Jump to content

Portal talk:Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Featured portalThis portal was identified as a featured portal before the process ended in 2017.
Portal milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2006Featured portal candidatePromoted


Misc portal pages

[edit]

Integration with WikiProject

[edit]

I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Integration with Portal regarding integration between this Portal and WikiProject Australia. LordVetinari 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete all portals

[edit]

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status report from the Portals WikiProject

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   03:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Darwin listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Darwin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Newcastle listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Newcastle. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Norfolk Island listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Norfolk Island. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal expanded

[edit]

The portal has been expanded with the addition of a new Good article section. The article selections listed below were added. Additional expansion, updating and cleanup was also performed. If anyone is interested, please feel free to discuss these changes here. North America1000 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles

[edit]

1 * Brumby 2 * Green-head ant 3 * Cyclone Glenda 4 * 2010 Gascoyne River flood 5 * Glebe (rugby league team) 6 * Angie Ballard 7 * Australian Crawl 8 * 2010 Claxton Shield 9 * Black Tears 10 * Fighter Squadron RAAF 11 * Jack Fingleton 12 * Anthony Field 13 * Green Lantern Coaster 14 * Stuart Clarence Graham 15 * Great Northern Highway 16 * Frog cake 17 * Albany Highway 18 * Jennifer Blow 19 * Ivor McIntyre 20 * Kelsey Wakefield

  • Additional articles for the portal can be considered from those available in the table listed below.
Table is here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Have collapsed the table as it was overwhelming the section on this page. Feel free to revert if preferred. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]

Seems worth extending this talkpage discussion as there's now a minor edit war under way. An editor boldly added a Good Article section to the portal, along with some minor technical changes. Another editor has reverted those changes on the grounds they were undiscussed beforehand. In the spirit of WP:BRDD, let's now have a discussion to decide the content for this page. In passing, please note that this is about content, unlike the ANI discussion which is about alleged editor conduct. Pinging @Northamerica1000, BrownHairedGirl, and Kusma: as the three people so far involved, but of course anyone is welcome to offer a view. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The blanket revert should be reverted as the edit summary is a complete fabrication in this case. That said we could easily pick some top level articles from many GAs and FAs....not seeing much of a problem with Norths picks though.--Moxy 🍁 05:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. As very much a passing suggestion: given how heated portal discussion sometimes are we should probably leave issues of other portals, and mass editing/reverting, for the ANI debate and just focus here this particular portal. Feel free to disagree, I just think we're more likely to get consensus from a simple content discussion about Portal:Australia. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your right in one sense ...my point was the work was already done. That said I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Featured and good content years ago that we can cross reference with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Popular pages and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 and see what we got to work with.--Moxy 🍁 05:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, I ask you withdraw your allegation that edit summary was a complete fabrication. Apart from being gratuitously abusive, it denies the facts. I have set out my concerns in more detail in a lengthy section below. If you choose to reply there, I urge you to do so collegially. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the blanket reversion being undone. The edits performed improved the portal, because 1) Using transclusions from articles provides readers with current, up-to-date information, 2) The Good article section was a logical starting point for more to be added as time goes on, and 3) The articles chosen for the GA section as a starting point serve to provide readers with diverse content about Australian people, geography and environment, sports, transportation, cuisine, military history, and other aspects. Many more GA articles are available.
I also added a Selected cuisine section, which served to functionally expand the portal's scope a bit more. That was also removed. I would like both sections restored, but at the very least, the GA section should be restored. North America1000 05:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I've (very occasionally) used this portal as a navigational tool and generically like the idea that any content-related page gets updated once in a while. On the other hand advance discussion of major changes per BRD never hurts, and if this discussion uncovers good technical or content reasons not to make these amendments then let's not. Sorry that's not more helpful - my interest in starting this section is just to create a relaxed forum to resolve this single editing question. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your pleasant reply, which is appreciated. North America1000 10:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and analysis by BHG

[edit]

This portal is supposed to serve as a gateway to en.wp's coverage of Australia. Like nay other portrals, it was restructured and lots of new content was added without prior discussion or even notification to the editors who routinely build and maintain en.wp's coverage of Australia. The edit summaries used inadequately describe their effect, and the notes left after the effect do not explain many of the decisions made. So I am delighted to see a review discussion taking place, and I offer this explanation of why I decided that NA1K's changes were best reverted pending such a discussion.

Per WP:Portal, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". The list of articles is the core of any portal. It should be chosen on a transparent basis, and it should easily viewable and reviewable at any time by any reader or editor, as clickable links, without needing to edit the page or to search on the talk page. None of those apply to the portals restructured by NA1K.

I see three issues which need to be resolved with respect to this portal. Similar issues apply to the many other portals which NA1K has reworked:

  1. The failure to display a list of the articles in the portal. The list of articles is the core of any portal. Hiding it from scrutiny opens up a wide range from problems
  2. Criteria for selection of articles. These should be agreed by consensus and clearly stated, so that editors can review the list against the agreed criteria.
  3. The selection of cuisine as the only topic area for its own section
List display

NA1K chose without prior discussion or notice to add new sections to this portal ("Good article" and "Selected cuisine) in a no-supbage format which does not display a list of the articles anywhere on the face of the portal or on a linked sub-page. In other portals, existing sections were converted to that format; that conversion did not happen here.

This was a design choice; other models of single-page portal do display a list, e.g. Portal:Wind power. (Personally, I deeply dislike the excessively bulky way that one displays its list, but that is a formatting issue which could be easily fixed). It would also be only a modest programming task to modify other types of format so as to display a list.

Displaying the list of articles is important in two ways:

  • So that readers can directly see the full set of articles. The model which NA1K used means that there is no way to see the full set, and readers are forced to purge the page to see one more excerpt from an undisclosed list of undisclosed size. This is a massive usability fail; it is equivalent to having a magazine or newspaper with no list of contents, and without even the ability to flick through the pages. The only way to see articles is to make repeated lucky dips, with no guarantee of ever seeing the full set.
    No explanation has ever been given of why NA1K considers it is desirable to take the extraordinary step of hide the list of articles from readers
  • To allow editors to easily monitor the set. It should be easily viewed, with clickable links, by any editor, to examine its suitability. A copy of the list on the talk page is not sufficient, because that is there is no indication on the face of the portal that it is available there, and there is no guarantee that it will be synchronised with the actual embedded list.
    Reasons for performing these checks include:
    1. reviewing the quality of articles (e.g. up-to-date? Free of clean-up tags? Of sufficient quality? Been vandalised? NPOV?)
    2. to check for various forms of unconstructive list-making, e.g.
      • adding off-topic articles to the list, (e.g. topics with no connection to Australia)
      • promotion, e.g. promoting a minor musician or politician or business by adding them to the portal's list of articles
      • monitoring for POV-pushing, which could be done in several different ways, e.g.
        stacking the list of articles in one direction, e.g. giving undue emphasis to a particular political POV, a particular geographical area, a particular style of music
        omitting topics which someone would prefer to get less attention
        favouring one historical era over another (e.g. recentism)
      • pranking, e.g. adding excessive articles about hoaxes, or giving undue weight to the bizarre
      • plain vandalism (e.g. adding Hitler, Stalin ad Pol Pot to a list of biographies)
Criteria for selection of articles

Editors need to decide how articles should be selected. At one extreme, any editor could be free to add whatever they like, possibly subject to a quality threshold. At the other extreme, there could be a strict formulaic system such as a quota by topic area (politics, sport, geography, culture) with a requirement for balance by geography, history and POV.

So far as I can see, the selection by NA1K of articles for the cuisine section amount to the first extreme: I see no stated criteria anywhere for the choice. If criteria were applied, they have not been disclosed; it is equally possible that the choice was simply a ILIKEIT set of NA1K's personal preferences.

Editors here may decide that ILIKEIT selections are fine, or that anyone may apply their own criteria. However, either approach seems to me to be a) wrong in principle for an encyclopedia, b) a recipe for instability, if editors argue over personal preferences; c) even if stable, excessively privileging whoever adds an article.

I note that NA1K added a section for GA-class articles. However, I see that NA1K added only 20 such articles, whereas I just used AWB to count Category:GA-Class Australia articles+subcats, and found an impressive 750 GA-class articles (well done Australian editors!). There is no indication from NA1K of how or why they selected those 20 from the set of 750, and my attempts elsewhere to ask NA1K how they make such choices has elicited only meaningless word-soup responses. For example, at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana, when I challenged NA1K on what criteria had been used, their reply was simply vague and obfuscatory: I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal.

Cuisine

The addition of a cuisine section was an undiscussed unilateral addition by NA1K. Regardless of its content or quality, it stands out as the only topic area to be given its only section on the portal.

I can see no reason for this choice other that NA1K has a personal interest in cuisine. However, in any objective selection of sub-topics for Australia, I find it hard to see any basis for giving such prominence to cuisine. Food is only a level-2 vital article, and cuisine is a sub-topic of that. Australian cuisine comes low down in the category hierarchy for Australia: Category:Australia → Category:Australian society → Category:Food and drink in Australia → Category:Australian cuisine.

The choice of this topic area seems to me to give undue weight to one editor's personal interests, over more the broad topic areas such as history, geography, society, economy, environment, politics … and even to more significant sub-topics such as arts and culture, education, sport, military history, law, or crime.

Additionally, some of the article choices are bizarre. NA1K chose the heading "cuisine" rather than the broader "food and drink". The article Cuisine says a "A cuisine is a style of cooking characterized by distinctive ingredients, techniques and dishes, and usually associated with a specific culture or geographic region". So having chosen to make a section labelled as being about a style of cooking, why does it include Kangaroo meat, Australian wine, Beer in Australia, Kensington Pride and Vegemite? None of those are styles of cooking, and while vegemite is an icon Australian food, it is not a "style of cooking"; it's an ingredient.

If portals were simply magazines in which editors were encouraged to use to showcase their own interests, then this magazine-style choice would make sense. But I see nothing in WP:PORTAL to justify this widespread use of portals to promote one editors' personal interests at over objectively broader and more significant topics.

It is up to Australian editors to decide whether they want the portal on their country to be developed in this way. But I hope that as they make their decision, they will consider where this could lead. If it's OK for an editor to add a randomly-chosen third-level topic, then logically the door is open for any editor to add a section on their own pet sub-sub-topic: elections, cricket, snakes, cities, cars, immigration, whatever. Is that what editors really want? Or would they prefer the portal to develop according to the broad hierarchy of topics? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in bullet point form. Would recommend reverting back to the last stable NorthAmerica1000 version and cleaning up from there.
  • I've restructured several portals myself, some of which have been deleted at this point. I'm not sure I've been particularly good with edit summaries or explaining which articles I've added in the edit summaries, and in any case, they're not mandatory (I know they're highly recommended.)
  • I don't see any policy or guideline which states "the list of articles is the core of any portal," or that "they should be chosen on a transparent basis," or that "they should be easily viewable/reviewable at any time by any reader or editor, as clickable links, without needing to edit the page or to search on the talk page." I've looked, it's possible I've missed it, if I have please kindly point me in its direction. I also want to note I generally agree with this, but I don't see where it's a requirement.
  • The added articles are easily viewable and more easily editable in the "black box." I do agree a way of checking which articles exist in the list without needing to check the page source should exist, but I think this can be added in programmatically, through the use of edited templates. It's certainly easier to update, and I would prefer it going forward if we can fix the problems with it.
  • As far as I can tell, no defined criteria exists for the selection of articles for use in portals. We should create one. I think it just needs to be as simple as:
  • On the portal topic matter
  • Either a good article, a featured article, or an article of sufficient quality representing an area of the project without any featured or good articles
  • Editors should seek to add a broad and diverse selection of articles on the topic subject
  • Looking at the old portal, I don't see anything wrong with any of the selected good articles. There's a good diversity there.
  • Agree there's no reason to have a cuisine box. I do want to note the "style of cooking" argument is pedantic. I don't know why you wouldn't include Vegemite in the Aussie cuisine box if an Aussie cuisine box should exist. It's certainly more popular here than a quandong. (I don't have a problem with any of the articles on cuisine, they're all part of the Aussie style of cooking, or the foods produced here.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer:I didn't claim or (I hope) imply that any policy or guideline explicitly required that a list be transparent, or that that articles are the core of portal. I was using WP:COMMONSENSE in both cases. I am glad that you seem to agree on the substance, so we please can we focus on the comonsense?
  • The "black box" is visible only by editing the portal page, and result is no clickable links which it makes it v hard to scrutinise a set of articles. That's a barrier for editors, and it's a big barrier for readers. Yes, it could be fixed programmatically … butt it should have been either fixed before mass rollout, or some consensus reached to proceed without.
  • On article selection I would advocate that the guidance should at least specify an need for a balance of views and topics and eras, and to explicitly note that WP:POV applies to the selection of articles just as it does to the content of articles. I also suggest that the addition of any article to a portals should be accompanied by an explanation of how it was chosen, and how the editor believes it fits into the balance of articles. "Hey, we can't have too many articles about X" should cause concern, but an explanation along the lines "the set of biogs contained only two writers, and no poets. I added MsX because it's a GA-class article on a major poet (see source for her significance)" would be an indication of probably good approach.
  • Glad we broadly agree on the "cuisine" box. I agree that my comment on style of cooking was pedantic, but this is an encyclopedia, so some pedantry is justified. The title chosen by NA1K describes a narrower scope that than the list which they created under it. If the section is kept and NA1K's list is used, the section should be relabelled "food and drink"; but if it's called "cuisine", then wine and beer should be removed because they are not cuisine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the WP:COMMONSENSE I think there's two different things going on and they're both temporal - first, whether NA's improvements were proper, and where do we go from here.
  • Past - As you've mentioned, the guidelines and policies for portals are really ill-defined. As I noted in a couple different places on the ANI thread, first, the mass deletion of portals almost caused me to leave the project, and second, I believe the fact we don't have a good rule book means these discussions get more personal more quickly, since it becomes more of a street fight. In the sense of the mass deletions, I'm actually referring to a problem which I see here - when we were deleting portals, we didn't have good guidelines on which portals should be kept. In that time, I started to see the value of a well-done portal as a window into the navigation of a topic, along with being able to show off featured articles in a topic, and it was frustrating to see well-done portals nominated and deleted along with the ones that needed to be purged.
  • In light of the portal guidelines, I don't see anything wrong with NA1000's improvements to the Aussie portal (or other portals). There's a lot of "should" being thrown around both here and on the ANI thread, and - placing myself in NA1000's position, and having improved some portals myself in the last couple months - there's no clear "what to do, what not to do" when improving a portal. I know you're claiming WP:COMMONSENSE, but I don't see anything in the improvements that I would consider a lack of WP:COMMONSENSE, and while I consider them practical, I don't necessarily consider the proposed rules to be understood as WP:COMMONSENSE. Two cases in point: if I were editing a portal last month, I wouldn't necessarily know to put the articles I'm adding into an edit summary, or to put them on the talk page, and secondly, I consider the "black box" a general improvement in spite of its current limitation, and may have added it to portals myself if I had learned about it before this discussion. My own WP:COMMONSENSE would lead me to believe any GA or FA article would be automatically eligible for inclusion into a portal without the need for explanation or discussion, which is generally what I've been doing. Portals should be a place where we're able to show off good content. If a non-GA/FA article is added, more of a discussion may be needed. (For instance, in football, there's a bias towards English GA/FA articles, so we shouldn't have only GA/FA articles.)
  • Future I think the way forward here pretty simple in spite of everything: 1) revert back to the last version created by NA1000; 2) remove the cuisine box; 3) either fix the "black box" template to display all of the listed articles without needing to edit the page, or to open up an RfC on whether "black box" templates should be used in portal space (I think the obvious answer is to just fix the template, as in theory the amount of work would be modest.) 4) open an RfC looking to create specific policy on how articles should be selected to portal space, with the goal of adding the proposal to WP:PORTAL as a rule. I've written up what I would propose at User:SportingFlyer/Portal proposal. Comments are more than welcome. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer, when I see an assertion that the "obvious answer" is to implement their preference without an RFC, even there are reasoned objections and with only one response, then I see a bypass around the principle of WP:CONSENSUS.
Let's just do RFCs, and settle these issues properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary

[edit]
  • @SportingFlyer: I agree with your "Future" stance and several other of your points above, and support moving forward as stated in your "Future" section. As I already stated above, articles for the Good article section were chosen to provide a starting point to present diverse topics regarding Australia using articles that are GA-class. The section included carefully chosen diverse content about Australian people, geography and environment, sports, transportation, cuisine, military history, and other aspects. Again, this is a starting point, and this sample was selected from the many GA-class articles about Australia-related topics that are available.
Choosing a diverse array of articles to present is directly aligned with WP:POG, the now non-guideline, failed proposal page, where it states, "A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content." (Underline emphasis mine). If there are any concerns about the specific articles chosen, which are clearly listed in the "Good articles" subsection above on this talk page, and now also below, then that can be discussed on this talk page.
Regarding listing articles direcly on the portal to avoid any "black box" concerns, a simple way to move forward is to devise a list such as the one below, which could be placed at the end of the portal. In this manner, a list would be present, and also placed unobtrusively on the page. Or, the list could be placed below the Good article section, although it may look visually unappealing having a list of bright blue links in this area.
Just to reiterate, this is a starting point, and more articles can easily be added or removed from the list. Again, if need be, such selections can be discussed here. North America1000 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article selections  

@Northamerica1000: I'd prefer if the template could do this itself, but I agree a box would be a good way to go, along with a link to a category of other good content. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound too difficult. The change would probably go in Module:Excerpt. Rather than showing the list by default I would suggest we [hide] it or put a subtle link to it like the V T E in some template headers. One slight issue is that we would show all potential pages even when some might get filtered out as redlinks or stubs; it would take too long to analyse every page rather than the one randomly selected.
By the way, can we restore section edit links on this long page? It's a bit unwieldy to edit as a whole. Certes (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Agreed with regards to the section links - not sure what's going on there. I don't think the list needs to be seen, maybe just a hidden div with a "see all articles." If some get filtered out as redlinks or stubs, I still want to see that in the list so I can make the requisite edits. If you need help at all let me know, would be great to learn how to use templates. SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Module:Excerpt/sandbox. If you (pretend to) edit that and preview with User:Certes/sandbox, you'll see the effect. There's no documentation yet but you just add |list= to get a list or |list=My custom header to show other text. It might look better if the "Other articles" header and "[show]" link were closer and perhaps on the same line as "Read more..." but I think that needs a CSS expert. I can recommend learning how to use templates but in this case the template is trivial; it just calls the Lua module which does all the work. Certes (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certes writes Rather than showing the list by default I would suggest we [hide] it or put a subtle link to it like the V T E in some template headers. One slight issue is that we would show all potential pages even when some might get filtered out as redlinks or stubs; it would take too long to analyse every page rather than the one randomly selected.

What on earth is the point of hiding the list or linking to it? That's just driving readers to rely on the pointless module-generated excepts, which are redundant to the built-in previews shown on mouseover to all logged-out readers (i.e. the overwhelming majority). If anything should be hidden by default, it's the excerpts, which have been redundant for at least a year.

As to redlinks and stubs, the modules which process the lists are already identifying those, so they should treat them as errors and put the portals in an error tracking category. Identifying redlinks is a relatively cheap task; stub checking is more expensive, but could be done by a bot with cacheing of results.

And all of this applies to all portals using these templates, so per WP:MULTI it should be the subject of a well-advertised centralised discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – A layout such as that below would likely work out. The article list could be configured in a collasible format, so that it defaults in an uncollapsed state, with a button provided to provide an option to hide the list, as some users may want to do this. Now, if we can get the {{Transclude random excerpt}} template to automatically perform all of this, that would be great. If not, the article list can easily be added manually. It took me about a minute to perform. I don't think portal improvements such as this should entirely hinge upon whether or not a template is able to be changed, and that otherwise portals should remain unimproved. There are other ways to get the exact same result. Pinging Certes for their input about the layout below. North America1000 09:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good article - show another

This is a Good article, an article that meets a core set of high editorial standards.
Map of the south-west of Western Australia, with Albany Highway highlighted in red

Albany Highway links Western Australia's capital city Perth with its oldest settlement, Albany, on the state's south coast. The 405-kilometre-long (252 mi) highway travels through the southern Wheatbelt and Great Southern regions, and is designated State Route 30 for most of its length. Outside of Perth the highway is predominately a sealed, single carriageway with regular overtaking lanes in some undulating areas. Albany Highway commences at The Causeway, a river crossing that connects to Perth's central business district. The highway heads south-east through Perth's metropolitan region, bypassed in part by Shepperton Road and Kenwick Link, and continues south-eastwards through to Albany. It intersects several major roads in Perth, including the Leach, Tonkin, Brookton, and South Western highways. The rural section of Albany Highway connects to important regional roads at the few towns and roadhouses along the route, including Coalfields Highway at Arthur River, Great Southern Highway at Cranbrook, and Muirs Highway at Mount Barker.

Prior to European settlement, the indigenous Noongar people had a considerable network of tracks, including a trade route between the areas now known as Perth and Albany. Construction of a road between Perth and Albany began soon after the naming of Albany in 1832, but progress was slow, with only 16 miles (26 km) completed by 1833. A monthly mail route which operated in the 1840s had such trouble with the journey that a new contractor was required each year, and from 1847 the mail route detoured via Bunbury. The introduction of convicts in 1850, and thus convict labour, allowed a road along the direct route to be fully constructed by 1863. (Full article...)

Good article selections  

  • If we did need to display lists, that might be the best way of doing so. However, is there a consensus to display such lists to editors (a) prominently and by default or (b) at all? So far I only see one editor speaking in favour of them. Certes (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Agree with Certes, this insistence that lists of articles be visibly displayed "prominently" on the face of portals does not seem to have broad consensus that I can see. I recognise that it has some common sense reasoning and validity, but it would need to be supported by broad consensus via a widely advertised public RFC. At the moment, it's just another artificially generated set of criteria proclaimed by BHG, as if they represent policy. Repeat something often, loudly and boldly enough and soon it will start to take on the appearance of fact for many casual readers of a discussion post or MFD. (In much the same way that continually repeating that WP:POG required large numbers of readers and maintainers in numerous portal MFD's did). --Cactus.man ✍ 14:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cactus, a poorly attended discussion on one portal does not establish a consensus.
No consensus was sought before the unilateral removal by one editor of the status quo that most portals did have link to such a list. We need an RFC to establish a consensus.
BTW, POG did set large numbers of readers and maintainers, as the goal of selecting a portal's scope. Sadly, Cactus and some editors preferred to remain in denial about that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, oh dear BHG. More misrepresentations:
  • No there's never been a consensus to remove a link to such a list, just as there has never been a consensus that Portals must have such a list prominently displayed and highly visible on the face of the Portal. Something you would like to be the case. Anyway , most portals have such a list via a link such as "more selected articles" or similar on the relevant box section. Is it that which you object to being removed in this case?
  • Yes, WP:POG did set large numbers of readers and maintainers as the goal (your word). In other words, it's a statement of desireable conditions not a statement of imperatives, as you relentlessly framed it to be in Numerous MFD discussions. It was never a requirement in the now failed guideline, upon which countless Portals have been deleted.
  • I'm in denial of nothing. Please stop misrepresenting my position, it's becoming exceptionally annoying and tedious. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cactus, the only misrepresentaions are yours. I cannot know whether they re intentional or not, so I AGF that they are unintended:
  • Links to a list of portals were the long-term status quo ante on the vast majority of portals. They therefore had WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. No consensus was sought for their widespread unnanounced removal, which as I have explained has adverse consequences. That is why I seek an RFC
  • I am glad that we agree that WP:POG did set large numbers of readers and maintainers as the goal. This makes a welcome change from conduct of the prolific the prolific portal editor who repeatedly omitted that part of POG when referring to it.
    However, it is less welcome that you continue to remain in denial about the obvious fact that when the goal is not met, there has been a failure to apply the criteria.
Please stop misrepresenting guidelines and policy. It is becoming exceptionally annoying and tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the post above about module generated excerpts, they are neither pointless nor redundant as BHG, rather bizarrely, suggests. I strongly disagree with BHG's assertion. Properly used, they are far superior to the built-in wiki generated mouseover excerpts. The latter are convenient it is true, but they present a very limited extract of the mouse-over link and also lose the embedded wiki links contained therein. Module generated excerpts can be of custom size and display all the embedded links which present further user options for additional mouseover previews without further navigation. That is vastly superior in my opinion and I invite the reader to have a look at User:Cactus.man/Sandbox/Transcluson_Demo for a comparison. No contest IMHO. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, what we currently have is portals displaying a slightly better excerpt of just one article, whereas displaying the full set of articles links would give readers a preview of each article in the set. Choosing just the one seems a poor trade-off, and since the mouseover previews became available there as never been an RFC to establish whether the slightly better detail of the module-generated excerpts outweighs all the complexity and overheads and the loss of a simple wikimarkup list of links.
The one-excerpt-at-a-time model has lingered on by inertia, rather than as the consensus outcome of an RFC to evaluate the options which have now become available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm open to the notion of having a list, but Wikipedia's readers do not particularly utilize the list that is already present at Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007, which is linked to on the main portal page with the Archive link in the Selected article section.
On average, readers simply use the portal itself, and are rarely using the Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007 page.
In my view, consensus for the layout of individual portal pages can be discerned from talk page discussions on individual portal pages such as this. A community-wide RfC is not required for this or other portals to be improved or expanded, in part because this level of instruction creep is overblown relative to the level of changes to this portal that are being discussed here. Furthermore, an RfC is not required every time a user has an idea about portal layout, such as adding a list of articles, and portals do not have to have an identical layout throughout Wikipedia.
That all said, I'm okay with adding the list, because it is congruent with the overall standard of portals having an accessible list of articles.
So, on one hand, I say, let's add the list, and then Wikipedia's readers will have access to an improved layout, transcluded articles that provide up-to-date, verbatim content from articles, and an enhanced portal to peruse sooner, rather than later, and not after yet another RfC where agreement for anything is rare, and the likelihood of it being reduced to yet another debate about the merits of portals in general is high. For example, rather than discussing layout ideas, people will likely discuss issues along the lines of "Why bother, delete all portals", or "Portals are a waste of time", or "Personally, I never use portals, but I guess they're all right", etc., becoming yet another polarized discussion that goes entirely off-topic and ultimately leads to nothing functional occurring.
However, per the views of others here questioning the need for a list, and the minor page views the Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007 page page receives, I am also okay with not adding the list, as it may be an outdated feature, particularly since readers are not utilizing it much for this portal. Peace, North America1000 17:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NA1K, it is easy to frame the RFC with a preface stressing that it is not an RFC about whether portals should exist, but about how to structure those portals which do exist. I would like to work with you draft such an RFC, so that we agree that it has been neutrally framed. Please will you work with me to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild

[edit]

So I am done rebuilding Portal:Canada and was going to do the same here.. as in same style format as all the sub pages are here already for me to do so. Will start this week on article selection first.--Moxy 🍁 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Per the consensus that has formed above, I have edited the portal today to reflect that consensus (diff, diff). North America1000 19:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus, NA1K? Discussion stalled ages ago. I suggested collaborating to start an RFC, but you didn't respond.
So I will revert, restoring the status quo ante. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging all other users above: @SportingFlyer, Moxy, Certes, Euryalus, and Cactus.man: I felt that an adequate consensus had formed above for the changes I performed to be restored, so I edited the portal accordingly today (see the diffs above). I also already stated that yet another RfC is unnecessary relative to the changes to this portal that had occurred. More instruction creep and bureaucracy is unnecessary, and simply makes portal improvements more unnecessarily difficult, adding in more unneeded hoops to jump through, and all the while while portals continue to be nominated for deletion at MfD and deleted for not being maintained. A truly absurd vicious circle. Also, an adequate amount of input has occurred above, in my opinion; portal talk pages typically to not receive as much input compared to article talk pages. North America1000 20:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly there is a difference of opinion which seems unlikely to be resolved on this page. I suggest that we seek consensus from a wider audience of editors who do not regularly contribute to portal discussions. Certes (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Certes: It seems plain from the discussion above for the Good articles to be restored, for the Selected cuisine section to be removed, and for the minor layout changes that I performed to remain in place. In my view, there's no consensus above for a list of articles to be present on the page. My edits simply restored the Good article selections and restored said minor layout changes. North America1000 20:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also seems plain that another editor has not got that message and continues to revert the changes. Confirmation of the consensus from universally respected uninvolved editors should either remove the objections or enable us to take the matter further. Certes (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have restore the page so we can select the articles...if Brown wont help best to move on to other portals with no likelihood of being fixed. That said will start looking over what we got We should make a vital article list and see what Fa's and GA's there are .-Moxy 🍁
Is BHG the only user in this discussion which feels these changes are unacceptable? SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Certes's suggestion that we seek consensus from a wider audience of editors who do not regularly contribute to portal discussions. This is why I proposed RFCs.

I am appalled that even at this stage, Na1K:

  1. made their own evaluation of consensus in this discussion on their own edits, and acted on that
  2. explicitly rejects holding an RFC to establish community consensus on some simple broad principles.

There is currently no documented community consensus on which portals should exist, or how they should be constructed. Instead, NA1K is simply implementing unilateral changes, and when challenged relies the usual dwindling crew of portal fans to back the unilateralism.

NA1K's game is laid bare in their comment all the while portals continue to be nominated for deletion at MfD and deleted for not being maintained. Rather than build a consensus on which topics have portals, how they should be constructed, and how articles should be selected, NA1K continues to try to WP:GAME the system by unilaterally rebuilding portals on a vast range of topics in which they have no demonstrable expertise and have sought no WikiProject involvement, so that they can claim that this unilateral action is "maintenance". Essentially what NA1K is trying to do is to take the portals which have been abandoned by the topical WikiProjects, and turn them into pages stealthily structured and populated by NA1K alone.

I note again the contrast between portal MFDs (which are publicly notified and formally closed by an uninvolved admin) and these stealthy takeovers which are advertised nowhere other than on the portal talkpage, and not subject to any consensus either on the specific changes made or on the broader principles.

Basically, NA1K is trying to appoint themself as the portalmeister of a large swathe of portal space, and to do so without any community-backed guidelines. If portals have future, that should not be as the playground for one editor to build the whole namespace however they like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your going to cock block any attempt at portal upgrade till what. You should be banned! !--Moxy 🍁 02:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Until an RFC, Moxy. If you really, truly genuinely think than any editor should be banned for seeking an RFC on proposed widespread changes to a controversial type of page whose only guideline has just been delisted, then go propose the ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An rfc on what .....we are trying to talk about what format to use and your talking about no progress can be made till an rfc is done....but we have not even gotten to a point were a rfc can have any meaning cause all you do is tell us we can't do anything. Your clearly not here to help with the portal. Why are you harassing this user??? --Moxy 🍁 03:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, two weeks, I offered to work with NA1K to draft an RFC. That offer still stands, and I hope that NA1K will reconsider their rejection of it.
Your ABF is at least consistent with your usual conduct, as is your bogus allegation of harassment, and your evident failure to read+comprehend the detailed explanation I set out above at #Comments_and_analysis_by_BHG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for your obscure views on what a portal should be or shouldn't be. Hold an RFC somewhere stop blocking progress here because you hate an editor that is here that clearly is doing good faith edits trying to help. You got to see how when your involved nothing happens.--Moxy 🍁 03:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: No, not yet another month-long RfC where multiple walls of text full of ad hominem arguments overwhelm the closer and obscure the consensus. A short, sharp, simple third opinion, without filibustering by involved parties, which will take days and not weeks. That way, either we finally realise that you are right and everyone else was wrong, or we move from a consensus which everyone but you accepts to a clear and unambiguous mandate to make changes which no reasonable person can revert. Certes (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may wish to read a previous discussion (long page; loads slowly) at ANI. Although that forum normally avoids content debates, it discusses changes to portals including this one. Certes (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Format

[edit]

Lets change formats /////Articles from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Featured and good content ......we have a whole bunch...what do people think are the top 25 or so? Lets save bios for there own section--Moxy 🍁 21:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Transclude random excerpt |1=Banff National Park |2=Australian Defence Force |3=Black Friday (1945) |4=Hamersley, Western Australia |5=Military history of Australia during World War II |6=Red-bellied black snake |7= Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia |8=Shrine of Remembrance |9=Attack on Sydney Harbour |10= Victoria Cross for Australia |11=Australian raven |12=Australian Air Corps |13=Australian green tree frog |14=Short-beaked echidna |15=

etc...

.....slowly getting there Portal:Australia/sandbox. Should be done in a few more days.--Moxy 🍁 14:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project notification

[edit]
It's odd you go out of your way to block progress. Could you let editors trying to build something work.....we don't need you to hold our hands ..nor do we need you to assume we don't know what we are doing on the topic. You got balls I will give you that.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: I see two possible interpretations of your response:
  1. You genuinely believe that a request to notify the pool of editors with expertise in the topic area is an attempt to block progress.
  2. You have no comprehension of the meaning of the two short sentences which you are replying to, and are just sounding off.
I don't know which applies. But either way, your outrage is absurd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this helps build this portal how?? Is wonderful you feel righteous but it doesn't help us here.lol now does it.--Moxy 🍁 03:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, your choice to continue expressing outrage rather than acting on my substantive suggestion is an excellent illustration of why issues such as this should not be left to the small crew of portal fans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a portal fan by any means. In fact I see very little point in them but I can identify an edit-war when I see one and I see one here. It's a slow edit-war, but an edit-war nonetheless with one editor repeatedly reverting changes made by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a few minor things I'd like to note about the proposed changes. The main image in the introduction section is too large and doesn't fit as cleanly as the existing image, creating an unneccesary scroll bar. The addition of the coat of arms and the location of Australia adds very little, and creates gigantic white spaces within the box. Both of these things make the portal visually less organised, and places emphasis away from the main information of the page. I can't comment about the other changes, as I'm not an expert in the portal system. Catiline52 (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment...I agree too much white space.--Moxy 🍁 03:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above input, I have reduced the intro image banner height to 165px and removed the scroll bar (diff). Personally, I prefer the scroll bar, because readers then have the option to see the full image, but they can always open it in a new browser page. I also removed the coat of arms and location images, to reduce white space in the introduction section of the portal (diff). North America1000 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to the subject experts for their comments. I now see a consensus to retain the changes, with just one editor dissenting, and I have therefore boldly reinstated them. Certes (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will be proposing a new format in a sandbox in a week or so. North has decided to step aside in hopes we can get this done in a normal fashion.--Moxy 🍁 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthoughts

[edit]

I hadn't been involved in this particular portal discussion, because it seems that discussions about specific portals are being scattered all over, maybe among our hundreds of portals. I am still a little puzzled that User:BrownHairedGirl seems to be trying to hold up changes to portals, whether by User:Northamerica1000 or anyone else, arguing that they are being done sneakily and without consensus. It appears to me that the portals were developed without consensus in the first place. I am disappointed by the conduct of both BHG and NA1k. NA1k is indeed, as BHG points out, running around frantically and making poorly thought-out changes to portals without discussion. BHG seems to be running around in a similar fashion and reverting these changes. I thought, perhaps naively, that there might be a truce. I don't see why BHG is reverting the changes. Most of the existing portals are in such bad shape that any change is probably a small improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BHG seems to want one or more RFCs on portals. My question is: Will these be one portal per RFC, which could be dozens of RFCs taking the place of dozens of MFDs, or would there be a few RFCs on portals in general? I am not optimistic about any RFCs about portals in general, because even the most basic RFC, such as whether to ratify the long-standing, never-ratified Portal Guidelines, gets weird input from the portal platoon, who evidently don't want to have guidelines about portals, because they simply want portals for a mystical reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, I most certainly do not want any more the sort of vague, broad RFCs of which we have had several this year, in many of which false binaries have been constructed as straw men by editors who advance a simplistic proposition to which they are manifestly opposed. (e.g. we had two separate RFCs in which editors who rage against the deletion of portals proposed the false binary of deleting all portals, in the transparent hope that the proposal's inevitable rejection would help them to claim falsely that there was a consensus not to delete any portals).
Nor I do want RFCs on some overall set of guidelines.
What I seek is a broad community consensus on three specific points which are absolutely central to each and every portal which the community decides to keep:
  1. How should the list of selected articles be presented? I see at least 5 options: a) as bare list ("mega-navbox") style; b) as a bare list with random preview (e.g. Portal:Wind power); c) as a random preview with a link to a list to list on another page (as with many of the content-forked portals); d) as a random preview with no list (i.e the "black box" model which NA1K sneakily imposed on many dozens of portals); e) as an annotated list with a short description to accompany each entry. There may be more possibilities.
  2. What general goals should be set for the selection? e.g. what quality threshold? what importance threshold? what NPOV criteria (e.g. recentism, systemic bias)? How to handle the systemic bias which skews the eligible set of articles?
  3. Within those broad criteria, how should selections be made? Should there be a propose-and-notify system? Is it acceptable for one editor to make unilateral changes, and if so what notification and explanation is required?
Those questions apply to every portal, regardless of topic. Per WP:MULTI they should be decided in a central discussion, and per WP:LOCALCON they should seek broad community consensus through a properly advertised RFC. Sadly, the portal platoon is stubbornly resisting these basic principles of en.wp consensus-building, and instead is trying to keep these choices off the radar and hidden away as local discussions on individual pages. This is because the portal platoon in trying to have its cake and eat it: on one hand it claims that portals should be kept because they are (allegedly) hugely significant overviews of a whole topic; but on the other hand the platoon is insisting that there should not be broad input in how choices on how these allegedly hugely significant overviews should be built. There is a further problem, illustrated in my reply below to NA1K, but by no means confined to NA1K, that much of the portal platoon is unable or unwilling to discuss how to apply broad issue of principle. The are happy to assert high-sounding broad principles, but consistently fail to explain (let alone define) mechanisms of how those principles are applied in practice. It is quite evident both from the conduct of the portal platoon (repeatedly making lists without wider engagement) and from their statements in discussions such as this, that most of them fundamentally want to have portal space as a free-for-all zone in which they can make their own personal choices about content selection without the discussion or debate which is a routine part of article construction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I have not been "running around frantically" whatsoever, and the article choices I added were well thought out. As I have stated above, a list of articles was provided on this talk page after the additions occurred, and before the reversion occurred. Furthermore, as I stated above, the edits performed improved the portal, because 1) Using transclusions from articles provides readers with current, up-to-date information, that is verbatim to that in articles, 2) The Good article section was a logical starting point for more to be added as time goes on, and 3) The articles chosen for the GA section as a starting point serve to provide readers with diverse content about Australian people, geography and environment, sports, transportation, cuisine, military history, and other aspects. As Moxy has initiated above, anyone interested can discuss other articles to add as well. North America1000 01:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NA1K, it is sad but unsurprising to see that you continue to evade any sort of reasoned discussion, and continue to rely on verbose generalities which amount to a very poor attempt at proof by assertion, e.g.
  1. the article choices I added were well thought out ... but there is no explanation at all of how they were thought out. It is extraordinary that NA1K is unwilling or unable to acknowledge even the most obvious follies, such as adding Beer in Australia to a section which they chose to label "cuisine" (MW defines "cuisine" as "manner of preparing food : style of cooking: also : the food prepared").
  2. Good article section was a logical starting point omits any attempt to explain what logic was applied.
  3. The third numbered paragraph is just a lot of words which offers no explanation at all of how and why those articles are chosen. It amounts to little more than "here's some random articles; add more if you want".
This is all just a continuation of the pattern that I have seen over the last 9 months of portal discussion, that most of the development of portals is being done without any evident application of critical thinking, i.e. with no demonstration of ability to explain and critique their own thought processes, let alone to engage with external criticism. In particular, NA1K is either incapable of explaining the basis on which choices are made, or adamantly unwilling to do so.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. A page which presumes to offer an overview of a broad topic should not be based solely on one editor's personal preferences. It should follow our core policies, and use a selection based on the balance of reliable sources (see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT etc) and identify some structured process so that WP:NPOV is upheld.
When an editor chooses to make selection of topics for a page which is supposed to serve as a showcase, they should explain what objectives were set, what criteria were applied, and what pool of articles was used, and why some topics were chosen over others. NA1K repeatedly fails to demonstrate that they did any of those things, and when questioned replies in the manner of someone at an early stage of education. The readers of an encyclopedia deserve much better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see any way forward here that doesn't involve arbitration. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SF, the best way forward is to hold RFCs to build a community consensus on the substantive issues, i.e. how to structure and populate portals. This dispute has happened because no guidelines exist on those central questions. I repeat my offer to NA1K to work with me to design RFCs to answer these questions .... but if NA!K continues to reject that offer of collaboration, then I will proceed to RFC without NA1K. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New sub pages implementation

[edit]

OK I did not get any input above about selection so I just did all the work ...pls see somewhat new portal Portal:Australia and it's new sub pages listing selections and more content... Portal:Australia/Content Portal:Australia/Wikiproject and Portal:Australia/Anniversaries.--Moxy 🍁 21:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 updates

[edit]

Per discussion in 2019 on this talk page, the Featured article and Featured biography sections have been updated to include lists of all articles used within these sections (diff, diff). North America1000 19:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13,000 photos of South Australia

[edit]

Recently 13,000 black and white photos of the History Trust of South Australia have been uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons, and some of them have already been categorized:

These photos provide an excellent opportunity for writing or expanding articles, e.g. about the following topics:

I am looking forward to seeing, how these photos will be used by categorising and cropping them — as well as adding them to new or existing articles. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021 additions

[edit]

I have refreshed the portal with the addition of more FA-class and FL-class articles today, to include and further expand with diverse content about Australian people, nature, geography and environment, sports, transportation, military history, and other aspects. The following articles listed below were added today (diff, diff). Questions or concerns? Feel free to discuss on this talk page if desired. North America1000 02:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2021 (UTC) additions

Blackrock (film), John Treloar (museum administrator), Australian boobook, Bill Kibby, Warner Bros. Movie World, Thomas White (Australian politician), List of birds of Tasmania, Vultee Vengeance in Australian service, Grevillea juniperina, Danie Mellor, Nothomyrmecia, Waterfall Gully, South Australia, Cyclone Joy, Great Eastern Highway, Don Tallon, Yagan, York Park, Silverchair, Sam Loxton, Barry Sheene Medal, Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory, Death of Ms Dhu, Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri, Canberra, Lester Brain, Faith Leech, Australia at the Winter Olympics

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Australia&oldid=1217866188"