Talk:Australia–Serbia relations

Bilateral trade graphs

Regarding this removal... just because countries other than Australia do not have auto-updating bilateral trade graphs does not mean we should not have them. We are here to write an encyclopedia that is as informative as possible, not to standardize to the lowest common denominator. User:Libstar, please properly explain your repeated removal. --99of9 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

WP series of articles are about consistent presentation of information, you have simply dumped this auto graphs in most Australian bilateral articles without a commentary or even a subheading to assist article layout or thought to that the information presented is close to meaningless when trade is very low and a spike for one month skews the graphs. Anyone with basic knowledge of statistics will know this can lead to Misleading graph and Misuse of statistics That is my main case for removal, the graphs do not explain why spikes occur ( which could be a specific reason) or fluctuations and therefore can confuse a reader. Dumping data for the sake of it is not encyclopaedic LibStar (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove useful information for the sake of consistency - if you want consistency, you should seek to add the equivalent information to other articles. Obviously I have more than a basic knowledge of statistics and as far as I am aware I have not committed a single one of the errors listed on the misleading graph page. A spike does not "skew" graphs, a spike is a spike - it's real - someone wanted to import or export something. How can a reader be confused by that? This is not measurement noise. If you want to explain a specific spike, and it's encyclopedic, go right ahead, that will contribute. My source, who think this data is useful enough to report monthly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, does not feel the need to explain spikes, so I cannot, per WP:OR. But if you have other sources, great. --99of9 (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't feel the need to explain spikes because I don't support these charts. it is not the bureau of statistics role to expliain trade spikes, they report the data.They add little value and are just a dump of data, and you're avoiding providing valid explanation of what is happening, just dumping it and hoping the reader can draw something out of it. I look at many of the graphs and think they require explanation see Misleading_graphs#Excessive_usage, not to mention the use of the y axis can really exaggerate the spikes. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Excessive usage? Really... 2 graphs when an alternative presentation of all that data (the way the ABS provides it) would be a table with ~828 cells! The written alternative that is often put in these articles is a single number, for a particular year, often around 2005 when someone was keen to write it. A self-updating two-decade history of bilateral trade is clearly far less confusing. The graphs get about a two line caption, which is explanation enough to let the data speak for itself in the most NPOV way possible. Since you've already declared no consensus, I guess you cannot be convinced, so I will now seek further input from related WP's. --99of9 (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

and what value of showing spikes with very small y axes. The data presented may be true but hardly informative, especially since you expect the reader or another editor to find the reason for spikes. Or if the graph is wavy, so trade goes up and down, what does fluctuating trade tell the reader? I might as well put in monthly traffic data for highways, these are often available on public websites and should be placed on WP. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

trade graphs

Serbia split from Serbia and Montenegro in 2006, does the export graph reflect this? LibStar (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

They still publish a column entitled Serbia and Montenegro (the graph I've shown), but they have also started a column called Serbia (which hasn't been plotted yet, since it only has 3 non-zero points). This one might be different to the others, I'm happy for it to be removed if Serbia and Montenegro is considered a completely different political entity to Serbia, and if this article is only meant to be about the latter.--99of9 (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

they formally split in 2006, so I think the graphs should be removed. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australia–Serbia relations. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/news/afp/2012/february/AFP-and-serbian-police-sign-new-agreement
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ms.gov.rs/aktuelnosti/sporazum-o-direktnim-letovima-izmedu-srbije-i-australije/?lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009035851/http://www.studiob.rs/info/vest.php?id=30084 to http://www.studiob.rs/info/vest.php?id=30084
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009035348/http://www.studiob.rs/info/vest.php?id=42362&page=3&kategorija=Politika to http://www.studiob.rs/info/vest.php?id=42362&page=3&kategorija=Politika

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)