Wikipedia talk:New articles (Australia)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New articles (Australia) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

score

What is the score that is assigned to new articles? Justnigel (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

earlier comments

If something in the stub section gets expanded to a full article, should it be moved to the article section? I expanded Wizard Cup and moved it, but Ambi moved it straight back. I thought it made more sense that if it became unstub, it was worth listing as a full article (with the original creation date). Shane King 00:32, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - there was an edit conflict, and I didn't see that you'd moved Wizard Cup. I've been placing stubs in that section if they're under 800 bytes, but if anyone has a problem with that, I'm open to suggestions. I agree that they should be moved to the article list if they're expanded, by the way. Ambi 01:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I wasn't sure why you'd done it so I thought I'd ask. 800 bytes seems a reasonable cutoff for stubs, since not everyone likes tagging short articles as stubs. Shane King 01:30, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

AEST

Please teach me how to timestamp my updates in AEST? Fifelfoo 05:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I look at the clock :)--nixie 05:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should also point out that we're currently stamping articles as AEST when we really mean AEDT (I notice this, since being in Brisbane it makes an hour difference to me!) Shane King 10:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Am I correct in taking the timestamp of the initial edit from the history, (in UTC), adding 11 hours (10 if it weren't DLS), and sticking AEST on the end? It looks right to me. █ T █ P █ K █ 11:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, Melbourne/Sydney are currently at UTC +11. Shane King 11:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

OK so what was the descission here? Should we be stamping these with UTC +10 or +11 and what time zone should we be adding (AEDT) or (AEST)? Martyman 04:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the time and trouble time/date stamping the entries is pointless. If this list is not generated "automagically" then I see no purpose in knowing the day let alone minute at which the page was created. Civil disobedience being what it is, I have added my most recent pages to the list, without the stamping details. I may add more pages as time goes on. This is not petulence on my part; rather, it's realism. Peter Ellis 20:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

I noticed Melanie Shanahan was a red link, so I checked the deletion log and found it was deleted by RickK. See User_talk:RickK#Deletions for details. -- Chuq 02:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed either way. (Disclaimer: Melanie was actually a minor family friend in real life, but we didn't know she was dead until I read the Wikipedia article, which was created by a weird bot making shoddy stubs about dead people). She's borderline notable, as she was fairly well known in the Melbourne folk/world music community. I could probably get the article kept if I rallied the inclusionists, but I'm not bothered either way.

By the way, the bot that created that article - and the ones you enquired about, also created several hundred similar articles, which were arguably copyvios, as they were taken directly from a site, and many were VFD material. Some got cleaned up, but most were deleted by Rick and others. Ambi 07:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Layout

Would anyone mind if the format was changed so that only the date was listed after the article (omit the time, and omit the Month and Year as they are indicated by the section heading) and the layout was changed to three columns? It just prevents the page from becoming extremely long, and makes it easier to read. I can do an example first if anyone wantes to check it. -- Chuq 05:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree, but go further and don't have the date either. See my comments under AEST above. Peter Ellis 20:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually like having the date and that there. It makes the list look a tad neater, and also makes sure things are in chronological order, so as things like the Phoenix Prize article (which I remember reading weeks ago) don't pop up top of the list. Ambi 02:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the timestamp. It only takes a second to add. -- Longhair | Talk 09:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want the option of ACST Paul foord 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely welcome to add ACST - what's stopping you? Everyone is likely to add it in their own timezone. Ambi 11:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What stops him is that Ianblair23 "corrects" ACST to AEST, presumably relying on the instructions at the top of the page. I've discovered he adds times too, so I don't bother to look up times, and just enter the date these days. It eventually gets the detail added anyway. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the time of creation adds any value. My preferences are now set to UTC and to transfer to AEST is a bit of a nuisance. Surely the purpose of this page is to alert other users to the new articles. There is a record in the history of each article of exact times of creation, in the format and time zone each user prefers. Couldn't we just stick to dates? I don't understand the value of the time detail.--User:AYArktos | Talk 12:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and we could consider order too. I'd rather see that new entries always go at the top of the list, rather than sorted into time order. Sorted makes it easy to miss an article added further back in the list. I have no idea how New Zealanders follow their list, sorted alphabetically! --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a lot easier to find new stuff when I know that it's going to be at the top of the list, rather than in some jumbled mishmash. It's not a big thing, and I'm fine if you don't add it when you add stuff to this list, but I'd rather not see three-week-old stuff popping to the top of the list regularly, as it sometimes has in the past. Ambi 14:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those in Australia with settings set to AEST or ACST or even AWST the time is on the history page. Using UTC would be a pain. To find additions the "history" page is useful. Paul foord 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott is completely correct. I was just simply following the instructions at the top of the page where it states that you are to add all new articles with the date and time in AEST. As this page is for new Australian articles I feel that we should keep the time in AEST rather than UTC. I don't mean to offend Paul or anyone else from SA, NT or WA. Its just that the majority of users are from the Eastern states and that we should be consistent.

May I say that I find this page extremely useful. There are hundreds of new pages created every day and a page that lists all the Australian related ones is great filter. I really applaud Ambi for starting this and I'm up for any new suggestions for this page. I feel though that the time and date should stay. Cheers Ianblair23 15:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind converting to AEST, although I'd need to be careful to remember what I'm converting from, but do you really mean AEST, or current NSW/Vic time? Contrary to what it says on the page, AEST is UTC+10, never +11, which is AEDT. It won't even be all the eastern states that use the time - Qld stays on AEST and Tas goes to AEDT earlier. In fact, NSW and Vic are the only pair of states that always have the same timezone. JPD 09:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC); 10:05 (BST), 19:05 (AEST)[reply]

Updating

When I created this list a year or so ago, I'd comb through Special:Newpages every day or so and add every Australian article to this list - which is why the earlier archives are so much longer than in recent months. Anyway, after a couple of months, I went away for a few days, found the backlog had got too big to catch up on, so gave up. I was bored tonight, and went through adding articles back to the beginning of the month, and was thinking I might start it up again. So before I do so - would anyone find that useful? It does tend to catch quite a bit of stuff that might otherwise slip through the net, but on the other hand - it does take a while to do. Ambi 11:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be bothered, go ahead. I usually read or skim every new page listed here. On the other hand if you prefer writing politician articles, that's probably more use to the overall project. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if there was a tool which automatically added all new articles in the Australian stubs and categories to this list (kinda like an RSS feed, or something). Cnwb 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authors

May be it is worth to add the author to the information about the new article as it is done at e.g. Portal:Russia/New article announcements? It sometimes allows to anticipate the quality of the article. abakharev 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I like the way the Polish Portal tracks new additions Portal:Poland/New article announcements, could this also be a worthwile addition here?--nixie 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marsupials

I'm nearly done going through the marsupial section of Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed., cleaning up the list of marsupials. List of monotremes and marsupials would be a good place for folks to find Australian-related redlinks to work on. I'll watch this page to see if any marsupial articles get created and listed here. Or you can drop me a note. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost and found

I understand the objection in theory, but where should "lost and found" be put, if not on this project page? Andjam 11:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could well have a cleanup page somewhere, perhaps as a subpage of the WikiProject - it could well be useful. I just think that putting them here is a) not what this page was intended for, and b) is killing this page - instead of coming here to see what people have been creating lately, the top of each month is filled with miscellaneous crap from all over the place, and as such, the rate of people actually adding their new creations has dropped drastically. Rebecca 11:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK so move it to the bottom of the month. Maybe there is a lull in new Australian articles. When I have come across articles not previously listed as "New Australian Articles", I have typically let the creator of the article know about the page and hopefully in future they will list new Australian articles. Paul foord 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be here at all - this is a page to highlight the new articles created on Australian topics, not a page for old articles in need of cleanup. There's hardly been a lull in new articles - it's simply that they're not getting listed here, which I think is because actual new articles are being drowned in dreck that this page wasn't designed for. Rebecca 03:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we cld have discussed this beforehand. given that this page is now used to notify other interested users of oz content shld't it have this section as it furthers that purpose? there's never a huge ammount of them, and it seems the obvious place, regardless of what the page was originaly created for. agree that the bottom of the list wld be better

on the issue of length, shld more months be archived already? would the last 3 calender months be enough? ⇒ bsnowball 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps sorry, (um, admitedly, having already done it) is placing l & f at bottom of month acceptable while this is discussed? ⇒ bsnowball 12:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place to put such articles is, as per the WikiProject Australia structure, Category:Australia articles needing attention, though I would have no objections if that were to be turned into an actual page highlighting work that needs to be done (perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Attention needed). This, however, is not a place to notify people about Australian content in general (just new articles), and putting random dreck is here is killing this page (as can be seen by the rapid drop in its use that coincided with the introduction of more and more "lost and found" entires). It needs a page, but this really isn't the place, and as such, it needs to stay off this particular page. Rebecca 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it useful to have here, not all required cleanup. Paul foord 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also "guilty" of adding articles to lost and found. My criteria has not been "requires cleanup" (that can be requested with tags and {{WP Australia |attention=yes}}. My criteria for adding to L&F has generally been that the article had only a single contributor before me, and is on a topic I thought the wider audience here may have found interesting to add to. Nobody has previously indicated that they do not accept this. Most recent example: I found on 10 September that someone had created Zinifex Limited on 23 August. My choices were a) "too late - ignore", b) add to the August list which could be archived soon, c) add to the current L&F list - I chose the latter and nobody complained. The article has had two editors since then, neither of whom are likely to have found it here. Is that because nobody looks at L&F, or because I had already done the required cleanup that Rebecca is concerned about, and adding more information is not so easy? If it had been written 8 days later, I'd have found it in the same month it was written, and there'd be no issue. Incidentally, I support it being at the bottom of the month.--Scott Davis ^Talk 07:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support ScottDavis's approach and Paul foord's commetn that not all require clean up - clean up is not why articles are placed here in my view. I haven't been contributing the new articles I have started here recently but will start again. I don't see this page as a clean up area, it is an area to share what new articles exist, including those newly discovered that others may be interested in and haven't yet come across. I am prepared to accept the judgment of the person adding that they think other wikipedians might like their attention drawn to this article. Of course this list is not the only way of finding articles one might be interested, but it is one way of encouraging collaboration and sharing new developments.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub overload?

Is there any point at whcih if every australian editor actually reported their new work that this part of this page might get unweildy? Is anyone aware of any procedure that might cope with an outbreak of honest reporting? SatuSuro 08:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bridge to cross when we come to it. What would be more important now is getting people to actually use this page. Rebecca 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main suggestion would firstly be to move sections to the archive at an increased rate. Once the list grows too long within one month, then we have a problem.Ga rr ie 05:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New articles bot

Please support my request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#New articles bot. This will save all reporters much time.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot

User:AlexNewArtBot - New Article Bot

Hi, I am in the trial runs of the User:AlexNewArtBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AlexNewArtBot). The bot analyzes the new articles for a day and puts suspected Australia-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/Australia the first pattern between the slashes on each line is the pattern that should be present in the article to trigger the rule (note the case insensitive match. The other patterns on the same line are suppose to inhibit the rule. E.g. for the Russian board /florida/ inhibits /petersburg/ rule as the article is most probably about the American city. If you are reasonably familiar with the regular expressions and know what you are doing, you can edit the rules straight away, but better ask me. In the Russian board I had to remove some rules: e.g. there are a lot of non-Russians named Vladimir and Chita, so I had to remove the names of the cities or have to much false positive. If you are interested why an article went to the list there is log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaLog explaining the rule that sent an article to the searchresults (if the log is cleared try to look into the history of the log).

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome. Alex Bakharev 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The results look spot on - excellent--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a small handul of false postives, such as Mary J. Hickman, but overall the quality of the results is quite good. -- Longhair\^talk 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to move this list to be below the manual one... it's a good list of articles but I don't know that it engenders the same sense of community as contributors manually submitting articles. So I would prefer to de-emphasise it on this page which seems to me as much about fostering a community of contributors as it is about identifying articles which have been created recently that happen to be about Australia.

I'd almost go as far as to roll this list up as hidden unless clicked on!Ga rr ie 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome results, I had no idea that many Australian related pages were being created. - Shiftchange 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above suggestion - I moved the bot template to below February. I suggest it should go below the manual entries for the current month. I am particularly concerned about the number of redlinks that come up in the results, which I have discussed with the bot maintainer.

It is easy enough to move the template each month when archiving entries.

This bot does not retain static lists "as of a certain date" - it is run routinely by a bot operator and overwrites a single list. So it is not redundant with the manual entries by contributors, which is another reason to put it below the manual lists.Ga rr ie 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bot's results are very useful for highlighting poor quality new articles.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been prodding quite a few of them. Some are jokes, some are spam, and many don't assert notability at all(let alone meet WP:ATT).Ga rr ie 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the never ending desire is the root cause of roits and disharmony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.17.207 (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on draft

Hello. I was wondering if someone from this WikiProject could provide feedback on this rough draft User:Sydneycastle/sandbox. I am an employee of the company and would like independent feedback as to whether the draft can be improved. Any comments would be very much appreciated. The strongest sources that I believe establish notability are The Australian August 2021, Courier-Mail September 2021, Australian Financial Review August 2021, Financial Review July 2021, Australian Financial Review November 2020, and Money Magazine (AU) July 2021.

Thanks very much in advance for your thoughts. Sydneycastle (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]