Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 59

Murugappan family asylum claims
IMHO this article is being POV-pushed, but as POV can be in the eye of the beholder, I leave it for others to decide if the current spate of editing needs to be addressed or not. Kerry (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it not you that is doing the POV for political purposes?Bran488 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a constructive response. The article looks, to this disinterested outsider, factual and well referenced. Perhaps that's the problem. Doug butler (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be well-sourced, setting out the facts and history, taking differing points of view into account. This is a matter of some polarisation in views, with adherents of one tribe or another refusing to accept any legitimacy in the opinions of the other. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is basically okay, although there are some continuing issues, and I've pruned a few poorly sourced claims or bits of synthesis. The title is a bit of a mess - I think it's highly debatable that anyone much in the "let them stay" camp gives two hoots about their "asylum claims" (as in their legal case) - it seems like it was a relic of an attempt to narrowly define the subject in a biased way. In the same vein, the actual public campaign by the Biloela residents literally gets a sentence even though it's the entire reason they're notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There have been attempts to use general polling about refugees to portray the public as unsympathetic to the Murugappan family, which is baseless synthesis, especially on this issue, in which people staking out logically contradictory positions (*cough*the Labor Party*cough*) has been a defining feature. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be renamed Murugappan family and the lead rewritten to better summarise the subject, but otherwise it looks pretty good to me. Perhaps the relevance of the Kingsley paragraph can be argued, it seems that information is best located at Sri Lankan Tamils, but otherwise I think it's pretty balanced. Cavalryman (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC).
 * The polling is highly relevant as the Murugappan Family arrived by boat and have been found not to be genuine refugees. The wording also makes it clear the polling is not specific specific about the Murugappan family, however note The Australian article specifically mentions the Murugappen family and includes their photograph.Ilenart626 (talk)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with public attitudes towards the Murugappan family specifically, and it is pretty meaningless that The Australian (whose editorial tone stand refugees is very clear and long-held) similarly attempted to imply that the polling answered a question that was never asked has no bearing on what we do with it here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There's only one thing notable about the family, and that is their discredited asylum claims, especially the last-gasp claim that their daughter might somehow face persecution the rest of the family would not. They are notable for being a political issue, and the article title should reflect this. --Pete (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This case, as a matter of immigration law, is not notable in any sense of the word. It is notable for the massive public campaign to allow them to say - another user, back when this first emerged, not unreasonably suggested that "Home to Bilo" was a potential name for the article. The attempt to ignore the public campaign and try to restrict the article to their legal defeats is just not sustainable. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno. The attempt to claim asylum for someone who was born here and pushing a technicality to such levels is pretty unusual, at least to my mind. It's not as if I follow that branch of law much. But I'll agree that it is the public campaign that is notable rather than the family, and I'd support a name change on that basis. --Pete (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There are currently two parts of the article being debated on the talk page. So to make this clear I have split the discussion into Refugee Polling and Lawyer Simon Jeans Statement. I'm happy to work with other editors to reach consensus on both parts. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Harrison Mclean
Opinions are sought at Talk:COVID-19 protests in Australia as to whether Harrison Mclean is notable enough for his own article, or even to be mentioned in the "protests" article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australian
Looking at these edits, I'm not sure that the claim that "Aborigine" and "Aboriginal" is exclusively an offensive term from our colonial past is at all true. "Aborigine" is certainly in current use, as opposed to being some forgotten remnant from the days of Ned Kelly; here is Michael Mansell using it in a contemporary media release. Likewise "Aboriginal Australian", a term in wide general use today. A quick google of news sources shows many current uses, such as this one from the ABC. NAIDOC, for example is "National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee".

It seems that some editors are pushing a barrow to tilt Wikipedia away from actual contemporary usage towards their preferred ideological terms. I rather think that we should be descriptive of the real world, rather than dictate some perceived politically correct version. --Pete (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the term "Aborigine" (noun) is offensive (and I agree that in some contexts it may be, per WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1), it's not the place of a disambiguation page to make that assertion - a simple bullet point link to the page is all a DAB page needs. (The target article covers the offensiveness in Aboriginal_Australians.) Mitch Ames (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Mansell's use of the term relates to the colonial past, and I don't see it in at all the ABC article. NAIDOC dates from 1991. If you have a look at the many sources I've already provided on the talk page of my draft, and this government source I happened upon the other day: "Do not use the words Aboriginals, Aborigine or Aborigines as people may associate this terminology to periods of colonisation and assimilation – instead, use Aboriginal or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander." There really is no doubt that Aborigine, and Aboriginal used as a noun, are now deprecated. I also don't see anything wrong with the brief description on the DAB page saying that Aborigine is a deprecated term for Aboriginal Australians, in the same was as former names are expressed on many DAB pages. It explains how and why readers got to the DAB page. This could also be added to the lead of the article, in the same way as redirect terms are usually shown. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

SPA pumping up BLP
The article David Donovan is a stub about someone of very limited notability who apparently founded the political opinion blog Independent Australia. A newly-created account has made a handful of edits, all on this one BLP article, including a substantial revision here as their first edit. Geez. I wonder who this could be?

My beef is the description of Independent Australia as an "online news publication". I cannot find any reliable source to this effect, and certainly not the one that supposedly supports the claim. It is undoubtedly a political opinion blog. There has been some discussion on this topic here.

As it's a BLP, I'll revert the claim that is not supported by a reliable source until the cows come home but that's not a satisfactory solution. The SPA won't engage on discussion on the talk page so I'm seeking wider input here. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This BLP attracts SPAs like crazy! None of them, so far, able to produce a reliable source showing that this is seen as anything but an opinion blog of dubious veracity. --Pete (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Nickb410 and contributions
 * 2) User:Danjensen137 and contributions
 * 3) User:MickeyViolet and contributions


 * The deleted page has been recreated by a previously uninvolved account. ClaudineChionh (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like these three accounts are tag-team edit warring. The shonky style of Wikipedia participation echoes the style of the opinion blog very nicely. Hard to WP:AGF here. --Pete (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Is there socking going on here? Also, their about page clearly indicates there's WP:UPE happening. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I opened a sockpuppet investigation here. Not yet complete but clear evidence of skullduggery. This guy is gaming Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, I do believe ya'll are dealing with either sock puppets or meat puppets. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Western Plains"
I'm confused. Western Plains redirects to Far West, New South Wales, which doesn't mention Dubbo, but I have been coming across sources which talk about Dubbo as being on the Western Plains (also Great Western Plains). There seems to be some overlap in terminology in the Dubbo-related articles. Template: New South Wales contains the Western Plains redirect, but this term is not in the NSW Regions template (used in that article), and neither does/did the article mention it. I am just going to add the term for the redirect, but it would be good if someone more knowledgeable than I about NSW regional terminology could have a look at it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. It started with mention of "Dubbo Regional Council’s (DRC’s) Western Plains Cultural Centre (WPCC)" here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Western Plains Zoo is also at Dubbo. The Western NSW Local Health District includes Dubbo but not as far west as Wilcannia. We also have a problem that Western Plains is presently a redirect to a different page (Far West (New South Wales)) than Western plains (Great Plains). --Scott Davis Talk 14:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem as I understand it is that "Western Plains" is mostly an informal term. Dubbo has always been identified as part of the western plains & the council used to be known as Western Plains Regional Council. Similarly ABC Western Plains is based in Dubbo. My personal understanding is that it has referred to the floodplains of the Macquarie River (to the west of the original 19 counties) and the best fit is Orana (map ) although the map shows Orana as extending into the Central West & Bourke which is generally referred to as Far West. I would not think that Broken Hill and the Far West are part of the western plains - the only sources I can find that refers to Broken Hill as being part of the western plains is the defined wine region &.
 * I am thinking that Western Plains and Western plains should be disambiguation pages referring to the Great Plains in the US & Western Plains (New South Wales) as a link to Orana. Other views ? --Find bruce (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and . Bruce's suggestion sounds reasonable to me, based on the info you've both supplied, perhaps with a bit of explanation added to the Orana article. Will just reiterate that the two templates (NSW Regions and New South Wales) need to be in sync, whatever the final decision is, and also note the Western Plains District DAB page - should this be collapsed into a Western Plains DAB? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should just be one DAB page for Western [Pp]lains {District}, and that the Australian one should be focused on Dubbo and not include Broken Hill. I'll make a start straight away. --Scott Davis Talk 08:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a first cut, and need to stop editing for a couple of hours (at least). It looks like I was responsible for the Western Plains link to Far West five years ago when focusing on wine, so will look into what that should look like later too. --Scott Davis Talk 09:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Reconciliation in Australia
Mostly a FYI: I have on several occasions found the need for a redirect to the reconciliation process and policy rather than the organisation, so have converted the redirect Reconciliation in Australia into an article. If anyone can suggest any additional categories, or missing content, please add or let me know. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The infobox images for Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott...................
I may be Canadian but I do have sort of an interest in Aussie politics. Their infobox images are informal-looking, and I'm wondering why it's not their official Prime Ministerial portraits.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A combination of copyright issues and them not being particularly good photos. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question! I had a quick look around on Commons and found this discussion that suggests that copyright for the official photos of Rudd and later PMs are owned by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, so a bit more work is required to source good photos for these. ClaudineChionh (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:ClaudineChionh then why are the photos used for Gillard Government and Abbott Government?  Ak-eater06  (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is its own creature. We are not an arm of government and we are not required to use official portraits. I know that US Presidents use the official portrait by local consensus but we don't. The images for Gillard and Abbott are amongst the finest portraits we have. They are well-lit, professionally taken, and capture some of the personality of these two leaders. Other official images are so-so. That of Kevin Rudd is particularly insipid. We have immense difficulty in getting portraits we can use. Images from news sources are not available for free commercial use, and so often we get happy snaps and selfies from party members that are of low quality. Official photographs are of varying quality, a major drawback being that they are designed to remove all personality from the subject so that they come across as a friendly-looking goof.


 * Not to mention the ongoing campaign by those supporters of one side or another who want us to show their political enemies in a bad light and their favourites looking good. We should try for the best possible image for the lede in a BLP. --Pete (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Should Australian articles have to identify that the dollar amount is AUD
There is a discussion at Talk:Mr Cruel that as the dollar amount is not identified as A$ in the article a reader may be confused and think the dollar amount means US$. I don't have a problem with adding A$ AUD to this article to resolve the discussion. However, I would have thought a reader reading an Australian article knows its refers to the Australian dollar the same as a reader reading a US article that it refers to the US dollar. Has this been discussed before and/or is there a policy that you are to use AUD?--Melbguy05 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that someone would offer a response to this one, - I have wondered that myself! I quite often use the AUD template, but it's not clear to me whether it's advised to use it in all cases. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I always indicate that it is Australian Dollars as we can't be certain readers even know what the currency of Australia is called and may automatically assume it is in US Dollars. Calistemon (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they wouldn't know what a Pacific peso is, either. Errantius (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's sourced to Mont Partners of Burswood, near where the cash bagwash lies... Bjenks (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the cultural cringe? Articles about the UK use £, not GBP, and no-one is confused that it may be the Egyptian pound. Our currency is the $; use it proudly. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive_161--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Forrest, Fortescue Future Industries and hydrogen
recently added the statement that:
 * In October 2021, Queensland Premier Anastasia Palasheikh and Andrew Forrest announced that Queensland will be home to the world's largest Hydrogen plant in the world.

to several articles: I disagreed with the addition to Andrew Forrest in particular, on the grounds that it contravenes WP:NOTNEWS - it's an announcement of a future project, not something that actually exists or has even started, but 49.199.136.82 re-instated the edit. 
 * Andrew Forrest,
 * Fortescue Metals Group
 * Hydrogen economy

Perhaps it's worth mentioning in Fortescue Metals Group, but the sentence needs rewording to mention FFI explicitly. Also it will be an ammonia plant (producing ammonia using hydrogen) not a hydrogen plant.

I still think it does not warrant an entire section in Forrest's article.

I don't think it's worth adding to Hydrogen economy given that's only been announced, not actually built.

Can I have some opinions on the matter please. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've added it to "Hydrogen production" too. I've also mentioned this in the Fortescue company page. This is a biggest plant, not some small thing in your backyard. And as I stated, this will be built. The company has already formed a partnership with another big company.49.199.136.82 (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it warrants a mention although in the Andrew Forrest article, but is certainly WP:TOOSOON for an entire article on the plant itself. Should the plant be built and commence operations then it would probably be worth creating. However in the Andrew Forrest article; given career section is already broken into several sub-headings the inclusion of a new sub-heading for this particular venture is hardly surprising. Do you think it better to remove all the subheadings and combine the text? Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that we should distinguish between the largest-in-the-world hydrogen plant and the ammonia plant that will use hydrogen. See for example this rewrite of paragraph in Fortescue Metals Group. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Okay. As long as it's included in the article. But emphasis should be there on "Big plant". This is going to be the biggest. Also, it's still a hydrogen plant. They have to produce the hydrogen from something. Hydrogen doesn't just magically come from somewhere.49.199.136.82 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Is "traditional owner" a proper noun
Opinions are sought at Talk:Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park as to whether "traditional owers" is a proper noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm Fraser editing dispute
Someone keeps reverting my edits on Malcolm Fraser. I believe that adding headings is a good idea for readers to understand.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to dump half the article here. Take it up on Talk:Malcolm Fraser. Stephen 04:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

See discussion
See discussion here, concerning Prime Minister Fraser. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Politician photos, again
Gillard Government and Abbott Government still use their official photos in the infobox, while Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott use unofficial photos. Why?  Ak-eater06  (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not an arm of government. We try to write the best possible encyclopaedia we can, and if we have better bloody images, we use them over the pap the gummint serves up. --Pete (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Skyring okay but my question is is why Gillard Government and Abbott Government have perfect portraits while Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have terrible ones?  Ak-eater06  (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * is this done for any other Australian prim ministers? GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay LOL, you're everywhere aren't you? Pretty weird for two Canadians being on an Australian page.

Anyways, yeah, there are official photos on Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd, etc. I'm wondering why Gillard and Abbott have such weird-looking infobox images when we can just use their prime ministerial portraits from Gillard Government and Abbott Government.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reckon, that's just the way it turned out. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you two can just go and suck on some poots? This is something we have discussed at enormous length over the years and we are reasonably happy with what we have. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool off. Nobody (to my knowledge) is planning to make any changes to the images-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GoodDay is correct. Also no, it's not a matter of "we are reasonably happy with what we have", it's a matter of making do with what we've got. There is (longstanding) consensus in favour of the use of the unofficial 2010 images of Gillard and Abbott over other unofficial images (which also formed over years where the official portraits were unavailable on Wikipedia and therefore never a factor) - and rightly so. There is zero consensus against the use of official portraits if they are available to us, and of retaining the unofficial photos for the infoboxes even if we have the official photos available. Please do not misrepresent the situation, which is purely a matter of copyright uncertainty regarding the official portraits. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you keep asking the same question, but all politicians exist outside of their political roles. So perhaps use an informal picture for the person, and an formal photo for their office.  And we won't have much choice for many people due to our rules around free content. Stephen 23:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There was an argument about this months ago - I’m still deadset in favour of immediately switching to the *official* government portraits of Gillard and Abbott, in line with what we have in place for most other PMs here in their infoboxes, if and when copyright allows for it. The only reason why this isn’t the case at the moment for Gillard and Abbott is that a copyright issue was raised with their official portraits, and it was agreed to put any discussion on using them on hold until said copyright issues were resolved. Which I’m not 100% sure that it is, though I think was able to clear things up at the end. Thescrubbythug (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Thescrubbythug then does that mean that the official photos for Gillard Government and Abbott Government should be removed from the article...because of copyright issues?  Ak-eater06  (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All I can really say is to have a look at the discussions that took place here, and come to your own conclusion. I should add that Skyring failed to cite this issue here on this page in his justification of excluding the official photos from the main infoboxes on the Gillard and Abbott pages, and that since the main debate we had over these images, has uploaded an additional copy of the same image of Gillard. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with here (without having followed any of the arguments) - as a reader, I would expect to see official photos for infobox (where available), and unofficial ones in the body. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would you expect to see government photographs? Do we use Amazon's official portrait of Jeff Bezos? Drivers licence photos for random people? We're not some arm of government - at least not to my knowledge - and we can use the best images we have available to us in the encyclopaedia that we are writing. I, for one, am againt some blanket rule that we should use government content when we have better available. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just on the point of Bezos, if there is an official Amazon portrait of Bezos, it's not available to us on Wikipedia. So it's an entirely moot point, and a false comparison. Ditto the point about drivers license photos - a ridiculous "slippery slope" fallacy that cannot remotely be compared, and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest the use of drivers license photos for politicians here (unless of course there was no alternative available). Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, putting aside the entire debate over the use of official government photos, these images of Gillard and Abbott have been found to not be uploaded with the correct copyright, and they - as well as its variants uploaded by other users - have now been nominated for speedy deletion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters FAR
I have nominated Sydney Roosters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Local Government Climate Action in Australia
Hello,

Does anyone know if a section describing local government climate action including sub-sections briefly describing: local government policy, net zero target/s, climate action/s taken and/or planned, climate emergency declaration, name/s of local climate action groups etc, can be added to each existing Wiki page for each local government authority in Australia ?

A growing number of local government authorities across Australia have taken varying degrees of action on climate change so its important that knowledge about their achievements and goals are shared through Wikipedia. Those local government authorities in Australia which have done nothing on climate action will be made conspicuous by a brief statement in the proposed climate action section along the lines: "No known climate actions or policies".

If Wikipedia permits this section to be added to each Australian local government Wiki page then I am willing to co-ordinate an effort to find and work with volunteers across Australia who are willing to work as writers or editors of the proposed climate action section to be added to each Wiki page for each of Australia's 562 local government authorities. I can provide a template for the proposed local government climate action section, including sub-section headings, that can then be used by volunteers to complete the section for each Australian local government authority. As additional assistance for volunteer writers and editors I will also provide a completed climate action section that I will provide for my local government authority in South Australia which recently announced important local climate action policy decisions and a dramatically accelerated local government net-zero GHG emission commitment.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Peter Havord — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterHavord (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would take a stab in the dark and say after a quick Google search that you are Peter Havord of Climatepix Pty Ltd, based in South Australia. Supposing that the LGA's climate action had received significant coverage, then content could be added to the relevant article. However, your claim that its important that knowledge about their achievements and goals are shared through Wikipedia and that LGAs which have done nothing on climate action will be made conspicuous is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and against site policy. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy and is not a soapbox for you to advance your cause with. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's also original research to claim that LGAs have "No known climate actions or policies" - a reliable source which explicitly states this is the case would be needed, and the suggested text is wrong given that local governments obviously need to comply with national and state-level measures to address climate change. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History of Gold Coast, Queensland
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of Gold Coast, Queensland that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Cfd or possible re-naming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_17#Category:Ethnic_enclaves_in_Australia ethnic enclaves category is at categories for discussion - and there seem to be mainly non australian editors commenting - it is interesting, as some years ago the | Australian demographics] project may have been a good place to alert/discuss the issues raised by the comments at the Cfd. JarrahTree 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Trove journal citations
Adding a Trove journal citation to Charles Buckmaster, I notice that the suggested Wikipedia citation doesn't seem right. Is there someone here with connections to the NLA that can get this cleaned up a bit?

 Hack (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Idea for a new Other Australia-related WikiProject
As per discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Australia, should we have a new section for Transport? eg: trains, trams, buses, paddle boats, etc. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In the past there have been informal discussions about the possibility of sub projects, the last Demographics was started and has suffered low level involvement since the retirement of the person creating.

Standardisation of transport might be a large task due to the low level of regular editors, and very diverging interests in the current community.

Suggestion: look at the UK version of how they deal with the issue:


 * WikiProject_UK_Railways


 * noting the uneven spread across the forms of transport in the sister projects.

JarrahTree 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Some long term editors are not supportive of new projects as such - but have been very keen on task forces - so depending on the level of support for a centralised/standardising effort on transport in Australia - I would suggest


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport

or


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport task force

The proof is in the number of individual editors who might be prepared to put in effort to get either up and running. If there was lack of support, honestly, it would not be worth the time and trouble to go beyond the idea. JarrahTree 05:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In theory I believe a WikiProject such as the UK railways one is a good idea, imagining that it would help coordinate improvements to Australian rail/transport articles, but I'm not sure there's the community will or size to maintain it. As such, the status quo (with task forces) may be preferable. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I do know of a few editors on here with an interest in trains, and the numerous articles relating to the railway, but felt it would be better to make a transport section as a way to include trams and the iconic Australian paddle boats. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, looking at the list on Other Australia-related WikiProjects (and the options on Template:WikiProject Australia), Transport is one one the main areas of Australian life that is missing. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Just after a quick look through the active members of WikiProject Trains, there are 18 people with an interest in just the railways (not including trams or boats) representing all Australian states. I believe we would have enough individual editors who might be prepared to put in effort to justify making a Transport section. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lists are always notoriously out of date - if you have the capacity look at the date of the last edit of the editors you have seen... Then there is the set of editors who do not reply in the short term and might take weeks or longer to reply to suggestions....

In line with your explanation of how you understand things - a Transport task force might be the one way to go - the problem with anything like this is the extent to which there is a willing template/tweak skilled or sympathetic editor to be able to create the required items for the project - and the willingness of possible involved editors to put their name and time to a project.

We already have an australian maritime history project for things that float WikiProject_Australian_maritime_history- and we do have an australian roads project - tangential perhaps.

Personally, I see benefits in standardising materials that something like across the ditch has as an active item - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand_Railways - but its whether the critical mass of editors or effort is there. As I have said above, unless it is obvious, I see little benefit to venture more further than the idea(s). JarrahTree 07:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In the past I have looked at the WikiProject_Australian_maritime_history, but it is more focused on the waters surrounding Australia than the internal waterways (example, PS Adelaide is only marked with WP Australia and not WP Australian Maritime History). This could be used with the focus of the surrounding waters; things like warships, cargo, cruise liners etc. And the new transport one for the more commuter type and ones on the river systems; farries, paddle boats, barges, etc
 * The Australian Roads Project should say seperate to deal with Australia's highway, etc. And the new transport for things like bus companies, old coaches (eg Cob & Co.) --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Your point on already having similar topics... We have a WP Australian sports, so why do we then also have: WP Australian basketball, WP Australian rules football, WP Rugby league, WP Australian motorsport as well as Australian baseball task force and Australian soccer task force.
 * On the issue of not enough actice members, the WP Australian basketball only has 2 members in total. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * damned edit conflicts - sometimes, just sometimes an individual can guide a project idea, and it goes ahead, and things go well.   The proof will be in the response/interest, and a careful examination of dead projects that started with the best of intentions and that have since defaulted for a whole range of reasons, where a good balanced approach to understand how scope and viability is required when new projects go to the WP:Council - best of luck! cheers JarrahTree


 * I honestly don't know too much of what I'm doing with requesting this. The end product I was aiming for was to be able to add the following to talk pages,, and for articles relating to transport in Australia to be grouped together, like how things for Victoria are. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I propose something like WikiProject London Transport and WikiProject Transport in Scotland. That would fit under the following WP's:
 * Australia (and the relevant states)
 * Australian history and maritime history
 * Trains
 * Stations
 * Streetcars (trams)
 * Ships
 * --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Telstra and Gerard Cecil Vamadevan
Several IPs have recently been adding seemingly random mentions of Gerard Cecil Vamadevan to the Telstra article. I suspect vandalism - a Google search for "Gerard Cecil Vamadevan" turns up only news mentions of a fairly dubious character, eg. I've been reverting the edits, but a few more eyes on the article would be helpful. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * They seem to have a pre-occupation with Telstra - you can add Telecommunications in Australia & Teltra v Commonwealth to the list of articles search & "Ross Lambi" search to the list of suspected vandalism. --Find bruce (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've arrived her via WP:AN. Have semi'd Telstra for a month. If other articles are in need of protection please ping me. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image for X-ray style art
I was wondering if this WikiProject could help with an illustration of the X-ray style art article. There are a number of images on Wikimedia Commons about Aboriginal art which may be a good place to start. Thanks! —AFreshStart (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Trove wikilinks
@Certes, was there any update on this? I just ran into the same problem with an auto-generated citation for a The Mercury article on Trove linking to the dab page instead of The Mercury (Hobart). Sod25 (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Disambiguation has efficient tools for finding links to dabs such as The Mercury and continues to fix them daily. WikiProject Bluelink patrol continues to fix some types of blue link such as The Daily Telegraph → The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) daily but these are harder to identify and some will be overlooked.  As for a more sustainable solution, I spent a lot of time making spreadsheets and tables but got bogged down by the sheer number of potential errors, most of which never occur.  If I can find a way to pare the job down to manageable proportions, I hope to return to it again soon.  Of course, anyone would be very welcome to find a more efficient way of doing this. Certes (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Australian and new zealand dishes
Hey I have been working on a list of Australian Dishes for years. I decided to list australian and new zealan dishes together as I think there is too much overlap and conflict about which of the two countries the dishes originated in. This is my first wikipedia page so I need help getting it listed in the various page categories etc. I hope you like the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_and_New_Zealand_dishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbar.concaig (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You are missing classic Australian chocolates like Freddo, Caramello, Bertie Beetle, Yowie, Furry Friends (the ones with the animal wrappers). Also "frog in a pond" (Freddo in jelly). Tim Tams.
 * You can also add  to the header to stop the photos being sortable. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Thylacine. In this list I have tried only to include items made by multiple producers as it could open the door to the list being completely dominated by random commercial products. I'd say a separate list or section of the list being devoted to iconic products could be useful but it would be hard to quantify what products are iconic enough to be included. Frog in a pond is on the list, but freddos are currently not. Tim tams are not in the list as they are a proven and direct copy of a british biscuit; penguins. I have attempted to ensure the list is consistent with the other wikipedia 'list of 'insert countries' dishes. Also I don't understand what the implications of the sortable photos means.
 * Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.32.32.233 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * See the column headings at the top of each table – the two little up/down arrows next to the column names mean that you can sort the table by that column, which makes sense for Name and Description, but nor so much for Image. The tables have the  header which means all the columns are sortable by default, so 's suggestion would make the Image column non-sortable but keep the other columns sortable. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Finbar.concaig, I have updated the Breakfast table so that the image column is no longer sortable as an example of what I meant.
 * I missed the 'frog in a pond'. As for Tim Tams, true they started as a copy of penguins, but given the wide variety we now have as opposed to the original one, would they be considered ours now?
 * I also only mentioned the chocolates on here as I was unsure if there should be either another page for them or would that eventually be merged into this page. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There also could be a debate as to 'Lemon, lime and bitters' being alcoholic or not (0.2% alcohol). I have seen at least one place that calls it alcoholic. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah I understand about the the pictures. If you think lemon lime bitters would be better classed as an alcoholic drink I will gladly change it. I also can't see if there is anything that separates a tim tam (and other australian brands of this biscuit type) from the original which makes me question if it ought to be included. There are some of dishes on here that are australian/new zealand versions of foreign dishes that have diverged enough to be considered relevant in my view. I really wish i could justify adding tim tams as they are my second favourite biscuit (after kingstons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbar.concaig (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Should we have a section for the not quite Australian/New Zealand dishes (eg 'See Also', or 'Honourable Mentions')? I refer to Peach Melba and Melba toast, which I thought were Australian dishes in honour of an Australian?
 * Need to add Jaffles (made in a special iron that crimps the edges of the bread together, holding in the filling), also Witchetty grubs. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there a particular preparation of witchetty grubs that is notable? roasted? Barbequed? I have found it hard to figure out many traditional aboriginal recipes that are commonly prepared to this day. I'm sure there are many I have missed but in my research I found very little printed about it. If we add witchetty grubs to the products/Ingredients section that would open the door to a great deal many native, somewhat obscure ingredients to be included, think lemon myrtle, pepperberry, lemon aspen, quandong, wattleseed etc. the list of native ingredients could be longer than the entire list, however it could be useful and informative to have a place on wikipedia to have them listed. Electric jaffle irons were invented in australia, however I found that they were based on an american campfire toastie iron that produced something very similar, potentially we could add some favourite styles such as canned spaghetti jaffle etc?

I feel like having foreign dishes named after australians might not be useful. An example I would use would be adding Pavlova to a list of russian foods or eggs florentine (American dish named after florence) to list of italian foods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbar.concaig (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe we need a new list for native ingredients.
 * I believe the key distinguishing feature of the jaffle is it's crimped edge. Going by Pie iron, the first "jaffle iron" was an Australian invention. The Tostwich, that came first, was a US invention but it is unclear if it crimped the bread or was just a sandwich press. See also: Jaffle craze.
 * As for the foreign dishes named after Australians, I was wanting to see what others of here thought. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Al-Kateb v Godwin
I have nominated Al-Kateb v Godwin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  22:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Brabham Featured article review
Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joel Selwood
I have nominated Joel Selwood for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Geoff Garrett, former Queensland's Chief Scientist
(not to be confused with Geoffrey Garrett)

This article was noticed to have some issues in the copyright and WP:AUTO areas, but it's better now. Please feel free to improve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding GEONet Names Server (GNS) at RSN
See here. Site is used as a source in about 43,000 articles related to various geographical locations world-wide, including in Australia. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull backflips on head of state
I wasn't aware until this morning that five years ago Malcolm Turnbull as PM made a rather surprising backflip on decades of public statements."The Australian Government, the Australian people were represented by our head of state, by the Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove, who is the highest office holder in our nation."Now this comes from ACM's Facebook page, which isn't what you might call a reliable source but it has every appearance of being a recording of Turnbull speaking on Macquarie News, which is.

Given the timing and the move in recent years for the Governor-General and State Governors to begin describing themselves as heads of state it is clear that something changed, at least in official circles. For Turnbull to make such an about-turn is pretty monumental. --Pete (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Will another Head of state RFC be needed?
We've already had several RFCs on who's Australia's head of state & each one ended in the answer being the Australian monarch. Are we going to require another on this matter? GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Water restrictions
Water restrictions in Australia could do with some love and attention – some of the data hasn't been updated in over ten years. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Dietrich v The Queen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing people from WikiProject Australia/To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography
I was a bit surprised to find that Eric Miller was missing from To-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography in relation to a biography added in 2012. As far as I can see, we haven't added anyone from volume 18 (2012) or volume 20 (2021 - online at various dates prior to). Wikidata appears to have people from volume 18, but only some of those from volume 20. --Find bruce (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine the enthusiasm to add to that list waned with the arrival of Wikidata in 2012. There is an ADB Mix'n'match which "is regularly updated through automated web page scraping". As of now, there are 141 waiting to be matched or have new Wikidata items created. The WikiProject Women in Red has a redlist for the missing women. A similar list for men, or everyone, could be developed from that list.--Oronsay (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Investigations)
Hello, WikiProject,

This article was recently created and it would be wonderful if a few members here could look it over and weigh in on its suitability for our coverage of Australia. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you – I have had a first go at tagging and assessing it (looks like an exemplar of overly detailed). ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 00:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks excessively detailed to me. Also created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch – the editor (and their alt) seem to have worked mostly on this article and Issues Relating to the Use of Drug Detection Dogs in New South Wales which also needs attention. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 00:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The user (and their four alternative accounts) has also created New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal (Freedom of Information Releases), Draft:New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal (List of Reported Incidents), and Draft:New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal. All have similar issues in that they are overly detailed, and possibly violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article relies too heavily on a primary source to support inclusion of facts, what is notable in the report is determined by secondary sources. ~ cygnis insignis 05:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Buckjumping
There is no article on buckjumping, which appears to be an Australian term. But is it a synonym for a regular rodeo event, so just needs a sentence or two and a redirect, or something apart and worth working on? I am totally ignorant on the subject. Doug butler (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Same as bronc riding - some suggest it is saddle bronc, but that's not my recollection. These days there is a strong US influence in rodeo events & they us the US terms. --Find bruce (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Some sources      --Find bruce (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on renaming the Māori Wikipedia
An editor has suggested we rename Māori Wikipedia to Wikipītia because there is no letter 'd' in the Māori language. Feedback is welcome. See mi:Wikipedia:Kōrero.- gadfium 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dash question
I've been busy doing a rather tedious round of updating pages relating to the creation of the new Munga-Thirri—Simpson Desert National Park, when I noticed that the old regional reserve of the same name Munga-Thirri–Simpson Desert Regional Reserve used the en dash. The National Parks site uses the en-dash, and MOS:DASH doesn't seem to be entirely clear to me on this type of case, so which should we be using here? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think MOS:ENBETWEEN applies here, so: Munga-Thirri–Simpson Desert National Park.
 * Yes, I wondered about that - that comes closest, although not quite the same when it's been created as a name - but I will move it to there as you suggest, thanks. I think it looks better that way anyway. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Dual name
Wambuul was gazetted as an official dual name for the Macquarie River. I have boldly moved the article to Wambuul Macquarie River. There are a few different ways the dual name has been used by media and government & there is currently a discussion on the talk page. For what it's worth the Australian Government style manual which says When writing official dual names, use a spaced forward slash to separate the 2 parts of the name. The order should be as written in the official name, which you can check in the Australian Place Names dataset. and the examples seem to suggest it should be "Wambuul / Macquarie River". I am not aware of any recent consensus & would appreciate your views. --Find bruce (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think WP:COMMONNAME needs to be respected, when a number of independent sources start to use the name then yes, such a move will be appropriate, but at this time I think it is premature. This should not preclude discussing the different names in the article. Additionally, government style guides have no bearing whatsoever in Wikipedia. Cavalryman (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC).
 * We could equally use "Macquarie River / Wambuul". Not an easy decision when the GNB says "neither name will have precedence over the other.". WWGB (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wambuul is a good name and euphonious (though why the 175-year old spelling "Wambool" has been discarded is curious) but the good residents of Dubbo won't drop "Macquarie River" as quickly as the equally euphonious "Uluru" replaced Ayers Rock. Doug butler (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * redirects are best options from Wambuul, and Macquarie River to the duel name. Most places will adopt the historical Indigenous names quickly, sourcing will always lag which makes following WP:COMMONNAME ineffective while in some cases out right offensive. Gnangarra 10:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMECHANGES covers this explicitly. In short "follow the sources" rather than try to predict what they will do.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are the Dubbo Liberal and Western Advocate (Bathurst) reliable sources? (This is not a rhetorical question, I simply don't know) Doug butler (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they're reliable, as long as it isn't a letter to the editor or an opinion piece. Bidgee (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they're reliable, as long as it isn't a letter to the editor or an opinion piece. Bidgee (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Australia (continent)
There is a discussion at Talk:Australia (continent) which may be of interest to members. William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Pandora to Australian Web Archive – URL inconsistencies
While doing various bits of citation cleanup I have found inconsistencies in the archive URLs for the Australian Web Archive; some of these still include the old Pandora archive URL (so we end up with a URL like webarchive.nla.gov.au.../pandora.nla.gov.au.../original_url) while others don't. This is also causing problems for Citation Bot and Internet Archive Bot.

Does anyone here have contacts at NLA who could give us insight into this? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ClaudineChionh I just finished 5 days deep into fixing these links. Basically, it's "done" for now. Example. Here it finds the old Pandora link (pandora.nla.gov.au), which it then splits into two URLs one for the url field (www.aria.com.au) and one for the archive-url field (webarchive.nla.gov.au ie. Australia Web Archive (AWA)). The confusion among previous users was putting the Pandora link in the url field when it actually belonged in the archive-url field since it is a web archive URL. But since the Pandora link didn't specify the source domain www.aria.com.au it was hard to tell. Then to add complexity on complexity, AWA recently migrated Pandora into its URL scheme. What a mess! So the solution was as the Example shows. There were many other edge-cases that came up, but the Example is most of what was done.  90% or more of AWA/Pandora links on Wikipedia are for www.aria.com.au an Australian music charting service. If you see any more problems let me know and I'll take a look. My bot is designed to work with it now. --  Green  C  21:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thank you! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 21:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef
Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Trove wikilinks
Further to previous discussions, I finally got around to completing the link checking. Just 272 wikilinks needed fixing, with 35 targets. Details are in WikiProject Bluelink patrol (search for "copied from Trove") there's a full table at User:Certes/Trove/full, and I have a list of searches which can be performed occasionally to catch new errors. Thanks again for your help. Certes (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you You have fixed a few of mine in the last day or two. I do try to either amend or remove incorrect links created by Trove, but obviously missed a few.--Oronsay (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Places Infobox and Indigenous Nations/Language Groups
I'd like to suggest that the Australian places Infobox be updated to include the Indigenous language group of that place as a matter of course. I'm not suggesting replacing any of the extant info there, but I think the addition of this information to all pages for cities, towns, and places would add an important piece of information that everyone can benefit from, as well as the additional ethical benefit of being more inclusive of the full history of these places. As is, there's no easy way to determine which First Nations group is the traditional owners/occupants of a place without cross-referencing of different pages, except when a contributor has made an effort to include this information in the body of the article.

I feel this change would be relatively easy to populate for each place, as I say Wikipedia already contains most of this information just dispersed across different places, and the benefit would be clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.84.77 (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Aoziwe (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support with reservations I think this is a good idea, but there needs to an editors' comment added next to the parameter on the template to guide usage, i.e. Only use when fully cited in the article and there is no dispute or question mark about the traditional owners of the location. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Question – why would this be relevant to places with extinct languages? I can understand and agree with adding existing languages to infoboxes, but extinct languages are no longer geographically relevant so should remain in prose following the principle of disinfobox. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea in principle, but challenging to get "right" in practice. Having a field in an infobox is inviting people to populate it. We need to have a good idea about what to do with "edge cases". traditional custodianship did/does not always have solid boundaries. I think I've heard that the South Melbourne/Fishermans Bend area for example is claimed by two groups. Ramindjeri claims overlap two others in South Australia. As Peramangk populations shrank around the time of white settlement, other groups have taken over claim of some of the territory. Some recognised native title claims are smaller than the supposed original territory. What would we do with towns in the gaps? I think I've made a long-winded answer that agrees with Laterthanyouthink's more succinct response. --Scott Davis Talk 04:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So are we talking about the Indigenous language group of the locality or are we talking about what Indigenous nation claims the area? Because I find the second a much more relevant idea. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 04:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A fair question. If we decide that something indigenous should be in the places infobox, then I guess we can decide on the exact wording of the label, which will guide the content. I'm unaware of examples where the language and the nation are different, so I would use the terms more-or-less interchangeably. If the label is "indigenous language group" them I guess that's what would fill it. If it's "Traditional custodians" then that would be the claiming nation(s). "Native title claims" might be easier to cite, and could be different again for towns built in/near border regions. --Scott Davis Talk 21:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Holden FAR
I have nominated Holden for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's greetings
May you all have a merry christmas and COVID safe new year. Aoziwe (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and the same to you, and others (belatedly). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples
Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.

List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.

There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in. 01:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC), <span style="font-weight:bold;font-color:#6495ED;margin:0 5px;padding:0px 7px;border-radius:99px;background-color:#a7d7f9;">KaerbaqianRen 💬

Good article reassessment of WIN Television
WIN Television has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Michael Woodruff for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Aboriginal Flag
For anyone who isn't aware, the government has just paid $20.5 million for the rights to the Aboriginal flag, meaning it is now available for use in the same way that the Australian flag is. Effectively, it's public domain. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Commonwealth holds the copyright, to presumably it's not in the public domain. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are different opinions at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg. A lot of past file deletions (c:Category:Australian Aboriginal flag related deletion requests) might have to be revisited. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the Minister's Press Release which says, "The Aboriginal Flag will now be managed in a similar manner to the Australian National Flag, where its use is free, but must be presented in a respectful and dignified way.


 * All Australians can now put the Aboriginal Flag on apparel such as sports jerseys and shirts, it can be painted on sports grounds, included on websites, in paintings and other artworks, used digitally and in any other medium without having to ask for permission or pay a fee." -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the written copyright permission? A press release is not a permission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed - presumably clear cut copyright information will be published, but it doesn't seem to have been yet. The advice might end up at https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/australian-national-symbols/australian-flags Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that mean it's going to be added to Australia's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Defending truth on Wiki in Aus
Hi all,

My name is Ninah Kopel - I'm a TV producer with SBS and I'm interested in learning more about the work of Aussie editors and admins. I wan't to hear your best stories about defying vandals and edit wars. Are you coming up against corporations, organisations or individuals with agendas? Are there pages you are particularly passionate about, and why? Coming into the federal election are there political editors with any concerns - will you be working over time? I'm keen to hear your stories, and hope to shed some light on the important work you're doing. Feel free to get in touch at. Cheers, N

Ninahkopel (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can look in the archives linked above for the discussions. Vandals would not really warrant a discussion here as the process to deal with them is straight forward. But point-of-view pushers can result in a discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ninahkopel. If you want to get an understanding re:
 * vandalism: see Vandalism - this is a policy
 * point of view: see Neutral point of view - this is a plicy
 * disruption: see Disruptive editing - this is a guideline
 * fringe theories: see Fringe theories - this is a guideline
 * conflict of interest: see Conflict of interest - this is a guideline

Anecdotally, all of the above can become even more active during election campaigns.

Some of the increase can be due to more people coming to Wikipedia due to raised interest in subject matter during an election period and they make edits in good faith without an understanding of the above.

A political candidate or one of their staffers, or some other member of their political party, or similar opposing them, editing the candidate's article would probably be a conflict of interest.

Vandalism typically gets reverted within minutes to a few hours if the article is currently relevant.

It is not unreasonable to think that state actors may be present.

There is so much happening in Wikipedia 24 x 7 you might get more or better or detailed responses if you can ask some (more) focussed questions.

We are all volunteers. There is no overtime.

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. I've had some very helpful conversations with Australian Wikipedians over the last few days. It has been insightful learning about the work you do and the high standards upheld by editors.

Ninahkopel (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reassessing Australia–Cambodia relations
Greeting from the WikiProject International Relations!

Could someone kindly re-assess Australia–Cambodia relations? It is currently rated stub-class, but it has seen some sizeable edits due to being the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course (with which I have no involvement). Cheers! Pilaz (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by JarrahTree. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place - doesn't mention Australia
Hallo, Infobox Australian place doesn't mention the country name, unlike infoboxes for places elsewere in the world. See discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Australian_place. Pam D  08:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Native name template
If you have been noticing that uses of Template:Native name are putting red error messages into articles, it seems that it has become mandatory to include a valid language code. Given that the instances I encounter have involved Indigenous names, I was at a loss to work out what codes to use for the various Indigenous languages. Anyhow I have asked User:Aymatth2 (who was cleaning up some of these) and this is his advice below. I hope it helps you. I think you may also find the codes in Wikidata too. Kerry (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a list at wikt:Appendix:ISO 639-3 codes/Australia. Don't know how complete it is. Somewhere there must be a map. I search on the native name + modern name to try find the aboriginal group or language name, and then try to find the ISO code. If I cannot find the language anywhere, I code it like . If I can find the language name but cannot find a code for it, I code it like (language). Sort of sad to see all these complex cultures being swept away. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal
Would some members from this WikiProject mind taking a look at New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal? There a number of MOS:MOS issues that are relatively easy to cleanup, but the main concern is whether the subject matter itself is something worth creating a stand-alone article about or whether it might be better off somehow merged into another already existing article. Perhaps some of the members of this project are aware of this "scandal" and can assess the article and improve it if there's something worth keeping. The same editor (or editors) also seems to be working on Draft:Issues Relating to the Use of Drug Detection Dogs in New South Wales and Draft:New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal (List of Reported Incidents) which might indicate that someone is trying to use Wikipedia to set the record straight. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note that there was a previous discussion in December, which has been archived. It definitely needs review by someone familiar with the subject but it's a big job. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Investigations) has also recently been created by the same editor, and this one also probably needs some eyes on it as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Style question for government
There's a discussion at Talk:Gillard Government about decapitalising the word government. I've been told that Australian style is different from US and British. The opinions of some Australians would be valued. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Australian Government's own style guide states that is not capitalised as a general noun, and only capitalised when paired with Australian. Stephen 22:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok if I copy this over to the linked page above? Or you can feel free to comment there. Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 01:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I'll comment similarly there. Stephen 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Organists
We currently have two categories: Australian organists and Australian classical organists. Both are mostly populated with classical and church organists with only a sprinkling of jazz/pop/rock/theatre organists in the first. There must be a better way. Doug butler (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you know a bit about organ music be WP:BOLD and just do it. I know zip about organ music but classical, church, contemporary might be okay? Aoziwe (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * classical is too narrow - choose organists - empty classical organists, and put it up for deletion. JarrahTree 09:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Many in the "Category:Australian organists" belong into "Category:Australian classical organists". Further, both categories are needed because there's a difference between Clayton Doley, Jeff Fatt and everyone in the classical category. Lumping both categories together would also weaken the category trees Category:Classical organists by nationality and Category:Australian classical musicians by instrument. The organisation of the Australian organists' categories is how most countries are organised in Category:Organists by nationality. The correct solution would move classical organists into their category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * well explained - reverting my comment - good advice JarrahTree 10:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Simple and sensible. And thanks for moving them — it must have taken ages! Doug butler (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A massive problem
Looking at various Australian historical sites I notice that the "History" sections may come from some historical register text. There are two problems with this:

1. Looking at Macquarie Lighthouse - as an example; all the others have the same basic problem - The History section not only comes from only one source for most of the text, it is verbatim. So for a large and important percentage of the article, Wikivoice comes from some heritage register and is not further sourced. For example, we say,"The lighthouse sat in an area compounded by four stone retaining walls with originally two corner lodges intended for the 'keepers of the Signals'. The construction of the tower was probably one of the most difficult constructions undertaken in the colony to date. The colony had a shortage of quality building materials and skilled labour which despite the skills of Greenway and Gill, proved to make the construction very difficult. In addition, Greenway and Gill often disagreed on best methods of construction leading to design and engineering compromises." All this text is given one source of "Heritage NSW". Turning to that site we see that the exact same text is found "The lighthouse sat in an area compounded by four stone retaining walls with originally two corner lodges intended for the 'keepers of the Signals'. The construction of the tower was probably one of the most difficult constructions undertaken in the colony to date. The colony had a shortage of quality building materials and skilled labour which despite the skills of Greenway and Gill, proved to make the construction very difficult. In addition, Greenway and Gill often disagreed on best methods of construction leading to design and engineering compromises (ibid, 2011, 5).." and has various references, listed at the bottom of the page, but none of these references is carried across to Wikipedia, it is all "Heritage Register".

The previous text was satisfactory, full of text taken from diverse sites and appropriately cited, written in Wikistyle and presumably a product of consensus every step of the way. The diff shows before and after. From a diversity of sites to a monoculture.

2. The text is taken verbatim from "Heritage NSW". At the bottom of the source given we find, "'All information and pictures on this page are the copyright of Heritage NSW or respective copyright owners.'"I took this up with User:Rangasyd who seems to be the source of hundreds of such changes, and he directed me to an "Attribution" section at the bottom of the page, where we claim that the material has an appropriate license:"This Wikipedia article contains material from Macquarie Lighthouse Site, entry number 00677 in the New South Wales State Heritage Register published by the State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage 2018 under CC-BY 4.0 licence, accessed on 2 June 2018."Looking at the licence information, I find:"Unless otherwise stated, all Department material available on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)" Skipping over our failure to follow the attribution request, I don't see this chain of skipping from site to site a sufficient justification for our wholesale lifting of someone else's text. For one thing, the source we quote is arguably a different website, given that the URL points to a subdomain.

All in all, for every one of a great number of historical articles we have discarded our own appropriately sourced text in favour of what is effectively a tertiary source where we don't even reference the actual primary and secondary sources. Whoever wrote the "Heritage NSW" text using their own style and opinions is now Mr Wikivoice and we take all this stuff as the Voice of God simply because it's on some departmental database somewhere.

I don't think that this is giving our readers what they expect. We might as well say "Most of our material comes direct from World Book. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * - I agree entirely. A lot of non-encyclopaedic cruft gets included as a result.  I have been in the situation where I spent quite some effort bringing one of those articles into line with our Manual of style and removing personal opinions and reminiscences, only to have it all reverted to the Heritage NSW text.  I accept that it may be acceptable as a fall-back if we don't have anything of our own, but IMHO it should never take precedence.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim, "From a diversity of sites to a monoculture." is incorrect for the Macquarie Lighthouse article; all sources in that article before the diff given above are still there. Also, the remarks about tertiary, primary and secodary sources show a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:TERTIARY. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you glanced at the actual reference list? One source is given as "Ray White 2016". That's it. Nothing to click on, not even a link to Ray White. I imagine that Ray White's listings over a year in various publications would number in the millions. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shifting goalposts from "monoculture" to "insufficiently detailed citations"? There's a Raw Ray White document mentioned in the "Bibliography". Obviously, the article would benefit from WP:SFN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC) (my typo corrected at 10:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC))
 * I'm happy to discuss articles which have been generated from the various heritage registers, released under CC-BY licencing, as I wrote the generators, which converted the HTML into wikitext. The format of the QLD heritage register articles (the first group prepared) was discussed at length in this forum back in 2013-2014 from memory. So what was implemented was a result of those discussions. Following the QLD HR rollout, a number of other heritage registers were undertaken (based on whether they were suitably licenced). They included the NSW State Heritage Register, the Australian National Heritage Register and the Commonwealth Heritage Register. There are around 3500 Wikipedia articles created in this way or expanded (the bulk were new articles). They represent over 80% of the Wikipedia articles relating to topics in those heritage registers. A lot of work went into making the articles conformant to Wikipedia's style structurally, but detailed conformance to some aspect of MoS are impossible to automate (need to interpret written text) and I note that MoS too has evolved over time. The automation carries over all citations it detects in the heritage register entry. The articles all include an attribution (which is implemented with a template) reflecting what the licensing statement of the heritage register article at the time the text was copied. The NSW SHR has recently had a big redesign in its web presentation; the URLs and licensing statements may have changed as part of that, but the attribution statement has to reflect the situation as it was when the HTML was downloaded. I note that the HTML may have been downloaded a year or two earlier than the date at which the corresponding Wikipedia content appeared. I note that as we use a templated attribution statement, if there was an error in what was stated, it can be easily changed in all affected articles by updating the template. Every article created or expanded from the generated content was placed on Wikipedia by a human editor; there was always a human in the loop to give a bit of polish to the articles (fixing the wikilinks, attending to the worst MOS failures etc). With the number of articles involved, could something have gone wrong or been better done? Almost inevitably, there were humans in the loop and humans can make mistakes, but articles about similar topics written by the usual methods have their fair share of problems too, unsourced material, poorly sourced material, etc. I would also disagree with the disparaging statement that a heritage register is "some departmental database somewhere". In all states in Australia, a heritage listing confers legal protection from demolition and unsympathetic modification and, in some jurisdictions, requirements on owners to adequately maintain the properties or be fined or have the property compulsorily resumed if they do not. Both QLD and NSW (the ones I am most familiar with) have Heritage Councils which are independent statutory authories which consider the applications for heritage listings, modifications to the properties, etc. The members of those councils are usually people with qualifications and experience in architecture, history, and other topics (the members of the councils and a short bio are given on their websites). They are supported by public service teams with similar kinds of qualifications and experience. Having said that, there are definitely differences in the earlier heritage listings (shorter, fewer or no citations) to the more recent ones (very detailed, well cited). Just as Wikipedia has made the journey from uncited content in 2001 to the expecation of citations in 2006 (which not reality 16 years later), so too have heritage registers made a similar journey. But even where the earlier heritage entries lack citations, they were all reviewed and formally approved and there may well have been citations in the heritage applications which was not included in the published heritage entry. Just by way of illustrating this, there were 8 new entries to the QHR last year, each of which had between 40 to 80 citations, all of which have or will carry over to the WIkipedia articles. A number of people contributed many months to these projects, so I take objection to using one article as a demonstration that there is a "massive problem" when in fact there has been a massive achievement. Like all articles, these articles can be improved within the framework of our policies and guidelines and by the usual BRD and consensus-building processes. However, I am not acquainted with the policy on "mono voice" or "voice of God" (but they sound like variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Personally I go to a lot of effort when I am adding heritage-register content to an existing article to blend the two as smoothly as possible; sometimes I don't add the heritage register content where the existing article is already large and detailed, instead just adding that it is heritage-listed and why (if it isn't already mentioned). Even the question of what is "encyclopedic" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and consensus on an article-by-article basis is probably the best way to deal with it. As there are several criteria for heritage listing, the content of a heritage entry will disproportionately reflect the criteria under which it is being proposed for heritage listing, but these tends to be historical significance (very common), association with significant people or events, architectural significance, new construction methods, significance to a local community, etc. Clearly if one of those topic areas is not of interest to someone, they may not think it encyclopedic. Kerry (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Heritage register information being released under an appropriate CC-by is something we cant ignore, nor should we take lightly the effort that goes into getting a place registered. There is a lot of professional research and multiple assessments and public comment periods that are used to build the picture to tell the story of why a place is listed, these are not some random blog. Places that are heritage registered meet the WP:Notability criteria.  Every fact and piece of information can be verified independently amd has already done so, bring these document here is good way to establish article on areas we lacked information.  If you have a concern about content in an article then search it out in additional sources. If you cant find any then flag it.  As an exercise for workshops taking one of these article and just adding additional source is great outreach workshop activity to introduce new contributors and student to the idea of citations.  Just saying I dont like this source doesnt do anything to further the improvement of the content, especially across many thousands of articles, how many article rely on Murdoch media outlets to establish notability when a closer look will you find its just one story propagated across a few different mast heads. Gnangarra 10:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said, . Consensus at this page was reached in advance of commencing rollout of the project. It is important not to throw all levels of heritage registers in the same basket as the higher you push up towards World Heritage, the intensity of research and documentation increases. At a local level, there can be limiting or no research on the local heritage items. Anyway, I'm going to sit back and watch... as apparently, I'm the cause of all things really bad... I may have even caused COVID-19. However, I still can't quite comprehend why God's body parts get capitalised!  Rangasyd (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could address the two points I raised, Rangasyd? In general I don't have a problem with notability. If something's on a heritage register, it's very likely notable in some fashion. Nor do I disparage the work of those writing the text. They seem to have done their research. So those aren't issues. Take another look at the problems I actually highlighted, please. The issues that matter to Wikipedia, namely the caveats related to tertiary sources and copyright."Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."As for copyright, simply declaring something to be piublished under a CC license does not make it so. There must be an explicit declaration by the copyright owner and we cannot make some sort of blanket declaration that some text on a page is creative commons and leave it to the reader to work it out for themselves. --Pete (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A heritage register is a reliable published source and the heritage register is cited wherever its content is used in the Wikpiedia articles, so it's not original research according to WP:OR. What has happened with the NSW SHR as I have already said is that they have redeveloped their website (I can't even find the heritage entries any more but get stuck in some map interface that doesn't seem to have a link to the entry, if anyone can tell me how to get to the entries, please do!); the old URLs are gone or redirected or don't render correctly as the copyright was in a standard page footer, which is now gone. That is why when you click through the URLs in the Wikipedia article today, you can't see things today that were visible back in 2018. There is nothing we can do to prevent a website owner doing this. But if you look at the Macquarie Lighthouse article on Wikipedia, you will see in the Attribution that the word "copyright" is linked to http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/help/copyright-disclaimer.htm and that the access date was 2 June 2018. As it happens, that URL is being archived by the Internet Archive, and there is a snapshot of that URL on 31 May 2018 and on 3 June 2018 (that is, within a couple of days before and after the HTML was downloaded). The site-wide CC-BY licensing is there in both of them. The original HTML contained a link to this copyright notice in the standard footer of each page of the website. I no longer have the 2018 downloads of the HTML for the NSW SHR (would have been one of my previous laptops but are not on my current one). I do have some from 2020 when I was looking for suitably-licenced photos (many of the NSW SHR photos have 3rd-party copyright and are therefore not included under the CC-BY licence). Kerry (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The copyright stutus for us to simply use large slabs of test is at best, problematical. I shall refer this to those with more experience and knowledge. Of more concern is that it is a tertiary source. We have large slabs of text that is largely sourced to nothing else but itself! This is hardly satisfactory. --Pete (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am confused. The CC BY, etc., is still there. For example, the Maq Lighthouse has it at the bottom of the statement of significance section. Copyright is still held as it was but use of the copyrighted material is also as it was ... ? (Yes if there is third party material, which is not CC BYed the third party then it is not CC BYed but that is also as it was?)  Which I found by just clicking on the relevant ref link in WP's article. As to the tertiary material, it is allowed under our rules, but secondary is preferred, and I would much rather have info integrated into WP, than not there at all. Aoziwe (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The incorporated text is not explicitly identified as material we can use. We say it is with a link that takes us to a diifferent website. When i get a moment I'll go find a noticeboard where those who know their copyright can comment.
 * This is a standard for the entire NSW Government, its Departments, its agencies, etc. Some entities have their own copy of the wording while others just link to the DPC copy of the wording.  There is no issue here.  If it is NSW Government information it is covered by CC BY subject to the exclusions as described in the DPC statement.  Aoziwe (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The State of New South Wales, acting through the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, supports and encourages the reuse of its publicly funded information, and endorses the use of the Australian Governments Open Access and Licensing Framework (AusGOAL).
 * The tertiary material is included in our article with a source link to a page where the exact same text is found. It is its own source. Across hundreds of articles. --Pete (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So what is the problem? How does it make the information unsafe or unreliable?  Aoziwe (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Assistance would be welcome
As some editors may or may not have noticed, I've been doing a lot of tedious editing on and moving of government articles following the discussion here about lowercasing "government" (and now, by analogy, "ministry"). I think that I've covered all of the main "[PM] government" and their associated ministry articles, and their associated DAB pages, from Morrison back to Whitlam. If only I'd known what a large and tedious task it was going to be, I would have kept my big mouth shut! However, in the interests of good English grammar and Wikipedia style, I started the ball rolling and am trying to do some of the slog work, despite having very little interest in politicians, especially those I know nothing about from way-back-when. So... if anyone fancies a tedious but relatively easy copyediting task to fill in their lazy spare hours (ha ha), I would appreciate some help with this task, because I can only do it in fits and starts. Even if not, please keep your eye open for places I have missed - especially templates, and any references in other articles, just change them if and when you encounter them. There's no way I can trawl through all of the incoming links to the capitalised redirects. Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you thought of using AWB? You could probably do the lot in several hours.  I do not have time now, and I would have to get AWB access.  If you are not making much progress let me know.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I suspected that there probably was some kind of automated tool. I will look into it when I have more time, and have cleared a few other items off my backlog. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:James Reid (actor)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James Reid (actor) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User has been removing Indigenous place names from wide range of high level Australian articles
One user (possibly two) has undertaken wide ranging edits to a number of high level Australian articles - specifically Hobart, Sydney, Melbourne, Tasmania, Shepparton, Alberton, Victoria, Geelong, Abbotsford, Victoria, Ararat, Victoria, Bairnsdale, Bacchus Marsh, Beaconsfield, Victoria, Wodonga and possible others under the IP 27.32.1.85, Special:Contributions/220.244.117.3 and the account Gg123456fgfgadsfsdds. The account has now been blocked for edit warring. They've been claiming there was 'no reference', while in places removing the references, and making the ridiculous argument that they're "unofficial regional names, not for [insert whatever they're renaming]".

Most of their edits have been reverted, but they have edit warred Tasmania, Melbourne and Hobart to the line where if the local active editors reverted it again, they risked being blocked, so their disruptive edit is presently standing.

I have requested semi-protection for Hobart and Tasmania and issued a disruptive editing warning to one of the IP talkpages. But I'm a little out of my depth here and request more senior editors help.  JT <sub style="color:grey;">dale Talk ~ 10:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on the Tasmanian and Victorian ones and the accounts/IPs and block them if they continue this stupid campaign. --Canley (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for anyone interested in helping with a possible merge
New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations) and New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Freedom of Information releases) to be merged with New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal. Please check out the talk page.

I don't think the merger itself is controversial. It's mostly an issue with a user who is quite happy to blank the two pages and make them into redirects but does not want to put any effort into merging them. I'm just not really sure where to start. There's also an issue with people deleted who blocks of text because the citation comes from Facebook. That would not be an issue if it were a normal person's online comments (and some of those removed are exactly that, which is justified), but official statements from things like NSWPOL have been removed just because they were posted to Facebook.

Anyway, this isn't an area I normally work on on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where to start. I'll try to help, but I was hoping that some others might be keen about this topic.Kylesenior (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kefford Corporation
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kefford Corporation that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Neville Henry Cayley
We have Neville Henry Peniston Cayley (probably from Alan McCulloch); ADB has Neville Henry Penniston Cayley; A Brush with Birds, a publication of the NLA, has Neville Henry Pennington Cayley. Does anyone have access to DNB? Doug butler (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug butler: I assume you mean the Oxford DNB? I have access via SLNSW but drew blank on both father and son Cayley or Caley. NSW BDM unhelpfully have Cayley, Neville H. P. No probate record at NSW Archives, couldn't find probate advert but it was granted as Neville Cayley. You won't be able to use the following as references, but on Ancestry.com I have viewed the Civil Registration Birth Index and the Norfolk CofE Births and Baptisms, and in both it is written Neville Henry Penniston Caley, while in the Anglican Parish Register for his marriage, it is Neville Henry Penniston Cayley.--Oronsay (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good old ADB! And it won't be the first pencilled emendment in my McCulloch. Thanks Oronsay. Doug butler (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up: anyone who has over 500 edits and has been editing for over six months has access to the ODNB among many, many other things through The Wikipedia Library. Graham 87 07:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And it can also be accessed with an NLA library card. That site gave me security errors today when logging into it but I just ignored them. Graham 87 07:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Queensland locality articles
I've noticed on various Qld locality articles such as Browns Plains, Queensland or Cedar Creek, Queensland (Logan & Gold Coast) particularly in Logan City and List of Gold Coast suburbs, that these articles contain geographical co-ordinates of churches, parks and schools. Is this really necessary to have these since they generally do not appear in other locality articles in Australia and indeed the world? LibStar (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary, but it doesn't hurt, either. There are >16,000 articles in Category:Geographic coordinate lists, so it's not that uncommon. Regarding the articles you mention: the utility of those coordinates would be improved if the pages would employ the template GeoGroup, and if they would pick a suitable scale. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siemens Modular Metro (Kaohsiung Metro)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siemens Modular Metro (Kaohsiung Metro) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with Australia? -- <span style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color: rgb(0, 35, 102); text-align: center; text-decoration: underline #FFD700;">ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Siemens Modular Metro (Kaohsiung Metro) does not mention Australia - Correct page for Australia should be Siemens Modular Metro -- <span style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color: rgb(0, 35, 102); text-align: center; text-decoration: underline #FFD700;">ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Nearest neighbours" or "suburbs around" in Infobox
Opinions are sought at Template_talk:Infobox_Australian_place as to how to handle boundary cases - eg what is displayed for "suburbs around ..." when the suburb is on the coast and there isn't another suburb on one side of the suburb. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:T.J. Power
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:T.J. Power that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 01:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review
I have nominated Macfarlane Burnet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move
FYI requested move at the politics project:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Requested_move_25_March_2022

JarrahTree 02:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Death of Kumanjayi Walker
Hi all, I really should contribute to this page more! Just wanted to know if anyone wants to have a look at the article Death of Kumanjayi Walker (currently entitled Death of Arnold Walker), there are some problems there and my efforts to contribute have been continuously reverted by an user. It's a very interesting current issue of local and global significance if anyone wants to get involved. Thanks! Dippiljemmy (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I have spent a bit of time on it which I hope has addressed some of these issues, although of course there's always room for improvement. It would be really good to get some more opinions on the naming issue though, as its current title seems quite wrong to me. There is a move proposal, but apart from me, nobody apart from the original two have opined on the matter. I don't know if there's anywhere else to go besides this noticeboard to get some uninvolved opinions, but I would invite everyone here to at least have a look at the move discussion and see what you think. I cannot find a source that refers to the deceased as just "Arnold Walker", so this seems quite wrong to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. I just added the move proposal to the Biography project noticeboard. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC) (Moved)

Dorothy Hewett
For anyone interested in Australian literature (?), there is this going on at Talk:Dorothy Hewett. I will have to come back to it another day - I don't have the brainpower for such a big task today, being hit by a virus. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance (Australia)
Some drongo editors seem to think the Oath in the actual Australian constitution says Elizabeth when obviously it says Victoria. Please can repair this article and watch list it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.38.124 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The issue has been fixed now. Two things you should remember:
 * You need to remain civil. Referring to people as "drongo editors" is not.
 * You could have easily made the changes you propose yourself.
 * - Steelkamp (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"League of Victorian Wheelmen"
I've noticed several articles referring to this entity. Is it a notable organization? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thousands of mentions since 1894 in practically every newspaper in Australia. And not just results -- articles and editorials as well. I'd say definitely notable and possibly interesting as well. Doug butler (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd agree it's notable - for it's role in establishing professional cycling in Melbourne and in the battle with promoters for control of cycling in the 1920s and 30s, particularly with Bruce Small keen to replace handicap racing with scratch racing. It continued until 1986 when it merged with the amateur body to become Cycling Victoria. --Find bruce (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeking third opinion on Acacia decurrens
TL;DR: Seeking a third opinion on Acacia decurrens, whether adding Dharawal cultural ties and knowledge is appropriate.

I added some information about a Dharawal story mentioning Acacia decurrens to the article on the plant, cited to a website published by a Dharawal woman and her son. This was reverted with a reference to WP:NOTE, which confused me because that says that notability does not apply to the contents of an article, just the article topic overall. I reinstated my work, and added some more, citing Western Sydney University resources. I was contacted by the person who reverted me, wanting to know whether the story was 'publicly known', and implying that because they can only find Cumberland Council mentioning the story in passing, it's not significant enough to add to the article. I told the person that yes, it is publicly known, and provided them with a book that the authors of the website wrote, and some more information about the authors being academically published on the broader topic of Aboriginal storytelling. The conversation then got moved here.

I feel like the goalposts keep getting moved, and the person keeps saying this guideline or policy applies here, but doesn't explain why or quote them - and when I read them, I come to the opposite conclusion to what they do. I would appreciate some input from someone else on the discussion. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move of article Jackaroo
I contend that the page Jackaroo (trainee) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and moved to Jackaroo and links to other topics relegated to Jackaroo (disambiguation). Doug butler (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Joel Wood
Just wanted to give you guys a heads up that footballer Joel Wood will need some attention. In the process of visiting the page so that I could add a hatnote linking to the Canadian musician Joel Wood (musician), I discovered that the entire article had been overwritten with the phrase "he has down syndrome" — and in the process of visiting the page history so that I could revert that obvious vandalism, I discovered that it happened three weeks ago on March 30. The page appears to only have one watchlister, however, which is probably how it went three weeks without getting caught — so I wanted to suggest that some more participants here should watchlist the page so that it can be reverted more promptly if this happens again. Again, I've already reverted the vandalism, so this is more to prevent future reoccurrences. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I've blocked the miscreant and added the page to my watchlist. However I don't think the soccer player is in any way the primary topic, so I moved his article to Joel Wood (soccer) and made the Joel Wood page into a disambiguation page, which I'm watching as well. Graham 87 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Chinese Australian
Note sure how many regulars have this on their watchlist, but some new editors have come along. One of them has blanked all the mixed-race people from the list of notables and says that part-Chinese people don't count and seems to have a remarkable grasp of wiki-laws in referring to another newbie who puts it back in, accusing them of OR and such. From my understanding the census counts mixed-race people under multiple categories, and it seems curious that the deleter says that it is OR to list mixed-race people as Chinese in case they don't self-identify as Chinese, when it might be entirely possible that a single-race person might not identify as being of that race. Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

IP vandalism re "affluent" suburbs
An IP editor (using different IP addresses, often 58.110.245.204) has been systematically going through the articles on many Sydney suburbs, updating the lead sentences to say they are "affluent". No source is provided; the descriptions generally say something like "consistency" or personal attacks like "Are we just going to keep blinds over our eyes?". Does anybody know how we can fix this?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well this is not vandalism. And the edit summaries are not personal attacks. They do not seem to be targeted at one person or even suggest anything really bad. However edits should be sourced, so either look to see if a reliable source indicates the place is affluent, and add that source, or ask the IP editor to add that, or add a cn tag to the affluent adjective. If it is clearly untrue remove it, and if you have evidence that the place is full of poor people or whatever, then state it and add a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with Gronk OZ on this one. It's got nothing to do with accuracy, references or "truth". Rather it's about consistency and a neutral point of view. Every suburb article starts with a factual, non-subjective, "Blah is a suburb in Sydney" or similar. The editor in question is adding, to some suburbs only, "Blah is an affluent suburb in Sydney".
 * Apart from now requiring criteria as to which suburbs are "affluent" and which ones aren't, is the level of affluence of a suburb the most important factor of a suburb - and the only one that has to be mentioned in the first sentence?
 * Sure, it's not vandalism, and technically not a personal attack. But it is non-neutral, inconsistent and introduces a need for subjective and lop-sided criteria. While not personal attacks per se, the edit summaries are not civil and demonstrate an inability to collaborate.
 * As for the solution, I think the problem will quickly go away, and there are enough editors around that have been rolling back the offending edits. The editor will likely get bored soon, as long as they don't, heaven forbid, take encouragement from discussions like this. --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will agree though it does not belong in the lead sentence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been raised at ANI by - the link is Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Continued removal of indigenous language names from Australian city articles by anonymous users
Hi there, I note this was discussed in the Archives back in Feb. This attempted removal of attested indigenous names is ongoing across several cities including Perth, Melbourne and Sydney, without any attempt to build a consensus in Talk, but with plenty of accusations of 'activism' being slung at long term regular contributors. I thought it should be noted that this is still happening, given the first notice has fallen off this page already. Perhaps an editor with admin privileges could look at the patterns of editing here. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there - can you please link to the previous discussion/s? :) regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 59. Stephen 23:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Primary topic (if any) of Mount Gambier
I've noticed that Mount Gambier (which in the past was a DAB) redirects to Mount Gambier, South Australia, meanwhile there is a DAB page at Mount Gambier (disambiguation) which was created after Mount Gambier was changed to a redirect. I would start a RM but due to the nature of such discussions it would be best to first work out whether or not Mount Gambier, South Australia is the primary topic and should be moved, or if it is the DAB page that should be moved. Thoughts? A7V2 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The primary topic would be Mount Gambier, South Australia as that is by far the most likely to be referred to. That should be moved to Mount Gambier as per our naming conventions. On page views Mount Gambier, South Australia is many times more popular than the volcano And the other things in the disambig are far less viewed still. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have started a move request discussion. See Talk:Mount Gambier, South Australia. A7V2 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Stats for Australian foreign-born population
As I raised (thus far to no response) on the talk page for the article on the foreign-born population of Australia, I'm bewildered by the statistics the page cites. Though it cites the ABS, and according to the pages sourced is accurate, the stats are completely different to what is found here. I have been unable to justify this difference. For instance, the article numbers the Australian residents born in England at the 2011 census as 911,593, whereas the source I linked in the prior sentence counts 991,000 and even gives the 2021 number as less than that. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft Dai Le
I have created a draft Dai Le article. She has a high chance of winning in the Division of Fowler as an independent over ALP's Kristina Keneally. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dai_Le It would be great to have it reviewed. Thank you. Travelmite (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of MOS:SURNAME, which of "Dai Le" is the given name and which is the surname? Possibly we need a Family name hatnote. (See also Vietnamese name.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * She is sometimes referred to as “Ms Le” in the media, so Le is the family name. Her email is dle@fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au which confirms family name. WWGB (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. https://daile.com.au/how-to-vote/ seems to confirm this also. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now at Dai Le. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Local government of Torres Strait islands
Hello. I tried first on the project Queensland, but it is not active. What is the difference between the Shire of Torres, the Torres Strait Island Region, and Torres Strait Regional Authority? Do they encompass the same area? --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Confusing isn't it - welcome to the delights of an isolated & interesting part of Australia. All 3 are in the same area. There are 3 Queensland local government councils in the region - The Torres Strait shire council, Torres Strait Island Regional Council & Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council . The 15 outer islands are part of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council. The Peninsula council covers 5 communities on the mainland and the rest is covered by the Torrres Strait shire council.
 * The Regional Authority is different again - it's a Commonwealth rather than State government body and provides services to the people of the region. In terms of area it includes all 3 local government councils. Find bruce (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Candidate checklists from the Australian Electoral Commission
It seems the AEC publishes a pdf checklist from each candidate at, some clicking required, this is an example. It came up at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.

It seems to me that these would not be good WP:BLP-sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but out of curiosty, do Australian politics editors agree? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)