Talk:Murray cod

message: Please note that where a species of animal has a reasonably widely accepted common name, the agreed rule is that we use that as the title of the article.  the Murray Cod certainly has such a name, so I have reverted the article to that name (also putting it in Initial Caps style while I was at it).  seglea 04:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Title

message: Why did the reference Rowland (1989) disappear???  Codman 01:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it.  It's still there.  Codman 01:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disappearing Reference

message: The image in the taxobox of this article is very poor, see comments on  - Nick Thorne 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I've tagged this article to garner opinions on the writing style. I find much of it has an overly zealous tone which detracts from an otherwise comprehensive and detailed article. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems well written to me.  What you seem to be regarding as "over zealousness" can alternatively be described as an accurate depiction of the plight of an animal that is under significant threat from a number of stressors, which are listed.  What, exactly, are you objecting to?Nick Thorne 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Completely unwarranted nomination.  If fisheries departments and their regulations are not conserving wild Murray cod populations adequately, and there is hard scientific evidence to support this, then it is perfectly reasonable to state this.  Codman 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov-check 

message: This is a really well detailed article - good job to the editors! I have just been to the importance scale site and saw that codman was worried about bulking up the article with refs, but did it anyway.  An easier, and less bulky way to ref is 
title of page or article Title of Site, journal or book Retrieved 5 February 2007 . I have included this fake reference (just open the edit page for this discussion to see what I have done), but as you can see it only shows up as this small number (which is different to that of an external link number).  Whats more is that once you have written this, all you need to input for the actual reference section is:
===References=== (i have used a small heading only for the purpose of this example)
(again you will need to look at the edit page to see what I have done) and all the refs in the article will be automatically numbered and listed in the reference section (ie: once you have added a small bit of code to the refs section you don't need to touch it again even if you ad extra refs because they will be listed automatically). Tinkstar1985 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It's a really well done article.  For those of us from NA, like to know a bit more about what it tastes like?  Like a cod?  Like a trout?
Ź==Good Article nomination on hold==
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of August 1, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  some fixes needed:
Lead:
*The lead should be a "concise overview of the article" (see WP:LS); as of now it is not.
*The origin of the scientific name of Murray cod should not be mentioned only in the intro; it should also be mentioned under Taxonomy. 
Description:
*Murray cod are a large grouper-like fish with a deep, elongated body that is round in cross section: change to "Murray cod are large grouper-like fish with deep, elongated bodies that are round in cross section."
*Wikilink grouper, dorsal fin
Related Species:
*while trout cod stray (or did stray)- meaning that they no longer do?
Taxonomy:
*Originally only one species of cod was recognised — Murray cod — then named Maccullochella macquariensis. - Change to "Originally only one species of cod was recognised, the Murray cod, whic was then named Maccullochella macquariensis."
Range:
*~700m elevation in the southern half of the basin and to ~1000m in the northern half of the basin - get rid of the "~" signs and use "about" or "approximately" instead.
*Murray cod played a very important role in the mythology of many Aboriginal tribes- why is this in the range section? Can be placed in a "relationship with humans" section near "Conservation". 
*Murray cod played- past tense? it no longer plays a role in their mythology? If so, why not? 
*All the pieces become all the other fish species of the river- change to "The pieces become all the other fish species of the river"
*In these myths the fleeing Murray cod and the beating of its tail enlarges the river and creates the bends in it.  change to "In these myths, the fleeing Murray cod, and the beating of its tail, enlarges the river and creates the bends in it. "
Size:
*add nonbreaking spaces ( ) between each number and its unit.
*units need imperial conversions in parentheses
*metric units should be spelled out (cm to centimetres)
*Entire section can be integrated into "Description" section.
*Murray cod are large fish with adult fish...- change to "Murray cod are large fish, with adult fish...."
*Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today due to...- change to "Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today, due to...."
*and the even larger specimens of yester-year leave us in no doubt change yester-year to another more encyclopedic word, and don't use the word "us". Could perhaps be written something like "And even larger specimens caught in years past show that the species reaches ages of 70 or more years
*anything smaller than itself including finned fish to "anything smaller than itself, including finned fish"
*a demersal ambush predator either wikilink or explain what the term means.
Reproduction
*Therefore roughly 70% comma after "therefore"
*will have egg counts of around <10,000 get rid of the "<" symbol, or spell it out.
*Egg counts in female Murray cod of all sizes are relatively low compared to many fish species. merge into the paragraph before it, no 1 sentence paragraphs. 
*photoperiod (daylight length). add a piped link to Photoperiodism.
*Initially spring floods and temperatures of 20–21° C were considered necessary... by who?
*Murray cod are main channel specialists meaning what?
*until recently spring flooding has been considered critical for successful recruitment- second time the article mentions this.
*until recently spring flooding has been considered change "has been" to "was"
*macroinverebrates change to "macroinvertebrates"
*This information also suggests that:...than first thought. get rid of the bullets, just use commas.
*Merge the last two paragraphs in the section.
Conservation:
*get rid of the bulleting, use paragraphs instead.
*Weirs killing Murray cod larvae and juveniles- what are Weirs?
*the most important issues effecting  change "effecting" to "affecting"
*of cod populations such as the need for spring floods and excessive angler take are yet to be addressed. commas after "population" and "take".
In Aquariums:
* Change "Whilst" to "While"
*A temperature of 24° C however comma after 24° C.
*enable fast (optimum) growth, if a large size is undesireable, why would it be "optimum" growth? Do you mean maximum growth rate?
*...keeps most pathogens ("diseases") at bay just say "pathogens" and wikilink it.
*to white-spot or "ich" and fungal skin infections do you mean "itch"? if it's a colloquialism, just say "white-spot and fungal skin infections". and wikilink "fungal infection" (Mycosis).
:2. Factually accurate?: 
*Description and coloration need to be sourced
*Colouration is related to water clarity- needs to be sourced
*being such adaptable, versatile and successful fish- needs a source
*Related Species needs be sourced
*Taxonomy needs to be sourced
Range: the naming of the cod after the river needs to be referenced, as does the fact that the Murray-Darling Basin is Australia's largest and most important river system, the 13% statistic, and the fact that it is in Aboriginal mythology.
*Size needs to be referenced.
*Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today due to excessive angler take and inadequate fishing regulations. needs a reference
*Age: needs a reference for Australian fish being long-lived, Murray cod being the longest lived in Australia, longevity as a survival strategy, and spawning being linked to La Niña years.
*A recent study has confirmed that fish make up the majority of the diet of Murray cod in lowland river and impoundment habitats, and that Murray cod are indeed apex predators in these habitats. remove the "recent study" part, instead incorporate it into into the sentence before and use the study as your source.
*The observations of the many recreational fishermen now fishing for Murray cod with surface lures at night reveal- cite. And "many" is a relative term; if you want to use many, you have to say how many and give a source.
*Overall, this data strongly indicates that the 50 cm size limit for Murray cod is inadequate and should be increased substantially to allow greater chance of reproduction before capture. Source it, or it's original research.
*"in their prime"- source
*Egg counts in female Murray cod of all sizes are relatively low compared to many fish species. reference it.
*Decades of observations by recreational and commercial fishermen suggest such spring spawning migrations are common across the Murray cod's geographical range.- Reference
*During this dispersal process .... microinvertebrates.- reference.
*These findings do not deliver river regulation and water extraction....other native fish. Source 
*It is estimated somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of the...- source.
* In "Conservation", each of the paragraphs/bulleted facts needs a source.
*There are now grave concerns for the long term survival of wild Murray cod populations.-source
*Murray cod are intelligent fish and make immensively attractive, rewarding and responsive aquarium fish.  definitely need a source. Oh, and change "immensively" to "immensely".
*"In Aquariums", each paragraph and any numbers or statistics need to be sourced.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  Yes. 
:4. Neutral point of view?:  
*striking and extremely beautiful colouration calling a fish "beautiful" is a value judgement and thus not neutral point of view.
*Nevertheless, the basic pattern of speciation into a primarily lowland species and a specialist upland species is clear.- clear to who? it's a value judgment. 
*These findings do not deliver river regulation and water extraction from blame however — river regulation has been a major factor in the decline of Murray cod and other native fish. "from blame" is an accusatory tone, and does not show npov.
*spawning period, during which anglers are not allowed to target Murray cod, even on a catch and release basis. is the bold text there for any particular reason?
*..but the most important issues... most important according to who? cite an expert, or change the wording.
*It is widely agreed by everyone who has kept a Murray cod in an aquarium that they are fish with "real personalities". "Widely agreed" is a weasel word. "real personalities" is a matter of opinion.
:5. Article stability?  Yes.
:6. Images?:  
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.
:I have edited the document extensively taking your comments as a guide.  Please feel free to suggest any more changes that you think are appropriate or if I have misinterpreted your advice.  Thanks for reviewing the article.  Nick Thorne talk 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have picked up all the typos I introduced in my first 6 hour editing session, please let me know if I have missed anything.  As I said ealier I appreciate the effort put in to review this page, so I am trying to do justice to your work and to the article. Nick Thorne talk 10:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  taste and cooking? 

message: I will "park" statements here from the article that I assert are true, but for which I have been unable to find a suitable reference.  These can be moved back into the article once such references are found.  The section from which the sentence comes is in bild.Nick Thorne talk 11:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Nick, I know you're trying to improve the article, but I vehemently disagree with this move.  The above are vital statements that must remain.  Kearney 2001 and the Proceeding of the 2004 Murray Workshop, both of which are already in the references, support the first statement, and I have provided a huge number of references to support the second statement.  (The "large female" thing being a general and now recognised trend in most fish species.)  Please, put them back.  They had more than enough references supporting them.  cheers, Codman 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have spent a great deal of time trying to find suitable references, if you are saying that these statements are covered by existing references, then just add the statements back giving the correct reference.  I am not just trying to improve the article, I am trying to get the article to GA status and to do that it is necessary that the article comply with Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability of all content.  I am not saying that I think the above statements are not true, quite the contrary, but we must obey the rules and I intend to park more statements here if I cannot find suitable references for them.  You can helkp by finding or listing suitable references for the requested statements from our reviewer.  The quicker this is done the better and remember that I have not read all the references you have included, plus since I do not have access to much of the published literature because you have to subscribe to the publishing services, my abolity to source suitable refernces is limited.Nick Thorne talk 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  This article is extraordinarily well referenced, and I feel we are doing a bit of hoop-jumping here at times...  Anyhoo, cheers...  Codman 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When  you say fixed, what do you mean?  If you have moved statements back into the artlicle, please mark them as  above using the code: , otherwise we will get hopeliessly lostNick Thorne talk 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Sorry, I don't have a good handle of all this blasted Wiki code.  Codman 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quarantine 

message: Good work so far, but two issues with the article have become apparent to me. The 27th inline citation has no text in it, giving an error message. Second, per the Manual of Style, a  summary section is not appropriate. It reads too much like a personal essay, and in parts is rather POV. VanTucky Talk 22:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't agree.  It seems the moment we say things like "these factors have caused a serious decline in wild Murray cod numbers" or "these factors leave wild Murray cod populations at serious risk of further decline" we get accuse of POV.  I don't believe it is so.  The summary is valid, and that statements in it are valid.  The factors we list have caused declines, and do leave wild populations at further risk.  I believe it's a valid summary, not POV.  I feel that we're almost at the point where we shouldn't saying anything except "oh this might have affected Murray cod".  What's the point?  If we have the research and references, and we know x factor HAS affected Murray cod, we should be able to say so, and saying so is not POV.  Cheers, Codman 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're taking it way too personally dude.  We can deal with the issues of POV by making sure we can back up what we say with published material. Nick Thorne talk 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, I've picked up the inline ref problem - a typo, as to be expected.  The Summary sub section was to allow conclusion of the Conservation section outside the sub sections, I felt that just continuing would make the last part look like the previous sub section.  Do you have a suggestion how to achieve this?Nick Thorne talk 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK, I thought of a way to do thisNick Thorne talk 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional issues 

message: I believe I have addressed all the issues raised, and request that the article be reviewed. Of course, if there is anything else that needs to be done, just let me know.  The quarantined statements will eventually be returned to the article, when I manage to secure suitable references for them, I just don't have time to traul through hundreds of possible references at this time. Nick Thorne talk 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me! VanTucky Talk 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nick, I must say it's looking damn good now (just had a skim).  Your efforts have been excellent.  Codman 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just passed it. Excellent work! Jude. 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we there yet?

message: I am currently retro fitting the citation templates to the inline references, one section at a time.  I believe that this will make it easier to manage the refernces when editing the document and should produce a more consistent format in the reference list at the bottom of the article.  If anyone wants to help out go right ahead, but I will gradually get all the way through the article on my own. Nick Thorne talk 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK, I've worked it out.
If anyone sees any errors introduced as I go through the references converting them to the citation template, please leace me a message here, I will fix it ASAP Nick Thorne talk 07:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a problem, but i would like to know why there isn't a section on fishing (not previous overfishing), both commercial and recreational. I know the species is stocked in dams for angling purposes, i'm not sure about commercial purposes though. If you move towards putting the article up for FAC (which you should... its good), you should probably mention this.Kare Kare 10:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I plan to include a section about fishing and also use in aquaculture, probably both as subsections under relationship with humans. Nick Thorne talk 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation templates 

message: I'm going to leave this article alone now for a while, before I embark on any further major work on it.  Fresh eyes I do not have for it just now!  However, if someone finds a problem, then please let me know here and I will happily attend to it. Nick Thorne talk 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, but i would like to know why there isn't a section on fishing (not previous overfishing), both commercial and recreational. I know the species is stocked in dams for angling purposes, i'm not sure about commercial purposes though. If you move towards putting the article up for FAC (which you should... its good), you should probably mention this.Kare Kare 10:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I plan to include a section about fishing and also use in aquaculture, probably both as subsections under relationship with humans. Nick Thorne talk 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Done for now

message: I have changed the conservation status back from Critically endangered to Vulnerable which is the official status in Australia
See Australian Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) listing under Vulnerable Fish in the | EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna and the species listing at Murra cod listing
I believe the IUCN listing (which BTW is listed as out of date on the IUCN redlist database) is incorrect and was intended for trout cod Maccullochella macquariensis which was the scientific name for Murray cod before the two species were finally separated in the mid 1970s. 
 
At no time has it been reasonable to describe Murray cod as critically endangered, the species is widespread and although not as common as it once was, still found in large numbers and in self supporting populations throughout much of its original range.Nick Thorne talk 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Status 

message: :WP:CENTURY indicates nn00s is best avoided.  I am avoiding it.  You are insisting on an exception for no provided reason.  Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CENTURY, doesn't state it is necessary or that it has to be used. Bidgee (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It is not necessary to justify the status quo until and unless the proponent for change has produced a cogent reason for that change.  "I don't like it" is not a reason and that appears to be all your change is based upon.  The current usage is perfectly acceptable, unambiguous and understandable and you have not shown how, if at all, your proposed change improves the encyclopedia.  It may well be that there are valid reasons to make such a change and I might even support it if someone produces such reasons.  What I won't support is editors making unilateral decisions for change which are clearly not supported by regulars to the page and which are re-applied several times by the same editor when several other editors have reverted the change.  You have so far avoided the letter of the 3Rs rule, but clearly not the spirit.  Time to talk lest you invoke the ire of those with power to do something about it. - Nick Thorne talk 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: *WP:CENTURY states it is best avoided, it doesn't mean every article should avoid the use of 1800s, 1900s, 2000s ect. Fact is the MOS also states "It should also be noted that the 18th century (1701–1800) and the 1700s (1700–1799) do not span the same period." Bidgee (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: *I made no threats, I offered you advice.  In case you were wondering, I certainly do not have the power to do anything should you break the 3Rs rule.  Secondly , you still have not provided any reasons why your changes improve the article.  Wikilawyering about what the MOS states does not impress me at all and is no substitute for actual logical argument.  As the one proposing the change the burden lies upon you to justify it.  I am open to such argument, but I have not seen any yet.  I suggest you climb down off your high horse and explain in what way your proposed change will improve the article.  That is all I am asking of you, is that so unreasonable? - Nick Thorne talk 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a straw-man argument, no reader would interpret "1800s" as meaning 1800-1809 in this context.  The only time that such a usage would be applicable would be in a discussion about differing decades within the century, which quite clearly is not the case in this instance because the use of "1800s" is correlated with "1900s" - obviously we are talking about centuries here.  Any reasonable reader will understand what is being referred to.  The Wiki guidelines do not require us to take into account unreasonable interpretations.  If you really want to push this change any further I suggest you start an RFC, otherwise just let it drop. - Nick Thorne talk 07:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: *I don't own this page - my comment is a general one and applies to any page.  "Regulars" to a page are simply those who keep a particular article on their watch list and who have a particular interest in its subject.  Instead of making uncivil allegations to those you think disagree with you, you could perhaps try to assume good faith.  You still have not supported your proposed change with any actual reasons for it - the current usage on the page is clearly allowed for in the MOS, so you need to use more than a bit of MOS hand waving to support it.  As I said ealier, I am not irrevokably wedded to the current wording, but I do not agree that I don't like it is a valid reason for change.  Come to this discussion with some positive arguments and you might find that they get a better hearing.  As it stands you started this whole thing off by trying to push your change through despite clear opposition from several other editors, ignoring the bold, revert, discuss cycle convention. As a result you now need to work a little harder to convince other editors that your change really is in the best interest of the article since that certainly did not seem to be the case when you continued to apply the same change four times, being reverted by three different editors (including myself) with no attempt to discuss the change until taken to task for it after the 4th attempt.  Again, I urge you to start an RFC if you really want to make this change - let the community decide. - Nick Thorne talk 14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Century 

message: Other fish have an As-Food, why not this one? It is excellent eating. That's not a POV - All the government department posters  of fishes that rate those fish in terms of edibility have always given this fish the highest rating (usuall five stars ***** ).
Old_Wombat (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs an  "As Food" section. 

message: The article currently says:
: Important issues affecting restoration of cod populations, such as the need for spring floods and excessive angler take, although yet to be addressed, will be dealt with in the National Recovery Plan when it is completed.
The national recovery plan was released in October 2010.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/murray-cod.html
This part of the article needs to be updated, but I expect the entire section and other sections also need an update. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  National recovery plan released in 2010 

message: Substituted at 00:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Murray cod. 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/20080723235215/http://pas.dpi.nsw.gov.au/Species/Species_Profile.aspx?SpeciesListingID=3 to http://pas.dpi.nsw.gov.au/Species/Species_Profile.aspx?SpeciesListingID=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831151522/http://www.landmark.mdbc.gov.au/education/basinkids/basin_fish/fish_names.htm to http://www.landmark.mdbc.gov.au/education/basinkids/basin_fish/Fish_Names.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903055041/http://www.mdbc.gov.au:80/about/basin_statistics to http://www.mdbc.gov.au/about/basin_statistics
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829102559/http://mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/641/5_Stuart_J._Rowland.pdf to http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/641/5_Stuart_J._Rowland.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070924123128/http://www.fishnet.com.au/default.aspx?id=234 to http://www.fishnet.com.au/default.aspx?id=234&articleId=4192
*Added  tag to http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Humphries.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325070451/http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/641/6_Rob_McKelleher.pdf to http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/641/6_Rob_McKelleher.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829102517/http://mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/641/4_John_D._Koehn.pdf to http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/641/4_John_D._Koehn.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Murray cod. 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/20071010105433/http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html to http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721002731/http://www.nativefish.asn.au/files/Recollections_compressed.pdf to http://www.nativefish.asn.au/files/Recollections_compressed.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mdbc.gov.au/about/basin_statistics
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010105433/http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html to http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html
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) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murray cod. 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/20060906154918/http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/101/WAM-Report-2004-05.pdf to http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/101/WAM-Report-2004-05.pdf
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) 20:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)