Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 63

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 Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Oral tradition

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)

University of Technology Sydney

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)

Requested move at Talk:White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion#Requested move 9 September 2024

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_7#Local_politicians_by_nationality

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)

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)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Northern Territory general election#Requested move 20 October 2024

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)

Bob Hobman

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean_theater_of_World_War_II. exists,

and because of that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_24#Category:Pacific_Ocean_theatre_of_World_War_II

I personally would consider the reverse would be most relevant, but curious what others think as there is a collection:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:South_West_Pacific_theatre_of_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_airfields_in_the_South_West_Pacific_Theater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airfields_of_the_United_States_Army_Air_Forces_in_the_South_West_Pacific_theatre_of_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airfields_in_the_Pacific_theatre_of_World_War_II:

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

JarrahTree 06:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

2024 in Australian television

I created the 2024 in Australian television list article in January, but unlike the 2024 in British television article, not many Wikipedia editors (excluding me and occasionally @Mr Sitcom) are editing the 2024 in Australian television article. Wikipedia thinks the articles that I create are not picked up by search results, that is why not many people are editing the Wikipedia article for the list of events that happened in Australian television in 2024. Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 06:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification of requested move: Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal

An editor has requested that Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal be moved to CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GeebaKhap (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Settler colonialism in Australia

I have nominated the aforementioned stub article for deletion and in order to ensure there is a discussion or at least a break in the deadlock I wish to inform editors here. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Richard Norden (soldier)

New article Richard Norden (soldier) who was today posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross. DigitalPanda (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian artists vs Australian Aboriginal artists

Is there a difference between this categories? Category:Indigenous Australian artists and Category:Australian Aboriginal artists. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous is a broader term, including Torres Straight Islanders and other people born in Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks LibStar (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

So all people currently in Category:Indigenous Australian artists, except Alick Tipoti and Ken Thaiday Snr, ought to be in Category:Australian Aboriginal artists? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I think the other way around. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:CATSPECIFIC, subjects ought to placed into the most specific category. If Category:Indigenous Australian artists is the broader category and Category:Australian Aboriginal artists the more specific, my suggestion is valid. Whether a Category:Torres Strait Islander artists is needed, IMO it is, is a different matter. I can't see why a person should be in both. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Presumably if they have both ancestries and are part of both communities? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Should Category:Indigenous Australian artists also have a subcat Category:Torres Strait Islander artists?

2. If so, how should artists of both Aboriginal and TSI descent be categorised? Dual catted?

3. Who would be considered Australian "indigenous" but not Aboriginal and/or TSI? (Are there any artists who should appear at the top level Category:Indigenous Australian artists?)

4. Ellen José is currently listed under Category:Australian Aboriginal artists, but I can't see that she fits that cat -- she is of TSI and overseas descent. There may be other TSI artists similarly (mis?)categorised.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Good points. Agree with point 1. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest: (1) Yes. (2) Yes, dual-categorised. (3) Likely only artists who have not specified which group they belong to. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

David Williams (Australian politician)

I am having difficulty finding sources on this person. Having a common name doesn't help, the sole source provided is dead. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried Trove? I can see https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110920364?searchTerm=%22David%20Williams%22%20legislative https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/250282927?searchTerm=%22David%20Williams%22%20legislative https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110920048?searchTerm=%22David%20Williams%22%20legislative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:Yanchep line

Comments at Talk:Yanchep line#Proposed merge of Northern Suburbs Transit System into Yanchep line from members of this WikiProject are requested please. Steelkamp (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hoodoo Gurus

Hoodoo Gurus 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) 02:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Two Wikipedians in search of a standard

Australian articles are a mess as to the abbreviation and capitalization of "Junior" in postnoms.

I had been blithely using jr Jr. Jnr and all sorts of variations until it was brought to my attention that, in Australian usage, a full stop (period) is not attached to an abbreviation where the last letter is retained. My Macquarie encyclopaedic dictionary confirmed Jr for "Junior", quite prescriptively.

My Fowler's English Usage gives similar advice. Under "period (full stop) in abbreviations" it has Abbreviations are chiefly made in two ways: one by giving the beginning of the word in one or more letters and then stopping, the other by dropping out some portion of the middle. Those of the first kind are rightly ended with a period, but the common practice of doing the same to the second is ill advised. It then goes on to recommend Mr for Mister, Capt. for Captain, Cpl for Corporal, Geo. for George and Thos for Thomas, Lat. for Latin and Gk for Greek and ht wt for hit wicket. Curiously, I find no mention of "Junior" in that little article, nor sandwiched between "junction" and "junta". Ditto "Senior".

The Wikipedia article American and British English spelling differences#Acronyms and abbreviations says Contractions where the final letter is present are often written in British English without full stops/periods (Mr, Mrs, Dr, St, [sic] Ave). Abbreviations where the final letter is not present generally do take full stops/periods (such as vol., etc., i.e., ed.); British English shares this convention with the French: Mlle, Mme, Dr, Ste, but M. for Monsieur. In American and Canadian English, abbreviations like St., Ave., Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., and Jr., usually require full stops/periods. Should we be actively enforcing this convention in articles labelled {{Use Australian English}}? Doug butler (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We have:

• MOS:JR, which includes the full stop and makes no mention of US/UK differences
• WP:JR/SR, which does distinguish between the two styles (full stop or not), per WP:TITLEVAR, MOS:ENGVAR.

If nothing else, MOS:JR should mention that the US/UK difference. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:JR should mention that the US/UK difference — Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Should we be actively enforcing this ... ? — Yes, per MOS:TIES, which takes precedence over MOS:RETAIN (as explicitly noted in the latter). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• It used to be clear: I did this move in 2021. It's got moved back to "Jr." a year later. A recursive search of Category:Players of Australian rules football shows that they are all at "Jr." now. The-Pope (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Usage should be that of the way the person is identified as, if they use jnr, jr, or any other form then thats the format. If its used by sources then you use what they use. Gnangarra 07:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that the usage by sources is often inconsistent, and how they personally identified isn't always known.

  Take a look at one of the guys on the McDouall Stuart expedition (who started this whole thing):

  The National Library calls him "Stephen King, Jr." https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2546371

  The John McDouall Society call him "Stephen King Jnr" http://johnmcdouallstuart.org.au/companions

  The State Library of SA have him as "Stephen King, Jnr." https://digital.collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/nodes/view/387

  I agree that if the person consistently used something we should use it too, but how do we default when there isn't any sort of consensus? Crelb (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ours is not impose or create names, if sources use various versions then state all if its significant other wise common usage. As the nearsest personal connection and notability is his work for SA government use what they used. This appears to be a good case for not using any form of junior. Disambiguating the article from the that writer by using surveyor. Each article on its individual merit, not a a blanket policy that ignores how the person choose be identified. Gnangarra 04:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Exactly. Media often just uses their own style guide, which may or not match the general population. For example, The West Australian and The Age both use December 1, 2024 as their date format. I can find usage of senior, junior, snr, jnr and jr (almost all without the period) when searching for Gary Ablett on TheAge.com.au. The-Pope (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think there are a couple of separate issues. The first is the style. The second is when should you use junior/senior at all.

  On style, the Macquarie Dictionary says in its entry for "junior and "senior" (I presume the italicisation isn't a recommendation, just an inconsistency in the formatting of the two entries).

  Sr, Sen.

  Jr or Jun.

  So if we are going to make an argument using MOS:TIES, then I suggest that these are the acceptable forms. While not official, Macquarie Dictionary is our de facto Australian standard for spelling etc. There is also the Australian Style Guide published by the Australian Government which is supposedly followed in government publications; I checked my copy (admittedly a couple of decades old now) and it says nothing about this topic. But maybe if someone has access to a recent edition, it might be worth checking if it has any guidelines as, like the Macquarie Dictionary, it would be an important consideration. I note that if the two were conflicting, I would follow the Macquarie for informal writing and the Style Guide for formal writing (not sure which we do with Wikipedia, a bit of both I suspect).

  But, my understanding is that in Australia we do not use "junior" and "senior" as a permanent fixture to people's names as they appear to do in the USA, but only when we need to disambiguate because both are being discussed and that their use is relative to who is being discussed. That is, it is a disambiguation in context, not a permanent part of their name. So, e.g. the Katter family have three generations of politicians, all of whom are officially named Robert Katter (with differing middle names), but their Wikipedia articles are Bob Katter Sr., Bob Katter and Robbie Katter. Now the use of "Bob" and "Robbie" come from our common name policy (as that is how they are generally known, as it seems even for the Katters having too many Bobs was a problem). But I don't see why one has "Sr." as a permanent part of the article title. It's not his name. If we want to disambiguate article titles, we can use Bob Katter (1918-1990) for the grandfather or whatever. The use of "Sr." wasn't his common name (so we aren't following the common name policy) but being forced to follow some American practice by the MOS. And if we were discussing the grandfather and father together, the grandfather would be senior and the father be junior, but if we were discussing the father and the son, then the father would be senior and the son junior. And indeed if we were discussing all three, then the sensible thomg (in ordinary English) would not be talking about Robert Katter III, but saying Bob Katter (grandson) to make clear which one we meant. As far as I am aware, junior and senior are not allowed in birth certificates, passports, and official documents here in Australia, as we do not recognise them as part of the name. Kerry (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Americans add a full stop always whereas we do not add one to an abbreviation if would normally end in that letter. MOS:JR also adopted the American form of omitting the parenthetical comma. Since the use of "junior" and "senior" in names is primarily an America thing (although less common now than it was in the first half of the 20th century), we filed it under WP:ENGVAR. MOS:JR applies to articles in American English only. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)#Requested move 9 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Vale User:JarrahTree

It is with a sad heart that I inform the Australian contributors of the sudden passing of JarrahTree. Please reflecting on what JarrahTree has done over the last 19 years, 6 months, 1 week and 1 day at his user talk page. Gnangarra 08:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel sad that he and I never had that catchup that he was seeking....

Dan arndt (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Gnangarra. I was very sad to hear this, so soon after meeting him for the first time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Honours search question

I was just doing a bit of citation improvement and expansion on the Fred Schepisi article, and his AO was not cited, so I went looking in the official honours search. Although now fairly reliably cited (ABC and another source), I cannot find him there. Does anyone have any idea as to why this would be? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, he doesn't seem to be listed in 2004 Australia Day Honours either. Unimelb hon doc citation mentions it too though. Weird. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Ignore that. I should have gone to Talk:Fred Schepisi first! There's an old note about it, dating back to 2007. Will add a footnote to the article referring to the talk page I think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The award is at https://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/awards/1670157 , with his name redacted. The citation and date is the same though, so I know its him. Steelkamp (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And for future reference, names in that database can be anonymised if the award is rescinded as well, so names such as Alan Bond and Ray O'Connor are not in the database but their awards still are. Steelkamp (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

About Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation - I don't really know what to make of this - your opinions about this?

Hi all,

I created this article because I saw a redlink somewhere in an editing session, looked it up, and then created it, quite possibly without due regard to its notability as an organisation, and also potentially a misuse of my Wikipedia:Autopatrolled privileges.

Should this possibly be (among other options)

• a WP:REDIRECT to CSIRO#History?
• listed as a reliable source (or not) for other articles?
• some other outcome?

I seek your opinions about this.

Pete AU aka 10:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for an article, but needs some more references. All the good ones I could find are behind paywalls, so hopefully someone else jumps in who has access. Jimmyjrg (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Shirt58, for creating the page. I found some more information in an article by Mike Jones and Alana Piper. Gavan McCarthy has been with the project since the beginning, working with Tim Sherratt on Bright Sparcs. McCarthy welcomes updates and corrections, with references to back them up of course. I consider it a useful and reliable source and use it frequently. Oronsay (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Harvest Christian School

There are sources online, but I don't know how reliable they are. It's either the best and holiest school down under, or a den of vipers and bullies, depending on the POV. Please source this! Bearian (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Source what exactly? There is very little that would make this school notable within the article! The namespace also doesn't match the article lead or infobox. Dfadden (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue with determining notability for this school is that there are other schools with similar or same names. A quick search locates a Valley Harvest Christian School in Dublin (Ireland), another Harvest Christian School (which at some point appears to have changed its name to Frontline Christian School and most of my hits seem to be about this school) in South Africa and other schools with similar names (there's even a Global Harvest Christian School in Oklahoma, USA).

The only secondary source that I'm sure is about the school in South Australia is this.

Given what I could find I'm not sure this meets WP:NSCHOOL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Postnominal letters and infoboxes

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Melbourne Airport

Melbourne Airport 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) 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Should National Socialist Network rallies be included in Mount Warning and Corowa articles?

Editors are invited to comment at Talk:Mount_Warning#historical_irrelevance and Talk:Corowa#If_the_rally_is_historically_insignificant_why_was_it_all_over_the_news_for_weeks_then? as to whether or not to include the National Socialist Network rallies in those articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont think a lack of "historical relevance" is a sound argument for or against the inclusion of events that otherwise meet the WP:GNG and are readily verifiable because of WP:CRYSTAL. We also need to be careful about WP:NPOV if we arent telling the whole story. See my comments at the Mount Warning talk page discussion. Dfadden (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2015 Australian Grand Prix

2015 Australian Grand Prix 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) 22:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund/Youpla

Was rather surprised to find the Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund/Youpla scandal completely missing from Wikipedia, so I put together an article, please chip in and help link it where relevant. Jpatokal (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Arthur Phillip

Arthur Phillip 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) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership

Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA § Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership on the inclusion of unnecessary details and synthesis with respect to traditional ownership of the land in specific localities in the Shire of Esperance, in WA. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Topic suggestion

If I may make a suggestion, for New Zealand, we have complete lists of honorary doctorates conferred. Maybe that's something to aim for to cover the Australian universities. Schwede66 00:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI

This project has tagged the Boomerang talk page. So I am notifying you of Talk:Boomerang#No_boomerang_thower_bios.-19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

How to handle Jervis Bay in heritage listings

Hi, I've just created (the semi-finished) Commonwealth Heritage List in the Australian Capital Territory. The CHL lists four JB entries under the ACT.[1] What's the best way to deal with this? (Split out JB to a separate list and add it to the CHL article? use "(including Jervis Bay Territory)" at the ACT article? Leave it as is?) Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps move to Commonwealth Heritage List in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory, then note in the article that the CHL groups them together although they are separate territories? Not sure a standalone list for four items is I T B F 📢 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

While JBT is technically a separate Commonwealth Territory, for legal, administrative, political and service delivery purposes, it functions as an exclave of the ACT. I think it is reasonable that the JBT entries are included in the ACT listing, but perhaps an explainer in the lead paragraph and footnotes with a caveat for these entries is warranted? I'm not sure 4 entries is really enough to justify a separate article and listing either. Dfadden (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - done. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not have two lists on the same article? Then you can have each title redirect to the relevant section. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Australian Women and Leadership

Template:Australian Women and Leadership does not appear to work any more, since the Australian Women's Register has been reorganised. Does anyone know how to fix it? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Some invocations of that template don't work and land on https://www.womenaustralia.info/notice/, but all 5 examples at D:Property:P4186 do work, which leaves me baffled. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the template should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Ping Zyxw as template creator per the version history. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink, Michael Bednarek, GoodDay, and Hydronium Hydroxide: Someone broke all these links by changing Template:Australian Women and Leadership to use the wrong URL and Wikidata:Property:P4186, which is not the same identifier. I undid that change and the links using this template should work again. -- Zyxw (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks very much Zyxw. I've reinstated it on the page I was working on and it's fine now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Trouble with Wayback Machine

Hi all This isn't a specifically WP question, but I have been finding for months now that Wayback Machine is not allowing me to archive a web page, unless I first click on "Newest" (via the icon in my Firefox toolbar) and only when there is no existing page, then I can go through the rigmarole of saving on the new page. It used to allow me to click on the "Save Page Now" option, but these days it invariably either says that the page is not allowed to be saved, or indicates that it's saving, but when I look for it, it is not there.

Has anyone else come across this, and/or does anyone have any fix suggestions? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• There are alternatives such as archive.today which do the same job, although you can't save pages to your account as you can with IA. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The Internet Archives were disrupted for several weeks following some kind of cyber attack that I think is now resolved. There are always some websites which do not allow archiving and sometimes it seems just overloaded. But it appears to be working more or less normally for me at the moment. I use the Chrome Wayback Machine extension. Kerry (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

When does "today" start?

Today
Thursday
Gregorian calendar	June 12, 2025
Islamic calendar	15 Dhu al-Hijjah, 1446 AH
Hebrew calendar	16 Sivan, AM 5785
Coptic calendar	Paoni 5, 1741 AM
Solar Hijri calendar	22 Khordad, 1404 SH
Bengali calendar	Joishtho 29, 1432 BS
Julian calendar	30 May 2025 []

If someone has a moment, would they advise at Template talk:Infobox calendar date today#When does "today" start? whether this infobox is "correctly" showing local time in Sydney (and Perth) or does it need a note to say "at UTC+00:00"? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Australian lead

Just looking for some generic input at Talk:Australia#Reverting without explanation. Is a hard article to update. Moxy🍁 00:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Vale User:JarrahTree

A great and prolific contributor, JarrahTree, is recently deceased, and I figured there would be some familiar with him who would be informed should I post a notice here. As the editor who welcomed me to this great encyclopaedia and who gave me feedback and encouragement before anyone else I am greatly indebted to him. There is a thread of condolences on his talk page. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I see this was already mentioned here longer ago than I thought had elapsed since the news broke. My apologies for the repetition. Will Thorpe (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that many of us benefited from his insights, experience, and encouragement. Thanks for the extra thoughts. (I posted on his page a little while ago. I was very sad to hear the news, especially so soon after eventually meeting him for the first time.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Australian deaf community#Requested move 20 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Australian deaf community#Requested move 20 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about splitting creeks from river categories

We're starting a discussion here. Please feel free to join in the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

FAR for Goblin shark

I have nominated Goblin shark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on MOS:NATIONALITY for First Nations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Australians

Hi all, just thought people here might be interested in this request for comment about changing the Manual of Style to specify that First Nations Australians can/should have the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander nation/s they belong to mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. The MOS already mentions a similar example for Native Americans. This arose from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia, which anyone is also welcome to contribute to. Thanks! Neegzistuoja (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Peter Dutton picture talk

There is currently a Discussion on Peter Dutton over the best picture for his Wikipedia page Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Post-nom discussion

I'm too tired to contribute any more to this discussion about the placement of post-noms after names in the lead, having stated my opinion - but thought it a good idea to get some more opinions from Aussies, considering how many of our bio articles are affected. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Request to apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and move Soccer in Australia to Association football in Australia

I have opened an RM to apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in regards to naming conventions for football in Australia and move the page Soccer in Australia to Association football in Australia. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:List of Queensland tropical cyclones

I am gradually working on the List of Queensland tropical cyclones. It's currently back to around 2013, and I plan on publishing it once I get back to 2000 (and have some of the more important historic Queensland cyclones). I wanted to mention it here in case there are any Queensland weather editors. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Place article moves. Only place/only notable place

I know this probably more appropriate for [2], but the talk is rarely viewed. I do have several requests in talk pages for pages moves for only place/only notable place suburbs. Lavender Bay, Chatswood, Pymble, Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Normanhurst, Artarmon, Naremburn, North Wahroonga and West Pymble. Just leaving the notification. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with doing this. This has been discussed many times, and the consensus is always to move pages that have an unnecessary disambiguation by adding the state to the title. Viatori (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Viatori already have state name at the end and it is unnecessary on each of these articles I mentioned above. Each one is a link to the talk page BTW. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I realise my wording was clumsy, but I'm agreeing with you. Viatori (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Viatori You can still edit your reply to say removing the state from the title, if that is what you meant. Just a note that whilst I am very quick to read things (Noticing words in like a flash), I sometimes don't understand what people mean when they say certain things. Could you just clarify what you Actually meant to say in your first reply please? Thank you.Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is many town/suburb/locality articles unnecessarily disambiguate themselves in their titles by having the name of the state after their name, like in the ones you've listed, when no other article of that name exists. These generally just get moved without needing a talk page discussion to be opened every time. I move them whenever I come across them. Every time a talk page discussion has been opened about it, the conclusion is always to move it. Viatori (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Viatori I would encourage but not require you to vote in support of the proposed moves as it would not be a good idea to move a page when a discussion is open. I also have a talk page that if you know how to close, I would recommend doing it (7 Days after opening) on my proposed move of article David Warner (cricketer) to David Warner, as it looking pretty clear that there is pretty much unanimous opposition to moving the page (As I talk like a journalist on National TV Reporting by the roads). Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a bit of friendly advice as I have no doubt you are acting in good faith.Comments like I would encourage but not require you to vote in support of the proposed moves as it would not be a good idea to move a page when a discussion is open could well be seen as WP:CANVASSING. This is frowned upon and considered disruptive editing. It's perfectly fine to notify editors of discussions they may be interested in, however campaigning for a particular outcome is not an appropriate way to build consensus. Dfadden (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Dfadden Know that you tell me what comments I used, I actually cannot believe that I actually used comments like those. I honestly don't know why I used those comments. (I almost misspelled this sentence aswell BTW) Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Dfadden I honestly think I used those comments because those suburbs (Except Chatswood) are the only suburb with that name. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

My view on it is while that the disambiguation place name, state may not be necessary, I agree with ScottDavis below that it is preferable to have as a qualifier. I find it much easier o navigate wikipedia and create links when we keep things standardised. I am OK with exceptions are for places like capital cities that are highly recognisable. While it may not be a rule, place name, state has been standard practice for as long as I have been editing here (13 years). I see no reason why we should change this now and go back to inconsistent naming conventions just because we can. Dfadden (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Dfadden Well not all editors are going to agree on everything… Also, I do admit that Comments like I would encourage but not require you to vote in support of the proposed moves as it would not be a good idea to move a page when a discussion is open we’re very poor choice of words by me Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree, we do not have to agree on everything! You raised this on a talk page for Australian wikipedians to comment, so I am just voicing my opinion as an Australian wikipedian. Whether you choose to consider that or not is up to you. And as to my comments regarding your wording - I was just letting you know to be careful how you phrase things in case you get accused of disruptive editing. I Know that is not your intention to be disruptive and you are just doing your best to improve the encyclopedia, so I'm not going to make a big deal of it! Peace and happy editing :) Dfadden (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I represent the grumpy old guy in the corner office with the long corporate history. A long time ago, articles about places in Australia had a mixture of forms, and it was impossible to guess whether a particular town/locality had an article, and if so what it would be called. There were efforts towards standardisation, and eventually a naming convention was agreed by consensus to name all articles about Australian places (other than a short list of internationally-known places) in the form of "town, state". This was not simply "unnecessary disambiguation", but standardised qualification of names, and made it much easier to accurately link to the right article when editing, and to be confident that red links for a place that didn't have an article yet would all have the same name when the article was eventually written. One or two Australian editors and at least one foreign one chose to actively attempt to move articles about random places as WP:NCAUST said it was "allowed". It sounds like you and Viatori are the latest of these editors creating confusion and lack of standardisation. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

ScottDavis WP:NCAUST says: "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than [[Sydney, New South Wales]]). Note cases such as Newcastle, New South Wales, which needs to be disambiguated from its namesake in the UK. State/territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles." Think about it, are there any other places with an article on Wikipedia called Artarmon, Lavender Bay, Naremburn, Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Normanhurst, Pymble, North Wahroonga ETC? Simple answer is no. They were mostly redirects that already existed. So clearly pretty much all of these suburbs meet the criteria of either of either primary or only topic. WP:NCAUST allows this practice itself. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere: You're right - the current version says the name may be used alone. It still doesn't say this is preferred, and I'm not going to be drawn into an argument any more. There's a body of water called Lavender Bay, and that was the primary use of the name and the suburb is named after the water. The point need not be whether there is currently an article on Wikipedia with a conflicting name, especially since the primary purpose of the longer name form is clarity not disambiguation. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eva Sallis#Requested move 24 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eva Sallis#Requested move 24 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Monique Ryan: Requesting input on a Talk Discussion

Requesting input on a content dispute at Talk:Monique Ryan#Corflute removal. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The European Destubathon

Running the European Destubathon in April, nearly $3000 dollars to be won. Hopefully at some point I'll be able to do one for Oceania and Asia. Sign up if you feel like working on a few European articles during the month! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Alan Dale

Alan Dale 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) 22:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Tom Tate needs considerable work

Hi there, I have stumbled upon the Mayor of the Gold Coast's wikipedia, and I feel that it needs a lot of work. There are a number of unsupported claims, and some of the edit history seems suspect in my opinion. Any help would be appreciated. Nauseous Man (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, to say this page has issues would be an understatement... I'll see what I can do. It also looks like a lot of information was removed by this biased editor as well. Viatori (talk) Viatori (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Groan. The Crime and Corruption Commission become weaponised a few years back. Because the complaints were make public, it became a great way to make an untrue claim about someone, and then use its status as being investigated by the commission as a "media story" e.g. "CCC investigates corruption by Whoever". When eventually investigated, most of these complaints were never substantiated and no adverse findings were made, but of course "nothing happened" doesn't get into the media as a story. The CCC were being flooded with these complaints particularly during election campaigns and suspected most of them were just abuses of the process. See what the CCC said about them. It wasn't just Tom Tate that it happened to but many other politicians. Given that, I don't think we should include any CCC "investigations" in any bios, as "reliable sources", only actual findings of something significant. Kerry (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Steve Irwin

Steve Irwin 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) 01:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mosman, New South Wales#Requested move March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mosman, New South Wales#Requested move March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aberfeldie, Victoria#Requested move 31 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aberfeldie, Victoria#Requested move 31 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event#Requested move 7 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event#Requested move 7 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Infigen Energy#Requested move 31 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Infigen Energy#Requested move 31 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ben Hunt (rugby league)#Requested move, 20, March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ben Hunt (rugby league)#Requested move, 20, March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cherrybrook, New South Wales#RM, 20 March, 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cherrybrook, New South Wales#RM, 20 March, 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Scar tree at Wireless Hill

Editorial opinions are requested at Talk:Wireless Hill Park#and/or on the wording of the usage of the scar tree. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Automatic citations

Is it just me or are automatic citations not working? Websites that usually work fine with it seem to be failing today. Kerry (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, the problem appears to be in Web2Cit. If you are not a Web2Cit user, everything should be ok. If you are a Web2Cit user, then untick the Web2Cit box in the "Cite Automatic" form and you will get normal Citoid behaviour (but without added benefit of your Web2Cit rules). I am trying to contact the developer to see what has changed with Web2Cit in the last day or so. Kerry (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

NB You have to actively turn on Web2Cit, so if you haven't heard of Web2Cit, then you probably aren't using it, so there is nothing to worry about. Kerry (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Good news! Web2Cit is working again. There was a MediaWiki update which broke it, but all is fixed now. Enjoy! If you are not a Web2Cit user, Web2Cit enables you to "train" Cite Automatic in how to cite your favourite websites (if plain old Citoid isn't working well enough for you). While it has some limitations (you can't get it to do everything you might want), it can do a lot of websites perfectly well or significantly reduce the effort for you by doing most of the citation fields for you. Kerry (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Adelaide Lead, Victoria#Requested move 2 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Adelaide Lead, Victoria#Requested move 2 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bakery Hill, Victoria#Requested move 2 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bakery Hill, Victoria#Requested move 2 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Adams Estate, Victoria#Requested move 2 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Adams Estate, Victoria#Requested move 2 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Asking a quick favour of someone for whom Wayback Machine is working properly

I still haven't got to the bottom of why WM has not been working for me for months (and too busy moving house at the moment to investigate). I can now see the pages , but every time I try to save something myself, it just says "save failed". If anyone would be so kind as to do a save of this Adelaide Fringe page, just to have a record of newly-published info, I would appreciate it. Not urgent. TIA! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink:  Done: [3] Fork99 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fork99 - much appreciated. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Acacia Gardens, New South Wales#Requested move 8 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Acacia Gardens, New South Wales#Requested move 8 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Similar discussion are also taking place at:

• Talk:Acacia Gardens, New South Wales
• Talk:Airds, New South Wales
• Talk:Allawah, New South Wales (20 listings)
• Talk:Cambridge Gardens, New South Wales
• Talk:Bringelly, New South Wales (20 listings)
• Talk:Concord West, New South Wales

• Talk:Dundas Valley, New South Wales
• Talk:Dural, New South Wales
• Talk:Eastlakes, New South Wales
• Talk:Eastern Creek, New South Wales
• Talk:Cobbitty, New South Wales (20 listings)
• Talk:Ellis Lane, New South Wales (20 listings)

GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Laszlo Toth#Requested move 4 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Laszlo Toth#Requested move 4 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Ricky Ponting discussion and merge discussion

There is currently a discussion over discussions of merging articles about Ricky Ponting where made incorrectly or not. Some appears to have left a redirect without merging content Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mark Ferguson#Requested move 15 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Ferguson#Requested move 15 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yeshivish613 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Alan Geddes redirect

We have a redirect from Alan Geddes to Allan Geddes and quite rightly so, as his name is misspelled more often than not. But is there a reason to perpetuate this error in so many articles ? I hesitate to boldly change them in case there's a good reason. Doug butler (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No reason at all not to fix them. There look to be about 30 articles linking to Alan rather than Allan. Stephen 23:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed; that'd normally be what {{r from misspelling}} and {{r from incorrect name}} are for. However, in this case, we also have an article formally at Alan Geddes (athlete) that I've moved to Alan Geddes, because he's the only person whose name is correctly spelt this way on Wikipedia. I've also updated the links to the football player because the page move made that task more urgent. Graham87 (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

WOMADelaide Lineups

Additional editors' input is requested at Talk:WOMADelaide#Lineups as to whether the complete lineups of every year's festival is appropriate for the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Harry McKay (footballer)#Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Harry McKay (footballer)#Requested move that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Change of Category:Pre-1606 contact with Australia

An FYI for Australian editors. A proposal was made and agreed to, to change the category Pre-1606 contact with Australia to category:Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia. The discussion is here - [4] This has now included three entries - Baijini, Javanese contact with Australia and Makassan contact with Australia which have nothing to do with the Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia, and the two Poppykettle entries listed are about unrelated children's stories of Hairy Peruvians. I can only assume the editors are unfamiliar with the topics or with Australian History. Nickm57 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is absolutely bizarre, especially as there was nothing arbitrary about the 1606 cut-off. I reckon you're right in saying they're not familiar with it. This never should have happened, but I guess we have to live with that now. Viatori (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Super Rugby #Requested move 20 April 2025

There is currently a move discussion in place at Talk:Super Rugby #Requested move 20 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Launceston, Tasmania #Requested move 23 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion Talk:Launceston, Tasmania #Requested move 23 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Australian deaf community#Requested move 16 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Australian deaf community#Requested move 16 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Table fix required, please

I'm no expert in tables and I don't want to go messing this up further, but the table in List of museums in New South Wales appears to be broken (before I got there). I'm hoping someone with good table skills can fix it in 30 seconds instead of me fiddling with it for 20 minutes... Anyone, please? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, hopefully now sorted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested moves per WP:NCAUST and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

I have significant concerns with the above requested moves relating to Victorian place names. While I have no objection to removing unnecessary disambiguation where there is clearly no place with the same or similar names, the nominations include far too many articles to allow for proper consideration and consensus where there is any doubt. Cases in point would be Badger Creek (disambiguation) and Smiths Beach, Western Australia, a relatively famous surf break in the Margaret River region which is at least as notable as Smiths Beach, Victoria. I have recommended withdrawal of these nominations and resubmission omitting any possibly contentious places in several of these discussions on the grounds that trying to discuss which to move and which to keep in such broad nominations will likely become a WP:TRAINWRECK and result in procedural keeps anyway. There may be a case here for broader discussion of WP:NCAUST? Dfadden (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Dfadden I agree. They should be done by people whose editing is focused on Victoria. Within the last 6 Weeks, I successfully requested a bunch of articles about places on Sydney's North Shore (And Northern Sydney) have unnecessary state names at the end removed and I did them all seperately just by copying pasting from previous RMS, and then correcting it for that RM. (A lot of my edits are on articles related to Sydney's North Shore, is there someone who is the same with country Victoria?) Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I might be that person. Viatori (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Dfadden Viatori There is another discussion here that I am concerned has possibility to become a WP:Trainwreck. I have already advised GMH Melbourne to stop. My main concern on that one is that Belrose should be done separately Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

While I am happy to consider the merits of each of these RMs, either in groups or individually, I do question the necessity of all the moves? WP:NCAUST states that Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name (bold is my emphasis). Most suggests that the norm is to use the Town, State/Territory format. Indeed, this has been the default for many years. This was pointed in the 2010 RM at Talk:Mosman, where interesting points was raised about status quo bias, as well as there being no formal consensus on how and when we should apply disambiguation. While we may use just the place name where the article meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is nothing that says we have to either. It makes sense for capital cities, or where names are so obviously unique that there is no question around primary topic, eg. Nar Nar Goon, Ulladulla etc. But I wonder if we are just creating work and problems for ourselves with the current appetite to move so many articles that vary from other towns by a single letter (Eg. Mosman vs Mossman, Queensland?) Perhaps a wiser (or at least more efficient) course of action would be to find consensus to resolve the ambiguity of WP:NCAUST's guidelines?

Dfadden (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Dfadden Of ones I did make an RM, such as like Wahroonga (Schestos made the RM for Wahroonga but I requested if Schestos could make the RM for me as I was inexperienced on that at the time). Same with other places like Pennant Hills, Naremburn and others. Belrose and Castlecrag are clearly not a case of nothing else with the name and all other things named after or with a similar name Hence it should be done separately Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

My question is are we wasting time by raising RMs though? The guidelines at WP:NCAUST do not say we have to drop the disambiguation where an article is the only or primary topic. They only say we may. My view is it would be better to have a guideline that says "in situation X, you should do Y" rather than saying "in situation X, you may do Y" because that would be clear and unambiguous and save having to do so many RMs for back and forth discussion in the first place! Dfadden (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Dfadden Let's use an example: "There are no other places called Wahroonga, hence it doesn't need to be called Wahroonga, New South Wales and can be moved from Wahroonga, New South Wales to just Wahroonga but doesn't have to be". PS, I am aware this move was performed, but just imagine it like the title is still Wahroonga, New South Wales and not Wahroonga. This is just one of many examples I could have used but Wahroonga is where I was born so I used it as an example Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, if there is no other place with the name of the article then just move it without the state/territory name. This does not include places with other words added in the title such as LGAs and electorates (e.g keep Wahroonga even though there is the electoral district of Wahroonga). Schestos (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• there was a general consensus that even though many places are primary topics, we dont move them without good cause. Thereasoning was trying to keep Australia places consistant and easy to find while avoid trainwrecks like Perth. Thimoving for sake of moving is just a bad idea better to hold onto some glimmer of being organised. Gnangarra 13:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Gnangarra "There was a general consensus and that even though many places are primary topics, we dont move them without good cause. The reasoning was trying to keep Australia places consistant and easy to find while avoid trainwrecks like Perth. Thimoving for sake of moving is just a bad idea better to hold onto some glimmer of being organised." Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Gnangarra When was the consensus? Read WP:NCAUST. You can't just make up that there was a consensus for this. You haven't provided any links to prove when the consensus happened Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  • here [5], [6], and [7] there plenty more if you use the search function on our archives each has had the same conclusion for the last 20 odd years. Gnangarra 14:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

    Thankyou Gnangarra. From what I see reading through those examples you have provided, this has long been and will likely remain a contentious issue. It has further reinforced to me that there is a problem with the wording of WP:NCAUST. ...the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name leaves too much room for interpretation and individual preference and hurts consistency. It really needs to provide guidance on the exact circumstances where disambiguation is or is not necessary. I will pause any further page moves until this is resolved and strongly encourage others to do the same as all we are achieving here is making a mess of inconsistency! Dfadden (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

    Dfadden When I moved a bunch of places, I made sure specifically they were done separately. I didn't even know about WP:Trainwreck at the time. I just make my RM'S through copy from viewing page history, paste then edit to make it correct Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

    I am not criticising or suggesting you have done anything wrong. You have been very collaborative and i appreciate your communication. This is not about a single article. Instead, I am questioning why the moves requested by you and others including GMH Melbourne need to be made in the first place? It seems to come down to personal preference rather than clear policy. Some people think we should move the articles because they are the primary topic, others think we should not move them. It will continue to lead to arguments until we make the policy clearer. Dfadden (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

    Dfadden I didn't think I was being criticised. It was just that we had different ideas. My point is: If the unnecessary state name in title is removed, that is fine, and if it doesn't get removed, there are worse things at the end of the day". At the end of the day, me making these requests was based on that it is something I am skilled at. I am still learning some of the other complicated stuff. Also, when searching a suburb, the description in the search tells you where it is so readers can still find out. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    Dfadden And when I say: "Moved a bunch of places" I mean make an RM for a title Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that what we need is clarity, and 'definiteness', in the policy statements. The statement at Project Australian places says that previous practice was, with specific exceptions, that Australian places articles were named placename, state, and that placename should all be redirects (so long as placename alone is not ambiguous). (After acknowledging that the practice is in dispute, the rest of the text gives fairly definite statements as to article naming practice.) There have been a number of proposals to change that policy, but consensus was never reached to actually make any change. At some point WP:NCAUST became another statement on the topic, and it specifically allows placename ('may be used alone') as a valid article name in the case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Whether because of this statement or not, there are now a significant number of articles that use placename. It is now too late to un-scramble this egg and stipulate one form or the other - it would create a large amount of unnecesary work and opportunity for errors and confusion, and any proposal to enforce one form would generate more heat than light.

My suggestion is a policy that accepts both forms, but prevents unnecessary switching between them:

• Articles about Australian places may have article names in one of two forms: placename, state and placename
• For new articles, either form is acceptable, unless disambiguation or other reasons require the use of placename, state
• For existing articles, renaming from one form to the other should not be done unless there is some other good reason to do it
  • current articles using placename, state should not be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, or because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it
  • current articles using placename should not be renamed just to conform to the previous policy

(The above form of words will need some further expansion to cover, for example, intra-state conflicts, and suburbs within cities. Probably also on when redirects are necessary.)

Basically, if you don't like the form of name for an existing article, that, or an appeal to 'consistency', is not sufficient grounds to request a rename - the existing name for the article is deemed acceptable (by policy) if it is in one of these two forms.

It hasn't helped that there are two different statements on article naming practice for Australian places, one at Project Australian places, another at WP:NCAUST. These two need to use the same wording.

Innesw (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As a further example of why we need this, several of the large group move requests created by @GMH Melbourne have now been closed, with widely different interpretations by non-admin closers - see Talk:Allawah#Requested move 8 April 2025 where the moves were carried out with specific exceptions (by no means a consideration of ALL the requests, but examples given as to where there were some problems found to justify opposition to the move. The original group moverequest at Talk:Adelaide Lead#Requested move 2 April 2025 was procedurally closed due to a number of dubious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claims. The Requested moves at Talk:Ellis Lane#Requested move 8 April 2025 were all moved. Here we have three different outcomes. This has not created any consistency between articles, rather it has continued to scramble the egg. I am appealing to editors including to please stop requesting moves of groups or individual articles until we establish consensus over a consistent application of a clear policy to prevent further damage! Dfadden (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Coming here after reopening one of the discussions mentioned above. I have a few recommendations:

1. Look at all relevant listings on WP:RM#C, and adding something like

   Note to closer: There is an ongoing discussion at <this location> regarding the relevant naming conventions. Recommend a procedural close pending the outcome of that discussion.

   (Relisting until consensus is reached is not desirable.)

2. Rename this section (links to it do not work, and they say the discussion "may have been deleted, moved, or renamed" (or archived). I'm guessing due to the heading links and possibly the double colon typo. Alternatively, throw an anchor in up there, and use that in your links instead of the section title.
3. Open an RFC somewhere (or here) to try and garner more participation for a clear consensus.

-2pou (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have renamed the section per recommendation 2 above. Thanks 2pou! Dfadden (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I will open an RfC here, but please be patient - it could well take me a week to draft (a) a complete proposed convention wording and (b) a 'Support as Proposer' statement to go with it. (My drafts will be in my userspace.) I think the brief description for the RfC can just be 'There is a proposal to change the statements of the convention for naming (and renaming) of articles about Australian places'. In the meantime, a halt to existing move/rename proposals is a good idea. Innesw (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Innesw As long as it is not undiscussed. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Innesw. I have added the note to the remaining group RMs as recommended above. I think in the meantime it would be prudent to pause any further move requests for single articles as well. Dfadden (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

By way of update @Amakuru has just closed the RMs at Talk:Cobbitty and Talk:Bringelly as move (with exceptions). This takes us even further from a consistent outcome. Partially my fault as my previous comments either explicitly or could be interpreted as qualified support. I have asked them to reconsider the close to procedurally close per the note and suggestion of 2pou until there has been an RfC. Dfadden (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Whie I don't edit much any more, this is a topic on which I have expressed strong views in the past. Unnecessary disambiguation actively harms the encyclopedia and creates more confusion than mandatory disambiguation - q.v., the discussion above - this confusion doesn't happen in other national projects other than Australia and the US. We don't mandate mandatory disambigation for planets just because some Unfortunately, a feeling of Australian exceptionalism (i.e, Australia's toponomy is somehow uniquely unsuited to the general naming principle), combined with loud voices from U.S. editors using Australia as a proxy battle in the own disambigated place name war, have created a bit of a dog's breakfast.

Policies on Australian place names should not be made as if the general place name guidelines don't exist. Local guidelines should extrapolate and provide specific direction on interpreting the general guideline, not ignore it and act contrary to that guideline. Australia is not that unique that the general place name guideline, fine for 200 other nation states, is completely unsuitable for it.

The overwhelming majority of Australian place names are unique. There is no evidence Australian place names require unnecessary disambiguation any more than any other nation-state and certainly less than some others that don't mandate unneccesary disambigation - i.e. Ukraine. If we were to start developing articles on Australian places from scratch, we wouldn't apply indiscriminate discrimination just because the US chose to do so. Institutional inertia is the only thing that keeps the practice going. We do it because we have always done it.

I am out of the place name wars and agree that renaming battles create a lot of heat but little light. If we must simplify, it should be place names should only be disambiguated where they are not unique or not the primary topic. Where disambiguation is required, it should be at first NAME, STATE. Further disambiguation should take into account the particulars of any ambiguity. I will leave consensus to more active editors now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Mattinbgn Yes. We should be helping readers. Not a bunch of grumpy old editors (No intent to be rude, I have all respect for them) who set these rules, manual styles and guidelines without proper discussion or are now outdated or don't work in today's Wikipedia. For example, I am open to discussing repealing or amending MOS:Flags. And my argument for discussing it is that the flags aren't bad. There are cases when they have been removed and the removal besides MOS:Flags is truly unnecessary. They did no harm whatsoever. I definitely would love to make some discussions to reform Wikipedia. Especially manuals, rules and guidelines that were added without discussion. Now, I am not saying these have to change, but it would be good to actually discuss these things. Cheers Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Libertarian Party results

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but across multiple different 2025 election results articles the Libertarian Party is being incorrectly treated like a new party (i.e. a 0.53% result is being described as a swing of "+0.53%") instead of being linked with its results under its previous name, Liberal Democratic Party. I don't know how many pages this mistake is repeated across, but it is several at least. Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The results lists are using the swings as calculated by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). As far as the AEC is concerned, the Liberal Democratic Party was deregistered on 19 July 2022 and the Libertarian Party was registered on 12 January 2024, so there is a discontinuity between the party entities, which is the reason the Libertarian swing is not calculated from the vote proportions at the 2022 election. --Canley (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

For a counter-example, see the Trumpet of Patriots results in, say, Berowra—the TOP would seem for all intents and purposes to be descended from Clive Palmer's previous party, the United Australia Party (2013)/Palmer United Party, but the swing is not related to the UAP vote in 2022, it is actually calculated from the Australian Federation Party, because the UAP was deregistered and Palmer merged his party with the extant Federation Party. --Canley (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Western Bears #Requested move 8 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Bears #Requested move 8 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Murder of Cassius Turvey § WA or WA's

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Murder of Cassius Turvey § WA or WA's. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

The redirect Southern Districts has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. It may be to the interest of this project. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18 § Southern Districts until a consensus is reached. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

20th Anniversary Memorial

This sunday the 25th May will be the 20th anniversary of User:JarrahTrees first edit. We are inviting editors to make edits related to maintenance ie add categories, project tags, add structure data(on commons)or article ratings and then append ...thank you JarrahTree to the edit summary. Together we can clear some backlogs and maybe even approach Jarrah Tree's tally of around 400,000 edits. Gnangarra 01:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Lord Howe Island

Lord Howe Island 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) 15:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)