It seems the authoritative site for Australian honours which was www.itsanhonour.gov.au has been redeveloped (or is in the process of being redeveloped) as it is now at itsanhonour.ase-ws-pmc.p.azurewebsites.net
are effectively broken (just redirects to the new home page). There are around 150 links of these links. While I have not tested all of them, but the random selection I have tested are redirecting to the new home page, but it does appear that the content has survived but at a different location. For example, the link required by the Royal Exhibition Building article is at https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/australian-national-flag
So, at the moment, we probably have about 150 broken links for which will need manual repair (annoying but not impossible). The more worrying concern though is the links to awards to individuals. As you will see above, the old URL contains the number 1134671 while the new URL contains 91763 (i.e. there appears to be a change in the entry numbering). If they take away the old website, we will have 7K deadlinks without an easy way to fix them (unless someone can figure out a pattern that relates two numbering systems). However, the small handful I searched for on the Internet Archive appear to be there, but as they were archived on different dates (suggesting random archiving of individual links rather that a systemic archiving of all of the entries) so I really can't say that we have them archived. And even if we do have them all archived, I don't know if there is any way to find out the archiveurl automatically? Fixing these could be a major nightmare!
Because the top level domain is itsanhonour.ase-ws-pmc.p.azurewebsites.net is not the normal type of domain name for the Australian Government (normally gov.au), I think that we might be seeing some interim point in the redevelopment and not the final site so it may be premature to take any action until the dust settles. So just a heads up at this point. Kerry (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I have sent an email to the ItsAnHonour website contact and, since the website appears to be in the portfolio of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to Malcolm Turnbull too. Obviously I doubt the PM will read it personally but I am hoping that as a politician who regards himself as digitally savvy, whoever does read his email might realise he should not want a botched website redevelopment within his portfolio). I am starting to wonder if we should be actively campaigning all our Govts for stable URLs (or at least URLs that can be updated in some automated way). Kerry (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If you don't go through the site's search system, the link which appears in the address bar for an individual entry such as http://itsanhonour.ase-ws-pmc.p.azurewebsites.net/details/91763 when clicked on actually shows a Resource Not Found error, so it doesn't look like we can even link to the new entries. Like the post about the Gazetteer above, there appears to be no notice or consultation about these website changes, it's infuriating. I guess it depends on whether they will decommission the old Cold Fusion site. Using the host's domain name like that is incredibly sloppy and unprofessional. --Canley (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Bizarrely the new Advanced Search system seems to require you to type in some string of JSON or something rather than using a web form. --Canley (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we are seeing the site in the midst of the redevelopment. Why they are exposing their in-development work to the public is a mystery to me, but it seems to be yet another sign of some pretty unprofessional behaviour. I am starting to wonder if we should be running banners on Wikipedia saying "Govt Dept XXXX has just broken Wikipedia's citations by doing Blah Blah Blah". The Queensland State Archives is another redevelopment that has left a trail of deadlinks in its wake and the Queensland Place Name search redevelopment is full of bugs so there is some data (e.g. any name involving an apostrophe) that cannot be retrieved from it. Complaining to them after the event is doing nothing so I am starting to wonder if Name-and-Shame is the way to go. Because government data is authoritative, we need to cite it (and we are probably not the only website that does). Kerry (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I checked http://data.gov.au in the hope that the Honours Lists might be published as open data but I couldn't find anything that looked like it. This is how I get around the inadequacies of the Queensland Place Names, I have constructed my own spreadsheet based on their open data releases. If It's An Honour would publish their information as Open Data, then we could cite that and forget the insanity of their redesigned websites. Kerry (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I also checked data.gov.au and had the same thought, maybe that's worth concentrating onālobbying for an open data release of It's an Honour, rather than trying to keep up with a government that can't computer. --Canley (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There's pros and cons to citing a spreadsheet (or similar) on an open data portal rather than a URL. For Joe Public sitting at his computer, being able to click a citation URL and get taken to the specific entry of interest is probably what he wants rather than being pointed at a very large spreadsheet that he would have to download and then have software that will open it (OK, spreadsheet software is fairly common but it's not universal). Plus downloading and viewing large spreadsheets on mobile devices (especially phones) may not be a great experience. Also the spreadsheets are likely to be only dumped occasionally, so could be a year or so out of date relative to a website. I am increasingly archiving citation web pages as I write the citations so there's an archive url in the citation from the outset. Drawbacks: it takes longer to do a citation, and some webpages refuse to be archived. So for us, an ideal situation for large datasets like place namess, honours, etc is to set up a template for them, and then if the websites are working "nicely" then the template points them to the web page for the entry and when the websites are not working "nicely", we point them at the spreadsheet on the Open Data. I see the spreadsheet as more of a fall-back position, but as writers of Wikipedia, having access to the spreadsheet form allows you to do queries on the data not supported by the website interface. For example with place names, all I can do is look up an entry based on its name, I cannot do the query I need all the time "tell me all the towns, suburbs and bounded locations within this local government area" so I can create navboxes and the like. Kerry (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth sending DPMC an email alerting them to this situation (I doubt they want the under-development version of the site to be live) and the number of links they appear to be on track to break. They might also be able to explain the URL conversion process, and so allow for a bot to handle the fix-up job. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I just received a response from a DPMC email address, which apologised and hoped to be able to be able to sort something out for us in a few weeks. So, I guess we cross our fingers and hope. My request had been for either redirection or being given a spreadsheet of the before/after numbers so we could automate a translation. My preference is to do a translation as that will have the current URL in the citation and we can do that in parallel with replacing the citation as a whole with a {{cite ItsAnHonour}} template, which provide us with more downstream protection against domain name changes etc. If we get give redirection, we can probably construct the translation from that (being deliberately vague on the details). Kerry (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
An update on this: they seem to have changed the Search form so one can do an advanced search without knowing JSON! One pretty big error I noticed on the weekend, they have over 400 Knights of the Thistle listedāRobert Menzies should be the only Australian in the order, so it looks like the data has Knights Bachelor and Knights of the Thistle mixed up (although Menzies is listed correctly). --Canley (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I just tested a citation URL this morning and it appeared to work (well it was for the correct person). Not sure if we are seeing the old system or the new system (I can't remember what the old one looked like, can anyone tell), but I am hoping that this is a positive sign they have taken our concerns on board in some way. Fingers crossed! Kerry (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There still doesn't appear to be a way of creating a link to an individual honour and it is very hard to search.--Grahame (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Crazy goatI can't. They are insane. I cannot deal with fear and hatred which generates the disinformation they produce. I have tried, I have made my case here in the past. Good luck and thank you for drawing attention to the lack of neutrality on that article. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I demur to shiftchanges sane appraisal - I dont have the wikipedia equiavalent of on-hand-bodyguard or tactical logistic legal advisor, good luck to whoever goes in... JarrahTree08:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I've requested for some of the more defamatory statements to be oversighted from the history. Unfortunately I expect that particular article is going to continue to be a target for culture warriors. Lankiveil(speak to me)12:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC).
A recent edit changed the height in the infobox and broke the template with bad syntax. I can't see a working reference. Would someone please check the edits. By the way, if the new height is correct, the infobox only needs "|height = 192 cm" (no convert needed). Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
With some partial financial assistance from Wikimedia Australia, I will be attending Wikimania 2017 in August. If there is any topic on the program of particular interest to you or any news/gossip topics that you would like me to be alert to, please let me know at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au and I will do what what I can to get information back to you, but please note that there are several parallel sessions throughout the conferences so I cannot be everywhere at once and the offer is limited to talks in English. My personal focus is to learn more about templates, Wikidata, bot development and the toolserver environment, as I feel that the ongoing maintenance tasks that we so often talk about on this and related noticeboards (e.g. census updates, electoral redistributions, deadlink citations following server redevelopment, etc) are going to need more automated/semi-automated solutions so we can save human creativity for adding content. Kerry (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No fear there will be at least four five Australians known to be at the conference, so Kerry need not carry the load completely by her self - however at least two do not have 'reporting responsibilities' - feel free to leave general comments here. Note that the conference is in Montreal, Canada - and this will be the first conference in a few years to actually have more than two Australians present... JarrahTree00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I also will be at Wikimania (as a WMF employee). I'll be working on stuff to do with "tools for editors", in the broadest sense. SamWilson05:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
So by travelling to Montreal, I get to meet more Australians Wikipedians than I do at home. There's something ironic about all this?! (Actually I have already met Graham87, Wittylama and JarrahTree, so it's really only Sam Wilson I may meet for the first time). Kerry (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Witty, please direct us to any recording or transcript or summary of your presentation on the fair-use campaignāor perhaps at some stage you could update us if no recording was made? Tony(talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
will do. I always upload my slides to Slideshare and mark them as cc-by-sa. We'll see what kind of recordings Wikimania makes of its presentations this year. Wittylama23:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I've set up a RM discussion on the talk page for what you may know as New Zealand fur seal. Some controversy about whether to use scientific name or use common name. Please feel free to comment.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I have started this article on a significant emerging contamination issue in Australia. Any help from other experienced editors would be most appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The current lead sentence is a bit awkward - per MOS:BOLDAVOID ("the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence") it should probably be reworded, or the article renamed. I was considering rewording the sentence, but it's probably best to wait and see if the article scope changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
As has been stated, it's an issue relevant to other ADF bases, not just Williamtown. In fact it's relevant to anywhere in the world that uses/used Aqueous Film Forming Foam. Perhaps it would be better to add this to Firefighting foam#Health concerns, where there is already content. Despite the news reports, it's not a news item that gets a lot of coverage locally. There are a couple of properties with handwritten signs on their fences but that's really all. It doesn't get as much coverage as the bid to remove Salt Ash Air Weapons Range or the general aircraft noise complaints. Hunter Water doesn't even seem concerned, despite the RAAF base sitting right on top of the Grahamstown Dam catchment area. To be honest, some of the complaints are a bit of a beat up, like one person complaining he can't grow veggies in has yard, not the he's ever grown veggies in his yard. Even the first reference in the article has a bit of this. For example "That would leave only two NSW rivers open to commercial prawning: the Hawkesbury and the Clarence." Apparently they forgot Raymond Terrace, 20km upstream from Fullerton Cove. It's also a misnomer to refer to this as the "Williamtown chemical contamination" as it affects RAAF Base Williamtown, Williamtown, Tomago and to a lesser extent Salt Ash but mainly the effect is in Fullerton Cove. Ironically, the people in Williamtown who I've spoken to (right next to the base) don't have any issues, although their eyes did have a twinkle in them when they mentioned "class-action". --AussieLegend (ā) 13:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It is an issue around RAAF Base Edinburgh in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, too. So far, there seems to be acknowledgement that there the chemicals have been detected in several wetlands and aquifers near the base. The local councils closed the wetlands for water extraction where it had been used for irrigation of market gardens and a school.[6] I've seen bore drilling rigs around a few weeks ago, so I suspect they are making a closer grid of testing holes to model the plume in the aquifer. [7] shows a list of 18 sites that the Department of Defence is investigating. --Scott DavisTalk00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
By contrast, Hunter Water released a fact sheet in April 2017 saying that the Tomago sandbeds hadn't been affected but that 3 bores had been isolated "as a precaution". --AussieLegend (ā) 01:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
these toxic firefighting foams have been a big issue for months at the base at Oakey, Queensland (although there is no mention of it in that wIkipedia article on in Oakey Army Aviation Centre) so yes this is widespread and probably should be covered in general in one article to which specific articles like Williamstown, Oakey etc can link while providing any local specific info. Kerry (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
New South Wales Heritage Register appears to be CC-BY!
Summary.We now have 3 states with CC-BY heritage registers:QLD, NSW and SA. Jolly good news! Having done the articles for the QHR, I am not keen to put my hand up to do another state. But if anyone is interested, I can probably help though with some tooling to webscrape the info and partially generate the article, which is a massive time-saver. I'm not back in Oz until mid-Sept though (sitting in Montreal airport at the moment) so I can't do anything until then. Kerry (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Having said "go wild", I should note that my random sampling of the NSW State Register suggests that the information available about each site is minimal, see this example. The Wikipedia article based on it would be a stub (in this case, the article already exists and says a lot more th the Heritage Register!) Whereas the Qld HR articles are rated generally as C class as there is a fair bit of history and description of the site compared to NSW. But still, once an article exists, other people may add to it, so better a stub than nothing. And the SA Heritage Register is worse, see this example. I don't think you can squeeze a stub out of that, so I would be suggesting just adding it to a list/table of heritage properties in the relevant town/suburb locality. Kerry (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Does that mean all the images are public domain as well? If so that would be quite significant. (Your example had 15 images, but maybe that's an exception rather than the standard). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The NSW copyright page does not limit the CC-BY to text only (some do) so I believe the images are included in the CC-BY licensing. On their copyright page, under the Exclusions, it says
"Wherever a third party holds copyright in material presented on this website, the copyright remains with that party. Their permission may be required to use the material and you should contact that party directly. OEH has made all reasonable efforts to: clearly label material where the copyright is owned by a third party"
So in the absence of any clear labelling as being the copyright of a third party, I believe we can use the images too from the NSW site. I have not checked the SA site. Kerry (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a listĀ ?
Do we have a definitive list in the project anywhere of good Aussie sources, and for example, what they hold, their copyright status, paywall status, access tips, and how useful they are? If not let me know and I will start one for all of us to add to. Aoziwe (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone mind helping to beef this up for review or actually reviewing? Was surprised to find we don't have an article on this person yet! So tried to fill the gap. Thanks. Donama (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm still planning to stop by to follow up on my MilHist A-Class review, but it never hurts for someone not so immersed in military history to have a look if they're interested...Ā :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I have created a basic BLP on this recently deceased radio personality. Please check it out as I did it rather quickly! 220ofBorg07:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to those who helped expand & clean the page up, especially Canley. Does anyone have any idea what he died of? I haven't been able to find any info on it. 220ofBorg07:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Wiki Love Monuments
As you may of heard Australia is participating in WLM for the first time, as part of the preparation for that I have created List of Australian heritage lists I have included links to list where they exist, if know of other list articles please add them to the list. For each state I have created a capitol area section and rgional section, where possible regional areas should be identified. All help and additions appreciated. Gnangarra12:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Sexual assaults at unversities
A group of IPs, likely all the same individual, has been adding recent news reports about sexual assaults to university articles,[8][9] In the past, discussions have generally found that these contravene WP:NOTNEWS etc, so extra eyes on the affected articles would help. --AussieLegend (ā) 11:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whether there's an article on that HRC report (or the "Broderick" report for the University of Sydney, yet to be released). If so, one could redirect editors to those articles? Tony(talk) 13:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea if they exist. I did try directing one of the IPs to take up the matter on the talk page,[10] but he/she/it just reverted with the edit summary "Your pro-rape, misogynist edit has been opposed - take it to the talk page".[11] An attempt to force the IP to the talk page (he/she/it has been reverted at other articles) was fruitless. The admin said that I should try usiing the talk page. That advice is pretty useless if the IP won't do so. Honestly, I'm siick to death of the wankers that attack these articles. I don't give a flying fuck any more. Let somebody else deal with it. The article can go to shit for all I care. deliberately not signed
@AussieLegend: This admin will back you up if that happens again. I can understand adding these sections to an article in good faith, but describing another editor as "pro-rape" for removing them is not acceptable no matter how righteous the cause. I appreciate your work in keeping these articles free of such recentism and clutter. Lankiveil(speak to me)06:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC).
Hey Aussie Legend, I never called you names or whatever else your falsely accusing, don't misrepresent my edits please. But ironically I believe you may have just tried to call me a "wanker", so have a Bex and a lie down? And yes Kerry the HRC report has been released, thanks for noticing. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't falsely accusing anything. I was talking about the editor who made this edit. That said, I opposed the edit here and you made no attempt to justify its inclusion on the talk page before reverting.[12] Nor did you do it here. Or here. I suggest you familiarise yourself wiith WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.
OK, well don't call people 'wankers' then link to my edits, OK! Please stop using foul mouthed comments when referring to others, it's unbecoming and uncivil. - Pot, kettle, black. -- 121.216.192.249 (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the material added to the Australian National University's article, it does seem to be a significant event in the ANU's history, and I've moved the material there. I've also edited it to improve the wording (eg, to remove the clunky 'it was reported' construction) and note the university's response. Placing this material in sections called 'controversy' as seems to have been done in multiple articles does readers a disservice given that this has not actually been a controversy as far as I'm aware - all of the universities appear to have accepted the findings and have stated that they will address the problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
And it goes on
The saga continues at Talk:University of Newcastle (Australia)#Student Life, with 121.216.192.249 doing nothing to justify inclusion in the article. Instead I've been accused of WP:OWNERSHIP, and the IP is now just parroting back what I've said to them, making me think they're more interested in trolling (see this edit summary) than contributing to a productive discussion. I fear that if I just ignore them, they'll just bulldoze their edits into the article anyway so some extra eyes at the discussion would be appreciated, whatever the outcome might be. --AussieLegend (ā) 09:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article continues to be plagued by a range of IPs, all belonging to Telstra, one of which started the problems today by arbitrarily declaring consensus even though there is none (there has been no discussion in over a week!). Notably, neither that IP or a registered user who did the same, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:EDITWAR, received warnings from this IP. Fortunately an admin saw what was going on and protected the article. However, for now it's only for three days and I can't see the other parties participating in rational discussion based on what I've seen over the past 17 days. More editors are really needed at the discussion. I tried to stay away but I just couldn't be that irresponsible. Somebody has to deal with the crap, which even included some drive by reverts of good faith edits, amazingly also from the same address pools. --AussieLegend (ā) 20:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
After protection expired there was no activity in the article but a couple of helpful posts from editors on the talk page. However, the anonymous editor has returned. The latest edit seems to be from an anonymous proxy. This editor (I'm pretty sure it's the one person) isn't interested in discussing the edits. He/she just makes a single post on the talk page and restores the content despite there being no consensus to add it. --AussieLegend (ā) 04:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
List of places in Victoria by population
List of places in Victoria by population was created in 2010 and nominated for deletion by me soon after. There was no consensus to delete and so the article has been allowed to fester since then. In October 2016 the article was updated with content supposedly from the 2016 census,[13] but which is still sourced to the 2011 census. As we all know the census data wasn't released until 27 June 2017. As a result, this article seems innacurate and really requires updating by someone who knows what they're doing. Is anyone interested? --AussieLegend (ā) 06:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
A number of these articles were created several years ago and most were deleted, the WA one several times,[14] with the AfD outcomes being to redirect them to List of cities in Australia by population. The issue had previously been discussed here, in this discussion, which is why I suggested that this new proposal be discussed here as well. I still have the same concerns as I did when the articles were first created, and those concerns are supported by the situation at List of places in Victoria by population, which I raised here only 9 days ago, above. I note that Jamskappa's proposal seems based on the remaining articles that weren't deleted, and like them, uses {{cite web}} instead of the much simpler {{Census 2011 AUS}} and doesn't even include the 2016 data so it's already horribly outdated. As an aside "formatnum" isn't needed for values that won't change. Props to Jamskappa for being bold, but the creator of the previous group of articles was going to keep those updated and that never happened. --AussieLegend (ā) 08:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The 2016 Data isn't out yet for the Urban Centres and Localities. It will be out later this in september, so thats why they aren't there. As for the other stuff, that can be fixed. All of the tables are clearly defined as to exactly what statistics are included there, and it shows a lot more than List of cities in Australia by population does. Jamskappa (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, it only needs to be updated every 5 years, when there is a census, because the Australian Bureau of Statistics doesn't release predicted populations for urban areas and localities, so there aren't huge maintenance needs for this article. Jamskappa (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"Places" aren't limited to Urban Centres and Localities. This was the problem with the original articles. They were at "List of cities in <state> by population", which was incorrect as a lot of the entries weren't cities. "Place" covers a lot more. {{Infobox Australian place}} is used in articles about cities, towns, suburbs, localities, regions, LGAs, cadastral units, protected areas and even some areas that do not fall into any of the preceding descriptions so the articles have the potential to become behemoths. Yes, it's true that they only need updating once every 5 years but that won't happen. Look at List of places in Victoria by population to see what can and does happen. --AussieLegend (ā) 13:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If it is not going to be updated, is that really a reason why something shouldn't be an article on wikipedia. Most articles need to be updated, and many aren't. I am yet to see any other reasons why it shouldn't become an article. Jamskappa (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I just don't think that that is a real reason for not making it an article. It is currently up to date. It only needs to be updated every 5 years, and even if it is not up to date, like what Bahnfrend said, there is still useful information. Jamskappa (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the draft article is useful. As much as anything else, the inclusion of Ellenbrook in the first table led me to look at the Ellenbrook, Western Australia article, and find out that Ellenbrook was "designed and developed as a self-sustainable community" (something of which I was not previously aware). I also think the word "places" is the appropriate word to use in the title, because the article has three tables each covering a different type of place, one being "urban centres" (as officially defined by the Bureau of Statistics), the second being local government authorities (as officially constituted), and the third being regions (again as officially defined). In light of the clear way the three types of place are defined, and the differences between them, the article is definitely not an unwieldy list of poorly defined and/or useless information. Subject to the following comments, I therefore think it should be published. My main comment is that the article should remain a draft until it includes the 2016 data in the first table. I also agree that {{Census 2011 AUS}} should be used. Finally, the third table should say that the information in it is correct as at a specific year, and ideally, for consistency, the year should be 2016, not 2017. Yes, the article and its Victorian counterpart really should be kept up to date, and, ultimately, may not be. But that is true of many, many, Wikipedia articles that are not kept up to date, and this one, if amended as I have suggested, would at least have the virtue of stating that the information in it is accurate as at specific years, and therefore would always contain information that is at least of historical interest even if nobody has bothered to keep it up to date. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Australian terrorism articles
An editor has been systematically nominating for deletion many Australian terrorism-related articles. Interested editors may want to weigh in on the following:
Australian-based admins may also want to consider whether this mass nomination is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The news store was good for providing online sources for the period from the late 80s until now. It looks like the SMH version of it still has the same functionality, just at a different URL. Hack (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Mary Fairfax article used word-for-word in the Australian
Hmmm. This sentence in Mary FairfaxLady Fairfax was a Chairman, Founder and President of the Friends of The Australian Ballet and was the president of the Australian Opera Foundation during the 1970s appears word-for-word - capitalisation and all - in this article in the Australian Lady Mary Fairfax dies aged 95 (paywall). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This page may need to be watched for a while, as an IP had her deceased for bout 3.5 hours today, here.
The deceased person found on a property owned by Ward was renting it. See [15]. 220ofBorg06:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
yeah it seams to be, considering how many factories this one had across NSW & QLD along with agents in every state plus a few patents as well, it was suprising it wasnt even mentioned in any place articles just in passing in Garnets article. Gnangarra12:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I would note a couple of points. Firstly, there are often limited sources for business histories. While significant govt info must be archives in the various national/state archives, there is no requirement to archive material of private companies, so often the main information sources are often produced by the company, which clearly is a bias. Secondly there is a lot of editor hostility towards articles about businesses. I've done a few stubs for prominent Queensland businesses and had other editors object that we shouldn't be advertising businesses or similar comments (I had no conflict of interest wrt to those businesses). Both of these issues contribute to our poor coverage of Australian businesses in Wikipedia. In Qld, for the past several years, State Library having noticed the lack of business history and has been working with some other Qld orgs to run the Queensland Business Leaders Hall of Fame which recognises Qld businesses and businesspeople which have made a significant contribution to Qld. I note that, like all SLQ web content, the *text* (but not the images) is CC-BY licensed, so if anyone wants to write some business history, the SLQ Business Leaders website is "low hanging fruit". We also have the Queensland Greats which is honouring individuals and organisations for their contributions, although annoyingly that website is CC-BY-ND so the information is there but we cannot reuse it on Wikipedia as is. Does anyone know if other states have similar initiatives? Kerry (talk) āPreceding undated comment added 00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Article need for "Young Australia" or similar
Looking through the WP articles for the history of Oz 19th century, beyond the conversation around federation, we seem to be lacking something that discusses "Young Australia" (a.k.a. native-born 'white' Australians) and their actions and thoughts that progressed the political climate of the l9th century both to federation and independence. Looking at Patchett Martin's essay s:Australia and the Empire/Native Australians and Imperial Federation and articles like Australian Natives' Association, it seems to me that we are not capturing the essence of the time.
While on that matter, if anyone is able to find a scanned copy of John Dunmore Lang's "The Coming Event, or Freedom and Independence for the Seven United Provinces of Australia" (1870) then please let me know as I would like to get it onto Wikisource. ā billinghurstsDrewth05:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that George Lazenby, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by ā MusikBottalk00:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
contains links to the more details of each session which include (where applicable) videos, slides, summaries of discussions (mostly on Etherpad) and/or other resources.
I think its wishful thinking on your part regarding VE usage and the declining numbers of active editors. I don't see the technical barrier as marking up text is not difficult. Motivation to apply yourself to building an encyclopedia, where much of the easy work is complete, is the issue. I believe the majority of edit-training workshop participants who mastered the editing have failed to contribute. This is not to say I don't support VE or edit-training. Because motivation is the main issue affecting participation I support the integration of an incentive reward system whereby editors can receive bitcoinmicropayments on the basis of merit. This is what would take Wikipedia to the next level, to bring an influx of new users who could annihilate our backlogs, for example. Jimmy isn't interested. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Please fix the length of Macintyre River. 319 km is a wrong number (cited source describes only one part of the river). More correctly would be to sum up 156 km and 319 km as done in de-wiki, or at least to take 380 km from here. ā Vort (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Sharing log ins
For paywalls the solution is to share log ins, among whoever wants them. Could someone email me a Courier Mail website log in please? How could we set this up properly for everyone so it doesn't just happen on an ad hoc basis? I wouldn't be interested in any concerns regarding news web sites and their proprietary interests as that is not relevant to our work here. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see an impressive example of infoboxes generated from Wikidata, take a look at articles about telescopes, e.g. Anglo-Australian_Telescope
See the lovely infobox? Go into edit and all you see is {{infobox telescope}}. Yes, the definition of the template infobox telescope entirely constructs the infobox using Wikidata. Then take a look at the Portuguese article on the same telescope.
Again, a pretty Portuguese-language infobox visually but again in edit we find just {{Info/TelescĆ³pio}}. Again the hard work is done in the template definition on Portuguese Wikiepdia, drawing the data from Wikidata, so we get consistency of the data across the different language Wikipedias.
Of course, both English and Portuguese templates are free to display whatever Wikidata they think interesting in whatever presentation they like (maybe one likes its coords as decimal and the other as DMS or something) as they each have their own template definition.
And in an individual article about telescopes, the fully-automatic infobox can be overridden if necessary. In English Wikipedia, you write {{infobox telescope|field=value|ā¦}} to provide additional fields or to override one of the values drawn from Wikidata. So individual articles still have flexibility where itās needed.
I do believe that Wikidata is important to the future of Wikipedia and that we should all make an effort to learn more about it and show our support when people propose to use it.
At Wikimania 2016, Mike Peel created an {{Infobox sportsperson/Wikidata}} for me. You can see it in use on Madeline Groves. The idea was that we could make better use of the many articles on Australian athletes that are created in other languages. Note how the infobox has been translated into French and Norwegian. (And how certain fields are overridden in the Englisdh vertsion.) But the use of Wikidata was controversial, and I didn't go ahead and mass-convert the Olympian and Paralympian articles. . Hawkeye7(discuss)22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the positive feedback with this work.Ā :-) The telescope infoboxes on frwp are also drawn from Wikidata (but using completely different code). It's fun to add info once in a central place, and it's instantly used on three+ different language Wikipedias. I'm slowly rolling the code out across other infoboxes, e.g. see {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}, {{Infobox artwork/wikidata}}, {{Infobox person/wikidata}}, amongst others, and I'm happy to help with adding wikidata support to other infoboxes. However, it is somewhat controversial with some users (see Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q as currently-running examples), and the roll-out does need to be done carefully to make sure it's always improving each article it's used in. But I think it's going to be very worthwhile in the long run.Ā :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It is exciting when you add data into Wikidata and then see it appear in other Wikipedias. I added Philip Ruddock's new role as Mayor of Hornsby to Wikidata and it automatically appeared in his French language infobox. Brilliant! I was a sceptic re: Wikidata, now a passionate convert. Very excited about seeing more use of Wikidata with Australian locality articles in particular. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
These ones might work, but expect trouble ahead. The system for coding these does not appear to communicate with en.WP editors. Tony(talk) 02:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Mike, like most en.WPians I've communicated with on this matter, I have only a foggy understanding of the very things about Wikidata we all need to know. I believe that's Wikidata's and the WMF's fault, not ours.
First, we need an easy manual-type explanation of Wikidata's aims, processes, procedures, and where it's up to at the moment. Minimally technical and as brief as possible given the task, with tech stuff linked where appropriate to avoid too much clutter. Front and centre of this should be information about how as editors it will affect us, and how we might be involved. For example, can we edit what is churned out of Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. Is there a liaison person at Wikidata? Is there a central noticeboard (in English) that we can view and contribute to?
Second, it's patently obvious that Wikidata people don't communicate with the style-guide community on en.WP. This augurs very badly for future relations. Tony(talk) 01:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony, the first thing you need to understand is that "Wikidata people" are mostly the same en.WP editors you have worked with for years (such as myself), so an us-and-them approach should not apply. Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Wikidata and the English Wikipedia's stylistic integrity seems to indicate you have a concern that Wikidata (the content, its deployment or maybe both) is coming from a cadre of German programmers with scant regard for Manual of Style issues or consensus on the English Wikipedia. This is not the caseāthe data and its use is community generated either from the articles themselves or curated by editors who pay the same care and attention to the MOS as any experienced enWP editors. Also, as it's almost all linked data (concepts and items linked by properties), there is very little scope for style issues to arise (things such as date formatting, thousands separators can be handled in the infobox coding). That said there is some controversy about the style, scope and use of labels and description fields. In fact, it would actually be easier to address and fix MOS issues on a faster and broader scale with Wikidata and infobox coding than has been possible beforeālet's say there is consensus in the MOS community to amend the style guide: a single tweak to the infobox code or updates to the underlying data on Wikidata and it's done, rather than making hundreds or thousands of edits to the affected articles.
This is not some massive automated edict being globally forced on projects without communication or consensus by the WMF or Wikidataāthere are clear benefits to some careful, managed Wikidata use on Wikipedia such as population updates, language translation, styling and formatting and so on, and there is a clear desire to use Wikidata only where it will make things better and easier whilst making it possible for users to override and edit the data. Changes to coding of infoboxes and other templates, what data they present and how they present it has been happening for yearsārather than asking for some kind of Wikidata liaison officer or noticeboard to talk to the "Wikidata people", such issues can be dealt with by contacting the editor(s) who made the change and discussing it as it always has been. Communication can be improved of courseāit always can on every projectābut feel free to contact myself or other editors who work on Wikidata if you have any further queries or concerns. --Canley (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of Wikidata, and I've made a number of contributions over there. But I do think that there are some further technical developments that need to be made before it can be adopted widely into Wikipedia, the most important of those being inclusion of (relevant) Wikidata changes into Wikipedia watchlists so that vandalism can be picked up more easily. There are a lot of criticisms of Wikidata that are unwarranted, but I feel that these (along with the lack of a specific Wikidata BLP policy) are two that are serious, yet also actionable. Lankiveil(speak to me)09:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC).
Last month we discussed Draft:Williamtown chemical contamination here and the general agreement was that the subject covered far more than Williamtown. However, the draft has been moved to article space, apparently ignoring this discussion and concentrating only on the Williamtown naming aspect, which really presents a limited, and rather biased view of the issue. I'd like to reopen the previous discussion, with a view to moving this information to a more appropriate article, whether that be a more appropriately named article, or a completely different article altogether. --AussieLegend (ā) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Its very Australian to ignore problems, hope they will go away and when someone mentions the problem to lightly scoff at their suggestion. Hence, crickets. What has Trumballs statements about other political parties and candidates have to do with him? Such a quote is not providing knowledge about the subject. It is providing propaganda from the subject. Oh no, error, we lose. So Trumballs opinion is only relevant if you are bringing your bias. A neutral reader would wonder why is that quote selectively provided. Why doesn't the article have a quote about what voting for his own party would be like? The answer is because that would be propaganda. Notice that User: Nick-D agreed with me and yet consensus did not emerge. I've worked out a better way. Its more semantical than the old model. Please tell Jimmy there are not enough good Aussies running around our big, wide, brown land tidying up things. Tell him that the bush-rangers are starting to run the show and that some sort of system is required to quash the problem. Please Kerry, I would have thought your background in risk management may have played a part here. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Internet Archive Wayback Machine being temperamental
If anyone is experiencing the "bummer" message when trying to archive a webpage for a Wikipedia citation, I advise you to persist or try later because it seems to be a bit temperamental today. When it failed to archive a couple of webpages for me, I assumed these must be sites that prohibited crawlers. However, when it failed to save webpages from sites I often archive, I became suspicious and, found that repeating the request a few times would eventually lead to success. No idea what the problem is, just that there is a problem. Kerry (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm running this in November, I've approached WMUK for a Ā£250 reward for producing articles on Oxford and Welsh dictionaries biographies. I wondered if WMAus would be interested in putting up a prize for people who create the most missing ADB entries on women? All Australian wikipedians here are very welcome to sign up as a participant and create during November.ā¦ Dr. Blofeld17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there nobody from Wikimedia Australia here who'd be interested in supporting the contest with a prize for Australian women? Currently over 100 people signed up.ā¦ Dr. Blofeld09:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Please have a look on the internet for Wikimedia Australia for the access to WMAU - this noticeboard is not connected.
I'm not sure where else to raise this, but while it's really exciting that the NSWSHR has gone CC-BY-SA, I'm really not liking the rollout of the articles so far: see, for example, Newcastle City Hall (Australia). The actual SHR listing has a detailed history section and a detailed description which haven't been copied across, but the statement of significance has, despite the fact it's an uneditable block-quote that takes up half the article. When Kerry did the QHR, the statements of significance formed only a part of the material copied across, didn't dominate the articles, and served as a bit of extra explanation at the bottom of those articles. In contrast, the mass addition of only the Statements of Significance as huge blockquotes - at times even dropped into lead sections (!) I think is often making these articles worse. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Although I did think it was a bit of a nit-picking process at the time, I think there was benefit in my approach of writing (ok, generating) a few example articles for the Queensland Heritage Register, getting feedback here, incorporating the feedback and repeating until we'd reached consensus (or exhaustion) on the layout of the QHR article before I started generating them in earnest and rolling them out. As a result of this process, all the QHR articles have 3 main sections:
the History section which explains why the property was built and what happened to it or at it over time
the Description section which describes the property in architectural terms (lots of parapets and quoins and pilasters)
the Heritage listing section which included the significance of the property against certain standard criteria
In the QHR entries, the significance was almost always expressed in terms of things already discussed in the History or Description sections. This allowed me to reduce the significance statements if they were a bit too wordy (as it was usually repetition of information in the History and Description sections).
I think the NSW HR is a bit more wordy than the QHR when it comes to significance statements. But I do notice that the NSW HR entries tend to provide the significance as one big paragraph, which looks even lumpier when displayed as a blockquote. In the QHR, there were sub-headings for the criteria etc which broke down the significance into more bite-sized chunks with more white space, which is easier on the eye. So I think it is a layout issue and a bit of copy-editing more than anything else. While using an article generator (as I did) does save a lot of work, it can't do everything and some things must be tidied up manually (and being older and wiser now for having done it for the last 3 years, there is a lot more that needs doing that you might think at the outset, I learned a lot as I went along). Kerry (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the block quote stuff is a layout issue, but that doesn't solve the problem of only the one part of the NSWSHR content that people can't edit being copied over en masse. The statements of significance would be far less out of place if they weren't being plopped randomly into otherwise stubby articles left, right and centre and instead sat below the relevant sections as in Queensland, fleshing out those articles in the process. The QHR project would have been bloody awful if you'd left out the history and description sections and just transferred the statements of significance, better formatting aside. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
In particular:
(a) "Its first made reference in Council documents, and has since become somewhat of a district within the region" [the latter part also should be sourced];
(b) "... in Illawarra, as the escarpment heads inland forms several hills along with it, thus ...";
(c) "... less populated compared to other areas in the LGA and Illawarra, ..., as compared to other areas in Shellharbour LGA" [needless almost-repetition]. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.51.81 (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Census 2016 AUS template with the Visual Editor
I have added the TemplateData for Template:Census 2016 AUS so now users of the Visual Editor and the new wikitext editor will get a nice pop-up box soliciting the fields making it easier to create this template. One question for those of you who use this template a lot. Do you mostly use it with "|quick=on"? It seems to my quick random check of some pages isthat we do normally do so. If so, I can set up the TemplateData to pre-populate that field as "on" (the user can override it if they want). This saves work when creating a census citation (at the expense of making more work for the person who doesn't want it "on"). By the way, if you haven't haven't heard of it, the new wikitext editor is where you edit the source (as you are accustomed to) but you get the Visual Editor toolbar and its more useful tools - enable it at Preferences > Beta features > New wikitext mode). Kerry (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Open Access week - University of Notre Dame Australia
see Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/UNDA 251017 for details, in short I'm giving a talk from 13:30 until 15:30 at the University of Notre Dame Australia Fremantle campus then heading over to Little creatures Next Door from 16:30, all are welcome the talk is free you just need to register details on the meetup page. Gnangarra11:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Now a common sight on the OZ project - unabashed - [16] - have left comments but seem to be ignored - what with people increasingly thinking they can edit their own articles - what is there to worry aboutĀ ?
When is someone going to create an internal template for new users to see that 'if this about...'
From your recent edits to Australian Country Party (2004) it appears that you are either the subject of the article or have a very close association with the subject of the article.
To maintain the integrity and independence of Wikipedia, there are very strong policies and guidelines against editors editing such articles, and we seek your cooperation accordingly.
All reliably sourced constructive edits are welcome in Wikipedia, but failure to take heed of the above is likely to result in your account being blocked.
Hi all. The ABS had released the Urban Centre/Locality data on Quick Stats etc. Time for another mix'n'match exercise on Wikidata? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"I will guarantee that interest rates are always going to be lower under a Coalition government"
John Howard, His Wikipedia article (our WikiProject)
"more progressive on the question of Aboriginal rights than the Labor and Greens position"
Tony Abbott, His Wikipedia article (our WikiProject)
Are you kidding me?I am paying you.
The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey article is under attack. Some editors will not follow our policy of writing prose in proper English and instead want to emphasise opposition through an embedded list. They are removing key facts from the lead on the basis of duplication or significance and removing referenced sentences explaining support from Christians with false claims that this is explained elsewhere in the article. There is also excessive use of quotations. The same poor editing practices were demonstrated last year on the Safe Schools Coalition Australia article. Please stand up for quality and for following our policies and guidelines. Please defend neutrality on our articles which attract religious fanatics. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The list issue in Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey is now dealt with, but there continue to be significant breaches of WP:NPOV. In particular, a few editors are heavily biasing parts of the article to 'No' or conservative viewpoints. It would be great to have more experienced WP editors contributing to make it more balanced. Boneymau (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Could I please get some assistance in the removal off-topic material and trivia from this article? A biased editor is disrupting by inserting trivial news reports. Discussion on the article talk page has achieved little. The issue has not been deal with. Again, I am asking for support on this from my fellow Australian editors. I plan on removing more of the silly insignificant commentary from this article. Please help. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This project is failing. It lacks integrity and its such a shame. There are numerous (countless) propaganda statements in our articles for Australian politicians (just for starters). Its an enormous big mess. Why do our articles for former Prime Ministers contain their speech, their political messages, their propaganda and their opinions on their work? Why does our article for our current prime minister state that "Turnbull repeatedly claimed prior to the election that a vote for a Labor, Green or Independent candidate was a vote for "the Labor/Green/Independent alliance"? What has his statements about other political parties and candidates have to do with him? This is what I want to know. Its not just a matter of over-usage of quotations. Something systemic is wrong here. This doesn't seem appropriate, does it? Our policy is no propaganda of any kind. Please don't look the other way. Propaganda is dangerous. Please help me. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if The Guardian can dig into this scandal. They should contact Wikimedia Australia for comment. Someone should investigate this in depth because its not a casual mistake. Running political interference on major internet platforms is big news today. US lawmakers are investigating various campaigns. No porn on youtube and no propaganda on Wikipedia. That is what I say. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that this is a function of the number of editors interested in working on these topics. We're spread very thinly across articles on literally hundreds of active politicians and political issues, so bad edits will go undetected. We also don't have anything like the concentration of editors interested in developing good quality biographies of politicians that have developed articles on key US politicians to a good standard. If you have concerns about particular articles, seeking page protection has in the past been successful in stopping politically-motivated disruption and issues can be raised at WP:COIN. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I hear you. I will continue editing as such and I note your suggestions. I would add that I don't think this is just a wikt:clusterfuck or a wikt:comedy of errors. I have had my say and I pleased to have done so. I will try not annoy anyone about this and to resolve any neutrality issues on talk pages. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm also not disagreeing with you - there are any number of examples of political staffers editing articles on politicians for their parties for instance. This board and the board for the Australian politics wiki project can also be good locations to seek input to resolve issues. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
While I fully agree that Wikipedia is not a place for POV, I disagree that statements like the example given "Turnbull repeatedly claimed prior to the election that a vote for a Labor, Green or Independent candidate was a vote for "the Labor/Green/Independent alliance"" constitute POV. If it had said "in the election, a vote for Labor ..." citing Malcolm Turnbull's comment, then I think it would be POV as we would be presenting his opinions as a fact and implying that Malcolm Turnbull is a reliable source on voting in elections in which he has an obvious conflict of interest. But it seems to me that the original example is NPOV because it is quite explicit that this is Turnbull's opinion (and assuming it's cited in reliable sources that he did indeed say such things), I don't see any problem. By its very nature, politics is almost entirely POV. But when we write about it, we make it NPOV by clearly attributing POV to the person/organisation in a context in which it is clear they are a politician, political party or lobby group or have some conflict of interest in the matter. Kerry (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
We banned any kind of propaganda. Expressions of opinion can be propaganda. The point of view presented by such statements is that what Turnball said provides knowledge on the subject. It assumes that what Turnball said is relevant to the election. We don't know that, do we? If it is relevant, then it must be propaganda. We must not present facts selectively. Also I don't care for the name of our Prime Minister, or spelling mistakes. Those can be easily corrected, unlike the mess here. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Back on trackĀ ?
I believe I have presented a politician's POVs in an NPOV manner here? At the risk of opening the box even further - any comment anyone - in the interests of getting this back on track. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I said this at the time, but (even with the most serious original problems having been fixed) it's a bit of a mess - the greatest weight is given to an obscure award for something pretty random, the Great Barrier Reef stuff is a contextless statement of opinion, and it is vague about climate change, while the rest is just statements of positions not tied together in any real way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I have thought this through a bit further and I now suggest your points are very valid here too. Writing about POV in a NPOV is difficult as indicated above by others. We need to rely on RS and these are subject to the systemic bias in the community at large as to what is documented by others. Your point about the "obscure award" on face value might initially be thought to be correct, but if you look at the RS context it received, at least one, possibly two, orders of magnitude more reporting across Australia and even overseas than nearly every other relevant event would indicate I suggest that in this context it is by no means obscure. So what is the balanced POV in this case? As per the wiki approach to value adding editing, if things are vague then add to them, if things lack context then add to them. But just because we do not like something does not mean it is wrong, especially if it is referenced with RS. If the section is a bit of a mess, but it is is RSed correctly, then perhaps it reflects the nature of the subject? And this is where our NPOV may reflect a POV in the subject? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Politics is all POV. It's one person's (or one party's) opinion on how to make Australia a better place and why. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV tells us to make sure we say who said the opinion (with a RS that they did actually say it). I would add that one should do so in a way so that the reader knows the person is a politician, a lobbyist, a crusader or whatever. I tend to disagree with the removal of direct quotes by politicians and replacement with a synthesised opinion of a Wikipedia editor as to the meaning of their original comment. Although some people seem to think doing this is WP:NPOV, I think it is WP:OR. I think the Bible got it right when it said "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (I think the "condemned" part is particularly appropriate for politicians). I'd also throw into the mix WP:NOTNEWS which I think has been seriously forgotten in articles like Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. Remember the old saying "today's news, tomorrow's fish-n-chip wrapping". Kerry (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Shiftchange. I have limited time but would like to help clean out the "propaganda". My problem is that I treat all politically material regardless with a high degree if cynicism and skepticism to the point of perhaps constructed naivety as to what is good and bad, ie it all might be bad and hence miss the good stuff. Can you provide some examples of what I might look for. Aoziwe (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Possible lack of Australian editors here at Wikipedia
Hi,
A quick look at statistics displays something I find to be worthy of mention. There are just over 740 (including all registered accounts, active or not), yet there are nearly 184,000 articles on Wikiproject Australia. Divided the amount of articles by the amount of Australia-based Wikipedians and you get about 250.
That, to me at least, makes it seem that there are a lack of editors. Maybe bots could do more work, or templates could encourage readers to make one-time edits on under-invested or commonly vandalised articles?
I suspect, however, there might be a flaw in the statistics I used. It doesn't include IP editors or bots, so there is the chance. Please let me know.
I'd suspect that the majority of Australian editors (including all people who edit without an account, casually or otherwise) aren't members of this Wikiproject. From what I've seen, Australian articles aren't particularly likely to be poorly maintained though they are typically less well developed than equivalent articles covering, for example, the UK or US. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree. There are only actually about 370 Wikipedians registered on Wikiproject Australia, leaving a good amount of Wikipedians residing in Australia (including me) not included as a member there. Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Not easy - some editors do not even self identify as Australian or for that matter what state they abide in...
Most statistics derived from checking superficial self identifying editors are fraught with a range of issues...
Many projects on wikipedia have editors who do not register with projects - they simply edit in areas they are drawn to.
Some of the million plus editors based elsewhere have left their mark and subsequently skew stats very very easily...
The way that projects either maintain or sustain themselves over time do not necessarily need or use bots - it is the
attitude at the talk pages of many projects that reflect a sense of the editing community -
some people have a sense of purpose or common well being for the project - while many insist on a very isolated solitary go it alone style...
And many have never ventured to edit talk pages in the projects of the areas of interest either...
It is not possible to ascertain information about Australian editors or Australian subjects as the very structure of the information is not available/recoverable. I would caution strongly making any assessment about a project from such a superficial analysis -
There is nothing to let anyone know - it is the same in all country based projects - it is a voluntary activity, and many people come and go - to do a snapshot at any one time will be simply a very simplistic analysis. If you want to help the project, please join in...
JarrahTree09:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't really mean it as a deep analysis, but the statistics initially seemed a bit questioning. Generally, I think articles regarding Australian topics, including transport topics, seem to not be 100% updated to current events. That is the most relevant thing, but I don't think it's that much of an issue. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Many parts of wikipedia have black holes - (where links to where issues about lack of currency across whole projects and subject areas have delayed maintenance and delayed updating could be made) - a lot depends on the attitude of contributing editors - and their intensity of editing - my opinion is that down to the work of a few hard working editors there are many parts of the Australian project that have been both updated and maintained well. JarrahTree10:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a problem all through Wikipedia - not enough editors to go round. If we take "extended autoconfirmed" as the benchmark for serious Wikipedians, that's 37,000 editors for 5.5 million articles - 150 articles per editor. StAnselm (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I see. I would imagine that, as JarrahTree said, the contributions of the fewer but harder-working editors balances it somewhat more. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, if the top 1000 editors didn't edit more than the next 9,000 editors, then they wouldn't be the top 1000!Ā :-) But, more seriously, the graphs that WMF publish seem to tell the same story, a long-term drop in active editors and an increase in activity by the active editors that remain. Personally, as a fairly active editor, I have been a bit depressed lately at how much of my time I spent fixing other people's mistakes (or other people's malice) rather than doing what I love, which is writing new content. So I suspect I am "doing more" to compensate for there being fewer people. But this is not a sustainable state of affairs, as folks leave, those that remain cannot continue to take on more and more. Be nice to the good-faith newbies because we need them, and understand they will need time to develop the kind of experience that most of us have acquired over a number of years. This means cleaning up after them when they are making good-faith contributions and *gently* educating them. It means enabling the Visual Editor for IPs and new users because the source editor is a unnecessary barrier to new contributors. If nothing else, new VE users don't usually break the markup (because the tool writes it not them). Kerry (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I like to think that I'm doing my fair share, but what that constitutes might change. My hunch is that a good amount of registered editors are simply not intending to do more than a few edits. Others may be dragged away by study/work. Given growing internet access, I would expect editors to increase. I haven't been on Wikipedia too long (some time in late 2016 was when I became active IIRC), so I guess I haven't noticed much change in amount of editors. I think a notable minority of people think it's funny to vandalise Wikipedia, which is disappointing. Wikipedia would have been too confronting for me were it not for the Visual Editor as an alternative to WikiMarkup. Oh well. Australian Wikipedia articles are doing better than the Urban Dictionary is in terms or accuracy. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As an Australian editor, I have contributed about forty articles, but once I've written them I tend to forget about them and work on whatever I get interested in. I don't know if this is good, bad or indifferent, but that's the way it is, man.
People come and go. People do different things here at different times. In years gone by, I pumped out a lot of content, but lately I find myself doing maintenance related roles, tagging, fixing typos, and blocking those deserving of it. One thing I've noticed via operating my own website, and something I've not really looked into in the Wikipedia sense is the growing number of people accessing the internet from smartphones. I use a pc for my Wikipedia habit, and couldn't even imagine to begin authoring an article via a screen no larger than the palm of my hand. Perhaps over time more and more have done away with pcs and are left with devices that aren't really suited to authoring content? Times change, and those here now seem fine to deal with. For all we know there may be an influx of new blood next week, and off we go again. BTW, 49% of statistics are made up on the spot. I wouldn't sweat the small stuff and read too much into them. -- Longhair\talk09:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the removal of custom formatting for New South Wales railway lines in {{S-line}}. This is to make the styling consistent across railway networks, to remove the long-deprecated <font> tag, to avoid accessibility issues, and to allow blue links to be more easily distinguished from red links.
I have asked the question about what do we mean when we talk about "cities" in Australia at Talk:List of cities in Australia#What do we mean by a city?. In Qld at least, this has almost no official meaning any more, yet there exists a "common use" of the term that appears in lists, templates etc. It would be good if we could document an agreed criteria on what can/can't be included as a "city". If you have any thoughs on the matter, please share them at that Talk page. Thanks Kerry (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Where is more important as a centralised talk page?
In the dark old days some long since gone very quiet eds hashed out standardisation - mostly in this forum and the Australian places project - as editing numbers have reduced and those involved with the earlier discussions no longer active or obviously involved - I agree with Kerry - it would be good to re-establish the definitions - as QLD is not an orphan - each state has its issue - regularly in the past Kalgoorlie has been stated to be the largest in the world...
The Australian Places project could be revitalised to have the discussion there? - there may be things in the archive there might have some clues as to the earlier discussions -
Exactly - thanks for pointing all that out - which is why I think the few eds interested or capable - should go into the dormant places project and re-word or re-link the chaotic nature of the word city in Australia - and establish a generic consensual use for the whole Australian project, (or the infinite variations of usage to be logged there) - so that subsequent editors down the line dont feel the need to re-invent the wheel or have to go to individual article talk pages to wade through lots of debate/discussion JarrahTree06:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
A better diff tool
There's a new diff tool, designed to see you see a more visual difference between versions. Go to Preferences > Gadgets, and turn on wikEdDiff. While viewing a diff, you will see a little icon with a green triangle (the delta symbol if you speak Greek or IT). If you click it, you will see the visual version as well. It's great for checking your watchlist, sa it's so much easier to see what people did at the sub-paragraph level. Kerry (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Another nice feature is the New filters for edit review tool under Beta features. It makes keeping track of changes on your watchlist easier and more customisable to your own workflow. Kb.au (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Mary Wigg South Australian Artist - Draft Article needs more notable and reliable sources
Hi, @Thomasmurrell:! Wikipedia doesn't accept articles on all artists. The relevant criteria for acceptance of an article on Wikipedia for an artist are given here. If Mary Wigg does not meet one of the four citeria, the draft article is unlikely to be accepted, no matter what further work you do to it. Do you think Mary Wigg meets one of the criteria? If so, tell us here and we can help you further to develop the article accordingly. Kerry (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
PS. Are you writing this article as part of the Women in Red initiative? If so, did someone suggest this artist as a topic to you? If that is the case, maybe ask the person who assigned you the topic about the notability requirement as they may have checked this before giving it to you. Kerry (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jamskappa: there are some obvious MOS issues with the sandbox article. They shouldn't affect its acceptance or not as an article, but let me know if you'd like me to fix them. (I'll fix them if it becomes an article anyway, but I don't generally edit user drafts unless invited to.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
A slow paced edit war in progress for the past month, which I feel will gain momentum is occurring over at the article titled Paula Denyer, a convicted Australian serial killer who began identifying as a transgender woman after his imprisonment, despite prison authorities refusing permission to allow any gender reassignment surgery or name changes via deed poll. May I request that any editor with the stomach for it add this page to their watchlist please... I'd rather not throw my weight in as its an article I created over 12 years ago now and... you know how it goes I'm sure. Minimal discussion of the problem on the talk page. Thanks, and good luck. -- Longhair\talk03:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The MOS doesn't require us to consider pronoun usage in reliable sources though, it wants us to use whatever the subject of the article uses, even if they're a repulsive individual as is the case this time. We have decent sources that make it clear that Denyer refers to themself as "Paula", even though that article uses male pronouns. Lankiveil(speak to me)05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for weighing in. I've just added an older (now offline) reference at the talk page that may hopefully assist to answer some of the tougher questions on the go here... a can of worms eh? Part of me says we're giving the piece of shit the attention they crave, but we're not here for my opinion either... :D -- Longhair\talk12:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Part of the International competition http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/ - if you missed the WLE, and WLM, and WLA parts of things, this might be the one for you!
Former Senator Jean Hearn has just passed away, according to an editor who I have no reason to disbelieve (has links to Canberra and isn't a vandal). (Now confirmed [17]. Her article is one of the most sparse articles I've seen for a member of the Senate, past or present. If those with any knowledge to contribute feel up to the task, her article could do with an expansion. -- Longhair\talk12:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is her entry at the Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senateāshould be a wealth of information there for an expansion. Unfortunately I'm very busy at the moment, but I'll have a look and do some work on it in a few weeks if no one else does. --Canley (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Daily page views
I didn't know about this, and haven't seen it in widespread usage around the place, so my apologies if this is already known. You can view traffic statistics for any article, or any page for that matter, by following the easy to use instructions available at Template:Graph:PageViews. As an example, here's the traffic for the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, this page, for the past 12 months. The template can be added to talk pages to provide an overview of traffic an article receives. -- Longhair\talk00:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Daily page views
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
No idea, but I did some fiddling with the graphs over on the pages of the big two political parties here in Aus (LNP and ALP), and they show similar spikes as well. -- Longhair\talk02:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
For those reverting (too many to contact while the anon continued sorry) the anon editor mass changing Melbourne railway stations to Metro stations, I've handed them a brief 3 hour block so the mess can be cleaned up and hopefully they'll use the time to drum up a discussion on their talk page meanwhile. They didn't respond to any warnings about edit warring and just continued on full steam ahead. I'm guessing this is borderline promotional editing hence the reverts from several editors? -- Longhair\talk09:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
I have found a collection of web sites and news stories (mostly predictive) about big solar power farms and grid-connected batteries, but can't find reliable news stories or premiers and energy ministers bragging about grand openings for things that were predicted to have been opened by now. Can anyone else confirm that these things either exist, are still being built, or failed to get off the ground?
Lakeland Solar & Storage Project in Queensland (supposedly built and sold by Lyon Group to Conergy)[19][20]
Riverland Solar & Storage Project near Morgan in SA, also developed by Lyon Group, to open this year[21][
Kingfisher, near Roxby Downs (precursor to hte larger Riverland one)
I can't find progress or completion indications from sources I would expect (premier press releases) or trust (mainstream newspapers or AEMO) that these things have progressed beyond thought bubble stage. I don't recall hearing about them last year or in March this year when these stories seem to have surfaced. I don't feel inclined to write Wikipedia articles based on what I found, if it's all just "fake news", but Wikipedia is missing somethign big if they exist but aren't in the relevant energy in <state> templates and articles. --Scott DavisTalk10:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
There's been talk of "Australia's biggest" solar farm just outside of Mildura for close on 10 years now, and as far as I know nothing ever came of it. I've never seen it and I pass by now and then. There's also one proposed near Moree but I'm unsure if that ever got past got past the proposal stage either. I must admit to enjoying a bit of a laugh to read the Mildura project article here at Wikipedia mention it was canned due to "low wholesale electricity prices" :D -- Longhair\talk11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like some lists that could be used to cross-check the templates and articles might be found in the spreadsheets of AEMO Regional generation information pages and AEMO NEM Registration and Exemption List. It's too late tonight for me to try to pick out the data I want though. The regional lists seem to have existing, committed and proposed categories. Existing and Committed with an in-service date should probably all be included, I realise that I have written a couple of articles recently for things that are only "proposed", I think, but the data is now five months old, and I haven't found definitions of committed and proposed. --Scott DavisTalk13:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes Looks like there could be some big gaps in Australian articles. One very simple example is List of power stations in the Australian Capital Territory. The ACT now has a few decent sized solar arrays for example. For example, there are mentions for the Royalla Solar Farm in a few places, but they are poorly, even confusingly, placed, for example in Royalla, New South Wales. Is there a way a few of us can divide up the work so we can minimise bumping into each otherĀ ? Aoziwe (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to process the list of generators for South Australia on my sandbox and was surprised that I found articles for most of them, and existing red links for a few of the smaller peaking plants. We did not do so well on proposed/planned/not yet finished generators. Everything that our template says exists is in the list. The data is dated from June, and since then there have been at least two announcements about gas fired power stations (both have short articles), plus the state government's own gas/diesel reciprocating engines installed at the former Holden site and the desalination plant (neither has an article or even a red link that I know of). A few questions for discussion or clarification:
What is the minimum size for a "power station" on Wikipedia?
Do we typically have articles for liquid or solid waste processing plants? Apparently there are small power stations at one of our sewage treatment facilites and the large metropolitan landfill, both powered by waste methane.
I don't think we have specific notability guidelines for power stations. I would assume WP:GNG applies. Obviously once upon a time a power station was a single "big thing" and probably was notable. Today it can be a plethora of small solar arrays, wind generators and methane collectors etc and I agree that it's hard to see them all as notable. But I assume the ones that pass WP:GNG are probably the larger facilties, the "firsts of their kind" or have some other innovation that results in reliable sources. I've added the occasional mention of one of these small facilities in their suburb/locality article which I think suffices for the more run-of-mill facilities. I find a reasonable approach to be start adding them to their town/suburb/locality article initially and then, if the content about them becomes big enough, burst them out into a stand-alone article. Kerry (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think an MBE is sufficient to demonstrate wiki-notability. AĀ GBE would, and a KBE probably should too. People who receive an OBEĀ or CBEĀ are potentially notable enough for the activities that earned them the award, but not always. --Scott DavisTalk05:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As you aren't entirely sure "I don't think" I look forward to a more informed comment on the matter. Maybe we can seek consensus. Castlemate (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised it isn't codified anywhere that I can find, but there is a long history of people whose only claim to notability is having an MBE going down in flames at AfD. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
IĀ also cannot find it explicitly stated (although I thought IĀ had read it before). WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES looks usefully relevant - the penultimate bullet under Politicians Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesman for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone. --Scott DavisTalk05:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody seems sure, you can't find it, you are surprised it isn't codified and yet you delete anyway. In less than 8 days and minutes after a press picture of a mayor with the Queen that made him a Member of the Order of the British Empire for being a mayor you delete a bio. The nominator arrives on Wikipedia this week and starts a rush of AfDs supported by another editor with a throw away name and this is called consensus. Is their something like a Royal Commission in Wikipedia? If so who appoints it? Castlemate (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Except Scott did cite some WP pages, unlike your deliberately illogical arguments on the various AfDs. I have shaken hands with a Nobel Prizewinner and a Prime Minister, and been in the news for winning some prizes, and I am not notable. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I've cleaned the lot up, and notified the content creator (x9), and strongly considering as my next step a sockpuppet investigation. While I try to assume good faith, and I understand why said articles have been listed at AfD, as noted on your talk page, it's quite a leap for a new editor to jump straight into the AfD process in such a big way. -- Longhair\talk04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
While the nominating activity is suspicious, it's also worth saying that they're not wrong about Castlemate. I've been encountering dubiously notable articles by them for years but had never put together the common thread - going back and checking, sure enough, it all makes sense now! (Caveat: Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that every article they've created is automatically non-notable, and looking at the AfDs I see at least one or two that have some claim to notability. Not Murphy, though.) Frickeg (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I support Longhair's and Frickeg's comments. When I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Scott Fletcher, I was very concerned about the abuse of process. While is legitimate to propose the deletion of an article on grounds of notability, there are obligations on the nominator BEFORE doing so which appear to have been overlooked. You can read my comments at that discussion if you want more detail. Kerry (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
While the nominator's motives might've been questionable, he's still not wrong about most of these, even if he arguable got a bit too enthusiastic about one or two. I have more reliable sources about me than most of these creations do (and I'm so far from notable!). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The nominations can be correct procedurally but still be undesirable at the same time. In this case, the use of what is clearly a throwaway account to make the nominations pseudoanonymously, and the massive assumptions of bad faith in a lot of the nomination statements, shouldn't be something that we encourage. Lankiveil(speak to me)00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "I have more reliable sources about me than most of these creations do (and I'm so far from notable!)." Who are you? What are your sources? Why would an anonymous editor of an a wiki be notable? Why would we be interested in you? These types of statements bring into question your judgement in such comments. It is certainly difficult to assume good faith after this offering. Castlemate (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an abuse of process. AfD is not an exclusive club. Besides there's an overdue cleanup underway by the looks of things. This is why I don't play chess with pigeons. No matter how good you are, the pigeon will just knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and strut around like it's victorious. Which is how I keep feeling about this targeted hit and run. BTW, the sockpuppet investigation bore no fruit either. Nobody lost an eye did they? :D -- Longhair\talk03:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this list could do with going over. As I said I'm sure some of these are notable, but given that the criteria for creation appears to be "went to Newington and had a vaguely impressive job" rather than anything in our notability criteria, I'd bet there's a big chunk that aren't. (I want to clarify that editing from the standpoint of wanting to write more articles on alumni of a school is fine, even laudable, but it's the consistent disregard for notability that is the issue.) Frickeg (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please go over any any bios I have created with a fine tooth comb but please do so a little more carefully then some of the current crop of AfDs which often just needed updating. At the same type look back far enough to be reminded of the last attack on Old Newingtonins by the same editor under a different name in 2007. The reason AfDs exist is because there is often disagreements on notability. Castlemate (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a bit rich to suggest that they just need "updating" - frequently they made no claim of notability at all, and would be better suited to a school alumni page. Even where they did make some suggestion of possible notability, this was usually completely unsourced, with the few sources devoted to school-cruft. If you don't want these articles getting nominated for AfD, I strongly suggest going back and finding sources to back up their notability instead of focusing on what they did in high school. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Each biographical article should contain at least one well-sourced sentence that asserts the notability of the person beyond their neighbours, friends and colleagues. --Scott DavisTalk05:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty rough to insinuate that an editor who has created 250 articles over the course of a decade is trying to flood Wikipedia with non-notable articles. So what that he finds these people because of what school they went to? That is an area that interests some people in a similar way that Australian rules football interests me and so on for just about every editor. To also nominate over half a dozen of them and say defend them all in the space of a week, while also making some bad faith allegations in the nominations, is not very fair. Jenks24 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
As I think has been made pretty clear, there is no problem at all that an editor has a particular area of interest and has been creating articles in that area - that is commendable. What is an issue is that the articles have been created without any consideration of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as is very clear from even a cursory glance through them (or the defences presented at many of the AfDs). Frickeg (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Good night. A selection of the good faith comments made of late in relation to Murphy and others who happen to have had the bad luck to have me as their bio-creator:
Part of a series of spam articles by CastlemateĀ whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter, members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro (interesting to note the last two have been confirmed as notable.
did you really think a Blogspot blog was going to help?
but I was not about to spend the time working through all the struggled OCRing (No idea what that means!)
failed candidate nor Newington old scholar
The contemporary Victorian lawyer seems to have a better claim to fame from that. (No idea what that meant?)
this fellow got 2% in his electorate. Clearly his political profile was highly insignificant to the locals. Further, the local councillor's job is to promote local small businesses, so simply lobbying for some ornamental things to be built is no evidence being above the run-of-the-mill council politician
This is just a run of the mill school teacher and amateur sports coach, who happens to be remembered by some folks in a rich social circle at some private schools. It is typical for people at these places to think that their local sports competitions with other private schools are automatically of high quality, which they are not
Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate who writes articles about non-notable people
Local road naming, even in the ACT, signifies only necessarily local notability: there are millions of streets named after Joe Bloggs who had a farm in the area once or sat on a local council in 1862. Not one of the streets I lived on in the ACT was named after someone notable for Wikipedia purposes (and hell, even on your own argument - they named a lane after him, not a freeway).
naming roads is a dime a dozen. I can name 20 people who have roads named after them in Detroit, Michigan alone who are no where near notable (great to see local knowledge and expertise aren't required)
The bar is raised when the notability issue is raised, as it is a matter of evidence, not opinion
Except it still has no independent source except an obit by his son. (Which just happens to be listed on the World Wide Web by a democratically elected government)
No achievements disclosed unless being the brother of a prime minister and voting for the opposite political party makes him notable. (As published by a notable newspaper)
An archivit's (sic) choice to include items in their collection is not the same as a curator's choice to include artworks in a museum's permanent collection. (Even though we have no evidence of why the archive was purchased by a major museum except that it might just be notable. Who decided it was an archivists choice I don't know but as a low pay grade public servant from another jurisdiction tells me so I will just have to presume it is offered in good faith.)
And the weird attempt to inherit notability based on single comment by former student/photographer is another reason for delete. (Is that really an established policy for deletion?)
I have more reliable sources about me than most of these creations do and I'm so far from notable!. (A truly credible argument in an AfD and indicative of the competent discussion endeared this week.)
it just rabbits on about Trove as if being a dude who supported its development in the course of his (non-notable) job results in inherited notability (since confirmed to be a notable librarian of international repute)
Irrelevant and illogical argument. A famous photographer happened to have this guy as his English teacher (totally unrelated to the actually notable person's achievements), therefore the non-notable schoolteacher becomes notable because the famous photographer found him interesting/fun (thank you for your polite response)
As an outsider, I can't even work out what this article is supposed to be about. It reads as if suburban Sydney has eight bus services. Additionally, what is there is so poorly sourced that it's impossible to tell from a source check that more than two of these actually happened. (I'm assuming from the article text that they did, but without inline sourcing who knows?) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Also as an outsider, I am also struggling to understand this article. There are only nine bus routes through the suburbs in Sydney? I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps there is a lot of public transit jargon in this article that is stopping the average reader on the street from understanding it. Lankiveil(speak to me)23:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
From looking at the sources, the underlying problem seems to be that the NSW Government appears to have given its new(ish) network of frequent bus services which link key parts of Sydney the confusing and rather under-whelming name of 'Suburban bus routes' (the vast number of routes which roam the suburbs are apparently 'local routes'). This does seem to warrant an article, but would benefit from a clearer explanation. Whether this is the same thing as is covered by the Rapid bus routes in Sydney article is also a good question. That said, writing about public transport in Sydney would be a nightmare given how confusing the government policies on the subject are (constant new proposals and announcements, including for entire train lines, many of which never actually eventuate or are re-announced under a new name, etc). Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all, great feedback. It can be hard to gauge clarity when Iāve been looking at it for so long. Will see how I can improve it. Mqst north (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A way to identify and recruit new members for WikiProject Australia
We often say here that we are short of editors. One of the problems is that new editors don't really have a way to find out about WikiProjects. I'd been writing on Australian content for some years before User:Lankiveil told me about this noticeboard (those of the TL;DR camp may regret Lankiveil's actions in this regard).
This article in Signpost describes a tool to help WikiProjects identify editors who may be of interest to a project based on their pattern of edits. WikiProjects can then do personal invitations to try to recruit the new editor.
Any objections to signing up to get this info? I don't know anything more about this than the Signpost article above but it seems like it might be useful. Too many people (and I speak from some personal experience in this matter) first encounter WikiProjects by beaten over the head about some rule/convention that the WikiProject has established, which is not conducive to people wanting to join the project. So finding a nicer way to do it "hey, you did some great edits on Some Aussie Topic, wanna join our project?" might be a good idea. Note, I would suggest not having a template welcome with three thousand links to guidelines, etc. I think sending a few "thanks" on their edits or a WikiLove and then invite them more personally to join the project would be more likely to be effective. Kerry (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick question, because user behaviour often determines the reasons why projects fail... what was the cause of you, Kerry, not being informed about WikiProjects until somebody told you about them? Did you never visit talk pages where the information is often right up the top of many, not read the notices perhaps, I'm curious how something so visible (and I realise some folk don't ever visit talk pages, but I'm guessing Kerry has been to many since her time here) slipped right past a very active editor... -- Longhair\talk05:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Paid editors do not like WikiProjects because they create collaboration and potential obstacles against their "work". They are in principle against this sort of organising and qualitative assessment because it might highlight their "work". - Shiftchange (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you make an invalid assumption here. Although I have had an account since 2005, I have only been relatively active since 2013, which coincides with my retirement. As I say, I did know projects existed because I was told I was breaking their rules. No invitation to join those projects occurred and indeed I remember telling someone that WikiProjects appeared to be groups of unpleasant people who went around behaving like dogs, marking their territory with their giant banners on Talk pages or like real-world vandals with their tags. The members of WikiProject Australia that I had encountered left me with no interest whatsoever in being part of it. To expand on the Lankiveil story, in response to some face-to-face conversation (note, not on-wiki) around the time of my retirement, he mentioned the Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard. As I didn't know what it was, I googled it, found it, and started engaging in it. But what I did not realise that the Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard was the Talk page of WikiProject Australia because it isn't called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Whatever. So I engaged in this notice board for some time (probably a year or so from memory) before I worked out the relationship with the project. So I became a de facto member of this project through ignorance (and my name still does not appear in the list of Members). One of the problems we have as a regular contibutors is that we know how things work (although I still discover things I didn't know about how Wikipedia operates all the time) and so we lose the ability to perceive it as newcomers see it. It's probably doubly true about someone who created some of the infrastructure in the first placeĀ :-) Just to illustrate this. Last weekend I showed an editor who first edited in 2005 how to turn on preferences to get one of the advanced tool bars in the source editor (interestingly it was again in a face-to-face situation not on-wiki). This person did not have the citation wizard on their tool bar. For 12 years, this editor has written citations without forms, without templates, doing manual formatting to look like the other ones they see in articles, unaware that most of us make citation with wizards and Citoid and pasting Trove citations etc. (If anyone reading this does not have Citation pop-up forms on their toolbar, please contact me and I will tell you how to enable it). Believe me, there is a lot that regular contributors do not know. Because I do face-to-face training, the experience and perceptions of working with a constant stream of new users means I remain exposed to the new user experience. To turn the question back the other way, User:Longhair, as a returning contributor, how do you find the Visual Editor? Do you know it exists? Are you aware of other changes in your absence? How do you go about finding out? Kerry (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't making any assumptions, more offering examples of where the project is very visible. A brief reply for now (I see what you mean by the TL;DR referenceĀ ;-) ), a tool that does exactly what this new tool offers has existed for years, and it's nothing to do with myself either in case anyone suggests I am pushing my own barrow here. This list scans articles tagged with the project template, and also those articles without so they can be tagged too, and also offers in the same list the author of the article for invitation to join the project if that's what you want to use it for. No signup to anything required. I'll reply in more length later this evening if I get a chance, and I am in no way knocking your efforts Kerry to build the project, or suggestions for change or otherwise, but speaking up more in the interests of process creep where we find ourselves complicating all sorts of things just because it's possible. Simplicity is the key to keeping people interested. Oh, and I fully agree with the Welcome process... it's crap, and needs a serious rethinking. -- Longhair\talk08:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
(Reply to the rest of Kerry's comment left earlier): I'm no modern day expert here. I had to go looking for RecentChanges upon my return actually, because it's now buried under a pile of stuff nobody ever reads. Believe it or not, I still compile references by hand, have no idea what Visual Editor or Citoid is, in no rush to find out. The only tools I make use of are TWINKLE and that edit comparison tool you mentioned here a week or so back Kerry (the one with the delta symbol). I remember back in the day when we had very dedicated editors who would guard articles like hawks. Most of them were excellent editors who generated a heap of great content between themselves despite their... I just remember them ok. :D
As headstrong and vigilant as they were, they're gone, probably burnt out for all I know. They sure were passionate, but hardly the type you'd want to meet day one here. Perhaps you crossed paths with one of those types when you say "I did know projects existed because I was told I was breaking their rules. No invitation to join those projects occurred and indeed I remember telling someone that WikiProjects appeared to be groups of unpleasant people who went around behaving like dogs, marking their territory with their giant banners on Talk pages or like real-world vandals with their tags.". I never had any issues here, despite two ArbCom cases in my earlier days (where I was cleared of any wrongdoing on both occasions, or just a witness to the crazy). It's people like you we need here Kerry with a focus on new folk and their needs, because as you say, those with experience behind them can often lose sight of how things were when they began. I'm a realist, and right here now saying "we need to simply the place", because the problems are obvious, at least to me. That said, not everybody edits in the same way, and only a day or so somebody said to me privately "you make more edits in half an hour than some do in a year", but it's not about the quantity, the bulk of what I do here is throw the dickheads out the door who aim to wreck the place, and I've been doing that since forever, and I can spot, maim and exit them quick. Meanwhile the quiet achiever working on a much needed article is adding more value than myself filling RecentChanges with "get out of here dick, for the nth time today"... some people call past once a day, some return months apart. They're both valuable editors despite their activity. Some don't even get social online, some talk too much, and some never talk at all. As long as we make the place welcoming, easy to understand, they'll come if we build it. But don't expect everyone to have the time to participate every single day. -- Longhair\talk10:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Very good suggestion from Kerry, which I support. Problem is that new editors who stay do not fit into any easy pattern. From some accounts new editors come from real life meetups and pieces of paper - again even most face to face training and intro projects appear to fail to gain new regular editors as well.
Any attempt to help new users find their way is good. One small problem for Australia is we have all the state and specialist projects that are very low involvement (mostly), Australia by itself is a small catchment, state, city and specialist sub projects need considering as well. JarrahTree04:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with recruiting them into sub-projects/task forces etc if such groups are active (as WA's is, and Aus politics is, etc) but not into the moribund ones. Kerry (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Kerry, thanks so much for a brief reply (sic). I very strongly disagree - the potential for otherwise moribund projects is a wikipedia wide phenomenon which is a very self destructive and negative trend, it signals to new users the project is inactive/dead etc. Most new user havent the faintest how to ressurrect or be involved in them. In the Australian case, the long timers on the Tasmanian, Television and some others have long disappeared - we need to keep them open and encourage more people to pick up the baton and carry on the good work... JarrahTree04:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
As the bloke who brought a lot of what's here alive (not this Noticeboard, that predates me along with a fair bit of other local stuff I adapted into the WikiProject guts and bones way back when...), but the Wikiproject stuff, the menus, the coding for locality etc, I dumped all that crap here long ago. Can I add it's a total mess here, a user interface nightmare, and that's in criticism of most of the work I left behind myself over 10 years ago now so don't be offended, I'm dissing myself.
Back in those days I was an analytic geek working in IT... looking back it's an over-complicated mess. I have ideas, but I have nowhere near the time I had back then to help make things for the better. I'm short on time right now, but I'll come back to this topic later when time is on my side.
KISS... keep it simple stupid; if my former self introduced who I am today to this mess, I'd probably throw a stapler at it and tell him to go back to User Interface Design 101 class... complexity drives folks away. -- Longhair\talk05:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest there's an even bigger discussion to be had here, and perhaps we should move that discussion to a more relevant area, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia 2.0 or similar? I've been gone 6 years, just walked back in the door, and my god did I see some shit I'd prefer tearing down while simplifying a lot as well. Project infrastructure talk can get technical when it comes to bots, assessments and what not, and it'll only isolate newbies or disinterested parties further. I'd love to renew the entire project, time permitting, with your help. When I left Wikipedia behind many moons ago we were one of the leading projects looked upon by others as an example of what collaboration can produce. We're certainly not there now are we, and we can do better to bring back the people and keep them here if that's the intention of this discussion. -- Longhair\talk08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested to see/hear what you have in mind ā but remember that assessments, project banners, bots, etc are for the most part bigger than any one wikiproject. E.g. m:Community Tech/Popular pages bot works through the banner (wouldn't want to break that), as do other tools like my WP:RATER script. And there's been some discussions on widespread banner reform at Template talk:WPBannerMeta you may want to look at. - Evad37Ā [talk]08:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't got anything in mind at the moment of where to go from here, apart from what I've said already, but I do know many people since my return have all said the same thing to me... "we've lost a lot of people Longhair, why, and how can we get them back"? As for the bots and whatnot being bigger than the project, I am fully aware of the backend and legacy stuff that need not or should not be changed. However, if you're a coder... you'll come in handy if we ever come up with something better. I am technical minded, but my days of sitting up at 3am swearing at perl scripts are long over... but you my friend... stick around eh? :D -- Longhair\talk09:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll admit something I've never dared say here at Wikipedia, but it's been one of my pet hates since day 1... the entire language used about the place is isolating... WikiLove, WikiGnomes, WikiFairy, WikiElf, Barnstars, I'm sure it's all touchy feely feelgood stuff in line with branding the place(remember, this all came about long before social media was a thing, and it's showing it's age I think. Facebook coped well for a long time with just one button of praise, the like button). When I first walked into the door here in 2004, I had to read what the plate of cookies was doing on my talk page before learning why I had a handful of barnstars thrown at me... just last week somebody handed Jimmy Wales a kitten at his talk page. Reckon he has time for that, good intention reasons aside? It's lingo, inner lingo, and nobody, newbies especially, have time to read the important stuff let alone keep up with the feelgood stuff. WikiProject Australia is one of the very few projects I've ever worked on that I couldn't even stand the name of. Am I alone in thinking this? Newbies wouldn't know a barnstar from a WikiGnome to a WikiProject if you asked them, unless you threw the manual at them a month prior. -- Longhair\talk09:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Simplifying entry level explanations, and leaving most infrastructure intact with acronyms and stupidities inherited, is probably a way to go - but it requires not word bombing newbies or even using terminology that old hands use.
The skill set of the members of the Australian project should be by now advanced enough to codify much simpler friendlier entry, I do not think the project and all the other parts of its mechanisms really need that much change - it is more, a simpler entry play room (for those intimidated by words and bulks of links of things to be thrown at them) is long time needed. JarrahTree09:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
This guy gets it... user interface design research has shown people get that puzzled look in their eye when offered more than say 5 or 6 menu options... Google took over the interwebz with one of the most featureless pages ever as their main page... that's where we need to head in my opinion, and exposing people to knowledge about the project only when they seek it. -- Longhair\talk09:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
"Commencing countdown, engines on...". I've left some notes over at your minimalist mockup 2.0 talk page, merely suggesting we pick this place apart and find the faults before we rush ahead with the design phase, but we won't ever have liftoff without a start. Nice work. I'm all for Kerry's idea about fixing the Welcome process as well, but perhaps not yet... let's get the place functional first then invite the mob over. -- Longhair\talk12:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've lobbed the existing Welcome text intended to bring IP editors into the project over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/2.0/Welcome. Grabbed via WP:Twinkle, which I'm assuming grabs it from a template here someplace. Long, verbose... burn it with fire! I use it often, but it's my way of saying checked your edits, you pass muster, next :D -- Longhair\talk03:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the generic version. The Australian project makes use of two variants, one for anonymous editors, the other for accounts. They won't be hard to find. Both in need of repair. -- Longhair\talk04:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on a presentation for a meetup but its not yet complete. The title will be something along the lines of Paid operatives: the characteristics of those among us. Would the group of assembled editors be interested do you think? Or do you have no answer because that would be risky? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Trove seeking your feedback (forwarding email received today)
Dear National Library research community,
Assessing the needs of Australian researchers
Follow this link to the Survey:
Take the Survey
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
The Library is seeking your feedback on the extent to which our digitised material and online collections meet your research or study needs. We would like to know the following:
how you hear about online versions of our collections
how you search Trove to find them, and
what you use them for.
We encourage you to forward this survey to your research networks.
About the survey
Approximately 10-15 minutes to complete
The survey will be open from 5 December 2017 to 31 January 2018.
Your responses will help us to develop our collections and services to best meet your research needs.
Our apologies for cross-posting.
Survey updates will be posted in the Trove Help Centre.
Thanks for posting this Kerry. To help highlight the importance of this resource to the coverage of Australia in Wikipedia, I noted in a couple of the free text fields that the main reason I use trove is for Wikipedia editing purposes - other editors might want to do the same? Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I used the free text fields in Other to describe myself as a Wikipedian at the question about "are you are a student, a professional researcher etc". And I used another free text field later to say that I used their pre-formatted Wikipedian citations all the time and love them. And took advantage of some of the other free text fields to make comments about using Trove content for Wikipedia and for Commons. So, yes folks, if you use Trove in your Wikimedian activities, please complete the survey and add mention of the role of Trove in your Wikimedian activities. Even if you are totally happy with Trove, do at least give them that feedback. Kerry (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Back
I haven't shown my face around the 'pedia for some time, years in fact. I thought I'd pop back in to check the current happenings. Some familiar faces still kicking about which is good to see. I was once very active, kicked off and created WikiProject Australia back in the day, worked a lot on bringing the article classification system to Australian content (which is still in use to this day I notice), among many other things. I'm sure to need a reeducation since this place changes so much, but if I can be of any assistance while I relearn the ropes, feel free to gimme a yell. I'm back. -- Longhair\talk12:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
One of my favourite all time editors, a true mentor, back in the day. We need you. More than that Wikipedia needs reform. Paid operatives are ruining things, especially our political articles. They are paid to inject political speech and propaganda. This is a real mess that the community will have to address. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
One of the first things I noticed upon my return was the inactive status of many of the past political content creators, although some appear to call past from time to time, they're certainly nowhere near as active as they once were. While I do have an interest in politics, the former very active editors I refer to really had their hand on the ball back then and kept those articles well watched. What makes you think a professional hit team is at work here, or is it that obvious? I don't have many articles under watch lately but if there's issue with political content I am wise enough to see what's propaganda and what's reality and I'll offer to help combat any nonsense if I'm made aware of it. Have you reported the issue to any noticeboards to give the problem a wider set of eyes perhaps? -- Longhair\talk07:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Because the paid editors admitted it to me. It would be naive to think paid editors are not wrecking our political articles, just like all other internet media platforms are being co-opted and corrupted. The past political content creators have been driven out. Notice how problematic the National Broadband Network article has been, an awful read. Notice above, no response to the policy of No propaganda of any kind. Paid to look the other way. Notice the weakness of the WMAU? Complete selective quotations and insistence of justification for banned material. We are not a battleground so no to payments to inject propaganda. How about we include the CEO of General Motor's statements about his work or what he thinks of the competition? Ridiculous because we can't be used for promotional purposes. From WP:ASSERT, "A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves" and also see WP:FALSEBALANCE. From Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, "People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals,ā. This is the paid editors playbook for workflow. We must make the necessary assumption that a politician will badmouth opponents and not pretend this is remarkable for an encyclopedia. Help me fight for Wikipedia so it is knowledge based. We trim back the work that was paid for and the articles get much better. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't dared look at the NBN article yet, but could imagine the mess its in. I'll offer to help fight back the crap... it wouldn't be helped by mainstream media often helping the propaganda process along eh? No need for diffs... in the current political climate I'm sure it's quite widespread right across the entire Australian political content landscape... -- Longhair\talk03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Its this sort of thing. The article covers a report from Freedom House that explains the aim is to develop pro-government āastroturfingā (a fake grassroots movement). Recently āthe practice has become significantly more widespread and technically sophisticated, with bots, propaganda producers, and fake news outlets exploiting...to ensure high visibility and seamless integration with trusted content,ā. So our paid editors would be model Wikipedians trying to create a fake movement for political purposes. This is exactly what I dealt with last year on Safe Schools Coalition Australia and when I turned to this board for help, crickets. The wider problem, that is, propaganda producing and its integration to Wikipedia is exactly what I have recently identified here and exactly the thing that some regulars to this noticeboard will not touch. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're talking about. Interestingly, Wikipedia rates a high mention in this video. It's not an easy topic to understand overall, but with noise continuing to be made about it, at least it'll be spoken about until it eventually sinks in... -- Longhair\talk02:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the circular sourcing issue feeds into the much wider problem of disinformation. As the video demonstrated, people turn to Wikipedia early in the search for more knowledge. Our paid operatives would be sneaky and risk averse. They would try to create echoes on Wikipedia covertly by blurring the lines of the trivial and significant. They would try to add quotations about politicians for example, and justify the inclusion, even when that is against our established and unequivocal policy. If that conduct occurs by an editor who otherwise follows policy it would be a red flag (idiom). To enable this behaviour or turn a blind-eye to it when we know other major internet platforms are being subverted would be weakness and counter-productive. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw a quote similar (here I think) just the other day... being that "it's a given that politicians will shit talk each other"... I hear ya... I've yet to come across any suspects yet myself though, but I'm sure they're out there waiting to pounce. -- Longhair\talk00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's a field report of sorts of something I've been quietly observing... I won't say where just yet as I would prefer to be 100% informed before I bring out the block shaped hammers and start naming names and whatever. Here's the scenario concerning one interesting series of events I've cottoned onto.
Pick any politician of the up and coming variety. As a public figure, they're often in the media for both good and bad reasons. A new editor comes along, makes a mundane WikiGnome style edit, looks over his shoulder, then sneaks back in to make another, while removing a negative reference at the same time. They'll continue making minor edits hoping to bury the evidence.
Before you think I'm quietly sitting back condoning it, I've blocked plenty of them just recently, for other reasons. Am I getting warmer and now seeing what you're trying to bring attention to? I've now seen it for myself on a regular basis just this week and I smell shit people in the 'pedia. -- Longhair\talk04:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The paid editor who I am most familiar with was quite excited by the departure of User:Orderinchaos. That example may be instructive. Obviously User:B20097 is their sock puppet. User:Max.Moore another, paid to inject propaganda statements. Once you see these editors repeatedly ignore warnings you see their bias for what it is - paid work. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, you need to stop throwing around baseless allegations, especially in relation to some of your stranger claims (e.g. any explanation of what anyone or anything believes, supports or opposes on a political article being "propaganda"). You know from our initial encounters that I'm as frustrated with the behaviour of people like B20097 as you are, but this is getting beyond the pale. This is a prime example: B20097 and Max.Moore have vastly different edit histories and opinions beyond both being conservatives, and they're somehow getting subsumed into this grand conspiracy where they're supposed sockpuppets of someone who isn't even a conservative at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What crimes are you talking about with this conspiracy nonsense? Try to be more rationale. Our policy is no propaganda of any kind, okay? What are you suggesting I benefit from by making up something? I've been asking about the inclusion of propaganda in our articles, you know the bias? Do you want that fixed or not? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The personal attacks on editors who do not agree that articles on political parties and politicians should be expunged of any information about their specific views continue to be very frustrating. It is neither propaganda or bias to explain the specific views of political parties and figures, and these baseless allegations of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry against people who disagree on this point must stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Katter's Australian Party
We can see paid operatives want to ensure the announcements by Katter's Australian Party (pure propaganda) are included on their article. I will be here to highlight the issue of paid operatives inserting propaganda until it is resolved. I will be sure to continue to make suggestions regarding the matter as I see fit. Also has anyone met User:The_Drover's_Wife in real life? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently anyone who disagrees with Shiftchange about anything is now a sockpuppet in some grand conspiracy, and because I believe that Katter's Australian Party should explain what the politics of the party are I must be a "paid editor". This is ridiculous. (And yes, quite a number of people have met me.)
Just follow our policy. Content hosted in Wikipedia is not for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." We remove what doesn't belong. We question those who insist on violating our policy. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The material in question here is obviously a factual summary of the party's positions and is appropriately sourced. There is no reason to remove it, and especially not to replace it with an unsourced paragraph as you have been doing ([23]). I agree that the personal attacks warrant a block, and would impose this if I wasn't WP:INVOLVED from previous interactions. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What I removed is not a summary. It seems only two other political parties in Australia with federal representation have lists of policies. These are the Jacqui Lambie Network and the Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). The editors of the rest of the political party articles must not of felt inclined to violate our policy on no propaganda and writing in prose using Wikipedia's first voice.
By explaining what a political party tries to do, I'm not advocating for them or trying to recruit for them. I'm writing a Wikipedia article that contains the most obvious information people would expect to read. This is pretty obvious. I'm rolling my eyes at the suggestion that, as a queer woman, I must be trying to "recruit" for Bob Katter by trying to explain his barmy policies in the article. This crusade against political articles explaining political views - and the inevitable threats and slurs against editors of all stripes who disagree with you - has to stop. Nick-D or anyone else: what's the best way to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator to deal with this? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say you must be recruiting for Katter. Its not a crusade, its about following policy. I didn't remove the section. The infobox and remaining section provide the knowledge you were after. It is you who wants to include a list (not prose) of announcements by a political party (propaganda), both contrary to our policy. We write in Wikipedia voice. We don't write statements for political parties as a surrogate or scribe. We don't copy and paste political statements. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if I want to get involved but anyway: I would argue that since by definition a political party exists to have policies on how the electorate should be governed, run, developed, etc., that a political party article without a(n NPOV) list of policies for that party would be fundamentally deficient. Further it would I suggest be fascinating reading a history of policies for political parties seeing for example how some of them have done complete reversals in some policy areas, and also whether they actually tried to follow through on stated policies. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talk ā¢ contribs) 12:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
All propaganda (trying to restart discussion in good faith)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.
And, for the umpteeth time, explaining the specific major political positions of political parties and figures is not "propaganda", "advertising", "recruitment", aimed to "influence an audience" or "further an agenda". Noting the core policies of a political party or political figure does not, merely by the act of noting them, "present facts selectively", "encourage a particular synthesis", or "use loaded language": it just details basic information to our readers. Also for the umpteenth time, the insistent personal attacks on users who disagree with you about this point are getting very old. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So what explaining is done by Wikipedia when we publish "The party's first policies announced by Katter include...Government must ensure and limit against corporate monopolisation."? What we explained is what the party announced and that information is trivial. We didn't explain their political position, did we? We explained a statement made by a political party. Can you see the distinction? We didn't treat the announcement with objectivity, did we? It remains as propaganda, a trivial copy of a statement made for a political agenda. How about we do the same selective inclusion with Ford's announcements on their latest automotive products? No, because that would be promotion. When we copy quotations, statements, announcements or narrate such things we are not attempting to describe the topic from a neutral point of view, are we? Likewise for Trumballs opinion of the opposition parties or what the ACL says about marriage equality. Propaganda doesn't belong here, all kinds of it are banned. If someone doesn't renounce propaganda on Wikipedia I question their integrity, just as I would if they violated any other policy. Kerry could you please explain why you think Malcolm Turnball's stated opinions of opposition parties should be included on his page? I really don't understand what is motivating you to suggest that is appropriate. There is nothing extreme is asking such questions. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
My most immediate thought here is that calling this propaganda is not very useful. This is, surely, a NPOV issue. Which is already a thing. I have watched this whole affair with increasing bewilderment, and can only agree with The Drover's Wife above. Let's deal with inappropriate material as usual, but not at the cost of sensible, relevant information. Frickeg (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I second Frickeg's statement, that calling it propaganda is not justified and not helpful to a sensible discussion. The list of policies in the current version of Katter's Australian Party is probably excessive, and WP:UNDUE, but Wikipedia's statement that "the party's policies are: [long list]" is not propaganda. I do think that the long list of policies needs to be reduced and/or summarised somehow, perhaps by limiting it to the more notable ones (perhaps some get more press coverage than others?). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So you think the list is excessive, needs to be reduced, summarised or limited. Yet when I do that, you revert. Its not prose, its not written in Wikipedia voice however you add it back. If you want to explain their political positions I would be unlikely to revert. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
