This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chzz (talk | contribs) at 01:29, 3 February 2012 (→Acheron, Victoria: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:29, 3 February 2012 by Chzz (talk | contribs) (→Acheron, Victoria: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Shortcut Skip to bottom Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help
| Skip to table of contents |
.jpg)
|
Wikimedians to the Games
Wikimedians to the Games (W2G) is a an opportunity for two Australian Wikimedians to go to London and cover the 2012 Summer Paralympics held in London for Wikinews, Commons and Misplaced Pages. W2G is played and won by skill of editing. The purpose W2G is to encourage content improvement related to the history of the Paralympic Movement in Australia and make editing on Misplaced Pages fun.
Wikimedians to the Games begins on 10 January 2012 and is structured as a two round tournament. The plan for the tournament is as follows:
- 10 January 2012 to 20 April 2012
- We start with one group of all participants, with the top 4 from that group progressing to the second round. These four will be given press passes to cover the 2012 Paralympic Games. Points reset to zero at the round.
- 22 April 2012 to 30 June 2012
- 4 participants left – the top two will earn paid transportation and accommodation to cover the Paralympic Games in person.
For the full rules clarifying for what points can be awarded and other rules, see outreach:HOPAU/W2G/Rules. However, the spirit of the rules are more important than the letter, and the judges reserve the right to deny points to anyone deemed to be abusing the system, as well as remove persistently problematic users from the competition. The judges for W2G include Laura Hale and John Vandenberg. They will be assisted by other judges including Sp33dyphil. They can be reached by their talk pages, the W2G talk page, by email or in the Wikimedia Australia IRC channel, #wikimedia-au . Also, check this page and its sub pages to see if your question was already answered.
If you believe one of the contestants is abusing the spirit of the rules, intentionally submitting subpar articles with the aim of getting more W2G points, or anything similar, please contact one of the judges by email. They will look into the matter and take action if necessary.
You can sign up at any time between 10 January and 20 April 2012 by following the directions on outreach:HOPAU/W2G/Participants. --LauraHale (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please answer my question following your post to WT:WA diff on this or the post on Wikimedia Outreach both of which were left two days ago. In short why are featured pictures so under valued that a person would need to take 200 FP to get the equalivelant point of one FA and then have to earn another 150 points thru other means to get that value Gnangarra 13:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't see it. My bad. The primary purpose of this program is to improve content. At the same time, the relative amount of time and work in creating, and nominating a Featured Picture is much less. Hence the point difference. For photographers, there are ways to take pictures and get more points: They can re-use those pictures in DYK nominations and in Wikinews articles. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it needs to be revised in light of what Gnangarra has raised - namely, that it's pretty much impossible for a photographer to achieve the required "points". No points system is immune from change if it's shown to be silly. (And I say that as a writer of one featured article which took almost two months to get right - one might actually ask if the system for *those* is a little heavy and would encourage poor quality FA nominations.) Also, why such a limited language list? I could probably interest an editor in writing in Serbian, but that isn't on the list, and there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of incentive to do it anyway. Considering Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Greek and the Balkan languages are the main non-English first languages in Australia, it seems blatantly odd to give French and German higher priority. Orderinchaos 01:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- French and German were given a priority because their Featured Article process is generally considered rigorous, and less of a popularity contest. Photographers have the opportunity to participate, but again, the emphasis is on improving content. We'd love them to be involved and we offered points to encourage them to participate. We can assist them in getting press passes to attend events. We're going to host at least one workshop at NSIC specifically dealing with Commons and taking pictures. (Almost certainly, people from Western Australia will have an opportunity to attend: They will likely need to meet a minimum threshold of points to get a participation grant.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it needs to be revised in light of what Gnangarra has raised - namely, that it's pretty much impossible for a photographer to achieve the required "points". No points system is immune from change if it's shown to be silly. (And I say that as a writer of one featured article which took almost two months to get right - one might actually ask if the system for *those* is a little heavy and would encourage poor quality FA nominations.) Also, why such a limited language list? I could probably interest an editor in writing in Serbian, but that isn't on the list, and there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of incentive to do it anyway. Considering Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Greek and the Balkan languages are the main non-English first languages in Australia, it seems blatantly odd to give French and German higher priority. Orderinchaos 01:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can see what it is trying to achieve, but it seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake to me, and possibly (through the best of intentions) not choosing the right behaviours to reward. Like I said, I probably could get a couple of people interested from WA, but they're unlikely to participate if there's no likelihood of them ever getting there because of seemingly discriminatory rules. (My Serbian friend has pointed out the rather obvious, although unintentional, class bias - it would be almost impossible for a less educated or lower class person to get any headway.) Orderinchaos 02:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Laura how many FPs have you created, how long did take, how far did you travel, how much expense did you incur. The point is if you end up sending a photographer to the games you'll end up with 2,000 plus free photographs, send a writeer you'll get 10-12 wikinews articles and couple of en articles. Getting the photographs are a once off opportunity they cant be taken after the event but the article can. Simply WMAU is suppose to be about suporting all Wikimedia contributors this clearly says that taking photographs is a worthless pursuit as far as WMAU is concerned. Gnangarra 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. We're permanently short of high quality photos of contemporary events of all kinds (as well as photos of living people from outside the US), so someone with track record of creating high quality photos would be great choice to send along. It wouldn't be any more difficult to add text to articles on the games from Australia than from London, but photos obviously require the person to be on the ground. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Laura how many FPs have you created, how long did take, how far did you travel, how much expense did you incur. The point is if you end up sending a photographer to the games you'll end up with 2,000 plus free photographs, send a writeer you'll get 10-12 wikinews articles and couple of en articles. Getting the photographs are a once off opportunity they cant be taken after the event but the article can. Simply WMAU is suppose to be about suporting all Wikimedia contributors this clearly says that taking photographs is a worthless pursuit as far as WMAU is concerned. Gnangarra 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi all. If I might step in here for a moment, I think that some of this criticism directed at Laura is misdirected. WMAU is partnering with the Australian Paralympic Committee to offer this opportunity to editors, and they are primarily interested in developing written material for a book documenting the history of the Paralympic Movement in Australia (see wikiversity:The_History_of_the_Paralympic_Movement_in_Australia for more information). The main reason that pictures and images, or articles on non-English projects are even being considered at all is because Laura has pushed for that with APC and some tradeoffs have been made. Obviously, this competition will not suit every Wikimedian skillset out there (that includes my own; I've never written a featured article in my life), which is unfortunate but unavoidable in this case. There is no implication being made that an FP is 50 times easier to create than an FA; anyone who's tried to do it without having the right equipment and experience knows how difficult it is :-/. We hope to also run some competitions targeted at photographers in 2012, to provide opportunities for editors who are good with a camera to have a go.
- With that said, we'll see if we can include Greek and Serbian on the list. The prime concern obviously is whether the FA (or equivalent) processes on those projects are rigourous and impartial enough for us to base scoring points off of. Lankiveil 09:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
- WMAU is about supporting efforts of contributors in Australia not about writing books for sporting organisations, thats siad working with groups to gain content is always a good idea just that WMAU should be prioritising benefits to and including the community. On aside issue given the amount of investment WMAU is doing in developing Indonesian languages surely Indonesian would aslo be a language of some priority as well. Gnangarra 10:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- With that said, we'll see if we can include Greek and Serbian on the list. The prime concern obviously is whether the FA (or equivalent) processes on those projects are rigourous and impartial enough for us to base scoring points off of. Lankiveil 09:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
Which events would Gnangarra and Orderinchaos like to attend in person to take pictures related to eligible content and documenting the history of the Paralympic movement in Australia? If I can have an idea from you both as to what you'd be targeting, I can make appropriate inquiries about changing the point system for the second round to assist photographers, or to try to give them an increased incentive to participate in the first round with that in mind. --LauraHale (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at WA institute of sport and APC I cant identify any events over here. I'm happy to attend any event to take photographs just let me know where I can find out about them. Gnangarra 11:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the rules, determine areas eligible for pictures and then get in touch with us regarding what events you may require press passes for. Once you have that, I can take the next step of requesting credentials for you. There is no guarantee that you'll get them but we will try. Remember, when thinking about taking pictures, one of the big over riding goals of this project is to write a history of the Paralympic movement in Australia and pictures should assist in the goal as stipulated based on eligible content areas. As for the number of events, there are likely to be few in Western Australia but that's partially problem of timing. We're trying to support photographers as much as we can: Hence the availability of multiple ways to contribute to get points to make it more reachable for Wikimedians who don't primarily edit. Hence, some general methods of thanking contributors that go beyond London such as getting an APC hat, getting access to press passes to attend local events, and if you have some points, an opportunity to attend a workshop in Canberra. We're hoping to have at least one of these workshops specifically to talk about Commons. This probably isn't the project for Commons people, and hopefully we can use the success of this to develop relationships with other sporting organisations that will allow more focused content related to them. At the moment, this is a GLAM project being done with the Australian Paralympic Committee with support from Wikimedia Australia with the goal of writing a history. Yes, we want all types of Australian contributors, but it is hard to fit them all into one project. (It was proposed that we had a media person, but we are under the impression that pictures will be made available from London and thus some one specifically doing photography is not needed.) Commons people can get extra points by doing photo journalism type pieces on Wikinews. (And hopefully, we can have a workshop that specifically talks about Wikinews and how people can use media to publish news stories. I know this is an area Wikinews is specifically looking to address.) Back to the point: If you have some specific events you want to target during the second round, let us know and we can see about changing the point system during that round to be more favourable to Commons contributors. Just let me know what events. --LauraHale (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Laura, I think what Gnangarra was more interested in was if there was any events in the WA area that he could get to. Sort of hard to request a press pass for an event when you're not sure what's available :-). Lankiveil 13:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
- My recall was there were few disability events available around Australia where opportunities were to take place during this period that would make it easy to take pictures. If he wants to take picture and wants to see points increased for it, I'm happy to make an argument about that… but given that I think there might be three eligible, I need to know what he wants to take pictures of. :) If there are few opportunities for pictures available, then the whole point is rather moot. Horse jumping calendar might have something for disability competitors (but not sure), cycling calendar may have something, Athletics Australia may also have something. The problem is, as I understand it, it will probably by more difficult to get press passes to non-APC run events. So yeah, it comes back to this: If some one is determined to take pictures and get 25% of their points through Commons and want to argue increased point value for the next round, then they need to sign up and we need events they identify that they would like to attend. I'm willing to ask these questions about the second round but I need help identifying events so I can see if these are priority areas for them that would merit a point increase. Beyond that, I want to say the APC has been pretty fantastic at releasing pictures when requested for articles. They've provided several upon request and have made an image donation already and are working continuing to work on the number of images donated. --LauraHale (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've been thru all those links none of them have any information on disabled events anywhere in the coutry in the next 6 months surely there are some somewhere and that there is actually a web page where people can find out about these events. This lack of simple information is going to be an issue with establishing basic notability no matter how much you pusht people to write article is notability cant be established its pointless, oh and its suppose to start tomorrow but basic questions stil aint being answered Gnangarra 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- If there are suitable events in the next six months, you'll know about them as soon as we do. To be frank, we are expecting that W2G participants will find the local events and people themselves. There are regular National Wheelchair Basketball League events across the country. There are lists of events at http://www.sports.org.au/events.html and they are grouped by state. For the Wikinews part of the W2G pre-requisites, it is possible to interview competitors near you. If participants need introductions or interviews set up, WMAu and APC will try to assist. It wont always be possible. Also, WMAu and APC are planning workshops interstate, so W2G participants will have an opportunity to travel interstate, and these could be timed to coincide with events where Australian Paralympians are competing and/or training sessions. WMAu and APC are interested in any ideas participants may have. At the end of the day, the timeline for this W2G competition has a hard deadline because the prize is a trip to the Paralympics this year with a press pass. To win this competition, the participants will need to be resourceful and self-motivated, and they will need to learn as much as they can about the Australian disability sport sector. John Vandenberg 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've been thru all those links none of them have any information on disabled events anywhere in the coutry in the next 6 months surely there are some somewhere and that there is actually a web page where people can find out about these events. This lack of simple information is going to be an issue with establishing basic notability no matter how much you pusht people to write article is notability cant be established its pointless, oh and its suppose to start tomorrow but basic questions stil aint being answered Gnangarra 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- My recall was there were few disability events available around Australia where opportunities were to take place during this period that would make it easy to take pictures. If he wants to take picture and wants to see points increased for it, I'm happy to make an argument about that… but given that I think there might be three eligible, I need to know what he wants to take pictures of. :) If there are few opportunities for pictures available, then the whole point is rather moot. Horse jumping calendar might have something for disability competitors (but not sure), cycling calendar may have something, Athletics Australia may also have something. The problem is, as I understand it, it will probably by more difficult to get press passes to non-APC run events. So yeah, it comes back to this: If some one is determined to take pictures and get 25% of their points through Commons and want to argue increased point value for the next round, then they need to sign up and we need events they identify that they would like to attend. I'm willing to ask these questions about the second round but I need help identifying events so I can see if these are priority areas for them that would merit a point increase. Beyond that, I want to say the APC has been pretty fantastic at releasing pictures when requested for articles. They've provided several upon request and have made an image donation already and are working continuing to work on the number of images donated. --LauraHale (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Laura, I think what Gnangarra was more interested in was if there was any events in the WA area that he could get to. Sort of hard to request a press pass for an event when you're not sure what's available :-). Lankiveil 13:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
- Please read the rules, determine areas eligible for pictures and then get in touch with us regarding what events you may require press passes for. Once you have that, I can take the next step of requesting credentials for you. There is no guarantee that you'll get them but we will try. Remember, when thinking about taking pictures, one of the big over riding goals of this project is to write a history of the Paralympic movement in Australia and pictures should assist in the goal as stipulated based on eligible content areas. As for the number of events, there are likely to be few in Western Australia but that's partially problem of timing. We're trying to support photographers as much as we can: Hence the availability of multiple ways to contribute to get points to make it more reachable for Wikimedians who don't primarily edit. Hence, some general methods of thanking contributors that go beyond London such as getting an APC hat, getting access to press passes to attend local events, and if you have some points, an opportunity to attend a workshop in Canberra. We're hoping to have at least one of these workshops specifically to talk about Commons. This probably isn't the project for Commons people, and hopefully we can use the success of this to develop relationships with other sporting organisations that will allow more focused content related to them. At the moment, this is a GLAM project being done with the Australian Paralympic Committee with support from Wikimedia Australia with the goal of writing a history. Yes, we want all types of Australian contributors, but it is hard to fit them all into one project. (It was proposed that we had a media person, but we are under the impression that pictures will be made available from London and thus some one specifically doing photography is not needed.) Commons people can get extra points by doing photo journalism type pieces on Wikinews. (And hopefully, we can have a workshop that specifically talks about Wikinews and how people can use media to publish news stories. I know this is an area Wikinews is specifically looking to address.) Back to the point: If you have some specific events you want to target during the second round, let us know and we can see about changing the point system during that round to be more favourable to Commons contributors. Just let me know what events. --LauraHale (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- p.s. There are plans to redo this for the next Winter Games. Obviously we'll be able to plan that one better and take advantage of feedback from the community. We will try to incorporate feedback into this W2G, especially the second round, however we wont be able to make large structural changes to a running program. OTOH, if participants are having troubles with the current design (e.g. with the Wikinews component; or the problems which plagued the Indian Education Program) then the program organisers may decide that adjustments are needed immediately. John Vandenberg 08:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gnang and I turned up at an international event in our city which made several news publications, but anything we wrote about that the major newspapers didn't was complained about by the WikiNews editors and ultimately, even though we had the photographs to prove what we were saying, we had to remove it. How is an event that probably won't even make the local paper going to survive that sort of scrutiny over there? Do WMAu have some contacts in high places to allow this to happen? Orderinchaos 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
wikinews
- Gnang and I kind of had a run-in with WikiNews ... got the distinct impression we weren't really wanted there even though we were covering topical news - they full on wasted our time over there, and after a full day's effort covering news events happening here that were making national and international news in conventional media. It's obvious that the standard of how to get an article accepted depends very much on "who you know", rather than how well you write or how relevant the content is, especially when it's Australian-focused. If you have any sway over there and can somehow convince people to actually bother to constructively assist rather than string it out with odd demands and convoluted and incoherent rules until it's "stale", I *might* consider going back for another try. It seemed so damned unprofessional and newbie-unfriendly - made me see the whole newbie retention thing in a new light (as I've heard most of the story as an experienced Wikipedian and haven't been a newbie here for more than half a decade.) I would oppose sending *anyone* there on WMAU's behest or pinning point values on that site until we get this fixed. Orderinchaos 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's what you know, not who. If you post in an encyclopedic style, don't use inverse-pyramid, use <ref> links, don't use active voice,... generally if you don't follow policies and put together a good submission, it won't get reviewed, and thus will end up stale and deleted. --Brian McNeil / 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored the two articles you tried to get into Wikinews, and put in userspace. One with three failing reviews and another with two failing reviews. I note on the latter someone sat and watched a video to see if it backed-up the article content, so you can hardly say nobody devoted time to your submissions. Hopefully putting these here may give others an opportunity to avoid those same pitfalls. --Brian McNeil / 22:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)
- The reality of working on Wikinews, remembering I had had 23 articles previously published all without issues before publication;
- written article between 02:47 29th 03:28 29th - tagged for review
- renamed by an admin at 0329 29th - 2 things here a) no review not even suggestions though the article needed categories and an infobox
- added cats 0609 - 0614 called for help on #wikinews IRC no response not even a hello
- 0917 small copy edit intended to cause it the reappear on recent changes (6 hours elapsed no review) email sent to wikinews-l i still wait a response, still no response on #wikimews irc -- I actually still havent recieved a response 3 months later
- 2200 - 2215 reviewer made process edits (date order sources, categorys, wp links formats)
- 2250 flagged as not ready, elapsed time from review tag 19 hours, this review claimed NPOV issues thru use of term genocide in title, though accurate and supported by sources as well visually verifiable in the photographs, 19 hours elapsed since the article was tagged as ready
- 23:37 infobox added by another admin
- 0438-0446 30th rewritten to adress concerns replaced image with one which visually verifies both war crimes, genocide being protested. retagged for review elapse time since first tag 25 hours elapsed, though 6 hours was due to myself not being online
- 23:23 30th admin links publishers no review 44 hours elapsed 19 since review concerns were addressed
- 20:25 31st article reworked again though no review elapsed time 64 hours
- 20:49 31st review, lede need work, npov not reviewed, freshness questions 64hour elapse, (6 hours creators, 58hours waiting reviews)
- 00:24 1st addressed concerns and tagged for review 68hours elapsed(10hours creators, 58review) additional edits made to article
- 04:00 2nd renamed by admin no review, 96hours elapsed (10hours creator, 86 hours awaiting review) three hours since previous review issues were addressed
- 13:30 2nd reviewed "Comments by reviewer: I'm also not entirely sure previous style issues (e.g. lede improvements) have been resolved." and "Newsworthiness: Symbol unrelated.svg Not ready: This does not appear to be fresh anymore" elapsed time 105hours (10 creator, 95hours review) its now 13 hours since the previous review concerns were addressed,
- all of this is available in the edit history of the original article, the biggest pitfalls to avoid is the 95hours where the article sat unreviewed and even then the reviews were incomplete so its impossible to address concerns because it was never properly reviewed. Article went stale. Gnangarra 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The reality of working on Wikinews, remembering I had had 23 articles previously published all without issues before publication;
- Gnang and I kind of had a run-in with WikiNews ... got the distinct impression we weren't really wanted there even though we were covering topical news - they full on wasted our time over there, and after a full day's effort covering news events happening here that were making national and international news in conventional media. It's obvious that the standard of how to get an article accepted depends very much on "who you know", rather than how well you write or how relevant the content is, especially when it's Australian-focused. If you have any sway over there and can somehow convince people to actually bother to constructively assist rather than string it out with odd demands and convoluted and incoherent rules until it's "stale", I *might* consider going back for another try. It seemed so damned unprofessional and newbie-unfriendly - made me see the whole newbie retention thing in a new light (as I've heard most of the story as an experienced Wikipedian and haven't been a newbie here for more than half a decade.) I would oppose sending *anyone* there on WMAU's behest or pinning point values on that site until we get this fixed. Orderinchaos 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The key point being that at no point were we told what was actually wrong or what needed to be done in a constructive fashion which we could use to fix it. We did do our best, but we weren't engaged with in good faith. Your "don't use inverse pyramid" thing - we're not professional journalists or writers, we don't understand journo slang and no page on Wikinews was helpful in explaining it, we're just people trying to get stuff done. As for "who you know", I saw some really dreadful articles with basic factual errors on Australian political topics which were waved through with flying colours. Orderinchaos 06:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting how in just over 48 hours, noone seems to want to answer the questions over Wikinews's processes. I guess like many places it has an "internal mindset" which is decidedly anti-newbie in character. I reiterate my advice to the chapter that until these issues are fixed, WMAu should not base any points upon WikiNews stories by Australian editors as doing so would penalise anyone who isn't already "in-group". Orderinchaos 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I answered as best I can above. If the Wikinews component is proving to be a significant problem, the organisers will look at the issue. The competition is weighted in favour of English Misplaced Pages and Commons, so most folk here should find it easy to do well. The Wikinews component may prove difficult for some people, but it is a small portion of the pre-requisites. I believe it is worth the risk to involve Wikinews. John Vandenberg 05:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is it true that an event, in order to be recorded, needs very major coverage in national newspapers before it is notable, and it can't be written about less than 3 days after it happens? Because that's basically why our articles were rejected. Orderinchaos 06:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It would seem I should have completely avoided this discussion - since I'm now being criticised for not devoting substantial time to it, and to responding to criticism formed on the basis of "feeling slighted".
I doubt there is a single Wikinews contributor — part of the clique you perceive or not — who hasn't lost articles over review timescales, or failing to resolve issues causing a failed review. If terms like Inverted pyramid are alien, look them up in an encyclopedia. It's understandable someone well-versed in writing introductions on encylopedia articles might not understand a lede's function, content, or the appropriate grammatical voice for a news article. But, knowledge of how to write in an encyclopedic style, even for Misplaced Pages, does not teach how to construct a news article. Perseverance, practice, and a familiarity with quality journalism do.
I feel your attack on the small Wikinews community is unwarranted, Orderinchaos. Some constructive criticism might be of more use - such as where the project's policies, and essays intended to provide guidance, failed you.
And, to reiterate: it's Wikinews, not WikiNews, much like here isn't WikiPedia. --Brian McNeil / 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I argued that it is newbie-unfriendly, and exclusive, and my point stands. Where is the help offered to newbies rather than the less-than-subtle attempts to drive them away? Where is the "Step by step guide to creating a Wikinews article"? I did look, but couldn't find one, and what I did find was not written in a manner that the sort of person who would actually need to reference it could understand. I did actually look up the "inverted pyramid" thing when it was said and thought I *had* conformed to it, so didn't understand the criticism. And I've got a degree, am on my way to a second, have won awards with essays I have written and have written articles for community newspapers, so I can only imagine how younger or less-educated people would feel - intimidated, in a word. It comes down to this - don't speak in code - be clear - just as is asked of newbies! What is the need to speak in alienating jargon and not use links to explain things - why not just say "Do this and this and don't do this" instead? I *honestly* totally got how newbies feel on Misplaced Pages after my brush with your site. And the delays Gnangarra mentioned were totally unnecessary - there was only 7 articles being reviewed at the time, and only two reviewers - itself an indication of the health of the site. And apologies for my miscapitalisation of the site's name. Orderinchaos 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you've now finished the "edit twitch" expansion of reiterating the original complaint; one that can equally be made against Misplaced Pages by outsiders unfamiliar with its jargon, or code.
- But, what of the constructive criticism I asked for?
- Or are you avoiding mentioning a sin we're all frequently guilty of? Namely, thinking one can construct something without reference to the instructions. I certainly saw a fair share of that with the first batch of UoW students; final year students who submitted editorialising articles because they didn't need to look at the instructions. In stark contrast, the second batch — in their first year — read the fine manual and fared far, far better.
- At present, improving introductory texts will have more payoff than responding to syndicated reruns of your personal complaints. What, exactly, failed you in Wikinews' welcoming template? You're still harping on about an article that failed several times on point 4. And, I see no jargon or code there. --Brian McNeil / 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)
- I have a disability, so I do sometimes do things with a number of edits. My apologies if this offended.
- I reiterate - where is the guide to writing articles? "Read the fine manual" - something that as a net denizen of some 20 years I'm *well* aware of - works only when the manual is written to be understood. I followed the instructions as given in that template - my article failed. I was not told in any meaningful or reasonable way why, and after having already tried to help Gnang's article, I gave up as I realised the task was hopeless. I felt like I was trying to hit a moving target and its actual location was a closely guarded secret. Pick something current? - It had happened the same day. Use two independent sources? - I did that too. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? - Did both of those. Follow Wikinews' structure? - This seems to be the bit where I came unstuck, as I had *no* idea what "Wikinews' structure" is - it seems to be different than for any other publication I've ever written for, judging from the fact that it failed. Orderinchaos 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- "it" failed? Why, thank you for demonstrating you did not read the links provided in two of the three reviews you received, links to "the guide to writing articles".
- " (following inverted pyramid structure) ". This comes after being told in a detailed review the headline and (again, wikilinked) lede do not reflect the content. point 2 of the 'prototype wizard states, "Write to be easily understood, by an international audience. Prefer short paragraphs; typically 30–80 words, 1–3 sentences. One topic per paragraph.", and the wikilink from lede goes to an item in Wikinews' style guide — one which states: "The first paragraph (known as the intro or lede) should summarize the article in around 50-80 words, using one to three sentences.".
- "In its new form, the article does not have a proper lede, and does not appear to follow inverted pyramid style relative to its theme as stated by the headline. ". That's how the second review opens, and with those same two words wikilinked to the style guide.
- " not entirely sure previous style issues (e.g. lede improvements) have been resolved", states the third review at the point of staleness.
- You've convinced me that you never looked at the manual you say is missing. Is the problem perhaps "jargon"? That Wikinews refers to it as a style guide whereas Misplaced Pages calls it a Manual of Style?
- You still have not offered constructive criticism of the documentation provided to newbies; this point regarding the lede (or introduction if the term is too obscure) is still there. Both as I cite above and, in the welcome template, on your userpage where it states: "Follow Wikinews' structure for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph." (extra emphasis added).
- Take any news article from AP, Reuters, the BBC or the New York Times, and they all follow that exact same structure. The opening (lede, as Wikinewsies prefer) is pithy. It would be churlish to expect you to have written for any of these publications, but where have you written for a news source striving for professionalism?
- There. I've re-iterated why the article was never in a passable state, and again pointed to sections of the "guide to writing articles" that explain not only why, but how it should have been written to be potentially passable.
- Would you care to say what is wrong with the instructions in that "guide to writing articles"? --Brian McNeil / 19:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Where was that??(Just realised you linked it at the end, sorry.) I was looking for something like that for nearly 45 minutes on the day I wrote my article. What I did find was some thing that was so jargon-laden (all the "inverted pyramid" business etc) that I couldn't understand it, and tried to proceed anyway. My constructive criticism is - tell them where to find the easy-to-read documentation, give them exemplars (both positive and negative), kind of like a mini-course. If I could comprehend it myself, I'd help you develop it. Not everybody understands the same things from the same words - I work as an educator so I'm well familiar that I need to explain things multiple times in different ways when communicating with my students, the same is true of documentation. For interest, I'm an auditory learner in the VAK model, and I also have a visual disability which means it's very difficult to take in different things in different locations at the same time on a screen (the new Facebook timeline feature is sheer hell for me). The final thing is that none of the reviews pointed me to what I needed to do to improve my article - if they did, it was beyond my comprehension, and I would have thought that given I was brand new to the site and there was only 7 articles to review, someone might have asked me what the problem was. One of the reviews appeared to be telling me to do something with the lede that I thought I'd already done, and no guidance was given as to how to fix it. (I should note the article you're addressing was written by someone else - I came along and edited it later, although it seems my edit was part of the problem, but anyway...) Anyway, I'm time-poor, and I've basically given up. I'm still not sure that I would be capable of writing an article which meets Wikinews's exacting and (still to me not completely clear) standards, and I'm sick of being treated in a patronising manner by someone that seems to think the only people who should write for Wikinews are semi-professional journalists, rather than community members. As was demonstrated in some of the comments I received, very very few things happening in my city would even qualify anyway due to the poor state of local print media. Orderinchaos 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)- Incidentally, I just showed the documentation and reviews to a journalist at The West Australian, who admits that without her specialist training *she* wouldn't understand it either. That shouldn't be the way on a wiki. (She's at least offered me help on what I could do to write a better article.) Orderinchaos 23:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Any help on documentation would be most welcome. As I'm sure you know, the more you are familiar with a subject, the harder writing introductory texts is.
An enormous amount of work has gone into the welcome template to trim it back to a level that people will be highly likely to read all of, but tabs have been used so that all the most-salient policies are available from within it. --Brian McNeil / 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- OrderInChaos, are you able to provide any input on this? We have specific pages supposedly to target people more-familiar with Misplaced Pages. Having a "bad" experience with Wikinews makes your input on these more valuable. Wikinews for Wikipedians needs to catch people's attention straight away. We probably fail to push, or highlight, it sufficiently; however, where people do end up landing on it, there's a need to immediately prove a difference between the projects, give a couple of valuable 'acclimatisation tips', and get people for whom wiki-markup is trivial up-to-speed on our project's weirdness.
- The above discussion is a "painful" to-and-fro of I say all you need to know is there, versus you not knowing where to look. Let's try and fix that, please. You're more than welcome to post what you find appropriate criticism on the talk pages of policies and templates, to outline how you expect to navigate to "educational content" related to contributing, or any other ideas that might lessen the steep learning curve associated with contributing to Wikinews.
- Those, like myself, who want Misplaced Pages to follow its own policy that it is not a news site, need input from people more used to Misplaced Pages on the challenges facing you switching from encyclopedia entry to news report. --Brian McNeil / 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)
- Apologies for the long delay in responding - I was interstate and not exactly near internet for most of it. Agreed that that link is a good one. Re original reporting - I am confused by that one as that was part of why one of our articles failed the review (in essence that we had facts we could prove through photographs we'd taken which didn't appear in a major daily) - could that be better explained perhaps on the page? Also with things like "inverted pyramid" a couple of "do and don't" examples would be great for those of us that learn from example - I'd suggest having a separate page for that which is linked from any reference in "newbie" publications to it. I really do appreciate your approach to me in the above message and hope we can use this experience to improve the entry process for others. Orderinchaos 00:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Let the games begin
I've reposted the notice to Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikimedians_to_the_Games. --John Vandenberg 05:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Help finding contributors
It would be fantastic if Australian contributors could help find other like minded Australians to participate. :) If we can make this a success, it opens up additional doors for creating similar relationships with other Australian sport federations, and with the major Australian sports leagues like the AFL, NRL, NBL, WNBL, A-League, W-League and ANZ Championship. If you're not interested in participating because you aren't keen to go to London, there will be opportunities to travel to Canberra and the Australian Institute of Sport for those who say get ten total points. This travel will probably come in the form of a travel grant so it wouldn't cost you. You can attend a workshop and get a look behind the scenes at the AIS. If you're particularly good at some task like DYKs, notability, GAs, Featured Articles, Commons, Wikisource, there may also be the opportunity to lead a workshop at the AIS. We're also working on helping to get formal credentials for Australian Wikinews contributors who can become accredited reporters on the project. :) So yes. Help getting people to contribute would be fantastic. :) --LauraHale (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
These? in notable's articles
_ribbon.png){kind=small}
My inclination is to exterminate on sight (on the grounds that our putative readership can read). Other's opinions? see Walter Campbell (judge) as an example Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like it. It conveys much less than text describing the honours. Its the first time I have seen the ribbons. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Agree. As Crusoe says, people can read and don't need this (as opposed to an image of the subject actually being awarded with said medals). Secondly, FWIW, there doesn't appear to be a precedent in other encyclopedias. Also, do others feel that the inclusion of such images makes it seem as if we're putting the various notables on a pedestal? Honouring them rather than simply stating who they are and what they've done? ClaretAsh 11:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- They are commonplace: John Howard#Honours, Quentin Bryce#Honours etc. WWGB (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- There have been discussions about whether to include medal ribbons in articles on military people (including lots of Australians) at WT:MILHIST, and the consensus has (from memory) been to remove them. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- They look pretty meaningless the way they have been placed in John Howard#Honours, maybe as a small icon near where the award was given it'd add meaning but really its just a camp decoration for an article about a politician. Including medal ribbons in a military persons article makes sense as a reader can look at an image of the person in uniform and then visually identify what each are for. Gnangarra 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- These seem like a kind of insider talk. 99.99% of people won't know what they mean and the few that do will just feel cleverer. They don't inform. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with HiLo48. They don't belong in the articles as they are only in the article as pure decoration and not there to inform the reader. I have 20/20 vision and I can't even make out if I'm looking at a Queensland or New South Wales flag since the icons are small (I'm not saying they could be larger), so someone with poor vision isn't going to care about the flags and the ribbons, since they can't make out what it is, as well as those whom don't know what each one means. Bidgee (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- May I suggest that any discussion about their inclusion be escalated beyond this WikiProject's sphere. If the consensus from a future discussion is to remove them, it'll have consequences for the rest of the project, if only it be a new guideline being added somewhere. ClaretAsh 11:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately they are far too common in articles. They've even found a place in articles about fictional characters, like NCIS' Leroy Jethro Gibbs. There's even a special template for their use in US articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- As Nick-D says this has been discussed many times at WT:MILHIST, the most recent discussion being this one. NtheP (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) As Nick-D says, we've had a few rounds of discussion on this at MilHist and they've generally ended in stalemate, or with some grudging agreement to respect consensus on an article-by-article basis. Me, I think ribbons make articles look like a childrens' picture book, and have no place in an encyclopedia. The argument that some have used at MilHist, that they help people identify what people have done and where they've fought, doesn't hold water as the average person would have no idea what each ribbon means without the name next to it, in which case the ribbon is redundant. In any case the link in the award name takes you to a WP article that not only shows you the ribbon but, lo and behold, the medal itself! So any attempt to remove these or at least stop their spread will have my full support. Be aware however that there are some in MilHist who have equally strong feelings for the ribbons -- I just don't for one moment accept their arguments... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to Ian for alerting me to this thread, since he knows I've made noises before about the matter. I don't mind these images being available at some centralised location or locations, but when articles become covered with colourfests, my impression is that it detracts from the dignity of the person and their achievements. A row of medals on a person's chest inspires respect; a medal farm in a textual article can cheapen the topic. Tony (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The ribbon images do not aid a reader's knowledge of the individuals and are a visual distraction.--Melburnian (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if we are to include these ribbons, they need to be presented in an encyclopedic manner; i.e. informative and comphrensive. In their current state they aren't, but I'm open to an alternative presentation that might be. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
My Watchlist just alerted me to the removal of the images from Keith Miller. The edit summary noted that there was "clear consensus" here to remove them. I don't see any such consensus. I see some comments that they may be unhelpful. I see some people calling for wider discussion. I don't think that the way they were presented at Miller's article (which is a GA) was unhelpful, meaningless, a colourfest or any other net negative. They are supported by good, clear text. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Agree!!! There has been zero attempt to canvass a consensus. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- must have misinterpreted all the above. So, revert my edits, by all means, (all have edit summaries) but perhaps add some lovely multicoloured very big text with an original typeface beneath each so our readership will not be distracted from them to the encyclopedic content. Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon?
- but perhaps add some lovely multicoloured very big text with an original typeface beneath each so our readership will not be distracted from them to the encyclopedic content.
- Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Could I bother you to explain yourself please? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please include text explaining what medal the ribbon represents alongside it (as few people will have any idea what ribbon goes with which medal, or even that there's a relationship). However, I do think that there was support for removing the ribbons based on the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hullo Pdf, once more unto the breach for us on this subject, eh...? ;-) Seriously though, this is the WP:Australia talk page, and a note was put on the MilHist talk page, so I think we can say there's been a fair attempt to canvass opinion. As Nick says, there seems pretty strong support from the above for dispensing with the ribbons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Idi Amin was wont to wear his medals in about 5 lines, but Australian convention is not to so do, so perhaps ensuring that the order of precedence is followed would be useful Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The section in Miller's article includes a smashing, fully wikilinked outline of what each ribbon represents. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which is entirely the point. The awards are linked, so clicking on them shows you the medal and the ribbon, if you're that interested. So why bother with them in each individual biography? Further, wikilinking isn't citation. Still further, there's no need to have separate sections of awards and honours. Those that are for service above and beyond the call of duty are noted/wikilinked in the infobox, and detailed/cited in the main body of the article. All the rest is imagecruft and listcruft. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why include an image of a biographical subject? Is that imagecruft? I could describe what Miller looks like. The article goes into some detail of Miller's war record and his laconic brand of heroism. It's not inappropriate. And this is notpaper. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that misses the point, mate. If I read an article on Keith Miller, I expect to see images of him there. I don't expect to see a picture of everyone who's had an impact on his life. Those people will be linked, and I should be able to see a picture of them there. Obviously his war service is mentioned, as it should be, and his awards are mentioned, cited and linked. That's enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see no problem with person who have military service have any recognition of service displayed, the problem I see that in non military articles they mean nothing and nothing that text alone cant decsribe. Gnangarra 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that misses the point, mate. If I read an article on Keith Miller, I expect to see images of him there. I don't expect to see a picture of everyone who's had an impact on his life. Those people will be linked, and I should be able to see a picture of them there. Obviously his war service is mentioned, as it should be, and his awards are mentioned, cited and linked. That's enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why include an image of a biographical subject? Is that imagecruft? I could describe what Miller looks like. The article goes into some detail of Miller's war record and his laconic brand of heroism. It's not inappropriate. And this is notpaper. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which is entirely the point. The awards are linked, so clicking on them shows you the medal and the ribbon, if you're that interested. So why bother with them in each individual biography? Further, wikilinking isn't citation. Still further, there's no need to have separate sections of awards and honours. Those that are for service above and beyond the call of duty are noted/wikilinked in the infobox, and detailed/cited in the main body of the article. All the rest is imagecruft and listcruft. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The section in Miller's article includes a smashing, fully wikilinked outline of what each ribbon represents. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please include text explaining what medal the ribbon represents alongside it (as few people will have any idea what ribbon goes with which medal, or even that there's a relationship). However, I do think that there was support for removing the ribbons based on the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- must have misinterpreted all the above. So, revert my edits, by all means, (all have edit summaries) but perhaps add some lovely multicoloured very big text with an original typeface beneath each so our readership will not be distracted from them to the encyclopedic content. Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion
Use this:
|
Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) | 1987 |
 |
Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO) | 2000 |
_ribbon.png){kind=small} |
Knight of Justice of the Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem (KStJ) | 1996 |
 |
Defence Medal | |
_ribbon.png){kind=small} |
War Medal 1939–1945 | |
 |
Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal | 1977 |
and not this:
WWGB (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and we do not wear our medals in 2 lines as shown; we wear them in one line and if the recipient of a War Medal (or any other military service medal) has that medal shown on a second line BELOW (not alongside) those of higher precedence (particularly a civilian award as depicted above) that is an insult to the recipient Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Happy for this to be implemented at Miller's article. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I feel I should just point out that the ribbons above (in 2 lines) show the correct order of wear (when wearing ribbons as per above), the only time all of one's medals are worn in 1 single row is when you are either wearing 'Full' medals or 'Miniture' medals. --Nford24 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2012 (AEST)
- I have also noticed that most of the Ribbon Bars have been removed from 'notables' pages without puting in what medals were awarded (Example:David Smith (Australian public servant) - in this case the ribbons were removed which ment the article no longer implied that he was made a Knight of the Order of St John or that he was even awarded the QE2 Silver Jubilee Medal. --Nford24 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2012 (AEST)
- Happy for this to be implemented at Miller's article. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think we need to distinguish that military personal, npn military personal should be treated differently as one expects to see a display of ribons in the info box of military pesonal. Gnangarra 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've reconsidered my opinion on this. WWGBs idea above suggests the currant "medalfarm" could be turned into something encyclopedic. Perhaps the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" sections on articles about nobility could serve as inspiration for how medals can be presented. I'm not averse to WWGBs table being reversed and pushed to the right as a sidebar and, along with any further info, contained within an "Awards and honours" section. ClaretAsh 11:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we must have the ribbons, I prefer WWGB's suggested way of presenting them. I still don't think it's a good idea to include these sorts of decorations in non-military biographies, however. Lankiveil 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
- I had a look at this section, see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#A possible solution. -- PBS (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Western Australia Roller Derby
There is a new Australian contributor working on Western Australia Roller Derby. Can some one help improve this article? :) --LauraHale (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Or, as I posted at WT:WA, is it notable enough to bother trying to save? The news contributor could also be accused of being a WP:SPA with a WP:COI username. Yes, it has some coverage, but so do quite a few diamond wedding anniversary couples, top students and cats stuck in trees. It's an amateur social league that happens to be a bit obscure, but a bit sexy and a bit "cultish" given the movie. I asked on the actual talk page - will any reliable source publish regular race results or team profiles, other than the slow-news-day puff pieces designed to show a few girls in tight shorts on skates. Redirect to Roller skating in Australia or Roller derby in Australia IMO. The-Pope (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are 34 sources that mention it in the Australian newspaper database. I think the article meets WP:GNG. Diamond anniversary couples are great. I assume there are 30+ sources about them? And the diamond couple are mentioned individually, and for different events? The sources are there. And regular bout results are not necessarily published in a newspaper. It sucks. And the articles I've looked at have done more than show girls in tight shorts. Rather, they focus on the athleticism involved. Also roller skating =/= roller derby. The information and its sources wouldn't find in Roller derby in Australia. It would probably be better off to move to Roller derby in Western Australia if a move was insisted upon, because there are definitely enough sources to get the topic past WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think that the various state roller derby leagues are notable. The sport seems to be sort-of semi-professional now, and attracts a reasonable amount of media coverage (especially given the media's general reluctance to cover women's sports), so meeting WP:ORG shouldn't be a problem. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are 34 sources that mention it in the Australian newspaper database. I think the article meets WP:GNG. Diamond anniversary couples are great. I assume there are 30+ sources about them? And the diamond couple are mentioned individually, and for different events? The sources are there. And regular bout results are not necessarily published in a newspaper. It sucks. And the articles I've looked at have done more than show girls in tight shorts. Rather, they focus on the athleticism involved. Also roller skating =/= roller derby. The information and its sources wouldn't find in Roller derby in Australia. It would probably be better off to move to Roller derby in Western Australia if a move was insisted upon, because there are definitely enough sources to get the topic past WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A search on Newsbank in Australian only papers for "WA Roller Derby" has following total results:
by Year
- 2011 (54)
- 2010 (3)
by Source
- Midland-Kalamunda Reporter (Perth, Australia) (7)
- Weekend Courier (Perth, Australia) (6)
- Mandurah Coastal Times (Australia) (6)
- Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette (Perth, Australia) (6)
- Advocate (Ellenbrook-Swan Valley, Australia) (5)
- Southern Gazette (Perth, Australia) (4)
- Eastern Reporter (Perth, Australia) (4)
- Guardian Express (Perth, Australia) (4)
- Hills Gazette (Perth, Australia) (3)
- Stirling Times (Perth, Australia) (3)
- Canning Times (Perth, Australia) (2)
- North Coast Times (Perth, Australia) (2)
- Melville Times (Perth, Australia) (2)
- Western Suburbs Weekly (Perth, Australia) (1)
- Joondalup-Wanneroo Times (Perth, Australia) (1)
- Wanneroo Times (Perth, Australia) (1)
The stories aren't always the same. There are different papers doing different writeups for the same and different events. There are at least three separate articles on the fact that there appears to be only one male referee in the WA Roller Derby. (Which as a CRDL fan, I find weird. I don't think I've seen a female ref at our bouts.) Notability here is really clear. Article needs improvement to fix the tags that say it reads like an advert. --LauraHale (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's probably worth noting that most of those newspapers are from the same publisher. Are the articles actually different for each area? Hack (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can't say I see any decent coverage in that list - it's all local community papers. But if others see it differently, then that's why we get to choose what we watchlist, and this page has now dropped off mine. And for those who think I'm only in favour of Aussie rules and cricket articles being included, I don't like most of the sub-WAFL/SANFL/VFL league/club articles either. Only a select few actually have decent printed sources (almost all of which are COI to a degree as it's only those involved in the club who bother to write up the history) and most end up being a free webhost for their annual results and lists non-notable award winners and the occasional bit of juvenile vandalism. But I also understand if some of you think that most of the people on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_AFL/Players/ToDoSingle are just as non-notable! Good luck with the article and all the "sort-of-semi-professional" roller derby articles - and I'll keep an eye out for Australian Lingerie Football League too, once it gets a couple of online articles, it will be here for good! (maybe it's too late - http://www.foxsports.com.au/fueltv/local-version-of-lingerie-gridiron-to-debut-in-australia-with-ladies-football-league/story-fn6u5607-1226137310916) The-Pope (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Generally I've found that the roller derby leagues that get off the ground (by which I mean that they've managed some interleague bouts and run a regular local competition) then they'll technically meet the GNG - mostly because the media finds it interesting enough to run the occasional story in the state paper. It's one of those things where the unusual nature of the sport gets coverage, while other sports miss out - although I like roller derby, so I guess I can't complain. The GNG will produce some interesting results form time to time.
- I don't imagine that there would be enough to start a Roller derby in Western Australia article, simply because I doubt that there is enough coverage on that particular topic (as opposed to individual roller derby leagues in WA) to get through. I guess it depends a bit on how one reads that the "topic has received significant coverage". - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is tough to complain about newspapers having the same publisher in Australia, where you can enumerate all the publishers in the country on your left hand. The sport of Roller Derby has become extremely popular in Australia both as a participation and a spectator sport. Three years ago the Canberra Roller Derby League was skating in parking lots; now they are skating to sell-out stadium crowds, and sending players off to international bouts. Media coverage is now mainstream and national. I have no doubt that the Western Australian league will be as successful as its East coast counterparts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- WARD's already successful - they pack out the venue most bouts, their bouts are usually covered by local if not state media, and I believe they've sent competitors overseas as well. Rebecca (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is tough to complain about newspapers having the same publisher in Australia, where you can enumerate all the publishers in the country on your left hand. The sport of Roller Derby has become extremely popular in Australia both as a participation and a spectator sport. Three years ago the Canberra Roller Derby League was skating in parking lots; now they are skating to sell-out stadium crowds, and sending players off to international bouts. Media coverage is now mainstream and national. I have no doubt that the Western Australian league will be as successful as its East coast counterparts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can't say I see any decent coverage in that list - it's all local community papers. But if others see it differently, then that's why we get to choose what we watchlist, and this page has now dropped off mine. And for those who think I'm only in favour of Aussie rules and cricket articles being included, I don't like most of the sub-WAFL/SANFL/VFL league/club articles either. Only a select few actually have decent printed sources (almost all of which are COI to a degree as it's only those involved in the club who bother to write up the history) and most end up being a free webhost for their annual results and lists non-notable award winners and the occasional bit of juvenile vandalism. But I also understand if some of you think that most of the people on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_AFL/Players/ToDoSingle are just as non-notable! Good luck with the article and all the "sort-of-semi-professional" roller derby articles - and I'll keep an eye out for Australian Lingerie Football League too, once it gets a couple of online articles, it will be here for good! (maybe it's too late - http://www.foxsports.com.au/fueltv/local-version-of-lingerie-gridiron-to-debut-in-australia-with-ladies-football-league/story-fn6u5607-1226137310916) The-Pope (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Rats in the Ranks
I've had a stab at giving this wonderful Australian doco some representation on wikipedia, but I'm not that familiar with film templates and other editing approaches. It would also certainly benefit from more detailed content. I'm just saying ... ;P Colonel Tom 12:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have added an infobox and some basic formatting.Dan arndt (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to remove a reference used in the Australian frontier wars article and associated material
I have posted a proposal at Talk:Australian frontier wars#Frontier History Revisited by Robert Ørsted-Jensen - not a reliable source to remove a reference and the material its been used to cite due to concerns over the reliability of this source. Comments from other editors on this would be great. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Worth a watch
Any australia day active editors might want keep a watch on Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy - might even need protection at some point SatuSuro 06:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Watchlisted. I also took the liberty of re-writing the rather odd account of events there. Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- subsequent IPedits need close watch as well SatuSuro 06:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Aborignal Land Rights in Australia
A new page was created yesterday with a spelling mistake. Today it has been cut and pasted to Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia, which is still an incorrect title because of unnecessary capitals. Can an administrator please sort this? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to Aboriginal land rights in Australia but just needs an Admin to fix the mess created by the copy and paste move. Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done. But I would have been able to do it far more cleanly if you'd moved the "Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia" page rather than the version at the original title with the spelling mistake. Graham87 09:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I done the page move in good faith. I know that it is preferred that the original article is restored and moved, however I didn't know that it was far more difficult to do. I take offence to your comment and I'll be unwilling to help you in future. Bidgee (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't intend to sound snarky ... I was just stating a plain fact. I honestly don't understand why you would be offended. Take this up privately, if you'd prefer. Graham87 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. How many users know that restoring an article which was blanked as it was C&P (copy and paste) moved by its creator makes it harder to do a history merge? Well not many would. Sorry, but this is a public matter not a private one, you're an Admin whom assumed bad faith and even abusing the sysop tool (including another admin, when I see no such threat) by protecting the article which hasn't even had any moving wars. Bidgee (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was just letting you know that it would've been better to move the "Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia" article (i.e. the second title), in case you encountered a similar situation in the future. If I did not have the admin bit, I would've moved that article and made the title with a misspelling (i.e. the blank page) into a redirect. Re: the move protection: I was just reinstating it because all page protection flags are removed when a page is deleted. TBH I didn't see much point in the protection either, perhaps ask the original protecting admin? But I've removed it again. Graham87 04:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. How many users know that restoring an article which was blanked as it was C&P (copy and paste) moved by its creator makes it harder to do a history merge? Well not many would. Sorry, but this is a public matter not a private one, you're an Admin whom assumed bad faith and even abusing the sysop tool (including another admin, when I see no such threat) by protecting the article which hasn't even had any moving wars. Bidgee (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't intend to sound snarky ... I was just stating a plain fact. I honestly don't understand why you would be offended. Take this up privately, if you'd prefer. Graham87 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I done the page move in good faith. I know that it is preferred that the original article is restored and moved, however I didn't know that it was far more difficult to do. I take offence to your comment and I'll be unwilling to help you in future. Bidgee (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done. But I would have been able to do it far more cleanly if you'd moved the "Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia" page rather than the version at the original title with the spelling mistake. Graham87 09:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Australia Day Honours 2012
I'd appreciate some feedback and input on this list which I put together for the Australia Day Honours list, particularly regarding the layout and ultimate usefulness. I'd especially appreciate some help from people knowledgeable about the Australian military, as I suspect something could be done (with links if nothing else) to clear up the sometimes unintelligible military sections. Additionally, do people think these sorts of lists are encyclopaedically valuable? (They take a long time to make, but I could see myself maybe doing some more for past ones.) Frickeg (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- The list uses the word 'Grounds' when the usual term is 'Citation.' Your layout is very different to that used by Template:Honours_Lists; this is not necessarily a bad thing, but something you need to be aware of. Practice there is no make most or all of the personal names red links, on the assumption that they're going to prove to be notable. Ask about the military stuff at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the "Citation" thing; I couldn't for the life of me think of where to look for that. "Grounds" was pretty much a placeholder until I found the correct term. I found the other Honours Lists to be very untidy and not terribly pleasing aesthetically, which is why I made the decision to tabulate the list, which I think will also make it easier to maintain. Frickeg (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit: And on the redlinks thing, while maybe everyone appointed AO might turn out notable, below that it's pretty much a case-by-case thing, and I think it's better to default to no link at the moment since the vast majority of people receiving, say, the OAM aren't notable and never will be.) Frickeg (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now in mainspace. Would still appreciate feedback on the layout. Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of points: (a) you need to address the relationship between Template:Australian Honours Lists and Template:Honours_Lists to avoid duplication and ease navigation (b) you need to run the thing through the disambiguator for those military ranks and (c) I disagree with the red-link thing, but I'll admit it's your call. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- (a) The templates actually existed way before I made the list; I see what you mean, but I'm not sure how to link them up (I'm not exactly great with these kinds of things). (b) That tool is a godsend, and I can't believe I didn't know about it before. Thanks heaps; I think I've got them all. (c) Just for some justification on the redlink thing: I have no doubt that you're right about some of these people being notable, but I could see just from the citations that the vast majority of them weren't. There were people honoured for running community soup kitchens and local singing groups and things - worthy work, of course, but not making them notable. The lists take long enough to make without trying to research whether every individual is notable or not. :) I do plan to come back and run checks on them from time to time and link anyone who has an article, though.
- Thank you very much for your advice on this; it's something of a new area for me, as you've no doubt deduced. Frickeg (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- The list uses the word 'Grounds' when the usual term is 'Citation.' Your layout is very different to that used by Template:Honours_Lists; this is not necessarily a bad thing, but something you need to be aware of. Practice there is no make most or all of the personal names red links, on the assumption that they're going to prove to be notable. Ask about the military stuff at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Sergeant A
Problems? Recipients of the Star of Gallantry should be notable; brought here in case there are concerns about having an article on an individual who, apparently, remains anonymous. Later recipients also remain anonymous. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that he can be notable - all we know about him is the circumstances in which he won this medal. Without any background there's nothing to write an article about. The essay WP:MILPEOPLE (which is generally followed in AfD discussions) recommends that only people who win the highest medal for valour (the Victoria Cross for Australia here) should be assumed to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. All the information in that article is in fact already included in Star of Gallantry, which is the appropriate place. This kind of anonymity with military honours is fairly routine (in fact, of the six awardees, only one is identified). Frickeg (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pseudonymity doesn't necessarily imply non-notability. Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade is a pseudonym; since revealed but notable prior to the revelation. Pseudonymity just makes it MUCH harder to find and check sources, without which we can't write an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. All the information in that article is in fact already included in Star of Gallantry, which is the appropriate place. This kind of anonymity with military honours is fairly routine (in fact, of the six awardees, only one is identified). Frickeg (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is a WP:ONEEVENT issue without other information to create an article there is anything else we can add tot he article. Gnangarra 03:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Without significant coverage in reliable sources the subject would not seem to be considered notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, all. Regardless of WP:MILPEOPLE I think recipients of the Star of Gallantry should be notable; that essay refers to the American Navy Cross (just one such in US) with 6,300 recipients- the Australian one is rather more selective (six at last count) and I would continue to argue against deletion on those grounds. I was more concerned about the anonymity and the possibility he/she would be named, and whether an article can exist without any biographical detail Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Without the availability of references on people, it's pretty difficult to establish their notability, so it does seem to be the central issue here. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed I think Nick is spot on here. No references means not notable in my book, hence my comment about WP:GNG. That is not to say that sometime in the future this individual won't recieve "significant coverage" in reliable sources (and if this does occur then at that time they would become notable). However, until then I think there is little to be gained in having an article on him. What we do know can be (and is) included in the Star of Gallantry article (where it certainly is relevant IMO). Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Without the availability of references on people, it's pretty difficult to establish their notability, so it does seem to be the central issue here. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sergeant A by virtue of being the first recipient does bestow a degree notability, the over riding factor is the lack of information to warrant a stand alone article. At this stage the person is notable for that one event and as per WP:1E coverage should be in the Star of Gallantry as thats the most appropriate way to cover it, time and circumstances may change that. I dont think that just(used way to lightly) being a recipient of the Star is inherantly notable but as an indicator of notability it'd be hard to ignore if more substantive detail is available, it quite possible that Private S(2008), Private S(2011), Sergeant P or Sergeant D may achieve notability while Sergeant A remains annomouse. Gnangarra 16:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion expand the recipient list in Star of Gallantry with as much information as possible. When information on these individuals enters the public sphere (as I believe it will, once they have finished their service and the operations they serve in have been wound up), they can be split into individual articles? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like the appropriate way to do it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Someone has already merged the content of the article into the Star of Gallantry article. As there seems to be a consensus that 'Sergeant A' doesn't justify a stand-alone article at present, I've converted it into a redirect to Star of Gallantry. Hopefully one day we will learn his name - it seems a shame that members of the special forces are denied this recognition, though I do realise that it's regarded as being important to protect their safety and allow them to continue serving with their unit. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Australia–New Zealand relations
Is Sayazakardalamdubursaya (talk · contribs) likely to be DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) or SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs) (or both!)? No edits of real concern yet, but that is standard MO for a new sock by these editors. Please keep an eye out. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Been watching. Certainly an enthusiastic editor. My biggest concern so far is the complete absence of Edit summaries. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Australian will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Australian's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Misplaced Pages (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Gazetteer of Australia
The GofA id number is no longer accessible. Could a clever person tweak the {{Gazetteer of Australia}} template to use the Feature number. Last discussed here. If it can't be done the template should be retired. Moondyne (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I tried tweaking the template. It now wants the Feature number. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Hawkeye. Moondyne (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Not quite there yet. The code needs to cater for the old style url with an id (and which still works, so existing usages continue to function), as well as the new style with a feature parameter. Moondyne (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Had to call in some expert help. Is it okay now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- All good. Excellent work. Moondyne (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Had to call in some expert help. Is it okay now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Acheron, Victoria
Acheron, Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This needs considerable cleanup work, and some referencing. Can anyone help? Chzz ► 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Categories: