncontroversial edits is where I start heading for the delete key. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- But removing one from two when it's already there is silly, there is no reason to. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not proposing that we not reference uncontroversial facts, I am suggesting that more than one reliable reference for an uncontroversial fact is unnecessary. This is particularly so when there are nmore than 100 references for the article which can be expected to grow in size based on precedent of other articles on other prime ministers. User Timeshift9 would seem to agree in part that 5 references are too many for an uncontroversial fact but 2 is OK - I think 1 is sufficient.--Matilda talk 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- We can reference uncontroversial facts as well. In fact it would be best to have the source of every fact referenced in some way so that the trail of information can be followed. It is also good to reference the authoritative source of the information so that the greatest trust can be placed in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why we're arguing about which news report to go to when we can go straight to the source: I've substituted in a single reference to Time itself. --bainer (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Where possible, third party neutral sources are required. Timeshift (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm? I don't see a problem with citing Time for the claim that Rudd made Time. Seems like the best source to me. giggy (:O) 08:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it third party? By all means include it, but if you do you should also provide a reliable third party source. That is wiki policy. Timeshift (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- But Time is a reliable source? Do you honestly think they'd lie on their website about who they gave an award to? Do you think Kate Blanchett would risk her reputation by lying in their name? giggy (:O) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. All we're doing is saying he won a particular honour from a publication. That publication's record that it gave it out is sufficient verification. Orderinchaos 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- But Time is a reliable source? Do you honestly think they'd lie on their website about who they gave an award to? Do you think Kate Blanchett would risk her reputation by lying in their name? giggy (:O) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it third party? By all means include it, but if you do you should also provide a reliable third party source. That is wiki policy. Timeshift (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm? I don't see a problem with citing Time for the claim that Rudd made Time. Seems like the best source to me. giggy (:O) 08:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Where possible, third party neutral sources are required. Timeshift (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Third party sources are useful in showing that the list is of significance. If I made a list of 100 most influential people on my blog, citing my blog by itself wouldn't be sufficient. Citing a reliable source about my list would help show that my list is of relevance. Andjam (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Bill
Did anyone see a Wikipedia page about a drug appearing in The Bill episode "Zain: Inside Out Part 1" tonight? Andjam (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Anyone with any aboriginal language or folklore book...
I am working up Willie Wagtail for FAC at some stage, now this little critter does feature in folklore from around the country etc. I have a stubby section but it would be great if anyone can add a story, book or page ref. Much appreciated...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- See who else responds .. but would be glad to put up material I have access to, particularly from the North Queensland region .. perhaps sometime over next few days.
- Relevant to your request, I note/recall that the Aboriginal folk lore and stories tell of a kind of appreciation people have, and even a kind of a relationship that forms .. such that Willy Wagtail 'messages' and 'messenger roles' may not be all that dissimilar to the kind of messages one's dog may give, announcing intruders etc?!!
- I was wondering if, perhaps, there might be more material on Willy Wagtail's territoriality/ territorial behaviour etc which might be included in the article .. perhaps lending context, and giving extra weight to some of the Aboriginal beliefs/lore/stories?! Bruceanthro (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's a great idea. I hadn't finished with those sections on behaviour by any means and was intending to exapnd. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going out on an original research limb, but is there some post-colonial folklore transposed from European Magpie, misinterpreted and reassigned by European settlers? --Stephen 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a great idea. I hadn't finished with those sections on behaviour by any means and was intending to exapnd. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Murrumbidgee River is new ACOTF
Murrumbidgee River has been selected as the new Australian collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks!
The previous collaboration was over Witchetty grub which was ACOTF from 25 May 2008 to 8 June 2008
- 6 contributors made edits, plus a vandal
- The article increased from 2,472 bytes to 3,682 bytes - 50% longer
- See how it changed
I don't think I reported here that Australian rules football had been ACOTF from 4 May 2008 to 25 May 2008 (three weeks)
- Over 15 contributors made 119 edits, especially Rulesfan
- The article increased from 54,183 bytes to 59,152 bytes
- See how it changed
I don't recall if I reported on the preceding collaboration, which was Australia-New Zealand relations.
Thankyou to everybody who supports these collaborations. --Scott Davis Talk 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Scott, on behlaf of everyone, I appreciate the work you do on this. --Roisterer (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing. I seem not to be doing much else around here lately. I'll have to get more involved again sometime when the rest of my life slows down. --Scott Davis Talk 12:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigger Head Island (Queensland)
I'm not convinced that Nigger Head Island (Queensland) is a hoax, but I see no indication that this is a notable island if it isn't. This seems the most likely place to get some locals involved. Input welcome at the AfD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have moved it to Nigger Head, which is its gazetted name. Hesperian 23:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Australia
I'd really appreciate some input at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster. User:Supertask and I have been at loggerheads over a particular point for a month now and we still haven't agreed. I've posted a summary at the bottom of the section which might make the whole thing easier to understand. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Australia-related articles flagged for cleanup
Hello,
currently, a large number of Australia-related articles is flagged for cleanup for various reasons. (Counting those articles with {{WP Australia}} on their talk pages, this affects almost 11.000 articles, or 18%.) Are you interested which articles are affected? I offer to generate lists of these articles; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. These lists can either be generated for WikiProjects as a whole, or for individual task forces.
If you're interested, please sign up at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like something we've wanted for a while now. I like it. What do others think? -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, yes please. giggy (:O) 08:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's an example here relating to WikiProject Comics. Australia list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Cleanup_listing.-- Longhair\talk 08:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicated place names in a state
In Victoria there are two Newtowns - Newtown, Victoria about the Geelong suburb, but there is another one near Scarsdale, Victoria, which is near Ballarat and had it's own railway station. ([2] and [3])
So how do we go about naming these articles? Wongm (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Wongm. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places#General strategy and discussion forums, particularly "Where the Town/city, State name format still has conflicts (such as Kingston, South Australia: Kingston SE, South Australia and Kingston-On-Murray, South Australia), the same method of disambiguation that is used within that state should be used." Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree in principle, but I'm not aware of a widely accepted form of disambiguation used for the two localities. How about Newtown, Golden Plains Shire, Victoria for the latter - utilising the sequence used in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania etc? --Melburnian (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's also Newtown in Toowoomba and Ipswich. The normal approach has been to pick one which is more likely to link, and bracket the city or metropolitan area afterwards for the other. Balmoral, New South Wales (Lake Macquarie) is one such (the other Balmoral is in Sydney near Mosman). For Newtown in Queensland, the Toowoomba one is bracketed, and in my opinion for the Victorian one the Geelong one should be the main one as it had a city council at one stage so is clearly in more regular use - so I'd go with Newtown, Victoria (Golden Plains). Orderinchaos 10:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that works --Melburnian (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- OIC , there's actually 3 Balmorals in New South Wales. The third one is a small village on the old Main South railway line in the Southern Highlands. Unfortunately the naming conventions are inconsistent, so this one is Balmoral (Southern_Highlands), New South Wales unlike the one above. JRG (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah we should probably fix that one (actually, wait, someone has - thanks :). Orderinchaos 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
These combinations of parentheses and commas are hideous, and having an article at ", New South Wales" even though that suffix doesn't actually disambiguate it, is supremely dodgy. In both cases the root of the problem is that people are hung up on conforming to convention, even if the resultant titles are crap. The convention exists to offer guidance on what makes a good title, and in situations where it does not do so, it should be ignored rather than slavishly applied. Titles like "Balmoral, New South Wales (Lake Macquarie)" might seem logical to Wikipedians aware of the naming convention, but to casual readers they are worse than bizarre. The three Balmorals should be at "Balmoral, Sydney", "Balmoral, Lake Macquarie" and "Balmoral, Southern Highlands". Hesperian 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear - and it does not necessarily fall outside the spirit of the guidelines if Balmoral, New South Wales is turned into a disambiguation page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I support the combined solution of Hesperian and Mattinbgn - ie dab page of PlaceName, State -> PlaceName, DefiningPlace using commas and not brackets to dab to DefiningPlace which may be council or region or ... --Matilda talk 03:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- except at Sunday Island, Western Australia brackets have been used for disambiguation and I think we are favouring commas to give for example Sunday Island, Pilbara. However for geographic features we said brackets - si an island a geographic feature or ...obvously geographic and I am in knots but if you were going to use a comma to delimit a state wouldn't you use a comma to delimit whatver else you were disambiguating to? The guideline we have currently is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Australia --Matilda talk 07:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm all for consistency myself. Hesperian 08:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- except at Sunday Island, Western Australia brackets have been used for disambiguation and I think we are favouring commas to give for example Sunday Island, Pilbara. However for geographic features we said brackets - si an island a geographic feature or ...obvously geographic and I am in knots but if you were going to use a comma to delimit a state wouldn't you use a comma to delimit whatver else you were disambiguating to? The guideline we have currently is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Australia --Matilda talk 07:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK, in light of the discussion above, how about
- Newtown, Golden Plains and
- Newtown, Geelong --Melburnian (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Future Melb wiki sessions - this Tue & Wed
Hi all,
A late notice for Melburnians. The Future Melbourne folks have settled on two wiki sessions they'd love to see us involved at:
- Tuesday 3pm - 4.30pm
- Wednesday 5.30pm - 7pm
Both are at the City of Melbourne computer training rooms, 200 Little Collins Street. I'm going to go to the Wednesday one, it would be cool to see some familiar (and new) faces there! Please see Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Melbourne#Invitation_to_edit_the_Future_Melbourne_wiki_.26_possible_meetup_opportunity for RSVP opportunity.
cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can't make this one, I'm afraid. I'll be down in about three weeks, though, so if anyone is interested in having a full meetup in early July, it'd be good to meet some of you folks. Rebecca (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Photos - an IP needs help
Hi all. An IP has requested help with images at Talk:Eromanga, Queensland, if anyone can provide assistance. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- For reference Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission is where to refer these. Gnangarra 08:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
