Bibliography of Australian history 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 article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange articles
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This seems like a pretty bad idea. Was there a discussion about how to handle pages like this somewhere? Generally, they should just be split up and used in references in actual articles, to the extent they're authorititative. Otherwise, unless someone is extremely carefully curating them (which would be an WP:OWNER issue on its own), this is just begging to be misused and filled up with people settling academic scores or puffing up their CVs, WP:POV/WP:BIAS problems, and misuse of older but historically important sources to repeat misinformation elsewhere. — LlywelynII 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}