To what extent it is possible - to have any idea from fellow editors -
IP's going to into former named/identified ministers and putting Vacant against resigned positions
Is that an aspect of WP:NOTHENEWS ?
any thoughts as to the potential chaos in articles? It seems to have a sense of whole lot of politicians articles being very messy JarrahTree05:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that submitting a resignation to the Prime Minister is only an indication that the person does not intend to continue to perform the role. I suspect that they remain technically the minister of whatever until the Governor-General publishes a withdrawal of their commission, so the correct reference would be from [1] or the What's New page which says it is updated throughout the day. Anyone answering questions in the Senate Question Time today was answering for the minister (perhaps as an institution not a person), not as the minister. So I think it is valid to say on the Wikipedia pages about people that they stopped being the minister today, but I don't think it is valid to say on the minister page that anyone else is the minister, but some of them might have people acting as ministers. Let's hope nothing happens that requires an immediate response from a minister who has gone missing! --Scott DavisTalk06:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Including Share Price Information in Australian Company Articles
Would any expert editors be able to provide some direction as to whether it should be normal to include a section in an article relating to an Australian company that details share price information. I frequently receive alerts that an article has been changed only to find that it is someone updating the share price. An example from today is AMP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMP_Limited. I
This does not seem like 'encyclopedic' information as the price of a company share will fluctuate over time often with little relevance to the operational workings of a company. There are better free repositories for this information such as the ASX. I can understand that if a company was involved in a major event such as the Poseidon Bubble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_bubble) then the information may be of major significance to the company. In general I think that "share price" sections (such as the one on the AMP page should be removed).Brycewhite (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Very good point - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGUIDE - I personally agree that price sections are moved with prejudice - hopefully others will concur with this. Editors in most cases are less 'expert' in many Australian articles - it is more here by attrition. The business part of the project is very neglected and any improvements would be appreciated. JarrahTree00:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In general, I think these are a bit of a mess and should be removed - a WP:NOTNEWS violation that's hard to keep track of. I think there are cases where it might be relevant for a serious discussion - e.g. where it has fallen off a cliff such as to actually be a significant moment in the company's history, like Retail Food Group - but in the case of somewhere like AMP it's pretty useless. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, "daily" share price fluctuations are not encyclopedic at all. Yes certainly major changes in share price are but these will by definition I suggest be associated with some properly notable event warranting its own few sentences or paragraph or two in their own right, which then may properly include a mention of the share price change, up or down. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Since I'm about to reach 3RR, I shall step back and let someone else take a look and see how they feel about the recently added "Housing" section. Kerry (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You need to be clearer that this is a real estate agent adding his suburb analysis and links to his own website! Stephen05:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
No, in such situations, we need to be circumspect. We have to be careful not to out other contributors (even when CoI is suspected). So what I might think and what I can say here are two different things. Kerry (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Another problem (as I see it) with the current suburb infobox is that the maps which were inserted were inserted by adding coordinates to the infobox. It is an unsatisfactory waste of people's time to enter data in wikipedia when it already exists in wikidata. MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree (although I suspect most of the coordinates were entered well before Wikidata existed). I think there's a broader discussion to be had in the community about using Wikidata for some static geographic information such as coordinates and areas, but also for dynamic information such as census populations, local government areas and electoral districts. There is considerable pushback in some areas of the English Wikipedia about Wikidata "encroachment" on the project, such as in infoboxes, and some possibly valid concerns about widespread undetected vandalism and sourcing... but in these cases which require nearly 20,000 articles to be updated whenever the census figures are released, or several thousand whenever there is an electoral redistribution, it really is the only sensible solution and allows updates to be made in a few hours rather than days, weeks, or never (we still have 1,745 2006 census template transclusions for example). --Canley (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: A lot of the coordinates in Wikidata were actually sourced from the infobox in suburb articles where they have been for years. Originally the coordinates were added as a manual string more complex than what is used now (e.g. {{coord|32|45|41.3|S|151|44|38.6|E|type:town_region:AU-NSW|display=inline,title}}). The infobox was then changed so that it was simply necessary to enter the raw coordinates (latd, longd as a minimum but with latm, lats, longm, longs as options) and this would generate a full coordinate string automatically. In 2016 an RfC decided that automation was silly and coordinates should be entered manually again - at least that's the effect that it had on this infobox - and it was changed accordingly in all articles. Wikidata is a relatively recent effort and it doesn't always work. The TV project has had a lot of problems with it. What should be a simple implementation of a website was a nightmare and still isn't completely fixed. As for the census information mentioned by Canley, that's even worse. Because of the way the ABS counts and labels areas, what might be applicable at one census might not be applicable at the next and a lot of what's on Wikidata is not current. For example, the population data for Newcastle is based on the 2011 census while the article uses the 2016 census, which redefined the Newcastle area.
it would be reliant on someone who does understand Wikidata to get it done and make it work. - Implementing wikidata in infoboxes can be extremely complex due to local variables that need to be periodically changed. Finding enough people who understand Wikidata and who have the necessary expertise to implement the changes properly is probably more difficult than getting my cat to understand "A Brief History of Time". --AussieLegend (✉) 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Regardless of the original sourcing (which made enormous sense), the location coordinate property in Wikidata is uncomplicated and a single source for articles in the many wikipedias. I have been using Wikidata for a while now and this particular property (location coordinates) seems to me to have no dramas in its usage. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Yes, that's why it didn't happen (the census data project)—too many concerns about ABS geo structures, horrendous complexity (requiring Wikidata queries, query calls from Wikipedia, and infobox coding to work together flawlessly), and some of the tools/functions just not being ready or capable yet. The electorate thing I mentioned is even more fraught and complex! I'm not under any impression this will or should happen any time soon, or without controversy, but it does seem to be a sensible possibility to keep in mind, with a view to demonstrating the benefits and efficiencies later on. At the moment I'm concentrating on making sure the data is there (and current) in Wikidata to be used if the desire and means are there. --Canley (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: has been replacing the usual maps in town infoboxes this morning with a replacement generated from OpenStreetMaps (see, for example, Mona Vale, New South Wales). However, these replacements aren't integrated with the infobox - the old maps are being removed from the infobox, and being replaced with a standalone map roughly tacked on the bottom.
She's not the only person I've seen doing this lately, and I figured it was about time we had a discussion about the utility of these maps. I agree that the OSM maps are possibly more informative than the city or statewide maps - but the standalone maps really are very ugly. If these can be integrated into infoboxes, I'm all for them, but if they can't be, I feel that they're making out articles look messy to a degree that isn't worth the added information and should be removed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sadly the infobox maps with just a point and virtually covering the state, in my view, are pretty useless. To get any information requires hitting the plus button many times and one only achieves a point. The polygons from OSM are much more informative for areas, and generally to a better scale. I question the usefulness of the maps in the suburb infobox as it now stands. The OSM maps can be integrated into the infobox when the infobox is a park see e.g., Kings Park, Western Australia, or if the infobox is an Italian commune, (see Bolzano), but somehow the Sydney suburbs infobox doesn't allow the maplink parameter. Obviously it would be sensible to ask someone to work on the suburb infobox to allow them to be integrated. But in my opinion, putting them in below is useful, 1) because it makes people see the need for action, and 2) because they are the more useful maps. All of this just takes time. In my view informativeness trumps ugliness. I hope you will leave those that have been added, until a more satisfactory solution is found. I am sorry you find them ugly. I don't. Perhaps you know someone who will be able to help? MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I am certain OSM maps (from what I have seen in the WA project) are far more durable and in the long term of greater benefit for the project. I would strongly reject any sense of removing any of them, and if there is to be a review by the few Australian editors who ever come to this talk page anymore - that it is more for those who know the technical issues of the OSM format to reassure that the issue (uglyness) is fixable and amenable to longer term use, rather than the very strange collection of weird maps of the world, country, or state with a very odd little dots signifying a location JarrahTree06:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You can put the OSM mapframe in the Australian place infobox by using the image2 field (I have done this on Mona Vale, New South Wales for an example)—note I reduced the width and set the frame-align to center. That's a quick workaround for the existing infobox... the infobox code could also be adjusted to handle an embedded slippy map without too much difficulty (it's essentially just an image and doesn't require the code to check for coordinates and locator maps. --Canley (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Canley - the Mona Vale example is great and solves the problem at least until it could be more directly integrated as in Sam's example template below. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly possible to integrate the maps into the infobox, as is done for example with {{Infobox Australian road}}. It's good to use maps like these, that derive their data from OpenStreetMap, because it means that there's only one place to update geometry (i.e. OSM). SamWilson06:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was hoping could be achieved here - I'm certainly not opposed to using the OSM maps, I just loathe them randomly tacked on instead of in the infobox where they belong. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to jump in here and point out that you need to be careful when using fields in the infobox in a manner for which they were never intended. I was the person who converted {{Infobox Australian place}} to use {{Infobox}} instead of raw code and incorrect usage increased the workload significantly. For example, we had over 2,000 articles where the coordinates were both in the infobox and in a separate template for some reason and all of the external templates had to be deleted manually. Other similar infoboxes have been merged into the infobox since then and there were more problems, especially with "Infobox protected area of Australia" which had an incredible number of problems because of hacks implemented by editors who couldn't get the infobox to do what they wanted. If there really is a need for this it should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Australian place. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I have only just noticed this conversation here. I started the conversation at Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Interest in using Infobox mapframe? independently, but at about the same time. Note that to get the area to be displayed requires a link between the OSM Relation and the Wikidata entity for the suburb/locality. I have made about 5 examples using |image2= to compare the new map to the old ones in various contexts. --Scott DavisTalk03:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed various Australia's Next Top Model articles were renamed from "cycles" to "seasons" e.g. [3]. This was a consequence from a discussion about changes to the season articles for America's Next Top Model. Was the "cycle" -> "season" renaming valid, especially in the Australian English context? Dl2000 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
No objections here. I did a quick search and was having difficulty finding any Australian source who consistently used the former over the latter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
How should this work for superseded legislation? For example, I matched the ASIO Act 1979 to the current incarnation on ComLaw (C2018C00382), but a superseded 2004 version (C2004A02123) was also linked from the item. Not sure how to handle this as it produces a single-value constraint violation, maybe ranking or qualifiers will work? Any suggestions? --Canley (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Canley and Nat965: They get modified all the time. I've removed the single-value constraint, and attempted to model a few examples of this with qualifiers at wikidata:Q4824660. What do you think? You can see the whole series, and all IDs link to the same series. To do it properly in this way I'll eventually need to automate it. --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There is currently an issue at this article, and it requires a careful read of the arguments and sources, as it is widely known that forms of indentured labour were utilised in the Northern part of the state long after traditional forms of 'convict labour' had ceased in the southern part of Western Australia.
As to the notion of the indentured labour was reported (or not) is part of the issue, if any editor has access to further references, it would be appreciated if they could be brought into the subject. Thanks JarrahTree00:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
We've got a user aggressively claiming that slavery definitively never existed in Australia because of the existence of the (UK) Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Their convenient definition of slavery to justify this bit of historical reductionism utterly contradicts the statutory definitions of slavery in both the UK and Australia and in countless other places. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This reference [4] talks about the use of indentured labour in pearling from 1901 to 1972. Could be useful to anyone familiar with the articles in question? Hughesdarren (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This is exactly why I requested the personal conversation to step out of personal talk pages - actual broader context on the issues actually is a benefit for the wider project - getting lost in point making between individuals loses the plot. JarrahTree02:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I've updated Broome, Western Australia using two other references and slightly reworded to say "slavery and indentured labour" instead of "slavery and slavery-like", mostly because this was the terminology used in the sources I could find. I haven't made any changes to the other articles though. I also think the conversation would have been better had on the article talk page so all contributors could have reached a consensus. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
If only there were the adequate number of australian editors to have many australian articles on their watch lists... JarrahTree03:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Well done, Hughesdarren. I also would have preferred it go to the talk page originally (and said as much), because this sort of discussion/editing is exactly what was needed, but it's a difficult situation when you're dealing with someone who has a strong POV, is very aggressive, and won't engage in any productive discussion (on the talk page or otherwise) because they won't countenance anything other than their POV. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I beg to disagree re where the discussion goes - most Australian articles have virtually no watchers with any capacity to offer ideas or references, and when the personal stuff starts ramping up - the wider community are more likely to have a discussion here - noting that the Australian editing community is shrinking considerably. JarrahTree04:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor looking for sources, and it appears that it is the mainstream view of Australian history (hope these sources help):
I'm getting in late here, but there's now a pretty large literature about Indigenous Australians, Pacific islanders and Papua New Guineans being subjected to forced labour under various Australian colonial regimes. Slavery/forced labour still, tragically, occurs in modern Australia (see, for instance, [5] and [6]) Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Sydney Opera House
Appears to have attracted a fair share of interesting edits - perhaps a disinterested admin might consider putting an edit protect on the article for a while. ? JarrahTree12:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
It has only been a couple of edits and they were kind of funny ! But I agree, yes, if it gets out of hand. Aoziwe (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I posted some questions over on Talk:Kmart Australia related to article improvement. Since that article doesn't seem to get much foot traffic (I was the first edit in a month), I thought I would post here too. Please let me know if there is a better place. Thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
"Apart from lessening the feeling of confusion large succession boxes tend to create to the reader, headers also provide useful disambiguation information by naming specific legislative bodies, religions, peerages etc. to which the titles below these headers belong. This can be done by using parameters, each producing a different variant of the basic template created by the unparametered header templates, with the same colour but different, though similar, text. Parameters also create headers for different subtypes of offices which are not populous enough as categories to allow for separate header templates."
It seems that for Australian politicians who have held ministerial offices at both state and federal level, the standard practice has been to have separate "Political offices" headers for each legislative body, which, in my opinion, is a more logical path to follow. Rather than getting into an edit war, I've brought the matter here for comment, as this is likely to affect articles for a number of politicians. Bahudhara (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
"Each header should be used no more than once in a succession box, and all succession lines of a similar nature should go under a single header, irrespective of overall chronological or other orders."Exzachary (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
It is confusing to lump state and federal ministries together in the middle - especially the ones that don't have "of Australia" or "of Western Australia" in the titles. To make a sporting analogy if he had played soccer and cricket at separate times, it would be confusing to have in the middle under "positions played" a row for goalkeeper and a row for batsman. Perhaps the titles can be linked to cabinet of Australia and cabinet of Western Australia so they two titles are different. --Scott DavisTalk22:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I slightly prefer the style that was originally used, but I get that Exzachary's change was just applying the guideline from WP:SBSGUIDE. Best thing to do is to keep things consistent at least for Australian politicians, so unless there is a strong preference (amongst Aust-connected editors who read this) to change, we should update WP:SBSGUIDE to explain the exception to the guideline and move on. Donama (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Having thought about this a bit more, the overly-rigid format change suggested by Exzachary might be suitable for U.S. political figures, but not for the state and federal parliamentary system we have in Australia (and also, presumably, Canada, though I have no idea how the succession box format is applied there). Looked at in another way, the way we have used it in the past the "Political offices" line serves as a sub-header, rather than a header as such. Perhaps we should raise this issue at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization page, where discussions so far seem, to have been dominated by UK examples, which aren't relevant to our situation. (I presume that there may be some parallels with politicians transitioning between Westminster and the Scottish and European parliaments, but again I have no experience in this arena either.) Bahudhara (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Exzachary: Note that WP:SBSGUIDE is only a guideline. It's not mandatory that it be followed. Like all of our polices and guidelines, there are times that we have to ignore them if it makes for a better encyclopaedia. I don't normally follow political articles and I find that this version is far easier to understand than this. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with AussieLegend that the first version mentioned is quite clear and the other quite confusing. Kerry (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It's completely not-obvious in the merged one that the section is talking about ministerial positions in two different jurisdictions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Separate jurisdictions should be kept separate - simply utter nonsense otherwise, and completely misleading and confusing. Aoziwe (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, got those added, with the search results limited to state-level importance ones only. And I'm finding many more of lower level siginficance searching on just "fire" in VHD search. VHD-listed at state-level significance = notable? I am assuming so. Not sure what to to about the many lower level ones; perhaps they can be list-items without redlinks i.e. not suggesting that separate articles are needed. --Doncram (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Revised. 23:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is a query of Australian fire stations with a heritage designation currently in Wikidata. I'll have a look at the lists to see if there's any more that can be added. --Canley (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There may be little to find on this side. The most significant historic building in the West is Fremantle, already included. I'll assert, to be corrected, that most fire stations in WA have just been sheds run by volunteers so unlikely to be listed [V] or notable [N]. The stations in urban areas are frequently upgraded and replaced, heritage value being a secondary concern to the state's responsibility [stopping your neighbours destroying the suburb]. The arrangements in rural areas are fairly ad hoc, lighting then putting out the most significant [and historic] fires in the state. Historic stations in country areas may have burnt down before being heritage listed. — cygnis insignis10:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's one out of left-field. The historic gold mining town of Walhalla, Victoria has a restored fire station (now operating as a museum) straddling a creek. The place was very short on flat land to build anything. No individual article on it, but there's plenty of mention in the article on the town. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The most significant historic building in the West is Fremantle — Old Perth Fire Station has four heritage listings (including Register of the National Estate), whereas Fremantle Fire Station mentions only one (Register of the National Estate), with nothing in the national Register entries indicating that one is more significant than the other. Perhaps Fremantle Fire Station is missing information about other registers? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Best bet would be to search each state heritage database for any listed on heritage registers. I know there's a few with Wikipedia articles in Queensland, but I'm not sure I've come across any at all in the New South Wales effort currently underway - I think a fire bell was about it there. Seems like there could be a few in Victoria but the Victorian search is awful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I had a look earlier at the heritage registers, you're right: a couple of fire engines at the Fire Museum in Penrith, and the aforementioned Number 470 fire bell, are the only fire-related items in the NSW register. Victoria has 9 stations listed, of which 7 are in Wikidata, I will add the other two tonight. There are 9 in Queensland which should all have articles. Four in South Australia, three in Tasmania, and 16 in WA. I'll try and add them all tonight so they show up in the query. --Canley (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
What links could be used to search any of the heritage registers besides Victoria's? --Doncram (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC) I have jotted some notes at wp:HSITESHELP about accessing Victoria, Queenland, Western Australia, Tasmania heritage registers. --Doncram (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for your helpful responses, which have added Eastern Hill Fire Station, Old Perth Fire Station, and York Fire Station, at least, as fire stations having Wikipedia articles. Please feel free to add directly to the List of fire stations article, which is a work in progress. I don't immediately understand about the Wikidata additions...thanks I guess and I certainly will try to find out more about all of them...but I don't yet get whether "Wikidata notability" is supposed to equate to Wikipedia notability, and/or where are sources to be found. Should some of these be added as redlinks? I would certainly welcome addition of redlinks to List of fire stations, hopefully each with a reference or two suggesting notability, which can be transferred to articles when created. Really I don't understand Wikidata; why not add directly to Wikipedia?
Here's another odd one. Not far from the aforementioned Walhalla in Victoria, was a town called Yallourn. It was a government owned "company town" for the gigantic, open cut, brown coal mines that fed Victoria's power stations. Because of the fire risk, there was a professional fire brigade. However, the whole town was demolished in the 1980s, so nothing exists any more. A search for "Yallourn Fire Station", including an image search, will find you photos and articles. (Don't get misled by "Yallourn NORTH Fire Station". That's an entirely different thing, and a lot less notable.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for the help here. I've expanded/revised the List of fire stations in Australia section to include 48 Australian fire stations, the majority being redlinks for the moment, in this version of List of fire stations article. These are the original 12 having Wikipedia articles, plus several more that I have started as stubs. Included are all the ones in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, and Victoria which appear to have state-level significance in their corresponding registers. As noted above, New South Wales has none indicated to have state-level significance, but so that NSW will be represented I started a stub article for one NSW place, Crows Nest Fire Station, which I guessed might be relatively more significant than other NSW fire stations indicated to have local significance, because it was listed earlier, in the national-level former Register of the National Estate. Also I am keeping in a couple local ones that were indicated to be museums now, which means there's more info available about them, and a couple random others. No items for Tasmania or for Australian Capital Territory or for Northern Territory. I left notes on these decisions, and some links and info for candidate ones removed, at Talk:List of fire stations#Australia. I may develop the recently stubbed ones a bit more, and I expect to start at least stub articles for all the redlinks, like I have been doing for about 115 National Register of Historic Places-listed United States fire stations that were redlinks. For the U.S. ones I am more comfortable starting articles, because the extensive NRHP nomination documents are usually available online and can be linked, so I am sure readers get substantial value (either directly in the article or by their following link to the full nomination). But I still think it is worthwhile to start the Australian articles and at least include documentation of their historic register listings, and links to what I can find. I would be happy to continue any discussion of particulars at that Talk page, and I would continue to welcome any direct help editing the list-article or creating articles for redlink ones or further developing existing articles.
The Wikidata query thing is quite interesting, and I will remember it for possibly trying to round up items for list-articles on other topics, but right now I think I've been directly accessing the state historic register databases that are being used to add items to Wikidata, and I don't see independent information there now on this topic. Please do advise if I seem to be missing anything now. Also thanks for the links on the states' databases, only some of which I had found separately. Is there any way to request more extensive info, e.g. full registration documents in PDF format, by email request to any of the registers? I'll work with what seems to be directly available in the databases, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I can generate a draft article for anything within the Australian Heritage Database (meaning Australian National Heritage List, Commonwealth Heritage List, and Register of the National Estate with the constraint that I only have a wikifier (the part of the generator that sees "Governor George Bowen went to Mackay" and converts it to "GovernorGeorge Bowen went to Mackay, Queensland") available for Qld and NSW topics at the moment. If I generate an article for another state, it will have to be fully manually wikilinked. I can (and eventually will) build wikifiers for other states but it takes a bit of time to do each one. I can also generate draft articles for anything in the NSW heritage database (whether or not it is in the State Heritage Register). So give a yell if you wany any of these drafts of this nature generated. I say "drafts" because machine-generation is imperfect and a human needs to commit to rolling out each of these drafts and using their human brain to polish the draft to an acceptable standard. I don't want these just dumped out with hand-polishing as it will just give generated articles a bad reputation. Kerry (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I see it has been discussed before, e.g. Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 43#Historic buildings in 2014, about creating standardized list articles. That discussion linked to List of heritage places in Fremantle and a couple others and covered issues/questions like what to do about the fact of too many local-level listings, and whether to mix different levels of designations or not using color-coding or whatever, and whether to use LGAs or what for geographical divisions of the lists. Things have moved along since then, including about how much data might be made available from the state registers. How about now forming a task force empowered to make some decisions and to represent itself to the various state register offices, and charged with generating list-articles for at least all the state-level significance historic sites in each state? --Doncram (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
There has been quite a bit of work done on this already. Kerry Raymond (talk·contribs) has produced articles for all Queensland heritage items as you have probably seen, and The Drover's Wife (talk·contribs) is working on similar for New South Wales. The impetus here has been those state heritage registers releasing their full description content under a CC licence so this content can be used in the articles, which can also be auto-generated to some extent. Kerry and I also did a lot of for Wiki Loves Monuments earlier this year, so we have full spreadsheets of all the state heritage items including coordinates. The intention is to import the full lists to Wikidata which produces list tables such as this WA list to prompt people to take photos of monuments/heritage items in their area. So we have all the data but the full import couldn't be done in time for WLM unfortunately however a lot of data (about 31%) was imported and linked to existing Wiki items so we had decently substantial lists for the competition. I intend to keep working on this for the rest of the year and should have everything in Wikidata by December. Anyway, I think a task force is a good idea, and the experiences of the previous work in this area means there are some editors who can offer advice and consolidate work already done. --Canley (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Canley and The Drover's Wife: The Drover's Wife has pointed me at the ACT Heritage Register (and my mind boggles why I never found it on my own before), so that is the missing one in our collection. I have not yet webscraped it (myTo-Do list is very large at the moment, and the priorities seem to be constantly changing) but I've developed a fair bit of experience doing that kind of webscraping now. It's not suitably-licensed so it's not an immediate target for article generation. Kerry (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
For scope, here is the current state of the lists in Wikidata and the number of listings on each register:
Canley, thanks for that detail! Would I be correct in assuming that the numbers above are for "state-level significance" items in QLD, NSW, WA, VIC and SA. Their databases cover a whole lot more local-significance items, I think. And the TAS one is its entire list, which provides no indication of state-level vs. only-local significance AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, these are only the state-level heritage registers. NSW, Victoria and WA certainly have other heritage lists such as National Trust of Australia and LGA lists in their full databases. --Canley (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Responding just selectively: Hey it sounds great what you have been doing.
I very much enjoyed cooperating with User:Kerry Raymond in developing Australia coverage within List of Masonic buildings back in 2016, and some other interactions, and I have seen various contributions by them, including what looks like a great current job in filling in what was a big redlink on Australian National Heritage List. But no, I am not aware of any systematic list-articles about historic places in Queensland. There is no list-article linked from Queensland Heritage Register, and I don't see any candidates from browsing around in categories.
What is any current "best practices" list-article? The Fremantle one, which I have contributed to, is not, I presume. If it has not already been done, I expect that quick easy progress could be made by setting up Australia-specific templates akin to {{NRHP row}} and others in Category:National Register of Historic Places templates which are used as components, and using programs to fill out list-tables merging the templates and specific data. I don't see anything Australia-related in Category:Monument list templates. (Whatever productive could be done, would be done by programmers besides myself, though, although I did program some stuff using NRHP data some years ago.)
Also i don't grok the current and intended involvement with Wikidata, but I do see that Wiki Loves Monuments list-article for WA at Commons seems quite useful. However wouldn't it be more useful if the list-article was in Wikipedia already, i.e. bringing readers/contributors to what is already in place and building upon that? The mainspace U.S. NRHP list-articles currently show the same "upload pics to commons now" type buttons, from the not-quite-done September Monuments drive. Offhand it strikes me that the WA or other state databases could be better used to directly produce Wikipedia list-articles, rather putting some of the data into Commons or Wikidata. The Wikidata that i have seen in the links from fire stations (discussion item above), seem very minimal, likewise for the Western Australia spreadsheets that you can download at their website (which did not have coordinates, or I woulda used them rather than hand-collecting from Google maps for the Fremantle list; maybe you have gotten more though). There is loss of data from what the state agencies provide (the spreadsheet you can download from WA have less fields than they probably have, like U.S. National Park Service website-supplied spreadsheets have a lot less than a full copy of their relational database provides, and then you lose more fields when transferring to Wikidata probably, and then you simply can't generate meaningful infoboxes or draft articles from Wikidata, but again of course the specifics may be different than my impression). Anyhow, the point would be to get good, complete list-articles created, pretty much all at once and not requiring manual editing upfront, and I do suppose it could involve using Wikidata in some way i don't understand yet. This and other technical stuff might be better discussed in a separate discussion place, of course.
There are several people I'd want to invite to a Task Force, including User:Multichill for sure, who you've probably worked with already, who has had major role with Wiki Loves Monuments and bringing U.S. NRHP stuff into internationally-translateable conformity. Perhaps a WikiProject which is a subproject of WikiProject Australia and also a subproject of WikiProject Historic sites? --Doncram (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This already exists and is active - Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian historic places. As for the locality-specific lists, we've generally only really rolled this out where there's been so many places in one locality that it would overwhelm the locality article if referred to there. There hasn't really been much effort into lists-of-historic-things-by-type, but I'd definitely be for it as a better way to make our content accessible. Lists of entire heritage registers seems like it would be challenging because most of them involved 1500+ subjects. Can't help with Wikidata because I don't understand either. I'd be keen to see all of these lists organised overall rather than done on an ad-hoc basis, but I've found consensus about some of the issues you raised in your first post impossible to achieve in the past. I would be very keen to see more attempts to get the other states to release their content under CC-BY, especially Victoria, which has a lot of good content online and organises it very badly on their own website. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, great, i did not know that WikiProject existed. Its member list omits User:The Drover's Wife and User:Kerry Raymond, despite their interesting discussions at its Talk page, i note. :)
Hey, the big seemingly-confounding issues are easily dealt with, IMHO. Of course all the state-level significance items should be listed out in list-articles of them alone, and it is no big deal to list out a few thousand each. The U.S. NRHP list-article system covers 92,886 currently, no problemo (per today's version of wp:NRHPPROGRESS non-mainspace tracking system). Use color coding. A few of those might be included in higher-level Australian National Heritage List, so color-code those ones differently. In the U.S. the NRHPs are divided by states then by U.S. counties for the most part, bringing down list-article size to reasonable level, i.e. down to under 200 or so items. In some cities there is further division by official or unofficial neighborhoods, as necessary (which divisions have sometimes involved a lot of debate, but have always worked out to some consensus). Do you have something like counties in Australia? Maybe groupings of counties or other LGAs need to be composed. The important thing is for any lowest-level list-article to have about 200 or less items, and to be geographically compact, and to include coordinates for all the individual items, and for those to be visible/usable via a {{GeoGroup}} template providing a "map of all coordinates" link in the article. (As is done in the List of heritage places in Fremantle article.)
About the lower-level-significance items, e.g. local designations, that is not a problem. Sure, allow a list-article for the historic sites designated by Brisbane, or wherever, if and when any local editor wants to create that, and seems sufficiently supported by reliable sources. Pick a local designation color, announce that at wp:HSITES. In its list-article, for any items that are higher-level-designated, i.e. state-level designated, use the state-level color on those rows. Hmm, does that cover all the seemingly-big issues? --Doncram (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and in any articles about individual towns or other LGAs, sure you can include a list of the heritage register places which it includes. But not in the table format of the register list-articles, to avoid confusion. Almost every U.S. county article includes links to the NRHP sites included within it, in its "History" section or wherever, often including a photo and link to its county courthouse, which in the U.S. was a big thing in the development of the nation. There were interesting/ridiculous county seat wars in many many of the U.S.'s 3000 or so counties, where new potential county seats had population gains then got themselves officially selected then had to go raid the previous county seat to steal the county records. I haven't heard about that kinda stuff in Australia. --Doncram (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I do generate lists of heritage places for each suburb, which are used to ensure all heritage articles do not start life as orphans. But I have not done so at higher levels, e.g. local government or state, but I could do so. I have the spreadsheets for all the state and national heritage registers (except ACT) from which it is quite easy to generate such list artices. It's just never been top priority and we'd need some consensus on information to present and how to present it including how to sort it. I would be inclined to use tables as it quite useful to be able to sort on different columns (e.g. article Title, Suburb, State). A few of these were manually created, e.g. List of sites on the Queensland Heritage Register in Warwick, List of heritage listed buildings in Rockhampton, List of heritage sites in Townsville City, Queensland to illustrate some different styles. I would advise though that it is easy to generate such lists in a greenfield situation; it is much harder to generate updates to them afterwards, so don't create the initial lists prematurely. Kerry (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the updating problem is an issue, but not too much of a problem. It is one thing that has to be negotiated with the state historic registers, or planned for otherwise. In the U.S. there is a weekly public webpage announcement by the National Park Service of new NRHP listings and deletions, which some NRHP editors pounce up on to go and update the NRHP list-article system. For Australia you could just plan to update the list-articles once every six months by getting a new download, or otherwise negotiate with the state registers. In the U.S. the SHPOs (State Historic Preservation O-somethings) and/or state historic departments (equivalent to local govts within any Australian state I guess) are pretty happy to make their announcements of new listings publicly, separately from the national reporting; I haven't seen any equivalent proud reporting from any Australian entities. So you just have to plan to mark your list-tables as to their date of accuracy, and plan for regular new downloads and analyses of changes, according to some schedule. Eventually you will train your state historic registers about their need to provide the info to the public. --Doncram (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not a problem. The heritage registers grow fast initially but slowly later. I am refering to the desire to add in another heritage register's worth of entries later than wasn't initially invisaged, that's messy (unless the principle sortkey is the name of the register).
I'm straying off-topic, but I wondered why a monument article was missing at the Fremantle list; I recall now it is not on the heritage register [politically controversial?]. I favour the idea above of relaxing the scope of lists to code the source of items notability, allowing red links according to registers and links to articles whose notability is verifiable. — cygnis insignis05:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This has always been the dilemma with these lists: how broad do you frame the lists (in naming, etc.), and then how do you define specifically what is appropriate to include? Previous goes-around have not met with consensus on the issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, fine, i see from Lands administrative divisions of Australia that y'all seem to have drifted away from making sensible counties during your western expansion, sooner than the U.S. did (USians ended up with some pretty huge counties in Arizona and California, not realistic for people to get to the county courthouse in one days' wagon-ride, but Australia just lost it completely, apparently, oh well).
I think you just need some focus on the task, which is for you to come up with MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) division of each state into reasonable sized chunks for describing historic sites. It is always possible to come up with a MECE division where needed, in my experience. The U.S. NRHP division discussions have been unsatisfactory sometimes, e.g. currently at wt:NRHP still running is a desultory discussion about regional groupings of the 254 counties in Texas, where it was divided too much IMHO, but it has always been possible to sort something out for making a division. E.g., in the absence of official neighborhoods, the city of Denver was divided by where interstate highways run through it. A poor division IMHO is to take the list of all historic sites in WA, and to divide it alphabetically into A-E, F-whatever, etc., rather than geographically. Frankly what needs to be done is for someone to generate a too-big list of all 2,019 WA ones, and then do let's map it out to see where the places are (using coordinates and {{GeoGroup}} template like in the Fremantle list) and then do let's debate how to divide it. Or start with a more eastern state if it might be easier. What is needed is a completely generated complete list, broken out into reasonable chunks, for each state, and then people can proceed with adding photos and descriptions for each site, etc. It really is needed. --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Counties are archaic, we don't use them in any everyday way, most Australians would not know what county they lived in. They have been declared officially historic now in Queensland. Kerry (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, similar for some areas in the U.S.; Connecticut and Rhode Island's ones are historic, but the counties are still used in National Park Service reporting and in Wikipedia article organization. I happen to think the NRHP list-system for Rhode Island (top-level list here) oughta be reorganized to use cities/towns (about 15 of which completely span the state), because the counties seem to be really not known there any longer, and there is public usage of the 15 or so breakdown for economic development planning and some other purposes, but refining Wikipedia's NRHP organization there is, well, a future project. Counties being defunct/historic in Queensland does speak against using them for a partition, but if there is not a better option then it could still be reasonable to use them for historic site list-article purposes. In some parts of the U.S. people know their counties, and in other parts they don't, too. But with display of maps defining regions (counties or tourism board regions or whatever) it can be easy to convey what regional breakdown is being used and for readers to quickly navigate to the subregion of interest to them. The fact is that in the U.S. the NPS does still use counties (or county-equivalents in Louisiana and Alaska) and issues the NRHP data organized that way, so really as a matter of convenience WikiProject NRHP just ran with that, only departing for Hawaii where the counties don't conform to islands and for Puerto Rico where we chose to use tourist regions (in absence of any counties) and using official neighborhoods or ad hoc approaches when counties are too big. I would be very tempted to use whatever breakdowns are included in the Australian states' databases, if any, for sake of convenience, too. --Doncram (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I should acknowledge that in the U.S. one easier aspect has been the fact that works of the Federal government, including the NRIS database of NRHP listings with their addresses and various characteristics (but not text descriptions), are deemed to be public domain. Which gives rise to copycat private websites like www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, by the way. While individual state-produced stuff is not public domain, and while the NRHP nomination documents are held to be copyrighted by their authors (often state SHPOs or private contractor historian writers). But for list-article generation purposes all the info needed is in the public domain. Then Wikipedia editors get to add descriptions and photos and stuff. --Doncram (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
P.P.S. About the copyright status of databases, in the U.S. it is nice that anything written by Federal employees is considered public domain. But copyright law as I understand it, at least U.S. copyright law, extends "public domainship" to works like directory listings that are compilations without substantial creative content. For the info in a state's historic register, perhaps all the info besides the descriptive text if any (i.e. names of place, addresses, coordinates, level of significance, etc.) can be deemed uncopyrightable. We should not be too timid in just taking the information. --Doncram (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The only way to break it down beyond states in that exhaustive way would be to do it by local government area, but most of these lists wouldn't be long enough for their own articles: as an alternative, Rangasyd has been listing them them in the main LGA article. Most states don't have official regions (at least ones that don't change every time the government reorganises things). I'm not keen on a project to generate articles without the ability to use the actual text: from our experience in NSW (where quite a few register entries lack it), it really is quite a lot of work, and it'd take years to get through a state at that rate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
A feasible way to break apart the WA list-article is to divide out chunks for Perth and specific suburbs, and then to have one big "all other" chunk, or to have a couple of chunks like "northernwestern WA" vs. "northnorthern WA" or whatever, which in effect group a bunch of sparse/small LGAs I guess. The chunking can be easily conveyed by a visual map at the higher level list-article of all WA historic sites which links out to the manageable chunk list-articles.
This systematic listing is different than anything included in articles about the LGAs themselves, and it is needed.
I'm sorry to be Panglossian or whatever, but it is a blessing that the texts may not be copied directly, assuming they are not public domain. For the U.S. NRHP documents, lots of arriving would-be editors have assumed incorrectly that the NRHP nomination documents are public domain and copy-pasted stuff into articles; it has been helpful that we could just shut down those efforts by pointing out the texts are in fact copyrighted. While the National Park Service requires the submitters to release the right for the NPS to post the documents themselves on NPS websites, the texts are otherwise still copyrighted. Over the last 10 years or so perhaps Wikipedia editors could have asked the NPS to change its requirements so that the texts would be PD, but really we simply don't want that. The texts are informative and are great sources but are not written to be encyclopedic text. I watched how WikiProject Ships made seemingly-great temporary progress copying public domain DANFS text into articles about U.S. warships, but we simply don't want that, and all the PD text needed to get dropped or rewritten in article that moved towards Featured Article status. We want to use DANFS and other sources as sources to write our own encyclopedia articles, in our own voice, although sometimes with explicit quotes from DANFS or whichever (but I hate the usage of copied PD text presented as being in our own editorial voice). It is fine to have a list-article system with lots of redlinks. It is also fine for WikiProject Australia historic sites to set some kind of standard for new articles, wanting them to be fairly substantial and not too minimal. Mini-articles can be provided merely as descriptions in the list-articles, unless and until someone has, say, a DYK-worthy 1,500 character article to create. The list-articles could show "blacklinks" rather than redlinks, where it is reasonable to expect that sources simply do not exist for a substantial article to be split out. Sure, it will take years before all rows get photos and have substantial descriptions or link to separate articles. The U.S. NRHP project has been running for more than 10 years now, and is just 55 percent of the way to its goal by one combo measure included in its wp:NRHPPROGRESS tracking. But it is awesome for what it does provide, IMHO, informing people about the historic sites that they simply would have no idea about otherwise (because the government docs are simply unaccessible or incomprehensible by the public, in practice). Frankly, covering all the Masonic temples, or all the Elks lodges, or all the fire stations, or probably all the bridges or Catholic churches or whatever other categories in Australia is easy. Hey, to get through 2,000 items in WA would be a piece of cake. --Doncram (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The most important thing we can do to make rapid progress is getting the heritage registers released under CC-BY or other suitable licence. That is why we have 100% coverage in QLD, and I believe that we are well over half way in NSW, and that's just 3 people at work. Before we knock ourselves out trying to do it all manually (which is decades of work not years), let's do some negotiating/begging/... and see if we can't release more of them. Kerry (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
That could be, but I'd like to proceed with a task force focused narrowly on creating the list-articles, because I think that outsider types including myself have experience/expertise/skills which could be brought to bear and have a big productive effect. And producing the list-articles is hugely important for readers and for future development of all the linked articles, IMHO. And indeed if you think yourself that your most productive efforts are in that direction, I wouldn't want to take you away from that, and I think it would be good to let outsider types contribute all the work to generate the list-articles so you don't have to. While I don't see that outsider types can help as much in generating individual articles using CC-BY text, which you seem to be doing pretty well, although perhaps that could be included in a task force's work as something extra, if the programmers involved turn out to have ability there too, after all. --Doncram (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
More specific proposal, getting towards a vote of support or not:
About who would be included in a task force, and how it would operate: It seems essential that User:Kerry Raymond and The Drover's Wife who have created list-articles already would be included, if you would please be willing. :)
I haven't broached anything at all with them yet, but I would want to invite User:Multichill, who standardized the U.S. NRHP list-articles so that they could be translated to other language wikipedias, and has done major other programming on European and other list-articles, and has majorly supported Wiki Loves Monuments photo drives. And User:Magicpiano who has been maintaining and further developing the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page and a number of related tools/programs using Javascript; perhaps with a new list-article system in Australia there could be a similar motivating/tracking system about further development of its articles. And User:Nthep who i notice has responded to somewhat technical/programming requests at wt:HSITES. I would want to run "ads" seeking volunteers with skills and some time at wp:BOTREQUESTS or otherwise where programmers might hang out, and to ask at wt:HSITES and wt:NRHP. And to include at least one editor active/informed about Featured List requirements. Any specific suggestions of individuals or of types who should be included?
About how it would operate, I would probably prefer for it to operate transparently where possible, perhaps at a subpage of the Australia heritage sites wikiproject, but it would have a private email list which it could choose to use instead, or it could choose to have video conference calls or use any other communication system. I would want it to be allowed to make a bunch of decisions, e.g. to decide upon formatting for the list-articles, and to choose some approach to partitioning the states as necessary, and then to generate the list-articles and have those appear semi-permanently in mainspace. Of course future RFC or consensus processes could override decisions taken, eventually, say, to partition differently, or to format lists differently. The programming would naturally use templates like those used in the US NRHP system, rather than hard-coding of tables, so that formatting/presentation changes could be made later; I wouldn't want to be bogged down unnecessarily in publicly deciding where official registration numbers should appear (first, or later, or not appear at all but still exist underneath for technical reasons). And about partitions it would be far easier to allow reorganization later, than to achieve a perfect consensus in advance on fundamental debate whether partitioning is necessary or which partition is best etc. I would want for the task force to make decisions by majority vote, when a decision needs to be made and larger consensus can't easily be achieved. This could mean that Australia regular editors might get outvoted sometimes. The point would be to get a big thing done. It should be authorized to represent itself as duly charged by the Australia Wikiproject, in contacting state offices, etc. Is this near enough to a specific proposal? --Doncram (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
We already have an active WikiProject focused on this specific subject. If there are any proposals relating to actual article content, they can be raised there. Creating more bureaucracy is totally pointless. The main challenge to organising these lists is coming up with a consensus approach, given that the failure of this in the past is why they're not uniform now - in which a specific proposal about how you'd actually resolve those issues would be much more helpful than this one. Anyone with experience in other ones is welcome to join in, as with any WikiProject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, sure, I see these responses make it a "no" about the proposal, which is really a request to delegate some stuff, at least here. --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I got pinged in this conversation. Good to see people are working on this! Making structured lists here for the different registers in Australia will open up all sorts of opportunities. People familiar with the NRHP project are probably already aware of these advantages like unused images reports, Commons category suggestions and automatic categorization on Commons. Some information about how to make structured lists is at Commons. Easiest way is probably to copy the good things from the NRHP templates. For each register you need a header (({{NRHP header}}) and a row ({{NRHP row}}) templates. These templates are used to construct the table and will make it look the same as now (or even better). On Commons you'll need a template to track the images (Template:NRHP) and to complete it a property on Wikidata ( NRHP reference number (P649)). I would one state as a pilot for this. Multichill (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Just a couple of points, one is data is not copyrightable in Australia, neither is the compilation of that data. With Western Australian the State Heritage list is in an unmaintained format, for many LGAs thier list contain the upto date register of both local and state level you are referring to here, note that local and state level is now legally indistinguishable as all are registered apparently this reduced red tape and costs. There also other registers which also give recognition to places the principle being that on one on all no replication processes. As for regional divisions we have Pilbara, Kimberley, Wheatbelt, Mid West(Gascyone, Murchison, Wheatbelt over laps), Goldfields SouthWest, Peel, Great Southern etc. Gnangarra13:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
That is very telling, good point - most Xfd and RM item proposers never have the courtesy to actually engage with the community as such - thanks Scott for that JarrahTree04:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Be nice to the librarians tomorrow (Wed 17 October)
I am doing edit training tomorrow (Wed 17 October) morning (Qld time) with a group of librarians from a number of university libraries in the Queensland. As always, librarians are good faith contributors (albeit a little over-enthusiastic at times), but most/all will be new to Wikipedia and they will not yet know all our rules etc, so please be nice to them. This particular group are involved with digitising material including photos, so we will also be doing one or more uploads on Commons, so watch out for them there too! Please send welcome messages, thanks, and generally don't bite them. They should all have a declaration of employment at some university or other on their user page (because of the paid editing disclosure) so that should make them easy to spot as it should be their first edit. Their first non-user-page edit will be about a university library (not their own). After that, they could end up anywhere but most likely on Queensland content. Although the session will explain how to create articles, we will not be creating new articles in the session (and I strongly discourage attempting new articles until they have had a lot practice at expanding existing articles). But past experience has shown me that some of them will attempt new articles sooner than I would like. So again, be gentle if you spot them doing that. Since these folks have access to a lot of interesting content, obviously we benefit if they become confident and proficient contributors. Kerry (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Lots of anonymous edits adding information about how various senators voted on the Pauline Hanson motion along the lines of "In October 2018 Hinch voted against a controversial motion put forward by senator Pauline Hanson which stated that "it is okay to be white"".[ref]Evans, Nick (16 October 2018). "Government support for Pauline Hanson's 'It's OK to be white' motion was an error, says Mathias Cormann". The West Australian. The West Australian and Seven West Media (WA). Retrieved 17 October 2018.[</ref] I've seen action on most of the crossbencher articles as well as Di Natale's but it probably only belongs in Hansons article as is too obscure to warrant mention. And if it does warrant mention in individual articles, why would it not be in all the senator articles. Thoughts? Donama (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - WP:due weight definitely needs to be applied, and they then voted the opposite in any case in a consequential vote. More relevant might be that the senators did not know what they were voting on and just followed what they were told to do which in this case was a stuff up. Yes only in Hanson's article. Aoziwe (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It is, of course, already moving through various ecosystems as an amendment to the earlier 'antirascist' social experimentation. The history and application of policy at the article It's OK to be white may provide some direct precedents for stifling the disinformation and discord of fascist agitprop with any toing and froing in tangentially related articles. If I got involved it would be to look at the notability of any content, the material being parroted offsite would fail if scrutinised with reference to N and V. — cygnis insignis03:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Help needed to categorise these images
User:Fæ is in the process of uploading the 45,000+ Flickr stream of an Australian photographer to the commons at: c:Category:Photographs by Sheba Also; so far 22,000+ have been done and are primarily of great quality. Most are Australian locations, events and people. For those of you who have little else to do, please do some categorising and don't forget you can use the "Perform batch task" feature on commons images.
Being such a large quantity it's impossible to go through each one per-upload, so if you find any having serious personality rights, freedom of panorama issues or for any other reason to deletion, please ping me when starting a deletion nomination, so I can review and support or object as appropriate. Most personal images of the uploader and his family should probably be removed for privacy reason but as he did a blanket relicensing, they will not be noticed at upload. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In some previous conversations I had with Fæ about stuff like this, he said he'd be careful to categorise images in the future to avoid uploading large numbers of images which are either not categorised, are placed in irrelevant categories or are placed in very high level categories again. I guess not. Most of the photos seem totally useless, and many have personality rights issues (for instance, photos of random plane spotters doing nothing in particular). Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Nick. Although there's some obviously useful stuff in there (I just found a photo of one of my NSW heritage articles that was missing one), the amount of it is completely drowned by the amount that's rubbish completely unsuitable for comments. This really either needs someone to have gone through and only uploaded the useful bits or else someone with the permissions to mass-delete all the junk. There's also a large number of pictures with black borders which really ought to be cropped before being usable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I was going to try to tag a bunch of these but I've just given up in frustration because even the photos we actually really need aren't usable due to the borders and for some reason Commons won't take cropping them out as a new version. This really needs to be done properly instead of in this way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Just the ones that came with the computer. Not the first time I've cropped images for Wikipedia and haven't had that problem before - just the first time I've had to try to do it to fix a botched one already on Commons. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I can relatively quickly sort the images as per User:Aoziwe/sandbox/commons upload/sample, ie over a few days. If some people can then confirm and we can then get some bulk action ? In the link I have recommended some for unambiguous (?) deletion. I also suggest "person or people" get deleted (personality rights ?) and "artworks" (freedom of panorama / copyright ?) get deleted Aoziwe (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I think deleting notable people is overkill (and I can see some there) but otherwise that seems like a good start. I wish there was a similarly broad-brush way of dealing with the damn borders.The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks The Drover's Wife. I presume you mean mainly the olympians? I can flag people as possibly notable, but, sorry, I do not know who 99% of them are as individuals. Can we still use their image without their permission? I will be able to provide the material in spreadsheets off wiki if it will help people sift through the material. More lists tonight. Aoziwe (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We can. (We do it all the time, too - "rock up to a public event and snap a photo of the person" has long been one of the main ways Wikipedia has gotten photographs of living people.) I probably don't know who the Olympians are either, but someone who does can work it out one day as long as they're tagged in some broadly useful category - I find unlabelled photos of things I'm doing articles on often enough. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I should be able to have some assessment of 20k+ of these for others to look at in a couple of days. There is a lot of repetition. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I am taking a second, more detailed, look at these and it is taking longer than I first thought it would. In the meantime, how much consensus do we need to delete a lot of these? For example, should there be dozens and dozens of images of autumn foliage, dozens and dozens of images of unidentifiable people made up as zombies (many very well actually), and dozens and dozens of images of presumably the photographer's grandson in all sorts of uninteresting places? Aoziwe (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I might be being pedantic, but a lot of readers of Australian articles might not be native English speakers and also might not have our contextual idiom.
I think the census data in many articles should state:
dd.d% of people spoke only English at home (They did not speak a language other than English at home.)
rather than:
dd.d% of people only spoke English at home (They spoke a language other than English when not at home.)
I agree the sentences are different, and don't recall what the question was. The summary on the Census Quickstats page is "In Australia 72.7% of people only spoke English at home. Other languages spoken at home included Mandarin 2.5%, Arabic 1.4%, Cantonese 1.2%, Vietnamese 1.2% and Italian 1.2%." below a table that has a row title "English only spoken at home". I think that means that the source supports the second form, regardless of what it meant. I don't recall if there was sufficient fidelity in the questions to identify people who speak a LOTE in Australia outside of their homes, or people who speak a LOTE at home but English the rest of the day. --Scott DavisTalk03:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
So what do we do when a "reliable source" gets it wrong? I have sent them a message re their wording. I wonder if they will reply? Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The census asked what is the primary/main language spoken at home, there was no followup of whether people spoken any other languages at home nor anything about using other languages outside of home. Its why we have so many Indigenous languages being declare critically endangered or extinct, unfortunately such declarations mean funding is also more readily available to researchers, and Universities to preserve these languages so there is no reason to actively dispute the information collection methodology. Gnangarra13:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
So the question asked really only supports a statement along the lines of "dd.d% of people mainly spoke English at home" or "dd.d% of people spoke mainly English at home", but does not have the fidelity to distinguish between those two statements. --Scott DavisTalk03:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The 2016 Census asked (with italics as they appear on the form):
16. Does the person speak a language other than English at home?
Mark one box only.
If more than one language other than English, write the one that is spoken most often.
Answers to choose from are:
No, English only
Yes, Mandarin
Yes, Italian
Yes, Arabic
Yes, Cantonese
Yes, Greek
Yes, Vietnamese
Yes, other (please specify)
Source: a copy of the paper form I completed in 2016. I can't find a copy of the 2016 form online, but I did find a sample 2011 form. It has the exact same question 16, with the same possible answers but specific non-English languages in a different order.
Note that the question does not ask what the primary language is (if more than 1 language is spoken), only what the primary non-English language is. Someone who spoke (at home) 99% English and 1% Mandarin should give exactly the same answer as someone who spoke 1% English and 99% Mandarin, or even 0% English and 100% Mandarin - ie "Yes, Mandarin".
Thanks all to date. I do not see any basic disagreements above. I think we can safely say that the ABS is, in the context of my issue, reporting on those people who selected No, English only, so the question of primary other or mainly is not at issue here. My concern is that the wording "only spoke..at home" does not mean "only English at home" / "No, English only at home". Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Mitch for finding and quoting the exact question. From that, it looks like the "correct" form of wording to unambiguously reflect the input should be "dd.d% did not speak any language other than English at home." I doubt we can change and enforce that on every article that uses census data though. --Scott DavisTalk13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. I might be getting confused with the heritage templates. Next question then, I have used bare links to reference Local Government (Shires) Act 1905 not knowing what {{cite}} format I should use or what the citation should look like. Is there a template I can use or a MoS for referencing a government gazette? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. No matter how I searched I couldn't put my hand on one of these! See {{Gazette NSW}} for the finshed which works but not sure it is quite right in its layout re: the issue number. Cheers! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks. I've recently created this amendment page and would warmly welcome advice as to how to improve it. Any recommendations of where I should turn, or ways to ensure that it moves beyond a Start-Class? Thanks hugely for your help!--OLEWiki99 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
You might like to check out the Bail Act 2013 article for ideas, because it's rated as B-class. In particular, there's clearly been a deep-dive into some Australian law academic databases and into the back issues of the SMH. Bail is possibly 'more interesting' than family law, though. Your article doesn't clearly set out why the law was amended, which would be of interest to readers. Even if an article is well-sourced, if the prose is unclear, not grammatically correct, or otherwise needs a copy-edit, it is likely to languish in start-class. Yours is very good for a first go, though. Good luck! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Chris Dawson
Just created Chris Dawson (rugby league) as part of a few articles I hope to write on the The Teacher's pet podcast series (which I can thoroughly recommend). However, I don't follow rugby and hope I have this part right, could anyone with a bit more expertise on the subject take a bit of a look please? For those interested other articles that will be expanded include: Cromer Campus and Disappearance of Lynette Dawson. Best regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Moriori:, Not actually cut and pasted: The reference says Two separate coronial inquests in 2001 and 2003 ruled she must be dead and was most likely murdered by her husband and article says Lynette Dawson's body has never been found but two coronial inquests were conducted in 2001 and 2003 with both ruling that Lynette Dawson must be dead and was most likely murdered by Chris Dawson. Cut and paste implies copying which means they would be the same, which they are not. If you think the wording is too close then feel free to change it. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes in by-election articles
There has recently been a push to include infoboxes in Australian by-election articles - see here for the current dispute involving Wentworth. They have also been added to federal by-election articles going back to 2008. Since this is clearly a disputed issue, I think this needs to be discussed at a central location: whether infoboxes are suitable for these articles. A couple of contextual points:
Infoboxes are usual for by-elections overseas - to take only the Anglosphere, in the UK, although generally only fairly recent ones; in the US; in New Zealand; in Ireland; and elsewhere. (The Canadian project, in keeping with their generally quirky approach to electoral politics, doesn't do individual by-election pages at all.)
Infoboxes for Australian by-elections are a recent thing, only being added in the last year or so.
My own position is that infoboxes are a poor fit for Australian by-election articles. They do not fit at all well with the preferential system (their use in general election articles is a necessity, but a frequently awkward one), they present all the usual problems of whom to include (see here and here for some especially egregious examples), and I am yet to be convinced that they add anything of value to an article that is not already included in the basic results table, which in this case is not very far down the page. I will not attempt to summarise the pro-infobox arguments but invite proponents to do so below, and then we can at least have a centralised discussion about this issue going forward.
A final note: I listed the international examples for context, but I do not think they are particularly relevant to this discussion. As the examples show, not all projects do this the same way, and not all electoral systems are the same. Frickeg (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I recall that I added some infoboxes to by-elections in the past, but I did not make the first one for Australian by-elections. Fortunately, we have been able to make infoboxes fit with Australia's preferential voting system, and there being nothing egregious about the examples from Mayo in 2008 and North Sydney in 2015. It's a poor argument to say that the infoboxes don't add anything not already on the page, as they simply are not supposed to do that, and that is very much discouraged. They are a summary of the results which are already in the article, similar to the infoboxes for general elections. It's worth noting that most articles have infoboxes, so it would be more unusual for these articles to not have infoboxes than if they do. Being preferential elections, the obvious choice is to include the final two vote candidates. That is completely consistent with the AEC, the ABC, and election results on Wikipedia's own Australian seat election articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I could go either way on this. I feel like there are two big problems looking at the Wentworth case. Firstly, it's extremely confusing to the uninitiated by including only 2PP votes in a many-candidate race: if I weren't a hack, or were from say the US, I would assume Dave Sharma got 43% of the primary vote based upon that, which would be very wrong. This also hides important information: for example, the primary vote changes in Longman had historically significant consequences, but that wouldn't be represented in this kind of infobox. Secondly, we have enough trouble getting photos of MPs as it is, and infoboxes with photos are going to mean either a lot of blank spaces or very bad photos of candidates (as at Wentworth). If these two issues could be resolved, I can see how an infobox could potentially be helpful: I don't think I agree that it's usually unfair to include only the candidates in the 2CP in most cases (although that gets in a bit questionable in a race like Wagga Wagga where the 2CP candidates weren't even resolved until very late counting). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your example with people unaware of the preferential vote. You're saying it would be wrong to assume Dave Sharma got 43% of the primary vote? I think the picture of Kerryn Phelps on the Wentworth infobox is likely to be gone soon, since it was removed by consensus from her own article. The better assumption is that some infoboxes would only have one picture (of the winning candidate), not that there would be bad pictures. Half of the importance about the Longman swing would be shown in the drop of the Liberal primary, but I think the swing to One Nation in that election is probably better shown in the rest of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
As an innocent bystander, my 10c is that the Wentworth infobox box tells me that David Sharma got 43% of the "popular vote", which seems to be what it is saying in the table in the relevant section of the article, except there the column is headed "Votes" (neither popular nor unpopular). If I understand "popular vote" and "votes" as "primary votes" (as in, they put 1 against Sharma's name), which is my intuitive interpretation of these, then I think my understanding of both the infobox and the table is correct. Personally I don't like the term "popular vote" as it implies that there exists some other kind of unpopular vote. But, if you understand preferential voting, then it is probably fair to say that in Australia we do actually elect the least unpopular candidate, but I don't think that line of thought is likely to occur to most Australians let alone the wider world. But I guess my point is I would prefer to see "Primary vote" in both the infobox and the table as being the more correct term for what is being reported (and if not that, then at least use the same term in both). However, once you go beyond the primary vote, the infobox and the table get a bit more confusing even for an Australian. The infobox talks about TCP (which links to Two-party-preferred vote, which does involve the letters T and P but does not involve the letter C at all - why not TPP? or is the article wrongly named as it is really the two-candidate-preferred vote as we are voting for candidates and not parties?). Meanwhile in the table, we call it the two-candidate-preferred result (a result, not a vote) but it also links to the Two-party-preferred vote article, so evidentally we are talking about the same thing, just with different names and and acryonyms. Getting this terminology standardised would clearly help people trying to interpret these electoral results. Now, frankly I don't know how a non-Australian reader can make the transition between the popular vote and the TCP in the infobox, because clearly you do need to understand our preferential voting. But if you look at the table, the non-Australian reader is none the wiser on that score as there is no "join the dots" there either between Sharma being the more popular and Phelps winning. All the table gives you is more candidates and since the top two on this list are the two in the infobox box, it doesn't seem too mysterious to the reader that these two alone were in the infobox. I also note if you are not Australian, the infobox doesn't actually tell you who won, was it Sharma with the most popular vote or Phelps with the higher TCP vote? If you look at the table, again it isn't clearly spelled out "And the winner is ...", although you do get the "Independent gain from Liberal" comment which might make you think that Phelps (independent) has won over Sharma (Liberal), which is true, but of course the gain being referred to is between this and the previous election (nothing to do with Sharma). My point of all this is that these articles are actually quite hard to understand even when you have a working knowledge of our system of voting. Is there any reason we should not make the winner a bit more obvious in both the table and the infobox?! For that matter the text of the article doesn't declare Phelps the winner other than Antony Green's prediction. Hang on, I just noticed that in the infobox down underneath the map Phelp is listed as elected MP. I didn't see it because on my laptop screen, I see only down as far as the popular vote percentage in the infobox and a "page down" stops just short of the Previous MP & Elected MP bit of the infobox, so the info is on my 3rd screen of the article. Hmm. Perhaps that information could be more prominent, like at the top of the infobox! I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Phelps is on the left of the infobox because she was the winner. If so, could "Elected MP" be put on the line below the photos, just above her name? So, I think there is nothing wrong with the infobox as a summary of the table for an Australia reader, but both could be tidied up in terms of terminology, consistency and layout. And I think the words "after distribution of preferences" being inserted in both places between the primary and the TCP/TPP votes would make it just that little bit easier for Australians to grasp, say, why Sharma got more primary votes but didn't win (by reminding the reader of preferences). Similarly, I think the lede should say in the 2nd para "Although David Sharma had the highest primary vote, after the distribution of preferences, Kerryn Phelps was declared the elected MP" (or something like that. Now when it comes to people from elsewhere understanding these articles, I don't think the infobox makes a difference. I think if we make it more explicit in the text, in the table and in the infobox who the winner is, that is probably enough for the overseas reader. We cannot include a complete description of our voting sytem in each election or by-election article. All we can do is put links for TCP/TPP and "after distribution of preferences" and hope they follow these link to learn how it works. Frankly I struggle with understanding exactly how the US Electoral College system actually elects the Presidents but, even without that knowledge, I can still understand the simple fact that Trump won. I have no clue how they vote in most countries of the world, so I think I would realise I needed to read the relevant articles if I wanted to delve more deeply into their election results, beyond "and the winner is ...". So I don't think our articles, tables or infoboxes need to be made idiot-proof for the foreign reader. Kerry (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Popular vote I think is very misleading, actually, no, it is wrong. It should be primary vote. The TPP vs TCP abbreviation versus linked article title needs to be fixed. Should the infobox say TPP candidates to indicate there are other candidates too? I see no harm, and some value, in having an infobox, provided its content, including labels, is accurate. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess the labels issue could be solved through the use of the "1blank", 2blank", "1data1", "1data2", etc fields in the infobox election template, as in the example right there --->
TCP is bad. It will have no meaning to most readers, and Infoboxes are meant to deliver information quickly. It will deliver no information to most people. It links to Two-party-preferred vote. Phelps is not in a party!
Showing photos of only two people in a 16 horse race, won by an independent, is again misleading. Were there only two candidates?
The colour bars will only have meaning for aficionados. Infoboxes are not meant for aficionados. They will inevitably read the text. And why grey for Phelps?
There is no explanation for why Sharma is there at all.
The way Turnbull is mentioned at the bottom could imply that HE lost the election.
And the Phelps pic is appalling. Don't excuse it on the basis of a better one (probably) being available soon. The fact that such a crappy one CAN be so easily included shows there is something wrong with our processes.
I've changed it to link to two-candidate-preferred vote since that is what's appropriate for Wentworth, and to 2CP (2PP) which is used more often than TCP (TPP). I have also removed the Phelps image. Colour bars underneath candidates are very standard for election infoboxes, they are used to visually associate candidates with groups. Grey is used uniformly for independents since grey is a neutral colour, and Phelps is an independent. It seems unlikely that people would assume there are only two candidates simply because of there being only two in the infobox, since every other election infobox does not contain every single candidate, and since the primary vote percentages do not add up to 100%. Most of what you're saying would be criticisms for infoboxes generally, not their use on by-election pages. You're assuming very little of passive readers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
2CP is inaccurate. Many Sharma voters "always vote Liberal". They don't care who the candidate is. This fact is easily sourced. Your comments on colours imply far too much insider knowledge. The mere fact that it was so easy to include an appalling image of Phelps is part of the problem. "Most of what you're saying would be criticisms for infoboxes generally, not their use on by-election pages." Well, yes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Not joining the whole discussion, but for a by-election preferences are always distributed as two candidate preferences. For a full election, two party preferences are done state/nation-wide between the top two parties, even in electorates where Coalition and Labor were not represented by the top two candidates.
It does not matter how each voter chose which candidate to vote for on the day, they ultimately either preferred Sharma or preferred Phelps. It could be interesting to see if the Electoral Commission will at some point (after declaration of the result I'd expect) do a Liberal-Labor preference distribution so that analysts have something to waffle about at the general election. If it shows that Sharma would have beaten Murray, then that's fine, because more people preferred Phelps than Sharma which shows the process works. If it shows that Murray would have beaten Sharma, it's fine too, as it shows that more people preferred "not-Sharma", which is still what they got. What we don't get to see at all is a Phelps-Murray preference that includes the votes of people who preferred Sharma to either of them. --Scott DavisTalk11:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Another thought: "TCP swing" is meaningless if the candidates have changed, and "TPP swing" is not meaningful if the two parties have changed. Therefore the swing should not be reported for the recent Wentworth by-election unless it's Sharma-Murray compared to Turnbull-Hughes, and even then needs more explanation than is possible in an infobox. There was also no "swing" towards Phelps on primary votes, as Phelps was not a candidate last time, so there is no data on how many voters would have chosen her over whoever they did vote 1 for. --Scott DavisTalk11:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Do you realize your reasons to oppose the use of the infobox are based on outright misrepresentations of how the infobox does work? Let's analize them one by one:
TCP is bad (Etc). The linked article explains the difference between TPP and TCP. If anything, if you have an issue in how this is represented in Wikipedia, you should bring this issue on the Two-party-preferred vote article. How TCP/TPP is depicted in Wikipedia has nothing to do with infobox mechanics.
The colour bars will only have meaning for aficionados (Etc). This whole argument is a fallacy based only on a personal opinion, so that pretty much answers it. Grey is used for Phelps because she ran as an independent, and grey is the color used throughout Wikipedia to depict independent candidates. Further, each candidate's allegiance is shown just below their names. Thus, if you really have serious concerns at understanding what do these colours mean, then it's likely you do not have the competence required to be at Wikipedia, as this is how election infoboxes work throughout the whole WP.
There is no explanation for why Sharma is there at all. Because he was the second-placed candidate, maybe? Again, if you are unable to understand this, then this is a CIR issue.
The way Turnbull is mentioned at the bottom could imply that HE lost the election. Turnbull is explicitly shown as the "MP before election". Where is the alleged implication that "HE lost the election"?
the Phelps pic is appalling (etc). Very sorry that you don't like it, but it abides to WP guidelines. Nonetheless, some infoboxes work with placeholder images or no images at all, so even this would nnot be an issue.
Overall, using an Infobox there simply doesn't work. It doesn't work for you because you don't like it, but it doesn't mean it does not work for others.
Many Sharma voters "always vote Liberal". They don't care who the candidate is. This fact is easily sourced. This is both WP:OR and entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand, anyway. What are you trying to imply with this? Phelps won the by-election precisely due to winning on 2CP, so how is it "inaccurate"?
Your comments on colours imply far too much insider knowledge. It pretty much obvious that you need at least three university degrees and one Nobel Prize to understand what is going on with colours (irony). Again, a CIR issue.
Well, yes. Well, no.
Further, many of your "concerns" (if we can refer to them like this) refer to general infobox mechanics, and have little to nothing to do with the particular case of Australian by-elections or the Wentworth by-election. Colour and image issues raised are equal for all infoboxes throughout Wikipedia (that is why I suggested this discussion to be brought into WP:WPE&R rather than here, but whatever). So, unless you are seriously concerned on these issues and are willing to try to enforce a change throughout Wikipedia, I would say most of these are just brought in an attempt to try to undermine election infoboxes in general just because you did not wish to use it in the Wentworth by-election article. Most of these are not really arguments against its use, but just deliberate misrepresentations of reality. Impru20talk15:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That post is the biggest load of insulting, arrogant, offensive, non-empathic crap I have seen for quite some time. It could probably be reported, but I really can't be bothered. I also cannot be bothered responding to your individual points. I have made mine. Others agree with me. Your comments are not helping to change mine. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It certainly seems like you're criticising infoboxes beyond their use for Australian by-elections, to oppose infoboxes being used. What are your criticisms that are specific to infoboxes being used on Australian by-elections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48:That post is the biggest load of insulting, arrogant, offensive, non-empathic crap I have seen for quite some time Why is it that everytime you get a throughout answer to your complains, you act like if it wasn't with you and reply with insults or like if you did not hear what was said to you? Further, Onetwothreeip has specifically asked you on your specific criticism on infoboxes, yet your only reply has been to go back to the Wentworth article and start a new discussion which is all about the same all over again. What is the point of all of this? Impru20talk22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Communicating information clearly to our readers is the name of our game. As a non Australian I think the Wentworth infobox fails miserably. If it is proposed to introduce such an abomination project wide (on Oz by-elections), then lead me to the "central location" mentioned above so I can oppose.Moriori (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
That's the problem right there. Nobody disputes that the monarch is the monarch. On the other hand, anybody who took part in the republic referendum some time ago would be aware that there was and has been considerable debate over the term "head of state", and there are consequent NPOV factors. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Question regarding Australian fishery
I'm asking here because I would like to reach the right amount of Aussies. My question is:
What are the largest Australian fishery ports?
There is information about the license-holders by state and by fish in this PDF (Table 50). Would it be possible to assume from this to where most fish by value/volume must land?
I do not see how. Some of these fisheries are a few thousand kilometres long, and have multiple major ports. I have had a quick look and the best I can find is by state/territory but that does not help much because they too can have multiple major ports. You might look through here and here and there might be something that helps. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Climate of Australia
There has been a lot of attack on Climate of Australia. There was a real doozy which I have fixed here I hope, but if a few more people can check it to see that everything is now fixed please. (How do you get text upside down like that? I now know.) Aoziwe (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yikes. The VSU article is almost completely unsourced and judging by the tone nearly entirely dates from about 2005. The absence of any mention whatsoever of SSAF shows how dated it is. The broader student unionism article doesn't seem too bad apart from being unsourced - the actual content mostly seems alright apart from an obsession with VSU in the post-1970s section of the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Paul Benjamin Austin: - I've been looking at it on and off since asked to do so, and I'm really not sure where to start. A view slowly forming in my mind is that it should be severely pruned, removing almost all of the arguments to and fro (which will never look balanced to everyone), and just leaving a description of what happened. There's nothing on the Talk page right now. It's all been archived. So I wondered if it was worth putting what I have just written there. I was concerned no-one would ever look at it. I wasn't really confident to just get stuck into the article alone. Please tell me if you think I'm completely on the wrong track. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: i deleted the talk page because a lot of it was gloating by conservatives about how great the impact of VSU was - which isn't what a talk page is for. Feel free to edit the article as you see fit. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
This bit - "Section 116 also protects the right of a person to have no religion by prohibiting the Commonwealth from "imposing any religious observance" - strikes me as a interpretation by an Wikipedia editor coloured by the modern day wide acceptance of atheism. In 1900, when the Constitution was written, atheists were unacceptable to say the least. I just don't think supporting atheists right to not believe in God was the intention in 1900. Remember how horribly "conchies" were treated in World War I? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not an interpretation - it's a straightforward paraphrasing of the 1943 reference, which says
The prohibition in s. 116 operates not only to protect the freedom of religion, but also to protect the right of a man to have no religion. No Federal law can impose any religious observance. ... Section 116 proclaims not only the principle of toleration of all religions, but also the principle of toleration of absence of religion.
@Mitch Ames:@The Drover's Wife:, Agreed. Like I said, given how horribly conscientious objectors and others who opposed World War I were treated just a few years after the Constitution was written (treatment so horrible it had to be toned down in a 1980s child-orientated drama about it), it should be made clearer in the article that when the Constitution was drafted, the right to be atheist was very much not supported and it should be explained that the High Court has often creatively interpreted the Constitution to accommodate changing social values, given how difficult it is to amend. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
In 1900, when the Constitution was written, atheists were unacceptable to say the least. when the Constitution was drafted, the right to be atheist was very much not supported
I don't need a source to prove a negative. There needs to be a RS that indicates that the High Court's ruling in 1943 supporting the rights of atheists is what the writers of the constitution intended in 1900, which i am skeptical of, given how people like Charles Bradlaugh were treated for being atheists not that much earlier and how those who supported pacifism were treated in WWI. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"Atheists were unacceptable" is a positive assertion that would require a citation.
I agree that "the right to be atheist was not supported" is a negative assertion, but a negative assertion can't be grammatically comparative - there are no degrees of "not" - so "very much not supported" does not make sense (unless interpreted as the positive assertion "very much opposed").
If we add some text about the intent of the writers in 1900, we do need to clearly distinguish between the intent in 1900, later interpretations (eg in 1943) and (where it differs) the current interpretation - especially if those intents/interpretations have changed over time.
If the intent was not to permit the right to be an atheist, then there should need to be some reference to contemporary (1890s) documents noting that. In its absence, then the 1943 interpretation in the High Court cannot be seen as changing the law, only as interpreting the Constitution without change. Whether or not atheists and conscientious objectors were badly treated by other citizens during world war 1 is irrelevant to whether the Commonwealth could force people to observe any religion. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia is an FA, and cites the 1943 judgement (and links to Adelaide Co of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth) without mentioning whether people have the right to no religion. --Scott DavisTalk01:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
a general "communism in Australia" article might be useful
At the moment we only have articles on the main parties and i think an article about the general communist/far-left movement in Australia would be good. As an aside, hopefully we won't be dealing with Psephos and his Wikpedia accounts and his belief that the Australian Greens and the National Union of Students (Australia) are "the legacy movement of the old Communists". Dr. Carr has a typical Baby Boomer view of the left. I, on the other hand, was 9 when the Berlin Wall fell, and do not meaningfully remember the Cold War. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I must have overlooked WP:BABYBOOMER, the policy that bans baby boomers from contributing to Wikipedia. Oh well, now I know about it, I will have a lot more spare time to go to cafes and eat smashed avocado! Kerry (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry @Kerry Raymond:, I was just irritated at Dr. Carr's behavior. His focus on the "dangers of communism" is pretty outdated. Some years ago he rewrote the Robert Conquest article to be more fawning towards Conquest's anti-communism, then complained on the talk page when the fawning was edited out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
These seem to be the result of a course at a Sydney university. It seems unlikely that most of these will get useful feedback within the course timeframe.--Grahame (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be organised in some way by someone? Looking at some of the articles they do not strike me as having been proof read. The level of writing does not appear to be consistently at tertiary level. I am loathe to start fixing their "assignments". They seem to have some real knowledge of wikipedia but then also make some basic wikimistakes. Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
University courses adding articles is not new. They see the words "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" on the main page and believe it must be true :-) They are allowed to be WP:BOLD like anybody else. In an ideal world they would reach out to the Australian community or Wikimedia Australia for help or advice, but usually the lecturer involved is a Wikipedia newbie too and either doesn't realise the need for some help or where to go for it. From a Wikimedia Australia perspective, if we do hear about such things coming up, we do try to reach out and try to help design and support the activity. Indeed, I was supporting a Gender Studies class edit-a-thon yesterday (which appears to have stayed under the radar as far as this Talk page is concerned, which illustrates the difference being in-the-loop can make). So if you are someone who is willing to be involved in supporting such events (either online or face-to-face), speak up (here or via email to committeewikimedia.org.au) because it's often hard to find someone to link up with requests (particularly face-to-face situations given the geography of our wide brown land). Kerry (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep I get all that. Is there a protocol for formally trying to get in touch with the course supervisor though? Can we ask the students to put htem in touch with us? Aoziwe (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there is a protocol for making contact but there is the WP:OUTING policy which I think prevents us from demanding answers to questions like "Are you a student in a class?" and "Who is your lecturer?" (experts on outing may want to comment but I would be cautious myself). I think if there is a self-disclosure of being a student in a course, then asking them to pass on a *friendly* message to their lecturer is OK. Kerry (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
On 1 January 2019, changes to Australia’s copyright duration laws will come into effect.Amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 will apply new standard terms of copyright protection in Australia to a range of copyright materials. This includes literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings, films and Crown copyright materials.
Can you give some more information? It would be nice to know what the change actually is; requesting people stop uploading images over 70 years old without further explanation seems unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, the changes are here and as far as I can tell don't actually affect us, since we've never been able to upload unpublished (non-Crown copyright) images as public domain that were more recent than that because of US legislation regarding recognising foreign copyrights. That was a spectacularly unhelpful post. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
What a totally pointless scare mongering "existing copyright material that is not published or otherwise made public before 1 January 2019" if its copyrighted we cant upload it any way, whether its publish or not. If its already PD ie became so on 1 Jan 2018 then it wont change status it'll still be PD. If anything we should be looking works and adding them when they are available, or encouraging people to get in before changes have effect as in this case it also says if not otherwise made public, putting here or elsewhere on the net is actually making it public, we want content to be free not hidden way where we cant share the sum of all knowledge. Gnangarra00:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The new legislation affects unpublished material. Previously they remained protected until they were published. Unpublished material never entered the public domain! After 1 January 2019, it will. We can upload non-PD images under own Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If you upload an unpublished non-crown copyright image less than 50 years old today, that will constitute making it available, and it will enter the public domain in 70 years rather than 70 years after it was created. Unpublished images 70 years old or more become PD on 1 January. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
If an item is not published it becomes PD in 70 years after making or death of author etc but some items if published might not become PD for 50+70=120 years? If so, what is the point of that?
I think the confusion comes from the differences between US and Australian law. In Australia the situation has been that unpublished works do not ever enter the public domain. The change that's coming will make Australia more similar to the US in that unpublished works will eventually become PD. It's perhaps slightly academic because (and I know this is over-simplifying) the US has treated old Australian unpublished works as being PD. SamWilson03:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct. That image was *published* in 1931. It is public domain under current copyright law (pre-1955 photo, pre-1955 newspaper). It will still be PD after these changes. The changes relate to material *never* published. Kerry (talk)
I can provide some motivation to this change in the law. As the present law stands, if anyone happens to have an unpublished manuscript of (say) a famous Australian author, they can't publish it. The copyright remains with the author or, if they are dead, with whoever inherited their copyright. If the unpublished manscripted wasn't specifically bequeathed to an individual, it usually ends up as the joint copyright of some large collection of descendants and a number of charities among whom the residual estate was shared and subsequently further bequeathed, a situation that usually makes it nigh on impossible in practice to identify, locate and obtain the necessary consent to publish or do anything with the unpublished manuscript. However, it is not uncommon for individuals or their families to have donated such original manuscripts to libraries and archives, who under present law can't do anything useful with them in perpetuity (patrons can come and view the manuscripts in person, that's it). So libraries etc have been asking for the copyright laws to change in relation to these "orphan works" (as they are commonly known). The new rules for an unpublished work will now be the same as a published work, that it becomes public domain 70 years after the author's death. This means on 1 January 2019, if the author died before 1 January 1949, their unpublished works become public domain. This will probably result in such works being digitised by libraries and archives (or by keen Wikipedians) and uploadable to Wikipedia, Commons, Wikisource etc. According to downloadable PDF the new rules cover unpublished literary, dramatic and musical works, and engravings (but not computer programs!). If the author is unknown, then the work becomes public domain 70 years after it was made, so anything of those things made by an unknown author before 1 January 1949, will become PD on 1 January 2019. So this is good news for us -- more knowledge set free! However, in practice, we will probably have to wait for the libraries/archives etc to digitise these works, unless you are able to visit in person and do it yourself or happen to have such unpublished works in your attic. Kerry (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, now that is a different kettle of fish. While the photograph of the house is undated, it is fair to assume it is a pre-1955 image and is public domain. But, and this is the big "but", you are not discussing your scan of the original image (which you could legally make), you are discussing uploading someone else's scan of that PD photo and they are asserting it is their copyright (presumably on the basis they created the digital image after 1955). Now, I am told by those who claim to understand copyright in Australia is that it is an unresolved issue whether a faithful digital scan of a public domain is also public domain or whether the person/organisation who scans it can claim copyright over the created image. In theory, a claim of copyright has to be based on a "creative act". Whether or not scanning a photo is a creative act is open to question, but alas nobody has taken such a case to the Australian courts to establish a precedent. The general argument by those who assert copyright generally goes along the lines of "we used our time and our resources to create the digital image, if we can't have the copyright over it, then why should we bother?". This is a very common position of the "small" GLAM sector who generally hope that selling rights to their ditial images will bring in money to their organisations which has limited funding. In theory, our state and national libraries have agreed to release their digitisation of public domain photos as public domain images (hurray). But having said that, some of those libraries are not releasing such images as public domain, the excuse tends to be that there is often some doubt or complexity about the provenance of the photo or the original terms under which the photo was donated to the library which needs extensive research to resolve (and they haven't got the time to undertake such enquiries so in the meantime they assert their copyright). Kerry (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion of this issue here. In the USA, a photograph or scan that is intended to be a faithful reproduction of an existing work is regarded as not meeting the threshold of originality, and therefore the photographer or scanner has no copyright under the law of the USA in the photograph or scan. I happen to agree with that view. However, as the linked article indicates, the position in Australia is not yet decided, and you will note that the author of the linked article disagrees with the view that has been taken in the USA. As to how Wikimedia should deal with the issue, my view is that Wikimedia should assume that the law in Australia is the same as in the USA until an Australian court determines otherwise, because an Australian court would normally follow overseas precedent on these sorts of issues. Indeed, a likely reason why there has been no test case in Australia since the USA decision was made nearly 20 years ago is that Australian lawyers have probably assumed that an Australian court would follow it, and have therefore advised clients not to bother taking any test case to an Australian court. There's no point in wasting money on a test case you're unlikely to win. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The pre-1955 newspapers on Trove are public domain. Everyone seems to agree on that. So that image is not problem. In terms of uploading anything to Commons, we have two or three issues. First, is it legal in Australia (assuming it is an Australian image) which is a bit of a grey zone. Second, will the Commons community allow it, noting that some of the folk there seem to take some excessively strict interpretations of things judging from reactions to some of the images I have uploaded (which I believed were OK). For those of us who do outreach work with the libraries etc (as I do), there is a third issue of not wanting to upset the organisations that we are trying to befriend. That is why I personally, steer clear of uploading digitised images where the organisation has one of those "all rights reserved" signs on it, as I don't want to get a bad reputation within the sector given that my user name is my real name. Kerry (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
A 3RR situation, so I need to hand it over to someone else.
I have no history with this article beyond intervening when I saw a reliably-cited fact deleted ("Hickey won the Tasmanian Businesswoman of the Year award in 2007" being deleted. It was cited by the Hobart Mercury at [7] Since it may be hidden to you by the Murdoch paywall, the relevant text from what appears to be mainstream news reporting (not op-ed) is "Coming back to Tasmania, she borrowed $1000 from her father to start her own marketing business, Slick Promotions, which she is still managing director of today. From humble beginnings, the company grew to become the state’s largest supplier of branded promotional products and saw Ms Hickey win the 2007 Telstra Tasmanian Business Woman of the Year title."
FWIW, I think the issue is not actually about this fact or the reliability of the source but a reaction to having earlier POV edits on this same article reverted on grounds of no citation or unreliable citation (I was not involved in these reverts). Kerry (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have a clear explanation of the difference or equivalence between a Province and a colony in 19th century Australia? South Australia's Legislative Council appears to have been elected by "The Province" and the letters patent established the "Province of South Australia" (but Province of South Australia is ecclesiastical, not government).
Seems like a Wikipedia in the 19th century would've called them provinces (at least South Australia) but retrospectively they're almost always referred as colonies. There's something similar with Northern Ireland. I'm not an expert though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Find & Connect: "In fact, South Australia was called a province rather than a colony, to help distinguish it from other colonies that had transportation in their histories." --Canley (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
From what I can tell of Western Australia, at the point of self government, it was officially the Colony of Western Australia but contemporary sources seem to also use province in a generic sense. Hack (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I feel like Onetwothreeip might have nailed it here - although the article Canley linked notes the early formal use of "Province", it overwhelmingly refers to pre-Federation South Australia as a colony. The Talk:Federation of Australia anon seems to be making a different point and I'm not sure what their suggested alternative was - dominion, perhaps? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been communicating with David G Broadbent (talk·contribs) most of today relating to his edits to the article on the proposed Port Phillip Bay Bridge that did the rounds some 20 years ago but nothing ever came of it. David is the former Managing Director of a company who worked on the proposal for the bridge at the time and he's agreed to offer his works into the public domain. If anybody can help work with his contributions to the article to bring them up to an encylopedic standard that'd be great. While there's a clear conflict of interest with his contributions, his involvement was some 20 years ago and his offer to release the entire proposal text and images would benefit the article greatly in many ways. He's new, but he's learning fast, and he's freely offered a ton of information that wasn't readily available until today. -- Longhair\talk08:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hack: Well, I went over the copyright stuff with him and informed him that content offered here must be free for re-use and he's indicated he's the author and is willing to release the information. The copyright was owned by his company which as far as I can tell no longer exists. Whatever the copyright situation, he's willing to release it under a public domain licence (assuming he owns it). -- Longhair\talk19:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks OK to me, seems to be cleanup and review of Victorian LGA articles and their locality lists, which was sorely needed. The content removal looks like changing tables of unreferenced geographical and population data per suburb to simpler lists—it's removing information, sure, but this was quite inconsistent between articles (i.e. only in City of Kingston). I'll review the edits more thoroughly later but I couldn't see anything untoward. --Canley (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor is removing my pointing out that there is no balance in the Eve van Grafhorst article - at the moment it is _very_ one-sided, giving the impression that the Gosford parents were unreasonable bigots, when in fact, Eve would not stop biting other children and the parents were concerned about infection via saliva transfer, a not unreasonable concern in the early days of the disease, when most facts about it were unknown. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NPOV was the reason for removal. You added a section that contains your own unsourced personal point of view opinion about an article subject. [8]. AldezD (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Health in Australia
How would one go about finding any detail within Wikipedia about the health system(s) in Australia, by which I really mean public health as an agency of state governments? This musing started by me noticing a little isolated snippet (which I'd added) in Oakden, South Australia about a public health scandal that occurred a couple of years ago. It almost certainly doesn't belong there in geographical article about a minor suburb. But where else? It belongs in a summary of the history of the state health system in South Australia or possibly in its own article if it became notable enough. None of the former exist. At least I couldn't find any Health sections in Aust state articles. All have a Sports section, but not health. We have so many articles about poiticians and other government officials, elected or appointed, but none to see a summary of health history like health policy, hospitals being created/shutdown, disease outbreaks, etc. 1. Is there anything out there? 2. If not, should there be? 3. If yes, how to structure it? Start from Australia#Health and branch out or just start in the state articles where the actual health policy really takes place? Donama (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd say Oakden is notable enough for its own article, FWIW - long-running issue with much press, inquiries, etc. It would be great to have more general health coverage, but difficult to write and source - I feel like breaking down "Health in Australia" to "Health in [state]" articles might potentially be easier to write (and then summarise in main articles) then trying to flesh out a couple of useful summary paragraphs on such a broad and dense topic in the main state articles from nothing. It'd be a great project if you're willing to take it on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, our coverage of health in Australia is rather patchy, which probably means we don't have anyone particularly interested in the topic. As a consequence of a talk I gave about Wikipedia last weekend, I was asked if I could add something about the National Action Plan for Endometriosis into Wikipedia (this is one of the ways outreach can backfire, instead of other people coming to contribute, they ask me to contribute on their behalf!) and I struggled to find a coherent structure, so ended up adding the information to Health in Australia in a new section called "Women's health". I know we have at least some state health departments with articles e.g. Queensland Health and I know that the history of Queensland healthcare appears in dribs and drabs in the articles about heritage-listed hospitals in Queensland. There are a few "DISEASE in Australia" articles (e.g. Skin cancer in Australia, Diabetes in Australia) but we must be a healthy lot as there aren't many of them. It's certainly not a comprehensive coverage. But then you could say that about schooling, policing, etc, where coverage of such topics in Australia is spotty at best. A lot of content on Wikipedia is triggered by news events. A policeman is shot by a bad guy in Adare, Queensland, gosh, we don't have an article on Adare, quick create one! There is contaminated food scare, gosh, we don't an article on food safety in Australia, quick create one! I've done that and I am sure others have too. But I think we do need to move to a more comprehensive way of working to ensure topics are uniformly covered. Here in sunny Queensland, I have experimented with this a bit with the heritage registers, public libraries and currently Queensland suburb/localities and schools, where you start with a list/spreadsheet of all of them (you may find this in one of the government open data portals or webscraped off websites etc) and then systematically work your way through them, either creating articles (where appropriate, e.g. heritage properties) or just adding the facts into suburb/locality articles (e.g. public libraries, which rarely possess the notability for separate articles). As a consequence, Queensland has complete coverage of heritage properties and public libraries on Wikipedia. I am moving towards getting Qld suburb/localities (as articles) and schools (as article content) fully covered. However, to make this sort of thing work, we need better means of collaboration. You need spreadsheets to capture what needs to covered and what has/hasn't been done and using on-wiki tables for this sucks, partly because of the syntax but mostly because you want to use tool suppport in managing the information and it is easy to read/write a CSV file but no so easy to readwrite a Wikipedia table. Shared spreadsheets using Google Drive (or similar) is a viable technology but fails WP:OUTING as all the participants can see one another's email addresses. We need something similar but accessible with Wikipedia user names (not outing). I note that text generation based on spreadsheets or webscraping speeds up the task considerably, where the human user just has to copyedit the generated material rather than research and write it in the first place. A more comprehensive approach is possible, but some tool support needs to be developed. Kerry (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Kerry. What type of tools did you have in mind. While it has been some time for me to work on such I would not mind trying to contribute if possible, although my wikitime can be somewhat unreliable. For example, as an exercise have been tinkering with this, motivated by some discussion here. I have an off wiki version pretty much working, but now have to clean up and optimise the code and put a wiki template shell around the common core components. Still a fair bit of work and learning to be done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just created the page 2018–19 Australian bushfire season and had a quick look at the previous years effort - 2017–18 Australian bushfire season. After creating the 2017-2018 season article mid-season I had a couple of long overseas holidays did not put any effort into updating it and as a result it now looks terribly incomplete. I was hoping other Australian editors may recall larger fires that occurred around Australia during this time could pitch in where they can to update the article. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Missing Companions of the Order of Australia articles.
I'm feeling like it might be time we had an article on the Lawyer X scandal - I've been a little bit hesitant about doing it given some of the sensitivities, but there's such a drumbeat of coverage that isn't going anywhere and it's only going to get moreso with the Royal Commission. Anyone have any thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Definitely needs an article and there's no injunction against reporting the case except for the name of the barrister and things like that. I would've started it but I have no clue how. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the point of waiting on the basis of the Royal Commission: this has already sprawled so wide that we're going to need at least two articles (one on the scandal, one on the Royal Commission) as while there will some overlap, there will be plenty of material to cover both. We probably don't have enough information to do Royal Commission Into the Management of Informants without some more details of that being released, but we IMO have well more than enough for Lawyer X scandal. I'd like some more opinions before we do anything, though, given that it covers a lot of extremely sensitive issues concerning BLPs. I'd also really prefer (if we decide to do this) to see an admin create the article so it can be instantly semi-protected, removing the potential need to oversight attempts to break the suppression order. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No objection to the article, buy can we please avoid using the word "scandal"? It's such a tabloid term. Perhaps something like "Lawyer X informant" or "Lawyer X breach of privilege"? WWGB (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we'll be calling it something about "Lawyer X". That's not at all the primary name for the subject, and personally I haven't heard the lawyer being called Lawyer X, I've only heard them called by fake initials or by Informant 3838. Something involving "Melbourne gangland" for sure, and I can't think of how else to describe it other than scandal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggested Lawyer X scandal because it seemed like the most common name I could find: the Herald Sun, The Age, the ABC, The Australian, The Guardian, Channel 9, Crikey and 3AW have all used it, which is about as close to a cross-section of the Australian media as you can get. There are no Google hits for "Informant 3838 scandal", though I have no objection to that title. As far as the naming: the police called her "Informant 3838", the High Court called her "EF", but the media called her "Lawyer X" while the suppression cases were being fought; while all three have been used in the last couple days, a bit of a Google News search seems to suggest they've settled on "Lawyer X" as the most common name - take a look for yourselves.
I'd be wary of "Lawyer X breach of privilege" because it's not undisputed that she did, in fact, technically break her clients' privilege - that's still an allegation. "Lawyer X informant" is a bit vague - it reads like a cut off title. "Melbourne gangland" anything seems like to be too vague given the context of the gangland wars - this is an issue specifically about the lawyer and the police handling of her as an informant. I'm not sure I understand the opposition to "scandal": every single media outlet I can find has called it that and given the Royal Commission it seems to be a bit hard to dispute. The Guardian called it "one of the biggest legal scandals in Australian history", and every other outlet seems to be taking the same line. Very happy to hear other suggestions if anyone has better ideas though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It might be only about the lawyer and the police for now, but there are potentially 600 people who could have their convictions overturned and their retrials will certainly be a major part of the story, as well as the royal commission too. The media is referring to the story by all sorts of names, including Lawyer X, Informant 3838, gangland barrister and so on. I would avoid using the word scandal but there's not much else to use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip: the problem with that title is that there is more than one gangland informer scandal (the Murders of Terrence and Christine Hodson already has its own article). The Royal Commission is inevitably going to have to trawl through both due to the connections between them but there's a need to be clear about what we're talking about here or we're going to really sprawl. Melbourne gangland lawyer informer scandal is getting a bit unwieldy - any other ideas? I also think a lot of the broader stuff that will come out of the Royal Commission probably belongs in a Royal Commission article down the line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that's unworkably broad: the Hodson murders is already its own distinct topic with its own article that is not short of material (and easily expanded). There is enough overlap with the Lawyer X mess such that I don't see how the Hodsons don't wind up being dragged into the Royal Commission, but most of the Lawyer X stuff has nothing to do with the Hodsons. The Royal Commission is inevitably going to go into some other places as well. If we try and mash all of this together, we're going to wind up with an utterly massive article that's sprawling to the point of incoherence. I really don't see an alternative to having a distinct article on all the Lawyer X stuff, a distinct article on the Hodsons (as already exists), and an article on the Royal Commission covering the inquiry and the overarching mess. I certainly can't write one overarching article about it all that makes a damn bit of sense (especially after anything else happens). The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think people will only associate "informer scandal" to be the current one about 3838, and not the Hodson murders. I don't think readers will be disappointed that an "informer scandal" article about 3838 isn't an article about the Hodson murders, which is about more than the use of informers in that case. We're definitely getting ahead of ourselves here predicting what's going to happen with the royal commission. I thought you were suggesting the Hodson murders were very connected with the current informer scandal, but I would assume the potential retrials and acquittals would be the bulk of the continuing scandal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the opposition to using "lawyer" when that would remove any ambiguity about what the subject. "Gangland informer scandal" makes it complicated as blazes when there are two and they're vaguely connected. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggest using the title Lawyer X somethingorother... the Lawyer X title has been used since 2014 according to this Guardian article ("the informant identified as “Lawyer X” since the News Corp-owned newspaper the Herald Sun published a series of stories coining the moniker in 2014."[10]). I like Paul foord's idea of beginning with the HC article then branching out from there. -- Longhair\talk05:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Nothing that cannot be fixed with a page move once another name for the saga finds itself mainstream. For now, it seems to be the name that's gained traction and has been used for some time. -- Longhair\talk05:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Using the High Court case is a novel take, but I'm not sure it works: the High Court judgment was very brief, essentially just quickly affirming a 2016 New South Wales Supreme Court decision. It was merely the final catalyst for lifting the suppression orders on the case, and fairly small fry in the scheme of things - the judgment itself doesn't really have any lasting legal, cultural or historical significance beyond being the last shot for police at preventing the suppression orders from being lifted. I'd be (genuinely) interested to hear an argument for how it's notable in its own right, or how it's practical to structure an article about events between 2003 and 2009 entirely around the denial of an appeal to stop the suppression orders on them being lifted in 2018. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I've just started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Indigenous names about the best way to add Indigenous names to articles about Australian places. I've no strong view about the best way to do it (that is, whether or not that template and perhaps others should be modified) but I think we should have the ability to do this and to do it consistently. Queensland already lists some indigenous names in its place name database as official or unofficial alternative names and with 2019 being UNESCO's Year of Indigenous Languages, I expect we will see increased interest in indigenous place naming. Obviously we are all aware of Ayers Rock being renamed Uluru, which in our case is accommodated by Template:Infobox mountain having an other_name field where the old name of Ayers Rock is captured. However, we don't have the same ability for a town/suburb/locality in Infobox Australian place. Should we routinely create redirects for the "other name" (be it English or Indigenous)? Ayers Rock is a redirect to Uluru (no surprises there) but should I be redirecting Woppaburra, Wop-Pa, Wapparaburra to Great Keppel Island? In what circumstances should I do it? If it's officially gazetted? If Indigenous people say it's their name for that place? etc. Anyway your thoughts are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Indigenous names. Kerry (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have a standard way of recording the indigenous names for things and places. We do need some form of verfiability though, the same as for non indigenous names. It should not matter what the form of verifability is as long as it is consistent with wiki principles. Yes if it is in common use and a likely search term for a reasonably sized readership of wikipedia then a redirect should be in place I think, the same as others. What we do need to be careful of though is alternative names for things and places which should be shown as such accordingly, but not conflate with such etymological appropriation of indigenous words and names for things like or nearby that non indigenous people might have just used. Such should be an Etymology section. Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The preëxisitng names for flora, mammals, and birds have been regularised in W.A., is that not the case in other 'country' in Australia? cygnis insignis16:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but I am not sure of the point you are making, but regardless, if a lexicon has been formally regularised in any way then we should be including it. Aoziwe (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Aoziwe, no apology necessary, I was hoping to be teased for more information. The extant names of mammals and birds have been recorded in southwest australia since settlement, these were analysed and refined with braod consultation to produce lists with regular orthography and pronunciation, this was published in the journal of the CSIRO. cygnis insignis14:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Infobox Australian place has a lot of functionality that IS doesn't have, like automatic categorisation, covering cadastral units, protected areas, regions and a lot of other non-settlement type places. Maybe IS should be a skin of IAP. That said, and I've already noted this at the infobox discussion, when I checked a few years ago, there were relatively few places that had gazetted indigenous names compared to the number of uses of the template (currently 13,089) and most of those are relatively unknown. Many are even dubious. For example, Karuah is supposedly an Aboriginal word meaning "native plum tree" but nobody really knows, including local Aboriginals I've asked. This extends to the word itself. Karuah is the name of the village and suburb but that may not be an actual indigenous name. When it comes to indigenous names they really need discussion in the prose but many are so obscure as to be not worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Another issue related to this is that {{Native name}} doesn't seem to cater for Australian indigenous languages. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yea, though they don't seem to be involved in editing or discussing this particular article.. and it is already split. If they ask at a new article however, this may be more work to do. Gryllida (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Do we even need these articles? The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a perfectly good treaties database which Wikipedia shouldn't be mirroring. This seems out of scope for an encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we do, because it allows links to Wikipedia articles on those treaties where notable. It's a really useful index in an area where we could and should do better. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
wikimedia.org.au) because it's often hard to find someone to link up with requests (particularly face-to-face situations given the geography of our wide brown land). Kerry (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:University of Adelaide#Notable people images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)