User talk:StormcrowMithrandir

Hello, StormcrowMithrandir, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Australian English into Australian English vocabulary. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Post-war immigration to Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Brisbane skyline image

Hi StormcrowMithrandir, I left a new message on the Brisbane talk page regarding changing the current skyline image which dates from 2012 to one from 2019 which I think is a much better image. Please come to add your thoughts.--Caltraser55 (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

revert at Australian English

Hi - a polite heads up, I rolled back your revert. I've made a comment on the talk page, happy to continue the discussion there, but to emphasise my point: the issue is not difference, but *considerable* difference; every source indicates that New Zealand English and Australian English are very similar (when compared to other varieties).--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Just saw your update at White people. You have quite accurately reflected what the seemingly high quality source says, but I've got my doubts about those numbers, or perhaps more particularly, the wording in the document. To explain my point, I'll copy the relevant chunk of the article....

"We estimate that about 58 per cent of the population has an Anglo-Celtic background. An estimated 18 per cent of the population has a European background, 21 per cent of the population has a non-European background, and 3 per cent of the population has an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) background."

My concern is that those descriptions are mutually exclusive, and they add up to precisely 100%. but they make no allowance for what must be millions of Australians who are a mixture of two or more of those categories. For starters, most people who identify as Aboriginal have mixed ancestry. A lot of people I know, including myself, have partly British and partly European ancestry. My brother married a lady from Sri-Lanka, so his kids are partly British, partly European, and partly non-European. So, I'm not sure what writers of that article were thinking of, but I don't like their figures much at all.

Now, I'm not criticising your efforts at all here, just wondering if you can see the problem I'm seeing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they note in the source which is purely from their analysis of the individual ancestry responses in the census, they note that that figure is for those of pure European ethnicity. Anyone with non European ethnicity they deem to be other. This is why on the main articles for Australian demographics we only use data for individual ancestries as per the census and we do not use estimates such as this one which focus on broad ethnicities/races as distinct from ancestries to avoid the very problem you've identified - this way, people of both full and part decent of the various ethnicities are counted just as the ABS intends. Only where such broad ethnic categories are discussed in such separate articles as these do we have to refer to them. Clearly though of course it's superior to the flat 22,000,000 / 90% pure speculative nonsensical figure that was used on this page previously - this measure is flawed but superior to anything else we have where we are forced to refer to broad racial categories. If we want to be more accurate we would properly say 76% (full European ethnicity) or (excludes partial European ethnicity). This would be the absolute best we could do with what we have.--StormcrowMithrandir 10:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that I answered "Australian" to the question on ancestry. I believe around 30% of us did. So where does the ABS get its figures from? HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self identified of course as per every other nation. Thus you along with 30% of the rest of the population are listed as Australian ancestry. For the broad racial estimate linked on the white people article (which of course is not from ABS) they have just counted 'Australian' response toward the Anglo Celtic European category on the basis that ABS previously commented that most people nominating Australian are admixture of the various Anglo Celtic ancestries. Like I say it's far from perfect which is why we don't use it on any of the main articles, only when we are forced to address a broad racial category like in this stand alone article as it's unfortunately the best we have to go on for that purpose and clearly superior to the mere guess which was there before.--StormcrowMithrandir 11:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That's certainly not what I meant when I chose "Australian". Do we have to include anything at all? Or, if we must, can we at least qualify it in some way to explain it as you have just done? The figures are not a sensible estimate. They are simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I'd recommend that, rather than including figures that are nonsensical, we should replace the final sentence with "Australia today makes no formal attempt at all attempt to describe any fraction of its population as white." HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a mandatory question (unlike religion) and there is some explanation to the effect that you choose either one or two and an 'ancestor' is usually more distant than a grandparent. That's the good system though that we use as it allows for multiple responses. Only Canada has a similarly ideal system in their census. Thus relates to individual ancestries such as 'irish' or 'chinese' however and is completely seperate and distinct from the more vague broad categories like white people above which other countries use which deliberately doesn't go on any of the main Aus demographic pages as it is so unideal compared to what our actual census provides by way of individual ancestries. For a page such as white people which relates to a vague category which we don't take census data on I'm fully agreeable for you to just say Australia does not collect data on this topic.--StormcrowMithrandir 00:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the chat. I wondered where I could discuss this issue, and thought the Talk page of the article itself would be unlikely to see any responses from other Australians or people interested in the Australian data (or lack of it). HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you'd be right about that. Thanks mate!--StormcrowMithrandir 03:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian English, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grifter and Popsicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Brisbane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Milton, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Spring Hill and Kelvin Grove

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brisbane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Australia into Politics of Australia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABS URLs

Could you please create full citations not just naked URLs. There are tools out there that make it automatic in some cases. Have you tried the Visual Editor (go to Preferences > Editing > and set Editing mode to "show me both tabs"), then you can use its Cite > Automatic or if that won't work, Cite Manual with a form to make it easier. Happy to help if you need it. Kerry (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond: My apologies Kerry I had been meaning to learn how to do that, and will do so. StormcrowMithrandir 23:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brisbane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Pleasant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Montage

Greetings Mithrandir, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article of Brisbane and peoples perception of this great city, I do however object to the removal of Queenslander architecture from the montage image. While South Bank Parklands is certainly Brisbane's most important tourism precinct, identity and iconic are two different things. Double decker buses are identifiably "London", its part of the cultural landscape of that city. And those sorts of things form a cities identity in a day and age when all buildings the world over look the same, etc. Identity of cities is becoming increasingly harder to form, if you want to look at how lucky Brisbane is to have something as iconic as the Queenslander, go look at the Sydney talk page discussion on making a montage of Sydney, they can't come to ANY conclusion of what is Sydney's identity. They put up images of the beach (but that makes west Sydney unhappy because it doesn't represent them), then they put up terraces (but terraces aren't uniquely Sydney), etc and so on and so on. The Queenslander house is identifiably Brisbane, it may not be a tourism drawcard (yet!), but it does differentiate Brisbane from any other city in the world, our inner suburbs are defined by these quaint buildings and that gives Brisbane her identity that unites the city, rather than the mess poor Sydney is still trying to find its identity. Like the City Cat (Brisbane's version of the double decker bus), and Jacaranda trees, etc they are Brisbane's identity.--Caltraser55 (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caltraser55: Upon reading that I am in full agreement that we need the Queenslander - thank you. You and I are on the same "page" re what we are trying to do for this page.StormcrowMithrandir 10:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And let me just say I also tried to have an image of South Bank as part of the montage but Kerry Raymond wanted an image of a city cat. At the time I was annoyed with the decision and didn't like it, but now I wouldn't replace that either, Queenslanders and City Cats are part of Brisbane's identity, and that counts. Something like the Story Bridge I would consider an icon but not an identity (if that makes sense), and I think the Story Bridge is a great icon of Brisbane but I would rather swap that for South Bank than anything other as you could argue its just a bridge similar to many others the world over. Sorry I ramble.--Caltraser55 (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]