Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help

WikiProjects edit | watch	In the news edit | watch
Portal:Australia/Projects	5 May 2025 – 2025 Australian federal election 2025 Australian Senate election The incumbent Australian Labor Party overtakes the Liberal–National Coalition as the largest plurality in the Senate, meaning support will be required only from the Coalition or the Australian Greens to pass legislation. (The Guardian Australia) 3 May 2025 – 2025 Australian federal election The Australian Labor Party under current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese increases its majority in the House of Representatives, winning a second term. (ABC News Australia). Liberal Leader Peter Dutton loses his seat of Dickson, becoming the first Leader of the Opposition to lose their seat in Australian electoral history. (ABC News Australia) 20 April 2025 – The death toll from drownings during the week across Australia increases to seven after a fisherman dies after being swept off rocks near Sydney. Three people remain missing and one other was injured. (Philippine Daily Inquirer) 7 April 2025 – Tariffs in the second Trump administration, Executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump The Nikkei 225, SSE Composite Index, and Hang Seng Index experience substantial losses following Friday’s losses on the New York Stock Exchange as a result of U.S. president Donald Trump's tariffs. European markets also decline, particularly in banking and defense sectors. The ASX 200 in Australia and the Kospi in South Korea also closes lower. (BBC News) More Australian current events See also: Current events on Wikinews
Categories edit | watch	Collaboration of the Fortnight edit | watch
Australia · Arts · Architecture · Cities · Communications · Culture · Economy · Education · Environment · Geography · Government · Healthcare · History · Law · Language · Lists · Media · Military · Music · Organisations · People · Politics · Religion · Science · Society · Sport · Subdivisions · Transport · Tourism Australian states and territories · Australian Capital Territory · New South Wales · Northern Territory · Queensland · South Australia · Tasmania · Victoria · Western Australia Capital cities · Adelaide · Brisbane · Canberra · Darwin · Hobart · Melbourne · Perth · Sydney Australia stubs · AFL stubs · Geography stubs · Government stubs · Law stubs · People stubs · Paralympic medalists stubs · Television stubs	This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. The current Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight is {{ACOTF article}}. Every fortnight a different Australia-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.
Candidates for Deletion edit | watch	Other Candidates edit | watch
Australian Wikipedians' notice board Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Layout Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63 Melbourne Meetup Next: TBD (watch) Last: 18 February 2023 See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook) Scouting in Australia Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion I am also involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. There is an article on Scouts Australia with a template that links to possible articles such as Scouting in Victoria for all States and Territories. Would anyone care to give a hand writing these? Please see Talk:Scouts Australia before starting an article. --Bduke 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply There is now a stub "Scouting in X" where X is a State or Territory. They need more detail particularly on the history of Scouting. Most, but not all, Branch web sites have little or no sense of history. --Bduke 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian States and Territories move Latest comment: 19 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion The article on Australian States and Territories has been moved to States and territories of Australia (without prior discussion). Comments on how to procede (ie, whether to move back, or rearrange categories etc) are requested. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply I don't think it's a bad move, but you may want to ask the movee, to fix all the pages that now need to be changed to avoid redirects.--nixie 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply I'm not opposed to it either, but it could have been approached much better.--cj | talk 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply much better? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply as the movee I would like to ask why the movee can fix the redirects better than someone involved in Australian articles? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply It's not about being better. It's a matter of courtesy: if you move an article linked to by hundreds of other articles, it's polite to do at least some of the hard work of updating links yourself. As for the new title, I quite like it. --bainer (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply mmmh. I don't see that such action is impolite. And I have to say I find it a little impolite to demand such stuff. I often move pages to bring consistency to WP. I fix double redirects and often look for templates that can be adjusted. You know what makes me additional kind of feel impolite treated in this case? The linking was not coherent before. Some of you now demand something that did not exist. Anyway thanks for saying that you like the naming. And special thanks to User:E Pluribus Anthony who just came around to say "thank you for the move" and not demanding additional work. We are all working together - so it doesn't matter who does what. In this case it might have even faster if not I would search for the templates but someone more involved with AU would have done it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I don't think anyone has been impolite towards you nor has anyone demanded anything of you. What was suggested, however, is that with prior discussion things such as links and categories could have been amended correspondingly and expeditiously. It's a long-standing editing practice to correct links when one moves a page, but not strictly required - so long as redirects are point appropriately, then everything should be fine.--cj | talk 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply quote you may ask the movee, to fix all the pages that now need to be changed to avoid redirects ... fix ALL, while there was no state of non-redirects before. I find this quite demanding and you blow the same horn with "it is long-standing editing practice". What logic is this? It has been long standing practice to read encyclopedias on paper. Maybe you stick to this and turn of your computer? And as far as "expeditiously" is concerned: i don't see the big damage if for some hours there exist new redirects. And if there is such a big damage, I wonder how you have slept with the redirects that existed before for much longer time. BTW how much did YOU fix during the last 24h? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Since 11 July 2003 Australian states and territories exists as redirect. [1] For all the Australian demanders, and redirect-fix-focused people an excerpt from Special:Whatlinkshere/States_and_territories_of_Australia as of now is posted below Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply ...list of 50 or so articles that link to Australian states and territories (redirect page) deleted by Commander Keane [2] - I am fine with the deletion Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I'll get a bot to fix them, if people feel so passionately about it.--Commander Keane 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply thx for helping them and Wikipedia :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply OK, so now nothing links to Australian States and Territories, is that all you wanted the bot to do?--Commander Keane 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply wrong: Special:Whatlinkshere/Australian_States_and_Territories - has links to it Special:Whatlinkshere/Australian_states_and_territories - has no links to it Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Thanks for that, I think I have sorted them both out now.--Commander Keane 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Category: Australian radio programs Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments12 people in discussion User:Grutness has contacted me on my talk page to ask whether the Category:Australian radio programs should be renamed as Category:Australian radio programmes. My advice for what it is worth is that programmes is the more traditional spelling but programs is the more common. However, I promised that I would post something here so that others can have their say. Capitalistroadster 09:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply I was taught "programmes" as a young(er)ster, and a recent survey of that portion of my library by Australian authors (hey, I was bored) showed that in books even as old as ten years ago, "programme" is more common. However, "program" is catching on in a big way; two examples, The Canberra Times has standardised on "program" as its preferred spelling for both computer programs and any other sort of programmes, and the ACT Government has set up a "Helpshop Program" for shopping centres in Canberra. It won't be long before everyone — except for a few hangers-on who like to be perverse — says "program". Durnit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply John Winston Howard prefers "programme", whereas the Australian Government 'Style Manual' suggested standardising on "program" (at least last time I looked). I prefer the non-frenchified version (following Fowler) -- Paul foord 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply FWIW, Style: A guide for journalists (the News Limited Style Guide) says to use "program". Sarah Ewart 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply if this falls into Category:Categories by country it should IMO better use "Radio program(me)s in/of Australia". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply I tend to use programme, partly because that is what I was taught in school (and I'm not that old - I'm 27), and partly because I tend to be resistent towards adopting American spelling simply because News Corp and others think it might be easier. We haven't changed harbour to harbor and colour to colour. Adopting program instead of programme simply creates confusion in terms of what is and what isn't Australian spelling. (btw, does anybody know what the babel tempalte is for Australian English?) -- Adz|talk 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply en-AU. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply From my experience, "program" has become dominant in the newsprint medium (thanks, as someone said, to News Corp) while the traditional "programme" is prevalent elsewhere. I was taught "programme" at school also, and I graduated from secondary school only a year or so ago, so I don't think "program" can be said to have displaced "programme".--cj | talk 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply ABC and SBS use "program" (as do most of the radio station sites I checked). --Canley 10:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply If the wording is ambiguous and both are acceptably correct, use the spelling the original creator used. This is pretty much standard Wikipedia policy. Dysprosia 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply It's different when the more appropriate spelling is obvious, though: on American articles, for instance, I always (if I remember) misspell "colour". And suchlike. For articles related to Australian topics, it's usually pretty obvious: -ise instead of -ize, colour instead of color, herbs instead of erbs (cough) ... it would be nice to be able to standardise on one spelling of "program(me)" across Australian articles in a similar manner. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I was taught "programme" as well, just like "gaol" instead of the American "jail" - Ianblair23 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Does anyone have a copy of the Macquarie Dictionary? What does it say? enochlau (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply The Second Revision (1987) has program, with "Also. programme" at the end. And hte computer-related definitions are numbers 7 and 8. --Scott Davis Talk 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Interesting, so program is the primary listing? I'd be tempted to follow what the Macquarie Dictionary says, and leave it at program then... enochlau (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I'm inclined to follow the Macquarie as well, although I am disapointed. :-( -- Adz|talk 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply "Radio programs of Australia" or "Radio programs in Australia" ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-30/Congressional astroturfing Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion The lastest issue of the signpost contains an Australian reference at the end of the article on Congressional astroturfing.--A Y Arktos 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply Photo deletions Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion Many of User Tannin's photos are up for deletion. He has been a wikipedian since 2002 and many of them were uploaded before the tagging became mandatory. He has not been active since last September, his only 2 wikipedia forays being to revert attempts by other users to retag images. I do not believe he has read his talk page. This is an example of right process wrong outcome, not helped by the prickliness of Tannin. Could some wikipedian who knows him perhaps intervene by emailing him and seeking direction on approproiate retagging? Or something! See User talk:Tannin for more info on this. There are many many articles, particularly Australian ones that will be worse off for these deletions. He has uploaded I believe over 100 images.--A Y Arktos 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Tannin was not in favor of tagging all his images as GFDL since he did not want them re-used by commerical outlets, most of them are licenced under a non-commerical licences, which are as of May 2005, supposed to be phased out as possible. Its unfortunate that lots of images he uploaded will be deleted, but since they are not GFDL compatible and he isn't willing to change the licences (at least the last time I asked anyway) they will get deleted at some point. The commons has quite alot of images that could be used as replacements, we also have quite a lot of Australian photographers that could make replacements if we keep track of the articles that need replacement images.--nixie 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Images tagged as GFDL, were not tagged by him, and I'm guessing that those tags are wrong given my previous interaction with him.--nixie 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Is there a list of his photos somewhere? enochlau (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Tannin's contribs list the photo's.--Commander Keane 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply to the contrary, an example where he confirmed GFDL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ATS80-HD.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=16188486 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply He licenced 2 of his contributions (photos that clearly have no commercial value) as GFDL. If you bother to go through his contributions you'll see that all the wildlife images that were tagged by him, were done so as non-commercial - and any requests for him to alter the licence to something free have been refused, like here.--nixie 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply maybe have a look to the link that Commander posted. You can find more there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply RfA Candidates? Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion Is it the done thing to report Australian Wikipedians going for RfA here? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yes Ben. In the past when someone was up it was just mentioned in the discussion section. However I started its own section for it for my RfA in November last year. I feel it is important to let other Aussies know when one of us is up for adminship. Now that this board has been reformatted (which was long overdue), RfA announcements should go under "Other Candidates". We can never have enough Aussie admins. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yup, when an Aussie's up, we want to know about it. They go to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements. Are there any Aussies up at the moment? We had a flurry through before the end of last year. --cj | talk 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I disagree. I think an RFA is meant to involve gathering wide community consensus, any publicising amongst "sympathy groups" is unfair in my opinion and likely to distort the discussion. It should be frowned upon just as RFA candidates writing to all their contacts asking for a "vote" is frowned up. (I'm not singling you guys out by the way, I came here as part of a survey to see if other noticeboards advertise RFAs as Singapore does. So, clearly some do - and some don't). --kingboyk 11:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Announcing Australian RFA candidates here is not about getting more support - it is about ensuring that the editors most likely to have encountered the candidate are aware that he/she is nominated. The choice of whether to vote, and which way is still up to individuals (and I have voted both ways on people listed here). --Scott Davis Talk 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree with Scott Davis. I hope we can keep them here, because they're useful. They don't mean that every editor here will go and vote for a candidate. I'd like to see any evidence at all that RfAs being posted here has led to a "pile-on" in any single RfA. AFAIK IRC is worse for this than genial noticeboards like ourselves. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply What they said. As we've often worked with the candidates at length, we're mostly in a better position to judge their suitability for adminship than some random passerby to RfA who just flicks through their last 100 edits. Ambi 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Well said, Ambi. I only get involved with RfA if I have come across the candidate. I therefore need to know if they have nominated from the Project pages of Projects I support. --Bduke 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Sydney Meetup - Sunday Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion Just a quick note that there is a Sydney Meetup on this weekend. We are at meeting at the Town Hall steps, 11:30 AM, on Sunday 5th Feb 2006, with a view to having a Yum Cha lunch. If you're in Sydney, please come along! And if you are a Sydney Wikipedian, please add [[Category:Wikipedians in Sydney|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] to your user page, as it makes you easier to contact for invites to future meetups. Look forward to seeing you there! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply The quick list of Sydney tasks has now been updated based on the meetup, and is shown below (apologies to the people outside of NSW) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Here are some open WikiProject Sydney tasks: Missing: Sydney Wildlife World (new zoo), Cumberland Plain, Australian Major League Baseball, North Sydney Institute of TAFE, Hornsby Plateau, Wayne Cooper, Fairfield Hospital, Sydney Children's Hospital, Mona Vale Hospital, Manly Hospital, Mortlake Punt / Mortlake Ferry, Chipping Norton Lakes, Appin. Missing Roads: Henry Lawson Drive, Heathcote Road, Bathurst Street, New South Head Road, Druitt Street State Politics: Expand Parliament of New South Wales (e.g. a few photos could be good). Past members timelines moved into each electoral district's talk page. A-G have been merged into the article resolving differences. See each article under Category:Electoral districts of New South Wales. Stub past members pages of past members listed in existing electoral district timelibes have all been created. There are still the past electoral districts and past members of those districts, but there are too many of them to tackle at this stage. The next step here is to make sure that all links to past members are valid, disambiguation templates, and redirection to more commonly used names. Expansion: Steps needed for getting Sydney to Featured Article status. The list of local suburban Sydney newspapers may be missing some. Georges River articles: Woronora River, Cabramatta Creek, Prospect Creek, Salt Pan Creek. King Georges Road, Anzac Parade Cleanup LGAs: Removing suburb redlinks from these councils: Lane Cove, Manly, North Sydney, Parramatta, Pittwater and Pittwater list. Education: Missing NSW Government Selective Schools (what they are, how they work); Expansion of UWS, ACU, UTS, UNSW, Macquarie, Usyd articles (in roughly that order). Rail: The railway stations need photos!!! Please help - List of CityRail railway stations- if you can even provide a photo of your local station that would be helpful - ones that need photos are here. Also, CityRail needs expansion - this could be a great featured article in the future with a bit of work. Edit or discuss this list. Just for the record, Parliament of New South Wales does already have its own article. Ambi 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Thank you - Live and learn! I've updated the Sydney tasks accordingly. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Shooting ranges in Australia Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion A quick note to ask for inputs for a new article branching off Shooting range. Specific countries are now addressed in this top level article, with inputs needed for several countries, including Australia. Thanks! Yaf 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Anyone who looks at the "Shooting Ranges In..." articles will quickly note, there is not much discussion of Shooting RANGES - mainly SHOOTING in that country. I would be very interested in a page showing how Australian shooting ranges are DIFFERENT to SHOOTING RANGES in the other countries - but I think they are all designed off pretty much the same international standards... Garrie 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian copyright Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion Are works from the Australian government public ___domain? The specific site I'm looking at is, [[3]]. Thanks. Gflores Talk 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply No, Australian Government works are not public ___domain. The link in the footer takes you to this page which is quite explicit on the subject of copyright with respect to pages produced by the Australian Antarctic Division, similar conditions would apply to all Australian Government websites.--A Y Arktos 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply The Australian Govt is nowhere near as enlightened as the US govt as regards copyright, unfortunately. E.g. the idea that public paid for it, so the public should own it (which means public ___domain) seems to have not twigged. So, we're sometimes stuck with the perverse situation of having to sometimes get US govt data (e.g. NASA photos of Australia), and use those, instead of using similar material from Australian govt sources. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Furthering the discussion at the Sydney Meetup, [4] discusses copyright on NSW legislation. Section 2 seems to permit republication, although I'm concerned about 2 a). Although the GFDL allows the author to retain copyright on the work, this strictly speaking is not a "free" license. Furthermore, 2 e) prevents modification of the work. Is this then publishable on wikisource? enochlau (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply (IANAL, JALS) That seems roughly equivalent to CC-ND, which is not a compatible license for our purposes. --bainer (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Hmm seems like Wikisource has different rules to Wikipedia. This was their response: [5]. From a Wikipedia point of view, how much use do you think it will be if we dump Australian legislation onto Wikisource? Is it worth a try? enochlau (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply While we could, I'm inclined to think dumping legislation onto Wikisource is a Bad Idea. Legislation is constantly changing - unlike, say, treaties, or Jane Austen novels, anyone reading it really needs to know that what they're reading is very up to date. While I have no particular objection to caselaw ending up there, as the text does not change (even if a bit unnecessary with the definite accurateness of Austlii around), putting statutes on Wikisource opens up a needless minefield. Ambi 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply You do have a point there - it would be quite hard to keep up with the changes. However, the case law sounds like a good idea, to accompany our case articles. Actually, it might be useful to store on Wikisource old, repealled pieces of legislation that are important historically but are otherwise unavailable online (Austlii only goes so far back); that would involve scanning the typed up versions, which will take up truckloads of time that I don't think many of us have. enochlau (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Putting legislation up would also be redundant, since it's all available through AustLII or ComLaw (or State equivalents) for free. I should check out what copyrights are on judgments, they may not be usable. --bainer (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply ACOTF Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion I'm looking at rolling over the Australian collaboration. Are people here happy that the winner is It's Time which has already received a major start before it gets selected? Running second is Order of Australia which is also a fair starting size. --Scott Davis Talk 10:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Convictism in Australia was ACOTF from 22 January 2005 to 5 February 2005 14 contributors made 62 edits The article increased from nothing to 14.3 kb See the article at the end of the fortnight --Scott Davis Talk 10:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply It's Time has been selected. --Scott Davis Talk 11:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Map for I've been everywhere Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion I wonder if there is a keen map maker who would like to help make a map for all the places listed in the song I've Been Everywhere? I fully appreciate that most people would rather be working on more worthy and serious projects. It seems that the list is rather biassed though to Queensland and New South Wales and perhaps this would best be illustrated by a map. I am happy to help with coordinates for the places. I am sure I will learn some geography on the way. --A Y Arktos 10:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Winter Olympics/Commonwealth Games Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion Hi everyone, just thought I'd let you know about User:ben.carbonaro who is an aspiring journalist that is willing to add some information on the Winter Olympics and perhaps the Commonwealth Games. He is also passionate about netball, so if anyone is willing to collaborate, he's your man. Rogerthat Talk 12:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Thanks, Rogerthat. I am an aspiring sports journalist and have written about/reported on various sports including AFL football, cricket, swimming, basketball and netball. My main sport that I write about is netball, especially the Commonwealth Bank Trophy (National Netball League) and any international Test played by Australia here in Melbourne. As Rogerthat said, I am would like to contribute some articles about the Winter Olympics as they happen in Torino and also some historical pieces as well. Do we have any other aspiriing sports journalists here? Ben.carbonaro 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Hey, Ben Carbonaro's user page is somewhat controversial. given that Rogerthat wrote most of it in the third person on Ben's behalf, you might want to be careful - just in case you could be pinged for making personal attacks. I've been working on bios of Australian Olympic medal winning swimmers by the way, if you're interested.Blnguyen 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply That's all in good humour, I set alot of it up but many "anons" added some of the more controversial attacks. But ben is fine with it. Rogerthat Talk 07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yeah, I am fine with that as it is all a bit of fun. Ben.carbonaro 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC) IRC channel #wikimedia-au Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion #wikimedia-au is running on Freenode. That's irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-au . Come one, come all! - David Gerard 22:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply To all those interested in setting up Wikimedia Australia, I thought we should set up a channel so we can have some coordinated discussion despite people being spread across different ends of the continent. People who don't have access to IRC, it's pretty easy to get, just ask if you want some help. It would be good to have a meeting sometime soon, to discuss some of the issues about the chapter's first steps. --bainer (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply When are people free? I suggest the coming Sunday night. See meta:IRC for instructions on how to join. enochlau (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Can anyone suggest a good IRC howto/primer. Never having used it before it seems a little arcane in it's user interface. ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Try irchelp.org, it lists many primers and tutorials. --bainer (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Wikiproject spam links? Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion There seems to be an effort to modify stub tags to rid them of references to wikiprojects. In particular the Canberra wikiproject stubtags have been modified several times recently by Users Freakofnurture, Jerzy, and Carnildo. They have not discussed their edits prior to making them. They have not referred to any policy or guideline. Their edits refer to "wikispam". There has been some attempt to have a discussion at Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Canberra#template edit. The discussion would appear to support such footers as per Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices#How to attract contributors .28Advertise.21.29.--A Y Arktos 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply User:Jerzy/WikiProj-soliciting stub templates and associated discussions at User_talk:Freakofnurture#Project-spam via stub tags, User_talk:Carnildo#Project-spam via stub tags shed some light that they are working together but not what guideline or policy they are following, nor where they sought or obtained concensus for their campaign. More discussion at User_talk:Jerzy#Comic stub templates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates#W-Proj refs in Stub tags, Template_talk:Marvel-Comics-stub--A Y Arktos 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Can we get in touch with these gentleman and suggest that they don't change stubs without discussing it with members of the relevant Wikiproject to build consensus?Capitalistroadster 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply All three are aware of the discussion at Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub, some of the activity dates from after that discussion and without reference to it.A Y Arktos 05:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I have asked User:Grutness for his feelings on this, as he seems to do a lot of work with stub templates, etc. --Martyman-(talk) 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply And after that introduction... :) There's not any hard and fast rule at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting about it, but there have been calls in the past to remove wikiproject links in stub templates, since they fall foul of the avoiding self-reference style guide. Then again, a stub template automatically refers back to wikipedia anyway. Links to wikiprojects from stub templates do annoy a lot of editors, though. Some wikiprojects compromise by having a link at the top of the stub category rather than in the stub template (I know that Category:Cricket stubs is one that does that). That might be a better way to go to stop any possible edit war (especially since edit-wars over the wording of heavily-used templates can be hard on the servers). If you want any more input from anyone at WP:WSS, feel fee to drop a note over at the WSS talk page - there are others there who would have more to say on this topic... Grutness...wha? 06:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Following the suggestion by Grutness, I have referred the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#WikiProject links in stub templates--A Y Arktos 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Portal:Oceania Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion I've put down some thoughts about this proposed portal at Portal talk:Oceania. Please come and comment.-gadfium 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Political biographies - any evidence of abnormal editing? Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion With the fuss over US congressional staff inappropriately editing congresscritters' biographies, has anybody seen any evidence of Australian politicians' articles being edited by parliamentary staffers? I haven't seen any such... --Robert Merkel 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply A recent issue of the signpost contains an Australian reference at the end of the article on Congressional astroturfing. I am unaware that the editor mentioned has made other than useful and impartial additions to the wikipedia. Some of his additions have been to articles on Australian politicians.--A Y Arktos 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Adam's contributions are above reproach. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply His contributions aren't always above reproach. But nobody's perfect. Andjam 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Heh, okay. His contributions have been very very good, and there is no evidence whatsoever that his boss has inappropriately influenced his writing. How's that? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply OK, let me rephrase that; has anybody seen any inappropriate edits made by parliamentary staffers? Adam's contributions to Wikipedia have been outstanding. --Robert Merkel 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply What are all the relevent IP addresses, Federal and State?--Commander Keane 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I've seen a few examples of this happening. Tony Simpson (WA state MP) appears to have been started by a staffer, and a new image was added to Mal Washer the other day by someone who looks like a staffer. The article on Andrew Brideson was briefly censored by someone who I have reason to believe may have been Brideson himself, and the IP traces back to the Victorian parliament. I have my suspicions, but no evidence, that some edits to Peter Collier were made similarly. There's also some that one does wonder about, such as the person who first wrote Victor Perton. Finally, while he may not be a staffer or an MP, several of us have strong suspicions that a Victorian political figure who shall remain nameless is the Australian politics libel vandal. Ambi 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Is that this user? Agnte 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply this one, I think. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply What about the Ross Lightfoot thing that happened a while ago, on Kerry Nettle, where a Canberra Telstra anonymous editor was repeatedly removing the "fuck off and die" allegation? It's not exactly definitive, though... Dysprosia 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Not unless this counts -- Astrokey44|talk 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply IRC meeting Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion As mentioned above, the proposed Wikimedia Australia now has an IRC channel, #wikimedia-au. It would be good to have a meeting sometime soon of Wikimedians interested in setting up the chapter, perhaps this Sunday evening? Logs will be posted for those who can't or don't use IRC. I think some real time discussion would be very useful. Please indicate below whether this time is good for you. (Wikinews people and others, please distribute this notice to Australian areas on other projects.) --bainer (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Unbelievably, I work Sunday evenings. But unless it is a bad time for a few other people, don't workaround for me. (Should these discussions be at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Australia now? If you're interested in the foundation of wm-au, I think you have to break down and get a meta: account sooner or later.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply You need a job with irc access :) I'll see what I can do about popping in. -- Longhair 13:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Posted a note at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Australia#Meeting_on_IRC. enochlau (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Posted a note at n:Wikinews:Australian_discussion#Wikimedia Australia IRC meeting - Borofkin 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Have your say Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Just noticed that someone has started a thread on WP:AFL on a footy site. This is a chance for promoting our project - have your say even if you hate football - CLIck here. Rogerthat Talk 03:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Would anyone reading this notice board really hate footy? C'mon!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Vandalism to Dale Begg-Smith Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion Gold medallist Dale Begg-Smith has been copping some vandalism in the form of innuendo about his IT career. He could well become the next Jimmy Wales. Andjam 14:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I actually have added a link to his IT company on his page. Ben.carbonaro 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC) That's actually not vandalism - it is well-documented that he owns that IT organisation. Rogerthat Talk 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Are you referring to project spring, or AdsCPM and CPM Media? Thanks, Andjam 04:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Project Spring. Rogerthat Talk 08:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply A google search didn't come up with anything. Do you have a citation? Thanks, Andjam 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Copyright status of Bulletin photo Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion I came across a 1952 photo from The Bulletin archives taken in Oslo, Norway. Is likely to be in the public ___domain? Would the relevant question be whether the photo was first published in Australia? Thanks, Andjam 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply If you were using the photo in Australia, it would be in the public ___domain, since it was taken before 1 January 1955, regardless of where it was first published. But we're using it in the United States, for all intents and purposes, so it's probably not public ___domain. --bainer (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I thought the consensus was that if it was originally published in Australia and it's PD in Australia, it'd be PD in the states. Andjam 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yeah, I don't think Thebainer's conclusion is right. I was under the conclusion international copyright law is honoured if the country of origin still holds the work under copyright, and dropped if the country of origin has released it from copyright. --Martyman-(talk) 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yes. It has to have a "home country" to recognise its copyright. But which country is its home country? Xtra 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Should The Bulletin be contacted to ask about whether Australia was the "home country"? If so, should I do it, or someone more experienced with this kind of stuff? Andjam 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Sounds like a good idea. If the photographer was Australian or employed directly by The Bulletin (not freelance) then it is most probably an Australian work. It would be strange for the copyright to be owned by an Australian but governed by foriegn copyright rules (though being strange is probably not a good way to judge these things). I am also not sure if the photo is owned by a foreign copyright owner if it's publishment in an Australian magazine would mean it falls out of copyright in Australia a set time after being published, although if it was still under copyright in it's home countrie the US would have to honour that... This stuff is too complicated for it's own good. --Martyman-(talk) 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Andjam and Martyman, you're right for stuff produced and published entirely within Australia. Stuff that's PD in the home country before 1978 is PD in the US. This photo was taken overseas, and there's also the question of when it was first published, so Australian law may not be the only applicable law here. As you've already said, it's necessary to establish details like that first. --bainer (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Any volunteers? Andjam 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I've sent an email to The Bulletin. Andjam 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Yagan on the Main Page Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion Today's featured article is an Australian article, Yagan. Snottygobble 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply woot Australia. I am inordinately proud that Thorpdale, Victoria will also get to share the main page for a little while at least. DYK - Helping non-"Featured standard" editors reach the main page since ... uh... 2000 I suppose. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply thats one of the best FA's i've ever read, informative, well-written. good work. Agnte 10:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Request for admin Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion rogerthat, a tireless contributor to aussie rules on this site, has a request for Admin ship up and running. I suggest you consider voting for him TheRealAntonius 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I would be more than happy to support Rogerthat, who is a real asset to Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest, however, that you curtail some of your support, at least for the moment. Your enthusiasm is touching, but your ignorant and incivil attacks on other users at the RfA are doing Rogerthat's chances, as well as your own reputation, a great deal of harm. Please try to let matters run their course without further interference, for Rogerthat's sakes. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Fair enough mate, I read that page and it seems Rogerthat is also known for his temper...lol. TheRealAntonius 11:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Mention of wikipedia Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion 702 ABC Sydney segment "I don't get it" on Thursday night included people wondering why there's a "Sydney Harbour", and the host said that wikipedia isn't the final word, but the entry said Sydney Harbour is also used to describe Port Jackson. I can't quite remember his exact words, but it could be one of the first times a redirect has been mentioned in the media. Andjam 08:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Hartz Mountains Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Can someone have a look at Hartz Mountains -perhaps they should be a dab to Tasmaina/Germany?Rich Farmbrough. 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Caledon Bay crisis Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion Someone has out a NPOV flag on Caledon Bay crisis, with no explanation on the talk page. What is the general thinking about doing this? Paul foord 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply If you disagree that there is a POV issue with it, and no explanation has been given, remove the tag. enochlau (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply While it's not polite to slap a NPOV without giving reasons why, I think the article has some NPOV problems. Andjam 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Umpire in Hewitt/Camplin tennis match ad Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion I've created a description of some of the Channel Seven ads for the Winter Olympics, including the ones featuring Steven Bradbury, and the one where Alisa Camplin plays "tennis" with Lleyton Hewitt. Does anyone know who the umpire is in the "match"? Thanks, Andjam 09:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply It's Alisa Camplin playing tennis with Grant Denyer dressed as Lleyton Hewitt, actually. The umpire is Bruce. --bainer (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Thanks. Andjam 05:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Sunday's IRC meeting Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion After discussion on meta (m:Talk:Wikimedia Australia#Meeting on IRC) and above, IRC meetings for all those interested in setting up an Australian chapter of the foundation will be held at 2pm AEDT (3am UTC) and 8pm AEDT (9am UTC). The channel is at #wikimedia-au, it can also be accessed through Wikicities' CGI interface at http://irc.wikicities.com/wp/ (thanks Angela!). Logs will also be posted for those who can't attend. --bainer (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply A log of the first meeting is at meta:Wikimedia Australia/Meeting log 19 February 2006. Angela. 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Tasmanian election Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Paul Lennon has called the Tasmanian state election for mid-March, and our article on the election is pretty short. Any takers for expanding it? We've got a reasonable article on the coming South Australian election, which could serve as a bit of a guide if anyone is interested. Ambi 06:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Werribee Park Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion Werribee Park is on the TODO list, but is still a redlink. However Werribee Park Mansion does exist and mentions other things about the Park such as the Rose Garden. I suggest Werribee Park Mansion be moved to Werribee Park and expanded to give more information about everything there including the Rose Garden, Zoo, Equestrian Centre and so on. Does anyone object? --Bduke 07:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply As the creator of the article for Werribee Park Mansion some three months ago, I say, "Go for it! Make it good!" --EuropracBHIT 08:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC).Reply I have made a start, moving Werribee Park Mansion to Werribee Park, adding material about the Rose Garden, the Equestian Centre and the Zoo. I'll add more latter. One question - I do not understand the reference to the Manor, a redlink. It is also seems that there is very liitle about Polo and matters Equestrian in Australia. Is this correct? This article needs some photographs and I'm not into electronic photography yet. Could anyone help? --Bduke 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian-related non-NPOV articles Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion G'day all. These are some Australian articles all have been slapped with a {{npov}} or similar recently. I've cleared out a some, theres a few left that others here may be more qualified to look at, so here goes. Agnte 23:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Political : Peter Costello Christian Democratic Party (Australia) Fathers' Rights Australia Australia's alleged East Timor cover up (im not sure that can be salvaged) Australian conceptions of race and ethnicity and also Foreign relations of Australia which is quite messy. Schools : Knox Grammar School Prescott College, South Australia Sport : Mark Bosnich, Phillip Matera, Tony Shaw, Scott Camporeale Nick Holland Nicky Winmar Misc/Media : Mr. Sheen Channel 31 Melbourne Emu oil Thanks for this list. I had a quick look at Nicky Winmar and I have now crossed him off the list. I would appreciate someone else having a look at it as well. It originally had a reference to his "exquisite skills" (not my wording) but now all reference to his skill level has been left out in the interests of getting the POV tag off...but...I can't help thinking that if we are talking about an exceptionally skilled player (confirmed by the Encyclopedia of AFL players), what is wrong with saying that the player was widely regarded as being extremely skilled? For someone who is rapidly getting up to 20,000 edits in a few wikipedias - I have to tell you - my observation is that often when someone whacks a POV charge on an article - it is often a case of the whacker being more POV than the whackee. In the AFL realm, non-AFL adherents are noticeably harsh and I am suspicious of their motivations. Sure, some of you will say: and deservedly so! However, a close inspection does not bear this out. For instance, in the Football talk page, a rugby diehard is trying to argue that Australian rules football should be called Victorian rules football - or that it shouldn't be described as an Australian game but as a Victorian game - it is the most inane, idiotic, POV argument I have ever heard. I guess Don Bradman isn't an Australian legend, he is a New South Welsh legend! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply what is wrong with saying that the player was widely regarded as being extremely skilled? I would say nothing, but if he was "widely regarded" as being so, it shouldn't be too hard to find just one specific instance of this to cite. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply on the talk page I quote from the Encyclopedia of AFL Players (which, incidentally, lists every player to have played VFL/AFL football since 1897, including games, goals and usually other autobiographical details like birthdate, birth place, from where recruited, career achievements, etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Sorry, if I raised eyebrows because I tagged a few of the AFL pages. I guess with cricket articles its easier because there are lots of individual stats, but in AFL this is obviously harder to quantify. However, it is probably improbable that players are extremely proficient at all areas, so it would probably be good to explain which areas were their relative strengths and weaknesses, lest it gives the reader the suspicion that the writer thinks that the player is immortal. If you think that perhaps I am being difficult, see Talk:Rahul Dravid, which was tagged in October. As for the quote, sports encyclopedias/history books aren't to the same standard as an encyclopedia. Some sports encyclopedias aren't really encyclopedias As reward for his courageous effort, from 100 Great Australian Olympians Some quotes from Wisden Cricinfo profiles have been cut and pasted onto cricket profiles, and subsequently booted off for POV not for copyvio I think it is better to cite statistically and quote the pundit, rather than simply assert an 'encyclopedia' opinion as a 'fact'. Regards. Feel free to continue this on my talk page if it becomes a 1-1.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yes but for many players who played before the advent of advanced statistics (ie, before the mid-1990s), it is very hard to quantify the skills of particular players. I suppose you could quantify a full-forward's contribution to the team by the number of goals scored in a particular season, but apart from that it's hard to say without using anecdotal evidence. Rogerthat Talk 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I have had a go at the Mr. Sheen article. It didn't really involve anything, just the deletion of two sentences, and one word from another sentence. If someone would like to have a look at it, and if it is NPOV, cross it off this list. --liquidGhoul 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply New Australian collaboration is Order of Australia Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion I forgot to roll over the ACOTF last night, but I've done it now. It's Time was ACOTF from 5 February 2006 to 20 February 2006 about 16 contributors made about 60 edits The article increased from 5.7 kb to 9.2 kb - 60% longer See how it changed --Scott Davis Talk 08:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Tim Blair Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion Aussie blogger and Bulletin employee Tim Blair is currently a redlink, which has been deleted three times. Were any of the deleted versions legit articles that suffered vandalism? Thanks, Andjam 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Andjam, below is the text that was deleted: Tim Blair is a right-wing Australian blogger and commentator who has based his work on political writer Gerard Henderson, but with much less success. He forms part of a small group of reactionary commentators, including Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt and Henderson, chiefly supported by News Corporation, seemingly devoted to imposing a right-wing social and political agenda on Australia and almost reflexively supporting the current Howard Government. Blair was active in early 2006 in criticising left-wing cartoonist Michael Leunig, although in many ways Blair himself is a political mirror of Leunig's bizarre and extremist leftwing views. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply There are obvious NPOV problems with this article but Blair is notable enough in my opinion given that he has been a columnist for the Australian and now the Bulletin for the past five years. Perhaps undeletion might be an option but not with that text. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply So just start from scratch? Andjam 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yes. Blair is notorious enough to deserve an entry. And, much as it pains me, he deserves a neutral, fair entry... :)--Robert Merkel 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply He was on Safran Sunday night as an example of a leftie gone right, as opposed to Robert Manne, a rightie gone left. Bit of a mismatch, I would've thought. :) But apparently he's also considered by some to be the closest thing to a "right-wing Phillip Adams". pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Categorisation of murderers Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion There is some concern about the categorisation of people as murderers and criminals. The concern has been raised at Talk:Maxwell Stuart. I have suggested that given Stuart was convicted, had unsuccessfully appealed, the verdict had been reviewed by a Royal Commission and upheld, to fail to categorise him as a murderer seemed to be POV, rather than the other way around. It is not the Wikipedia's role to unconvict someone - the issue is to report the facts. To categorise someone as a murderer, Wikipedia:Verifiability is met by reference to court decisions and, in the Stuart case, the report of the Royal Commission. As the issue perhaps was with the category label, the discussion has been referred to category discussion pages and a discussion has been initiated at Category talk:Murderers. The label descriptor for Category:Australian murderers states: "Australians who have been convicted of murder." - in Australia the legal system is the arbiter.--A Y Arktos 10:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Why not make the category Category:Convicted murderers and Category:Australian convicted murderers. They seems less POV. --liquidGhoul 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I think that is a good idea and have copied it to Category talk:Murderers --A Y Arktos 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Thank you for your suggestions - I have forwarded the discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 21#Category:Murderers renamed to Category:Convicted murderers .2B similar cats both subcats and criminals with both LiquidGhoul and Thebainer's suggestions.--A Y Arktos 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I'm a bit uncomfortable with the word "murderer" on its own as it seems a bit emotive. Andjam 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Hardly. It's a purely legal term. If you've been found guilty of murder, you're a murderer. If you haven't been found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer. Ambi 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Dean McVeigh Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion Anyone know what's going on with Dean McVeigh looks like Ambi is fighting a losing battle to try and keep the article encyclopedic. --Martyman-(talk) 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Dean McVeigh is an insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to be called in when the Melbourne University Student Union crashed and burned amidst some generally dodgy behaviour. Since then, a bunch of the involved parties have embarked on a rather public campaign of slander against the guy. He may not be the best insolvency practitioner in the world, and I don't know or care, but there's definitely some dodgy editing going on here, so I'm chopping out the unsourced/badly sourced crap every time it gets re-added. It may be worth nominating the article for AfD - the only way in which he's even remotely notable is in the context of the campaign waged against him on this issue. Ambi 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Ambi 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Idon't think he is notable enough to have an entry and I agree some problems be solved if we agreed he did not meet WP:BIO criteria. I guess he might fit under "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - but I am not sure - I had not read of him outside wikipedia and only came across him because of the mention here. I am happy to nominate.--A Y Arktos 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I'd vote to delete. The article appears to be just another thinly disguised attack article we're fighting to keep neutral. -- Longhair 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean McVeigh--A Y Arktos 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Thanks. If it does get kept (and I'd rather it not be), I'd appreciate if you two could keep an eye on it so as to make sure it doesn't degenerate back into an attack article. Ambi 10:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply If the problem is content, rather than notability, would article protection be an option? Andjam 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I still have a problem over notability. He appears to be more notable than other insolvency practitioners only because a bunch of student politicians have gotten upset with him and launched a smear campaign, which they're trying to extend into Wikipedia. However, if we were to assume that he is notable, then the only solution would be to watch over the Dean McVeigh article carefully and remove any unsourced claims, and in particular defamatory statements. Protection would not be appropriate in this situation; it would stop good faith non-admin users from making any improvements, and if he truly is notable, then we've got to assume that there will be people along wanting to actually make the article better — it's not a good idea to deny them that opportunity just because we don't want to watch it constantly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply We scored four "if"'s in regards to his notability above. I think that says something. -- Longhair 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I have cleaned up this article as many of you know. However, there may well be a case for a judicious merge after the AfD process especially if there are continued problems. Capitalistroadster 12:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Tasmania as part of Australia Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion An editor over at Talk:Goanna took exception to wording stating that 'goannas are found throughout Australia, except Tasmania' on the grounds that 'tasmania is not part of australia'. (Discussion continued at User_talk:Kazvorpal#Goanna.) While usually my preferred solution to conflicts of opinion is to find a compromise wording that communicates the facts without trampling on either side's opinion, I'm not inclined to view this as just a difference of opinion. Sanity check, please? --Calair 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Yes. Or you could say "the Australian mainland". Xtra 22:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply But goannas aren't just found on the mainland - they also live on Fraser, Kangaroo, and presumably a lot of smaller islands too. By the time we get to "found throughout the Australian mainland and many nearby islands, but not Tasmania" it's starting to get unnecessarily unwieldy. --Calair 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I have put a comment of Kaz's talk page. --liquidGhoul 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply "Tasmania not being part of Australia" is as stupid a statement as another one I recently came across (that the adjective "Australian" should not be used to describe Australian rules football) - let's not be overly polite here - this isn't about differences of opinion - it's about idiocy and ignorance pure and simple - do whatever needs to be done to retain the integrity of the articles. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Football childishness Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion It looks like this football/soccer thing just won't let up. Frankly I no longer personally care what we end up naming things (though I once preferred "football"), but this idiocy — revert warring, "moving" by cutnpaste, etc. — has gotten way out of hand. Sooner or later the Australian Wikipedians are going to be the laughingstock of everyone here except the Romanians, and quite rightly so. I've spent this morning cleaning up clumsy and stupid moves by User:Debunct and others. The work is good for my edit count, but not for my state of mind. I was going to move on to Category space and try to work out what sort of silliness was occurring there, but the old heart quails just to look at it. Speaking of the categories, it's obvious that certain individuals here — hem, hem — won't allow the category to be "Soccer in Australia". "Football in Australia" is obviously inappropriate, as one can see just from observing Category:Australian football competitions. So, what I propose is: a multi-tiered thingy. "Football in Australia" or "Football codes in Australia", with "Football (soccer) in Australia", "Australian rules football in Australia", "Rugby league in Australia", and "Rugby union in Australia" as subcats. How does that sound? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I ask again - why should Association Football claim the title Football all to itself? How can I be accused of being POV when it is another group which is trying to appropriate a generic name all to themselves and make themselves out to be the one and only true football code worthy of the name football, when in fact, anyone who knows the history of football generally, knows that this has no historical basis. Furthermore, we are the english wikipedia, and soccer is the name that is widely used throughout the english speaking world (especially in the USA). Remember also that soccer is the term coined originally by the British as a shortening of Association Football (the original and official name of soccer), there is no sound argument for not using simply Soccer full stop. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I like that idea Mark. I agree pippu, there is no such sport as football. There are different forms of football, however, Association football (aka soccer), Australian rules football (aka Aussie rules), Rugby football (aka rugby)...you get the idea. Rogerthat Talk 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree - Association Football is the correct term, but it cannot be simply Football. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply That's an excellent idea Mark. --bainer (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Spelling of the word/phrase Marn Grook/Marngrook Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion At the risk of appearing pedantic, what is the correct spelling of the above? It is important because of accuracy and for 'text searching' problems. Please see discussion page for Marn Grook for details. Thanks. Lentisco 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Official War Histories Online Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion For those of you who don't know, the Australian War Memorial has full text copies of the official histories of the First and Second World Wars available online. A full text word search for the other editions and images are available for the other conflicts. [6]. It also has a useful encyclopedia. [7]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) . There's also heaps of records on Australian soldiers at the National Archives of Australia (here), including service records for just about everyone who served in both World Wars. A decent portion are digitised, and are great for finding out where and with what unit people served. --bainer (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Football again Latest comment: 19 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion Okay, here's my proposal. If it gets support here, I'd like to tack on an additional proposal, which is basically a stick with a nail in it, weilded appropriately against anyone who tries any childish (like the page-blanking I saw earlier). When football is referred to, it shall be "football (soccer)", just like every other bloody article on Wikipedia. There shall be no more fighting over whether it ought to be football or soccer, and attempts to say "soccer (football)" will be treated with the contempt and violent beatings they deserve. "Football" on its own, then, will only be used for football codes in general: AFL, rugby union, rugby league, football, and, if necessary (God forbid) Gaelic footy and gridiron as well. This means that football-related categories remain, but as top-level cats with subcats relating to the particular codes, rather than fighting over whether "Football players" should be AFLers, footballers, whatever. Cut and paste moves, page blanking, creation of duplicate articles, etc. is lame, and will all be undone, as soon as I (and any other administrator who feels like helping) gets the time. Thrrrrp. If anyone disagrees with me, come up with a better proposal. "But football is what the rest of the world calls it!" or "how dear those soccer fanatic interlopers claim the rights to our sacred word!" are not better proposals. Anyone got any comments? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply No wonder this is running hot in football forums. People are riled. I just found this page from an edit history and God damn. I'm trying to convince people to take this to thefootballwiki.com so it gets into the right search queries in google in time for The World Cup. Redirects won't appear when searching for "Australian football". Why does it matter that it's called football anyway? How does this affect rubgy league (the greatest game of all)? I beleive that of the 48 English speaking football naitons, only 5 use the word soccer. The most popular football league in the world is the English Premier League and there are no soccer clubs there. Everyone knows that you need to type "Liverpool football club" to find the team, otherwise you get the name of the city. Also, there is debate about switching to the word football in the USA. F.C. Dallas being an example while others have dropped the word soccer from thier name all together. Call your sport what you like? I don't care. I hope we beat Brasil, but we probably won't. ;) As long as we do better than last time. :) Bye. --Executive.koala 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply From the FC Dallas website. '"'What does FC in FC Dallas stand for? F stands for "Futbol" which is the globally used term for the sport, and C stands for "Club" which again is the accurate reference to a team globally. As people across the metroplex will learn in the coming months and years, there are a variety of terms that more accurately describe the sport; such as Futbol Club when referring to the team itself." I wish we would use fútbol in Australia, but the racists would scream wog. --Executive.koala 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I wasn't aware of this discussion either until now. Thanks to fuddlemark for pointing it out and I agree 100% with your suggestions. Grant65 | Talk 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Strong support - but it's probably already spinning out of control. There are two fronts to combat here: those that wish to appropriate the term "football" for themselves, and quite separate to this group, are those who do not wish to see Australian rules football mentioned in the same illustrious light as soccer, gridiron and rugby (cough, cough). Interestingly, this latter group are in fact all Australians - no prizes for guessing what their motivations are. I wish all and sundry luck. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree with your proposal, although I think once "football (soccer)" or "Australian rules football" has been used in an article (I'd imagine usually in the lead section) and that article refers only to that sport (eg for Sydney FC or Sydney Swans), "football" can freely be used. Something needs to be done about page names too, but don't ask me! AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Mark's proposal is obviously the right idea, together with the comment from Albinomonkey. JPD (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Ta, guys. AlbinoMonkey, I agree. I've spent the last couple of hours making a start on getting all this into shape (you can see the results in various football cats/articles, and my contribs). There's still a long way to go. At the moment, most of the crap is confined to football (soccer)-related articles, but sooner or later the other codes will require work, too. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply On Friday night I did a lot of work on moving Australian soccer articles to the correct categories, most of which has been undone by Executive.koala and an anonymous editor. I guess it would be wildly optimistic to expect them to undo their handiwork. Does anyone know how we go about getting a bot to do it, or some other timesaving method? I'm mainly referring to Category:Australian football clubs and Category:Australian football players, which to my mind should be supercategories made up of the ones for the respective codes. Grant65 | Talk 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply There is this, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, which seems to be good for auto-find and replace things, although it is software which you'd need to install on your computer. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply And when you're done Grant65, are you going to change all instances of Australian football with regards to Aussie Rules in Categories, Page names, etc, to Australian rules football? Australian Football Hall of Fame needs to be a disambiguation page and the current information needs to move to Australian Rules Football Hall of Fame or something similar, so that the Football Federation Australia - Australian Football Hall of Fame can be added to the encyclopedia and to the disambig. Only when you’ve finished with your crusade against Australian Football (soccer), of course. Looks like you have a lot of work to do here (Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame), when you've finished Grantifying Category:Football (soccer) in Australia. After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of double standards now would you? There appears to be plenty of other users here who will be happy to help you. Remember, it's all for the credibility of Wikipedia. Don't the side down now, son. --Executive.koala 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Executive.koala, apart from your misleading comments about the use of the word "soccer", you are missing a significant part of the point. Even if it is always referred to as "football", it is not the only code referred to as football in Australia, so disambiguations and subcategories are appropriate. Of course, when naming articles aboutbodies, rather than topics, we use the name of the body, so neither Football Federation Australia nor Australian Football Hall of Fame spell out which code is referred to. If the FFA creates something called the Australian Football Hall of Fame as well, then disambiguation would be necessary, but that isn't the case. It's hard to see why you think there are double standards. So how can you tell what sport this is by the title? Australian Football Hall of Fame Why does it not say Australian Rules? And yes, there is an FFA Australian Football Hall of Fame; it's just not in wikipedia yet. If football (soccer) can't use Australian football, the Aussie Rules shouldn't use it either, for exactly the same reason. So when you're done wasting your time changing all of the football links, you can do the same to the Aussie Rules links. --Executive.koala 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Well the Football Federation Australia website under the heading "FOOTBALL FEDERATION AUSTRALIA - FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME" refers not once but twice to the "Australian Soccer Hall of Fame". There's no mention at all of "Australian Football Hall of Fame". But for disambiguation purposes I see no reason why the present Australian Football Hall of Fame article should not be moved to say, Australian Football Hall of Fame (Australian rules football). It can't be moved to [[Australian Rules Football Hall of Fame]] because that's not what it's called.--The Brain of Morbius 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply A soccer hall of fame? c'mon, let's get serious! I can really imagine hundreds of thousands of Australians with teary eyes winding their way through a soccer hall of fame. "I remember that nil all draw". "I was there the day so and so took a dive and won a penalty which gave us that magnificent 1-0 victory". "Remember how so and so would do a somersault, roll over a dozen times and then grab his ankle with such an anguished look on his face that his opponent got the yellow card everytime". "Oh look, I remember that nil all draw as well - it was an incredible game, there was not a single shot on goal all night, such tension, such professionalism, it was an extraordinary display of skill". "Oh look, that was the night we won 3-1 - it's still the highest scoring game of soccer on record." "This is the last game ever played in the NSL, such an historic event, there was so much emotion that night, to think that the comp survived a whole 26 seasons, the history of it all - it brings a lump to your throat." ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply That was really constructive and helpful. Regardless of your views towards football (soccer), it has nothing at all to do with whether there is an associated Hall of Fame or not. Cursive 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Well, given the heading says "FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME" I'm pretty sure that's at least one reference to it being called the Australian Football Hall of Fame. Here are some others: [8] [9] also from the footballaustralia.com.au site. Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame seems fine to me. Cursive 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply One is actually officially called the Australian Football Hall of Fame and the other is not - is that too difficult for you to understand? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'm sorry but there is only one team officially called the Australian national football team as well, but that didn't stop that page being moved... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'm less knowledgable of this issue, but if you have the references to show that that is its official name, then you make a fair point. No one would argue that that name is used officially to describe the national team of another football code (I don't think, but I could be wrong). "Australian Football" means something very specific in Australia, but I would think that Australian national football team clearly does not refer to anything related to Australian Football, and could perhaps be used to describe the socceroos (if that is its official name). While on the subject, I note that it says something about the term "socceroos" being the official nick name - but I had thought that Lowy was trying to distance the FFA from the nick name - perhaps "traditional nick name" or "popular nick name" might be better. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply It seems to me that one is called the "Australian Football Hall of Fame", and the other was started as the "Australian Soccer Hall of Fame", but since the change in name of the FFA, they are referring to it as the "Football Hall of Fame" or "FFA - Football Hall of Fame". They are not stupid enough to call it the "Australian Football Hall of Fame", as there is already something with that name. Maybe some disambiguation is required, but if so it should be "Football Hall of Fame (Australia)" or "Football Hall of Fame (Australian soccer)" or something like that. The disambiguation should definitely not come in the middle of the official name. JPD (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree. No point messing around with it if they don't even call it that. Xtra 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply They do refer to it as the Australian Football Hall of Fame (see the two links I provided above). Agree with the point about disambiguation not being in the middle of the name though. Cursive 11:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Appuntu. There is only one Australian Football Hall of Fame - the others have a different name and the titles of their articles should carry that name. The logical extension of all this idiocy is that some bright spark will decide that Australian Football League should be clarified for disambiguation, and will be retitled Austrlaian Football League (Australian rules football). Too far fetched? Too idiotic? Don't bet on it! We've already had afficionados of the other codes argue that the adjective "Australian" should not be used to describe Australian rules football because it was invented in Victoria!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Agree with the Australian Football League (Australian rules football) being an idiotic idea (or using the original name Victorian Rules Football when talking about Aussie Rules). But for the same reason that's why the page shouldn't be called Australian Soccer Hall of Fame per JPD. Cursive 11:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply But what is its official name? I can't get a sense of that from any of the links you have provided. It seems to me that if we use the official names for all the codes, and also add them to Australian Football Hall of Fame (disambiguation), that we have it all covered without any problems. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply That's the problem - it's not clear what the official name is - which was why I proposed the Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame in the first place. Seems ok now (others might not be happy with the status quo though) - if they ever do change it officially/change all the references from Australian Soccer Hall of Fame to Australian Football Hall of fame we'd have to do something about moving the disambig then. Cursive 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Sorry to stir up s%$^e and disappear for a few days. Anyway, it seems a reasonable conclusion has been reached. Well done, all. (thanks too, Cursive)--Executive.koala 15:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion The article Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun seems to be sometimes unencyclopedic in tone, and lacks citation of sources. Is the article a bit biased against the idea of the Aussie being the rightful King of England, or is it just me? Andjam 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply The problem is not that it is biased. It just gives far too much space to a notion that is basically silly. There is a snowball's chance in Hell of him becoming King of England. The right of the current Queen is grounded in Parliament (mostly the restoration after Cromwell and the cases of William and Mary and then George I), with only some inheritance as part of the picture. Most of this article should be deleted. He had his 15 min of fame when the TV had a program about him. BTW, I'm not biased against him or the current Queen. I've been a Republican for 50 years. I'm based against the whole notion of Monarchy. --Bduke 05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply A lot of the article seems to be about the legitimacy of the incumbent, which ought to be (and presumably is) available elsewhere in wikipedia. Andjam 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Having now read the article, I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion as Original research! The sections "Early Development to Bosworth", "Tudors", "Stuarts", "Triumph of heredity and statutory laws" cite acts of parliament, but do not cite the interpretations or claimed significance. "Pretenders" and "Conclusion" don't even go that far — they are pure editorialising. In particular, a section called "Conclusion" is a clear signal of an academic paper, not an encyclopaedia article. I think the article is salvageable by deleting everything from the first section heading to the beginning of the second-last paragraph, then providing a citation for the remaining claim. Some of the intervening material could be merged into Succession to the British Throne, and some is already there. --Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Definition of serious international crime Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion I'm having a struggle defining "serious crime" in relation to the article List of Australians in international prisons, which is currently under review for featured list status. If there's any eager law students about who can help me with a more appropriate definiation for the intro text there, I'd be very grateful. -- Longhair 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply In the NSW Crimes Act, a crime is labelled as serious if the maximum prison sentence is 5 years or over. Perhaps you could use a similar definition. enochlau (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply As Enoch said, "serious" depends on where you are - a suitable definition might be anything that qualifies as an indictable offence (or whatever is the local equivalent). Then again, something based on the available sentence would probably mean more to the average reader. There's also the issue of crimes which are not "serious" per se in Australia, but are harshly punished overseas (drug offences in Indonesia, for example). A definition based on prison terms sounds like a good idea in that context. --bainer (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I've suggested on the article talk page that serious crime should be replaced by noteworthy crime. Andjam 10:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I like that idea Andjam, but hesitant to use for now as I'm expecting a response along the lines of 'define noteworthy'. Keeping the introduction concise and detailing what lies beneath and why is the real battle I'm facing I guess. Your suggestion is winning by a nose, but I think it may need more detail as the others have suggested above to explain the list content. -- Longhair 11:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply New South Wales Cities box Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion I've been pottering away on making a New South Wales cities template in my sandbox. I got the idea from the {{Victorian Cities}} template. I figure, if the Victorian's can have one, why not NSW? Does anyone have any suggestions, eg. cities I have missed? Also should we be making other templates like this for the other states as well? Blarneytherinosaur 08:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Gralee? Not a bad idea at all, but we need a precise definition of what fits in here, or it's going to fill up in no time, with places like Gralee. - Randwicked Alex B 08:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Gralee, Whoops! I meant to remove that one. I suggest we include those places that have been declared to be cities, as defined at Local Government Areas of New South Wales. I went through the list there and collected as many cities as I could find, so I think they should all be there, but someone might notice if one is missing. There are a few quirks, like Taree being the centre of Greater Taree City Council and, I believe, therefore a city, but Port Macquarie only being within a Municipality and therefore not a city, although it is larger. I don't know if we should have an exception for cases like that, or just stick with the official definition. Also I would exclude those "cities" that are within the Sydney metropolitan area, which are already listed under "Local Government Areas of Sydney" in the Sydney regions template. (The Victorian cities template doesn't have the "cities" within Melbourne, and I think this is a good idea.) Blarneytherinosaur 09:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Defining whether a place can be a city or not based on its Council area is flawed, take for instance Tamworth Regional or Bathurst Regional Councils, both are centred around the major centres of Tamworth & Bathurst that in their own right would qualify to be called a city. Isnt there an official definition (by the NSW Goverment) that determines what is classed as a city or not? --59.167.7.100 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply The dictionary of the Local Government Act 1993 [10] defines a city as following: “city means an area constituted as a city under Division 1 of Part 1 of Chapter 9.” The Local Government Act 1993 No 30 Chapter 9 Part 1, Division 1, 204 Constitution of areas states that: "(1) The Governor may, by proclamation, constitute any part of New South Wales as an area." [And in 206 Constitution of cities] "The Governor may, by proclamation, constitute an area as a city." I believe that according to the Government of New South Wales unless a place has been proclaimed a city it is not a city, no matter how large its population is. Therefore I propose that this template should only contain those places in New South Wales that have been proclaimed a city and that are not within the Sydney metropolitan area (because they are already included in the Sydney regions template). I shall now move the template out of my sandbox and add it to all those cities listed in it. Blarneytherinosaur 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply National dish Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion I noticed Australia doesn't have an entry here. If China and the United States can, surely we can too! I'm thinking Lamb (food) and/or Australian meat pie. Any other ideas? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply I notice New Zealand has stolen our Pavlova again for that list. Maybe we should reclaim it. - Randwicked Alex B 14:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply It's not exactly a dish, but what's wrong with Vegemite? Confusing Manifestation 14:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Pretty much everything, I'd say, but I suppose it might be as close as we get to a national dish. ～J.K. 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply A conversation like this shows that this article is a joke. We shouldn't be deciding upon Australia's national dish. If there is no official statement declaring our national dish, then we do not have one. If we add it to the article, then it is just the opinion of the author. It is not verifiable. Also, the article is called national dish, and there are things like New York's dishes. Last time I checked, New York was not a nation. We have an article for Australian cuisine, that is good enough. --liquidGhoul 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Good point, all true, but disappointing nevertheless. Possibilities: pie floater; damper; char-grilled kangaroo; char-grilled barra; fish and chips. I agree with Liquid Ghoul. Such attempts to congeal Australia's wide-ranging cuisine, influenced by our multiculturalism, down to one single dish, would only be divisive and anglo-centric. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Victoria Street to see if I can find some nuoc cham. :) Cnwb 02:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Ethnic groups and criminals Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion I have noticed that in Vietnamese Australian and Lebanese Australian there are criminals listed under the list of notables (Nguyen Tuong Van and Bilal Skaf). However anons keep on removing Bilal Skaf from the Lebanese article, and one has put a message on the talk page that criminals don't represent ethnic groups. The other ethnic articles do not have any mentions of gangsters and criminals, but examples could easily, eg, Andrew Chan and Melbourne underworld people, etc. What is the policy on this sort of stuff? Because some of the articles sound like glorification? Is it appropriate to include notorious figures? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC).Reply I don't like the media's obsessions with labelling criminals by their ethnicity, but this is another matter. This isn't a list of people "representing" ethnic groups, it's a list of notable people. Criminals can be notable. The list should include the governors, premiers, footballers, etc and criminals, if they are notable. JPD (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply Criminals aside, I think the whole ethnic category thing has come too far. See Jason Moran (Irish), Dermott Brereton (Irish), Nicole Kidman (Irish), Paul Hogan (Irish), Cosima De Vito (Italian), who I assumed were all born in Australia, and therefore, Australian. What criteria are people using? Somebody born overseas is obviously a candidate, but is it correct to also include their children? -- Longhair 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply It's interesting to note that someone put a comment in the Brereton article noting that he is supporter of the IRA. An irrelevancy which I deleted.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian events Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion For events that are held regularly in Australian locations, but maybe aren't as big as the Royal shows and Footy Finals, but not technically Festivals, is there somewhere to put them? I would think an Events sub-category of, say, the regional categories under Australian Culture would be a good place for them. Confusing Manifestation 05:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Wikipedia quoted in Parliament Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion We just got quoted in Parliament, in the Senate adjournment debate today. Is this the first time, I wonder? Dysprosia 08:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply What was said? and who said it? -- Adz|talk 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I don't remember who said so, but it was a reference to one of our articles. You should find out tomorrow, when the Hansards come out. Searching the Hansards finds Wikipedia mentioned only once before in both chambers, here, by Danna Vale in the House last year. Dysprosia 09:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply It was Senator Lyn Allison, quoting the definition of propaganda to describe Howard: [11]. --bainer (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Bit disappointing, that. Referenced twice in Parliament, and both times it's just to say "Wikipedia says you're a tyrant!"? How sad. Remember when our politicians were eloquent? Imagine what Mr Keating could do today! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Just to clarify, Vale wasn't using it against a member of a competing political party. Gosh, it looks like team Vale came across wikipedia before I did. Andjam 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I know we have Category:Articles referenced by the press, but is there anything like Category:Articles referenced by politicians.--cj | talk 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Can someone add Hansard links to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_source (there are already links to mentions of Wikipedia in the parliaments in the UK and Canada, for example). Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Done. --bainer (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply The Latham Diaries Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Please see the article talk page for a discussion about whether extracts from the book are required. I believe the article is too much of a book review, and that the quotes may breach copyright, but Grant65 has begun a revert war in response. Harro5 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply AFL and "Editoralising" Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion Recently Harro5 has gone on an editing rampage, destroying the content of articles such as Andrew Mackie. Compare this version to the current version. He has cited non-NPOV, which I understand, fine. But, surely if you wanted to go through with this you would specify which bits aren't NPOV and go to steps to improve them so they are NPOV? Disappointing Harro. Rogerthat Talk 10:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply The article as it stands is very POV and editorial-style (gotta love the image caption, "Mackie has fans excited for the future"). It's also got links to at least two redlinked images. It does need rewriting to sound like a dispassionate encyclopaedia article; however, Harro5's version is, well, very short. I think rewriting rather than cutting out the too-excited bits would have been a better option, personally, but I'm not willing to do the work either, so ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply We're an encyclopedia, and can't editorialise unless we are quoting someone notable (eg. Caroline Wilson from The Age if it's football). Boomtish believes that writing in flourishing language about how talented someone was during their junior career - citing no sources - and listing individual statistics from games is worth adding to Wikipedia; I disagree, and when I reverted, I kept all fact that would be used in a standard Wikipedia article. I'm not going to discuss this matter any more, and hope Rogerthat realises while I love writing about football, my first allegiance on Wikipedia is to the project and its accepted conventions for writing biographies. If a similar article were written for a US politician, there would likely be an absolute uproar resulting in RFCs, revert wars and general ugliness. Harro5 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply My curiosity got the better of me so I thought I would do a quick check of what we are talking about here. I had a quick look at some of your most recent edits on Chris Judd. On the one hand, you were right in deleting this clumsy sentence: And this was all despite having had two shoulder reconstructions before the age of 18 - but hopefully you did so only because it was clumsy - I would have thought that the fact that he has achieved so much in AFL football at such a young age after having two shoulder reconstructions before the age of 18 is at least a little bit noteworthy and surely merits a mention somewhere in the article. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply FAC timing for Australia at the Winter Olympics Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion I withdrew my FAC nomination for Australia at the Winter Olympics on the grounds that it wouldn't be stable during the Winter Olympics. As the article has an overview section on the Winter Paralympics, should I wait until the 2006 Winter Paralympics (which runs from March 10 to 19) finishes? Andjam 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian political parties Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion I notice that while Labor and the Liberals have just one page, the Greens have a federal page and a page for each state. Should all the Greens pages be merged, or should the Liberal and Labor pages spill out into state based pages? Is there a compelling reason for having pages for each state branch? Xtra 11:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Well, in the past there's been strong distinctions between different state Green parties (they were entirely separate entities for quite a while), unlike the united image they present nowadays. I don't see anything wrong with the status quo. ～J.K. 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I think the only time we need to split articles, is if they are of too large a size. Too often people will split an article, and the resulting articles lose a lot of quality because of it. It doesn't seem neccesary just quite yet. If you would like to contribute largely to an article, just put all the information into it as possible, and if it becomes too large, find the best way to split it. --liquidGhoul 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I've always thought that state parties deserve their own pages, but I've never done anything about it. Cnwb 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian coin photos Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion I think that images of Australian coins which were made after 1969 ($1, $2, commemorative 50c pieces) can not be used because they are copyrighted as it says on the mint site: "The Commonwealth holds copyright in the designs and images used on Australian currency coins which were created after 1 May 1969.. Reproduction of designs and images without the permission of the copyright owner will be an infringement of copyright." I have asked for their deletion from commons [12] -- Astrokey44|talk 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply You're right, they shouldn't be on commons, but when used to illustrate the articles on Australian currency, images of coins would probably qualify as fair use and thus could be uploaded locally. --bainer (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Stereotypical Australian road picture? Latest comment: 19 years ago25 comments17 people in discussion Newell Highway Does anybody know of/have a picture of a stereotypical Australian road suitable to shrink to put in the {{Australia-road-stub}} template so we can have a different picture to {{road-stub}}? --Scott Davis Talk 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Maybe get a Kangaroo on a yellow road sign... Rogerthat Talk 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Highway pictures can be found at commons:Category:Australian highways, including the Newell Highway image - not sure how well it will look as an icon though. commons:Category:Road signs in Australia has no kangaroo signs (yet).--A Y Arktos 12:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Ignoring the tradition of pictures on stub templates, why is a picture required?--Commander Keane 12:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply One reason is recognisability for stub sorters and editors. It makes it much quicker to recognise that I've typed the letters properly when I se the icon in preview. I guess it also helps to catch the eye of potential editors to attract them to the message. AYArktos: Thanks for the category link - I didn't guess the right category to look in. There's about four pictures that are like what I was looking for (all taken by you, I see), so I'll see which looks best in miniature. --Scott Davis Talk 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply These are the four I'm considering. I think the first best represents and Australian road at this scale. --Scott Davis Talk 13:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree, the third and four images don't look like roads at that size. --liquidGhoul 14:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Hard to go past a picture of a road pointing to Grong Grong. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply The fourth is most representative of the Australian landscape being arid. I think it is the most appropriate.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree, the first one looks best. --Calair 05:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'll add my vote for the first as well. Confusing Manifestation 05:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Hey there came across this discussion and wondered if this would be any good? File:AustralianRoadIcon.png It's the SW of WA. Cheers SeanMack 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'm in favour of a kangaroo on a yellow sign, as that way you'd be able to tell which country it is for, and can be shrunk without too much loss of detail. Andjam 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'm in support of a basic road sign also. It scales to any size. Noisy images with lots of background detail don't look quite as effective when thumbnailed. -- Longhair 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Something like , maybe? JPD (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply You mean something like this? Surely someone here could make something pretty similar looking and upload it. Confusing Manifestation 12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply That looks nice. Something similar would suit I think. With or without bullet holes I'm not sure ;) -- Longhair 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply There is one at Kangaroo - File:Kangaroo sign in australia.jpg -- Astrokey44|talk 12:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I've changed my mind, I like the National 1 sign. It's obviously a road sign, and contains the Australian colours.--liquidGhoul 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree. It's also much clearer to see than the miniaturised pictures of actual roads. --bainer (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I am certainly biased, but if we are going for a road picture I like this one , because it includes a good balance of sky, Australian vegetation (and colours) and direction of road. The File:Kangaroo sign in australia.jpg is not bad but perhaps needs brightening for the purposes of an icon. I don't like , to me it not immediately obvious that the icon = a road sign (and I spend a lot of time on roads :-) ); icons to my mind have to be recognisable without thought or translation.--A Y Arktos 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I like the kangaroo road sign as it is clean and unambiguous. A better version is needed though. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'd be happy with the kangaroo sign too, but to be effective at that size it should have a plain background - either white, or nothing but sky - to avoid any distraction from the basic roo-and-sign iconage. --Calair 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I think the kangaroo is the best choice, but I agree that it needs lightening and a cleaner background. If you look on Google Images for 'kangaroo "road sign"' you get a lot of results, some of which would be really nice if they weren't on pay galleries. Perhaps someone wants to walk into a $2 shop with a digicam? Confusing Manifestation 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Entering a bit late in this discussion, but my preference is for Aya's image right up the top. --Fir0002 www 07:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply New ACOTF: Australian Space Research Institute Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Order of Australia was Australian Collaboration of the fortnight from 21 February 2006 to 5 March 2006. 5 contributors made 6 edits See how it changed. It also improved during the period it was nominated. This seems to be an example of selecting an already large article. There were more votes than edits for this collaborations. The new selection is Australian Space Research Institute which is only a small article at present. Three current candidates with five or more votes are going to be pruned from the list soon if they get no more votes. These are: History of women in Australia, Demographics of Australia, Ted Egan. --Scott Davis Talk 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Religious groups and fundamentalist militants Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Hello. Further to the comments about ethnic groups, and list of notable people belonging to ethnic groups being criminals, a similar issue has occurred at Islam in Australia under the notable people of Islam. User:Tarins01, who I think has come specifically to WP to promote Islamic groups, has deleted the listing of people such as David Hicks, Jack Roche, Mamdouh Habib, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, saying that they should be listed as "Australian criminals" not "Muslims", while including random lists of Islamic studies lecturers, etc. extremely uncivil spat at Keysar Trad with User:Gullivers travels, and despite claims about religious categorization, many of his posts have been regarding jewish groups under "religious terrorism" - I think he may end up similar to say, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason_Gastrich.REgards,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply SMH Article Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion I recently posted a reference to the following SMH article in the Talk:Football page, the latter having attracted much attention of late (unfortunately). Now I know many of you are sick to death of this topic - but if I can't discuss footy matters on this notice board - then where do you suggest I go pray tell? This is the article: Lloyd Swanton, March 7, 2006, "Play by the rules and keep your hands off our football" . It is of interest for the following reasons: 1. It touches on an issue (or a series of related issues) that has been running hot in the aforementioned talk page and to a lesser extent in this page. 2. It refers to the top 6 oldest football clubs (of any code) in the world, being: Melbourne 1858, Geelong 1859, Notts County 1862, Stoke City 1863, Carlton 1864, Nottingham Forest 1865. Also adding that: "Middle-aged" AFL clubs like Essendon and St Kilda are older than any senior clubs in Germany and Argentina. A "young" club like Collingwood (1892) is older than any Italian soccer club, and Port Adelaide (1870) older than any Brazilian club. 3. It helps reinforce the point that in any article covering the history of football (term used generically, as it always should be in Australia and by Australians), including (in particular) the history of its organisation, its institutions, its rules, etc. the fact that the Australian football clubs are so old in world terms is certainly of note and should be mentioned in this article (as it currently is, but others are trying to negate the worth of that importance, to date unconvincingly). 4. It is interesting that it is, of all things, a Sydney paper that is helping to pour cold water over the view that Australian rules football is not an Australian game (but a Victorian game), seeing that even the Port Adelaide footy club is older than the vast majority of football clubs of any code throughout the world - and by a long shot at that. Yes, this is all tiresome, but it is equally tiresome to hear these silly arguments being made in the talk page of what is an excellent general article on Football (to which I have made zero contributions, other than raising the flag and trumpeting its merits). These silly arguments are being made by at least one Australian (more often than not, masquerading as more than one Australian, but that is another story) - and therefore, it is only right that I air these views on this notice board, with apologies to all who believe that sport is the opiate of the masses, brings out the very worst in people, etc. etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Good post mate, I agree entirely. On a side note, did anyone notice the moving of Australian Football Hall of Fame to Australian (rules) Football Hall of Fame, including the moving of the Category? Rogerthat Talk 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply This is partly related to what I have touched on, but I think it was worked out in the end, the correct title of the article has been restored, but alas, I am afraid that probably most of the categories have to be individually reverted to what they were - an AFL sub-project perhaps? Perhaps put the word out on the project page that where people notice the wrong category being used, that they use Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply RfA Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Alphax is on RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 2.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply 3RR Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion I believe that User:DarrenRay has violated the 3RR at Carlo Carli.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Sport in city/state articles Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion Melbourne currently contains long lists of sports teams and venues which detract from the article as a whole and should clearly be moved to a separate article. Would Sport in Melbourne be appropriate, or would it be better to make it a section of Sport in Victoria? JPD (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'd be in favour of Sport in Victoria, as it'll have to be created eventually. Don't forget Sport in Australia (and its sub-pages) if applicable. I'm glad I read the Melbourne article, as I hadn't heard that they were building a new ice complex there. Thanks, Andjam 10:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Charles Fraser (botanist) Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion I'm ashamed/proud to say that my latest new article, Charles Fraser (botanist), is grossly west-centric, despite being about an eastern states person. If any of you t'othersiders feel inclined to provide some balance by filling in some details in the eastern states bits, you would earn nothing less than my undying gratitude. Snottygobble 06:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I know nothing about Mr Fraser, so I can't help there. However, you should know that there's something seriously wrong with your references there ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Thanks Mark, that's fixed now. Apparently subst: doesn't work inside <ref> tags. Snottygobble 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Notability check Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion In a List of Australian Winter Olympians, several people have namesakes, with two namesakes being adult models Danielle Carr and Christine Smith. The adult models don't seem very notable to me. Would anyone else be interested in having a look at the two (articles, not people!) to ensure that it isn't just a systematic bias against adult models on my part? Thanks, Andjam 06:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Holy...looks like there's an article on every Playmate of the Month ever. That doesn't say anything about notabilty, but it does suggest there's no way in hell we'd be able to get rid of them of they weren't notable anyway. I'd say you should create Christine Smith (athlete) then make a disambiguation page. - Randwicked Alex B 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I'd suggest either Christine Smith (skier) or Christine Smith (skiing). In Australian English, "athlete" usually means a competitor in athletics, not just any sportsperson. Other wise I agree with Alex. --Scott Davis Talk 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I PRODded Danielle Carr, since it had ONE real edit and that was in May 2005. The other one is a bit more recent so I left it, but anyone can prod if they like. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply The existing articles should also be disambiguated, making them Danielle Carr (model) (if it stays) and Christine Smith (model), with the main page as a dab page. There's no way either of those deserve primary disambiguation. --bainer (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian Football Hall of Fame Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion I note yet again that someone has changed the name of the article on the real Australian Football Hall of Fame, and the soccer people are pretending that theirs is called the Australian Football Hall of Fame - when it does not appear to be called that at all. Now I understand that there are endless nil all results that need to be commemmorated and that Australian soccer history is enough to bring a tear to your eye (although for all the wrong reasons) and a lump to your throat (from the odd karate chop), but can we please call it by its correct title, and use Australian Football Hall of Fame to refer to the only Australian Football Hall of Fame. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply This is really ridiculous. If the soccer hall of fame is not known as the aus football hall of fame, then aus football hall of fame should be for AFL with a link at the top saying If you are looking for the soccer hall of fame click here. Xtra 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply This is getting ridicuolous, a dispute should not continue for this long. I think you should go here, and try to get things sorted out. --liquidGhoul 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply According to the Australian Trade Mark On-line Search System, "Australian Football Hall of Fame" is trademark number 898836, registered to the Australian Football League. Under Australian trademark law, the AFL has exclusive rights to the phrase, and it would be illegal for the FFA to use the name for their Hall of Fame or to market themselves using the phrase. Let's move it back. Snottygobble 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply At great personal risk I have moved the AFL article back to its original ___location, under a title which is the AFL's registered trademark and is therefore protected against use by the FFA or any other body. Snottygobble 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Crying over nil-all draws is better than crying over the death of a 20 year old girl from heroin, ecstasy and amphetamines supplied by Gary Ablett. Stick that in your hall of fame and celebrate it, Pippu. Oh, I see you did. --Executive.koala 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply What the hell?!?! Why don't you speak to Maradona? Xtra 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Can you guys keep your voices down please; I'm trying to write an encyclopaedia here. Snottygobble 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply The grass is a touch damp first thing in the morning, ahh - it's almost footy season - a time when we can all reclaim some true meaning in our lives by following the great Australian game! If you don't like our one and only indigenous code, your Australian identity is barely hanging by a thread, you have become a consumer of the sporting equivalent of M.......s, K.C and S.......s, global products aimed at the lowest common denominator - the exact opposite of what our great national game represents! I beseech you - reclaim your identity, your history and in the process the meaning of life itself! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply (slaps forehead) ～J.K. 08:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Is that slaps forehead as in At last, someone else has finally got it! or as in I don't believe it, I just don't believe it or as in Oh the paiin, the paiin... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply All three. ～J.K. 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Category for Australian explorers, settlers? Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion Anyone think there should be a category (and corresponding stub) for Australian settlers or Australian explorers? Because settlement only happened 217 years ago, we have a lot of articles about this sub-category Australian people. Donama 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply We already have Category:Australian explorers and Category:Explorers of Australia. I would support the creation of Category:Settlers of Australia. Snottygobble 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Created Category:Australian settlers. I didn't choose the name you recommended because I thought it would be good to keep it parallel with "Australian explorers". Donama 05:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Category:Explorers of Australia is for people of any nationality who explored Australia, e.g. François Péron, French explorer of Australia; whereas Category:Australian explorers is for Australian people who explored, regardless of where, e.g. Douglas Mawson, Australian explorer of the Antarctic. I would have thought that you intended the settlers category to contain people who settled Australia, regardless of nationality, in which case "keeping it parallel" would imply Category:Settlers of Australia. Not that it really matters all that much. Snottygobble 05:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Ok, point taken - nationality is not important - but the fact that they were settlers of Australia. I think it is new enough cat to simply move it. Donama 05:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I think it might be nice to have a stub specifically for Australian pioneers/colonists/settlers/early squatters. What should it be called? What categories of Australian people could it encompass? Donama 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply How about {{Aus-settler-stub}}. Something like: Snottygobble 05:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Looks good to me. I'm not sure how to make this though. Donama 05:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Created this at {{Australia-settler-stub}}. This will categorise all articles tagged with it into Category:Australia settler stubs. Feel free to edit both of these. --bainer (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply New stub types are supposed to be proposed and discussed at WP:WSS/P (see also WP:STUB) before being created. There's a message to that effect at the top of Category:Australian people stubs to remind you. --Scott Davis Talk 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Notability of BrookesNews Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion A criticism [13] of Tim Blair cites Australian web site BrookesNews. Does BrookesNews seem notable? Thanks, Andjam 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I've never heard of it until now. That said, it basically looks like another blog to me - looks like a case of pot.blogspot.com calling kettle.blogger.com a blog. I don't think the criticism is particularly relevant or well-founded, any more than including any of Blair's criticism of others on his blog in those Wikipedia articles. While Tim Blair may just be notable enough for an article, I don't think he's notable enough to be quoted as criticising anybody, and neither is BrookesNews. "Criticism" sections in articles are a common way to attempt to bypass NPOV policies by attributing criticism to someone else. --Canley 12:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I deemed it POV blogcruft and nuked it. Feel free to disagree! - Randwicked Alex B 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply John Howard's "American disease" quotation in Gun politics in Australia Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion A dispute over whether it is appropriate to utilize an inflammatory quotation of John Howard's in an international forum such as WP (a quote that was clearly intended for a domestic audience being as it appeared in a radio interview) has arisen. The section of Gun politics in Australia in dispute is: "The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons", and that firearm ownership by ordinary citizens is an "American disease". While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally." The issue is on calling the American 2nd Amendment Right for the people to bear arms, and the US Constitution, an "American disease". This is not appropriate for an international audience, as it is extremely offensive to Americans. One alternative wording that has been discussed is: "The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", and that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons". Howard often states "I don't want Australia to go down the American path."[14] While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally." as it would be less inflammatory and more encyclopedic in nature than the current inflammatory version that insults Americans. Yaf 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply But I don't understand, if that is what he said, that is what he said - we aren't here to cleanse other people's quotes and make them appear in a better light - we present them as they are, warts and all. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Include both if necessary, but the first quote deserves to have its context explained – ie it was said to an Australian audience and so obviously wasn't intended to cause Americans offence. (forgot to sign before Donama) It's for Howard to worry about insulting Americans, not us. It's an in-context on-topic verifiable (? I assume) quote. No problem. I agree with Pippu. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I don't see the problem with the quote. It shows his disgust for it, and it is what happened. There is no reason to sugar coat an article, so the Americans won't be offended. It is not up to Wikipedia to not cause offence, I am offended by a lot of what Hitler did, should we take out all the information about the Holocaust? --liquidGhoul 07:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the first quote. However, there is no source, so until someone sources it the second option is better. Of course, there's no reason why both quotes can't be in there. --bainer (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Speaking as a US citizen, I think the first of the two blockquotes (specifically including the "American disease" quotation) is fine. I'm sure Howard didn't specifically intend it to offend Americans; every Australian knows how highly Howard values relations with the US. But nevertheless, he has made it very clear that on this particular issue, he does not agree with the USA's approach to gun ownership. If that's 'offensive' (I don't find it so), it's an offensive fact, and a relevant one; Wikipedia is full of such facts. IMHO, the quote shows the vehemence of Howard's views on this point, and isn't that what that paragraph is about? As for sources, Googling on +"john howard" +"american disease" pulls up a transcript of the interview in which he made those remarks, and even an mp3 of that interview. (The "American disease" remark is about two-thirds of the way through the mp3.) --Calair 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian people subcategories Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion To me, these subcategories are in a bit of a mess. I think we could revamp the Australian people subcategories by making two new subcats "Australian immigrants" (people born outside Australia who now identify as Australian and live in Oz) and "Australian emmigrants" (people born in Oz but who identify more as some other nationality and live outside Australia). These categories would have nothing to do with ethnicity, but cats such as "Australians in China" or "Australian-Brazilians" should be subcategories of "Australian emmigrants" or simply not categories at all. Possibly some really useless-sounding categories like "English-Australians" should definitely go. If need be make it specific like "Australians of Western European ancestry". Any more ideas to overhaul the Australian people subcategories? Donama 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply As a minor point that could save some trouble, "emigrants" has only one "m". I notice some categories have used "diaspora" instead of "emigrants", e.g. Category:Croatian diaspora. I prefer "emigrants" myself, but perhaps I'm missing an important but subtle difference in meaning. Snottygobble 05:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I am not fond of the diaspora word to be used generally - it has a specific meaning. I would rather refer to say community, but to cover those of the second and third generation. For example a Vietnamese-Australian might be born here but still be very much part of the local Vietnamese community and identify with that community as well as being Australian. The diaspora tends to refer to that community across international boundaries. I believe some diaspora identify more as such and maintain their connections despite which country they are in more than others. The Jewish and Chinese diaspora are more well known compared to the German dispora who perhaps adapt better to their places of immigration. In Australia, however, members of the Chinese diaspora would normally be referred to as being Chinese-Australians or Australian-Chinese.--A Y Arktos 18:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I agree diaspora is a bit of a flowery word and not that useful. The category names may as well be precise. An advantage of Wikipedia is that categories can be nested - in near-perfect subsets - quite a long way to achieve leaf-node categories that are useful to humans. Most of the intervening categories will be useful much more in the future when we are adding sexy decision support and browsing tools to Wikipedia. All that to explain why I still think we can simply use the very technical category names "Australian immigrants" and "Australian emigrants". Ideally subcategories of these would be used most often tho. Donama 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply What has green blood, no backbone, and three hearts? Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion Cephalopods! That's octupuses, squid, cuttlefish and Nautiluses, and whats more we are sitting on the cephalopod capital of the world. Or rather we are boardering it, since cephalopods are strictly marine animals. Anyway, cephalopods are really, really cool yet our coverage of them is dismal (as an example of how dismal look at Southern Blue-ringed Octopus, it's almost an Australian mascot yet it only has a few sentences.). So there is already a wikiproject:Cephalopods however i was wondering if anyone would be interested in a specifically Australian cephalopodian wikiproject, or even an Australian marine flora and fauna wikiproject, hell is an Australian flora and fauna wikiproject too wide? Anyways, i'm specifically interested in Australian cephalopods and was wondering if anyone else was too, and if i might be able to round up some people to help collaborate with in some vaguely formal way. The bellman 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I love cephs but don't know enough about them to contribute much; if you create the project, though, I'd be happy to pimp it elsewhere :-) --Calair 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I love eating cephs - but that's where my love affair with them starts and ends. However, I do agree that coverage of the dastardly, but otherwise absolutely loveable, Southern Blue-ringed Octopus, is nothing short of woeful. Surely a prime candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Rum Jungle, Northern Territory Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Rum Jungle, Northern Territory is receiving some POV editing to do with Compass resources etc. I htink it needs some work and also some watching.No very recent news reports apparently butthis ABC news item from 22 Feb (Renewed activity around Rum Jungle) is on the topic as why there is renewed activity around Rum Jungle on the Wikipedia!--A Y Arktos 20:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply New ACOTF: Rum Rebellion Rum Rebellion has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration with 13 votes. Australian Space Research Institute was Australian Collaboration from 5 March 2006 to 19 March 2006 4 contributors made 9 edits The article improved in quality, if not in length See how it changed The following articles have been nominated and will time out before the next selection if they do not receive more votes: History of women in Australia has 10 votes, needs two more votes by 23 March to remain listed Ted Egan has 6 votes, needs 8 votes by 21 March to remain listed Surf lifesaving has 4 votes, needs 6 votes by 22 March 2006 to remain listed Australian Football Hall of Fame has 3 votes, needs 4 votes by 31 March 2006 to remain listed. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has 2 votes, needs 4 votes by 1 April 2006 to remain listed. Conspiracy nuts... Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion Just FYI, some of the pictures from the Melbourne Wikipedians meetup have made it to this insane conspiracy page. [15] Agnte 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply That link doesn't work for me... pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply The link works for me (but maybe try the Google cached version). Who took those photos? They must be tall, the point of view is like a CCTV camera or something :-) --Commander Keane 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply User:Josh Parris took the photo, and he was standing on a ledge. Cnwb 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Wow! I never realised I was part of the Zionist cabal. Cnwb 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Shit, don't tell anyone, but I'm not Jewish... or an administrator! (How did I sneak in?!) And my friend in the back of the first photo isn't even a Wikipedian... pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Comm Games medals in template? Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion After seeing this series of edits to Jane Saville, I am wanting to see what people think about adding Commonwealth Games medals to templates such as the one on the Sebastian Coe article, which had previously been just for Olympic Games medals. Should these be added? I figured our noticeboard was a relevant place to start some discussion, considering Australia has won about 700+ medals since the Melbourne Games started foure days ago. It would be an awfully big job to get around to all articles to add these templates for Comm Games too, but it does look bloody good. There, I said it. This post might be censored in England now, so for safety's sake, God Save the Queen. Harro5 05:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Well, it shouldn't go in the Olympic medal box, at least. Perhaps a new box for Commonwealth medals, or a consolidated box for medals in major international competitions (have fun defining that, by the way)? --bainer (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Dispute over Australian Cyclone categorisation system (Cyclone Larry) Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion There has been a dispute at the Cyclone Larry which more or less amounted to whether or not the Australian Tropical cyclone classification schemes was a valid one and whether the American scheme should have been used in the article. The dispute seems to have settle down I think, but I thought it was worth posting a note here in case people wanted to keep an eye on it. I thought it would have been absurd if an article about a storm in Australia reported the magnitude of the storm in terms of an American classification scheme - which seemed to be the way it was going for a while. -- Adz|talk 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I hate American spelling Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Why has Melbourne University Student Organisations been moved to Melbourne University Student Organizations. GRRRRR. Xtra 08:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Australian railway milage/geodata? Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion Hi, Not from Australia myself, but I had an ideas for a possible project that might be of interest. What would the views be about trying to compile a distances table for Australia's railway network? Or indeed a table of Geo-data for stations? The only publications I've seen in the UK which had this type of information are Quail Track maps which covered Sydney and Tasmania respectivly. ShakespeareFan00 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Amateur AFL teams Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion Hello. Recently, North Carolina Tigers was put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers by myself, with the result being to merge the team to its respective league - United States Australian Football League, on the grounds that the performance and competition level is not of first-class standard, although the leagues in themselves are of interest. At the time I wrote a rather large discussion, indicating that the AfD could be a litmus-test or precedent for similar AFL teams and I would like to see what people think about this, as to I (or someone else) should go ahead and merge them, without sending a whole pile to AfD.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply Interesting question (even for a dyed in the wool, one-eyed aussie rules supporter such as myself). On the one hand, I accept the argument that it, and articles of its ilk, are not sufficiently notable. On the other hand, a lot of quirky, idiotic things appear to pass as notable amongst the broader wikipedia community. The article count is now so high that we've probably lost complete track of how much superficial idiocy is floating around in the guise of a wikipedia article. As a small but related aside: at what point do we stop writing about footy clubs in Australia? at VFL/VFA level? at state level? do amateur clubs get a guernsey (remembering that some, like University, are certainly notable in the history of the old VFL). We are currently involved in doing articles on anyone who has ever played one AFL/VFL game - and I am wondering why such a person (who may never have even touched the footy in their one and only game) should be any more notable than, say, an American aussie rules team that may have won their comp three years running. Lastly, most of these North American clubs have their own websites - brings us back into that whole mirky area. I haven't really left an opinion one way or the other, maybe because I reckon that the concept of notability is inconsistently applied right across wikipedia. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply I reckon that the concept of notability is inconsistently applied right across wikipedia. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is hot favourite for this year's Wikipedia Understatement of the Year Award. AfD is, to put it politely, a bloody mess. ～J.K. 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply	Featured article review Kylie Minogue – Review Good article candidates Moira Deeming — Discussion Ellenbrook line — Discussion Alkimos railway station — Discussion Whiteman Park railway station — Discussion Ellenbrook railway station — Discussion Canning Bridge railway station — Discussion Bruce Lehrmann — Discussion Bell railway station, Melbourne — Discussion Preston railway station, Melbourne — Discussion Sleepwalker (EP) — Discussion Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme — Discussion Robert Brodribb Hammond — Discussion John Caesar — Discussion Neil Robertson — Discussion Timebomb (Kylie Minogue song) — Discussion Ben Roberts-Smith — Discussion New York City (Kylie Minogue song) — Discussion Good article reassessment Alan Dale — Discussion Requests for adminship none currently General announcements Grants: Project Announcement - Women's Art Register Art+Feminism Event Planned meetups Perth – 13 April 2025 Brisbane – To be decided Peer review Rockbank railway station — Review Nick McKenzie — Review Deletion discussions

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63

	Melbourne Meetup Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Scouting in Australia

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am also involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. There is an article on Scouts Australia with a template that links to possible articles such as Scouting in Victoria for all States and Territories. Would anyone care to give a hand writing these? Please see Talk:Scouts Australia before starting an article. --Bduke 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is now a stub "Scouting in X" where X is a State or Territory. They need more detail particularly on the history of Scouting. Most, but not all, Branch web sites have little or no sense of history. --Bduke 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian States and Territories move

Latest comment: 19 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

The article on Australian States and Territories has been moved to States and territories of Australia (without prior discussion). Comments on how to procede (ie, whether to move back, or rearrange categories etc) are requested. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a bad move, but you may want to ask the movee, to fix all the pages that now need to be changed to avoid redirects.--nixie 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not opposed to it either, but it could have been approached much better.--cj | talk 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

much better? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

as the movee I would like to ask why the movee can fix the redirects better than someone involved in Australian articles? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not about being better. It's a matter of courtesy: if you move an article linked to by hundreds of other articles, it's polite to do at least some of the hard work of updating links yourself. As for the new title, I quite like it. --bainer (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

mmmh. I don't see that such action is impolite. And I have to say I find it a little impolite to demand such stuff. I often move pages to bring consistency to WP. I fix double redirects and often look for templates that can be adjusted. You know what makes me additional kind of feel impolite treated in this case? The linking was not coherent before. Some of you now demand something that did not exist. Anyway thanks for saying that you like the naming. And special thanks to User:E Pluribus Anthony who just came around to say "thank you for the move" and not demanding additional work. We are all working together - so it doesn't matter who does what. In this case it might have even faster if not I would search for the templates but someone more involved with AU would have done it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone has been impolite towards you nor has anyone demanded anything of you. What was suggested, however, is that with prior discussion things such as links and categories could have been amended correspondingly and expeditiously. It's a long-standing editing practice to correct links when one moves a page, but not strictly required - so long as redirects are point appropriately, then everything should be fine.--cj | talk 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

quote you may ask the movee, to fix all the pages that now need to be changed to avoid redirects ... fix ALL, while there was no state of non-redirects before. I find this quite demanding and you blow the same horn with "it is long-standing editing practice". What logic is this? It has been long standing practice to read encyclopedias on paper. Maybe you stick to this and turn of your computer? And as far as "expeditiously" is concerned:

• i don't see the big damage if for some hours there exist new redirects. And if there is such a big damage, I wonder how you have slept with the redirects that existed before for much longer time. BTW how much did YOU fix during the last 24h? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since 11 July 2003 Australian states and territories exists as redirect. [16]

For all the Australian demanders, and redirect-fix-focused people an excerpt from Special:Whatlinkshere/States_and_territories_of_Australia as of now is posted below Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

...list of 50 or so articles that link to Australian states and territories (redirect page) deleted by Commander Keane [17] - I am fine with the deletion Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll get a bot to fix them, if people feel so passionately about it.--Commander Keane 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

thx for helping them and Wikipedia :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, so now nothing links to Australian States and Territories, is that all you wanted the bot to do?--Commander Keane 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

wrong:

Special:Whatlinkshere/Australian_States_and_Territories - has links to it

Special:Whatlinkshere/Australian_states_and_territories - has no links to it

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, I think I have sorted them both out now.--Commander Keane 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category: Australian radio programs

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments12 people in discussion

• User:Grutness has contacted me on my talk page to ask whether the Category:Australian radio programs should be renamed as Category:Australian radio programmes. My advice for what it is worth is that programmes is the more traditional spelling but programs is the more common. However, I promised that I would post something here so that others can have their say. Capitalistroadster 09:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I was taught "programmes" as a young(er)ster, and a recent survey of that portion of my library by Australian authors (hey, I was bored) showed that in books even as old as ten years ago, "programme" is more common. However, "program" is catching on in a big way; two examples, The Canberra Times has standardised on "program" as its preferred spelling for both computer programs and any other sort of programmes, and the ACT Government has set up a "Helpshop Program" for shopping centres in Canberra. It won't be long before everyone — except for a few hangers-on who like to be perverse — says "program". Durnit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
• John Winston Howard prefers "programme", whereas the Australian Government 'Style Manual' suggested standardising on "program" (at least last time I looked). I prefer the non-frenchified version (following Fowler) -- Paul foord 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
• FWIW, Style: A guide for journalists (the News Limited Style Guide) says to use "program". Sarah Ewart 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
• if this falls into Category:Categories by country it should IMO better use "Radio program(me)s in/of Australia". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
• I tend to use programme, partly because that is what I was taught in school (and I'm not that old - I'm 27), and partly because I tend to be resistent towards adopting American spelling simply because News Corp and others think it might be easier. We haven't changed harbour to harbor and colour to colour. Adopting program instead of programme simply creates confusion in terms of what is and what isn't Australian spelling. (btw, does anybody know what the babel tempalte is for Australian English?) -- Adz|talk 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • en-AU. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
• From my experience, "program" has become dominant in the newsprint medium (thanks, as someone said, to News Corp) while the traditional "programme" is prevalent elsewhere. I was taught "programme" at school also, and I graduated from secondary school only a year or so ago, so I don't think "program" can be said to have displaced "programme".--cj | talk 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
• ABC and SBS use "program" (as do most of the radio station sites I checked). --Canley 10:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the wording is ambiguous and both are acceptably correct, use the spelling the original creator used. This is pretty much standard Wikipedia policy. Dysprosia 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's different when the more appropriate spelling is obvious, though: on American articles, for instance, I always (if I remember) misspell "colour". And suchlike. For articles related to Australian topics, it's usually pretty obvious: -ise instead of -ize, colour instead of color, herbs instead of erbs (cough) ... it would be nice to be able to standardise on one spelling of "program(me)" across Australian articles in a similar manner. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I was taught "programme" as well, just like "gaol" instead of the American "jail" - Ianblair23 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have a copy of the Macquarie Dictionary? What does it say? enochlau (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Second Revision (1987) has program, with "Also. programme" at the end. And hte computer-related definitions are numbers 7 and 8. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, so program is the primary listing? I'd be tempted to follow what the Macquarie Dictionary says, and leave it at program then... enochlau (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to follow the Macquarie as well, although I am disapointed. :-( -- Adz|talk 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• "Radio programs of Australia" or "Radio programs in Australia" ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-30/Congressional astroturfing

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lastest issue of the signpost contains an Australian reference at the end of the article on Congressional astroturfing.--A Y Arktos 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Photo deletions

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Many of User Tannin's photos are up for deletion. He has been a wikipedian since 2002 and many of them were uploaded before the tagging became mandatory. He has not been active since last September, his only 2 wikipedia forays being to revert attempts by other users to retag images. I do not believe he has read his talk page. This is an example of right process wrong outcome, not helped by the prickliness of Tannin. Could some wikipedian who knows him perhaps intervene by emailing him and seeking direction on approproiate retagging? Or something! See User talk:Tannin for more info on this. There are many many articles, particularly Australian ones that will be worse off for these deletions. He has uploaded I believe over 100 images.--A Y Arktos 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Tannin was not in favor of tagging all his images as GFDL since he did not want them re-used by commerical outlets, most of them are licenced under a non-commerical licences, which are as of May 2005, supposed to be phased out as possible. Its unfortunate that lots of images he uploaded will be deleted, but since they are not GFDL compatible and he isn't willing to change the licences (at least the last time I asked anyway) they will get deleted at some point. The commons has quite alot of images that could be used as replacements, we also have quite a lot of Australian photographers that could make replacements if we keep track of the articles that need replacement images.--nixie 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Images tagged as GFDL, were not tagged by him, and I'm guessing that those tags are wrong given my previous interaction with him.--nixie 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Is there a list of his photos somewhere? enochlau (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Tannin's contribs list the photo's.--Commander Keane 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • to the contrary, an example where he confirmed GFDL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:ATS80-HD.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=16188486 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • He licenced 2 of his contributions (photos that clearly have no commercial value) as GFDL. If you bother to go through his contributions you'll see that all the wildlife images that were tagged by him, were done so as non-commercial - and any requests for him to alter the licence to something free have been refused, like here.--nixie 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • maybe have a look to the link that Commander posted. You can find more there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

RfA Candidates?

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Is it the done thing to report Australian Wikipedians going for RfA here? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes Ben. In the past when someone was up it was just mentioned in the discussion section. However I started its own section for it for my RfA in November last year. I feel it is important to let other Aussies know when one of us is up for adminship. Now that this board has been reformatted (which was long overdue), RfA announcements should go under "Other Candidates". We can never have enough Aussie admins. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yup, when an Aussie's up, we want to know about it. They go to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements. Are there any Aussies up at the moment? We had a flurry through before the end of last year. --cj | talk 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. I think an RFA is meant to involve gathering wide community consensus, any publicising amongst "sympathy groups" is unfair in my opinion and likely to distort the discussion. It should be frowned upon just as RFA candidates writing to all their contacts asking for a "vote" is frowned up. (I'm not singling you guys out by the way, I came here as part of a survey to see if other noticeboards advertise RFAs as Singapore does. So, clearly some do - and some don't). --kingboyk 11:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Announcing Australian RFA candidates here is not about getting more support - it is about ensuring that the editors most likely to have encountered the candidate are aware that he/she is nominated. The choice of whether to vote, and which way is still up to individuals (and I have voted both ways on people listed here). --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Scott Davis. I hope we can keep them here, because they're useful. They don't mean that every editor here will go and vote for a candidate. I'd like to see any evidence at all that RfAs being posted here has led to a "pile-on" in any single RfA. AFAIK IRC is worse for this than genial noticeboards like ourselves. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

What they said. As we've often worked with the candidates at length, we're mostly in a better position to judge their suitability for adminship than some random passerby to RfA who just flicks through their last 100 edits. Ambi 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well said, Ambi. I only get involved with RfA if I have come across the candidate. I therefore need to know if they have nominated from the Project pages of Projects I support. --Bduke 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sydney Meetup - Sunday

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Just a quick note that there is a Sydney Meetup on this weekend. We are at meeting at the Town Hall steps, 11:30 AM, on Sunday 5th Feb 2006, with a view to having a Yum Cha lunch. If you're in Sydney, please come along! And if you are a Sydney Wikipedian, please add [[Category:Wikipedians in Sydney|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] to your user page, as it makes you easier to contact for invites to future meetups. Look forward to seeing you there! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The quick list of Sydney tasks has now been updated based on the meetup, and is shown below (apologies to the people outside of NSW) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here are some open WikiProject Sydney tasks:
Missing:	Sydney Wildlife World (new zoo), Cumberland Plain, Australian Major League Baseball, North Sydney Institute of TAFE, Hornsby Plateau, Wayne Cooper, Fairfield Hospital, Sydney Children's Hospital, Mona Vale Hospital, Manly Hospital, Mortlake Punt / Mortlake Ferry, Chipping Norton Lakes, Appin.
Missing Roads:	Henry Lawson Drive, Heathcote Road, Bathurst Street, New South Head Road, Druitt Street
State Politics:	Expand Parliament of New South Wales (e.g. a few photos could be good). Past members timelines moved into each electoral district's talk page. A-G have been merged into the article resolving differences. See each article under Category:Electoral districts of New South Wales. Stub past members pages of past members listed in existing electoral district timelibes have all been created. There are still the past electoral districts and past members of those districts, but there are too many of them to tackle at this stage. The next step here is to make sure that all links to past members are valid, disambiguation templates, and redirection to more commonly used names.
Expansion:	Steps needed for getting Sydney to Featured Article status. The list of local suburban Sydney newspapers may be missing some. Georges River articles: Woronora River, Cabramatta Creek, Prospect Creek, Salt Pan Creek. King Georges Road, Anzac Parade
Cleanup LGAs:	Removing suburb redlinks from these councils: Lane Cove, Manly, North Sydney, Parramatta, Pittwater and Pittwater list.
Education:	Missing NSW Government Selective Schools (what they are, how they work); Expansion of UWS, ACU, UTS, UNSW, Macquarie, Usyd articles (in roughly that order).
Rail:	The railway stations need photos!!! Please help - List of CityRail railway stations- if you can even provide a photo of your local station that would be helpful - ones that need photos are here. Also, CityRail needs expansion - this could be a great featured article in the future with a bit of work.
Edit or discuss this list.

Just for the record, Parliament of New South Wales does already have its own article. Ambi 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you - Live and learn! I've updated the Sydney tasks accordingly. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shooting ranges in Australia

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A quick note to ask for inputs for a new article branching off Shooting range. Specific countries are now addressed in this top level article, with inputs needed for several countries, including Australia. Thanks! Yaf 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who looks at the "Shooting Ranges In..." articles will quickly note, there is not much discussion of Shooting RANGES - mainly SHOOTING in that country. I would be very interested in a page showing how Australian shooting ranges are DIFFERENT to SHOOTING RANGES in the other countries - but I think they are all designed off pretty much the same international standards... Garrie 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian copyright

Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Are works from the Australian government public ___domain? The specific site I'm looking at is, [[18]]. Thanks. Gflores ^Talk 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, Australian Government works are not public ___domain. The link in the footer takes you to this page which is quite explicit on the subject of copyright with respect to pages produced by the Australian Antarctic Division, similar conditions would apply to all Australian Government websites.--A Y Arktos 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Australian Govt is nowhere near as enlightened as the US govt as regards copyright, unfortunately. E.g. the idea that public paid for it, so the public should own it (which means public ___domain) seems to have not twigged. So, we're sometimes stuck with the perverse situation of having to sometimes get US govt data (e.g. NASA photos of Australia), and use those, instead of using similar material from Australian govt sources. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Furthering the discussion at the Sydney Meetup, [19] discusses copyright on NSW legislation. Section 2 seems to permit republication, although I'm concerned about 2 a). Although the GFDL allows the author to retain copyright on the work, this strictly speaking is not a "free" license. Furthermore, 2 e) prevents modification of the work. Is this then publishable on wikisource? enochlau (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

(IANAL, JALS) That seems roughly equivalent to CC-ND, which is not a compatible license for our purposes. --bainer (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm seems like Wikisource has different rules to Wikipedia. This was their response: [20]. From a Wikipedia point of view, how much use do you think it will be if we dump Australian legislation onto Wikisource? Is it worth a try? enochlau (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

While we could, I'm inclined to think dumping legislation onto Wikisource is a Bad Idea. Legislation is constantly changing - unlike, say, treaties, or Jane Austen novels, anyone reading it really needs to know that what they're reading is very up to date. While I have no particular objection to caselaw ending up there, as the text does not change (even if a bit unnecessary with the definite accurateness of Austlii around), putting statutes on Wikisource opens up a needless minefield. Ambi 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You do have a point there - it would be quite hard to keep up with the changes. However, the case law sounds like a good idea, to accompany our case articles. Actually, it might be useful to store on Wikisource old, repealled pieces of legislation that are important historically but are otherwise unavailable online (Austlii only goes so far back); that would involve scanning the typed up versions, which will take up truckloads of time that I don't think many of us have. enochlau (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Putting legislation up would also be redundant, since it's all available through AustLII or ComLaw (or State equivalents) for free. I should check out what copyrights are on judgments, they may not be usable. --bainer (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

ACOTF

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I'm looking at rolling over the Australian collaboration. Are people here happy that the winner is It's Time which has already received a major start before it gets selected? Running second is Order of Australia which is also a fair starting size. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Convictism in Australia was ACOTF from 22 January 2005 to 5 February 2005

• 14 contributors made 62 edits
• The article increased from nothing to 14.3 kb
• See the article at the end of the fortnight

--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's Time has been selected. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Map for I've been everywhere

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wonder if there is a keen map maker who would like to help make a map for all the places listed in the song I've Been Everywhere? I fully appreciate that most people would rather be working on more worthy and serious projects. It seems that the list is rather biassed though to Queensland and New South Wales and perhaps this would best be illustrated by a map. I am happy to help with coordinates for the places. I am sure I will learn some geography on the way. --A Y Arktos 10:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Winter Olympics/Commonwealth Games

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone, just thought I'd let you know about User:ben.carbonaro who is an aspiring journalist that is willing to add some information on the Winter Olympics and perhaps the Commonwealth Games. He is also passionate about netball, so if anyone is willing to collaborate, he's your man. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Rogerthat.

I am an aspiring sports journalist and have written about/reported on various sports including AFL football, cricket, swimming, basketball and netball.

My main sport that I write about is netball, especially the Commonwealth Bank Trophy (National Netball League) and any international Test played by Australia here in Melbourne.

As Rogerthat said, I am would like to contribute some articles about the Winter Olympics as they happen in Torino and also some historical pieces as well.

Do we have any other aspiriing sports journalists here?

Ben.carbonaro 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, Ben Carbonaro's user page is somewhat controversial. given that Rogerthat wrote most of it in the third person on Ben's behalf, you might want to be careful - just in case you could be pinged for making personal attacks. I've been working on bios of Australian Olympic medal winning swimmers by the way, if you're interested.Blnguyen 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's all in good humour, I set alot of it up but many "anons" added some of the more controversial attacks. But ben is fine with it. Rogerthat ^Talk 07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I am fine with that as it is all a bit of fun. Ben.carbonaro 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC channel #wikimedia-au

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

#wikimedia-au is running on Freenode. That's irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-au . Come one, come all! - David Gerard 22:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

To all those interested in setting up Wikimedia Australia, I thought we should set up a channel so we can have some coordinated discussion despite people being spread across different ends of the continent. People who don't have access to IRC, it's pretty easy to get, just ask if you want some help. It would be good to have a meeting sometime soon, to discuss some of the issues about the chapter's first steps. --bainer (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

When are people free? I suggest the coming Sunday night. See meta:IRC for instructions on how to join. enochlau (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone suggest a good IRC howto/primer. Never having used it before it seems a little arcane in it's user interface. ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Try irchelp.org, it lists many primers and tutorials. --bainer (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikiproject spam links?

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There seems to be an effort to modify stub tags to rid them of references to wikiprojects. In particular the Canberra wikiproject stubtags have been modified several times recently by Users Freakofnurture, Jerzy, and Carnildo. They have not discussed their edits prior to making them. They have not referred to any policy or guideline. Their edits refer to "wikispam".

There has been some attempt to have a discussion at Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Canberra#template edit. The discussion would appear to support such footers as per Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices#How to attract contributors .28Advertise.21.29.--A Y Arktos 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Jerzy/WikiProj-soliciting stub templates and associated discussions at User_talk:Freakofnurture#Project-spam via stub tags, User_talk:Carnildo#Project-spam via stub tags shed some light that they are working together but not what guideline or policy they are following, nor where they sought or obtained concensus for their campaign. More discussion at User_talk:Jerzy#Comic stub templates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates#W-Proj refs in Stub tags, Template_talk:Marvel-Comics-stub--A Y Arktos 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Can we get in touch with these gentleman and suggest that they don't change stubs without discussing it with members of the relevant Wikiproject to build consensus?Capitalistroadster 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

All three are aware of the discussion at Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub, some of the activity dates from after that discussion and without reference to it.A Y Arktos 05:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have asked User:Grutness for his feelings on this, as he seems to do a lot of work with stub templates, etc. --Martyman-(talk) 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

And after that introduction... :) There's not any hard and fast rule at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting about it, but there have been calls in the past to remove wikiproject links in stub templates, since they fall foul of the avoiding self-reference style guide. Then again, a stub template automatically refers back to wikipedia anyway. Links to wikiprojects from stub templates do annoy a lot of editors, though. Some wikiprojects compromise by having a link at the top of the stub category rather than in the stub template (I know that Category:Cricket stubs is one that does that). That might be a better way to go to stop any possible edit war (especially since edit-wars over the wording of heavily-used templates can be hard on the servers). If you want any more input from anyone at WP:WSS, feel fee to drop a note over at the WSS talk page - there are others there who would have more to say on this topic... Grutness...wha? 06:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Following the suggestion by Grutness, I have referred the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#WikiProject links in stub templates--A Y Arktos 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Oceania

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've put down some thoughts about this proposed portal at Portal talk:Oceania. Please come and comment.-gadfium 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Political biographies - any evidence of abnormal editing?

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion

With the fuss over US congressional staff inappropriately editing congresscritters' biographies, has anybody seen any evidence of Australian politicians' articles being edited by parliamentary staffers? I haven't seen any such... --Robert Merkel 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• A recent issue of the signpost contains an Australian reference at the end of the article on Congressional astroturfing. I am unaware that the editor mentioned has made other than useful and impartial additions to the wikipedia. Some of his additions have been to articles on Australian politicians.--A Y Arktos 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Adam's contributions are above reproach. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • His contributions aren't always above reproach. But nobody's perfect. Andjam 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Heh, okay. His contributions have been very very good, and there is no evidence whatsoever that his boss has inappropriately influenced his writing. How's that? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
• OK, let me rephrase that; has anybody seen any inappropriate edits made by parliamentary staffers? Adam's contributions to Wikipedia have been outstanding. --Robert Merkel 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • What are all the relevent IP addresses, Federal and State?--Commander Keane 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've seen a few examples of this happening. Tony Simpson (WA state MP) appears to have been started by a staffer, and a new image was added to Mal Washer the other day by someone who looks like a staffer. The article on Andrew Brideson was briefly censored by someone who I have reason to believe may have been Brideson himself, and the IP traces back to the Victorian parliament. I have my suspicions, but no evidence, that some edits to Peter Collier were made similarly. There's also some that one does wonder about, such as the person who first wrote Victor Perton.

Finally, while he may not be a staffer or an MP, several of us have strong suspicions that a Victorian political figure who shall remain nameless is the Australian politics libel vandal. Ambi 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is that this user? Agnte 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

this one, I think. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

What about the Ross Lightfoot thing that happened a while ago, on Kerry Nettle, where a Canberra Telstra anonymous editor was repeatedly removing the "fuck off and die" allegation? It's not exactly definitive, though... Dysprosia 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not unless this counts -- Astrokey44|talk 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

IRC meeting

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

As mentioned above, the proposed Wikimedia Australia now has an IRC channel, #wikimedia-au. It would be good to have a meeting sometime soon of Wikimedians interested in setting up the chapter, perhaps this Sunday evening? Logs will be posted for those who can't or don't use IRC. I think some real time discussion would be very useful. Please indicate below whether this time is good for you. (Wikinews people and others, please distribute this notice to Australian areas on other projects.) --bainer (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unbelievably, I work Sunday evenings. But unless it is a bad time for a few other people, don't workaround for me. (Should these discussions be at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Australia now? If you're interested in the foundation of wm-au, I think you have to break down and get a meta: account sooner or later.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You need a job with irc access :) I'll see what I can do about popping in. -- Longhair 13:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Posted a note at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Australia#Meeting_on_IRC. enochlau (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Posted a note at n:Wikinews:Australian_discussion#Wikimedia Australia IRC meeting - Borofkin 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have your say

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just noticed that someone has started a thread on WP:AFL on a footy site. This is a chance for promoting our project - have your say even if you hate football - CLIck here. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would anyone reading this notice board really hate footy? C'mon!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism to Dale Begg-Smith

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Gold medallist Dale Begg-Smith has been copping some vandalism in the form of innuendo about his IT career. He could well become the next Jimmy Wales. Andjam 14:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I actually have added a link to his IT company on his page.

Ben.carbonaro 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not vandalism - it is well-documented that he owns that IT organisation. Rogerthat ^Talk 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you referring to project spring, or AdsCPM and CPM Media? Thanks, Andjam 04:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Project Spring. Rogerthat ^Talk 08:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

A google search didn't come up with anything. Do you have a citation? Thanks, Andjam 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status of Bulletin photo

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I came across a 1952 photo from The Bulletin archives taken in Oslo, Norway. Is likely to be in the public ___domain? Would the relevant question be whether the photo was first published in Australia? Thanks, Andjam 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you were using the photo in Australia, it would be in the public ___domain, since it was taken before 1 January 1955, regardless of where it was first published. But we're using it in the United States, for all intents and purposes, so it's probably not public ___domain. --bainer (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought the consensus was that if it was originally published in Australia and it's PD in Australia, it'd be PD in the states. Andjam 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't think Thebainer's conclusion is right. I was under the conclusion international copyright law is honoured if the country of origin still holds the work under copyright, and dropped if the country of origin has released it from copyright. --Martyman-(talk) 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It has to have a "home country" to recognise its copyright. But which country is its home country? Xtra 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should The Bulletin be contacted to ask about whether Australia was the "home country"? If so, should I do it, or someone more experienced with this kind of stuff? Andjam 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea. If the photographer was Australian or employed directly by The Bulletin (not freelance) then it is most probably an Australian work. It would be strange for the copyright to be owned by an Australian but governed by foriegn copyright rules (though being strange is probably not a good way to judge these things). I am also not sure if the photo is owned by a foreign copyright owner if it's publishment in an Australian magazine would mean it falls out of copyright in Australia a set time after being published, although if it was still under copyright in it's home countrie the US would have to honour that... This stuff is too complicated for it's own good. --Martyman-(talk) 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Andjam and Martyman, you're right for stuff produced and published entirely within Australia. Stuff that's PD in the home country before 1978 is PD in the US. This photo was taken overseas, and there's also the question of when it was first published, so Australian law may not be the only applicable law here. As you've already said, it's necessary to establish details like that first. --bainer (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Any volunteers? Andjam 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've sent an email to The Bulletin. Andjam 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yagan on the Main Page

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Today's featured article is an Australian article, Yagan. Snottygobble 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

woot Australia. I am inordinately proud that Thorpdale, Victoria will also get to share the main page for a little while at least. DYK - Helping non-"Featured standard" editors reach the main page since ... uh... 2000 I suppose. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

thats one of the best FA's i've ever read, informative, well-written. good work. Agnte 10:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Request for admin

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

rogerthat, a tireless contributor to aussie rules on this site, has a request for Admin ship up and running. I suggest you consider voting for him TheRealAntonius 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would be more than happy to support Rogerthat, who is a real asset to Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest, however, that you curtail some of your support, at least for the moment. Your enthusiasm is touching, but your ignorant and incivil attacks on other users at the RfA are doing Rogerthat's chances, as well as your own reputation, a great deal of harm. Please try to let matters run their course without further interference, for Rogerthat's sakes. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough mate, I read that page and it seems Rogerthat is also known for his temper...lol. TheRealAntonius 11:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mention of wikipedia

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

702 ABC Sydney segment "I don't get it" on Thursday night included people wondering why there's a "Sydney Harbour", and the host said that wikipedia isn't the final word, but the entry said Sydney Harbour is also used to describe Port Jackson. I can't quite remember his exact words, but it could be one of the first times a redirect has been mentioned in the media. Andjam 08:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hartz Mountains

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone have a look at Hartz Mountains -perhaps they should be a dab to Tasmaina/Germany?Rich Farmbrough. 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Caledon Bay crisis

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Someone has out a NPOV flag on Caledon Bay crisis, with no explanation on the talk page. What is the general thinking about doing this? Paul foord 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you disagree that there is a POV issue with it, and no explanation has been given, remove the tag. enochlau (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

While it's not polite to slap a NPOV without giving reasons why, I think the article has some NPOV problems. Andjam 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Umpire in Hewitt/Camplin tennis match ad

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've created a description of some of the Channel Seven ads for the Winter Olympics, including the ones featuring Steven Bradbury, and the one where Alisa Camplin plays "tennis" with Lleyton Hewitt.

Does anyone know who the umpire is in the "match"? Thanks, Andjam 09:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's Alisa Camplin playing tennis with Grant Denyer dressed as Lleyton Hewitt, actually. The umpire is Bruce. --bainer (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Andjam 05:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sunday's IRC meeting

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After discussion on meta (m:Talk:Wikimedia Australia#Meeting on IRC) and above, IRC meetings for all those interested in setting up an Australian chapter of the foundation will be held at 2pm AEDT (3am UTC) and 8pm AEDT (9am UTC). The channel is at #wikimedia-au, it can also be accessed through Wikicities' CGI interface at http://irc.wikicities.com/wp/ (thanks Angela!). Logs will also be posted for those who can't attend. --bainer (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

A log of the first meeting is at meta:Wikimedia Australia/Meeting log 19 February 2006. Angela. 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tasmanian election

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Paul Lennon has called the Tasmanian state election for mid-March, and our article on the election is pretty short. Any takers for expanding it? We've got a reasonable article on the coming South Australian election, which could serve as a bit of a guide if anyone is interested. Ambi 06:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Werribee Park

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Werribee Park is on the TODO list, but is still a redlink. However Werribee Park Mansion does exist and mentions other things about the Park such as the Rose Garden. I suggest Werribee Park Mansion be moved to Werribee Park and expanded to give more information about everything there including the Rose Garden, Zoo, Equestrian Centre and so on. Does anyone object? --Bduke 07:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As the creator of the article for Werribee Park Mansion some three months ago, I say, "Go for it! Make it good!" --EuropracBHIT 08:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC).Reply

I have made a start, moving Werribee Park Mansion to Werribee Park, adding material about the Rose Garden, the Equestian Centre and the Zoo. I'll add more latter. One question - I do not understand the reference to the Manor, a redlink. It is also seems that there is very liitle about Polo and matters Equestrian in Australia. Is this correct? This article needs some photographs and I'm not into electronic photography yet. Could anyone help? --Bduke 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian-related non-NPOV articles

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

G'day all. These are some Australian articles all have been slapped with a {{npov}} or similar recently. I've cleared out a some, theres a few left that others here may be more qualified to look at, so here goes. Agnte 23:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Political : Peter Costello Christian Democratic Party (Australia) Fathers' Rights Australia Australia's alleged East Timor cover up (im not sure that can be salvaged) Australian conceptions of race and ethnicity and also Foreign relations of Australia which is quite messy.
• Schools : Knox Grammar School Prescott College, South Australia
• Sport : Mark Bosnich, Phillip Matera, Tony Shaw, Scott Camporeale Nick Holland Nicky Winmar
• Misc/Media : Mr. Sheen Channel 31 Melbourne Emu oil

Thanks for this list. I had a quick look at Nicky Winmar and I have now crossed him off the list. I would appreciate someone else having a look at it as well. It originally had a reference to his "exquisite skills" (not my wording) but now all reference to his skill level has been left out in the interests of getting the POV tag off...but...I can't help thinking that if we are talking about an exceptionally skilled player (confirmed by the Encyclopedia of AFL players), what is wrong with saying that the player was widely regarded as being extremely skilled? For someone who is rapidly getting up to 20,000 edits in a few wikipedias - I have to tell you - my observation is that often when someone whacks a POV charge on an article - it is often a case of the whacker being more POV than the whackee. In the AFL realm, non-AFL adherents are noticeably harsh and I am suspicious of their motivations. Sure, some of you will say: and deservedly so! However, a close inspection does not bear this out. For instance, in the Football talk page, a rugby diehard is trying to argue that Australian rules football should be called Victorian rules football - or that it shouldn't be described as an Australian game but as a Victorian game - it is the most inane, idiotic, POV argument I have ever heard. I guess Don Bradman isn't an Australian legend, he is a New South Welsh legend! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

what is wrong with saying that the player was widely regarded as being extremely skilled? I would say nothing, but if he was "widely regarded" as being so, it shouldn't be too hard to find just one specific instance of this to cite. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

on the talk page I quote from the Encyclopedia of AFL Players (which, incidentally, lists every player to have played VFL/AFL football since 1897, including games, goals and usually other autobiographical details like birthdate, birth place, from where recruited, career achievements, etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, if I raised eyebrows because I tagged a few of the AFL pages. I guess with cricket articles its easier because there are lots of individual stats, but in AFL this is obviously harder to quantify. However, it is probably improbable that players are extremely proficient at all areas, so it would probably be good to explain which areas were their relative strengths and weaknesses, lest it gives the reader the suspicion that the writer thinks that the player is immortal. If you think that perhaps I am being difficult, see Talk:Rahul Dravid, which was tagged in October. As for the quote, sports encyclopedias/history books aren't to the same standard as an encyclopedia. Some sports encyclopedias aren't really encyclopedias
• As reward for his courageous effort, from 100 Great Australian Olympians
• Some quotes from Wisden Cricinfo profiles have been cut and pasted onto cricket profiles, and subsequently booted off for POV not for copyvio

I think it is better to cite statistically and quote the pundit, rather than simply assert an 'encyclopedia' opinion as a 'fact'. Regards. Feel free to continue this on my talk page if it becomes a 1-1.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes but for many players who played before the advent of advanced statistics (ie, before the mid-1990s), it is very hard to quantify the skills of particular players. I suppose you could quantify a full-forward's contribution to the team by the number of goals scored in a particular season, but apart from that it's hard to say without using anecdotal evidence. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I have had a go at the Mr. Sheen article. It didn't really involve anything, just the deletion of two sentences, and one word from another sentence. If someone would like to have a look at it, and if it is NPOV, cross it off this list. --liquidGhoul 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

New Australian collaboration is Order of Australia

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I forgot to roll over the ACOTF last night, but I've done it now.

It's Time was ACOTF from 5 February 2006 to 20 February 2006

• about 16 contributors made about 60 edits
• The article increased from 5.7 kb to 9.2 kb - 60% longer
• See how it changed

--Scott Davis ^Talk 08:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tim Blair

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Aussie blogger and Bulletin employee Tim Blair is currently a redlink, which has been deleted three times. Were any of the deleted versions legit articles that suffered vandalism? Thanks, Andjam 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Andjam, below is the text that was deleted:

Tim Blair is a right-wing Australian blogger and commentator who has based his work on political writer Gerard Henderson, but with much less success. He forms part of a small group of reactionary commentators, including Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt and Henderson, chiefly supported by News Corporation, seemingly devoted to imposing a right-wing social and political agenda on Australia and almost reflexively supporting the current Howard Government.

Blair was active in early 2006 in criticising left-wing cartoonist Michael Leunig, although in many ways Blair himself is a political mirror of Leunig's bizarre and extremist leftwing views.

Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• There are obvious NPOV problems with this article but Blair is notable enough in my opinion given that he has been a columnist for the Australian and now the Bulletin for the past five years. Perhaps undeletion might be an option but not with that text. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • So just start from scratch? Andjam 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes. Blair is notorious enough to deserve an entry. And, much as it pains me, he deserves a neutral, fair entry... :)--Robert Merkel 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • He was on Safran Sunday night as an example of a leftie gone right, as opposed to Robert Manne, a rightie gone left. Bit of a mismatch, I would've thought. :) But apparently he's also considered by some to be the closest thing to a "right-wing Phillip Adams". pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Categorisation of murderers

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is some concern about the categorisation of people as murderers and criminals. The concern has been raised at Talk:Maxwell Stuart. I have suggested that given Stuart was convicted, had unsuccessfully appealed, the verdict had been reviewed by a Royal Commission and upheld, to fail to categorise him as a murderer seemed to be POV, rather than the other way around. It is not the Wikipedia's role to unconvict someone - the issue is to report the facts. To categorise someone as a murderer, Wikipedia:Verifiability is met by reference to court decisions and, in the Stuart case, the report of the Royal Commission. As the issue perhaps was with the category label, the discussion has been referred to category discussion pages and a discussion has been initiated at Category talk:Murderers. The label descriptor for Category:Australian murderers states: "Australians who have been convicted of murder." - in Australia the legal system is the arbiter.--A Y Arktos 10:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why not make the category Category:Convicted murderers and Category:Australian convicted murderers. They seems less POV. --liquidGhoul 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that is a good idea and have copied it to Category talk:Murderers --A Y Arktos 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your suggestions - I have forwarded the discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 21#Category:Murderers renamed to Category:Convicted murderers .2B similar cats both subcats and criminals with both LiquidGhoul and Thebainer's suggestions.--A Y Arktos 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the word "murderer" on its own as it seems a bit emotive. Andjam 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hardly. It's a purely legal term. If you've been found guilty of murder, you're a murderer. If you haven't been found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer. Ambi 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dean McVeigh

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Anyone know what's going on with Dean McVeigh looks like Ambi is fighting a losing battle to try and keep the article encyclopedic. --Martyman-(talk) 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dean McVeigh is an insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to be called in when the Melbourne University Student Union crashed and burned amidst some generally dodgy behaviour. Since then, a bunch of the involved parties have embarked on a rather public campaign of slander against the guy. He may not be the best insolvency practitioner in the world, and I don't know or care, but there's definitely some dodgy editing going on here, so I'm chopping out the unsourced/badly sourced crap every time it gets re-added. It may be worth nominating the article for AfD - the only way in which he's even remotely notable is in the context of the campaign waged against him on this issue. Ambi 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Ambi 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Idon't think he is notable enough to have an entry and I agree some problems be solved if we agreed he did not meet WP:BIO criteria. I guess he might fit under "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - but I am not sure - I had not read of him outside wikipedia and only came across him because of the mention here. I am happy to nominate.--A Y Arktos 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd vote to delete. The article appears to be just another thinly disguised attack article we're fighting to keep neutral. -- Longhair 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean McVeigh--A Y Arktos 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks. If it does get kept (and I'd rather it not be), I'd appreciate if you two could keep an eye on it so as to make sure it doesn't degenerate back into an attack article. Ambi 10:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the problem is content, rather than notability, would article protection be an option? Andjam 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I still have a problem over notability. He appears to be more notable than other insolvency practitioners only because a bunch of student politicians have gotten upset with him and launched a smear campaign, which they're trying to extend into Wikipedia. However, if we were to assume that he is notable, then the only solution would be to watch over the Dean McVeigh article carefully and remove any unsourced claims, and in particular defamatory statements. Protection would not be appropriate in this situation; it would stop good faith non-admin users from making any improvements, and if he truly is notable, then we've got to assume that there will be people along wanting to actually make the article better — it's not a good idea to deny them that opportunity just because we don't want to watch it constantly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

We scored four "if"'s in regards to his notability above. I think that says something. -- Longhair 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I have cleaned up this article as many of you know. However, there may well be a case for a judicious merge after the AfD process especially if there are continued problems. Capitalistroadster 12:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tasmania as part of Australia

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

An editor over at Talk:Goanna took exception to wording stating that 'goannas are found throughout Australia, except Tasmania' on the grounds that 'tasmania is not part of australia'. (Discussion continued at User_talk:Kazvorpal#Goanna.) While usually my preferred solution to conflicts of opinion is to find a compromise wording that communicates the facts without trampling on either side's opinion, I'm not inclined to view this as just a difference of opinion. Sanity check, please? --Calair 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Or you could say "the Australian mainland". Xtra 22:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

But goannas aren't just found on the mainland - they also live on Fraser, Kangaroo, and presumably a lot of smaller islands too. By the time we get to "found throughout the Australian mainland and many nearby islands, but not Tasmania" it's starting to get unnecessarily unwieldy. --Calair 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have put a comment of Kaz's talk page. --liquidGhoul 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• "Tasmania not being part of Australia" is as stupid a statement as another one I recently came across (that the adjective "Australian" should not be used to describe Australian rules football) - let's not be overly polite here - this isn't about differences of opinion - it's about idiocy and ignorance pure and simple - do whatever needs to be done to retain the integrity of the articles. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Football childishness

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It looks like this football/soccer thing just won't let up. Frankly I no longer personally care what we end up naming things (though I once preferred "football"), but this idiocy — revert warring, "moving" by cutnpaste, etc. — has gotten way out of hand. Sooner or later the Australian Wikipedians are going to be the laughingstock of everyone here except the Romanians, and quite rightly so.

I've spent this morning cleaning up clumsy and stupid moves by User:Debunct and others. The work is good for my edit count, but not for my state of mind. I was going to move on to Category space and try to work out what sort of silliness was occurring there, but the old heart quails just to look at it.

Speaking of the categories, it's obvious that certain individuals here — hem, hem — won't allow the category to be "Soccer in Australia". "Football in Australia" is obviously inappropriate, as one can see just from observing Category:Australian football competitions. So, what I propose is: a multi-tiered thingy. "Football in Australia" or "Football codes in Australia", with "Football (soccer) in Australia", "Australian rules football in Australia", "Rugby league in Australia", and "Rugby union in Australia" as subcats. How does that sound? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I ask again - why should Association Football claim the title Football all to itself? How can I be accused of being POV when it is another group which is trying to appropriate a generic name all to themselves and make themselves out to be the one and only true football code worthy of the name football, when in fact, anyone who knows the history of football generally, knows that this has no historical basis. Furthermore, we are the english wikipedia, and soccer is the name that is widely used throughout the english speaking world (especially in the USA). Remember also that soccer is the term coined originally by the British as a shortening of Association Football (the original and official name of soccer), there is no sound argument for not using simply Soccer full stop. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like that idea Mark. I agree pippu, there is no such sport as football. There are different forms of football, however, Association football (aka soccer), Australian rules football (aka Aussie rules), Rugby football (aka rugby)...you get the idea. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree - Association Football is the correct term, but it cannot be simply Football. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's an excellent idea Mark. --bainer (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Spelling of the word/phrase Marn Grook/Marngrook

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At the risk of appearing pedantic, what is the correct spelling of the above? It is important because of accuracy and for 'text searching' problems. Please see discussion page for Marn Grook for details. Thanks. Lentisco 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Official War Histories Online

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

• For those of you who don't know, the Australian War Memorial has full text copies of the official histories of the First and Second World Wars available online. A full text word search for the other editions and images are available for the other conflicts. [21]. It also has a useful encyclopedia. [22]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) .

• • There's also heaps of records on Australian soldiers at the National Archives of Australia (here), including service records for just about everyone who served in both World Wars. A decent portion are digitised, and are great for finding out where and with what unit people served. --bainer (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Football again

Latest comment: 19 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion

Okay, here's my proposal. If it gets support here, I'd like to tack on an additional proposal, which is basically a stick with a nail in it, weilded appropriately against anyone who tries any childish (like the page-blanking I saw earlier).

1. When football is referred to, it shall be "football (soccer)", just like every other bloody article on Wikipedia. There shall be no more fighting over whether it ought to be football or soccer, and attempts to say "soccer (football)" will be treated with the contempt and violent beatings they deserve.
2. "Football" on its own, then, will only be used for football codes in general: AFL, rugby union, rugby league, football, and, if necessary (God forbid) Gaelic footy and gridiron as well. This means that football-related categories remain, but as top-level cats with subcats relating to the particular codes, rather than fighting over whether "Football players" should be AFLers, footballers, whatever.
3. Cut and paste moves, page blanking, creation of duplicate articles, etc. is lame, and will all be undone, as soon as I (and any other administrator who feels like helping) gets the time.
4. Thrrrrp.
5. If anyone disagrees with me, come up with a better proposal. "But football is what the rest of the world calls it!" or "how dear those soccer fanatic interlopers claim the rights to our sacred word!" are not better proposals.

Anyone got any comments? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

No wonder this is running hot in football forums. People are riled. I just found this page from an edit history and God damn. I'm trying to convince people to take this to thefootballwiki.com so it gets into the right search queries in google in time for The World Cup. Redirects won't appear when searching for "Australian football". Why does it matter that it's called football anyway? How does this affect rubgy league (the greatest game of all)? I beleive that of the 48 English speaking football naitons, only 5 use the word soccer. The most popular football league in the world is the English Premier League and there are no soccer clubs there. Everyone knows that you need to type "Liverpool football club" to find the team, otherwise you get the name of the city. Also, there is debate about switching to the word football in the USA. F.C. Dallas being an example while others have dropped the word soccer from thier name all together. Call your sport what you like? I don't care. I hope we beat Brasil, but we probably won't. ;) As long as we do better than last time. :) Bye. --Executive.koala 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

From the FC Dallas website. '"'What does FC in FC Dallas stand for? F stands for "Futbol" which is the globally used term for the sport, and C stands for "Club" which again is the accurate reference to a team globally. As people across the metroplex will learn in the coming months and years, there are a variety of terms that more accurately describe the sport; such as Futbol Club when referring to the team itself." I wish we would use fútbol in Australia, but the racists would scream wog. --Executive.koala 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware of this discussion either until now. Thanks to fuddlemark for pointing it out and I agree 100% with your suggestions. Grant65 | Talk 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Strong support - but it's probably already spinning out of control. There are two fronts to combat here: those that wish to appropriate the term "football" for themselves, and quite separate to this group, are those who do not wish to see Australian rules football mentioned in the same illustrious light as soccer, gridiron and rugby (cough, cough). Interestingly, this latter group are in fact all Australians - no prizes for guessing what their motivations are. I wish all and sundry luck. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your proposal, although I think once "football (soccer)" or "Australian rules football" has been used in an article (I'd imagine usually in the lead section) and that article refers only to that sport (eg for Sydney FC or Sydney Swans), "football" can freely be used. Something needs to be done about page names too, but don't ask me! AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 03:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mark's proposal is obviously the right idea, together with the comment from Albinomonkey. JPD (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ta, guys. AlbinoMonkey, I agree.

I've spent the last couple of hours making a start on getting all this into shape (you can see the results in various football cats/articles, and my contribs). There's still a long way to go. At the moment, most of the crap is confined to football (soccer)-related articles, but sooner or later the other codes will require work, too. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

On Friday night I did a lot of work on moving Australian soccer articles to the correct categories, most of which has been undone by Executive.koala and an anonymous editor. I guess it would be wildly optimistic to expect them to undo their handiwork. Does anyone know how we go about getting a bot to do it, or some other timesaving method? I'm mainly referring to Category:Australian football clubs and Category:Australian football players, which to my mind should be supercategories made up of the ones for the respective codes. Grant65 | Talk 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is this, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, which seems to be good for auto-find and replace things, although it is software which you'd need to install on your computer. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• And when you're done Grant65, are you going to change all instances of Australian football with regards to Aussie Rules in Categories, Page names, etc, to Australian rules football? Australian Football Hall of Fame needs to be a disambiguation page and the current information needs to move to Australian Rules Football Hall of Fame or something similar, so that the Football Federation Australia - Australian Football Hall of Fame can be added to the encyclopedia and to the disambig. Only when you’ve finished with your crusade against Australian Football (soccer), of course.

Looks like you have a lot of work to do here (Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame), when you've finished Grantifying Category:Football (soccer) in Australia. After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of double standards now would you? There appears to be plenty of other users here who will be happy to help you. Remember, it's all for the credibility of Wikipedia. Don't the side down now, son. --Executive.koala 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Executive.koala, apart from your misleading comments about the use of the word "soccer", you are missing a significant part of the point. Even if it is always referred to as "football", it is not the only code referred to as football in Australia, so disambiguations and subcategories are appropriate. Of course, when naming articles aboutbodies, rather than topics, we use the name of the body, so neither Football Federation Australia nor Australian Football Hall of Fame spell out which code is referred to. If the FFA creates something called the Australian Football Hall of Fame as well, then disambiguation would be necessary, but that isn't the case. It's hard to see why you think there are double standards.

So how can you tell what sport this is by the title? Australian Football Hall of Fame Why does it not say Australian Rules? And yes, there is an FFA Australian Football Hall of Fame; it's just not in wikipedia yet. If football (soccer) can't use Australian football, the Aussie Rules shouldn't use it either, for exactly the same reason. So when you're done wasting your time changing all of the football links, you can do the same to the Aussie Rules links. --Executive.koala 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well the Football Federation Australia website under the heading "FOOTBALL FEDERATION AUSTRALIA - FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME" refers not once but twice to the "Australian Soccer Hall of Fame". There's no mention at all of "Australian Football Hall of Fame". But for disambiguation purposes I see no reason why the present Australian Football Hall of Fame article should not be moved to say, Australian Football Hall of Fame (Australian rules football). It can't be moved to [[Australian Rules Football Hall of Fame]] because that's not what it's called.--The Brain of Morbius 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

A soccer hall of fame? c'mon, let's get serious! I can really imagine hundreds of thousands of Australians with teary eyes winding their way through a soccer hall of fame. "I remember that nil all draw". "I was there the day so and so took a dive and won a penalty which gave us that magnificent 1-0 victory". "Remember how so and so would do a somersault, roll over a dozen times and then grab his ankle with such an anguished look on his face that his opponent got the yellow card everytime". "Oh look, I remember that nil all draw as well - it was an incredible game, there was not a single shot on goal all night, such tension, such professionalism, it was an extraordinary display of skill". "Oh look, that was the night we won 3-1 - it's still the highest scoring game of soccer on record." "This is the last game ever played in the NSL, such an historic event, there was so much emotion that night, to think that the comp survived a whole 26 seasons, the history of it all - it brings a lump to your throat." ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That was really constructive and helpful. Regardless of your views towards football (soccer), it has nothing at all to do with whether there is an associated Hall of Fame or not. Cursive 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, given the heading says "FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME" I'm pretty sure that's at least one reference to it being called the Australian Football Hall of Fame. Here are some others: [23] [24] also from the footballaustralia.com.au site. Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame seems fine to me. Cursive 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

One is actually officially called the Australian Football Hall of Fame and the other is not - is that too difficult for you to understand? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but there is only one team officially called the Australian national football team as well, but that didn't stop that page being moved... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm less knowledgable of this issue, but if you have the references to show that that is its official name, then you make a fair point. No one would argue that that name is used officially to describe the national team of another football code (I don't think, but I could be wrong). "Australian Football" means something very specific in Australia, but I would think that Australian national football team clearly does not refer to anything related to Australian Football, and could perhaps be used to describe the socceroos (if that is its official name). While on the subject, I note that it says something about the term "socceroos" being the official nick name - but I had thought that Lowy was trying to distance the FFA from the nick name - perhaps "traditional nick name" or "popular nick name" might be better. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that one is called the "Australian Football Hall of Fame", and the other was started as the "Australian Soccer Hall of Fame", but since the change in name of the FFA, they are referring to it as the "Football Hall of Fame" or "FFA - Football Hall of Fame". They are not stupid enough to call it the "Australian Football Hall of Fame", as there is already something with that name. Maybe some disambiguation is required, but if so it should be "Football Hall of Fame (Australia)" or "Football Hall of Fame (Australian soccer)" or something like that. The disambiguation should definitely not come in the middle of the official name. JPD (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. No point messing around with it if they don't even call it that. Xtra 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

They do refer to it as the Australian Football Hall of Fame (see the two links I provided above). Agree with the point about disambiguation not being in the middle of the name though. Cursive 11:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Appuntu. There is only one Australian Football Hall of Fame - the others have a different name and the titles of their articles should carry that name. The logical extension of all this idiocy is that some bright spark will decide that Australian Football League should be clarified for disambiguation, and will be retitled Austrlaian Football League (Australian rules football). Too far fetched? Too idiotic? Don't bet on it! We've already had afficionados of the other codes argue that the adjective "Australian" should not be used to describe Australian rules football because it was invented in Victoria!! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agree with the Australian Football League (Australian rules football) being an idiotic idea (or using the original name Victorian Rules Football when talking about Aussie Rules). But for the same reason that's why the page shouldn't be called Australian Soccer Hall of Fame per JPD. Cursive 11:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

But what is its official name? I can't get a sense of that from any of the links you have provided. It seems to me that if we use the official names for all the codes, and also add them to Australian Football Hall of Fame (disambiguation), that we have it all covered without any problems. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's the problem - it's not clear what the official name is - which was why I proposed the Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame in the first place. Seems ok now (others might not be happy with the status quo though) - if they ever do change it officially/change all the references from Australian Soccer Hall of Fame to Australian Football Hall of fame we'd have to do something about moving the disambig then. Cursive 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to stir up s%$^e and disappear for a few days. Anyway, it seems a reasonable conclusion has been reached. Well done, all. (thanks too, Cursive)--Executive.koala 15:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The article Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun seems to be sometimes unencyclopedic in tone, and lacks citation of sources. Is the article a bit biased against the idea of the Aussie being the rightful King of England, or is it just me? Andjam 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is not that it is biased. It just gives far too much space to a notion that is basically silly. There is a snowball's chance in Hell of him becoming King of England. The right of the current Queen is grounded in Parliament (mostly the restoration after Cromwell and the cases of William and Mary and then George I), with only some inheritance as part of the picture. Most of this article should be deleted. He had his 15 min of fame when the TV had a program about him. BTW, I'm not biased against him or the current Queen. I've been a Republican for 50 years. I'm based against the whole notion of Monarchy. --Bduke 05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

A lot of the article seems to be about the legitimacy of the incumbent, which ought to be (and presumably is) available elsewhere in wikipedia. Andjam 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Having now read the article, I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion as Original research! The sections "Early Development to Bosworth", "Tudors", "Stuarts", "Triumph of heredity and statutory laws" cite acts of parliament, but do not cite the interpretations or claimed significance. "Pretenders" and "Conclusion" don't even go that far — they are pure editorialising. In particular, a section called "Conclusion" is a clear signal of an academic paper, not an encyclopaedia article. I think the article is salvageable by deleting everything from the first section heading to the beginning of the second-last paragraph, then providing a citation for the remaining claim. Some of the intervening material could be merged into Succession to the British Throne, and some is already there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Definition of serious international crime

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm having a struggle defining "serious crime" in relation to the article List of Australians in international prisons, which is currently under review for featured list status. If there's any eager law students about who can help me with a more appropriate definiation for the intro text there, I'd be very grateful. -- Longhair 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the NSW Crimes Act, a crime is labelled as serious if the maximum prison sentence is 5 years or over. Perhaps you could use a similar definition. enochlau (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As Enoch said, "serious" depends on where you are - a suitable definition might be anything that qualifies as an indictable offence (or whatever is the local equivalent). Then again, something based on the available sentence would probably mean more to the average reader. There's also the issue of crimes which are not "serious" per se in Australia, but are harshly punished overseas (drug offences in Indonesia, for example). A definition based on prison terms sounds like a good idea in that context. --bainer (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've suggested on the article talk page that serious crime should be replaced by noteworthy crime. Andjam 10:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like that idea Andjam, but hesitant to use for now as I'm expecting a response along the lines of 'define noteworthy'. Keeping the introduction concise and detailing what lies beneath and why is the real battle I'm facing I guess. Your suggestion is winning by a nose, but I think it may need more detail as the others have suggested above to explain the list content. -- Longhair 11:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

New South Wales Cities box

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've been pottering away on making a New South Wales cities template in my sandbox. I got the idea from the {{Victorian Cities}} template. I figure, if the Victorian's can have one, why not NSW? Does anyone have any suggestions, eg. cities I have missed?

Also should we be making other templates like this for the other states as well?

Blarneytherinosaur 08:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gralee?
Not a bad idea at all, but we need a precise definition of what fits in here, or it's going to fill up in no time, with places like Gralee. - Randwicked Alex B 08:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gralee, Whoops! I meant to remove that one.

I suggest we include those places that have been declared to be cities, as defined at Local Government Areas of New South Wales. I went through the list there and collected as many cities as I could find, so I think they should all be there, but someone might notice if one is missing.

There are a few quirks, like Taree being the centre of Greater Taree City Council and, I believe, therefore a city, but Port Macquarie only being within a Municipality and therefore not a city, although it is larger. I don't know if we should have an exception for cases like that, or just stick with the official definition.

Also I would exclude those "cities" that are within the Sydney metropolitan area, which are already listed under "Local Government Areas of Sydney" in the Sydney regions template. (The Victorian cities template doesn't have the "cities" within Melbourne, and I think this is a good idea.)

Blarneytherinosaur 09:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Defining whether a place can be a city or not based on its Council area is flawed, take for instance Tamworth Regional or Bathurst Regional Councils, both are centred around the major centres of Tamworth & Bathurst that in their own right would qualify to be called a city. Isnt there an official definition (by the NSW Goverment) that determines what is classed as a city or not? --59.167.7.100 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The dictionary of the Local Government Act 1993 [25] defines a city as following:

“city means an area constituted as a city under Division 1 of Part 1 of Chapter 9.”

The Local Government Act 1993 No 30 Chapter 9 Part 1, Division 1, 204 Constitution of areas states that:

"(1) The Governor may, by proclamation, constitute any part of New South Wales as an area."

[And in 206 Constitution of cities]

"The Governor may, by proclamation, constitute an area as a city."

I believe that according to the Government of New South Wales unless a place has been proclaimed a city it is not a city, no matter how large its population is. Therefore I propose that this template should only contain those places in New South Wales that have been proclaimed a city and that are not within the Sydney metropolitan area (because they are already included in the Sydney regions template).

I shall now move the template out of my sandbox and add it to all those cities listed in it.

Blarneytherinosaur 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

National dish

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I noticed Australia doesn't have an entry here. If China and the United States can, surely we can too! I'm thinking Lamb (food) and/or Australian meat pie. Any other ideas? -- Ian ≡ talk 14:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I notice New Zealand has stolen our Pavlova again for that list. Maybe we should reclaim it. - Randwicked Alex B 14:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not exactly a dish, but what's wrong with Vegemite? Confusing Manifestation 14:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pretty much everything, I'd say, but I suppose it might be as close as we get to a national dish. ～J.K. 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

A conversation like this shows that this article is a joke. We shouldn't be deciding upon Australia's national dish. If there is no official statement declaring our national dish, then we do not have one. If we add it to the article, then it is just the opinion of the author. It is not verifiable. Also, the article is called national dish, and there are things like New York's dishes. Last time I checked, New York was not a nation. We have an article for Australian cuisine, that is good enough. --liquidGhoul 10:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good point, all true, but disappointing nevertheless. Possibilities: pie floater; damper; char-grilled kangaroo; char-grilled barra; fish and chips.

I agree with Liquid Ghoul. Such attempts to congeal Australia's wide-ranging cuisine, influenced by our multiculturalism, down to one single dish, would only be divisive and anglo-centric. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Victoria Street to see if I can find some nuoc cham. :) Cnwb 02:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ethnic groups and criminals

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have noticed that in Vietnamese Australian and Lebanese Australian there are criminals listed under the list of notables (Nguyen Tuong Van and Bilal Skaf). However anons keep on removing Bilal Skaf from the Lebanese article, and one has put a message on the talk page that criminals don't represent ethnic groups. The other ethnic articles do not have any mentions of gangsters and criminals, but examples could easily, eg, Andrew Chan and Melbourne underworld people, etc. What is the policy on this sort of stuff? Because some of the articles sound like glorification? Is it appropriate to include notorious figures? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC).Reply

I don't like the media's obsessions with labelling criminals by their ethnicity, but this is another matter. This isn't a list of people "representing" ethnic groups, it's a list of notable people. Criminals can be notable. The list should include the governors, premiers, footballers, etc and criminals, if they are notable. JPD (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Criminals aside, I think the whole ethnic category thing has come too far. See Jason Moran (Irish), Dermott Brereton (Irish), Nicole Kidman (Irish), Paul Hogan (Irish), Cosima De Vito (Italian), who I assumed were all born in Australia, and therefore, Australian. What criteria are people using? Somebody born overseas is obviously a candidate, but is it correct to also include their children? -- Longhair 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's interesting to note that someone put a comment in the Brereton article noting that he is supporter of the IRA. An irrelevancy which I deleted.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian events

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For events that are held regularly in Australian locations, but maybe aren't as big as the Royal shows and Footy Finals, but not technically Festivals, is there somewhere to put them? I would think an Events sub-category of, say, the regional categories under Australian Culture would be a good place for them. Confusing Manifestation 05:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia quoted in Parliament

Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

We just got quoted in Parliament, in the Senate adjournment debate today. Is this the first time, I wonder? Dysprosia 08:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

What was said? and who said it? -- Adz|talk 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't remember who said so, but it was a reference to one of our articles. You should find out tomorrow, when the Hansards come out. Searching the Hansards finds Wikipedia mentioned only once before in both chambers, here, by Danna Vale in the House last year. Dysprosia 09:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was Senator Lyn Allison, quoting the definition of propaganda to describe Howard: [26]. --bainer (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bit disappointing, that. Referenced twice in Parliament, and both times it's just to say "Wikipedia says you're a tyrant!"? How sad. Remember when our politicians were eloquent? Imagine what Mr Keating could do today! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, Vale wasn't using it against a member of a competing political party. Gosh, it looks like team Vale came across wikipedia before I did. Andjam 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know we have Category:Articles referenced by the press, but is there anything like Category:Articles referenced by politicians.--cj | talk 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can someone add Hansard links to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_source (there are already links to mentions of Wikipedia in the parliaments in the UK and Canada, for example). Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. --bainer (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Latham Diaries

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the article talk page for a discussion about whether extracts from the book are required. I believe the article is too much of a book review, and that the quotes may breach copyright, but Grant65 has begun a revert war in response. Harro5 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

AFL and "Editoralising"

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Recently Harro5 has gone on an editing rampage, destroying the content of articles such as Andrew Mackie. Compare this version to the current version. He has cited non-NPOV, which I understand, fine. But, surely if you wanted to go through with this you would specify which bits aren't NPOV and go to steps to improve them so they are NPOV? Disappointing Harro. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article as it stands is very POV and editorial-style (gotta love the image caption, "Mackie has fans excited for the future"). It's also got links to at least two redlinked images. It does need rewriting to sound like a dispassionate encyclopaedia article; however, Harro5's version is, well, very short. I think rewriting rather than cutting out the too-excited bits would have been a better option, personally, but I'm not willing to do the work either, so ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

We're an encyclopedia, and can't editorialise unless we are quoting someone notable (eg. Caroline Wilson from The Age if it's football). Boomtish believes that writing in flourishing language about how talented someone was during their junior career - citing no sources - and listing individual statistics from games is worth adding to Wikipedia; I disagree, and when I reverted, I kept all fact that would be used in a standard Wikipedia article. I'm not going to discuss this matter any more, and hope Rogerthat realises while I love writing about football, my first allegiance on Wikipedia is to the project and its accepted conventions for writing biographies. If a similar article were written for a US politician, there would likely be an absolute uproar resulting in RFCs, revert wars and general ugliness. Harro5 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

My curiosity got the better of me so I thought I would do a quick check of what we are talking about here. I had a quick look at some of your most recent edits on Chris Judd. On the one hand, you were right in deleting this clumsy sentence: And this was all despite having had two shoulder reconstructions before the age of 18 - but hopefully you did so only because it was clumsy - I would have thought that the fact that he has achieved so much in AFL football at such a young age after having two shoulder reconstructions before the age of 18 is at least a little bit noteworthy and surely merits a mention somewhere in the article. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

FAC timing for Australia at the Winter Olympics

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I withdrew my FAC nomination for Australia at the Winter Olympics on the grounds that it wouldn't be stable during the Winter Olympics. As the article has an overview section on the Winter Paralympics, should I wait until the 2006 Winter Paralympics (which runs from March 10 to 19) finishes? Andjam 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian political parties

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I notice that while Labor and the Liberals have just one page, the Greens have a federal page and a page for each state. Should all the Greens pages be merged, or should the Liberal and Labor pages spill out into state based pages? Is there a compelling reason for having pages for each state branch? Xtra 11:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, in the past there's been strong distinctions between different state Green parties (they were entirely separate entities for quite a while), unlike the united image they present nowadays. I don't see anything wrong with the status quo. ～J.K. 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the only time we need to split articles, is if they are of too large a size. Too often people will split an article, and the resulting articles lose a lot of quality because of it. It doesn't seem neccesary just quite yet. If you would like to contribute largely to an article, just put all the information into it as possible, and if it becomes too large, find the best way to split it. --liquidGhoul 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've always thought that state parties deserve their own pages, but I've never done anything about it. Cnwb 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian coin photos

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that images of Australian coins which were made after 1969 ($1, $2, commemorative 50c pieces) can not be used because they are copyrighted as it says on the mint site: "The Commonwealth holds copyright in the designs and images used on Australian currency coins which were created after 1 May 1969.. Reproduction of designs and images without the permission of the copyright owner will be an infringement of copyright." I have asked for their deletion from commons [27] -- Astrokey44|talk 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're right, they shouldn't be on commons, but when used to illustrate the articles on Australian currency, images of coins would probably qualify as fair use and thus could be uploaded locally. --bainer (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Stereotypical Australian road picture?

Latest comment: 19 years ago25 comments17 people in discussion

 

Newell Highway

Does anybody know of/have a picture of a stereotypical Australian road suitable to shrink to put in the {{Australia-road-stub}} template so we can have a different picture to {{road-stub}}? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe get a Kangaroo on a yellow road sign... Rogerthat ^Talk 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Highway pictures can be found at commons:Category:Australian highways, including the Newell Highway image - not sure how well it will look as an icon though. commons:Category:Road signs in Australia has no kangaroo signs (yet).--A Y Arktos 12:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ignoring the tradition of pictures on stub templates, why is a picture required?--Commander Keane 12:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

One reason is recognisability for stub sorters and editors. It makes it much quicker to recognise that I've typed the letters properly when I se the icon in preview. I guess it also helps to catch the eye of potential editors to attract them to the message.

AYArktos: Thanks for the category link - I didn't guess the right category to look in. There's about four pictures that are like what I was looking for (all taken by you, I see), so I'll see which looks best in miniature. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

        These are the four I'm considering. I think the first best represents and Australian road at this scale. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, the third and four images don't look like roads at that size. --liquidGhoul 14:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hard to go past a picture of a road pointing to Grong Grong. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The fourth is most representative of the Australian landscape being arid. I think it is the most appropriate.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, the first one looks best. --Calair 05:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll add my vote for the first as well. Confusing Manifestation 05:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey there came across this discussion and wondered if this would be any good? File:AustralianRoadIcon.png It's the SW of WA. Cheers SeanMack 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favour of a kangaroo on a yellow sign, as that way you'd be able to tell which country it is for, and can be shrunk without too much loss of detail. Andjam 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm in support of a basic road sign also. It scales to any size. Noisy images with lots of background detail don't look quite as effective when thumbnailed. -- Longhair 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Something like  , maybe? JPD (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You mean something like this? Surely someone here could make something pretty similar looking and upload it. Confusing Manifestation 12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That looks nice. Something similar would suit I think. With or without bullet holes I'm not sure ;) -- Longhair 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is one at Kangaroo - File:Kangaroo sign in australia.jpg -- Astrokey44|talk 12:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've changed my mind, I like the National 1 sign. It's obviously a road sign, and contains the Australian colours.--liquidGhoul 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It's also much clearer to see than the miniaturised pictures of actual roads. --bainer (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I am certainly biased, but if we are going for a road picture I like this one  , because it includes a good balance of sky, Australian vegetation (and colours) and direction of road. The File:Kangaroo sign in australia.jpg is not bad but perhaps needs brightening for the purposes of an icon. I don't like  , to me it not immediately obvious that the icon = a road sign (and I spend a lot of time on roads :-) ); icons to my mind have to be recognisable without thought or translation.--A Y Arktos 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like the kangaroo road sign as it is clean and unambiguous. A better version is needed though. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy with the kangaroo sign too, but to be effective at that size it should have a plain background - either white, or nothing but sky - to avoid any distraction from the basic roo-and-sign iconage. --Calair 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the kangaroo is the best choice, but I agree that it needs lightening and a cleaner background. If you look on Google Images for 'kangaroo "road sign"' you get a lot of results, some of which would be really nice if they weren't on pay galleries. Perhaps someone wants to walk into a $2 shop with a digicam? Confusing Manifestation 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Entering a bit late in this discussion, but my preference is for Aya's image right up the top. --Fir0002 www 07:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

New ACOTF: Australian Space Research Institute

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Order of Australia was Australian Collaboration of the fortnight from 21 February 2006 to 5 March 2006.

• 5 contributors made 6 edits
• See how it changed. It also improved during the period it was nominated.

This seems to be an example of selecting an already large article. There were more votes than edits for this collaborations. The new selection is Australian Space Research Institute which is only a small article at present.

Three current candidates with five or more votes are going to be pruned from the list soon if they get no more votes. These are: History of women in Australia, Demographics of Australia, Ted Egan. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Religious groups and fundamentalist militants

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. Further to the comments about ethnic groups, and list of notable people belonging to ethnic groups being criminals, a similar issue has occurred at Islam in Australia under the notable people of Islam. User:Tarins01, who I think has come specifically to WP to promote Islamic groups, has deleted the listing of people such as David Hicks, Jack Roche, Mamdouh Habib, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, saying that they should be listed as "Australian criminals" not "Muslims", while including random lists of Islamic studies lecturers, etc. extremely uncivil spat at Keysar Trad with User:Gullivers travels, and despite claims about religious categorization, many of his posts have been regarding jewish groups under "religious terrorism" - I think he may end up similar to say, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason_Gastrich.REgards,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

SMH Article

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I recently posted a reference to the following SMH article in the Talk:Football page, the latter having attracted much attention of late (unfortunately). Now I know many of you are sick to death of this topic - but if I can't discuss footy matters on this notice board - then where do you suggest I go pray tell? This is the article: Lloyd Swanton, March 7, 2006, "Play by the rules and keep your hands off our football" . It is of interest for the following reasons:

1. It touches on an issue (or a series of related issues) that has been running hot in the aforementioned talk page and to a lesser extent in this page.

2. It refers to the top 6 oldest football clubs (of any code) in the world, being: Melbourne 1858, Geelong 1859, Notts County 1862, Stoke City 1863, Carlton 1864, Nottingham Forest 1865. Also adding that: "Middle-aged" AFL clubs like Essendon and St Kilda are older than any senior clubs in Germany and Argentina. A "young" club like Collingwood (1892) is older than any Italian soccer club, and Port Adelaide (1870) older than any Brazilian club.

3. It helps reinforce the point that in any article covering the history of football (term used generically, as it always should be in Australia and by Australians), including (in particular) the history of its organisation, its institutions, its rules, etc. the fact that the Australian football clubs are so old in world terms is certainly of note and should be mentioned in this article (as it currently is, but others are trying to negate the worth of that importance, to date unconvincingly).

4. It is interesting that it is, of all things, a Sydney paper that is helping to pour cold water over the view that Australian rules football is not an Australian game (but a Victorian game), seeing that even the Port Adelaide footy club is older than the vast majority of football clubs of any code throughout the world - and by a long shot at that.

Yes, this is all tiresome, but it is equally tiresome to hear these silly arguments being made in the talk page of what is an excellent general article on Football (to which I have made zero contributions, other than raising the flag and trumpeting its merits). These silly arguments are being made by at least one Australian (more often than not, masquerading as more than one Australian, but that is another story) - and therefore, it is only right that I air these views on this notice board, with apologies to all who believe that sport is the opiate of the masses, brings out the very worst in people, etc. etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Good post mate, I agree entirely. On a side note, did anyone notice the moving of Australian Football Hall of Fame to Australian (rules) Football Hall of Fame, including the moving of the Category? Rogerthat ^Talk 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is partly related to what I have touched on, but I think it was worked out in the end, the correct title of the article has been restored, but alas, I am afraid that probably most of the categories have to be individually reverted to what they were - an AFL sub-project perhaps? Perhaps put the word out on the project page that where people notice the wrong category being used, that they use Category:Australian Football Hall of Fame. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

RfA

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alphax is on RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 2.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

3RR

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe that User:DarrenRay has violated the 3RR at Carlo Carli.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sport in city/state articles

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Melbourne currently contains long lists of sports teams and venues which detract from the article as a whole and should clearly be moved to a separate article. Would Sport in Melbourne be appropriate, or would it be better to make it a section of Sport in Victoria? JPD (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd be in favour of Sport in Victoria, as it'll have to be created eventually. Don't forget Sport in Australia (and its sub-pages) if applicable. I'm glad I read the Melbourne article, as I hadn't heard that they were building a new ice complex there. Thanks, Andjam 10:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Charles Fraser (botanist)

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm ashamed/proud to say that my latest new article, Charles Fraser (botanist), is grossly west-centric, despite being about an eastern states person. If any of you t'othersiders feel inclined to provide some balance by filling in some details in the eastern states bits, you would earn nothing less than my undying gratitude. Snottygobble 06:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know nothing about Mr Fraser, so I can't help there. However, you should know that there's something seriously wrong with your references there ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mark, that's fixed now. Apparently subst: doesn't work inside <ref> tags. Snottygobble 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Notability check

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

In a List of Australian Winter Olympians, several people have namesakes, with two namesakes being adult models Danielle Carr and Christine Smith. The adult models don't seem very notable to me. Would anyone else be interested in having a look at the two (articles, not people!) to ensure that it isn't just a systematic bias against adult models on my part? Thanks, Andjam 06:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Holy...looks like there's an article on every Playmate of the Month ever. That doesn't say anything about notabilty, but it does suggest there's no way in hell we'd be able to get rid of them of they weren't notable anyway. I'd say you should create Christine Smith (athlete) then make a disambiguation page. - Randwicked Alex B 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest either Christine Smith (skier) or Christine Smith (skiing). In Australian English, "athlete" usually means a competitor in athletics, not just any sportsperson. Other wise I agree with Alex. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I PRODded Danielle Carr, since it had ONE real edit and that was in May 2005. The other one is a bit more recent so I left it, but anyone can prod if they like. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The existing articles should also be disambiguated, making them Danielle Carr (model) (if it stays) and Christine Smith (model), with the main page as a dab page. There's no way either of those deserve primary disambiguation. --bainer (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian Football Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I note yet again that someone has changed the name of the article on the real Australian Football Hall of Fame, and the soccer people are pretending that theirs is called the Australian Football Hall of Fame - when it does not appear to be called that at all. Now I understand that there are endless nil all results that need to be commemmorated and that Australian soccer history is enough to bring a tear to your eye (although for all the wrong reasons) and a lump to your throat (from the odd karate chop), but can we please call it by its correct title, and use Australian Football Hall of Fame to refer to the only Australian Football Hall of Fame. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is really ridiculous. If the soccer hall of fame is not known as the aus football hall of fame, then aus football hall of fame should be for AFL with a link at the top saying If you are looking for the soccer hall of fame click here. Xtra 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is getting ridicuolous, a dispute should not continue for this long. I think you should go here, and try to get things sorted out. --liquidGhoul 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to the Australian Trade Mark On-line Search System, "Australian Football Hall of Fame" is trademark number 898836, registered to the Australian Football League. Under Australian trademark law, the AFL has exclusive rights to the phrase, and it would be illegal for the FFA to use the name for their Hall of Fame or to market themselves using the phrase. Let's move it back. Snottygobble 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

At great personal risk I have moved the AFL article back to its original ___location, under a title which is the AFL's registered trademark and is therefore protected against use by the FFA or any other body. Snottygobble 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Crying over nil-all draws is better than crying over the death of a 20 year old girl from heroin, ecstasy and amphetamines supplied by Gary Ablett. Stick that in your hall of fame and celebrate it, Pippu. Oh, I see you did. --Executive.koala 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

What the hell?!?! Why don't you speak to Maradona? Xtra 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you guys keep your voices down please; I'm trying to write an encyclopaedia here. Snottygobble 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The grass is a touch damp first thing in the morning, ahh - it's almost footy season - a time when we can all reclaim some true meaning in our lives by following the great Australian game! If you don't like our one and only indigenous code, your Australian identity is barely hanging by a thread, you have become a consumer of the sporting equivalent of M.......s, K.C and S.......s, global products aimed at the lowest common denominator - the exact opposite of what our great national game represents! I beseech you - reclaim your identity, your history and in the process the meaning of life itself! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

(slaps forehead) ～J.K. 08:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is that slaps forehead as in At last, someone else has finally got it! or as in I don't believe it, I just don't believe it or as in Oh the paiin, the paiin... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

All three. ～J.K. 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category for Australian explorers, settlers?

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Anyone think there should be a category (and corresponding stub) for Australian settlers or Australian explorers? Because settlement only happened 217 years ago, we have a lot of articles about this sub-category Australian people. Donama 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

We already have Category:Australian explorers and Category:Explorers of Australia. I would support the creation of Category:Settlers of Australia. Snottygobble 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Created Category:Australian settlers. I didn't choose the name you recommended because I thought it would be good to keep it parallel with "Australian explorers". Donama 05:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category:Explorers of Australia is for people of any nationality who explored Australia, e.g. François Péron, French explorer of Australia; whereas Category:Australian explorers is for Australian people who explored, regardless of where, e.g. Douglas Mawson, Australian explorer of the Antarctic. I would have thought that you intended the settlers category to contain people who settled Australia, regardless of nationality, in which case "keeping it parallel" would imply Category:Settlers of Australia. Not that it really matters all that much. Snottygobble 05:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, point taken - nationality is not important - but the fact that they were settlers of Australia. I think it is new enough cat to simply move it. Donama 05:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it might be nice to have a stub specifically for Australian pioneers/colonists/settlers/early squatters. What should it be called? What categories of Australian people could it encompass? Donama 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about {{Aus-settler-stub}}. Something like:

---

---

Snottygobble 05:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. I'm not sure how to make this though. Donama 05:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Created this at {{Australia-settler-stub}}. This will categorise all articles tagged with it into Category:Australia settler stubs. Feel free to edit both of these. --bainer (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

New stub types are supposed to be proposed and discussed at WP:WSS/P (see also WP:STUB) before being created. There's a message to that effect at the top of Category:Australian people stubs to remind you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Notability of BrookesNews

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A criticism [28] of Tim Blair cites Australian web site BrookesNews. Does BrookesNews seem notable? Thanks, Andjam 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard of it until now. That said, it basically looks like another blog to me - looks like a case of pot.blogspot.com calling kettle.blogger.com a blog. I don't think the criticism is particularly relevant or well-founded, any more than including any of Blair's criticism of others on his blog in those Wikipedia articles. While Tim Blair may just be notable enough for an article, I don't think he's notable enough to be quoted as criticising anybody, and neither is BrookesNews. "Criticism" sections in articles are a common way to attempt to bypass NPOV policies by attributing criticism to someone else. --Canley 12:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I deemed it POV blogcruft and nuked it. Feel free to disagree! - Randwicked Alex B 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

John Howard's "American disease" quotation in Gun politics in Australia

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

A dispute over whether it is appropriate to utilize an inflammatory quotation of John Howard's in an international forum such as WP (a quote that was clearly intended for a domestic audience being as it appeared in a radio interview) has arisen. The section of Gun politics in Australia in dispute is:

"The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons", and that firearm ownership by ordinary citizens is an "American disease". While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally."

The issue is on calling the American 2nd Amendment Right for the people to bear arms, and the US Constitution, an "American disease". This is not appropriate for an international audience, as it is extremely offensive to Americans.

One alternative wording that has been discussed is:

"The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", and that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons". Howard often states "I don't want Australia to go down the American path."[29] While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally."

as it would be less inflammatory and more encyclopedic in nature than the current inflammatory version that insults Americans. Yaf 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

But I don't understand, if that is what he said, that is what he said - we aren't here to cleanse other people's quotes and make them appear in a better light - we present them as they are, warts and all. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Include both if necessary, but the first quote deserves to have its context explained – ie it was said to an Australian audience and so obviously wasn't intended to cause Americans offence. (forgot to sign before Donama)

It's for Howard to worry about insulting Americans, not us. It's an in-context on-topic verifiable (? I assume) quote. No problem. I agree with Pippu. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the problem with the quote. It shows his disgust for it, and it is what happened. There is no reason to sugar coat an article, so the Americans won't be offended. It is not up to Wikipedia to not cause offence, I am offended by a lot of what Hitler did, should we take out all the information about the Holocaust? --liquidGhoul 07:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the first quote. However, there is no source, so until someone sources it the second option is better. Of course, there's no reason why both quotes can't be in there. --bainer (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Speaking as a US citizen, I think the first of the two blockquotes (specifically including the "American disease" quotation) is fine. I'm sure Howard didn't specifically intend it to offend Americans; every Australian knows how highly Howard values relations with the US. But nevertheless, he has made it very clear that on this particular issue, he does not agree with the USA's approach to gun ownership. If that's 'offensive' (I don't find it so), it's an offensive fact, and a relevant one; Wikipedia is full of such facts. IMHO, the quote shows the vehemence of Howard's views on this point, and isn't that what that paragraph is about?

As for sources, Googling on +"john howard" +"american disease" pulls up a transcript of the interview in which he made those remarks, and even an mp3 of that interview. (The "American disease" remark is about two-thirds of the way through the mp3.) --Calair 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian people subcategories

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

To me, these subcategories are in a bit of a mess.

I think we could revamp the Australian people subcategories by making two new subcats "Australian immigrants" (people born outside Australia who now identify as Australian and live in Oz) and "Australian emmigrants" (people born in Oz but who identify more as some other nationality and live outside Australia).

These categories would have nothing to do with ethnicity, but cats such as "Australians in China" or "Australian-Brazilians" should be subcategories of "Australian emmigrants" or simply not categories at all. Possibly some really useless-sounding categories like "English-Australians" should definitely go. If need be make it specific like "Australians of Western European ancestry".

Any more ideas to overhaul the Australian people subcategories? Donama 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• As a minor point that could save some trouble, "emigrants" has only one "m". I notice some categories have used "diaspora" instead of "emigrants", e.g. Category:Croatian diaspora. I prefer "emigrants" myself, but perhaps I'm missing an important but subtle difference in meaning. Snottygobble 05:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I am not fond of the diaspora word to be used generally - it has a specific meaning. I would rather refer to say community, but to cover those of the second and third generation. For example a Vietnamese-Australian might be born here but still be very much part of the local Vietnamese community and identify with that community as well as being Australian. The diaspora tends to refer to that community across international boundaries. I believe some diaspora identify more as such and maintain their connections despite which country they are in more than others. The Jewish and Chinese diaspora are more well known compared to the German dispora who perhaps adapt better to their places of immigration. In Australia, however, members of the Chinese diaspora would normally be referred to as being Chinese-Australians or Australian-Chinese.--A Y Arktos 18:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree diaspora is a bit of a flowery word and not that useful. The category names may as well be precise. An advantage of Wikipedia is that categories can be nested - in near-perfect subsets - quite a long way to achieve leaf-node categories that are useful to humans. Most of the intervening categories will be useful much more in the future when we are adding sexy decision support and browsing tools to Wikipedia. All that to explain why I still think we can simply use the very technical category names "Australian immigrants" and "Australian emigrants". Ideally subcategories of these would be used most often tho. Donama 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

What has green blood, no backbone, and three hearts?

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Cephalopods! That's octupuses, squid, cuttlefish and Nautiluses, and whats more we are sitting on the cephalopod capital of the world. Or rather we are boardering it, since cephalopods are strictly marine animals. Anyway, cephalopods are really, really cool yet our coverage of them is dismal (as an example of how dismal look at Southern Blue-ringed Octopus, it's almost an Australian mascot yet it only has a few sentences.). So there is already a wikiproject:Cephalopods however i was wondering if anyone would be interested in a specifically Australian cephalopodian wikiproject, or even an Australian marine flora and fauna wikiproject, hell is an Australian flora and fauna wikiproject too wide? Anyways, i'm specifically interested in Australian cephalopods and was wondering if anyone else was too, and if i might be able to round up some people to help collaborate with in some vaguely formal way. The bellman 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I love cephs but don't know enough about them to contribute much; if you create the project, though, I'd be happy to pimp it elsewhere :-) --Calair 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I love eating cephs - but that's where my love affair with them starts and ends. However, I do agree that coverage of the dastardly, but otherwise absolutely loveable, Southern Blue-ringed Octopus, is nothing short of woeful. Surely a prime candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rum Jungle, Northern Territory

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rum Jungle, Northern Territory is receiving some POV editing to do with Compass resources etc. I htink it needs some work and also some watching.No very recent news reports apparently butthis ABC news item from 22 Feb (Renewed activity around Rum Jungle) is on the topic as why there is renewed activity around Rum Jungle on the Wikipedia!--A Y Arktos 20:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

New ACOTF: Rum Rebellion

Rum Rebellion has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration with 13 votes.

Australian Space Research Institute was Australian Collaboration from 5 March 2006 to 19 March 2006

• 4 contributors made 9 edits
• The article improved in quality, if not in length
• See how it changed

The following articles have been nominated and will time out before the next selection if they do not receive more votes:

• History of women in Australia has 10 votes, needs two more votes by 23 March to remain listed
• Ted Egan has 6 votes, needs 8 votes by 21 March to remain listed
• Surf lifesaving has 4 votes, needs 6 votes by 22 March 2006 to remain listed
• Australian Football Hall of Fame has 3 votes, needs 4 votes by 31 March 2006 to remain listed.
• Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has 2 votes, needs 4 votes by 1 April 2006 to remain listed.

Conspiracy nuts...

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Just FYI, some of the pictures from the Melbourne Wikipedians meetup have made it to this insane conspiracy page. [30] Agnte 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That link doesn't work for me... pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The link works for me (but maybe try the Google cached version). Who took those photos? They must be tall, the point of view is like a CCTV camera or something :-) --Commander Keane 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Josh Parris took the photo, and he was standing on a ledge. Cnwb 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow! I never realised I was part of the Zionist cabal. Cnwb 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shit, don't tell anyone, but I'm not Jewish... or an administrator! (How did I sneak in?!) And my friend in the back of the first photo isn't even a Wikipedian... pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Comm Games medals in template?

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After seeing this series of edits to Jane Saville, I am wanting to see what people think about adding Commonwealth Games medals to templates such as the one on the Sebastian Coe article, which had previously been just for Olympic Games medals. Should these be added? I figured our noticeboard was a relevant place to start some discussion, considering Australia has won about 700+ medals since the Melbourne Games started foure days ago. It would be an awfully big job to get around to all articles to add these templates for Comm Games too, but it does look bloody good. There, I said it. This post might be censored in England now, so for safety's sake, God Save the Queen. Harro5 05:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it shouldn't go in the Olympic medal box, at least. Perhaps a new box for Commonwealth medals, or a consolidated box for medals in major international competitions (have fun defining that, by the way)? --bainer (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dispute over Australian Cyclone categorisation system (Cyclone Larry)

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There has been a dispute at the Cyclone Larry which more or less amounted to whether or not the Australian Tropical cyclone classification schemes was a valid one and whether the American scheme should have been used in the article. The dispute seems to have settle down I think, but I thought it was worth posting a note here in case people wanted to keep an eye on it. I thought it would have been absurd if an article about a storm in Australia reported the magnitude of the storm in terms of an American classification scheme - which seemed to be the way it was going for a while. -- Adz|talk 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hate American spelling

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why has Melbourne University Student Organisations been moved to Melbourne University Student Organizations. GRRRRR. Xtra 08:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australian railway milage/geodata?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Not from Australia myself, but I had an ideas for a possible project that might be of interest.

What would the views be about trying to compile a distances table for Australia's railway network? Or indeed a table of Geo-data for stations?

The only publications I've seen in the UK which had this type of information are Quail Track maps which covered Sydney and Tasmania respectivly.

ShakespeareFan00 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Amateur AFL teams

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Recently, North Carolina Tigers was put on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers by myself, with the result being to merge the team to its respective league - United States Australian Football League, on the grounds that the performance and competition level is not of first-class standard, although the leagues in themselves are of interest. At the time I wrote a rather large discussion, indicating that the AfD could be a litmus-test or precedent for similar AFL teams and I would like to see what people think about this, as to I (or someone else) should go ahead and merge them, without sending a whole pile to AfD.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting question (even for a dyed in the wool, one-eyed aussie rules supporter such as myself). On the one hand, I accept the argument that it, and articles of its ilk, are not sufficiently notable. On the other hand, a lot of quirky, idiotic things appear to pass as notable amongst the broader wikipedia community. The article count is now so high that we've probably lost complete track of how much superficial idiocy is floating around in the guise of a wikipedia article. As a small but related aside: at what point do we stop writing about footy clubs in Australia? at VFL/VFA level? at state level? do amateur clubs get a guernsey (remembering that some, like University, are certainly notable in the history of the old VFL). We are currently involved in doing articles on anyone who has ever played one AFL/VFL game - and I am wondering why such a person (who may never have even touched the footy in their one and only game) should be any more notable than, say, an American aussie rules team that may have won their comp three years running. Lastly, most of these North American clubs have their own websites - brings us back into that whole mirky area. I haven't really left an opinion one way or the other, maybe because I reckon that the concept of notability is inconsistently applied right across wikipedia. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I reckon that the concept of notability is inconsistently applied right across wikipedia.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is hot favourite for this year's Wikipedia Understatement of the Year Award. AfD is, to put it politely, a bloody mess. ～J.K. 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply