Portal talk:Australia/Archive 1

message: ===Edit links===
Can we have edit links for these? There's a spelling error in did you know and I can't work out how to fix it. Ambi 11:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't completed the main description. I am going to rewrite it. As for edit tags, I haven't quite figured out how to work them yet, though I have been experimenting. I was actually going to put a request on the Notice Board to see if anyone could do it. Until then, the only way to edit the boxes is to "edit this page" and click on the appropriate template listed below the edit box.--Cyberjunkie 11:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: unfortunately it looks like you picked a bad wikiportal to emulate, actually the instructions for creating a new portal are at wikipedia:wikiportal#Wikiportals under construction, it uses the template:wikiportal as a skeleton and has all the edit links in place.  i'll try and fix it if i get time.  clarkk 10:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed now.  edit links are now in place. clarkk 11:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, now I see you've gone and used that template, which I decidedly disagree with. It may be what they're using for a basic start at Wikipedia:Wikiportal, but we by no means must follow it. If you look at any of the existing Wikiportals, they have all been modified in some way. Their "instruction" is not policy and their template is not "standard". --Cyberjunkie 05:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That version can now be found at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Australia/Alternate.--Cyberjunkie 06:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: it helps to standardise (within limits, obviously) where possible.  less startup cost when somebody is switching into a new project, easier to maintain multiple portals, and helps maintain general consistency (e.g. using template:Wikiportal:Australia/Opentask rather than COTF).  that said, tweaking the portals stylistically for each country, i have no problem with, your version looks fine to me, now that we have the links in place.  the point being that if somebody wants to go with a less standard version, the burden is then on that person to make it work as well as the standard one, which can sometimes be time consuming.  anyway, it all works fine now. clarkk 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Development

message: Can we have edit links for these? There's a spelling error in did you know and I can't work out how to fix it. Ambi 11:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't completed the main description. I am going to rewrite it. As for edit tags, I haven't quite figured out how to work them yet, though I have been experimenting. I was actually going to put a request on the Notice Board to see if anyone could do it. Until then, the only way to edit the boxes is to "edit this page" and click on the appropriate template listed below the edit box.--Cyberjunkie 11:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit links

message: I copied it directly from the Information Technology Wikiportal, and followed the layout of Wikiportal Canada, Wikiportal UK and Wikiportal Quebec. So its more hybrid than non-standard. I'm not at all learned in wiki syntax. Since you seem to be, could you perhaps add edit links as Ambi has requested - I made one half-hearted attempt to do so, but without success.--Cyberjunkie 13:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately it looks like you picked a bad wikiportal to emulate, actually the instructions for creating a new portal are at wikipedia:wikiportal#Wikiportals under construction, it uses the template:wikiportal as a skeleton and has all the edit links in place.  i'll try and fix it if i get time.  clarkk 10:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed now.  edit links are now in place. clarkk 11:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, now I see you've gone and used that template, which I decidedly disagree with. It may be what they're using for a basic start at Wikipedia:Wikiportal, but we by no means must follow it. If you look at any of the existing Wikiportals, they have all been modified in some way. Their "instruction" is not policy and their template is not "standard". --Cyberjunkie 05:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That version can now be found at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Australia/Alternate.--Cyberjunkie 06:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: it helps to standardise (within limits, obviously) where possible.  less startup cost when somebody is switching into a new project, easier to maintain multiple portals, and helps maintain general consistency (e.g. using template:Wikiportal:Australia/Opentask rather than COTF).  that said, tweaking the portals stylistically for each country, i have no problem with, your version looks fine to me, now that we have the links in place.  the point being that if somebody wants to go with a less standard version, the burden is then on that person to make it work as well as the standard one, which can sometimes be time consuming.  anyway, it all works fine now. clarkk 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax

message: May I suggest we move this portal to Portal:Australia?  -- Longhair | Talk 02:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, this an unresolved issue. It would be inappropriate to move it there until consensus is formed. There are discussions at Wikiportal talk and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Portal:Cricket.--Cyberjunkie 02:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal namespace

message: Fo your information, I've created this PD image template  which is self-explanatory:
                	This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G23 (Duration of copyright) (Sep 2005), generally copyright has expired as follows:	
{| style="align: center; border:1px solid none; width:100%; font-size: 95%; "	
{| style="align: center; border:1px solid none; width:100%; font-size: 95%; "                                                                                                                                                                                               	
{| style="align: center; border:1px solid none; width:100%; font-size: 95%; "
Type of material	Type of material                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	Copyright has expired if ...
 A    	Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown:                                                                                                                                                                               	taken or published prior to 1955-01-01
 B    	Photographs (except A):                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	taken prior to 1955-01-01
 C    	Artistic works (except A & B):                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               	the creator died before 1955-01-01
 D    	Published editions1 (except A & B):                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	first published more than 25 years ago
 E    	Commonwealth or State government owned2 photographs:                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	first published more than 50 years ago
 -- Ian ≡ talk 06:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD Images 

message: The world map showing the location indicates the continent, not the country. Was this the intention, or should something like :Image:LocationAU.png be substituted? Radagast 16:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't the intention. That map had been used to show Australia for quite a long while, but it seems someone had changed it without bothering to check the consequences. I have subsequently updated it. Thanks, --cj | talk 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location image 

message: I've put down some thoughts about this proposed portal at Portal talk:Oceania. Please come and comment.-gadfium 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal:Oceania

message: I've started a set of subpages at Portal:Australia/Anniversaries, which has a subpage for every day of the year, so that notable events and anniversaries in Australian history can be considered. Hopefully, if approved by the community for inclusion on the portal page, it would not be hard to maintain, as a glance at the code of Portal:Germany, shows that there is an automated device so that the reference to the relevant day's subpage will automatically update itself at 0:00 every day. I've stuck a few random notable events in there just off the top of my head, etc. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the set of pages needs to be nearly complete before the portal starts displaying them.  Otherwise we'll get unsightly red links on the portal page. It would be a lot of work to complete these pages, and I'm not sure the benefits would be worth while.-gadfium 02:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, of course, but in time I think we could rummage together at least three or four anniversaries per day. It's just like the main page, and I think there could be more Australia content than German content on the English Wikipedia. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Im all for this proposal and would be glad to help with finding notable historical events. michael talk 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Have a look at one of the non redlinked years in Australia, for example 1962 in Australia.  It links to the Timeline of Australian history which has major events per decade.  It also links back to 1962 which from there links to decades - not too many clicks to get to a broader timeframe.  I agree with you about pre 1788, but are we putting in dates pre 1788 (other than 1770 which I am in two minds about), there weren't that many records or consistent calendars around for dates relevant to Australia.  However, if it was something like the Batavia or similar event you had in mind, no I wouldn't link back to   1629 in Australia--A Y Arktos\talk 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool :) .Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue is, it is much easier to include pictures as we are building the items now rather than go back and add them later. I would like to add now and discuss later, rather than the other way around, if pictures are an agreed option.  I think we should be able to find pictures for one in four events.  The model I had in mind is Portal:Germany/Anniversaries/May where there is a picture for each day.  I note they are not thumbnailed or captioned - the lack of captioning a consequence of not thumbnailing rather than editor's intention though looking at the code, but probably a Good Thing.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable. There are a few reasons to not thumbnail images on portals; firstly, they conflict with set backgrounds; secondly, they are not always aesthetically appealing (the box in a box issue); and finally, for this portal, they would be inconsistent. Capitions should always be included for images though, as they are still shown on mouse over.--cj | talk 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: mouseover does not seem to work for me in mozila at present - but if it does for some, no probs--A Y Arktos\talk 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As soon as all red links within those days are taken care of.--cj | talk 07:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the red links as "contribution-encouraging aspects".  The German portal seems to have achieved its blue links through the domination of births and deaths - few events per se doing a quick scan.  I am not interested in merely a list of births and deaths - a light scattering only should be sufficient.  I also see little point to linking to the common year for an Australian portal.  Given the lack of interest from other editors to even add events, I can't see this going anywhere with the constraint put on it by Cyberjunkie's interpretation of "Red links must be restricted to only contribution-encouraging aspects, and limited at that." at Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?--A Y Arktos\talk 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually quite happy with the response to this proposal – it has been the most concerted group effort this portal has seen. The catalogue will continue to grow over time, so I don't see any particular need to rush – the portal certainly isn't going anywhere. Peta's suggestion below to run it on AWNB may trigger further participation. The "contibution-encouraging aspects" comment refers to self-referential sections on portals, namely things to do, WikiProjects etc. Red links are confined to these sections. You can trust my interpretation of what is a featured portal?, because I wrote it. The reasoning behind the red link criterion, imported from Wikipédia française, which was more advanced vis-à-vis portals at that stage, is that because portals are meant to display quality snippets of the encyclopædia, red links serve only as a distraction.--cj | talk 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like this proposal, though I'm not exactly clear on what it is you want me to do?--cj | talk 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to free up a box, so I though we could have two boxes where the candidates box is now, one for the cotf and one for candidates - or we can just combine those things in one box.--Peta 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea. I think Peta means merge the contents of Collaboration of the Fortnight and Other Candidates boxes at the AWNB to free up a box for the new Australian Anniversary content. -- Longhair 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a change and think it looks ok. What do you think? Alignment in the middle right box could do with an expert tweak though. -- Longhair 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another (minor) problem being, the edit link actually edits the box contents, and not anniversary dates. -- Longhair 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *looks good except for the edit link problem, not sure how to fix other than to remove the editing link--A Y Arktos\talk 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect a page or two also needs to be renamed, plus the edit link problem. Other than that, I quite like it. I stole your userpage idea too AYArktos :) Thanks. -- Longhair 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There seems to be a problem with the images being used. Compare the results on WP:AWNB with my user page and User:AYArktos for an example of the problem. -- Longhair 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't spot it.--cj | talk 06:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be fixed. What was happening was the image tags where being presented as such, and not an image. -- Longhair 06:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If they are excessive, and distort the portal proper, then that may have to be done. But they are only temporary and none have yet struck me as too large. Still, maybe we should place a cap on the number of events per anniversary?--cj | talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day section 

message: Here's another proposal, why don't we have a dummy run on the notice board? I think the collaboration of the fortnight could be moved - (cj would it be possible to make the candidates box half as high and make a skinnier box for the collabortion of the fortnight? Or we could rename the box community and just have the collabotation and candidates in there.) and the box could go beneath in the news. Red links would be ok, and it would draw attention to the "project" since more people (probably) visit that page than look at the portal. Then when we have some more polished material it can appear on both the portal and the noticeboard.--Peta 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this proposal, though I'm not exactly clear on what it is you want me to do?--cj | talk 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to free up a box, so I though we could have two boxes where the candidates box is now, one for the cotf and one for candidates - or we can just combine those things in one box.--Peta 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea. I think Peta means merge the contents of Collaboration of the Fortnight and Other Candidates boxes at the AWNB to free up a box for the new Australian Anniversary content. -- Longhair 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a change and think it looks ok. What do you think? Alignment in the middle right box could do with an expert tweak though. -- Longhair 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another (minor) problem being, the edit link actually edits the box contents, and not anniversary dates. -- Longhair 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *looks good except for the edit link problem, not sure how to fix other than to remove the editing link--A Y Arktos\talk 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect a page or two also needs to be renamed, plus the edit link problem. Other than that, I quite like it. I stole your userpage idea too AYArktos :) Thanks. -- Longhair 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There seems to be a problem with the images being used. Compare the results on WP:AWNB with my user page and User:AYArktos for an example of the problem. -- Longhair 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't spot it.--cj | talk 06:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be fixed. What was happening was the image tags where being presented as such, and not an image. -- Longhair 06:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A different proposal

message: What happens on dates where there are lots of events (Jan 1, Nov 11 and Dec 10 spring to mind, but there will be more)? Does someone need to manually modify a template, or will the whole list appear?--Peta 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are excessive, and distort the portal proper, then that may have to be done. But they are only temporary and none have yet struck me as too large. Still, maybe we should place a cap on the number of events per anniversary?--cj | talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big dates

message: *I have been adding captions to images.  In at least one case the caption had been removed.  The mouseover does work if pop-ups is not enabled and is important information thus for general readers that they would not see otherwise.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Why does the faux-browsebar at the top link to categories instead of portals?--ragesoss 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links at the top: categories instead of portals

message: There was talk somewhere of a list of Featured Australian articles but I can't seem to find it. If we're running short of Australian content, there's always the Good article pool to chose from. -- Longhair 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selected article suggestions

message: See this and this. I couldn't bear to see redlinks, so I quickly copied them from around Weeks 40/41, 2006. If I've stuffed this up, my apologies, but I figured these were better than nothing for a featured portal. Daniel Bryant 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much Daniel. Eek, indeed! I've put fresh entries in.--cj | talk 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eek, redlinks 

message: The portal says that Australia has been inhabited by Aboriginals for 50,000 years, whereas the Australia article says that it has been inhabited by Aboriginals for only 42,000 years. Please explain, --Spebi 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, the text in the introduction of this portal was taken from the Australia article, which has subsequently changed. I've updated the figure.--cj | talk 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50,000 years 

message: In particular, logos. What's the current status regarding the legitimacy of their use in portals? I see at least two in Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/August (A-League and Demons), and I always thought that they were off-limits, so I'm asking here for more input. Thoughts? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under present policy, they are prohibited in portalspace. A proposal to allow them is currently being discussed, but looks unlikely to get up. I've removed the photos you pointed out. Thanks,--cj | talk 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: The portal was showing redlinks for "week 0" on selected items! I have copied materials from week 1 to temporarily remove the redlinks. Arman (Talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the problem now. There was an error with the function that automatically produces the week number of the year, and (I think) the ISO week number was Week 0 of 2008, but the year number still generated 2007, and as Week 0, 2007 didn't exist, hence the red links. I've fixed the problem so it manually displays the Featured selection of the first week of 2008, even though it's technically (according to the software) not 2008 yet. Spebi 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links alert! 

message: Hi, would any Australians be willing to help me get the text of two particular Gazettes? I am looking for the ones referenced in http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Civil%20Air%20Ensign.htm, namely:
*6 June 1935 № 30
*4 March 1948 № 39
The topic is the Civil Air Ensign's specifications so I can create an exact image. I can't get Australia Gazettes from where I live. Thanks, ButterStick (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd probably get a better answer if you try asking at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, because not many people watch this page. Spebi 09:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will do. ButterStick (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth Gazette 

message: Portal:Tasmania's Related Portals box could be used here. feydey (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other portals 

message: Located between Batemans Bay and Moruya and by the village of Tomakin. This sandy beach is about one kilometre long with shrubbed sand dunes and grassed flats to the interior. It is crescent shaped and features Barlings Island and Long Nose Point to the north and Melville Point to the south. The beach faces south and, therefore, picks up southerly swell. The beach is affected, usually after mid morning, by strong north-easterly winds especially in summer. Sea temperatures usually vary between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius, with the coldest months being October and November. Wet suits are advisable in the non-summer seasons. Salmon, sting rays and dolphins are common. Whales can be seen in the migratory months. Several years ago a mother whale and its calf sheltered in the bay for a day or so.
Barlings, also known as Chunders, is patronised mainly by local Tomakin surfers who are more atune to the vagaries of the beach. Outsiders are quick to dismiss Chunders because of its famous close-out break, its unforgiving bach-wash, its sometimes dodgey paddle through the rocks, the presence of bluebottles after a strong southerly and suspect flotsam after a stong north-easterly. The north of the beach is sheltered from swell while the south can experience periods of strong surf-- usually followed by a flat spell. The sand banks are normally best after strong  waves have shifted sand further out to sea. Right hand breaks are usually fast while the left handers are generally slower with a faster section close to the shore. Waves break into respective rips which can be hazardous to visitors.
To the north of the beach, between Barlings Island and Long Nose Point, are rocky coves and a sewage outlet. To the sooth, between Melville Point and the mouth Of the Tomaga River are Tomakin Cove (Little Beach) and Tomakin Beach (River Beach). The former is protected from waves. The latter has a long right hander on the river mouth with NE swell. Avoid a fast out going tide. In the middle, The Basin, provides a large fattish left/right hander. Be prepared to wait...
Always remember the surf is always far better and the girls are prettier at Broulee!!!! ECO
 – — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
 210.9.137.176 (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  barlings beach nsw australia 

message: I noticed that someone move protected the main australia portal page but not any of the subpages, e.g. Portal:Australia/Indices. This could potentially turn into a big problem.Oli (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpages 

message: I don't know what has gone wrong, but the top of the portal page looks really awful.  The map overlaps the text, the text is ragged and right-justified, and there is a big blob of useless whitespace. cojoco (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented out some html in Portal:Australia/Intro which has fixed it. This is just addressing the symptoms. Perhaps something changed in MediaWiki which broke the layout. Someone more familiar with this portal can try reversing my change in a few hours and see if it now works, and perhaps report it at WP:VP/T if it still doesn't.-gadfium 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal page looks awful 

message: Rock Eisteddfod Challenge results contains wrong Informations, but i did not know which edits are bad or good. Please check it. The edits of 18th January are bad, I am sure. --Diwas (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But I do not need this list. Feel free to delete it. Greetings Diwas (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock Eisteddfod Challenge results