User talk:Kb.au

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as User talk:Kb.au/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Comments on this page get regularly archived. Please see Archive for older contents.

Hi Kb.au. Thank you for your contributions. When I said that I was removing "plot speculation", I wrote with necessary brevity. My main reason was the uncertainty of the Hughes connection, so that in my view any further suggestion was not appropriate to an encyclopaedia. It's not as if we are looking at a presidency. Also, if a particular expert is cited on one occasion, why not on all occasions (and George Williams has been quoted very often)? And then why not also other experts? George Williams and Anne Twomey I think are doing an effective double-act and Graeme Orr is also on that stage. (BTW, I am none of the above.) Wikiain (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiain:No problem. I didn't mean to come across as bluntly as I did, but I just felt that the possibility raised by Williams seemed like as valid a possibility as the other two possibilities raised: not finding Hughes ineligible, or finding her ineligible and resolving it through countback. It did feel somewhat out of place in a subsection about Nash, but given she was one of the "citizenship seven" and the High Court has delayed a ruling on Nash's replacement, it seemed notable enough and more complete to include more than just two of the three realistic possibilities. While it does seem to be only Williams that has suggested the casual-vacancy possibility so far, most of the reporting on the issue seems to just assume that it will be resolved through further countback if necessary. My view is that the an educated view of a constitutional law professor carries more weight than the assumptions of various political reporters, even if those assumptions are more widely reported. Kb.au (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kb.au: No problem, either, though I think Williams was only tracking there in a way that anybody could do. Actually I think the reporting in the Guardian, the Fairfax newspapers (SMH and Age) and The Australian has been remarkably accurate given the complexity. (I'd out myself if I said why I feel qualified to say so.) Wikiain (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I accept the warning, but why isn't the page locked to prevent further editing while the issues are being discussed? How come people can keep deleting massive amounts of information, the result of numerous hours of hard work by multiple users? 70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @70.112.229.80. It's a good question and I might raise it with an admin. Main issue is multiple editors see the list as a BLP violation, and until that's resolved it should not be included in the page. The edits over whether #MeToo relates to Silence Breakers is of no concern to me. Thanks Kb.au (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I don't think you're responsible for any of those edits. However, the list was created a while ago and has withstood scrutiny by at least two high-level administrators when it was previously being vandalized by a Trump hater. 70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@70.112.229.80, I understand your concern as I know your contributions are in the best of faith and seeing edits blanked can be irritating given how time consuming editing can be. But regardless of past right-wing left-wing vandalism, myself and a number of other editors have immediate concerns about the content of the list, especially in relation to the BLP policy which must be followed. We are trying to seek a broader consensus, outside of ourselves and beyond the primary editors of the page, via the talk page and through the Request for Comment so we can gain a better view as to whether the wider Wikipedia community believes the list is appropriate. Thanks, Kb.au (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually left-wing vandalism. 70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Sorry, I'd misread your comment. Kb.au (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you approved Coast FM (Adelaide), but without any references it didn't seem appropriate to have in article space, so I placed it back as a draft over here, let me know if you have any questions! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KB.au. I havn't had time to research some aspects of the proposed article Dept_of_Environmental_Design,_TCAE,_Hobart.. I was hoping that others who know a bit more might fill in the needed references. Would it be sufficient for now to remove those unreferenced projects and Barry Mc'Neill as a notable person. That would leave Permaculture as the only notable project and David Holmgren as the only notable person. I am thinking that I have referenced them correctly. Being the Dept that was part of initiating the now worldwide Permaculture movement may be the only internationally notable thing that ED did. Would that make it of sufficient value to those wanting to understand the origins of permaculture? The other aspect that might justify a stand alone article is that it was one of only a handful of tertiary level free schools, and the only one with a focus on Architecture and Planning, which of course would have to be verified. It was assessed by The Tasmanian education Department and Australian Institutes of Planning and of Architecture, for accreditation of degrees, which were in place for a decade. I haven't located those assessments yet, but hear that they are not entirely favorable. To include some of the content of these could be a useful contribution to those wanting to understand the free school movement at tertiary level. If these two aspects would be enough then I would do the work to get the independent reviews into the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office. There may be other aspects of ED that would support a stand alone article, but they might just turn out to be important to the State of Tasmania, but that is all I have time to research for now. If that is not acceptable then I will look at a mention at Mergers_and_the_"new"_university_(1965-99) and perhaps a mention at Free_school_movement, but I don't think it would be enough to add much to the understanding of what seems to be an important experiment in education. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jed Stuart. When I declined it on the basis of notability, I wasn't referring to the content of the article, but rather the subject of the article itself. It appears to me that there is insufficient independent coverage of the course/school to justify having its own article per WP:GNG. I suggested merging to the University of Tasmania article, but the creation of an article for Tasmanian CAE may even be appropriate (I haven't looked into whether it is covered enough to meet notability guidelines, but I suspect it is). Without significant, independent coverage on this course, no amount of work on the article will help it pass the notability guidelines, because notability is not determined by an articles substance. Kb.au (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you nominate Television censorship in Australia for speedy deletion as a copyright violation? Even if it were possible for one Wikipedia article to infringe the copyright of another Wikipedia article, the article was not even that similar to Internet censorship in Australia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90, besides the list, the only content in the television article is copied directly from Internet censorship in Australia:

"Internet censorship in Australia currently consists of a regulatory regime under which the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to enforce content restrictions on Internet content hosted within Australia, and maintain a "black-list" of overseas websites which is then provided for use in filtering software."

Without attribution to the original author, it is copyright infringement, because CC-BY-SA requires attribution (see WP:CWW). The article is just false rubbish anyway, so I've AfDed it. Kb.au (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sentence in question does not belong in Television censorship in Australia, but as indicated at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution, if the content were worth keeping in the first place, the failure to attribute could be cured. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in your reversion of my removal of the Optus Stadium logo at Perth Stadium. The logo is positioned as if it were a title to the section and has no description identifying it as a commercial logo for that stadium's current naming rights owner. As it stands, it appears to be an attempt to give the naming rights name more prominence than it deserves. I have examined Wikipedia:Logos and I would be interested to know which part of that policy authorises this sort of use of the logo without any identification of the significance of the logo. At this stage I won't enter into a reversion conflict about the issue, but I am concerned when I see commercial enterprises trying to find loopholes in Wikipedia's policies to not give undue prominence to them in a manner which may be considered free advertising. Ishel99 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishel99, I'm not sure what you mean. The logo is at the top of the article's infobox as any other article's logo would be. What device are you viewing the page from? I'm viewing the desktop site. Kb.au (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am viewing it also on my desktop and likely seeing it as you do. I'm not sure that I can express my point any more clearly, hehe... and as I say, I am not sufficiently concerned to press the matter. However, at the moment the logo is not clearly identified as a logo but simply appears to be a prominent heading for the naming rights name as opposed to the actual constructed name of the stadium. I guess I am especially sensitive regarding this one because of the controversy in WA regarding this iconic new stadium having its naming rights sold off, which was originally not supposed to happen. The naming right name is given in the article text, and that should be sufficient attribution. Alternatively if the logo is to remain, it should be accompanied by a text label clearly identifying it as the logo of the commercial naming rights owner. Ishel99 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishel99, I agree, it was disappointing when they sold off the naming rights. I'm personally not a fan of sponsorship names, and I also preferred the Perth Stadium logo (which I have left in the naming rights section of the article). Including the current stadium logo in the infobox is well accepted on the site (see Docklands Stadium, Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, Melbourne Park Multi-Purpose Venue, Kardinia Park (stadium), Stadium Australia, and Subiaco Oval, etc). I can't see a reason not to include it in Perth Stadium. Kb.au (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kb.au Thanks for opening this discussion up a bit more. I understand your point if we take the example of (apparently) numerous other stadiums around Australia, and perhaps around the world. Personally I think that by a degree of stealth the naming rights sponsors have been able to acquire greater prominence for their logos than is really warranted. To be honest, I think that the commercial logo, in each and every one of those cases, should not be the first item in the infobox. Since the article in each case is about a stadium, the first illustration in each infobox should be... the stadium! If the commercial logo is given any space at all in the infobox (which I think is debatable - imho it should be just as an illustration at the point of the article where the corporate sponsorship is mentioned) then it should be below the actual illustration of the stadium, and should be accompanied by text identifying it as a commercial logo which temporarily identifies the stadium. I am not a sufficiently experienced Wikpipedian to know where I might raise this as a broader matter of principle, but I believe that each of the articles you have cited should be modified to move the commercial logo to a less prominent position - otherwise we allow the commercial sponsor to receive a free promo despite Wikipedia's policy to not use the commercial names. If you would be interested to assist me in pursuing this, perhaps you could please point me to where it might be raised for the consideration of other editors. Many thanks! Ishel99 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishel99, I had a look for you, and your point about not using commercial names for stadiums in article titles seems to be Australian specific. For instance in the US, the pages for MetLife Stadium, FedExField, AT&T Stadium, EverBank Field, Bank of America Stadium, Mercedes-Benz Superdome, NRG Stadium etc all go by their commercial name. The situation is less clear in relation to UK stadiums with Emirates Stadium going by its commercial name while Etihad Stadium in Manchester goes by City of Manchester Stadium. Australian stadium names seem to entirely go by a non-commercial name in the article title, although some smaller venues are named according to their commercial name (Priceline Stadium, WIN Entertainment Centre).

Wikipedia naming policy is generally that the most common name for something is used for the article title rather than any other name (ie. Bob Hawke rather than Robert Hawke), which typically means that whatever name is most commonly used in independent sources is what should be used as the article title (see WP:COMMONNAME). The current naming of Australian stadiums seems to fly in the face of this policy, but there has been some consensus reached on a sort of naming convention in past discussions on the Australian Wikipedians' Noticeboard here and here. Similar non-Australian specific discussion seemed to go in the other direction (here and here). There's also an interesting discussion here about the article naming of both the UK and Australian Etihad Stadiums.

In relation to the logos though, WP:LOGO is pretty clear that it is acceptable to use the official logo for something in its article's infobox. The infobox template for venues, Template:Infobox_venue provides for this with its "logo_image" and "logo_caption" parameters, and as this is a standard template used across 14,000 pages, the location of the logo in relation to the image cannot be changed.

If you want to raise a broader discussion as to the appropriateness of using corporate-sponsorship logos in articles for venues, I'd suggest the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. It's a fairly active community, and as it's specific to Australia the users there will be more familiar with any Australian specific conventions and understand the naming rights situations with our various stadiums. I hope this has been insightful. Kb.au (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kb.au Thank you so much for ALL of the amazing detail in your response to my concerns on this issue. Once again I realize that while I might dip my toe in Wikipedia editing occasionally as time allows, there are those such as yourself who are knowledgeable and experienced to an unbelievable degree. I especially appreciate the links to previous discussions on the issue, and heartened to see the good Aussie common sense which has been brought to bear. In regard to the templates involved in the infobox, I do see the difficulty in doing something Australia-specific when we are using a template used universally, so I won't hold out any hope that there might be a change to that... especially since Wikipedia, like most things online, is driven from the US and naturally will tolerate a good deal more overt capitalism than we might like to see. I might raise it as an interesting discussion point on the Australian Wikipedians notice board, as you suggest, though without any serious expectation that much would change. Still, it would be interesting to see what others think. Once again, thank you SO much for taking your valuable time to provide so much useful guidance around this issue. (I am going to copy your most substantive reply above to my own page so that I have it easily accessible for future reference. You will likely receive a notification about that but I'm not expecting you to respond there). Ishel99 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishel99, no problem. :) Kb.au (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Kb.au. I see you deleted my article on CircuitStudio. I too felt like the subject was a bit non-notable, but figured it deserved its own since CircuitMaker had its own article. Moving forward, I will try and be extra careful about this. Just so the information I wrote doesn't go to waste, is there any part of it we can use for the Altium article you think? ThaiTee (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ThaiTee. As I mentioned in the edit summary, generally it isn't appropriate to have an article on specific products unless the product itself is independently notable (see WP:NPRODUCT), or the amount of content on the product would make the company's page unwiedly. In this case, I was of the view that the article contained nothing of substance that wasn't already included in the sentence on the product on Altium's page, and hence went forth and changed the page into a redirect without merging any content first. If you think there's anything else from that CircuitStudio that can still be merged across, feel free to add it. As the page history is still there, if the product ever does become more notable, the old content can still be retrieved. Kb.au (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. Thanks! ThaiTee (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for your AfD work, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Meakins. I appreciate the role of AfD discussions in improving articles that make weak or no notability claims-- it gives notice to editors who have an interest in the subject that the article may need substantial work to improve its quality. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Grand'mere Eugene. It's good to see the article was improved despite my misguided AfD nomination. Kb.au (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kb.au. thank you for approving the Will Alma article. I just noticed it has been classified under living people even though the date of decease is included - and so some of the warnings say to adhere to the living people standards which I think don't apply. I couldn't see how to remove this category, apologies if I've missed something ETAFlux (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ETAFlux, fixed! Kb.au (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! Thank you Kb.au ETAFlux (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ETAFlux, if you do ever need to add or remove categories in the future through the visual editor, the option screen for it is listed under the three-line menu near the publish button. Turning on the HotCat tool under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets may also be useful. Kb.au (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nom kb. I had thought about applying early myself but, as you saw, there's a fairly high level of nark going on. See you on the other side of 25! Triptothecottage (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy getting in the way of common sense Triptothecottage. Seems silly to me to have to review your very well-sourced and clearly notable articles whilst there are new-page reviewers with less experience going around and approving unsourced stubs without so much as adding a maintenance tag. Just keep creating quality articles as you do as I suppose it doesn't really matter too much that one of us has to tick the review box! Kb.au (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn't sure how to do the disambiguation for Jesse Cox pages. I was trying to have one landing page where the reader selects which person's page they want to read (American or Australian). I added the 'For' tag redirections on each page as well. Currently searches for Jesse Cox go straight to the American page. thanks. Kathodonnell (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kathodonnell, I've requested a page move to fix it to the way you suggested. It seems like neither is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kb.au (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! That's great Kathodonnell (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Baztlanar (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Global Care Chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi and thanks for reviewing the article I submitted on global care chains.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Global_Care_Chains)

I was wondering if I could get some further feedback on what to change in the article. I have tried to simply restate what the current debates on the topic is and what are the key characteristics and concepts. In doing so I have put citations on all statements and refrained from evaluating one argument over the other according to my own judgements. I've written two posts on this in the teahouse but didn't get any responses so that's why I posted it again without much changes.

Would be super grateful for your help :) Baztlanar (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Baztlanar, I forgot to respond to this. The reason I declined it was that it reads significantly like an analysis of a concept rather than an encyclopedic article on the concept. Some of the lead is okay, but much of the rest of the article reads like a journal article or essay that analyses the concept (see WP:NOTESSAY). I'm not familiar enough with the topic to give specific advice, but many of the tips at Wikipedia:Writing better articles may be of assistance. Kb.au (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you nominated me for Autopatrolled and complimented the articles I write. Thank you, I appreciate your kind words! Enwebb (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Enwebb. Sometimes there's not enough niceness in this place! Kb.au (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft you reviewed, Draft:Koen Bosma, meets criteria by playing in the v.league 1 in 2015 and the eerste divisie (dutch 2nd tier) (see Soccerway Profile and WikiProject Football fully pro leagues. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks Das osmnezz. Somehow I couldn't find Vietnam on the list, and overlooked those Harlem matches. Kb.au (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have added the {{Notability}} template to the IPsoft Inc. article. However, the article has already a total of 19 citations, being 16 independent. Also, they come from several reliable sources, from distinct fields such as PC World, ZDNet, Everest Group, Credit Suisse, Yahoo! Finance, The Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur (magazine), Business Wire, Computer World and Daily Mail.

Could you motivate the addition of the template, given that it already has enough references from reliable sources? Thanks Pcgomes (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pcgomes. Much of the coverage on the company is promotional (rehashes of press releases, etc) or incidental in nature, and it may not meet the WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. Kb.au (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kb.au. Thanks for the reply. However, I have the opinion that you have been overly rigorous. Though few of the articles can arguably be called promotional or incidental, most (from 16) are clearly not. Such as the ones from Yahoo! Finance, Everest Group, The Wall Street Journal, and Daily Mail. I may add more articles about the company, if that helps. But I'd ask you to inspect that the current ones already come from way too many reliable sources *and* are not incidental for the article to be labeled as lacking notability. Best Regards, Pcgomes (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kb.au, I wanted to ping you to let you know an article you recently rejected at AfC has been promoted to article space by the author. I have opened an AfD for this. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Jake Brockman. Kb.au (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kb, thanks again for a prompt and diligent review. I was well aware Mr Simpson was something of an edge case for notability; I'll set him as a sort of lower bound for the other Irish dancer articles I create. There are quite a number of competitive dancers who have received considerably more coverage. That said, do you have any thoughts on how I should interpret WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG in creating this sort of bio? Clearly two Canberra Times articles is... not a lot, especially given the CT's weird duality as local rag and capital city paper of record, but what would you consider a reasonable standard? Triptothecottage (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Triptothecottage. That's pretty much the reason I was concerned about notability; the only media coverage on the subject was in two articles in the Canberra Times and one article in Canberra's Chronicle, a local paper. All could be regarded as local news, and with little coverage elsewhere lack of notability could at least be argued. It's difficult to set a standard on coverage that would be considered notable given the diverging views on what is significant coverage and what isn't (you just need to head over to AfD to see the mess that that can be..), and because there is no black and white line (part of the reason why for many sports, there is clear guidelines as to what is notable). I trust your judgement on whether articles are notable or not and your referencing is always good, but I'd already come to the decision to at least tag this one for notability before I realised you were the author because the lack of coverage had me initially concerned it was self-promotional. I'm no expert on individuals involved in dancing, so the depth of coverage relative to other dancers or the subject's achievements may indicate they are in fact notable, but my review was solely based on the lack of broader media coverage. Kb.au (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]