| Revision as of 11:48, 3 October 2024 editChuq (talk | contribs)Administrators20,773 edits →Fiona MacDonald: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:02, 10 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,087 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 63) (bot | ||
| (96 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown) | |||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| <!-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --> | <!-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --> | ||
| ⚫ | == Good article reassessment for ] == | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ⚫ | ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership == | |||
| Is the "Controversies" section (added by {{ping|MissAnonymous123}} in her first edit) appropriate, or does it give undue weight to one event? Should the Jolley affair have a separate article, if the 16 refs indicate notability? (Not all unique refs, actually) Or should the section be reduced to a brief summary? ]] 07:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree, I've shortened it to three paragraphs, which is probably still ] but better than the blow-by-blow description that threatened to overwhelm the article. Happy to discuss on the talkpage if there's disagreement with this copyedit. -- ] (]) 09:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Editors are invited to comment at {{section link|WT:WA|Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership}} on the inclusion of unnecessary details and synthesis with respect to traditional ownership of the land in specific localities in the ], in WA. ] (]) 08:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] has an ]== | |||
| == Topic suggestion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If I may make a suggestion, for New Zealand, we have complete lists of ]. Maybe that's something to aim for to cover the Australian universities. ''']]''' 00:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Good article reassessment for ] == | ||
| ⚫ | ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) |
||
| == |
== FYI == | ||
| This project has tagged the ] talk page. So I am notifying you of ].-19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) ] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi all. I am looking for (legitimate) access to if possible. I am working on an article - ] - where it would come in very handy. ] (]) 11:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == How to handle Jervis Bay in heritage listings == | |||
| :Here it is | |||
| :Alternatively, if your browser has Reader Mode, visit the article page in a private browser window, activate Reader Mode, and the whole article should be viewable. It was for me when I just tried. ] (]) 11:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I've just created (the semi-finished) ]. The CHL lists four JB entries under the ACT. What's the best way to deal with this? (Split out JB to a separate list and add it to the CHL article? use "(including ])" at the ACT article? Leave it as is?) Thanks, <span style="font-size: 80%;color:blue"><sup>~</sup>]<sup>~]~</sup></span> 08:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| :Perhaps move to ], then note in the article that the CHL groups them together although they are separate territories? Not sure a standalone list for four items is <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:mistyrose;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 16:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :While JBT is technically a separate Commonwealth Territory, for legal, administrative, political and service delivery purposes, it functions as an exclave of the ACT. I think it is reasonable that the JBT entries are included in the ACT listing, but perhaps an explainer in the lead paragraph and footnotes with a caveat for these entries is warranted? I'm not sure 4 entries is really enough to justify a separate article and listing either. ] (]) 07:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 04:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Fiona MacDonald == | |||
| I've noticed that Fiona MacDonald, surprisingly, did not have a Misplaced Pages article! I have created a stub ] and linked it in the appropriate places. It will need some expansion (and maybe monitoring). There will no doubt be an increasing number of sources published in the coming day or two. -- ] <span style="font-size:90%;">]</span> 11:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:02, 10 January 2025
Noticeboard of WikiProject AustraliaShortcut Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. | |
Good article reassessment for Arthur Phillip
Arthur Phillip has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership
Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA § Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership on the inclusion of unnecessary details and synthesis with respect to traditional ownership of the land in specific localities in the Shire of Esperance, in WA. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Topic suggestion
If I may make a suggestion, for New Zealand, we have complete lists of honorary doctorates conferred. Maybe that's something to aim for to cover the Australian universities. Schwede66 00:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
FYI
This project has tagged the Boomerang talk page. So I am notifying you of Talk:Boomerang#No_boomerang_thower_bios.-19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
How to handle Jervis Bay in heritage listings
Hi, I've just created (the semi-finished) Commonwealth Heritage List in the Australian Capital Territory. The CHL lists four JB entries under the ACT. What's the best way to deal with this? (Split out JB to a separate list and add it to the CHL article? use "(including Jervis Bay Territory)" at the ACT article? Leave it as is?) Thanks, HydroniumHydroxide 08:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps move to Commonwealth Heritage List in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory, then note in the article that the CHL groups them together although they are separate territories? Not sure a standalone list for four items is I T B F 📢 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- While JBT is technically a separate Commonwealth Territory, for legal, administrative, political and service delivery purposes, it functions as an exclave of the ACT. I think it is reasonable that the JBT entries are included in the ACT listing, but perhaps an explainer in the lead paragraph and footnotes with a caveat for these entries is warranted? I'm not sure 4 entries is really enough to justify a separate article and listing either. Dfadden (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)