Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Babel: en-AU

en-auThis user is a native speaker of Australian English.

Feel free to add {{User en-AU}} to your user page. Shtroof it's hard trorna keep stand'ds up in London. Mate. Fark! - David Gerard 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A bewdy David G - nice ;) Lisa 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think even the broadest Australians say "speaker a' Straiyan". They say "speaker uv 'Straiyan" The "v" of "of" is definitely pronounced before the unstressed vowel of "'Straiya." Adam 13:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the national language spelt "'Strine"? Or is this just a regional thing? Dysprosia 22:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian Wikipedians to be interviewed on ABC next week

A presenter from ABC Radio, Central Australia contacted me, wanting to talk with Aussie Wikipedians on his radio show next week. I said I'd be happy to talk about why I edit and what I edit on his show but don't feel I'm the best-qualified Aussie Wikipedian. Contact ABC Radio if you'd be interested too. I am thinking maybe you CyberJ, Scott, Slac, Beck, Axel, Chuq, Diceman, Tim, Ian, Longhair, or David might be interested... You are just Aussie Wikipedians I've come to know by username to be doing great work on WP. I think this show will be next Wednesday on 891 AM in Adelaide (plus many other regional frequencies) but I don't think this regional ABC radio station has a live webstream. Lisa 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck. I'll be out-of-town on Wednesday, so probably won't get to hear you :-( This is your opportunity to launch Wikipedia in SA and NT schools, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to be an utter media whore - they can email me at dgerard at gmail dot com. Remember I actually live in London! My accent's become horribly Anglicised ... I'll have to remember to talk out my nose - David Gerard 11:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll be unavailable most of Wednesday (en route from Hobart to Sydney) - so will be a little too busy to participate - but what time is the interview? I'd be keen to hear it (if possible)? -- Chuq 05:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure yet Chuq. Is a public holiday in SA today -- I'll probably be in touch with Dave tomorrow and will post back here then. Lisa 13:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's at around 9:15am tomorrow. Lisa 02:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How did this go? I missed it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought it would be cool to be interviewed by the media for editing Wikipedia :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. How'd it go? I'm somewhat back from my break, if only for a short time. I'm involved in an awkward legal situation which is going to demand a lot of my time shortly so I'll be taking another longer break from December until approximately March where my edits will be slowing down around here somewhat. Apologies to all for the lack of replies of late. I'm getting on top of them all now if they're still valid questions. I still keep a keen eye on this place and it's great to see the Aussie content expanding in many different directions. Gives me plenty to read even when my editing time is lacking. Feel free to email for a quicker response. -- Longhair | Talk 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sport in Australia

Made a rough start on Sport in Australia as per a comment on the Talk:Australia page. Cfitzart 03:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Susan Crennan

In preparation for the upcoming (Nov 1) inauguration of Susan Crennan to the High Court, is anyone able to source a PD/GFDL/non-fairuse image to accompany the news on WP:ITN? I should be able to provide a screenshot of the event once it transpires, but it's doubtful this will be allowed on the Main Page.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Where would we start on this? It might be worth writing to the court to see if we can obtain one - I'd be happy to go down there myself and take one, but my camera sucks and is broken at the moment anyway (it died when I was taking Wikipedia photos at Floriade, strangely). Ambi 05:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to write to the Court to request use of a photo, but I'd imagine their response would be the same as AUSPIC's, which doesn't really help. The NLA has [1]. (What is the actual definition of "commercial reuse", anyway?) Perhaps someone else might be able to take a photo themselves? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sydney University College Keg Society

Does anyone know if such an organisation exists? I nominated the article S.U.C.K.S. for AfD, but I'm facing stiff opposition from anonymous comments. A Google for "Sydney University College Keg Society" reveals one hit (which parts of the article are lifted from). I wanted to check if anyone had heard of this organisation before I dig my heels in. Cnwb 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Odds are it does exist. The question will be to know if it is an encyclopaedic topic. Would an article about my university's volleyball club be noteworthy for Wikipedia - I think not - not unless our club did something more amazing and attention-grabbing than play volleyball at uni! Lisa 00:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

New Australian Collaboration of the fortnight

Thankyou to everybody who contributed to 1997 Thredbo landslide. It expanded to six times its previous length! The new Collaboration of the fortnight is Marree Man, after carefully checking the timestamp of the tying vote for Sport in Australia. Please help to improve Marree Man, and nominate any other article you think would benefit from collaboration. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Swans player list

Hey y'all, after that exciting GF win, I've been working on a whole swath of new Sydney Swans player entries that have now been categorized...some fans have graciously helped out in adding to some of the players that I have created the stubs for, but I need some more help on this one! Go to Category:Sydney Swans players to see the list we have so far...and help add! Thanks! --J L C Leung 16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dead End Australian Articles

I notice we have recently ended up with two articles about the Australian Brumby Brumby and Australian Brumby. Brumby is the shorter of the two, but also more encyclopedic. If someone is interested it would be worth merging these two into one better article.

Also of interest are Australian Federal Ministers and Australian Economic History which are both recently added dead end pages, possibly duplicated elsewhere. Martyman 03:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The brumby problem is solved, one was a cut and paste copyvio which I have deleted and made into a redirect.--nixie 03:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian Federal Ministers is a duplicate of Fourth Howard Ministry, and I've moved Australian Economic History to Economic history of Australia and suggested it be cleaned-up and merged into Economy of Australia.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I redirected the Minsters article to Fourth Howard Ministry for the time being- if anyone can think of a better place for it to point it should probably point there instead.--nixie 02:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Australian Commonwealth ministries 1901-2004? Ambi 10:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I like how the Canadians do it (yet again). They have separate lists of current ministers and secretaries at Cabinet of Canada and List of Canadian Parliamentary Secretaries (do we have a list of parliamentary secretaries?). But then, Canada's different: they don't really have an outer ministry. Seeing as though Fourth Howard Ministry is a rather obscure location, I think it might be best to note the current ministry elsewhere as well. Or we could redirect to the location Ambi suggested.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the Canadians don't have articles for past ministries, and the current article really needs to fit in with them. It could be easily linked from the article on our Cabinet, though, which could solve that issue. Ambi 11:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I've re-redirected the page to Australian Commonwealth ministries. That's another thing actually: the term "Australian Commonwealth" is wrong. Why not just "Australian ministries"? If people are smart enough to be reading an encyclopædia, surely they're able to differentiate between Australia and the states. I tried to have the category changed not long ago, but - as is usual on Cfd - "no consensus" was formed.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Having some sort of distinguishing feature in the name is useful, as there's a growing number of state and territory ministry articles as well, and "Australian ministries" could very well refer to them also. Ambi 15:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Ministers are also listed by portfolio in List of Australian Commonwealth Government entities Martyman-(talk) 12:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

SMH Sat 8 Oct - Icon article on Wikipedia

Sydney Morning Herald lead Icon (Technology) article reports from the Frankfurt conference. There are a number of references to Australian articles, facts and Wales's vision for the future of the Wikimedia foundation. (The print version discloses that the article is syndicated from The Guardian.)--User:AYArktos | Talk 21:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Arrgh, I thought I fixed that faulty translation of terra nullius. Slac speak up! 05:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that "Even in the heat of battle, Wikipedia can be relied upon as an impartial and trustworthy source" obviously hasn't been editing at Zionism or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Adam 10:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie's RFA

Australian contributor Cyberjunkie has been nominated for adminship. You can vote and/or comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberjunkie. Voting closes 00:45 17 October 2005. Snottygobble | Talk 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• User:Cyberjunkie's RfA was successful. Congratulations to Cyberjunkie, and thanks to everyone who participated. Snottygobble | Talk 11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything Linux

Could Australian editors please comment as to whether they think the Everything Linux article should be included in Wikipedia or nominated for deletion? Apparently it is one of the largest Linux retailers in Australia (LSL is the only other one Chuq can think of off the top of his head) and a VfD nom might get a lot of unfounded delete votes from both non-Australians and non-Linux users, as it is only really notable to Australian Linux users. Chuq suggested we run a straw poll here to get a sense of what other Australian wikipedians thought. I personally cannot think why such a retailer is notable enough for an article ...--User:AYArktos | Talk 11:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Notability is not a criterion for inclusion. I vote keep. Snottygobble | Talk 12:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable, and notability can be a criterion for inclusion. Article looks like vanity/advertising to me. The article does not assert what might make EL more special than any other small computer shop in the country. As far as I can see, this article fails the Company inclusion guidelines. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• They have been around since 1999 and are the only place I know of to buy a range of linux distributions in Australia. I have bought stuff off them several times. As to whether they are notable enough to be listed I don't know. Linux companies that are listed and could be of similar or lower notability are Reptile Consulting & Services, Linux Professional Institute, Canonical Ltd and to a lesser extent Ozlabs the australian arm of Linuxcare (defunct). --Martyman-(talk) 20:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• I vote keep. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to create an article on it, but since one has been created, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to delete it - as AYArktos says above, it is one of the largest in Australia. BTW Martyman - do you really think that Canonical Ltd, creator of Ubuntu Linux is less notable?? :) -- Chuq 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I have never heard of Canonical (not that that means too much, I have heard of Ubuntu). I don't really feel strongly either way, but would probably lean towards keeping it seeing it already has the article created. --Martyman-(talk) 10:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Mere shops and mere distribution of linux is adding minimal value to linux itself - I have a real concern that this verges on Wikipedia being taken over for advertising and hence compliance with the Company inclusion guidelines is an important test. If it were a lingerie shop or a bookshop would you still think it worth keeping? I will nominate for deletion and allow the debate to continue there, perhaps resulting in modifications to Company inclusion guidelines or affirmation of those guidelines. --User:AYArktos | Talk 21:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Puma loose in Gippsland - urban myth

I've been reading some of the articles on urban myths lately, and decided to start an article on the myth that there's a puma (or other type of big cat) loose in Gippsland, Victoria (sometimes it's also reported in the Grampians). I'm not sure how to title the article. Any ideas? Cnwb 10:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard of the myth itself, but 2005 Gippsland puma hoax ? -- Chuq 11:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's not specific to this year, perhaps just Gippsland puma or Gippsland cat? --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sugestions. I've started the artcle as Gippsland puma. Cnwb 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

While looking at Marree Man stuff, I came across the Nullarbor Nymph hoax [2] .. that might be an interesting one to do too Astrokey44 05:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I may have missed the boat, but given that it's been "sighted" in the Grampians as well, and it's not always a puma, how about Victoria's big cat mystery? A little internet searching suggests a more generic term is called for than Gippsland puma. (BTW, does anyone remember David Dale's [SMH] "Bruce, the giant Gippsland worm?") —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarbyAsh (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 October 2005 (ACST)

I second that emotion Agnte 10:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is stretching the definiton of "urban myth." Firstly it's rural, not urban. Secondly, an urban myth is based on anecdote and rumour, like the story about crocodiles living in the New York sewers. This story is baed on reported sightings. In that sense it's more like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It probably belongs under Apocryphal animals or something like that. Thirdly, to be a myth something has to be known not to be true. There might in fact be pumas in the Grampians, just as there are kangaroos in the Scottish highlands. So it isn't proved to be a myth. Adam 08:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly it's rural, not urban. Hah! Nice catch. :)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Darby Ash's proposal. Also, I can see Adam's point regarding urban myths. The reason I wrote that it was an urban myth is because that's how the story has spread - I've been told several times that a friend-of-a-friend has come face to face with the beast. And the fact that there are multiple variations of the origin of the cat also lends it to urban myth. But yes, perhaps it should be removed. And should we perhaps be discussing this on the page's talk-page? Cnwb 12:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal/indigenous culture categories

I noticed that Category:Australian culture had two subcategories Category:Australian Aboriginal culture and Category:Australian indigenous culture that have very similar meaning. Having mapped all the subcategories of both, I found a cycle in the category graph, and significant overlap. Any suggestions how to merge these or break the cycle? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that "indigenous" in this case is a wider term than "Aboriginal", since it covers Torres Strait Islanders as well. J.K. 13:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if any thought has gone into whether current categories contain "Aboriginal" or "indigenous". I suspect not.--Scott Davis ^Talk 15:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Current hierarchy

• Cat:Australian Aboriginal culture (12 articles) *
  • Cat:Australian Aboriginal art (1 article)
    • Cat:Australian Aboriginal artists (10 articles) **
    • Cat:Australian Aboriginal music (5 articles) ***
  • Cat:Indigenous peoples of Australia (88 articles)
    • Cat:Australian indigenous actors (6 articles) ****
    • Cat:Australian indigenous politicians (3 articles) #
    • Cat:Australian indigenous communities (21 articles)
    • Cat:Australian indigenous culture ##
    • Cat:Australian indigenous education (0)
      • Cat:Australian indigenous educational institutions (5 articles)
    • Cat:Indigenous peoples of Tasmania (4 articles, each about a single person) *****
    • Cat:Australian indigenous leaders (11 people)
      • Cat:Australian indigenous politicians #
    • Cat:Native title (9 articles)
    • Cat:Australian indigenous sports people (20 articles)
  • Cat:Indigenous peoples of Tasmania *****
  • Cat:Australian Aboriginal languages (26 articles)
  • Cat:Australian Aboriginal mythology (29 articles)
    • Cat:Australian Aboriginal deities (2 articles)
      • Cat:Aboriginal godesses (12)
      • Cat:Aboriginal gods (22)
  • Cat:Australian Aboriginal politics (10 articles)

• Cat:Australian indigenous culture (5 articles) ##
  • Cat:Australian Aboriginal culture *
  • Cat:Australian indigenous actors ****
  • Cat:Australian Aboriginal artists **
  • Cat:Australian indigenous authors and poets (1 article)
  • Cat:Australian indigenous music (7 articles)
    • Cat:Australian Aboriginal music ***
    • Cat:Australian indigenous music groups (8 articles)
    • Cat:Australian indigenous musicians (15 articles)

My suggested hierarchy:

• Indigenous peoples of Australia
  • Australian Indigenous politics (renamed Australian Aboriginal politics)
    • (Australian?) Native Title
    • Australian indigenous politicians *
      • Australian indigenous leaders **
  • Australian indigenous people (with quite a few articles currently in Ind. ppls of Aust.)
    • Indigenous Tasmanians (if cat necessary, rename from Ind. ppls of Tas.)
    • Australian indigenous actors
    • Australian indigenous sportspeople
    • Australian indigenous politicians *
      • Australian indigenous leaders **
    • Australian Aboriginal artists ***
    • Australian indigenous musicians ****
  • Australian indigenous education (and subcat, or merge)
  • Australian indigenous communities
  • Australian indigenous culture
    • Australian Aboriginal culture
      • Australian Aboriginal languages
      • Australian Aboriginal mythology (and subcats)
      • Australian Aboriginal music
      • Australian Aboriginal art
        • Australian Aboriginal artists ***
    • Australian indigenous music
      • Australian Aboriginal music
      • Australian indigenous musicians ****
      • Australian indigenous music groups

Maybe A.A.music should be left under A.A art, rather than directly in A.A.culture as I have it, but apart from that I think this should work. JPD 15:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be "Indigenous Australian foo" not "Australian indigenous foo".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - with the proviso that we think about whether each one should in fact be "Australian Aboriginal foo". We also need some Torres STrait Islander category to collect articles scattered all over the category hierarchy together somewhere. I think Category:Australia is the closest common category for Torres Strait Islanders and Torres Strait Creole. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, given Indigenous Australian has been rightly recognised as the term of choice for Wikipedia content, categories should pretty much correspond. Thus all "Australian Aboriginal" and "Australian indigenous" should probably migrate to "Indigenous Australian". Whether we will need specific "Australian Aboriginal" categories (thus excluding TSI) is now the question to be asked.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I considered this when making the above proposal. IMHO, it is reasonable to have separate subcategories for Aboriginal and TSI topics in the area of culture, particularly language. JPD 16:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have listed the renaming suggestions (mine and Cyberjunkie's) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Indigenous Australian categories. JPD 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Where is a documented consensus that "Indigenous Australian has been rightly recognised as the term of choice for Wikipedia content"?
2. Is Tasmanian Aborigine culture sufficiently different to be separated out as a third subordinate under Indigenous Australian culture?

--Scott Davis ^Talk 04:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Not consensus per se, but below. Notice all references, where appropriate, are being changed from Australian Aboriginals to Indigenous Australians.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've thought for a long time that the article Australian Aborigine ought to be renamed Indigenous Australians, and all references to "Aborigines" ought to be changed correspondingly. I realise that this would entail a lot of work. I also think there needs to be two separate articles, one on the indigenous peoples themselves, and one on the history of Australian government policy towards them. Plus I think the existing article needs substantial work, whatever it is called. Does anyone agree with me on these points? Adam 11:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked at doing that a couple of weeks ago. Indigenous Australians ought to be the main parent article which describes very broad issues that cut across all Indigenous populations. I'd be happy to do some of the work to fix that. --bainer (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree both with JPD's suggestion for cleaning up this mess and Adam's suggestions for fixing the articles themselves. Nice catch, guys. Ambi 12:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

We're gonna need an admin to do the move, since Indigenous Australians has a [non-empty edit history] (some wag correcting 'redirect' to 'REDIRECT'). I'm happy to work on standardising links. --bainer (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved. Ambi 14:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Not all Indigenous Australian leaders are politicians, hierarchy should be

• Indigenous Australian leaders
  • Indigenous Australian politicians

and

• Australian Indigenous politics (renamed Australian Aboriginal politics)
  • Australian Native Title (add Australian)
  • Indigenous Australian leaders
    • Indigenous Australian politicians

Paul foord 03:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't put Indigenous Australian leaders in the politics category. Make Indigenous Australian politicians a subcat of both leaders and politics, but leaders might also include nonpolitical tribal elders for example. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What he said. Making it "native title in Australia" would probably be more conventional, too. Ambi 06:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Ind. A. politicians should be a subcat of Ind. A. leaders. Is any Indigenous Australian who enters politics a leader? It is arguable that any leader is a "politician" in a broader sense of the word, but if we are not going to have leader as a subcat of politician, then I think they should be distinct categories with overlap. JPD 09:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A.I. Politicians is already a subcat of A.I. Leaders. In the sense that people are not generally referred to as "politicians" until after they have been elected, I think it is reasonable to consider any elected person as a leader of the people who elected him/her. They have achieved a level of approval amongst their peers. If this is contentious, the solution is to drop Cat:Indigenous Australian leaders completely. Category:Australian politicians is a subcat of Category:Australian people by occupation which has 50 subcats, but Category:Australian leaders is not one of them. I think this needs to be handled in several stages - let's wait until the Aust indig... cats are renamed to Indig. Aust..., then focus on the shape of the hierarchy. the ...peoples category needs to be split to separate articles about tribes from articles about individual people. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is already a subcat, but we are discussing changes, and I don't think it is appropriate. Even if any elected person is a leader, even unelected politicians are politicians. I am inclined to agree that the solution might be to drop the cat altogether. As it is at the moment, the articles in A.I.politicians are politicians who are indigenous, and the articles directly in A.I.leaders are (mostly) leaders of specifically indigenous groups. I suggested the heirarchy above because I don't see why Neville Bonner and Aden Ridgeway should necessarily be categorised as leaders, but many of the people listed as leaders could be called politicians.

But not all would want to be, Douglas Nicholls was certainly a leader who would generally not be seen as a politician Paul foord 14:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the renaming should happen before we deal with the structure, but it seems to sensible to agree on the changes in the meantime. Splitting the Australian indigenous peoples category is indeed part of the proposal above, although I should have called the new category Indigenous Australians, rather than Indigenous Australian people. JPD 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like consensus to abolish the leaders category as it is rather POV to determine whether any given person is a "leader". Agreed? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the mass edits and renames from "Aborigine" or "Aboriginal" to "indigenous Australian" may be POV-pushing, and has certainly resulted in some clumsy language in some places. I said "may be" as I'm not sure, and would like to test the waters to see if I'm the only one with a problem with it? I agree the category changes are for the better. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue I agree. Any choice of name can be seen as POV, and of course in a sense it is a POV in favour of one term over another. But we need to have a consistent usage. Adam 13:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

We also need to be careful not to change absolutely everything. I haven't heard anyone object to the use of the adverb Aboriginal, and indeed it needs to be retained when not including Torres Strait Islanders. Changes need to be made carefully. JPD 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Aboriginal rock music article is an example of inapt change from Aboriginal to indigenous. Paul foord 14:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the categories should be consistent, but theres no need to have every use in every article consistent. I like how its put at Lakota: "Note: this article uses the terms Lakota and Sioux synonymously" --- Cfitzart 14:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I was standardising mostly to obtain some level of consistency. After the page was moved to Indigenous Australians I looked at its Whatlinkshere which showed several double and even triple redirects. Here are some of the terms used:

• Australian aborigine
• Australian Aboriginal
• Australian aboriginal
• Indigenous Australian
• Australian Aboriginals
• Australian aboriginals
• Australian Aborigine
• Aboriginal Australians
• Australian Aborigines
• Australian aborigines
• Aboriginal Australian
• Aboriginals of Australia
• Aboriginal (Australian)

I chose to change links to Indigenous Australians mainly because that's where the main page is now, but I'll pause for a while if people have problems. --bainer (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian collaboration of the fortnight

Marree Man has been Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight from 3 October 2005 to 16 October 2005

• 11 contributors made 44 edits
• The article increased from 0.9kb to 10.5 kb - over ten times longer
• See how much it changed

Thankyou to those who contributed. The new ACOTF is Sport in Australia, which is a much longer article to start with, but contains many small sections for people to adopt, expand, and perhaps create a daughter article for.

Unfortunately, the other two articles that were in the nominations list (2005 AFL Finals Series and 2005 International Rules Series) will not have enough votes to remain in the voting, but being listed there has attracted attention. So if you consider ACOTF valuable, please consider nominating other Australian articles that are either missing or way too short. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Federal Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005

A new article on Federal Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 has been commenced by an anon editor and urgently needs some clean up although it is a good start.--User:AYArktos | Talk 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Should it be renamed to include the fact that it's Australian? Cnwb 22:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. The current name is only a temporary measure. As soon as the legislation is passed (assuming of course that it is), the Bill becomes an Act, and the article should be moved to the Act's short title, which according to the draft is Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Snottygobble | Talk 23:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it as "federal" is not very descriptive and may apply to other countries as well. The article is now at Australian Federal Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005. I concur that the article should be renamed if and when it becomes legislation. Note there is already an article at Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004 and a merge in the future may be appropriate.--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Standardize to "(Australian politician)"?

The following dialogue is from my talk page. Comments are welcome. Slac speak up! 04:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re yr edit, thanks for the diligence, but "standardizing" the Dab'g suffixes for article titles

1. is a lousy idea bcz it forces long, distracting and potentially confusing titles on the 95% of Dab'd articles for which a short one would work fine;
2. can't work for the articles that cross domains and would thus be subject to two or more conflicting "standards" (e.g., Australian politicians notable
   • in other fields like writing about political science or policy matters, or acting in movies,
   • for roles in international organizations,
   • for receiving prizes,
   • for (like Pres. Carter) using public office as a stepping-stone to greatness,
   • etc.)
3. is irresponsible if you don't have a means (better than editing the URL; ask me) to find the (supposedly) non-standard existing rd-lks, so you can count them and, if still appropriate, "fix" them; the 16 IW (politician) lks (mostly old) should convince you of this.

As at least an interim remedy, i'm reverting that edit.
--Jerzy•t 00:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble following some of the bases of your objection. Specifically,

1. It's two words - no more, no less - this seems to me to largely eliminate the potential for distraction. Articles on politicians are relatively common on wikipedia; for those who have common names, it's likely that we'll require nationality disambiguators (Mike Ahern comes to mind here). One downside of inconsistently using nationality disambiguators is that some politician articles get saddled with the "long, distracting and potentially confusing" extra bit, while others don't. More common names will require more extensive disambiguators than less common ones, which is undesirable.
2. I believe it does work for people who cross domains; John Latham (Australian jurist) and Denis Murphy (Australian politician) come to mind. At any rate; redirects are cheap - eg. John Latham (Australian politician) already exists. If we settle on a few standard terms to use (eg. politician, author, journalist) etc, but not "Nobel-prize winner", "human rights advocate" etc, confusion is reduced.
3. I don't see how the fact that non-standard links are hard to find is a basis for not eliminating them. It's precisely *because* they're hard to find that they must be eliminated.

Slac speak up! 03:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are only talking about standardising the form of article titles for Australian politicians whose article titles cannot be their names due to disambiguation requirements? I am in favour of a standardised form, and I think (Australian politician) is a good one. One difficulty not raised by User:Jerzy above is the problem of multiple Australian politicians having the same name. e.g. Thomas Brown (Australian pastoralist) (a W.A. politician) versus Thomas Brown (Australian federal politician). Snottygobble | Talk 05:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I came across this problem when creating pages like Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1901-1903. 95% of the time, using "Australian politician" as the dabbing phrase works just fine. Problems come with, for example, Donald Cameron. There are at least two Canadian politicians with that name, at least one U.S. politician, and five Australian politicians (all federal MHRs). I still have no idea how to sort that out until articles are written on all of them and we find out what exactly they were notable for, then an alternative dab phrase can be found. But in most cases, "Australian politician" works just fine. --bainer (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a solution for the Australian Donald Camerons.

• Donald Cameron (Australian politician) ALP Senator 1938-62
• Donald Alastair Cameron (Australian politician) Liberal MHR 1949-61
• Donald Charles Cameron (Australian politician) Nat / UAP MHR 1919-31, 1934-37
• Donald James Cameron (Australian politician) ALP MHR 1961-63
• Donald Milner Cameron (Australian politician) Liberal MHR 1966-83, 1983-90
• Donald Newton Cameron (Australian politician) ALP Senator 1969-78
• Donald Norman Cameron (Australian politician) FT MHR 1901-03, 1904-06

Adam 06:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to tack (Australian politician) onto the end where there's the middle name too. Personally, I'd make Donald Cameron (Australian politician) a disambiguation page, and use the middle names for everyone else. I also strongly disagree with doing it across the board - it's ugly and completely unnecessary. Ambi 08:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough.

Donald Cameron, Australian politician (disambiguation)

• Donald Cameron (Australian politician) ALP Senator 1938-62
• Donald Alastair Cameron Liberal MHR 1949-61
• Donald Charles Cameron Nat / UAP MHR 1919-31, 1934-37
• Donald James Cameron ALP MHR 1961-63
• Donald Milner Cameron Liberal MHR 1966-83, 1983-90
• Donald Newton Cameron ALP Senator 1969-78
• Donald Norman Cameron FT MHR 1901-03, 1904-06

Adam 08:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

All done. Adam 10:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is that particular one at Donald Cameron (Australian politician)? Ambi 11:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Because he had no middle name. Adam 12:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest:

• Donald Cameron (Australian politician) be moved to either:
  • Donald Cameron (Australian senator, 1938-62)
  • Donald Cameron (Australian senator, WA)
  • Donald Cameron (Australian senator, Western Australia)

Unfortunately (Australian senator) or (ALP senator) aren't specific enough.

• Donald Cameron, Australian politician (disambiguation) be moved to:
  • Donald Cameron (Australian politician)

-- Chuq 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Education-related articles

Hello, I would appreciate some wider input on articles relating to education, namely Higher School Certificate and Victorian Certificate of Education. Probably a few more links should be filled out from Australian Certificate of Education too. HSC and VCE are the two biggest ones I guess, and they both seem to mostly be edited by disgruntled year 12 students. Not very WP:NPOV at all! So I would appreciate some help. For example, a well-written article about an OS education certificate to model these articles on, would be great. Thanks. pfctdayelise 15:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, what problems do you see with those articles? I personally take offense at that, particularly when you haven't highlighted anything specifically. Ambi 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There are hardly any sources cited for "criticisms" in either article. That's my main beef, with both.

Specifically, with VCE:

• The explanation of the VCE structure is dense and hard to understand.
• Quote from VCE: It is generally easier to obtain a higher mark for SAC than for exams as a higher percentage of people are given A's and A+'s on the SAC than on the exams where the upper quartile mark is lower. The Average mark in all subjects varies but is generally around B+ for SAC and B for exams. The VCAA (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority) most likely award students a high average mark to help them with employment (high marks look impressive) and to help reduce disappointment. Hardly NPOV.
• I don't think that "examples" of classes demonstrating "flaws" in the "statistical moderation process" are appropriate -- if anything such examples belong in an article on the statistical method in question, with a link there.

With HSC:

• As one teacher put it, "Our best students take high-level mathematics, physics, and chemistry, so they can get the marks they need to get into a law degree."

and again, unsourced opinions.

I don't know how to fix these short of just removing material, which doesn't seem like a very good fix to me, which is why I'm asking for more opinions. Please don't take offense. If there is a more appropriate way I should have gone about this, please let me know. pfctdayelise 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

SAT seems about the best of the OS ones -- Cfitzart 21:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with pfctdayelise both articles are missing WP:NPOV and the Victorian article is not particularly well written. Not quite bad enough to slap a NPOV or CLEANUP tag on them but pretty close. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Streets

I was thinking that an article that gave a list of streets in a suburb would be really useful for Wikipedia and give all those local history buffs out there some really cool stuff to research. For instance, we could have list of streets in Strathfield and have an entry something like this:

• Redmyre Street: the name originally came from the original Redmyre Estate that existed before Strathfield was proclaimed (see the birth of Strathfield). The street was named by such and such on such and such date

I know this would be invaluable for the site, and a great source of information (I've always wondered how some streets got their names, and figure that Wikipedia would be a great place to put this information). What do people think? I think that we'd be referenced by quite a few places if we did this: right now it can be really difficult to find out how a name came about.

Add to this, then we could create an open map to add to articles. The possibilities are endless! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This would be very easy for Canberra [3]. Don't fancy your chances with a more complicated city though. --Martyman-(talk) 12:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about this. It could make for some interesting articles, but it could also set a very bad precedent - if someone starts redlinking them, god help us all. Ambi 12:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Just because it is easy doesn't mean it should be done. I would think that the fact that canberra street name derivations are all available in one place already, that there is no point us trying to duplicate it here, and for other cities be it on your own head. ;) --Martyman-(talk) 12:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Convert the red-linked articles to redirects? Interestingly enough, I have a book about Launceston street names and their origins, written by a local historian - it is very thourough and extremely detailed - it has about 99.9% of them. However since they already exist in a book form, wouldn't it be a copyvio to put them all here? (not to mention, a lot of effort!). -- Chuq 21:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• As a Canberran I note that street name origins for Canberra take up half a dozen print volumes. I think if a suburb has a street name theme it is useful to metion and any historical links between the street name and the suburb would of course add value, for example naming after an early settler of the district. I think the content should be kept as part of the suburb article until worth breaking out. Transcribing from already published material at length would breach copyright but of course mentioning the existence of a publication, such as a local history, as an external reference would add value.--User:AYArktos | Talk 22:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• It has occurred to me that origins of names can be applied to many things (streets, suburbs, cities, buildings, companies, bands, albums, movies, events) that may even justify another wikimedia project in itself. Most of the items listed above generally qualify for their own Wikipedia articles, streets being the major exception. -- Chuq 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Adelaide Institute

Anyone interested in de-POVing Adelaide Institute? I've been monitoring the article and reverting any apologist POV, but it's now gone the other way. It's not my area, so if someone has any particular knowledge on the subject, take a look. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Olympic Park

I spent a week in Sydney in early October, staying at Sydney Olympic Park. I had taken several photos ready to add to the article when I returned. I can't seem to find a page for it, if one exists - Sydney Olympic Park, Olympic Park, Sydney, Homebush Bay, Sydney all draw blanks - the best I can find is Homebush Bay, New South Wales. There is nothing mentioned at 2000 Summer Olympics, though I did find an Olympic Park railway station, Sydney article. Is the area known by some other name? It may be a suitable future ACOTF nomination! -- Chuq 05:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There isn't another name that I know of - I think this would be an excellent ACOTF. It's something I'm quite surprised we've missed. Ambi 06:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

got started on that article, those red links really irritated me :) Cfitzart 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005

Can someone come along and comment on my dispute with an anonymous user. I do not want to get into an edit war, but do not want factual innacuracies in the article. See the talk page for the shoot to kill provisions which are referred to. Xtra 10:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Gulf of Carpentaria

Can someone add its etymology? - MPF 15:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

a request for some australian peer-review

Over the last week I've done some work on the Melbourne gangland killings article. This is my first 'big-ish' article on wikipedia and so I was wondering if some local folk could have a look over it with some suggestions. I'm aware a couple of issues a) perhaps too many references and b) possibly need to move away from the list-centric format - although i'm not sure what would be more readble; and c) need a longer intro. I know theres a formal peer review process, i'd just prefer to have you lot look at it before going there. love, james Agnte 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's basically fine as it is - the rewrite is looking great. I was going to leave a message to that effect the other day but forgot. Ambi 00:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Melbourne

Friends, I've just returned from the launch of the new Encyclopedia of Melbourne [4]. I had a chance to flip through the pages (I couldn't afford a copy at $150), and can report that it would be utterly invaluable to Australian Wikipedians. There's a rudimentary online version, but only the 'A' entries are listed so far, though this will expand over the next two years [5]. I know what I'm putting on my Christmas list this year! Cnwb 02:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw this, and immediately thought of Wikipedia, too! :) Melbourne Uni has two copies on its reference shelves. Once my exams are over I can sit in the library with a laptop on one side and this (no doubt) great tome on the other. Ahh, bliss... pfctdayelise 12:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Cnwb. I'll have a look after exams. I've got a couple of books to which the indexes would make a great to-do list; perhaps we can work on a combined one using sources like this as well. Ambi 13:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Prisoner flap

Hello y'all, from far north of many of you. A day or so ago I came across a kerfuffle at Talk:List of Australians in international prisons. (I infer that "international" means non-Australian.) It's hard to summarize neatly, but in brief, a lot of allegations are flying around. (Also check the talk page history.) As I then wrote at Wikipedia: Village pump (assistance), I had no time to fix it beyond attributing some anonymous comments. Today I had a little more time but I found I had no stomach for this. I have a vague understanding that there's a lot of bad feeling in Australia over the perceived injustice of the imprisonment of various Australians outside Australia; organizations are helping the prisoners, and it's common for some examples of this kind of organization to be accused (rightly or wrongly) of political motivation (etc. etc.) -- but that's about the sum of my background knowledge. I have a strong hunch that any of a lot of level-headed Australians here could quickly distinguish between the plausible and the silly on this talk page, and thus could do a better job than I (who'd be inclined to zap a great deal of it). Thanks! Hoary 14:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have zapped some of the discussion and inserted the talkpage template to remind editors (anons and others) that Wikipedia is not usenet or a chatroom. I don't normally like that template but I think it has its uses when discussions get out of hand.--User:AYArktos | Talk 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a job well done. I'll keep that article in my watchlist a little longer, in case there's another outbreak. -- Hoary 08:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Premier of Victoria

The Premier of Victoria template contains several errors. How do I locate it for editing? Adam 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:VictoriaPremiers --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanx. Adam 15:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)