This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 1 June 2018 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian television/Archive) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:11, 1 June 2018 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian television/Archive) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Australia: Television Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Australian television and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
Wiki Loves Pride!
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
- What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
- When? June 2015
- How can you help?
- 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
- 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Misplaced Pages articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
- 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Misplaced Pages, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Ditch Davey
Would someone from WP:AUTV mind taking a look at Ditch Davey and assessing it? Two IPs (most likely the same person) have recently removed some of the content possibly related to Davey's real name, etc., but I reverted them since the edits basically left the article without a lead sentence. It's quite possible that "Kristian Lind " is not his real name (IMDb lists his birth name as Kristian Davey) and all of the sources found online seem to refer to him as Ditch Davey; so, perhaps all of the other name stuff should be removed unless it can be properly sourced. FWIW, the "Kristian Davey" stuff was added by another IP but no supporting sources were provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Only reliable info I can find re his name is from a 2002 Herald Sun article:
ANYONE expecting a Tinseltown-style story about how Ditch Davey got his unlikely name is bound to be disappointed.
The 26-year-old Blue Heelers star blames an older sister for the moniker change.
"When I was born, my sister, who was two, was tongue-tied at the time and couldn't say Kristian. She used to say Ditchin."
The name stuck, and Davey added Ditch to his name by deed poll when he turned 18.
— Cheryl Critchley, "Wrong side of the law." Herald Sun (22 January 2002) p. 104.
- Couldn't find anything linking him to the surname Lind. Seeing as it appears he has legally changed his name, it'd probably be best to begin the lede with 'Ditch Davey (born Kristian Davey) or (born Kristian)'. —Kb.au (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking on this Kb.au. Removing any mention of the birthname might be the best thing to do. The IPs were also changing his wife's name from Dunn to Davey, but reliable sources continue to refer to her using her maiden name after the two eere married, so not sure if that should be changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Updating the Behind the News article
Hello, I work at Behind the News and the show' 50th anniversary is next year. As part of this process we've done some original research (talking to past producers) and have a wealth of information we can provide. How do I go about updating the page in a legitimate way? My thinking was to pair up with a wikipedian who is able to look over a Google Doc we will write? Daniel Mee 04:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmee (talk • contribs)
- Hi Danielmee. I'm not really a member of this WikiProject, but I'll just leave a few general comments. I am going to write this as if you're a total newbie, even though you're probably not. So, you may know most of this already.
- First of all, you will have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter and also may even be considered a paid editor. Neither COI editing or paid editing is expressly forbidden on Misplaced Pages, but they are highly discouraged because they can lead to other more serious issues. So, please read Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some general information about what kinds of edits the Misplaced Pages community feels are acceptable for COI/paid editors to make. If it turns out that you are being paid or compensated for your work, then you should make sure you comply with WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY because you will be expected to do certain things to comply with Misplaced Pages's Terms of Service. In general, COI/paid editors are encourage to propose changes that they would like to seen made to articles on article talk pages so that they can be reviewed by others. In some cases, such as listed in WP:COIADVICE, it might be acceptable to directly edit the relevant article itself, but in the majority of cases it's better to use the article talk page. Nobody can force you to do so, but editing on Misplaced Pages is typically done by consensus and any changes you make to the COI article can simply be undone if someone else find's them controversial. So, it's better to establish a consensus first per WP:CAUTIOUS.
- The next thing you need to be aware of is Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content because nobody techinically owns a Misplaced Pages article (unless you count Misplaced Pages) per se. This once again means that article content is expected to be determined for the most part through consensus and is to be in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Disagreements over content are supposed to be resolved according to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution so the subject of articles do not have any final editorial control over what goes into and article or what is removed.
- Finally, the last thing you need to be aware of is Misplaced Pages:No original research. Article content is really only supposed to reflect what can be verified through citations to reliable sources. They sources are generally preferred to be independent and secondary, and are required to be published. Basically, Misplaced Pages is not too interested in what the subject of an article has to say about itself, but rather is interested in what others might be saying about it. A "reliable source" has a specific meaning with respect to Misplaced Pages, so even though you might considered these past producers to be quite reliable individuals, they probably don't qualify as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages purposes. Also, not everything which may be true and even verifiable by a citing a reliable sources needs to be mentioned in an article; so, sometimes a bit of editorial discretion might be needed to focus only the really encyclopedically relevant points.
- If you have any more questions about this or editing in general, you can also try the Misplaced Pages Teahouse since experienced editors tend to hang out there trying to help others. Nore specific questions about COI/Paid editing can be asked at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks heaps @Marchjuly: for your help. @Cyphoidbomb: just recently clarified your first point to me over on my talk page which was great; point two I did know and I didn't know about point three. This is going to be hard as no one seems to be talking about BTN except the ABC despite being the third longest running TV show in Oz! I have sent a message to NLA though to see if they can help us... not sure if there are any other ways to get "published"...? Thanks heaps for your help! Daniel Mee 15:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's not to say a well researched piece of published material by the ABC on the history of BTN wouldn't qualify as a reliable source. It likely would to some degree or another depending on the depth of the research and analysis and the context of the publication (see WP:PRIMARY). I think the bigger point in relation to your original question is that research musn't be original – ie. it needs to be published first. Original research by the ABC/BTN which is subsequently published would no longer be original research for WP:NOR purposes because there would be a source for that info. Whether the source is reliable or not is, however, another question. Kb.au (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks heaps @Marchjuly: for your help. @Cyphoidbomb: just recently clarified your first point to me over on my talk page which was great; point two I did know and I didn't know about point three. This is going to be hard as no one seems to be talking about BTN except the ABC despite being the third longest running TV show in Oz! I have sent a message to NLA though to see if they can help us... not sure if there are any other ways to get "published"...? Thanks heaps for your help! Daniel Mee 15:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Categories: