Talk:Wireless Hill Park

January 2021

As far as I am aware (reference: Telefunken Zeitung project report), Telefunken/Germany supplied and built most of the station (mast and transmitter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.186 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yagan Mia - meaning

This edit by Bahnfrend says that "Yagan Mia" means "home of the long-necked turtle", but the references cited in Wireless Hill Park § Aboriginal heritage say it comes from the name of the Noongar man Yagan, and "mia" meaning "camping place". Are there any sources that might help resolve the discrepancy? I note (at the risk of WP:SYN) that there are separate sources [1][2] that say "yaagan" (note the spelling) is a turtle. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

circular self defeating way of understanding the problem - online sources consulted are nowhere near what can assist the reader, and the simplest human politeness would have been to have asked the editor. JarrahTree 10:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the sources vary, and I'm more inclined to accept the turtle theory than the warrior vantage point theory. I've now further edited the article to clarify the point. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course 2 minute search of nys.wikipedia could have answered mitches question too https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Choonya_-_Booyi_(Snake-necked_turtle) Gnangarra 13:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did look there, but I didn't even need 2 minutes to find WP:CIRC, which says "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (... or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources".
None of the online references cited by wp/nys mention "Yagan/Yaagan Mia", and it will take me a bit more than 2 minutes to drive out to Yagan Memorial Park, City of Swan, to check the mural myself, on the off chance that it mentions "Yagan/Yaggan Mia" - I don't have to search at all to know what WP:SYN says. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and/or

@Elrondil:, re [3] and related edits, MOS:ANDOR is fairly clear on its preference for "or" instead of "and/or". If you disagree with that guideline, propose a change at WT:MOS.

In the specific case of this article, both relevant sources say:

On the southern side of Wireless Hill there is a scar tree ... Scars were made to create utensils and/or shields. These trees can also mark out a territory ...

So don't know whether this particular tree was used for utensils or shields or marking territory, or any combination thereof, and thus we cannot answer the question "which?". I propose that, per the Usage of {{Which}} – Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article – we don't actually need to answer the question. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames: So stick to what you know. Try: The park includes a scarred tree. Aboriginal people scarred trees for purposes such as creating utensils, shields and marking territory. It is not known why the tree was scarred. Elrondil (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem is with the current, long-standing, wording. It is succinct, accurately reflects the sources, and complies with MOS:ANDOR. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames: I completely believe you don't, so may I suggest you listen to those that do. Yes, what is there now complies with all the rules, and the wording has been there for a while. But here’s the thing: it is ambiguous and poorly written, has been for a while, so I propose a way to write it without ambiguity that also complies with all the rules and isn’t that much longer. When I read what is in the article again now, I walk away with the belief the tree was used for all three purposes, although perhaps at different times, which none of us knows to be true though. Looking for that good judgement now. Elrondil (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I read what is in the article again now, I walk away with the belief the tree was used for all three purposes — The sentence reads "create utensils or shields, or to mark territory"; in no way does "or" exclusively mean "and".
Adding a separate sentence "Aboriginal people scarred trees for purposes ..." introduces its own ambiguity - do the "scarred trees" in that sentence include the one on Wireless Hill Park, or is it just a general explanation? Your use of the word "and" in that sentence is not supported by the references, which say "and/or" and "can mark territory" (not "do mark territory").
The proposed text "It is not known why the tree was scarred." Is not supported by the references. It is possible that someone does know - just because it is not in the reference does not mean that it is not known to anyone".
If the wording is a big problem, the simplest approach would be to reduce the sentence to "The park includes a scarred tree." and leave the linked article to explain. But I still think the current wording is fine. And more importantly, MOS:NOFORCELINK - "do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links" - the meaning of "scar tree" is relevant and probably not known to many readers. So just truncating the sentence is not a very good solution.
I've left requests at WP:AWNB, WT:WA and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia asking for other editors to join in the discussion, since we don't appear to be able to agree. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the current reading is ambiguous. I would suggest just writing "The park includes an Aboriginal scarred tree" and leaving it at that, a crosslink will explain the rest. The Aboriginal mob probably do know what the scarring was done for, it's not that difficult for someone with a good eye. Poketama (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Elrondil (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [4]. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wireless_Hill_Park