Category talk:Banknotes of Australia

Numismatics Category‑class

	Numismatics portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Australia Category‑class

	Australia portal Banknotes of Australia 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
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Nicknames[edit]

Banknotes of the Australian dollar along with all the banknote articles from $5 to $100 have a nickname section. Occasionally another nickname is added, usually by an anon. None of this is properly referenced. There is a link to an ABC radio poll from the $20 article but how reliable is such a poll? Concerns have adready been raised on the talk pages for the $10 and $50 note articles. I propose to delete all of this. JIMp_talk·cont 05:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oK unreferenced material can be deleted.Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

It's policy. None of this has had any more back up than an ABC poll & that is just not enough. JIMp_talk·cont 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be put back. There are plenty of sources out there if you google for them - like most colloquial expressions, you'll tend to find it in places like the urban dictionary or the media. 124.168.76.156 (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they reliable sources? If so, by all means put them back but please don't give us Internet forums & radio polls. JIMp_talk·cont 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look - sensibly enough, the guideline on reliable sources recognizes that pop-culture stuff isn't going to be written up in a peer reviewed journal. I can see that things like blogs and web fora in isolation aren't reliable sources, but I draw a distinction when it appears in numerous such places with no obvious exception. Hence, the fact it comes up multiple times in multiple places if you put it into Google, I'd contend amounts to a reliable source for a fact of this nature (it's what people in some social circles call their fifty-buck notes, not a law of physics) 124.168.45.250 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're turning up so many Google hits, surely you'll be able to show us at least one that could count as reliable. Until then let's stick to facts we can back up. JIMp_talk·cont 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake. "Go with the flow". There are a LOT of idiots out there who think this stuff is "really important", and will continue to add this sort of stuff back in, even if you remove it. Do you really care that much? Is it really that important? My suggestion: Let it go. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]