This page is not highly watchlisted, and so posts made here may not be seen by the wider community. A better place to try to receive feedback would be at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board.
MOSNUM no longer encourages date-autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional, after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages of using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors, and the consensus for change is overwhelming. I seek in-principle consensus here for the removal of date autoformatting from the main text of articles related to this WikiProject, using a script; such a move would also be sensitive to local objections on any article talk page. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.
You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is set at international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to visitors. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).
Two examples for comparison
EXAMPLE 1
Original
Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.[2]
To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...
DA-free
Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.[2]
To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...
EXAMPLE 2
Original
On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.
DA-free
On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.
and the advantages are left to someone else to explain, sorry but this isnt a neutral posting as such I wouldnt consider appropriate to make any judgments based on this. Gnangarra 09:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think linking dates suck big time. BUT if "the consensus for change is overwhelming", why doesn't WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting say so? Also note the link for overwhelming change is a personal sub-page of the poster. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with both of the above. The person who posted this here is the change's principal proponent, someone who is largely responsible for the change in MOSNUM, and it should be considered in that vein. Personally speaking I think removing is acceptable on an individual, checkable basis. Certainly in my own work I've been steering away from using it, especially as there's talk of some bot coming through and doing them en masse in a somewhat less careful way in the near future. The main issue is having a consistent date format - some people use the American date format while most use the Australian date format (i.e. 16 August 2008, not August 16, 2008). The only reasons really advanced for it are that date linking looks, in a purely subjective sense of course, ugly (the "blue sea" effect); that only registered users with preferences set see them in their preferred format meaning the bulk of users see them as keyed; and that the links take users to articles which are neither useful nor related to the content. In my own view this is something MediaWiki developers should have developed a better system for a long time ago, before the problem became so massive that we now don't have a clear solution for it. People on the MOS talk pages are getting emotional, offensive and even quitting the project over this stuff. As long as consistency prevails, though, I don't see a problem. Orderinchaos 13:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Peter, it's not really the place of a guideline to refer to "consensus" explicitly; that belongs on talk pages and in posts such as the one here, in which I seek to persuade people towards one option. Yes, there are moves afoot at MOSNUM—not initiated by me, although I support them—to actively deprecate date-autoformatting.
Gnangarra, the whole issue has blown up because the advantages are pretty threadbare. It was always a solution chasing a non-problem, in the view of most people who've thought about it. While there are a few vocal antagonists (not in this neck of the woods, though), they have thus far steered away from articulating their reasons beyond statements such as "it enables us to display our preference". This is how WP was sold a pup in ?2003, when some developer came up with such a brain-dead idea and we were relatively naive about weighing the disadvantages and advantages in a wiki. So I'm sorry if the posting was largely negative. But at its heart, the move aims to strengthen wikilinking by removing unnecessary clutter and dilution of high-value links—in that respect, I believe it's very positive. Tony(talk) 13:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I had a look through the list for articles I've written, and was surprised to see Banksia brownii included. This is way too obscure a plant to merit inclusion here; probably it was included because someone rated it "mid" importance to Australia, which it most certainly isn't. I have demoted it, and will recommend its removal. Hesperian 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the logic is based on obscurity. It is a featured article. has a number of links and is even hit a number of times. I think it has just as much merit as some band or politician. ... As a reader of encyclopaedias one gets as much pleasure from obscure topics as those of some importance - one learns something from both. Featured articles are our best and I think it good to include them even if on obscure plants --Matildatalk 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I make no comment except that the Version 1.0 inclusion criteria states "Minimum standards of importance will apply - the article should be typically at the "Key Article" level or higher, meaning it would at least be expected to fall within the most important 1-2% of articles on Wikipedia." Moondyne 07:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That's for 0.5 For 0.7 there are some different criteria. Giggy (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Banksioa brownii is a lot better than some "important" articles, which are written like a muddled year 7 society and environment; eg Vietnam War. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah must say I wonder how Newcastle, New South Wales could be considered high importance be start class and on the list. B.brownii is obscure but the article is the most comprehensive resource on the plant publically available. Gnangarra 08:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention tagged all over. Orderinchaos 08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
FAs are automatically included, so no need to get stressed about whether they are important or not. But it may be a motivation to improve the articles like Newcastle, New South Wales. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not my reading of the criteria. As far as cricketers go, some more improtant ones have been excluded because nobody reads or links to them. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Surely we can't have Underbelly (TV series) without having Melbourne Gangland Wars for background. The list is very recentist, probably because articles on current events are widely linked - this can be clearly seen when sorting the articles by title. I'll nominate some more important Australian articles. Graham87 11:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I adjusted the importance on the talk pages of those two. Are we allowed to add them to the list or is there some other special procedure? Giggy (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The whole bot-generated list is patchy. A suprising number of low quality articles on relatively unimportant topics have been picked up, and it needs to be reviewed by human editors. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you got a few examples for comparison so that we may track down where the problem lies? It's possibly a case of over-stating the importance of articles via the WP Australia template. I note Underbelly was tagged as being of Top-Importance to the Melbourne project. Somehow, I don't think many will agree with that assessment. It's only a fictional television show after all. Computers (and bots) only perform what us humans ask them to do. I'd be looking at the human tagging component of the problem first. -- Longhair\talk 11:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Although the ESIR railway line article is an obscure topic and I wrote most of it, I'm actually pleased to see articles like it in there because we need to have some obscure articles in there. Otherwise the list becomes something tokenistic with just the typical articles that everyone would expect; and from a cursory glance at it I think it is very tokenistic. To some extent that's important, but we need to remember that this is not an overseas tourist guide, it's a selection of Wikipedia articles from Australia and deserves to have some randomness in it so readers around the world who get the selection of articles can see some unusual aspects and topics on Australia rather than what you'd normally expect. Get rid of the ESIR article if you want (I'm not trying to advocate a WP:OWN argument on it), but we really do need to put some articles in there that are well-written and reflect more obscure things in Australia. There are plenty of FA and GA articles that reflect this that could be included. Why don't we come up with some suggestions? JRG (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A bot added the template to the talk page, likely because the article is located within the Birds of Australia category. -- Longhair\talk 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the category and the project template from Ostrich, Greek language also used to have the template and as a result is hot on the heels of Koala and The Don in the rankings. Melburnian (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Project ratings
Two of your subprojects (Sports and Queensland) have "claimed" Bill Brown, both allocating it a "high" importance, yet the WikiProject rating as a whole is lower than that. Is that an anomaly - it does look a little curious. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That'd be right the narrower the focus of the project the higher the level a subject may have. Gnangarra 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, something could be of high importance to Australian sports and the same to Queensland but of less importance to Australia as a whole. Orderinchaos 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean there's something of greater importance to Australia as a whole than sports? This Pom's illusions have just been shattered! --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
An image used in the Citizens Electoral Council article, specifically Image:AlymCadre1.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Mind you, how one would get into one of their meetings without having a very close association with the CEC is a good question. For those not in the know, it's the Australian movement connected to Lyndon LaRouche. Orderinchaos 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, nothing on the straight forward Flickr search. Typing anything else into the form linked to will only give images free for our use (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), so go ahead if there are any other possible search terms. Giggy (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
City vs. Town
What exactly is the difference between a “city” and a “town” – is it an official designation or an internal, Wiki one? Cheers, Roo72 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the article on town - there is a section on Australia and that might help - see the ABS reference for the statistical difference (ie state legislation relation to local government areas) --Matildatalk 01:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Doh, thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. Roo72 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Dates
I've done a considerable amount of date auditing, and I find that many Australia-related articles use the wrong format, i.e., the US rather than the international format mandated at WP:MOSNUM for such articles.
Please list here any articles or groups of articles that are in need of semi-automatic delinking of dates and date fragments, and/or format change from US to international. Tony(talk) 15:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Waterfall Gully, South Australia FAR
Waterfall Gully, South Australia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Images from NSW State Library
The NSW state library is in the process of releasing images to Flickr. The images are all in the public domain, suited for upload to the wiki commons. If it hasn't been done already, someone might want to secure these images for the commons. I don't currently have the time to do it myself. John Dalton (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Another editor tagged Hannah Lambourne for speedy deletion. In my view, the references in the article establish notability, so I removed the tag. If you can improve the article, I would be grateful. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
appears to be copied in part from Fiona Wood, including ELs masquerading as refs. DOn't know which is legit. TravellingCari 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a cut and paste of the Fiona Wood article. Wood is the legit plastic surgery specialist as far as I can determine from online searches. I'll delete the Lambourne article as I can't seem to find anything to back the content up. -- Longhair\talk 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I checked NewsBank, and there was nothing on her. The refs were about Fiona Wood. A clear hoax, in the end, and an excellent call. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks both, I didn't have time to look into it. I just googled a phrase at random to see if it was a copyvio (the numbers were the giveaway) and then found the other article in the results. TravellingCari 00:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
My thanks to everyone. I didn't realize it was a hoax. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)