![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the template {{ Current Australian COTF}} really supposed to go on the page itself? It seems kinda... meta. pfctdayelise 14:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice map Astrokey. Red/Green colourblind people will have difficulty telling fence 1 from fence 2 (you can see for yourself here [1]). I also think that its a good idea to have labels and keys big enough to read in the thumb.-- nixie 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The intro says that "The State Barrier Fence of Western Australia[1], formerly known as the No. 1 Rabbit-Proof Fence, the State Vermin Fence and the Emu Fence.."
Is the fence really known as the "state barrier fence" now? Just because it has officially changed its name does not mean thats the name everyone gives it. Also it is three fences, not just the No.1 Does the term "state barrier fence" describe just one fence or all of them? Astrokey44 11:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Is the fence still maintained? By whom? If not, when did it stop being maintained, and who made the decision? The article says it was less important after Myxomatosis was introduced, but doesn't say if it continued to be maintained. -- Scott Davis Talk 00:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Another question not answered in the article: why are the rabbits considered a pest in Australië? Riki ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
History of the fence says: Rabbits had been introduced into Australia in 1859 by Victorian grazier Thomas Austin, who imported 24 specimens from England and released them on his Victorian farm.
Rabbits in Australia says: Rabbits were introduced into Australia with the First Fleet, although [...]
Rabbits in Australia supports the latter. I really have no idea what the true story is. Ideas? pfctdayelise 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
There is also a contradiction in the title of the story which Rabbit Proof Fence (the movie) was based on. In the introduction, it is cited as 'Molly's Daughter', but later it is called 'Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence'.
Would it be possible to use PD-Australia on any of these images? [4] Or this one (huge) [5]. Here's a bookcover [6], I've asked permission for this one [7] Agnte 16:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations to all who edited Rabbit-proof fence and Dingo fence while it was Australian Collaboration of the fortnight.
-- Scott Davis Talk 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I just want to say congratulations to the people who worked on this (I meant to, but somehow never got around to doing the research). It is a seriously impressive improvement, huge kudos, and yay community effort! pfctdayelise 14:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
There are two different dates for when the girls (from the film) followed the fence. First 1920s is mentioned, then is is stated that they undertook the journey in 1931. I have no idea which is true ;-) 193.120.81.130 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Currently, if you search for "rabbit-proof fence" using the search box at the left, you'll be redirected to Rabbit-Proof Fence (film). Shouldn't "rabbit proof fence" redirect to this article? I think that when most people search for the term, they want to read about the actual fence rather than the film. -- Bowlhover 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html?ref=science
(I think this was added because it points to an interesting observation within the fenced area: "Above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. The sky on the farmland side is clear." And a scientific study on this phenomena. -- llywrch 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
In the "Construction" section there are a few tree types cited with inappropriate or ambiguous links. Mulga is a dab page, wodjil isn't linked at all (seems to refer to any or all of Acacia resinimarginea, A. beauverdiana, A. signata or Lupinus luteus), pine is probably okay, jam is totally irrelevant (I've removed the link), and tea tree is a dab page. I would hazard a guess that "jam tree" means Acacia acuminata and "tea tree" means Melaleuca alternifolia, but I'm not confident enough to actually put the links in. Hairy Dude ( talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
well done for spotting the problems. I fixed tea tree, jam was vandalism, mulga not sure I will fix this eventually and wodjil is most likely the acacia resinmarginea. You could have just rectified it with the knowledge you had-it's better than what was there prior-so go for it! cheers.-- Read-write-services ( talk) 00:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article at some point mention how long and to what extent the fence was effective in controlling the spread of rabbits? Seems like a pretty big omission. 192.17.213.80 ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was curious to know how well it worked, but apart from saying that there were some 'breaches' in the first year, the article doesn't really say. If the wire netting only goes 6 inches below ground, I think it would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Rabbits could easily burrow under that. 109.157.229.155 ( talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions that the fence is visible from space. It references a source that just makes this claim without any further information, and it does not seem an authoritative or even a reliable source for such a claim. Being able to see the fence from space (100Km altitude) seems highly unlikely to impossible. The fence might be very long but it's very thin and short, which means that one cannot see it (without optical aid) even from a few kilometres away (or above). Unless the fence follows some distinctive geographical feature you cannot find it in satellite images. Even if you did find it because of a distinctive geographical feature, you are not really seeing the fence. Try it now with google Maps or Earth. You can see the rabbit proof fence *road* but not the fence. If you go to space altitude you cannot even see the road. This reminds me of the urban myth about the Great Wall of China being visible from space. This might sound more reasonable as the Great Wall is many times thicker than the fence and taller, but even this one is not visible from space! A quick google search: "is the rabbit proof fence visible from space" returns several pages that all repeat the same claim, without any further info. Seems like we have a typical Internet "echo chamber" where everybody is copying the claim from a single source (or a copy of the source), probably because it sounds cool and impressive. Unless we find a reliable source that offers some explanation or further information, I suggest we delete this sentence from the article. Aboulis ( talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
(So find a source that says that. A source that doesn't even mention this structure cannot be used to verify any claims about it.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)and
(Nothing to discuss. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Information about an unrelated structure is irrelevant. You need to find a source that specifically says that this structure is not visible from space.)
By current, I presume you mean When it was completed in 1907, the 1,139-mile (1,833 km) No. 1 Fence was the longest unbroken fence in the world.
[1] It has been claimed that the fence is visible from space;
[2] however, similar claims about the larger
Great Wall of China have been debunked by
NASA.
[3]
References
...which I'd agree is better than claiming it can be seen from space, without caveat. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
playing stupid games? Anmccaff ( talk) 00:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You have now reiterated the same set of statements, what 4 times? This isn't the looking-glass world, saying something three times does not make it true. Others, looking at the same policies felt that that this fit, if just barely, within them. Anmccaff ( talk) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the statement in the lead section that "It has been claimed that the fence is visible from space." Either we believe that the source is reliable, in which case we should just say "the fence is visible from space", or we don't think the source is reliable and we delete the sentence. At the very least we should say "According to National Geographic, the fence is visible from space", because "it has been claimed" is WP:WEASEL.
For what it's worth:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rabbit-proof fence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
shouldn't the distance measurement of the fences be in Kilometres first and then miles in brackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomhigh223555 ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
IceDragon64 ( talk) 19:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
How did pedestrians, motor vehicles, trains get from one side to the other? Did the fence cross any streams? If so, how was that handled? SlowJog ( talk) 01:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the template {{ Current Australian COTF}} really supposed to go on the page itself? It seems kinda... meta. pfctdayelise 14:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice map Astrokey. Red/Green colourblind people will have difficulty telling fence 1 from fence 2 (you can see for yourself here [1]). I also think that its a good idea to have labels and keys big enough to read in the thumb.-- nixie 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The intro says that "The State Barrier Fence of Western Australia[1], formerly known as the No. 1 Rabbit-Proof Fence, the State Vermin Fence and the Emu Fence.."
Is the fence really known as the "state barrier fence" now? Just because it has officially changed its name does not mean thats the name everyone gives it. Also it is three fences, not just the No.1 Does the term "state barrier fence" describe just one fence or all of them? Astrokey44 11:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Is the fence still maintained? By whom? If not, when did it stop being maintained, and who made the decision? The article says it was less important after Myxomatosis was introduced, but doesn't say if it continued to be maintained. -- Scott Davis Talk 00:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Another question not answered in the article: why are the rabbits considered a pest in Australië? Riki ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
History of the fence says: Rabbits had been introduced into Australia in 1859 by Victorian grazier Thomas Austin, who imported 24 specimens from England and released them on his Victorian farm.
Rabbits in Australia says: Rabbits were introduced into Australia with the First Fleet, although [...]
Rabbits in Australia supports the latter. I really have no idea what the true story is. Ideas? pfctdayelise 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
There is also a contradiction in the title of the story which Rabbit Proof Fence (the movie) was based on. In the introduction, it is cited as 'Molly's Daughter', but later it is called 'Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence'.
Would it be possible to use PD-Australia on any of these images? [4] Or this one (huge) [5]. Here's a bookcover [6], I've asked permission for this one [7] Agnte 16:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations to all who edited Rabbit-proof fence and Dingo fence while it was Australian Collaboration of the fortnight.
-- Scott Davis Talk 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I just want to say congratulations to the people who worked on this (I meant to, but somehow never got around to doing the research). It is a seriously impressive improvement, huge kudos, and yay community effort! pfctdayelise 14:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
There are two different dates for when the girls (from the film) followed the fence. First 1920s is mentioned, then is is stated that they undertook the journey in 1931. I have no idea which is true ;-) 193.120.81.130 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Currently, if you search for "rabbit-proof fence" using the search box at the left, you'll be redirected to Rabbit-Proof Fence (film). Shouldn't "rabbit proof fence" redirect to this article? I think that when most people search for the term, they want to read about the actual fence rather than the film. -- Bowlhover 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html?ref=science
(I think this was added because it points to an interesting observation within the fenced area: "Above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. The sky on the farmland side is clear." And a scientific study on this phenomena. -- llywrch 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
In the "Construction" section there are a few tree types cited with inappropriate or ambiguous links. Mulga is a dab page, wodjil isn't linked at all (seems to refer to any or all of Acacia resinimarginea, A. beauverdiana, A. signata or Lupinus luteus), pine is probably okay, jam is totally irrelevant (I've removed the link), and tea tree is a dab page. I would hazard a guess that "jam tree" means Acacia acuminata and "tea tree" means Melaleuca alternifolia, but I'm not confident enough to actually put the links in. Hairy Dude ( talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
well done for spotting the problems. I fixed tea tree, jam was vandalism, mulga not sure I will fix this eventually and wodjil is most likely the acacia resinmarginea. You could have just rectified it with the knowledge you had-it's better than what was there prior-so go for it! cheers.-- Read-write-services ( talk) 00:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article at some point mention how long and to what extent the fence was effective in controlling the spread of rabbits? Seems like a pretty big omission. 192.17.213.80 ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was curious to know how well it worked, but apart from saying that there were some 'breaches' in the first year, the article doesn't really say. If the wire netting only goes 6 inches below ground, I think it would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Rabbits could easily burrow under that. 109.157.229.155 ( talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions that the fence is visible from space. It references a source that just makes this claim without any further information, and it does not seem an authoritative or even a reliable source for such a claim. Being able to see the fence from space (100Km altitude) seems highly unlikely to impossible. The fence might be very long but it's very thin and short, which means that one cannot see it (without optical aid) even from a few kilometres away (or above). Unless the fence follows some distinctive geographical feature you cannot find it in satellite images. Even if you did find it because of a distinctive geographical feature, you are not really seeing the fence. Try it now with google Maps or Earth. You can see the rabbit proof fence *road* but not the fence. If you go to space altitude you cannot even see the road. This reminds me of the urban myth about the Great Wall of China being visible from space. This might sound more reasonable as the Great Wall is many times thicker than the fence and taller, but even this one is not visible from space! A quick google search: "is the rabbit proof fence visible from space" returns several pages that all repeat the same claim, without any further info. Seems like we have a typical Internet "echo chamber" where everybody is copying the claim from a single source (or a copy of the source), probably because it sounds cool and impressive. Unless we find a reliable source that offers some explanation or further information, I suggest we delete this sentence from the article. Aboulis ( talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
(So find a source that says that. A source that doesn't even mention this structure cannot be used to verify any claims about it.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)and
(Nothing to discuss. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Information about an unrelated structure is irrelevant. You need to find a source that specifically says that this structure is not visible from space.)
By current, I presume you mean When it was completed in 1907, the 1,139-mile (1,833 km) No. 1 Fence was the longest unbroken fence in the world.
[1] It has been claimed that the fence is visible from space;
[2] however, similar claims about the larger
Great Wall of China have been debunked by
NASA.
[3]
References
...which I'd agree is better than claiming it can be seen from space, without caveat. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
playing stupid games? Anmccaff ( talk) 00:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You have now reiterated the same set of statements, what 4 times? This isn't the looking-glass world, saying something three times does not make it true. Others, looking at the same policies felt that that this fit, if just barely, within them. Anmccaff ( talk) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the statement in the lead section that "It has been claimed that the fence is visible from space." Either we believe that the source is reliable, in which case we should just say "the fence is visible from space", or we don't think the source is reliable and we delete the sentence. At the very least we should say "According to National Geographic, the fence is visible from space", because "it has been claimed" is WP:WEASEL.
For what it's worth:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rabbit-proof fence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
shouldn't the distance measurement of the fences be in Kilometres first and then miles in brackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomhigh223555 ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
IceDragon64 ( talk) 19:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
How did pedestrians, motor vehicles, trains get from one side to the other? Did the fence cross any streams? If so, how was that handled? SlowJog ( talk) 01:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)