Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Shortcut
Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help


    WikiProjects edit | watch
    In the news edit | watch
    Read and edit Wikinews


    7 November 2025 – Australia–Nauru relations, Nauru Regional Processing Centre
    Australia begins to deport hundreds of non-citizens to Nauru, as part of a bilateral agreement between both countries, in which Australia will pay Nauru A$2.5 billion (US$1.6 billion) over 30 years in exchange for Nauru issuing visas to these individuals deported from Australia. (RNZ)
    6 October 2025 – Australia–Papua New Guinea relations
    Australia and Papua New Guinea sign a defense treaty, formally granting Australia access to Papuan military facilities and requiring mutual defense in case of aggression. (BBC News) (AP)
    4 October 2025 – 2025 Speedway of Nations
    In motorcycle speedway, Australia wins the 2025 Speedway of Nations, defeating Poland in the grand final at the MotoArena Toruń, BiT City, Kuyavia–Pomerania, Poland. (FIM Speedway)
    2 October 2025 – Australia–Papua New Guinea relations
    The Papua New Guinean Cabinet approves a bilateral defense treaty with Australia, which will increase integration of military equipment and personnel between the two countries. (AP)
    27 September 2025 – 2025 AFL Grand Final
    In Australian rules football, the Brisbane Lions defeat the Geelong Cats to win the 2025 Australian Football League by 47 points, winning their second consecutive premiership and fifth overall. (The Age) (AFL)
    21 September 2025 – International recognition of Palestine
    Australia, Canada, Portugal, and the United Kingdom formally recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign state, with Canada becoming the first G7 country to do so. (BBC News) (Reuters)


    More Australian current events
    See also: Current events on Wikinews
    Categories edit | watch
    On this day in Australia edit | watch

    Australia · Arts · Architecture · Cities · Communications · Culture · Economy · Education · Environment · Geography · Government · Healthcare · History · Law · Language · Lists · Media · Military · Music · Organisations · People · Politics · Religion · Science · Society · Sport · Subdivisions · Transport · Tourism

    Australian states and territories · Australian Capital Territory · New South Wales · Northern Territory · Queensland · South Australia · Tasmania · Victoria · Western Australia

    Capital cities · Adelaide · Brisbane · Canberra · Darwin · Hobart · Melbourne · Perth · Sydney

    Australia stubs · AFL stubs · Geography stubs · Government stubs · Law stubs · People stubs · Paralympic medalists stubs · Television stubs

    12 November:

    Vickers Vimy aircraft
    Vickers Vimy aircraft


    To-Do edit | watch
    Announcements edit | watch

    Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia:

    Requests · Ariadne Australia · Awakenings Festival · Drought Force · Electoral reform in Australia · Fossils of Australia · Landforms of Australia · Oral health in Australia · Pop music in Australia · Sculpture of Australia

    Articles needing attention · Australian contemporary dance · Balance of payments of Australia · Crime in Australia · Environment of Australia · Gender inequality in Australia · Privacy in Australian law · Secession in Australia · Tourism in Australia

    Images requested · Bali Nine · Cheryl Kernot · Fire of Australia opal · Poppy King · James Moore · MV Pacific Adventurer · Neil the Seal · OneAustralia · Australian major cricket venues

    Verification needed · 2003 Canberra bushfires · Architecture of Australia · Australian performance poetry · FreeTV Australia · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of political controversies in Australia · Norfolk Air · Punk rock in Australia

    Quality watch:

    Traditional Owners on Template:Infobox Australian place

    [edit]

    I believe Template:Infobox Australian place should be modified to have a field for who the Traditional Owners of the land are. IE the sydney CBD would list the eora people. Many pages list them and its common practice to list them. Thoughts? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see an issue with having such a field, so long as we have policy around it. Because traditional ownership of a place is often disputed by a number of Indigenous groups, I would suggest we only put a value in that field when the article already has well-cited content to support one group of traditional owners. If the article has any indication that this is the subject of a dispute, then I suggest we follow the Neutral Point of View policy and mention both (or however many) claims in the article body (appropriately cited) but NOT put any of them into the field in the infoxbox. We could make an exception if there has been a successful application for Native Title (appropriately cited to the court determination), but I would still include the article that other claims exist. Kerry (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, sounds like a fair policy. Perhaps a good standard that could be used would be seeing which groups are acknowledged on acknowledgements or welcomes to country made by local government organisations. But obviously many places do not make acknowledgements of country or do not mention specific groups, and they might not be specific enough for more specific areas, such as suburbs. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I started formulating a response then saw that Kerry said what I was going to say here ... so, +1, as the young people say. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Kerry. The proposal raises a few issues:
    1) My understanding is that the preferred terminology nowadays is "traditional custodians" rather than "traditional owners".
    2) The problem is that info boxes are supposed to summarise key information and are not the place to try to present complex or contested information. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
    3) Welcome to country speeches, websites run by different indigenous groups, and published information by sporting groups, local councils etc are often contradictory and sometimes designed to support particular claims relating to ongoing legal disputes. They are not as good as academic sources in determining the boundaries of traditional Aboriginal groups.
    4) Unfortunately, most of the articles on Australian places and Aboriginal groups are terrible. Few are anywhere near GA or FA status. Everything in them needs to checked against reliable academic sources, preferably by distinguished anthropologists, linguists and historians.
    5) That said, the proposal might encourage editors put some effort into finding reliable sources for traditional owners (the reasons for decision in Native Title claims, academic studies, etc).
    Of course, there are some cases where the traditional custodians of a particular area is well established. For example, the infobox for an article on the Sydney CBD could state with authority that the Gadigal (or Cadigal) were the traditional custodians.
    Please see the article on Sydney#First inhabitants of the region for one approach to the problem which was arrived at after a great deal of discussion and consensus building. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally agree with this, all good points. Although I slightly disagree with point 2. I would argue the tradtional custodians is key information. But I understand its nuanced, but in most places, you could definitively state one or two groups as traditional owners. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    'Custodians' would be better than 'owners' as has been pointed out.
    It may be unclear or disputed (at least for the latter in the case of 'Eora') in terms of who should be listed as traditional custodians.
    The boundaries of administrative areas are very unlikely to align with the approximate boundaries of Aboriginal clans. There appears no equivalent for Scottish clans or kinship groups in the case of areas or localities in the Highlands.
    It is worth, regardless, discussing the Indigenous habitation of an area in the article body.
    Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have discussed how the borders may not line up. In cases of dispute there will be a link in the info box to where in the article it talks about it. Personally I think it would be cool to also have this for other countries. For example the Scottish highlands as you mentioned Pencilceaser123 (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we see if we can end this discussion? Consensus seems to be supporting the idea, but problems with the little things. So that we arent bogged down forever, could we add the paramater using an internim name of whatever seems to be most popular while we discuss the permentant name? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Template talk:Infobox Australian place. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem is that the traditional owners did not occupy land based on the boundaries of towns, suburbs, etc as they exist today, which are the basis of most of our Wikipedia articles. Might it be better to create articles that directly represent the lands of Indigenous groups? E.g. Land of the Eora people using resources along the lines of maps like this. NB the map I linked to does have problems, as there have been successful native title claims subsequent to its publication, hence my "along the lines of", hoping for a more recent update. Kerry (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking in many places multiple groups could be mentioned. In the Blue Mountains the land is usually refered to as the Tradtional land of the Dharug and Gundungara people, although sometimes in the lower mountains only the Dharug people are mentioned. Many articles already say "the area is the traditional land of the X people" or "the X and Y people" so for many pages the change would be just transferring that to the wikibox. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where there aren't disputes, adding two to the infobox probably isn't a problem. It's the disputed areas that will be the problem. Kerry (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Prehaps in disputed areas you could put a "see indigenous history" in the field or something. Kinda like how in battles without a clear result usually "see aftermath" is put. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Help:Infobox says they are for facts and statistics, but I guess we could put "disputed"
    linked to the section (or anchor) within the article that discusses it more fully (or even to another article if the dispute has its own article. That way there is a "fact at a glance" as per the Help, which a "see ..." isn't. My bigger concern is disputes becoming an edit war simply involving changing the infobox value back and forwards rather than making a case with cited content in the article. This is why I suggested having articles for what each group perceives as their land, which enables overlap in their claims without it creating a head-to-head argument in an article for a post-colonial place whose boundaries are usually unrelated to Indigenous history. Maybe that is the best way to achieve a "neutral point of view" in this situation and minimise on-wiki disputes given that there is a lack of written sources for pre-colonial times. Kerry (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should say that parts of Brisbane (where I live) are disputed between the Jagera and Turrbal and this creates on-going edit wars on Wikipedia because the Jagera people made a native title claim which was refused because of the Turrbal counter-claim (so it is undetermined legally). So this may make me more sensitive to the issue of disputed claims than those who write about places which are not subject to such disputes. Kerry (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in some of the Brisbane pages too, and to be fair the edit wars have settled down recently. The Brisbane page itself is a prime example of poorly sourced and misleading information on Aboriginal issues. For example, "Meanjin" (however spelled) was never a traditional name for Brisbane because there was no "Brisbane" in traditional Aboriginal culture. "Meanjin" is an English transliteration of an Aboriginal word that (probably) referred to a small piece of land within what is now Brisbane. We can say that many people (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) now use the word "Meanjin" to refer to Brisbane but are they really using it to refer to Brisbane as defined by the article? There are many Aboriginal groups who were the traditional custodians of land that is now a part of Brisbane and they had many different names for the land they had rights over: the Yerongpan, Chepara and Coorpooroo are a few. The tragedy is that the traditional custodian groups are gone for ever and glibly stating in an info box that "Meanjin" is the Aboriginal name for Brisbane is one more erasure of the diversity of pre-colonial Australia. If we want to list traditional custodians and traditional names in an info box I would be inclined to just put: "many" and explain the detail in the articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting "many" in the wikibox is deffinitly a good idea for larger areas or areas with multiple peoples. Prehaps you could put "many" if 4 or more groups could be considered custodians of the area. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems very unusual to me, although I understand how this can happen. In areas where I have lived its common to mention 2 (or even 3!) peoples as the tradtional Custodians. So I dont see why we couldnt just put both on the wikibox. Your idea for having an article for the lands of each group is great. Its just theres hundreds of countries, many of whom have wikipedia pages that are little more than stubs, so it seems along way to be able to do that. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I think its worth noting: When I was making this proposal I was thinking to be considered a custodian/owner of the land they would only need to lay claim to part of the area, not all of it. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that, normally, only one traditional custodian should appear in the infobox. For large-area places (cities, large state or national parks) that have different custodians in different parts, a second custodian can be added. For pretty-much point places (towns), one only. If there are more than 2, or any dispute, or lack of good references, put nothing in the infobox and discuss the topic in the body of the article. So I would argue for |traditional_custodian1= and |traditional_custodian2=.
    I would also suggest |traditional_custodian1_footnotes= and |traditional_custodian2_footnotes=, partly as a reminder to editors that the statement(s) need to be referenced, especially if there is little or nothing in the article body.
    Question: where in the infobox should this appear? My suggestion would be with the 'larger areas this place is in' items (LGA, region, electorates), but I'm not wedded to it. Innesw (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having only one custodian for single points is problematic. Aboriginal people didnt have set borders, and nations could share land. For example the dharug and gundungurra people Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As for where it should be in the wikibox, thats a great idea. As is the reminder for references Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, happy to widen the criteria for 2 custodians to (a) large places and (b) where custodionship is shared or overlaps. But I think 2 is a reasonable limit for the infobox - anything more complicated or disputed needs a longer explanation elsewhere. There is a precedent for linking to a section of the body of the article from this infobox, if |near= is defined but all of the near-* are blank. So for any custodianship more complex that 2 verified (& undisputed) names, we could advise |traditional_custodian1=see {{slink||Traditional Custodians}} (or whatever the section name is), which will appear as 'see § Traditional Custodians'. Innesw (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support the concept, and support adding a field to the infobox, but only use it when it's clear and unambiguous, with only one group. If it needs a list, then it needs an explanation too. There are lots of modern towns which are clearly in the territory of only one traditional custodial group. There are also lots of more complex areas where different groups used the same territory at different times of year, or shared border regions. There have also been shifts over time - should "traditional" refer to the timestamp of white colonisation of the state, or of initial white exploration (before they left Smallpox and measles)? Sometimes it's not even clear if the named group exists/ed or is/was part of a larger grouping. There are also more modern competing claims for recognition of Native Title. --Scott Davis Talk 01:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I’ll make a proper reply. But I think it’s fine if two different groups can be listed at the same time, more? Maybe not Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally agree with the concept as described by Kerry, though I have some issues around how we describe it. Think Traditional Owners are not equal to Native Title holders. Within that the ability to have multiple groups is necessary. There are significant over laps between current(Government authorities if one likes) boundaries to those of Traditional Owners, and Native Title groups. Example SWLAC is Native Title holder for South West, but Yuet, Minang, Ballardong, Whadjuk et el are the TO of different areas within the single Native Title Claim. Gnangarra 12:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like there are possibly 4 concepts we could be referring to here (there may be more). (See Native title in Australia.)

    1. Native Title Determinations under the federal Native Title Act
    2. Indigenous Land Use Agreements made under the same act
    3. Other settlments made by various states (eg: under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 in Victoria)
    4. Traditional Custodianship - allocation of land areas to traditional first-nations groups as their pre-European-settlement - or current - areas of occupation or affiliation

    The first three are legal concepts that give particular first-nations groups particular rights over particular areas of land. The fourth can probably be said to apply to 100% of Australia, with the boundaries more- or less-precisely defined, depending on the source of the information. This will generally be the group specified (if there is one) in an Acknowledgement of Country: We acknowledge the [..] people as the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet ....

    So, on what basis do we include the name of a first-nations group in the Infobox under 'Traditional Custodians'? I would think any 'place' that is within or immediately surrounded by an area covered by any of the first 3 formal concepts - for a single named group - could rightly use the name of that group. For legal determinations/settlements with more than one named group, or for any statement based on #4, we need either to examine the details of those determinations/settlements, or use other reliable references. (And does an Acknowledgement of Country meet the reliability required? Of itself, I would think probably not.)

    Together with the criteria (stated above) about two possible custodians, and complexity/ambiguity/disputes, does this move us closer to a set of guidelines? Innesw (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Acknowledgement of Country is used by agents that arent the traditional owner ie Government departments. To do a "Welcome to Country" one must be from the country and have the rights bestowed by Elders to represent that country. As a reliable source an Acknowledgement can be fraught with issues, inaccuracies, or disputes, it not something I'd be comfortable with asserting as reliable source. Use of Traditional Custodians I would be uncomfortable with, preference to use Traditional Owners which is more self explanatory. Gnangarra 13:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are in furious agreement about 'Acknowledgements' as a reliable source - they just aren't. Unfortunately 'Welcomes' are probably also not sufficient, particularly if there are disputes and somebody has to decide who to invite to do one. As I said previously, any level of complexity etc. needs the Infobox to refer readers to a detailed discussion, not look as if a definitive statement can be made. On 'Custodians' and 'Owners', there does not seem to be agreement on this amongst first-nations groups (see here - which is my only source for this). Maybe just 'First Nations' as an Infobox heading row label? (That's just a new idea I've had, completely un-thought-through.) Innesw (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been to events where acknowledges/welcomes have attracted an outburst from someone in the crowd disagreeing with which group was mentioned (or not mentioned). It's far from universally agreed. That's why I suggested writing articles about the Traditional lands of different groups as a way to document what the different groups believe and not create issues of having that information in the same article (creating edit wars). Kerry (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, as far as the Infobox is concerned, our guideline needs to say (along the lines of) 'If there is any level of dispute, link to a description of that dispute. If there is no such description in WP [eg: if one of your proposed articles doesn't exist yet], then do not fill this parameter.' Innesw (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Below is a draft section for the template documentation page. I have gone with 'First Peoples' as a base parameter name, but this, as the rest of the draft, remains open to discussion.

    First Peoples
    Parameters:
    • |first_peoples1=, |first_peoples2=. Give the names of the first (Aboriginal or Torres-Strait-Islander) people(s) who occupied the place prior to European settlement, or who are the traditional custodians/owners of the land.
    • use these parameters where the place is within or immediately surrounded by an area affiliated with a group named in the sources (see below)
    • filling first_peoples2 is valid for large-area places (eg: cities) that have different custodians in different parts, or where affiliation is acknowledged as shared
    • if there are more than 2 groups sharing affiliation to the place, or there is any level of dispute or ambiguity, use 'see {{section link}}' to refer to a discussion of the details within the article, or to link to details elsewhere. If there is no detailed discussion to refer to, and there is some dispute or ambiguity, do not fill these parameters.
    • |first_peoples1_footnotes=, |first_peoples2_footnotes=. References demonstrating the named first peoples' affiliation.
    Common sources would include:
    • Native Title Determinations under the federal Native Title Act
    • Indigenous Land Use Agreements made under the same act
    • Declared Indigenous Protected Areas
    • Other settlements made by various states (eg: under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 in Victoria)
    • Anthropological or similar information about pre-european-settlement occupation or current affiliation with the land
    Note that acknowledgements of and welcomes to country are not generally regarded as reliable sources for the name(s) of first peoples affiliated with a place.

    Innesw (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds good to me! Thanks for doing this! A few thoughts:
    Maybe something could be added to specify that the group does not need to be considered traditional custodians over the whole location, just at least one place within the modern borders.
    Maybe we could add to common sources official statements by local councils?
    No major problems though, and open to discussion on this. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly oppose using statements by local government as a reliable source for traditional owners. Local government websites are not academic sources and their policies towards local indigenous groups often change depending on who is in power. There are also often disputes between indigenous groups and local governments about these very issues. There are exceptions when local government websites publish anthropological or similar information about pre-European-settlement, occupation or current affiliation with the land. A good example of this is the City of Sydney's.Barani website. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, im more meaning in areas where there isnt dispute. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if there is no dispute then we can probably find a better source that a local government website. Your other point raises a difficulty: what if there are some Aboriginal groups that are only associated with a small part of the geographic area covered by the article? (Say, 5%). If we give them equal weight to the majority group, we are likely to be presenting disputed or misleading information. If we exclude them, we are erasing them from history. If we include an explanatory note then we are presenting complex information which probably shouldn't be in the info box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you could do it like this? "People A (Majority)" "People B (Minority)" or "People A" "People B (West only)" or something Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think even short comments like '(Majority)' or '(West only)' belong in an infobox. It's for summaries of key facts that should appear in detail elsewhere in the article. It could well be argued that if there is no detail of first nations affiliations in the article then these fields should be left blank. Innesw (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is excellent work. Thanks for doing this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The more important question is how the proposed parameter should be displayed in Template:Infobox settlement. Where in the infobox should it appear, and what heading should be used? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Michael Bednarek: as of the current state of the proposed wrapper to {{Infobox settlement}}, it would fit at |subdivision_type5=First People(s), so below the LGA and above the Location (=distances & directions from other places). As shown, my suggestion for the heading is 'First People(s)'. If first_peoples2 is filled, the single |subdivision_name5= would have to be filled with (I think) a {{plainlist}}.
    I'll raise the topic at the talkpage where the wrapper details are being discussed. Innesw (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would Wikipedia use 'First People(s)' in capitals? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, I hadn't really thought about it. I'll change it to 'First people(s)' when things calm down over there! Innesw (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My only concern is that |subdivision_type5=First People(s) is not intuative as common terminology is to use traditional owners Gnangarra 11:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Iirc if your using visual editing and search say “aboriginal” it will show up with that parameter if it’s in the description for that parameter includes that word Pencilceaser123 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The options at the moment seem to be 'traditional owners', 'traditional custodians', 'first peoples' and 'first nations'. As per here there are different traditional groups who would prefer not to use both #1 and #2, so #3 or #4 attempt to avoid that issue. But maybe term-recognition in the wider user community is more important than not using #1 or #2. I have no idea on what grounds we would resolve this. Innesw (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I here first nations more often personally if that changes anything Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately all these terms are disputed and we risk getting bogged down in semantic disputes. As per wikipedia policy, we should use the terms most commonly used in Australian English. If it is possibly to produce an NGRAM restricted to Australian publications we can then run the various terms and see which is the most common. My guess is it will be "Indigenous Australians" and "traditional owners", but I am happy to go with the most common results. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indigenous Custodians is probably most common nowadays, followed by tradtional owners. Let me see what I can find Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cant find one specifically for australia, but from what I can tell, Indigenous owners seems to be the most common Pencilceaser123 (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like an 'I hear more often', a 'my guess', an 'is probably' and a 'seems to be' - not exactly solid grounds for a decision. :(( (That may sound a little sarcastic - please take it in the humorous tone that's intended - but unfortunately it's also true.) Anybody have thoughts on somewhere authoritative we can turn to? Innesw (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uluru Statement use First Nations and First Soveriegn Nations, thats were the largest consensus has taken place in the last 30 years. On a technical level that is still where places are located on that soveriegn land. Gnangarra 10:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've capitalised "Aboriginal", per convention. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks, can we please NOT forget that anything in an infobox that might be challenged (and this is likely to be the case here) must be in the article with appropriate citations and that the infobox field is merely a summary of the article content. I would say first add the information to the article body and then later add it to the infobox. And I don't think an infobox with a plainlist of a large number of "5% claims" (perhaps with a number of citations) is very helpful to the reader. If it's a long-ish list, then don't try to summarise it in the infobox, just explain it in the article (appropriately cited). These are the normal principles of infoboxes, which are intended for simple "fast facts" not a complicated story. As to naming the field, what heading would you put in the article for that information e.g. "Traditional owners"? Maybe we should try to be consistent with heading and the infobox field name (might make it easier for the reader, particularly if they are not Australian). Kerry (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless in a specific situation, please use "Indigeneous" rather than "Aboriginal" as the generic terms so theTorres Strait islanders are not excluded. Kerry (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Limiting the number of entries to 2 (by having just first_peoples1 and first_peoples2) was intended to keep the infobox display simple. It was suggested elsewhere that we could have just a single parameter (first_peoples), and allow filling it with a {{plainlist}} of any desired size. I agree with Kerry - that idea (or any qualifications to the names like '(5%)') would allow too much complication in the infobox.
    I agree also that the field name and the heading should be the same. I'm inclined to take up Gnangarra's implication that 'First Nations' for both is the way to go, but the issue does not seem settled yet. Innesw (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially helpful photos for articles

    [edit]

    Hiya. Not sure if this is quite the right place but thought I'd pass it on. I was at the Queenscliffe Literary Festival this weekend for WikiPortraits and I've taken a number of photos (over on Commons at Category:WikiPortraits at 2025 Queenscliffe Literary Festival). I've tried to add them to as many useful biographical articles as I can (eg Virginia Trioli (shocked she didn't have a photo), Hannie Rayson, Francis Leach, etc) but thought I'd put it here in case it was useful, as I'm wary of just spamming my photos everywhere. (eg photo of Zach Tuohy is only off-field one of him but not much room on the article without replacing the infobox photo, which I don't think would make sense) Thought I'd post the category here in case people were curious. LivelyRatification (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that's quite an impressive collection. Re Zach Tuohy: If you could mention his memoir, The Irish Experiment, under "Personal life" in his article, that would be a perfect place to add his photograph. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ty! I looked at that briefly but the source I found didn't mention he co-wrote it with Catherine Murphy, who was the other speaker at that talk. I'll do some more digging now! LivelyRatification (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Greater Cities Commission

    [edit]

    An editor has requested that Greater Cities Commission be moved to Greater Sydney Commission, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Science Competition for Australia & New Zealand

    [edit]

    The Wiki Science Photo Competition for Australia and New Zealand 2025 is now open.

    Upload your best science photos to the competition page on Wikimedia Commons between 1 November and 15 December 2025. There will be cash prizes from Wikimedia Australia and Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand awarded to the winners of each category.

    There will also be an online FAQ session with Gnangarra and Mike Dickison for those who want to find out more - Focus on Science: Your guide to the Wiki Science photography competition — Thursday 13 November 2025, 12pm AEDT. See the event page on Humanitix or register on-wiki for details.

    The Wiki Science Competition is an annual international photography contest organised by the Wikimedia community, inviting participants to create and upload science-related images to Wikimedia Commons under a free licence. This contest promotes the visualisation and free exchange of scientific images. AlphaLemur (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    big city maps

    [edit]

    It looks like a fair few big Australian cities had maps uploaded by @Ilya Shrayber about a decade ago, like:

    It seems nice that someone would go through that much trouble, but it does seem to be self-published, and with a really odd color scheme that makes them very hard to read.

    @Zackmann08 has replaced them with references to {{Infobox mapframe}}, which provides a current snapshot of OpenStreetMap data, and doesn't have the color scheme issue.

    On balance it does seem to be a better choice, but let's make sure we have a modicum of a discussion about it.

    I didn't find many edits on the SVG maps, but I did find that @AndreyKva had been making some fixes.

    What does the community think, can the same data be maintained in OSM instead? --Joy (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone from Adelaide, I find this map a bit idiosyncratic, particularly in:
    • suburban areas coloured yellow/light grey/pink, for no apparent reason
    • minor waterways in NE quadrant more heavily emphasised than elsewhere
    • minor water features named, while more important features are not, e.g River Torrens; and "Upper Port River" doesn't exist any more, since the development of West Lakes in the 1970s, and the tag has been placed on the stretch of waterway now called Kirkaldy Creek
    • green seems to be used to show conservation areas - but not Torrens Island Conservation Park, apart from the very tip, and parts of Garden Island
    • major suburb names omitted - e.g. Port Adelaide, West Lakes, Prospect, North Adelaide, Norwood, Hallett Cove ...
    so, overall, I get the impression that the creator isn't familiar with the city, and has relied on questionable and out-of-date sources. Bahudhara (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback!
    In the meantime I also found another complaint about these at Talk:Canberra/Archive 6#Outdated Map from @Aeonx. --Joy (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add that the Adelaide map is also missing the last three or four extensions of the North–South Motorway. I made some location maps around 2014 that now also suffer the same fault, and I've lost the recipe to easily recreate them with newer data :-( OSM doesn't easily facilitate the location maps placing suburbs or landmarks in LGA shading, but overall, the OSM-based maps tend to be better, and have a wider base of updating users. --Scott Davis Talk 10:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Death of Suzanne Rees

    [edit]

    Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at Death of Suzanne Rees? It was created earlier today directly in the mainspace. It hasn't been assessed yet, and it's possible this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS which might not meet WP:SUSTAINED or WP:NEVENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At the very least the photo should be resized to properly meet Fair Use requirements. Jimmyjrg (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Ray Lindwall

    [edit]

    Ray Lindwall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unpublished info

    [edit]

    I recently created Wimmins Circus, the existence of which I was alerted to by a friend of a friend who was a member of the group. I think I've pretty much exhausted the online sources I could find, none of which provide a list of all of the members. This person has sent me some added info, which I'm sure is true, but I have explained that I can't use it without citing a source. I'm just wondering what the protocol is on providing at least the complete list of members, possibly on the talk page or in a footnote, saying that I had received this info from one of them. I have come across such notes occasionally, I seem to recall, in articles about local things and places. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing stopping you from adding unsourced information to the Talk page. You could add your list and ask if people have sources to add. I was able to find sources for several members, so maybe this will help:
    Some of the members are listed on a poster here (Andy, Bev, Nina, Ollie, Chris, Eve, Sue, Ursula, Rose, Sarah, and crew: Laurel Frank, Chrissie Best, Kerry Dwyer) unfortunately mostly first names only. Kerry Dwyer is further mentioned here. Other members are named here or here (Rose Wise, Sarah McNamara), here (Christine Evans), here (Sue Bradley), here (Robin Laurie, Ursula Harrison, Jane Mullet, Rose Wise, Andy Pearce, Ollie Black, Laura Fisher - this book lists several more possible ex-members though the wording is too vague for me, but if you have your own list it might correlate), here (Robin Laurie, Ollie Black), and here. (Sue Broadway, Ollie Black, Robin Laurie, Hellen Sky). Jimmyjrg (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much, Jimmyjrg. I had seen a couple of those, but the others certainly supply a lot more that I can put together and correlate with the list I have, and do the rest with footnotes and/or talk page. Much appreciated. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. It was surprising how many sources mention the circus but not who was in it, so I think a list of members (even if incomplete) would be a good addition. Some of the members could possibly get their own articles too eventually. Jimmyjrg (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Centre for Australia-India Relations draft

    [edit]

    If anyone is looking for a minor project: I came across this decent draft that will still require a good amount of improvement (sourcing for notability, mainly) to be accepted into articlespace. The submitting editor has been blocked (not for this draft). If you improve it, ping me, and I can give feedback. Drew Stanley (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]