Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 63
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 |
Requested move at Talk:Joondalup line#Requested move 14 July 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joondalup line#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Australia Day Awards in local government article
Is this really necessary? Sunshine_Coast_Region#Australia_Day_Awards LibStar (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, removed. Stephen 06:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks LibStar (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The deletion of the content was justified in the edit summary as being not notable. However, as per the notability policy, notability applies to article topics, not to article content. What content policy did it breach? Article content is generally required to be relevant, accurate, and cited. These appear to be awards of that region, they are cited etc. While I don't personally find these awards interesting, OTOH I don't see what policy they are violating that justifies deletion either. I think part of the problem is the visual bulkiness of the table. Perhaps the solution would be to shift these awards into a List article and leave something in the region article along the lines of "In YYYY, the Sunshine Regional Council introduced annual Australia Day awards to recognise the contributions of local citizens who have done blah, blah, blah" linking to the list article. Kerry (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Stephanie Scully#Requested move 3 July 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stephanie Scully#Requested move 3 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the "Controversies" section (added by @MissAnonymous123: in her first edit) appropriate, or does it give undue weight to one event? Should the Jolley affair have a separate article, if the 16 refs indicate notability? (Not all unique refs, actually) Or should the section be reduced to a brief summary? PamD 07:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, I've shortened it to three paragraphs, which is probably still WP:UNDUE but better than the blow-by-blow description that threatened to overwhelm the article. Happy to discuss on the talkpage if there's disagreement with this copyedit. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
New South Wales Police Force has an RfC
New South Wales Police Force 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. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for St Kilda Football Club
St Kilda Football Club has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Access to SMH article
Hi all. I am looking for (legitimate) access to this SMH article if possible. I am working on an article - User:Mattinbgn/Pistol Grip - where it would come in very handy. Mattinbgn (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here it is on the Internet Archive.
- Alternatively, if your browser has Reader Mode, visit the article page in a private browser window, activate Reader Mode, and the whole article should be viewable. It was for me when I just tried. Jimmyjrg (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Memorial Drive Park#Requested move 31 August 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Memorial Drive Park#Requested move 31 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 16:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion#Requested move 9 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 04:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Fiona MacDonald
I've noticed that Fiona MacDonald, surprisingly, did not have a Wikipedia article! I have created a stub Fiona MacDonald (television presenter) and linked it in the appropriate places. It will need some expansion (and maybe monitoring). There will no doubt be an increasing number of sources published in the coming day or two. -- Chuq (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Chuq. The article has grown, but is also now flagged for suspect notability. --Scott Davis Talk 14:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh, trigger happy deletionism :( Notability should be obvious. Host of two nationally popular family TV shows as well as her recent MND advocacy. Looks like the additional sources that have been added should cover it. -- Chuq (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Terminology change
- Proposed renaming Category:Local government politicians in Australia to Category:Australian local politicians
- The nominated change is for Local government politicians to become Local politicians. JarrahTree 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to those who turned up there, frequently one size fits all category changes are not adequately notified to the affected subject/topic areas. JarrahTree 01:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Old website name populates infobox
Hey, does anyone know how or why this happens? Just updating Ranamok Glass Prize a bit, and was trying to get rid of the now defunct website (and Wayback Machine is temporarily offline, so can't even see if there's a usable archived version), but it keeps popping up in the infobox, even when I've removed the website parameter. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox award fetches that information from Wikidata (you can tell by the pen icon next to it). To correct it, clicking on the pen brings you to d:Q18393421 were you can remove the official website. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for that Michael. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a few lurking issues underpinning this. First, the documentation on the template ought to explain this when discussing the website parameter that it is being drawn from Wikida, but it doesn't. There is a listing of Wikidata items in the documentation but that gives the names of the items in Wikidata but does not map them to the fields in the infobox, nor explain anything else, i.e. it's all pretty cryptic. Finally, I can see no discussion on the Template Talk page (or its archive) where drawing this information from Wikidata was discussed to establish consensus. I would expect that such a discussion would have raised the need to adequately document the situation. Finally, I think it should be made possible for Wikipedians to override Wikidata content using Wikipedia without having to engage with Wikidata (which is very different in its structure and principles). If we make it too difficult for people to fix the problem, then the problem will go unfixed. Kerry (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Kerry - I would agree with your sentiments! I became aware at some point of the census counts populating infoboxes, but not websites. The latter seems fraught with risk as website names don't remain constant, and quite often become defunct. I haven't had much to do with Wikidata myself. I only hope that it doesn't start populating DOB data as there are strict rules about including DOB for living people. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The choice to automatically use Wikidata or to allow manual overrides is made in each template. Most tend to only use it if the field isn't defined in the template. There are pros and cons for both, depending on the template and parameter. IMO, the big advantage of using Wikidata is that it allows one change to populate multiple language instances of Wikipedia, and there is generally less vandalism (but less watchers too). The-Pope (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see the advantages, thanks, The-Pope - but the decision which data can be overridden should be careful, and website doesn't seem like a great choice to me. Also, surely dropping the parameter in the infobox should cause it not to be populated? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The choice to automatically use Wikidata or to allow manual overrides is made in each template. Most tend to only use it if the field isn't defined in the template. There are pros and cons for both, depending on the template and parameter. IMO, the big advantage of using Wikidata is that it allows one change to populate multiple language instances of Wikipedia, and there is generally less vandalism (but less watchers too). The-Pope (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Kerry - I would agree with your sentiments! I became aware at some point of the census counts populating infoboxes, but not websites. The latter seems fraught with risk as website names don't remain constant, and quite often become defunct. I haven't had much to do with Wikidata myself. I only hope that it doesn't start populating DOB data as there are strict rules about including DOB for living people. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a few lurking issues underpinning this. First, the documentation on the template ought to explain this when discussing the website parameter that it is being drawn from Wikida, but it doesn't. There is a listing of Wikidata items in the documentation but that gives the names of the items in Wikidata but does not map them to the fields in the infobox, nor explain anything else, i.e. it's all pretty cryptic. Finally, I can see no discussion on the Template Talk page (or its archive) where drawing this information from Wikidata was discussed to establish consensus. I would expect that such a discussion would have raised the need to adequately document the situation. Finally, I think it should be made possible for Wikipedians to override Wikidata content using Wikipedia without having to engage with Wikidata (which is very different in its structure and principles). If we make it too difficult for people to fix the problem, then the problem will go unfixed. Kerry (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for that Michael. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Re Kevin – validity of marriage of transsexual#Requested move 15 October 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re Kevin – validity of marriage of transsexual#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH talk! 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Northern Territory general election#Requested move 20 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Australian Capital Territory general election#Requested move 19 October 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Australian Capital Territory general election#Requested move 19 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I just created an article for Bob Hobman, an Australian sailor and experimental archeologist who has recreated a number of ocean journeys to research the early movements of humans. Thriley (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Usually under the radar
These sort of changes often fly past quickly:
and because of that
I personally would consider the reverse would be most relevant, but curious what others think as there is a collection:
There are probably more, but the variant spellings show a lack of consistency, it would be well worth some milhist editors actually offering their opinion, as from a purely wikipedia concept of consistency there is nothing to show which is the more appropriate
Good article reassessment for Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)