Talk:Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719164755/http://www.nff.org.au/get/2434069037.doc to http://www.nff.org.au/get/2434069037.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

2020 EPBC Amendment Bill

The section named § 2020 EPBC Amendment Bill should be removed and replaced by the entirety of § Significant amendments, a part (and only a part) of which it replicates. (It will also make more sense there than as part of the § Description section, since "the promised standards" are not mentioned earlier than the § Reviews, audits and assessments section.) Any objections to making this change? yoyo (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes in structure

Sorry, but I don't agree with your huge restructure and apparent loss of content, IronBattalion. I don't have time for a detailed examination now, but at a glance, the Legacy section is just full of amendments, and to my eyes it has lost its logical flow. The History section contained "Background". I would prefer to restore the earlier version and proceed in small steps, and discuss any big changes. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

After rereading the article, I do accept your criticism about the history section, Laterthanyouthink. However I do think that the article is better in its current form as the restructure did add other things which I believe are of value. The only thing that I can see which was removed was the long title (twice) which is already covered in the infobox and other articles do not, in my experience, cover the long title anywhere except the infobox. I'm assuming you have the rollback function, so I'm also assuming you won't mind if I quickly edit the article after to address your concerns and see how it would look like using my structure and your feedback. If you're still not happy, roll it back and we can do this from the start. Thanks, and I hope to start a meaningful dialogue (Please do not be sarcastic, please don't be sarcastic, I'm I sending the wrong message? Anxiety why are you like this!!!). IronBattalion (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi IronBattalion, and thanks for your response. I'm a bit overloaded with off-wiki things this week as well as trying to attend to quite a lot of small tasks here, so don't want to get too sunk into this at the moment, but I think that looks better to my eye, thank you. What drew me to the changes were the empty section with a template in it (which I find irritating - I always think that the person who places such templates could either add something, or remove the heading altogether), and the fact that some history/background did exist buried in another section further into the article. I think it is more logical to provide history/background first (what went before, why or how this thing came about, what happened between then and now, etc.). Also, the fact that it was already graded as a B class article means that we need to be careful about making drastic changes. Re the long title - it was always my understanding that everything in the infobox as well as the lead (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) needs to be repeated in the body somewhere, with the citations in the body. (And the reason for having Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) bolded in the lead is because of redirects targeting this article, btw.)

I did not read your message as sarcastic, and generally do not use sarcasm in my comments here, btw. I know it's always difficult to express tone in a typed message with people you don't know! No need to be anxious about this. :-) I think what you've done is fine but will put it on my list for having a thorough re-read next week to see if there is anything else to discuss. Oh, and I never use rollback if it's obvious that someone has put a lot of work into making changes (unless the article is truly messed up by a vandal or POV-pusher or whatever!). Thanks for your work. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)