Talk:Quandamooka people

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Quandamooka people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150228044735/http://www.wynnummanly.com.au:80/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=92 to http://www.wynnummanly.com.au/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=92

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Re template reformatting
Re this edit, which you gave the edit summary: "It is patently silly to include an unused template. If and when somebody add notes, they can add the template too. I am not going to revert you any further: if you wish to continue warring, be my guest".

No, it's not patently silly, it's been carefully thought through to provide the simplest and easiest way of collecting citations and references at the end of any article using short-form referencing. Firstly, it minimises the work future editors have to do when they add a efn - or similar -template; and in the meantime it sits there harmlessly, getting in nobody's way. Secondly, we've experimented with different forms of headers for this job, and have now settled on this one. In this decision, I've been influenced by 's remarks on citation and referencing, and in particular, his observation that citations are a subset of notes. --NSH001 (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, my issue is not with short references; it is with placing the "notelist" template in an article which does not use footnotes. Most of our millions of articles do not use footnotes. Are you going to place the notelist template in each of them? No, because that's silly. Consensus to do so has not been established on the talk page of Quandamooka people; I should know, I wrote the article. If you have built consensus for this very particular form of citation formatting elsewhere, then you should be pointing to that consensus instead of edit-warring, because that consensus is not at the relevant MOS pages. Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a problem with using short-form references, then I can't really see what you're talking about. You may have noticed that and I (mostly Nishidani, I merely tidy up after him) are in the process of setting up hundreds of articles on Australian Aboriginal tribes. We have used short-form referencing consistently throughout all these articles, including, where necessary, changing existing articles to that format. So far no-one's objected, and you don't seem to be objecting to that either, but to something else, which I can't follow at all. It obviously makes sense to have all these articles in a consistent (short-form) style. --NSH001 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are dodging the issue. I did not revert your short citation style. I removed the template, which served no purpose on the page, as the page had no notes. There is absolutely no requirement to have the template on one page if it is also in use on similar pages: indeed, WP:CITEVAR says that a citation format should not be changed without consensus, which you did not obtain. Nonetheless, I confined myself to removing the unused template, which you reinstated, twice, for no reason. This is rather too silly to spend any more energy on, so please leave it be; just remember that in other circumstances, applying a citation style that you like to an article, simply because you have used the same style elsewhere, is likely to be considered disruptive. Vanamonde (talk)
 * All of these pages are programmed to have notes, as one can see from dozens of pages more fully edited. It's obligatory to add notes because of source confusion, and the intrinsic controversies. There's over 600 (probably 700 on most recent calculations) in the series, with 202 set up, and to ask of editors that they only add the Notelist to a standard template when notes are actually added, is to add an additional work-load article by article to an already extrenuating, if readily embraced, task. We are not talking about technical 'requirements' but of how those pages are being done and how they are projected to be done. I do a rapid survey of the readily available literature for each tribe, NSH001 then does invaluable technical fixes, and, as one can see from my edit history, I then return to pages done weeks or months earlier, to add in the notes, which will come when I have the time to examine the original sources used by Tindale (for which I am cosmpiling the comprehensive reference bibliography on my talk page). Please don't complicate our editing lives. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, that is reasonable if you set a page up. You did not write this page: I did. You've made two edits to it, totaling 20bytes of content. Which is not to say I own the page, I do not; but the convenience argument holds no water. Instead, you've both of you gone out of the way to modify the source formatting to match that of other pages that you wrote, which is precisely the problem. Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And if that is too complicated: WP:CITEVAR comes from an ARBCOM ruling, and writing hundreds of pages does not exempt you from it. Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a blitz of lightening in my area, which had already cut the line and wiped off both edits to the article and a reply. Bear with me. I must switch the computer off.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Take your time, because really I'm not particularly interested in prolonging this discussion; I have better things to do. I have explained why switching the style, and in particular insisting on the presence of an unused template, was improper; but I have no interest in a lengthy discussion merely to get it removed. Please keep the guideline in mind in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think switching the template was improper at all. I and NSH001 have been systematically reviewing, minutely, all pages on Aboriginal tribes. The number of dead links, unsourced comments, sources that are questionable RS, etc. are enormous. I ignored doing more than fixing the references earlier without adding to the page content for a simple reason: as a generic trans-tribal page it is more problematical, because several distinct peoples are regrouped, usually as a result of early ethnographic theories, but also to reassemble an identity destroyed by the relentless dispersion of tribes or the collocation of their remnants into a new 'community' that they are much harder to deal with ethnographically. Compare the Meru peoples, [[Gunai/Kurnai,]] Kulin people and several others, all hopelessly messy.
 * While I appreciate what was done, and thank you for the work, note that in my first technical review (which you note for its paucity of actual content) I did not remove the sources I found though, at a glance, there were many problems.


 * 1 Fox, Karen (2011). Maori and Aboriginal Women in the Public Eye. ANU E Press. p. 106. ISBN 9781921862625.
 * No page link. One needed to be supplied


 * 2.a b c d e f g h i j k l "Local Indigenous Peoples". wynnummanly.com. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
 * 12 uses of what is not RS, with dubious or plainly false information. The good information it supplies can be easily sourced to the technical literature. I.e. half othe information on the page is unverified to an acceptable mainstream publication.


 * 3. V.V. Ponosov (1964). Results of an archaeological survey of the Southern Region of Moreton Bay and of Moreton Island. University of Queensland.
 * I read that a year ago, and couldn't remember a date for 21,000. I searched my copy and could not find it, then speed-read it again. On p.79 there's mention of a primitive homo sapiens skull,and from memory around pp.92-4 mention of similarities with late Paleolithic stonework in Siberia, but no date. I've fixed that


 * 4. Hughes, Robert (23 February 2010). The Fatal Shore. Random House. pp. 440–450. ISBN 9781407054070.
 * A broad page spread for a source is bad practice. We are obliged to supply specific pages for individual facts; secondly stricto sensu it is WP:OR to introduce on a page on the Quandamooka, a text that never mentions that grouping. I'm flexible on this, so I've corrected some specifics with a page link to thaty volume, and removed the unreliable source used earlier


 * 5. "QSNTS - Quandamooka People". Qsnts.com.au. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
 * Not RS.


 * 6."Quandamooka". Redland.qld.gov.au. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
 * Not RS.


 * 7.Broome, Richard (1 May 2010). Aboriginal Australians; A History (4 ed.). Allen & Unwin. pp. 195–227. ISBN 9781741765540. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
 * I couldn't find any mention of Oodgeroo/Kate Walker there in searching the book. In any case, once more, the link was to the book cover, and no specific page was given.


 * 8.Land, Clare (26 August 2002). "Oodgeroo Noonuccal (1920–1993)". Australian Women's Archives Project. Retrieved 14 March 2007.
 * 9."Oodgeroo Noonuccal." Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, Vol. 27. Gale, 2007
 * That is RS, but unlinked, and useless when we have Colin's fine obituary, linkable which covers all the details.


 * 10.Green, Antony. "Algester". Queensland Election 2015. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
 * No problem


 * 11 "Labor's Leeanne Enoch to become one of two Indigenous MPs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Mobile.abc.net.au. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
 * No problem.

In short of 11 sources, I found a problem with 9, and of that 9, one not reliable source was used to document half the content.

I'm glad you objected because it drew my attention to my oversight, and I'm revising the page in terms of the strict RS criteria we insist on for these articles. As to the template, the policy you cite is stale, 2006 - wiki in its infancy. If you insist, as first author, that a page you built must retain your template, it will mean we will have within a year or so, if we manage to finish the series, this page as a unique example on aboriginal peoples for its solitary template. I suggest therefore that you raise the problem at the appropriate forum, for clarification, because, in a situation like this, I prefer WP:IAR - the end being the overriding one of ensuring that everything on Wikipedia strives to meet the highest criteria for academic reliability and verifiability. regards Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said I'm not particularly interested in discussing this further, in particular because you still do not appear to understand the specific issue that I raised. You want to improve the sources, well and good; you can do so without changing formatting. I objected to a certain format; NSH001 edit-warred it in, ignoring CITEVAR, only because you had used this formatting elsewhere. That was, and remains, a problem; and the dodgy web sources I used in my Wiki-toddlerhood have absolutely nothing to do with it, because any sources can be presented in either the old format or the new. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have understood exactly what you wrote, and I will not quarrel. Best work practice on wiki is to make articles (a) faithful (b) exemplifying the best reliable sources (c) so that a global readership can access the article confident that they are reading something which has been carefully vetted, closely monitored for accuracy, and representing the  cutting edge of scholarship. 99% of wiki edits undersdstandable do not  take into consideration page style, but when the  best quality, internally consist style is obligatory as at GA/FA, then it becomes necessary to consider this when an editor decides to give a thorough overhaul to an existing page that fails a lot of our standard specifications, as this did. All editors who write with WP:FA in mind do exactly what I and NSH001 did, (see for example the history of the Shakespeare authorship question). One can split hairs, and indeed  hold up improvements by citing any number of policies that protect something from being changed. It's true you wrote the article, but the article you wrote was unreliable and poorly sourced. If you remain unhappy about the fact that a note format was introduced, or that the two of us did not get your permission to alter the format used for it, I suggest you take the issue to the appropriate arbitration board. I'll accept the consensual third opinion verdict. I'm familiar with NSH001's editing over several years: he avoids disputes, quietly does first rate work, is thoroughly familiar with policy, and I don't consider what he did evidence for anything but care for improvement. If you want an admission, yeah, I am careless about quite a lot of things. Blame me.Nishidani (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I spent some time drafting the below, and got an "edit conflict" warning when I tried to post it. So it's mostly been written without having seen Nishidani's latest posting.
 * - you should post most of the above (the bit about the sources, etc) on the article talk page, where other editors can contribute to the discussion (though it doesn't hurt to leave it here).
 * Vanamonde93 - Sorry for having to drag this out even further, but I can't allow you to write nonsense like that about me without responding. You didn't remove the notelist template because of CITEVAR, you removed it because it was "unused". That was, is, and remains, a silly reason. The presence or absence of the notelist template has nothing to do with CITEVAR. I'll come back to CITEVAR in a moment, but either (a) efn (or similar) is being used, in which case it is essential, or (b) it's not being used but in that case the notelist template is harmless, and saves work for future editors. Contrary to what you say above, the presence or absence of the notelist template, if there are no efn-style notes, makes no difference whatsoever to the visual formatting of the article. The arrangement I have used has been carefully thought through to present notes/citations/references in a way that actually represents what they are (see my remarks at the top of this thread).Again, the same thought and care has gone into minimising the amount of work that future editors need to do if and when someone adds a efn note to the article. It's simple, neat, elegant, and saves work. What on earth is the problem with that? Now, you might be on slightly stronger ground arguing that CITEVAR applies to changing the headings, but again, that's not what CITEVAR is about. For example, if someone had written an article with separate, say, "Works", or "Bibliography" sections, or had split the bibliographic listings into different sub-sections suitable for the particular article, then yes, that arrangement should not be changed without getting agreement. But CITEVAR doesn't really apply to the minor arrangement of headings in this case. If you don't believe me, try arguing your case (either on the presence or absence of the notelist template, or the rearrangement of the headers) on whatever forum is being used to discuss CITEVAR. I don't think you'll get very far.--NSH001 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Uou have understood neither of the issues here; that consensus is required for a formatting change, and that verifiability and formatting are different things. That I objected to only part, and not all, of your change does not imply that you had consensus for it. This lack of understanding is all the more surprising because the current version of the article, edited by you, contains the same sources in both long and short formats, demonstrating that your walls of text about sources are totally irrelevant. I have not the inclination to try and convince you, nor does anyone at any noticeboard; so please drop the issue, and do not post here about it any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I find this attitude doubly surprising given that you were blocked just months ago for making edits without consensus, but oh well. Just please keep in mind that what your aesthetic preferences cannot override content guidelines, or the need for consensus. Just a suggestion, which you are welcome to ignore: as I said, no longer interested in discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm a bad boy. I make edits without consensus, on the dubious assumption that I have a right to edit without getting permission, just like everyone else. I'll copy this to the talk page, and I propose reforming all of the references to the template I use. It's efficient, and cuts down inordinately lengthy space-consuming referencing, and has a majority of 2 to one, so far. If you want to post an RfC. please do so there, after I've copied this. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we make the citations uniform?
Per the above discussion, I think it time to sort out the template dissonance. I prefer the model I use on all aboriginal tribal related pages I have edited, some 200, as part of a project to give Wikipedia the first 8to my knowledge) uniform sourcing criteria and templates, something that, health remaining, and another editor have undertaken to complete (it should be finished,600-700 articles by late 2018). Input is welcome on this issue regarding this page. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation formatting as currently used is extremely inefficient. The advantage of sfn citations is that they shorten inline footnotes, and make it easier to accurately cite specific pages of a larger volume. You are not currently using sfn citations in that manner, and I strongly oppose that change. For me to support it, I would want the sfn templates to be used in the manner they were designed: to shorten book citations in the text. i.e. O'Faircheallaigh, Colin, Fox, etc should use sfn citations. Otherwise, the system is rather pointless; and we are far better off returning to the old style, in which every in text citation uses the format, and the notelist and bibliography sections are scrapped. Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am using sfn citations, for the new books I am introducing. Examine the page. I did not apply the system to everything, while fixing your work, out of deference, while waiting for some discussion.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you wish to change the references I mentioned above to sfn formatting? Vanamonde (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, but though having a numerical backing of 2 to 1, I thought, given your concerns, that I should be courteous and adopt your preferred style for the moment, as a gesture of good will. The other stuff I am adding from now on, however, will be according to my preferred approach. In any case, one can dislike something about an edit, but the best approach is to cite policy, and I can't see a policy ground for your objections as stated above.Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The basis for WP:CITEVAR is that there is no preference in policy for a single citation style; which is why consensus needs to be reached at the level of each article, keeping in mind the history of that particular article. I don't have to have a reason at all; and a numerical majority means very little on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I am trying to meet you halfway here. If you want to use shortened citations, I think you should use them to shorten citations. If you are going to include the entire reference inline, then the bibliography section is entirely pointless. Vanamonde (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll go ahead and shorten all of them to conform to the one style. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)