Talk:Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

Untitled
This is a highly ambiguous title for an article and is potentially misleadingUser:SatuSuro 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about moving it to Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area?--Peta 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which would be a s the Tas Nat Parks people have it - but this one is a good form of disambig clarification. User:SatuSuro 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your changes to the text improved the clarity.--Peta 01:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

De-listing
"In 2014, the Abbott Government proposed de-listing the Tasmanian Wilderness as a World Heritage Site so as to allow the logging of trees within the protected area" This is a gross exaggeration of what was proposed. I think a better reference would be something like http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/unesco-rejects-bid-to-delist-world-heritage-forest/5538946 There was never a proposal to de-list the whole WHA, but rather a proposed boundary change which in effect still left a net gain on the pre-2013 boundary area. Tilgrieog (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive
Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this week's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborate effort to bring Stub and Start class Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving. This is the second article chosen and a trial run for the effort.

Thank you! -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That is really odd - as the Rater assessment already has it at B level JarrahTree 14:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We pick and vote on random topics from the category of Vital Start-class articles. Also, fairly significant expansion has already occurred. The diff that we started on was rated C (52%) by Rater, though I didn't check before hand. That said, ORES prediction isn't quite everything. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed I would agree with your comment re ORES - the main fault with the article from a quick look is the usage of ext lins in the text - the components of the entity (what makes up the park, how it came about, and current threats) are sufficiently out there if anyone has a sense of working with australian materials - for the lack of local knowledge could easily be a stumbling block - (we once had someone go to considerable effort to establish tasmania was a separate country to that of Australia, as a former resident I refrain from further comment)....
 * The main source for materials for oz is Trove - although the newspaper 'catch' runs out in the 1950s, sufficient state and federal goverment reports and publications should show up, if asked the right way (sometimes sideway queries elicit as much as direct) - JarrahTree 15:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)