Talk:Landcare Australia

Requested move 29 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Non contested move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Landcare in Australia → Landcare Australia – The article is more about the movement and organisation rather than a general concept. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:Landcare.JPG

Image:Landcare.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Landcare was created as part of a union between the National Farmer's Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation in 1989, but whoever wrote this might know better... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.79.94 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Landcare in Australia. 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/20160306234858/http://landcare.org.au/ to http://landcare.org.au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020810100349/http://www.landcare.org.au/ to http://www.landcare.org.au/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Landcare in Australia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

bullet list

@Laterthanyouthink: you said in this edit summary that "The bulletlist rule only applies to sentence fragments" - but those bulleted items are sentence fragments, so WP:BULLETLIST applies. The rule "No terminal punctuation is used with sentence fragments" applies to "List items", not "the whole list when entries are combined". If you want to include the punctuation, the text should be written as prose, not a list (which I don't recommend because it would be harder to read). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

acronyms

@Laterthanyouthink: - re [1], but the issue applies to other acronyms on the page.

I disagree with the use of acronyms purely for the sake of adding a redirect from a disambiguation page (e.g. NLD - National Landcare Directory - Landcare_Australia#Affiliates). In particular, they violate:

• WP:MOS#Do not use unwarranted abbreviations - Avoid abbreviations when they ... interrupt the flow. The acronym adds no value to the article, when the acronym is not used elsewhere in that article.
• While the addition of the acronym satisfies the letter of WP:DABACRONYM ("the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation"), it does not follow the general intent of "we are ... not making yet another dictionary of abbreviations".

I propose that all the unused acronyms should be removed from the Landcare Australia, and the entries be removed from the DAB pages. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong objection - acronyms used in environmental bureaucracies in Australia are extensive, and widely used in the literature produced by them - and specially on their websites

any attempt to suggest removal is a restrictive practice of reduction of facilitating access for the reader of an article to the sometimes immense impervious textual legacy of environmental bureaucracy - regardless of whatever rules might be invoked, to argue against the usages.

the evaluation and subjective appraisal as to whether acronyms are unused, or unwarranted fails to understand the broader issue of where acronyms in this context are a work in progress, and the interference - regardless of immediacy of the disagreement with usage - should be restrained where possible. In the understanding the wider context - some articles may not be linked at this stage - to remove for whatever the reasons given is interfering with the larger picture. It should be discouraged, and allowance should be made for linkages in other articles not yet linked. JarrahTree 14:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)