Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help

More information WikiProjects, In the news ...

Shortcut
Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

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

  • Sounds like a great idea. I agree, monthly would work best. Do you have some information about how it would? Would everyone collaborate on the one article for the month? Jimmyjrg (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jimmyjrg: Yes, essentially everyone would collaborate on the one article for a month. There is a procedure outlined on the old project page from when it ran in 2009-2010 that provides a good structure on how it may run and I think only needs a few minor tweaks to make better. —GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • When it was in process in 2009-2010, the successful bits were where the community was very collegiate and cooperative, with a range of editors who were from a wide range of subject area interests and experiences, who worked well to improve things. I do hope this time around that people are interested, it is well worth the effort!
I believe that the larger problem fourteen years later is the extensive sections of the project that flounder in the lower range due to lack of reliable sources, one liner articles and 'ones that got away' - unmaintained swathes of low standard articles that simply have not been re-visited since creation. In some cases not so easy to find, but nevertheless worth fixing up.
So there are potentially two levels, I strongly support the monthly time duration, and I would be very interested in supporting the lower level - however it does require a clear distinction between the two levels - fourteen years later there are very different priorities in the larger wikipedia project - and it would well be worth discussing the relevance of such a project and its scope considering the changes that have occurred over the time, before jumping in. JarrahTree 09:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: I think it would be a good idea for the nomination process to scrutinise the sources available for a topic and use that to perhaps exclude certain articles from the project's attention, or perhaps when there are a few stub articles doesn't have much sourcing available, group them all together and dedicate one month of the year to them.
In relation to – it would well be worth discussing the relevance of such a project – I understand it may not be something with the highest level of support, but the main reason I edit here is to improve the coverage of Australian articles and to others with that same or similar goal, I feel having an article a month to focus on, and get it to GA/FA status would be a handy tool to not only improve the project but encourage new editors to perhaps get involved and go out and write their own FA/GA article.--GMH Melbourne (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Well the capacity of most new editors to even survive editing articles in the face of the various gateways of draftifying and similar hindrances, means the level of discouragement are much stronger now within the system than fifteen years ago. Also to see the focused upon articles of the 2010 exercises - the current interests and emphases of the larger wikipedia project have moved, in some cases quite substantially.

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

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

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

Sam Mostyn's DOB

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

Yup. I reckon that does not conform with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Steelkamp (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Steelkamp. Would you mind repeating it on the talk page, please? I am happy to remove it but would like to indicate discussion on the tp. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Ta for that. I stumbled upon an age so calculated a YOB based on that, which should be enough to satisfy the curious, I would think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Australian state parliaments

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

Constitutionally speaking, yes they are. Sovereign in this context links to King-in-Parliament and refers to the person who shares legislative power with the houses of parliament, in the same way that the UK King acts in relation to the UK parliament. It doesn't refer to independence, who is the head of state or anything like that.
While the other state parliaments are defined as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament[1], in SA the parliament is defined as consisting of only the houses of parliament however actually legislative power is vested in the governor acting with the advice and consent of the houses. In Tasmania, the constitution defines the Parliament as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament[2]. This difference can be seen in the old enacting phrases. In WA, it was "Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent..."[3] while in Tasmania it is "Be it enacted by Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, by and with the advice and consent...".[4] I found this information from this source:[5]. Safes007 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. But again, I'd recommend deleting the monarch and or governor from the intros & infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Why so? I think its necessary for it to be there in some capacity because Parliament is defined as including the monarch/governor in an at least equal capacity to the houses. Safes007 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Either include them both or exclude them both. Best not to add confusion to our readers, by introducing such inconsistencies among the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think inconsistencies will confuse readers if they refer to differences that exist. Would you be ok with a footnote next to the governor explaining the difference? Safes007 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
All six state parliaments are Westminster style. But, perhaps it's best if we wait for input from others on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say all the parliaments are Westminster style? Safes007 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies. They're based on the Westminster system of government. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I know that, I just don’t know why that is relevant. Safes007 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I stated my proposed (below) changes. Either they'll be accepted or rejected on this noticeboard. I just don't agree with presenting two of the six state parliaments differently, from the rest. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The same source cited above also states:

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

Therefore, I wouldn't be opposed to adding both the monarch and the governor in the infoboxes. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond: I too wouldn't be opposed to having both the monarch & governor in the infoboxes of all six state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. [1]
    e.g. Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) s 2A
  2. [2]
    Constitution Act 1934 (Tas) s 10
  3. [3]
    Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (WA)
  4. [4]
    Brickmakers Point Landslip Act 2021 (Tas)
  5. [5]
    Carney, Gerard (2006). The Constitutional Systems of the Australian States and Territories. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–79. ISBN 9780521863056.
Seeking clarification: @Peter Ormond:, are you supporting the changes that have been made at the Tasmanian & the South Australian parliament pages? GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Como, New South Wales

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

Is "an historical" valid in modern Australian English?

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

"An historical" works for me, but "a history book". It's about which syllable is stressed. Maybe a South Australian affectation. Doug butler (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I've found a Department of Education document which uses "an historical", so it clearly is acceptable in Australian English.-Gadfium (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It might be acceptable, but it's uncommon. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In modern Australian English, I'd bet more on someone using it being born/educated overseas, using a US autocorrect, or using material from a US source. That said, the addition was made here, and the editor was editing a whole bunch of COVID-19 pages and does not appear to be a fluent Australian English speaker (eg: see User_talk:John_B123/Archive_23#Why_not_a_covid_article_for_Kiribati?), so I'd say go ahead and edit it to "a" and see if it gets reverted ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It's uncommon and clunky. In most usages I would prefer "a historical case". TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I would only consider "a historical" acceptable in written form, although some people vary when spoken depending on regional accents. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure both are acceptable. I use "an" (and never dropped my aitches), but I've heard both here in South Australia. Suspect modern usage tends towards "a", and there are probably regional difference. See Australian English: an historical study of the vocabulary 1788-1898. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Australians pronounce our h's, so "an historical" is correct. However, we have spent so long watching American TV, American movies and listening to American songs that we often use American pronunciation, American grammar and American spelling. The English also drop their h's, so we blindly copy them too. Sighhhhh  Stepho  talk  11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The theory is that the an form arose from people dropping their aitches, or assuming silent aitches on this word. Only some regional dialects (notably Cockney) of English traditionally drop aitches, but as we know language evolves constantly and there are many outside influences on Australian English. IMO we should just accept both. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't resist recounting here this gem from our article on Australian rules footballer Jack Dyer, who did drop his aitches - "He also had a regular column which went under the name "Dyer 'ere" (a pun on diarrhoea) in Melbourne's Truth newspaper." HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I would personally never use "an historical" but I can't speak for Australians more broadly. – Teratix ₵ 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Requesting comments on a FLC discussion

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

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!


Hello,
Please note that Antarctic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Bill Morgan (lottery winner)

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

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.