Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 62

GoodDay appears to have recently replaced {{Infobox government}} with {{Infobox executive government}} on some (many/all? I haven't checked all of them, but eg: WA Vic) Australian state government articles, and I'm not sure that it's correct. Template:Infobox executive government/doc explicitly says (with my emphasis):

This box is for pages on the structures of executive governments ... and only on the structure. It should not be used for articles that use the wider meaning of the word government, i.e. all branches of government.

I'm not an expert on government systems, but I'm fairly sure that the state governments have legislative and judicial branches/powers. Victoria State Government even says, in the lead paragraph:

Like all state governments, it is formed by three independent branches: the executive, the judicial, and the parliament.

Comments are invited ... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I made the infobox changes, to bring them in line with the infobox at Australian Government page. Would trimming the pages down to being 'only' about the executive branch, suffice? I've also done the same for the Government of Canada & the 'ten' provincial governments. I also went by the infoboxes at the New Zealand Government & Government of the United Kingdom pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PS - If you believe I should revert my changes to the six state pages? I will do so. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

These need to be reverted, the scope of these articles is clearly the broader meaning of government. If it had just been done on cabinet pages or whatever then that would have been fine. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I'll revert. But I hope the discussion will continue here, on how to handle the Australian state pages. PS - I'll even revert the Canadian federal/provincial pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the "Infobox government" in all six Australian gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: & @5225C:, would it be alright if we keep 'Infobox government' (which I've restored), but change the parameter names in the six states. Change "Head of state", "Vice-regal representative", "Head of government" over to "Monarch", "Governor", "Premier"? Then add the names of the current office holders? GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said at WP:CANADA, I'm not sure about this as I think it's a good thing that infobox government shows us the generic offices. This should allow for a greater ability of comparison and contrasting with other governments across the globe; it tells us that the monarch is the head of state, the governor is the vicegerent, and the premier is the head of government. If there is a consensus to add current office holders I would hope that it's done like it is at Government of the United Kingdom where the names are in brackets, allowing the generic offices to remain visible. JM (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023:, this kinda ties in with the Canadian federal & provincial discussion. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Likely best, I let @Safes007: implement the correct changes, as he's done at the Australian Government page. Thanks JM2023 & 5225C for 'not' ignoring me. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I made similar changes to Australian Government and Queensland Government (but forgot to change the infobox), and I think it is ultimately better for 'X Government' pages in Australia to refer to the executive/body of people who run the executive and have a majority in the lower house, with a separate 'Politics of X' page to explain the separation of powers and broader political structure. In the federal context, I refer to the Parliamentary Education Office^[1] to support this view. That being said, it is also true that 'government' is also used to refer to all the branches of government (and I note that in the article^[2]) but I think the common meaning (especially in news reports) is to refer to 'the government' as the people who currently have a majority. I note I am from Qld and with its unicameral parliament, the executive government almost never has to consider what Parliament thinks, which makes a page about the three branches less appropriate, but that may not be the case in other states which I know less about.

That being said, I don't think the infobox of a page should be changed without changing the page itself and creating or expanding a 'Politics of X' page, and infobox executive should only be used when the page is actually about the executive as opposed to the system of government and enough information is written to justify two pages. I believe this is definitely the case for the Commonwealth, but may be more difficult for Tasmania (sorry Tasmania).

I also note there does not appear to be a consensus for the use of the term 'Government' in other pages and I think the meaning should be ultimately determined in context. For example, the Government of the United States and Government of Japan refer to the broader meaning, whilst Government of France and Government of Spain has a more restricted meaning. Another example is Government of Germany which redirects to Cabinet of Germany. Safes007 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've contacted Mitch Ames & their response was WP:DEADLINE, WP:BUSY, WP:SILENCE & WP:SOLVE. Since the original objector is too busy? I guess you've got the 'green light', to do what you can with the infoboxes & content of the six state gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these Commonwealth Realm articles titled "government" need their scope dramatically reduced to be about "HM Government" and not the entire political system. I made such points previously at WP:CANADA and it's something I noticed years ago. Especially bizarre is the Government of Canada article which tells us first that the government is all three branches, then that it's actually only the executive government, then goes on to describe the whole three branches and more anyway, despite stating that the actual definition issued by the government is the executive government only.

I also agree that infobox executive should only be used for articles covering executive governments and that the rest can be covered on "Politics of" articles (which I think many, if not most, already do).

Additionally, the reason there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of "government" is because it varies between countries. I believe that Commonwealth realms (and probably also Commonwealth republics, and most if not all Westminster systems) generally use it in the executive sense, while other systems do not, with major exceptions (i.e., Government of Russia, despite Russia being semi-presidential on paper). JM (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Members of WP:AUST, letting you know that I put myself as a connected contributor to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability talk page, as I wrote a speech about inclusion to them on 6 June 2022. I will still edit articles related to television, radio and technology regardless of my conflict of interest.

Off-topic: I am really busy today, so I will be back on Wikipedia at 1pm. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RMIT University#Requested move 27 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dani Laidley#Requested move 27 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Happily888 and @Vanderwaalforces, can you please check articles created by the IP 202.7.230.203, specifically The Cook Up with Adam Liaw, tonight and throughout February, as the IP copied content from the Adam Liaw article, without proper attribution, as mentioned in WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 09:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@TechGeek105 Thanks for spotting that. Looks like Happily888 has taken care of it (warned the IP). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Bendigo is currently seeking interested editors to join the project. If interested, please add your name to the project's participants list and start editing! Lotsw73 (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Lord Mayor of Melbourne by-election#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Planning to move this one to mainspace shortly, thought I'd first of all check here if anyone has any suggestions or objections? Pinging users who've been active on First Nations-related articles lately: @Aemilius Adolphin @Safes007 @Errantios @Riposte97 @Aliceinthealice @Bruceanthro @Laterthanyouthink @Zaddikskysong @BlackfullaLinguist ? Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neegzistuoja:

• on a first quick review of your proposed article I note you introduce the concept of indigenous custodians and indigenous custodianship without any reliable source/s or references verifying this is an existing, established and/or widely used and understood concept and, as such, unfortunately the article currently looks like original research where wikipedia, to be encyclopaedic, has a policy of no original research.
• on a quick search of wikipedia I also see that there does not seem to be any article on indigenous custodianship of lands and waters more generally across the world (I don't believe it is a uniquely Australian phenomena .. see here for instance , nor, by the way did I find any articles about the concepts of Aboriginal custodians and/or indigenous custodians of lands and waters

It occurs to me that in creating this article you have identified a significant shortfalling in the current wikipedia's coverage of indigenous custodianship as a thing, and maybe the best course of action might be to create a generic fully sources/referenced article on the concept of indigenous custodianship more generally, then update your current draft article with references/sources in the introduction to make the article about the particular nature and form indigenous custodianship takes with Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders Bruceanthro (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bruceanthro, I've had a go at adding sources to the lede and added your ICCA source in my short sentence on the term being used beyond Australia. I initially started writing the article with the title Traditional custodians, but from my (admittedly inexhaustive) research, this concept seemed to be more developed in an Australian context than anywhere else. Hoping it might be okay to start with this article, in the hopes that someone more qualified than me can start a more universal Indigenous custodianship article, perhaps once there is more useful literature. Seemingly similar precedent with native title: the Native title in Australia article was started in 2004, but the broader Aboriginal title one wasn't started until 2007. Neegzistuoja (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick comment tonight @Neegzistuoja:, as I haven't had time to read it properly, but just wanted to thank you for your work and comment that it looks very well sourced and laid out on the whole. I don't know much about the topic outside of Australia so cannot comment on that at the moment. Just one quick tip: if you go to Preferences, then Gadgets, there is an option to highlight links to disambiguation pages in orange, which doesn't work with mobile app editing but is handy when editing the web version. You will probably need to unlink the two I can see, custodian and Royal Societies of Australia, as neither seems to have a clear target article in wiki. Also, some thought will need to be given to incoming links to traditional owners redirects, as some of them may refer to custodianship rather than the native title definition. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neegzistuoja I think this is an important topic for an article, and it seems like a very good start to me. Personally I think I'm on the 'ownership' side of the "Custodianship and ownership" debate mentioned in the article subheading. I would just call the article "Indigenous Australian land ownership". To me this puts things in clear terms and puts it on the same prestige level as non-Indigenous ownership systems - yes the system of ownership is different, maybe there are more responsibilities associated with it, more spiritual associations, maybe the ownership is not individual - but in the end, there is Law that associates certain people with certain land, and under that law you can't take that land away from them. But, that's more my philosophical naming position, I think the current title is OK.

A future idea for expanding the article (maybe I could help with this) ~ In the parts of Australia I'm most familiar with (Arnhem Land), there's a clear distinction between what people call 'owners' and 'managers' of the land. Ownership is inherited from one's father, but you have management responsibilities for your mother's land as well. This second relationship is called 'djungkay' in Kunwinjku. See e.g. https://www.bawinanga.com/what-we-do/bawinanga-rangers/what-we-do/. I believe there are many related systems across Australia, and this would be an argument for an Australia-specific article. Zaddikskysong (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Indigenous Australian traditional land ownership" to distinguish from Native Title. But anyway as I said, I guess the existing title is fine;) Zaddikskysong (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Bruceanthro @Laterthanyouthink @Zaddikskysong for your constructive comments! I've just removed the disambiguation links and added "djungkay".

Forgive me for asking another favour, but I was hoping one of you (or indeed anyone reading this!) might be able to help me trim Commons:File:Koomal Dreaming- Cultural Experiences - Josh Whiteland.webm? I think a version that's just the Dreaming story he ends on, from 35:59-41:44, would be ideal. I'm in a bit of a precarious wi-fi situation at the moment, so my attempts to download that large video file before snipping and re-uploading have failed, and VideoCutTool doesn't seem to be working for me either... Neegzistuoja (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Digital terrestrial television in Australia 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Holden Commodore 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Minister for Mental Health and Ageing (Australia)#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Australian Aboriginal Flag#Requested move 13 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm a tad out of action at the moment (can only edit for brief periods), plus don't feel knowledgeable enough about the orthography of Aboriginal languages to add anything of value to a discussion of this nature, but if anyone with any expertise, or know someone to tag, or willing to research further, would you please have a look at Talk:Ngiyambaa language to see if consensus can be reached on the spelling? Tagging Nishidani and NSH001, who have done quite a bit in this area. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone else please look at my last edit on Georgie Purcell? I expanded what looked to me like a biased article with disproportionate focus on her boobs instead of her politics. I was primarily led by the much longer French language article so perhaps introduced an unconscious bias in my efforts not to show a bias. My edit was reverted as not NPOV and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. Scott Davis ^Talk 03:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Mitch Ames:. Scott Davis ^Talk 07:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops - thank you @Grahamec: too --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Minister for International Development (Australia)#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Kicked off a new article for Sydney's biggest news of the year so far (sorry Taylor Swift), please (wood)chip in. Jpatokal (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay appears to have recently replaced {{Infobox government}} with {{Infobox executive government}} on some (many/all? I haven't checked all of them, but eg: WA Vic) Australian state government articles, and I'm not sure that it's correct. Template:Infobox executive government/doc explicitly says (with my emphasis):

This box is for pages on the structures of executive governments ... and only on the structure. It should not be used for articles that use the wider meaning of the word government, i.e. all branches of government.

I'm not an expert on government systems, but I'm fairly sure that the state governments have legislative and judicial branches/powers. Victoria State Government even says, in the lead paragraph:

Like all state governments, it is formed by three independent branches: the executive, the judicial, and the parliament.

Comments are invited ... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I made the infobox changes, to bring them in line with the infobox at Australian Government page. Would trimming the pages down to being 'only' about the executive branch, suffice? I've also done the same for the Government of Canada & the 'ten' provincial governments. I also went by the infoboxes at the New Zealand Government & Government of the United Kingdom pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PS - If you believe I should revert my changes to the six state pages? I will do so. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

These need to be reverted, the scope of these articles is clearly the broader meaning of government. If it had just been done on cabinet pages or whatever then that would have been fine. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I'll revert. But I hope the discussion will continue here, on how to handle the Australian state pages. PS - I'll even revert the Canadian federal/provincial pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the "Infobox government" in all six Australian gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: & @5225C:, would it be alright if we keep 'Infobox government' (which I've restored), but change the parameter names in the six states. Change "Head of state", "Vice-regal representative", "Head of government" over to "Monarch", "Governor", "Premier"? Then add the names of the current office holders? GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said at WP:CANADA, I'm not sure about this as I think it's a good thing that infobox government shows us the generic offices. This should allow for a greater ability of comparison and contrasting with other governments across the globe; it tells us that the monarch is the head of state, the governor is the vicegerent, and the premier is the head of government. If there is a consensus to add current office holders I would hope that it's done like it is at Government of the United Kingdom where the names are in brackets, allowing the generic offices to remain visible. JM (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023:, this kinda ties in with the Canadian federal & provincial discussion. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Likely best, I let @Safes007: implement the correct changes, as he's done at the Australian Government page. Thanks JM2023 & 5225C for 'not' ignoring me. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I made similar changes to Australian Government and Queensland Government (but forgot to change the infobox), and I think it is ultimately better for 'X Government' pages in Australia to refer to the executive/body of people who run the executive and have a majority in the lower house, with a separate 'Politics of X' page to explain the separation of powers and broader political structure. In the federal context, I refer to the Parliamentary Education Office^[1] to support this view. That being said, it is also true that 'government' is also used to refer to all the branches of government (and I note that in the article^[2]) but I think the common meaning (especially in news reports) is to refer to 'the government' as the people who currently have a majority. I note I am from Qld and with its unicameral parliament, the executive government almost never has to consider what Parliament thinks, which makes a page about the three branches less appropriate, but that may not be the case in other states which I know less about.

That being said, I don't think the infobox of a page should be changed without changing the page itself and creating or expanding a 'Politics of X' page, and infobox executive should only be used when the page is actually about the executive as opposed to the system of government and enough information is written to justify two pages. I believe this is definitely the case for the Commonwealth, but may be more difficult for Tasmania (sorry Tasmania).

I also note there does not appear to be a consensus for the use of the term 'Government' in other pages and I think the meaning should be ultimately determined in context. For example, the Government of the United States and Government of Japan refer to the broader meaning, whilst Government of France and Government of Spain has a more restricted meaning. Another example is Government of Germany which redirects to Cabinet of Germany. Safes007 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've contacted Mitch Ames & their response was WP:DEADLINE, WP:BUSY, WP:SILENCE & WP:SOLVE. Since the original objector is too busy? I guess you've got the 'green light', to do what you can with the infoboxes & content of the six state gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these Commonwealth Realm articles titled "government" need their scope dramatically reduced to be about "HM Government" and not the entire political system. I made such points previously at WP:CANADA and it's something I noticed years ago. Especially bizarre is the Government of Canada article which tells us first that the government is all three branches, then that it's actually only the executive government, then goes on to describe the whole three branches and more anyway, despite stating that the actual definition issued by the government is the executive government only.

I also agree that infobox executive should only be used for articles covering executive governments and that the rest can be covered on "Politics of" articles (which I think many, if not most, already do).

Additionally, the reason there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of "government" is because it varies between countries. I believe that Commonwealth realms (and probably also Commonwealth republics, and most if not all Westminster systems) generally use it in the executive sense, while other systems do not, with major exceptions (i.e., Government of Russia, despite Russia being semi-presidential on paper). JM (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Auslawnerd has change WA and apparently other states back to Executive Govt. I've reverted WA, but not anything else. Do we have any consensus on where we are going with this? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be best, to have the Australian Government page & all the six state government pages, with the same infobox? GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be best if they were all the same, but I'm waiting for other people to comment before reverting them all. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am a politics and law student with an interest in constitutional law and comparative politics. Apologies if I have accidentally made a mess, I was not aware of this wider disagreement about the meaning of the word 'Government' on wikipedia. If the consensus is that my edits should be reverted, I am okay with that.

However I will defend my changes for the following reasons.

• Government in parliamentary systems using the Westminster Model typically means the executive, whilst in presidential systems government can mean all three branches together.
• Government is used according to describe the executive branch on the Wikipedia pages for UK Government, NZ Government, Canadian Government, each of the governments of the Canadian provinces, Spanish Government Irish Government and most importantly the Australian Government
• It seems incongruous for the Australian Government page to refer to the executive government whilst each of the state governments use it in a broader sense.
• I think each state government page should mirror the Australian Government page (being specifically about the executive) and leave the entire political structure to a 'politics of' page.
• Using government in a broad sense leaves each of the states without a page on an important component of their government (the executive). The Cabinet is merely one part of the executive and doesn't include the Executive Council, the Governor, the Monarch (to a certain extent), departments/agencies and state instrumentalities. Whilst each state Parliament as the legislative branch has its own page with seperate pages on each chamber.
• Each of the state and federal executives use 'Government' to refer to themselves rather than the courts or the parliament. I think the difference between the wikipedia page and the actual practice of Australian Governments is a cause for confusion.

Again that's my position, but happy to revert if the majority opinion is otherwise. But from my observations it seems that JM2023, Safes007, @GoodDay and I seem to favour using government in an executive sense.

I also apologise if I have gone about it in a haphazard manner and I am happy to revert the infoboxes until each page has a corresponding 'politics of' page as a compromise. Auslawnerd (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in your observation of my opinion.

The Canadian federal level and all of the provinces have been changed to "infobox executive government", but that was included in a massive change in the scope of those articles from "government" in the American sense to "government" in the Westminster sense; the federal level and each province all also have a "politics" page which was changed in scope (if necessary) to cover the whole political system rather than just electoral results. When GoodDay originally changed all of those infoboxes in the Canadian articles, I said that either the article scopes have to be overhauled to match the infoboxes (the option I preferred), or the infoboxes had to be reverted; facing no opposition and with the support of GoodDay, I overhauled the article scopes and restored the executive infoboxes.

I was not sure about the Australia articles because Australia's political system takes elements from both the UK and the US, but considering what you have said here, I think that ultimately, the Australia pages should end up the same as the Canada pages: changes in their scopes to match the executive infoboxes, along with corresponding "politics" pages for the whole system. JM (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree and I would like to overhaul the state pages to match their infoboxes as well (particularly South Australia as I've read widely on the subject and I live there). Most of the information on each of the state govt pages is already about the executive branch and only has a few scant paragraphs on the courts and the parliament. I think GoodDay has already overhauled the Government of Queensland page as well.

Each of the states is actually closer in structure to the Westminster system than the federal layer is. This is because each of the states predate the existence of the federal layer as seperate British colonies, and the framers of the Australian constitution only incorporated American influences when the Federal Constitution was enacted in 1901.

Anyways I'll leave it at that and wait to see if Mitch Ames responds before taking any significant action. Auslawnerd (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Auslawnerd Well, it's been ten days, and Mitch Ames hasn't responded; given your reading of the consensus here, you might as well go ahead and make the changes. JM (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Riversleigh rainforest koala#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've already asked at the WP Library for this, but there hasn't been much uptake and someone suggested asking here. I'm trying to get hold of a copy of the following article that was in the Weekend Australian Review in 1991. I'm hoping someone here has access or is able to get it:

• Jones, K (23 March 1991). "The blitz and all that jazz". Weekend Australian Review.

If anyone can help here, I'd be extremely grateful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The paper's own archives don't have it. Your best bet maybe a library near you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately my local library doesn't even hold archives of British newspapers, let alone foreign ones - but your idea has reminded me that the British Library may be able to help, if no-one else can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just checked online via Newsbank at SLSA - unfortunately the weekend editions only seem to be digitised as far back as 1998. I expect this would be the same for any online access? The microform suggestion may be your best hope. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be at the State Library in a few weeks and could get a copy for you. They have a microfilm archive. Was it just this one article you're after? Jimmyjrg (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmyjrg, that would be great if you could. Yes, it’s just that one article. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation#Requested move 5 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ryan Searle#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Hilst [talk] 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors are requested to comment at Talk:Whadjuk § Inclusion of Noongar names? on the inclusion of Noongar words for plants and animals in the description of the Noongar seasons. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

See RFC instead. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1980)#Requested move 10 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Matthew Dunn#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I take this opportunity to compliment Dr Malcolm Allbrook, Managing Editor, Australian Dictionary of Biography, for his prompt and positive response to my recent suggestions for correction and clarification. Doug butler (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree. I met Malcolm at a conference in Canberra in 2017. Since then, I email him whenever I find something not quite right in an ADB entry. Sometimes it's a typo, sometimes a fact, in which case I provide one or more references to back up my claim. Thank you Malcolm! Oronsay (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We have two overlapping categories: Australian explorers and Explorers of Australia, the distinction being that "Australian explorers" is only for "explorers of Australian nationality". If we were to take this distinction literally, Aboriginal Australians aside, there would be very few candidates, unless we confer honorary nationality on those who die in the country. As it stands the two cats are a hodge-podge, arbitrarily assigned, this User being one culprit. Doug butler (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a mess. I admit to not knowing precisely what nationality means. I have the impression that some people are quite certain they know, and it's not the same as citizenship. But I'm confused.

The two subcategories of Australian explorers are also a bit of a worry. One is based on where they explored, the other on where they were from. Is that how these things are supposed to work? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but the prospects of a short sensible decision appear far fetched these days. The challenge is for a short well discussed and arrived at consensus as to which gets eliminated, and what gets promoted. Unfortunately it is as likely to be hijacked. One hopes in WP:AGF that it could be resolved by putting Explorers of Australia up for WP:CFD - and the particular territory of 'for deletion' can be a learning experience compared to the relatively stricter WP:AFD process. JarrahTree 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The distinction is not unique to Australia -- see the subcategories of Category:Explorers where Category:Explorers by nationality is distinguished from Category:Explorers by explored country and Category:Explorers by continent, so I don't think that the proposal is likely to succeed. The real problem is that wikipedia should really enable easy use of unions of discrete categories for search, etc, so that the number of categories could be significantly cut down from the current explosion of permutations. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I retract one assertion. Roughly half the "Australian explorers" were born in Australia (surprisingly most from SA). The category includes several round-the-world sailors and more than a few cave divers. Of the rest, about half were in Australia before adulthood, so we can claim them too, like those great Australians Mel Gibson and AC/DC. Doug butler (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the distinction is fine - not all explorers of Australia were Australian, e.g. Ludwig Leichhardt, and not all Australian explorers explored Australia, e.g. Staniforth Smith. But someone like John Forrest sits in both. ITBF (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in this starting Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight up again, I am happy to coordinate it. I think it would be probably best for it to be one per month instead of per fortnight. It would nice to for us focus on some of the Mid-Top importance articles that are sitting at Stub/Start/C class and try and get more Australian articles at featured status. Thoughts? — GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great idea. I agree, monthly would work best. Do you have some information about how it would? Would everyone collaborate on the one article for the month? Jimmyjrg (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmyjrg: Yes, essentially everyone would collaborate on the one article for a month. There is a procedure outlined on the old project page from when it ran in 2009-2010 that provides a good structure on how it may run and I think only needs a few minor tweaks to make better. —GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• When it was in process in 2009-2010, the successful bits were where the community was very collegiate and cooperative, with a range of editors who were from a wide range of subject area interests and experiences, who worked well to improve things. I do hope this time around that people are interested, it is well worth the effort!

I believe that the larger problem fourteen years later is the extensive sections of the project that flounder in the lower range due to lack of reliable sources, one liner articles and 'ones that got away' - unmaintained swathes of low standard articles that simply have not been re-visited since creation. In some cases not so easy to find, but nevertheless worth fixing up.

So there are potentially two levels, I strongly support the monthly time duration, and I would be very interested in supporting the lower level - however it does require a clear distinction between the two levels - fourteen years later there are very different priorities in the larger wikipedia project - and it would well be worth discussing the relevance of such a project and its scope considering the changes that have occurred over the time, before jumping in. JarrahTree 09:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I think it would be a good idea for the nomination process to scrutinise the sources available for a topic and use that to perhaps exclude certain articles from the project's attention, or perhaps when there are a few stub articles doesn't have much sourcing available, group them all together and dedicate one month of the year to them.

In relation to – it would well be worth discussing the relevance of such a project – I understand it may not be something with the highest level of support, but the main reason I edit here is to improve the coverage of Australian articles and to others with that same or similar goal, I feel having an article a month to focus on, and get it to GA/FA status would be a handy tool to not only improve the project but encourage new editors to perhaps get involved and go out and write their own FA/GA article.--GMH Melbourne (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well the capacity of most new editors to even survive editing articles in the face of the various gateways of draftifying and similar hindrances, means the level of discouragement are much stronger now within the system than fifteen years ago. Also to see the focused upon articles of the 2010 exercises - the current interests and emphases of the larger wikipedia project have moved, in some cases quite substantially.

The tendency of the participants in FA/GA is that they have survived a range of issues of being editors and still have faith in the system, while many new editors balk at the process and rarely venture into the field - which goes back to your interest in the older model of the early project. A collective focus on existing articles that are higher level beyond C assessment (for instance, or higher) to take them up - is a point where if it is a collective effort, in that instance specifically newer editors could benefit actually to see the process and what it requires to raise the quality of articles - towards the FA and GA areas. Very important! And as an afterthought, most FA's and GA's can benefit from collaboration rather than singular efforts...

The lower level is possibly to do with any one month or similar - it took over a year to eliminate backlog in one of the australian projects on the part of two editors - simply manually checking the project importance from unknown to low - not utilising bots but doing human checking... - there are areas in the Australia project that have similar issues that benefit from bot free exercises. So I still suggest two levels (or if it doesnt fit, perhaps a separate project) could benefit both the larger project, and the experience of the editors.

Whichever way things might go, thanks GMH Melbourne for suggesting re-starting the process - lets hope there is interest! JarrahTree 11:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to opine, I raised a question about the publishing of her DOB based on a birth notice on the talk page. I haven't googled extensively to try to find other sources myself as yet, but if this is the only source, it seems rather intrusive per WP:DOB and privacy per BLP guidelines. I could be wrong, but just thought I'd raise it here as I think it should have some other input before it stays there permanently. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup. I reckon that does not conform with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Steelkamp (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Steelkamp. Would you mind repeating it on the talk page, please? I am happy to remove it but would like to indicate discussion on the tp. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ta for that. I stumbled upon an age so calculated a YOB based on that, which should be enough to satisfy the curious, I would think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This article has some major formatting issues. My weak attempt to fix the problem was reverted. The article could do with some TLC from someone in this project. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The article COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania#Nauru uses "an historical case", where I would use "a historical case". The article is tagged as using Australian English. I am aware that "an historical" is used by some English speakers, and it was used in Australian works from a few decades ago. Is it part of modern Australian English? I'm responding to an edit request at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania#Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024 and need guidance.-Gadfium (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"An historical" works for me, but "a history book". It's about which syllable is stressed. Maybe a South Australian affectation. Doug butler (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found a Department of Education document which uses "an historical", so it clearly is acceptable in Australian English.-Gadfium (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be acceptable, but it's uncommon. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In modern Australian English, I'd bet more on someone using it being born/educated overseas, using a US autocorrect, or using material from a US source. That said, the addition was made here, and the editor was editing a whole bunch of COVID-19 pages and does not appear to be a fluent Australian English speaker (eg: see User_talk:John_B123/Archive_23#Why_not_a_covid_article_for_Kiribati?), so I'd say go ahead and edit it to "a" and see if it gets reverted ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's uncommon and clunky. In most usages I would prefer "a historical case". TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I would only consider "a historical" acceptable in written form, although some people vary when spoken depending on regional accents. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both are acceptable. I use "an" (and never dropped my aitches), but I've heard both here in South Australia. Suspect modern usage tends towards "a", and there are probably regional difference. See Australian English: an historical study of the vocabulary 1788-1898. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Australians pronounce our h's, so "an historical" is correct. However, we have spent so long watching American TV, American movies and listening to American songs that we often use American pronunciation, American grammar and American spelling. The English also drop their h's, so we blindly copy them too. Sighhhhh  Stepho  talk  11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The theory is that the an form arose from people dropping their aitches, or assuming silent aitches on this word. Only some regional dialects (notably Cockney) of English traditionally drop aitches, but as we know language evolves constantly and there are many outside influences on Australian English. IMO we should just accept both. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't resist recounting here this gem from our article on Australian rules footballer Jack Dyer, who did drop his aitches - "He also had a regular column which went under the name "Dyer 'ere" (a pun on diarrhoea) in Melbourne's Truth newspaper." HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would personally never use "an historical" but I can't speak for Australians more broadly. – Teratix ₵ 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback.-Gadfium (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am here trying to solicit some feedback for a featured list candidate I put up, the List of premiers of Victoria. The discussion has been stagnant for over a month and I'd hate for it to fail nomination due to a lack of discussion and to have to start all over again. Thank you! GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that Bill Morgan (lottery winner) is notable. Please see discussion at Talk:Bill_Morgan_(lottery_winner)#Notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the Parliament of South Australia & the Parliament of Tasmania different from the other four Australian state parliaments? I ask this as @Safes007: keeps deleting the Australian monarch from their infoboxes & changing the sovereign, from the king to the state governors. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Constitutionally speaking, yes they are. Sovereign in this context links to King-in-Parliament and refers to the person who shares legislative power with the houses of parliament, in the same way that the UK King acts in relation to the UK parliament. It doesn't refer to independence, who is the head of state or anything like that.

While the other state parliaments are defined as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament^[1], in SA the parliament is defined as consisting of only the houses of parliament however actually legislative power is vested in the governor acting with the advice and consent of the houses. In Tasmania, the constitution defines the Parliament as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament^[2]. This difference can be seen in the old enacting phrases. In WA, it was "Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent..."^[3] while in Tasmania it is "Be it enacted by Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, by and with the advice and consent...".^[4] I found this information from this source:^[5]. Safes007 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. But again, I'd recommend deleting the monarch and or governor from the intros & infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Why so? I think its necessary for it to be there in some capacity because Parliament is defined as including the monarch/governor in an at least equal capacity to the houses. Safes007 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Either include them both or exclude them both. Best not to add confusion to our readers, by introducing such inconsistencies among the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think inconsistencies will confuse readers if they refer to differences that exist. Would you be ok with a footnote next to the governor explaining the difference? Safes007 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

All six state parliaments are Westminster style. But, perhaps it's best if we wait for input from others on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say all the parliaments are Westminster style? Safes007 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. They're based on the Westminster system of government. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I know that, I just don’t know why that is relevant. Safes007 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I stated my proposed (below) changes. Either they'll be accepted or rejected on this noticeboard. I just don't agree with presenting two of the six state parliaments differently, from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That being said. I do recommend a solution. Delete the sovereign parameter from all the state parliaments. Remove the monarch & governors from the infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The constitution of every state makes it clear what constitues their respective parliaments. Please refer to constitution acts as they are explicit in defining that. You can also refer to this source, which states:

For the Commonwealth and Victoria, Parliament is comprised of the Queen and two elected Houses of Parliament. For Tasmania, Parliament is comprised of the Governor, as the Queen's representative, and two elected Houses of Parliament. For Queensland, Parliament is comprised of the Queen and one elected House of Parliament. For New South Wales and Western Australia, it is the Queen acting with the advice and consent of two elected Houses of Parliament that has the power to make Acts. The position in South Australia is different. There the Queen or the Governor does not form part of the Parliament as such. That Parliament consists of two elected Houses. However, Bills passed by the Parliament of South Australia must be assented to by the Governor in the name and on the behalf of the Queen.

The same source cited above also states:

All the powers and functions of the Queen in relation to the making of an Act by a state Parliament are exercisable only by the Governor of the state. However, if the Queen is personally present in a State, she is not precluded from exercising any of those powers and functions.

Therefore, I wouldn't be opposed to adding both the monarch and the governor in the infoboxes. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: I too wouldn't be opposed to having both the monarch & governor in the infoboxes of all six state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeking clarification: @Peter Ormond:, are you supporting the changes that have been made at the Tasmanian & the South Australian parliament pages? GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Safes007: as you mentioned earlier. It may be helpful, if you put in footnotes, for those infoboxes. Having the governor described as the sovereign might be confusing for readers, as the term "sovereign" is usually associated with "monarch". GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How about "Governor of South Australia (as representative of the King|)"? I think that would avoid that confusion.

If you would like consistency, the states where the King is directly vested with legislative powers could be "The King (as represented by the governor of New South Wales)". The difference in order would indicate the difference in who is directly vested with legislative power as indicated with a footnote. Safes007 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Your proposals for all six state parliaments are ideal, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings#Requested move 15 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeking wider community input, 124.150.67.252 (talk · contribs) has been adding climate statistics for suburbs surrounding Sydney Airport saying that suburbs nearby (some of them are some distance like Earlwood) are similar to Airport's climate. The same user is now doing this for suburbs around North Parramatta. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In the old days the editor would be blocked, and the additions removed - a curse on the Australian project, weather circus/christmas tree/colour madness is something that the project should have resolved long ago for a general principle of the specific separation distance, and remove as many as possible as they detract from general content and are in no way of help in a wikipedia locality article where they in some cases take more room that the text of the article. The lack of consistent removal of such material is sadly lacking, as much as the lack of daytime administrators with Australian content on their watchlist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarrahTree (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's original research (extending a primary source beyond what it actually says). We try to avoid statements that date quickly, as climate data absolutely can. Climate data can vary between places for many other reasons than distance. For these reasons, the edits by this IP are a really, really bad idea and I've reverted them accordingly. P.s. could this possibly be Meganesia? Graham87 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the name of a proposed (now approved) merger of two universities in Adelaide, but as it was previously a redirect, there are around 150 incoming links which are intended for University of Adelaide. I suspect that this is going to continue to cause confusion as it is often called Adelaide University colloquially. I've added a topic to the talk page over there , if anyone would like to opine on this matter... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Also wondering about creating a DAB, and am consulting the DAB project people in case they have a suggestion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Freemason's Hall (Toodyay) must be a misspelling, because the apostrophe should come after the plural form, but it is spelt that way on the heritage records. What do we do in these circumstances? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The heritage records often have spelling mistakes in them. Take for example, this. There are two different spellings (Mitchell's Building and Mitchells Building) within the same heritage entry. Steelkamp (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So should I just move it regardless of sources? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

My 2c worth: use the correct punctuation and put "(sic)" after the incorrect. People burdened by a modern education will never distinguish the difference anyway. :-) Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, I can't speak for Australian heritage records, but it's not rare for US historic sites to use the singular when we'd expect a plural. (For example, Woman's Club of Fall River, or Worker's House at Lower Laurel Iron Works, or the redlinked Turner's Hall, a meeting place for American Turners). It seems to me too common to be an error, so I've accepted it as a peculiar usage. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. It is frustrating that people doing heritage records cannot get the basic grammar right. I was just looking at Freemasons Hotel and that doesn't have the apostrophe at all (which some would argue is valid because the building not a possession of the Freemasons, fair enough). But if there is an apostrophe, it should at least be in the right place! As all of the British ones include the apostrophe at the end, I am inclined to use SCHolar44's interpretation above. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Does any of you ever upload nonfree images under fair use claims? When I lived in the US, I occasionally uploaded nonfree images with fair use claims, since only US law applied to me. But now that I've immigrated to Australia, I don't know whether I should be comfortable doing this, lest I get in real-life trouble for uploading something that doesn't qualify as AU fair dealing even if it's US fair use. Please don't give legal advice, of course. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Fair Use policy applies to Australian articles as in the US. This is based on US law but is more restrictive. In particular, it should only be used when necessary and relevant.--Grahame (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't ask the question the right way. I'm quite familiar with the policy and how to apply it. I meant: are you (anyone, not just Grahamec) uncomfortable uploading nonfree images when they fit the policy, because we live in a country with a different system of exemptions to copyright and you're concerned that you might get into real-life problems, or do you upload such images because you think the real-life legal situation is unlikely to cause real-life problems? Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There are many people in Australia adding nonfree images to Wikipedia, myself included. Just look at articles on Australian music, movies, or books, that have posters and artwork added even though these are in copyright, with many of the contributors Australia based. I doubt that by doing this there could be any real life problems, but perhaps you have encountered some personally? Jimmyjrg (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

So heaps of such images are uploaded by Australians — good to know. In my previous job, I often was involved with fair-use issues in the US, but I've stayed away from anything comparable here, since I know nothing almost about fair dealing. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If they are not used in articles or their use in articles in contested they can be nominated for deletion and often are deleted.--Grahame (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's requirements for non-free use content are stricter than the fair use laws of the United States and Australia, which should prevent you from facing problems when uploading non-free use images. Steelkamp (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Australia, by the way. – Teratix ₵ 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

How to describe Miriam Margoyles? Not as easy as it sounds. There's a discussion here on the talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Came across this image used on the Steph Ryan page which is taken from the Victorian Parliament website

I don't really know much about the copyright on these images, is someone able to confirm whether they can be used (with the appropriate licensing of course) or not? Because if they are it seems worthwhile getting them uploaded to the pages of all Victorian state MPs without existing images Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It was apparently uploaded by the Nationals, but given the Vic Parliament says all of their website content is copyrighted and can't be shared for commercial use, I'd say it should be removed from Commons. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/copyright/

If you want to add photos of all the MPs you could contact individual MPs asking for a photo, or attend an event to take a photo yourself. It could be something worth getting funding from WMAU to do. Perhaps you could even partner with WMAU to run an info session about Commons for MPs? Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I left this message on the New South Wales project talk page, but that project appears to be lifeless. Anyone here want to have a crack at cleaning up this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_South_Wales#Lydham_Hall 76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Lydham Hall#Referencing, and discuss there if necessary. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram#Requested move 4 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

For those editors not fully familiar with all aspects of the Australian project, an interesting point of understanding the processes involved the checking articles for a range of issues is -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Australia

The Australian deletion sorting page is well worth visiting, to understand the discussions and ways that deletion can be argued. At times, there are the usual suspects, and in many cases editors who seem totally oblivious to Trove for instance. It is worth visiting. JarrahTree 06:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Messineo#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Since sometime around 2018, a number of users have comprehensively added to, or created new articles for places listed on the NSW Heritage Register. Much of this content consists of direct extracts from the registry entries, under CC-BY Attribution licence. This seems to have led to widespread (although, not universal) inclusion of the Local Government Area in the lead paragraph of articles for heritage listed locations - eg here. This is most likely an artifact of the heritage listings, which specify LGAs as they are used for administrative purposes within the NSW government. However including this in the article leads seems redundant and in some cases irrelevant. The information is unnecessarily specific and it is uncommon in Australia to refer to an LGA to disambiguate a town or city - usually where any doubt exists, a state is sufficient (Eg. Campbelltown, NSW or Campbelltown SA).

It also introduces inconsistencies between articles where other wikiprojects have worked to standardise formats, such as Boggabri railway station (non-heritage listed) and Tarana railway station (heritage listed). NSW railway station articles otherwise follow a very similar format and would not include the LGA in the lead paragraph. It appears that a number of experienced editors of good standing have changed the articles to include this information. Because of this, I'd like to seek opinions or consensus about the inclusion of LGAs in articles about buildings and structures before i start deleting these links from the leads. Dfadden (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, LGAs should generally not be used as an address, as LGAs are not used in addresses in Australia. Addresses use street, suburb and state, and those are the units that should be used in Wikipedia articles as well. If the LGA is especially relevant for some other reason, then it can be mentioned, but in general, don't mention the LGA. Steelkamp (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that in general the LGA ought not be in the lead sentence, especially as part of the address. The LGA might rate a mention in the lead section if the article subject is directly related to an LGA, eg hypothetically:

Council Hall is a heritage-listed building on Foo Street, Bartown, New South Wales. It has been the seat of local government for the Shire of Barshire since that shire was created.

but then it gets mentioned as part of normal next flow, not part of the "address". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Queensland Heritage Register project was done prior to the NSW HR project and the NSW project followed a similar format. In Queensland, we do have duplicated town and locality names (and place names that are very similar and easily confused, differing by a single character or the inclusion of a second word often omitted in every day speech), so disambiguation by local government areas is required or at least helpful. And in any case LGA names etc are often used in conjunction with a town/locality name where the place would not be well known, e.g. Finch Hatton is a town about about 500 people but I am sure most Australians would not know of it, but if I said Finch Hatton in the Mackay Region, then I think many people would have some rough idea of where I was talking about.

However, my expertise is Queensland place naming, but not NSW place naming, so I checked the guidelines on NSW place naming and on page 2, it states that "New place names may be duplicated, provided there is no duplication of the name within the local government area or adjoining local government areas. However, duplication should be avoided wherever possible." which suggests to me that duplication might be present in NSW place names but not within LGAs. Given that place names starting with "Spring" are very commonly found duplicated (or very similar) in Queensland, I did a check in NSW and, yes, Spring Hill is a village (and a railway station) in Orange (LGA), a suburb of Wollongong, and a suburb in Cabonne (as well as a lot of hills etc). And there's similiar names for towns/suburbs etc such as Spring Creek/Farm/Flat/Grove/Mountain/Plains/Ridge/Terrace and two of them are in Orange and Cabonne too. So, my quick look suggests placenames in NSW are duplicated.

I don't know to what extent NSW place name dupication affects heritage listings, but the NSW State Heritage register does include the LGA so evidently they thought it had some value. It is not uncommon for a Wikipedia article to be notable (or at least of interest) for two or more reasons and one often sees multiple infoboxes in such articles (or combined ones where embedding makes it possible) and combination of sections and section content accordingly. I think this is the case here. I would not argue for the section on Services to be deleted from the Tarana railway station article just because "that doesn't fit the heritage format". We all bring our own interests to Wikipedia and I think articles are better for the reader from that diversity of interests. Nor do I ever agree with removing cited content because "I don't like it" (apart from where it is actually contrary to policy), so I don't see the harm in retaining the LGA since it is already in the article and is routinely used by the NSW State Heritage Register in its description of places, and does not do any apparent harm to the reader who isn't interested in heritage or local government. Indeed, the example mentioned Tarana railway station is a topic that would struggle for Wikpedia notability as a railway station without its heritage listing (take a look at its citations, the ones not mentioning its heritage are all run-of-the-mill timetables and other rail *service* content, not discussing the *station* itself in a way that would meet the "significant coverage" required for WP:GNG. Kerry (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Aside, I note that anyone wanting to improve the Tarana railway station article might like to add some content on the Oberton Tarana Heritage Railway and the reopening of the railway station building following heritage repair and restoration works, which were thrown up in my research just now. Kerry (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually this search throws up a number of heritage-restoration projects being undertaken on heritage-listed NSW railway stations]. Kerry (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Kerry. I agree that the heritage listings provide valuable information to articles that may otherwise struggle against the GNG. My concern was specifically about the opening paragraphs. MOS:OPEN says that these should avoid being too specific, and my position is rooted in how we interpret this policy, rather than a case of WP:IDL. I think we should aim for consistency in the lead paragraph of building and structure articles, no more, no less. I am also not suggesting that we should remove content to favour route and service information over heritage details for train stations!

The value of heritage register entries including LGAs is primarily related to administrative and planning functions. There are planning considerations that would require consultation with local councils should any proposed developments impact these protected sites. For the same reason, the listings also include Local Aboriginal Land Councils, so do we also include this information in the lead paragraphs? Likewise, Geographical Names Board listings for towns and suburbs also include cadastral parishes and counties for reasons of lands administration. We generally dont include this information in the lead paragraph of an article on a town or suburb either! Dfadden (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, it is completely appropriare to include the LGA in articles about populated places! That said, there have been many council amalgamations and deamalgamations in NSW since the 1990s. This has resulted in relistings and gazettals of localities and some weird quirks in the GNB. Eg, for the example you gave of Spring Hill being a suburb of Orange and a village in the Cabonne Council, it is actually both - the Cabonne Shire surrounds the City of Orange and incorporates the outlying villages. The Geographical Names Board features two listings as if they were distinct localities, but that's actually a little misleading as they both refer to the same general area. If you look closely, this listing states the locality spans two LGAs and the associated coordinates between the two listings only differ by a few seconds of both latitude and longitude. But now we risk digressing! Dfadden (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting chat. As a project team member who worked with Kerry, The Drover's Wife and others on the 2018 rollout of articles for each property listed on the NSW Heritage Register, I have a good understanding of the issues. In hindsight, I completely agree with Dfadden in that, within New South Wales, use of the LGA should be relatively rare. We would likely write:

Council Hall is a heritage-listed building on Foo Street, Bartown, in the Baz region of New South Wales.

Hence, there would be no mention of the ZZZ local government area. The proposal of It has been in the seat of the local government…. is confusing in several ways:

1. What is It…, as in 'It is in the….'?
2. Use of the seat of... within the context of LGAs is rare.

I acknowledge Kerry's genuine and innocent blindness to facts such as Cabonne Shire and Orange City being adjoining LGAs with Spring Hill / Spring Creek being on the boundary line. To me, the NSW Heritage properties require a retrofit of those articles where the LGA has been mentioned, to remove mentions of the LGA. The only exception to this may be where a disambiguation arises - which I would think would be exceptionally rare. In short, I'm support of any proposal to remove the reference to the LGA.

With total respect to Kerry, who did an inordinate amount of work to bring the NSW State Heritage project to life, just because it may be required in QLD, to mean that it must be adopted in NSW (or any other state) is an insufficient justification for wholesale implementation in NSW (and other states). I'm very happy to help with any project to correct; as proposed by Dfadden. For example, looking at Tarana railway station, this edit by me added the LGA of the City of Lithgow. Most folks would not know where Tarana is. So, perhaps a more apt description is Tarana, in the Central West region of New South Wales. I'd value thoughts on the addition of the broad geographic region, as opposed the LGA. Or do we simply record as Tarana, New South Wales; and consequently require the reader to try and find out where Tarana, Boggabri, Wingello, and/or Ariah Park, etc., or any other hamlet is located? Rangasyd (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Rangasyd! I have enormous respect for the work yourself, @Kerry and @The Drover's Wife and all involved put in to the SHR project. It was a large and overwhelmingly positive contribution. I do not seek to detract from that in any way by proposing minor tweaks such as this one.

Personally, I feel your suggestion to include regions in leads is preferable as this is already a much more common practice in NSW based articles. But especially given I'm proposing a change on the basis of consistency, I have to be pragmatic and comment that broad regions are not always well defined. There is often some overlap, such as with the Orana and Central Tablelands both also falling within the Central West. Or the South Western Slopes and Riverina. However, if the purpose is just to help the reader locate where a heritage-listed building or structure is, I would not object. Dfadden (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Dfadden. I suggest using the informal division of NSW Regions as the guide; with a bias towards the the sub-regions, instead of the regions. Yes, there are some grey areas. For example, does Wellington sit within the Central West, the Central Tablelands, or the Orana regions? The editor will need to make a call based on other articles on Wikipedia in Wellington.

In Victoria, somebody has gone and added postcodes as well. e.g. Richmond railway station, Melbourne has the address as: Punt Road, Richmond, Victoria 3121, City of Melbourne / City of Yarra, Australia. A bit long winded. I think the format of street, suburb, state, country as suggested above is sufficient. This his how you would address an envelope. Anybody wanting to know what LGA a suburb is in will find that information in the suburb article. Don't see any need for it to be included in other articles. Baraterena (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I do think having the postcode in the infobox is probably unnecessary, although if it is going to be included, it seems more appropriate in the infobox than it would if it was in the text. Dfadden (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we have achieved consensus here, but I do have some time over the weekend to make changes to the lead paragraphs to include sub-regions over LGAs as suggested by Rangasyd if there are no objections? Kerry, are you comfortable with this change? Dfadden (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dfadden: Go for it. WP:BOLD! Rangasyd (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Perth City Council election#Requested move 9 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Canon Sunter was an Anglican minister in Adelaide for nearly 20 years. Only one comment so far (mine, as major contributor) so additional inputs keep/delete would be welcomed. Doug butler (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fraser Island#Requested move 9 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Turnagra (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not from Australia. I am surprised however there is no article about the Castle Hill Showground, even though the Sydney Metro station is named after it. Can someone create an article on it? I feel I know nothing about it to do it myself. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Cusack (animator)#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCon 2024, run by Wikimedia Australia, will be held on Saturday 23 November 2024 in Adelaide.

Submissions are now invited and we encourage submissions from anyone interested in Wikipedia and its sister projects. Closing date for submissions is 31 July 2024.

Scholarships are also available to support people to attend in person.

Further information about the submission process and travel scholarships are available on meta-wiki.

Aliceinthealice (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

TISM 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) 04:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)