Portal talk:Australia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Matilda (talk | contribs)
PROPOSAL: anniversaries/ on this day section: 19xx in Australia too fine-grained?
Line 103: Line 103:


**I also have no problem with red links. If using years in Australia for the date (which is my preference), there will be red links and these definitley deserve an article, [[1916 in Australia]], [[1868 in Australia]] and [[[[1916 in Australia]] are all redlinked at the moment, they each have interesting events happening in them--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]]\<sup>[[User_talk:AYArktos|talk]]</sup> 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC).
**I also have no problem with red links. If using years in Australia for the date (which is my preference), there will be red links and these definitley deserve an article, [[1916 in Australia]], [[1868 in Australia]] and [[[[1916 in Australia]] are all redlinked at the moment, they each have interesting events happening in them--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]]\<sup>[[User_talk:AYArktos|talk]]</sup> 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

***Is "19xx in Australia" too going too fine-grained for the article topics? I mean, there were those world factbooks for each year in my local library when I was growing up and I agree their content would be great on Wikipedia, but with its extremely broad frame of reference I worry that fine-grain summary articles like these will be hard for researchers to find. Imagine you are looking for information about the goldrush in Australia and associated economical change... You have an idea it happened in the goldrush happened in the mid 1800s, but not sure exactly what year the most important dates happened. You are going to want an article more like "1850s in Australia".... What do you think? This is going to be particularly relevant for the pre-1788 years in Australia and pre-Renaissance years for most countries &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Donama|Donama]] 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:50, 25 May 2006

Template:Featuredportal

Archives

Development

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)

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 and click on the appropriate template listed below the edit box.--Cyberjunkie 11:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Syntax

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)

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)[reply]
fixed now. edit links are now in place. clarkk 11:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that that was the instruction. But, as an aesthete, their template did not appeal to me at all. And, at 600 x 800 screen resolution, it rarely worked. Thankyou for adding those edit links - it saved me a lot of hassel.--Cyberjunkie 04:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
That version can now be found at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Australia/Alternate.--Cyberjunkie 06:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Portal namespace

May I suggest we move this portal to Portal:Australia? -- Longhair | Talk 02:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

co-op article

(Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight.)

Photo

Hello, I would be very pleased, if you can help me: I'm searching for "my" article de:Flagge Australiens a public domain photo of an australian sportsmen (cricket player, soccer player, whatever...) in a national green/gold sportsdress. Grüße de:Kookaburra

PD Images

Fo your information, I've created this PD image template {{PD-Australia}} which is self-explanatory:

-- Iantalk 06:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestions for Features

Please make suggestions for articles and images to be featured on the Wikiportal under the relevant heading.

Feature Article

Feature Image

Location image

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Portal:Oceania

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)[reply]

PROPOSAL: anniversaries/ on this day section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I think the proposal is good. I was thinking of it already, but not sure how to implement in the context of the years in Australia pages, which are of course an easy source of events. I would like to see the links back to those years too, eg for July 11 1916 being Gough's bithday, don't link to 1916 but instead 1916 in Australia, though piped to 1916, ie [[1916 in Australia|1916]]--A Y Arktos\talk 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think they (the German portal) just trawled through the data manually, unless someone creates June 8 in Australia, which would have the exact same effect anyway.
    • Could the update be UTC - 10 hours - ie midnight AEST? :-)--A Y Arktos\talk 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so, there is a template that works out the day, with an offset of days, I don't think it would be difficult for the people who write these templates to create one with a deliberate time offset and then convert to days and months. I don't know what the WP policy is w.r.t changing the clock for regional portals not on GMT however.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposal, though it would need to be completed before inclusion on the portal as either a new feature or replacement for DYK.--cj | talk 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im all for this proposal and would be glad to help with finding notable historical events. michael talk 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we are drawing from a smaller pool of articles than Wikipedia, it might be a good idea to include notable births and/or deaths, and important cultural works - like the publication date for books etc. I've also got to say, I don't really see a great problem with having red links on a portal - red links often prompt people to write articles.--Peta 23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is "19xx in Australia" too going too fine-grained for the article topics? I mean, there were those world factbooks for each year in my local library when I was growing up and I agree their content would be great on Wikipedia, but with its extremely broad frame of reference I worry that fine-grain summary articles like these will be hard for researchers to find. Imagine you are looking for information about the goldrush in Australia and associated economical change... You have an idea it happened in the goldrush happened in the mid 1800s, but not sure exactly what year the most important dates happened. You are going to want an article more like "1850s in Australia".... What do you think? This is going to be particularly relevant for the pre-1788 years in Australia and pre-Renaissance years for most countries — Donama 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]