Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian crime

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Australia: Crime WikiProject Australian crime is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles This page is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Can someone make a userbox for this project please? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How about this:

JabberJaw (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horrendus inacvitity means this project should be shut at once and re-opened. At the minimum the members list must be purged. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the list,Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian crime/Members into a rough active/inactive list.JabberJaw (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry to be a pedant, but currently ‘Bushrangers’ is structured as a sub-set of ‘Australian outlaws’ (in the 'Crime in Australia' category-tree in the ‘Scope’ section). It should be the other way around. The concept of outlawry was first legislated in New South Wales in 1865 (later in similar legislation in Victoria and Queensland). Bushranging in Australia preceded this legislation by about 70 years, and even after 1865 not all bushrangers were declared outlaws, so the number of Australian bushrangers far exceeds the number of Australian outlaws. To put it another way, only a select group of Australian bushrangers were declared to be outlaws, hence outlaws should be a sub-set of bushrangers.

To add to the confusion quite a few of the names listed in the category ‘Australian outlaws’ were not, or could not have been, declared to be outlaws under the legislation. But I guess that’s just people adding an ‘Australian outlaws’ category to an article about an Australian bushranger, not understanding that ‘outlaw’ is a specific legal definition. But I suppose there’s not much that can be done about people adding categories that they don’t really understand. Ikeshut2 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Possible_merger_of_related_WikiProjects? suggesting potentially merging this WikiProject into the main Crime WikiProject, either directly or changing this project into a task force - please take a look and comment if you have any thoughts. SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong objection - most australian projects are doing fine in their own way, they are part of the larger Australian project - the crime and criminal biography project is quite separate - and as a result there is no need to be part of this.

It is bad enough having lost portals. we do not need to lose parts of our projects to some monster - the military history project and the ships project show where swallow up of valid projects in the long term is of no benefit to anyone as the level of maintenance and care tends to disappear when the larger monolithic projects have insufficient interest in the internals of their own structure. No thanks. 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Would some members from this WikiProject mind taking a look at New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal? There a number of MOS:MOS issues that are relatively easy to cleanup, but the main concern is whether the subject matter itself is something worth creating a stand-alone article about or whether it might be better off somehow merged into another already existing article. Perhaps some of the members of this project are aware of this "scandal" and can assess the article and improve it if there's something worth keeping. The same editor (or editors) also seems to be working on Draft:Issues Relating to the Use of Drug Detection Dogs in New South Wales and Draft:New South Wales Police Force Strip Search Scandal (List of Reported Incidents) which might indicate that someone is trying to use Wikipedia to set the record straight. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Julian_Assange#Wikiproject_interest I argue he should be of low importance rather than mid importance. If someone would asses that would be good thanks NadVolum (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]