Talk:Rabbit-proof fence

message: Is the template  really supposed to go on the page itself? It seems kinda... meta. pfctdayelise 14:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, yes. The main collaboration notice is on the article page of Instinct. --Scott Davis Talk 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier comments

message: Nice map Astrokey. Red/Green colourblind people will have difficulty telling fence 1 from fence 2 (you can see for yourself here ).  I also think that its a good idea to have labels and keys big enough to read in the thumb.--nixie 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, I just checked here  and the colours seem distinguishable. Ill add short description to caption so it makes sense from the thumb, that should be ok for now, might make the text larger later Astrokey44 05:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: The intro says that "The State Barrier Fence of Western Australia[1], formerly known as the No. 1 Rabbit-Proof Fence, the State Vermin Fence and the Emu Fence.."
Is the fence really known as the "state barrier fence" now? Just because it has officially changed its name does not mean thats the name everyone gives it. Also it is three fences, not just the No.1  Does the term "state barrier fence" describe just one fence or all of them? Astrokey44 11:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the most common name is just "rabbit-proof fence". And if the barrier fence name doesn't apply to all of the components of the fence, that's not very useful. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name was taken from the official Western Australian Government website. Since it's an official source, the name it mentions is the official one. Brisvegas 08:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  state barrier fence 

message: Is the fence still maintained? By whom? If not, when did it stop being maintained, and who made the decision? The article says it was less important after Myxomatosis was introduced, but doesn't say if it continued to be maintained. --Scott Davis Talk 00:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: says that as of 2001 the fence is still used as an emuproof fence, managed by the Department of Agriculture and the "State Barrier Fence Advisory Committee" (which probably answers the above topic about the official name) Bjmurph 05:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you refer to the official Government link it says: "It remains a key device in protecting Western Australia’s $4.3 billion agricultural sector from devastation caused by animals, and is jointly managed by the Department of Agriculture, the Agriculture Protection Board, the State Barrier Fence Advisory Committee, local shires and stakeholders." So yes, it is still in operation. Brisvegas 08:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that they use only a small part of the original 3 fences today & there are other fences that are used too - this is a map of the "current position" in 2001 Astrokey44 12:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I assume the rabbits aren't indigenous to Australia, and were at some point introduced for some reason -- perhaps as meat animals? -- and those that escaped bred and became a pest animal.  An explanation of this would be a good inclusion in the article.valereee (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions not yet answered 

message: History of the fence says: Rabbits had been introduced into Australia in 1859 by Victorian grazier Thomas Austin, who imported 24 specimens from England and released them on his Victorian farm. 
Rabbits in Australia says: Rabbits were introduced into Australia with the First Fleet, although [...]
Rabbits in Australia supports the latter. I really have no idea what the true story is. Ideas? pfctdayelise 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rabbits were brought over with the first fleet, but maybe they werent released into the wild until Thomas Austin. Its probably something of folklore that it was those 24 rabbits which gave rise to the umpteen billion rabbits, when there must have been others which escaped before and since Astrokey44 14:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Would it be possible to use PD-Australia on any of these images?  Or this one (huge) . Here's a bookcover , I've asked permission for this one  Agnte 16:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the photos on the first page are captioned as being taken before 1 January 1955, which would make them PD-Australia. None of the other stuff is PD. --bainer (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the most striking image from that collection. I've got permission to use the other one but not under a CC-type licence, so not sure what to do with it really, it could come under  Agnte 10:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of them are in.  Possibly they could be re-arranged in a better way but i'll leave it to others. Also, this should be my 1,000'th edit or thereabouts. yay. Agnte 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  images... 

message: Congratulations to all who edited Rabbit-proof fence and Dingo fence while it was Australian Collaboration of the fortnight.
* 12 contributors made 46 edits
* The article increased from 327 bytes to 9981 bytes - 30.5 times longer
*See how much it changed
*Astrokey44 also more than tripled the length of Dingo Fence
--Scott Davis Talk 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ACOTF

message: There are two different dates for when the girls (from the film) followed the fence. First 1920s is mentioned, then is is stated that they undertook the journey in 1931. I have no idea which is true ;-) 193.120.81.130 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were put into the Moore River mission in 1931, and although I am not entirely sure about the date of their escape, it was certainly within a short time after that, so I've made the lead paragraph say 1930s instead of 1920s. I also changed the wording of that paragraph slightly; it still makes clear that the story was the story as told in the film and the book, but it doesn't (unlike perhaps the previous wording) suggest that the story was made up. --bainer (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 indigenous girls use the fence... 

message: Currently, if you search for "rabbit-proof fence" using the search box at the left, you'll be redirected to Rabbit-Proof Fence (film).  Shouldn't "rabbit proof fence" redirect to this article?  I think that when most people search for the term, they want to read about the actual fence rather than the film.  --Bowlhover 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, "rabbit-proof fence" always got you here, and still does. "rabbit proof fence" (no hyphen) has been fixed so it now points here instead of the film. "Rabbit Proof Fence" and "Rabbit-Proof Fence" (capital letters) take you to a disambiguation page. --Scott Davis Talk 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't "rabbit-proof fence" redirect to this article? 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html?ref=science
(I think this was added because it points to an interesting observation within the fenced area: "Above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. The sky on the farmland side is clear." And a scientific study on this phenomena. -- llywrch 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY TIMES ARTICLE 

message: In the "Construction" section there are a few tree types cited with inappropriate or ambiguous links. Mulga is a dab page, wodjil isn't linked at all (seems to refer to any or all of Acacia resinimarginea, A. beauverdiana, A. signata or Lupinus luteus), pine is probably okay, jam is totally irrelevant (I've removed the link), and tea tree is a dab page. I would hazard a guess that "jam tree" means Acacia acuminata and "tea tree" means Melaleuca alternifolia, but I'm not confident enough to actually put the links in. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous tree types 

message: Shouldn't this article at some point mention how long and to what extent the fence was effective in controlling the spread of rabbits? Seems like a pretty big omission.192.17.213.80 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That would be valuable content. Do you know where such material is available in a reliable source? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, you are dealing with Australians here, dude. Any attempt to post "criticism" of the Rabbit Proof Fence will be instantly deleted. The only reason my comment here hasn't been deleted yet are that they are too stupid to have figured out the existence of the discussion tab.  (Here's an exercise for you: make a nice garden filled with carrots, then surround it with a wire fence and see what happens. Let me know how it turns out ;-))John Chamberlain (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I know there was some humour intended there, but a wiser person would have checked up and discovered very easily that I'm Australian. I WOULD be interested in details of the fence's effectiveness. Does that make you the joke? HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's info on the State Library of Western Australia website about the effectiveness of the rabbit-proof fence. Absent any suggestion of a better RS, I propose to add this info in a new 'Effectiveness' section. Jmc (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I've now added the proposed 'Effectiveness' section, with additional content from two other RSs. -- Jmc (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rabbit-proof fence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050722133944/http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm to http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050722133944/http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm to http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: shouldn't the distance measurement of the fences be in Kilometres first and then miles in brackets?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomhigh223555 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: depends what is apt for Australia I suppose.
IceDragon64 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When it was built, Australia used miles. It now uses kilometres. Miles first is probably valid. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  distance measurements? 

message: How did pedestrians, motor vehicles, trains get from one side to the other?  Did the fence cross any streams? If so, how was that handled? SlowJog (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossing the fence