Talk:Australia/Archive 9

message: Currently the article puts 7.5% of the Australian public as weekly church goers - however another page from the same cited website puts 9 (http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2276). I'm new to wikipedia and wouldn't know how to add this webpage as a citation - so if you think it is worth changing someone can think about it. U R A GR8 M8 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Church Attendence" 

message: Lively debate about to occur at Alan Jones (broadcaster). Tony 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones 

message: Bit rich to call it that in the lead, when the feds come along and overrule ACT legislation whenever they like. Tony 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-governing ACT? 

message: Partial Deregulation? I'm not sure "partial deregulation" is a terribly accurate term for WorkChoices. Nonetheless, removing "partial” would seem to make the article more neutral. Fair?SolitaryWolf 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you suggesting instead of "partial deregulation"? There are still regulations, so what is "full deregulation"? Laissez-faire#Economic_theory? --Merbabu 13:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither. I'm suggesting "including partial deregulation of the labour market" be changed to "including the deregulation of the labour market." Although, someone will need to recreate the hyperlink to WorkChoices. SolitaryWolf 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how removing the word "partial" makes the article more npov. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By not suggesting that the deregulations have being either minor (through the word partial) or major (through the word full) there is no degree in our writing. By balancing the degree of our writing we are able to be more neutral. For example probably is a greater degree of writing then what would be if we used the word possibly. The degree of our writing helps us be more neutral in a topic. I think this is good because of the controversial nature of WorkChocies.  Hope this helps. SolitaryWolf 13:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. We write what is precise and verifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same rule works for words like hate and dislike or insolent and contemptible. Notice the different and precise degrees? But you do seem terribly disagreeable. I will not argue my idea for the sake of it. You are either choosing not to understand this or simply disagree (In which case so be it I'm over it) - Night peoples -SolitaryWolf 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We write what is verifiable. Your personal comments are inappropriate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to sound offensive... But I think you'll find it is very verifiable to sate that WorkChoices is a form of Labour Market deregulation. On the other hand I think you’ll have difficulty verifying that it is only a "partial" form of deregulation. SolitaryWolf 02:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the issue here is the notion of deregulation. Does deregulation mean a state where no regulation exists at all, or is it a process of decreasing the amount of regulation. Perhaps if agreement can be found between these two different usages, then agreement can be found on what to use in the article. --Merbabu 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What if the word "partial" was replaced with "comprehensive"? In this sense the series of amendments are not implied as either minor or major. Rather they are simply stated as comprehensive. SolitaryWolf 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour Market

message: "The mainland of the continent of Australia"—No, the first three words are redundant. Tony 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol at "that we want readers to hit". If only we can control people's thoughts too! (seriously, though - you do have a point). --Merbabu 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes ... I've looked at that section, and it doesn't enlighten me. "The mainland of the continent" is clearly a ridiculous expression. I've fixed one of the two occurrences. In the same league is "made a contribution to"—why not "contributed to"? Tony 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The continent of Australia comprises all the land masses on the Australian continental shelf, i.e. the Australian mainland, New Guinea, Tasmania and some other islands. The first three words of "The mainland of the continent of Australia" are not redundant, because this phrase does not mean the same thing as "The continent of Australia". However, I think it does have the same meaning as "the Australian mainland", so perhaps just replace it by that. Hesperian 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Tony 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not so much untrue as lackign detail, and possibly misleading. The seats are allocated on the basis of population, it's just that the method of allocation includes a minimum of five seats for each state. Do we need to go to that level of detail in this article? JPD (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be fixed: Tasmania has a far greater representation than it would deserve purely on account of its population.
In "Politics" it says that the Queen is "nominally represented by" the GG. Later it says just "represented by". The wording should be the same. My new passport says "represented by" on page 1. Tony 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little problems 

message: A new map has been added with links to states, cities, etc. I think the concept is a great one and clearly some good work has gone into it. Two points though - which i think can be fixed: it still seems a bit, um, "messy". Can it it be tidied up some how? A border? Secondly, is it in the best position? In fact, does it mean that the existing map in the states and territories section can now be replaced with the new one? I don't think there is a need for both, and with a few more improvements, the new one could be clearly superior to the old (which i don't think actually says that much). Nice work Zondor --Merbabu 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing is that I made a Java tool to help with this tedious task. Resized to show border. -- Zondor 13:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more background at the top and bottom would allow the links to be laid out more neatly. Also, the link to Perth should be to Perth, Western Australia.  --Scott Davis Talk 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the simple fix would be to drop the refs along the top - ie, to Indonesia, East TImor, etc. --Merbabu 13:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True - especially since East Timor is not on the present map. The Arafura Sea link belongs though, and would still look squeezed in without a bit more space. More space at the bottom could lower the Tasmania link, to make space for Bass Strait. --Scott Davis Talk 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've altered the template that generates the map as discussed. Tweaking turns out not to be all that hard. How does it look now? --Scott Davis Talk 14:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it doesn't look too bad. But it might be too big for the article as it is now. How does it look shrunk 30%? By the way, Zondor did another for Sydney. Again, great concept (particularly as it uses an aerial shot) but again it needs a tidy up. It cut off the northern beaches peninsula. have these link maps been used in other articles? --Merbabu 14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the latest version with state flags, can the title Arafura Sea be brought down a bit - there is still space. And maybe the left could be trimmed a bit. The map is BIG and we don't really need all that Indian Ocean there. --Merbabu 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the dots representing cities be enlarged? They're pretty hard to locate with the mouse. Tony 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the flags make the image too cluttered. JPD (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the flags – keep it clear, please.--cj | talk 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another vote for removal of flags - they look pretty unreadable at that sort of size.  Everything else is great though! -- Chuq 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, chop the flags. In which case we could also shrink the map a bit more and it is still clear. Also, doesn't it affect download speeds as the whole flag is donwloaded not just the tiny thumb - or am I wrong on this point? --Merbabu 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New map with links

message: I removed the passage below. There's no doubt so good stuff here that can be incorporated into the article. But at the moment, it needs work:
* No references
* Wrong place within article
* No clear identification of what these 267 languages are (apart from "many are aboriginal").
* Younger and different to American English is not that helpful
There are 267 languages in Australia (many being Aboriginal languages.) Of those, 234 are living languages, 2 are second languages without mother tongue speakers, and 31 are extinct. The Australian English language is the most common and has a formal style as well as a colloquial style. Australia still has a formal style in writing while it sustains an informal style in speaking. In the history of the Australian English language, the language has its own background when compared to American English. Australian English is younger than American and its history is different and less complex. There has been no Australian Declaration of Independence like in America. However, Australian English has not moved as far from British English as American had in the period. In the greater part of Australia, the vocabulary is still Standard English (Hansford 67). --Merbabu 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New language info

message: Anyone guess why the sudden incidence of vandalism? Is it bad enough to ask for a partial restriction? Tony 11:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fairly high profile article, it's not unusual that it attracts plenty of vandalism. But there are plenty of people with it on their watchlists, so vandalism never stays around for long. I doubt protection's necessary. --bainer (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bainer makes a fair point - but as an article matures to reach the standard this one has - I can't see what's wrong with  partial protection.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: "The Australian economy has not suffered a recession since the early 1990s. As of July 2006, unemployment was 4.8% with 10,223,300 persons employed."
This raises the problem of why the fact that x number of people are employed supports the assertion in the first clause. Unemployment of 4.8% may be a useful statement, but is only one of a number of determinants of "lack of recession". It's fuzzy. Tony 13:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit 

message: Today on the news there was somthing about Australia now officially being classified as part of Asia, anyone got any info on this?--Rob 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Media nonsense.--cj | talk 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geographically we are in "Australia and Oceania". Economically we may seek a membership in ASEAN or something but it does not change the geography. Alex Bakharev 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Geographically, no matter how you look at it, we are not part of Asia but are our own continent. Heck, other continents such as Europe and Africa actually touch the continent of Asia, something that Australia does not do. Now, no one would ever claim that "Europe and Africa are geographically Asian". Even the North American continent (tip of Alaska) has a point almost touching Asian continent. Asa01 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Touché SolitaryWolf 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And culturally, we are North American :P -- Chuq 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, I disagree with that. We are a multicultural country and cannot be classified as following any main culture. It is important that we are recognised as Australian and therefore accepting all cultures, religions, peoples etc. Can we stick with the Australia and Oceania tag for geographic location and make a note of our multiculturalism? Yuanchosaan 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was half joking - but you can't deny we are probably influenced more by US culture than any other! -- Chuq 12:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right,<laugh>. Sorry if I offended. Keep the Australia and Oceania tag? Yuanchosaan 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia Part of Asia? 

message: Hi, I noticed while reading the section about the economy, this interesting sentence:
'As of July 2006, unemployment was 4.8% with 10,223,300 persons employed'
That's more like 48% of the population. Which digit needs to be removed?
:10M people are working, 500K are unemployed, the rest are not participating (not interested) - children. retirees, housewives, etc. Alex Bakharev 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right. I read it as 10M person UNemployed. 150.101.96.241 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unemployment Figures 

message: According to the infobox 1% of Australia is water. Acc to the infoboxes for the individual states, most of the states are all between 4 and 6.6% water, Tas is 25% and NSW is just over 1%. It seems impossible for the states to average maybe 5% and the whole country to be 1%. Nurg 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not - its maths! -- Chuq 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nurg is right - the current figures are not consistent. JPD (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked the specific figures, so there may well be errors, but it is not impossible for the figures above to be correct.  Because the states have different areas, its not just as matter of averaging the eight state/territory percentage figures.  Because Tasmania has a such a small total area, its 25% water doesn't influence the national water % at all. -- Chuq 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course Chuq was also right in saying that Nurg's last sentence was incorrect, but he had already implied that the smallest value was just over 1% in NSW, with all the others over 4%, which cannot be consistent with a 1% total. JPD (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked the figures and Nurg is probably on to something.  First off, I guess that it depends on the various sources used.  The total area in the infobox is different from the total area given in the geography section.  The geography section uses the CIA as a source and the infobox area comes from List of countries and outlying territories by total area which does not list a source.  In any case, if you add up the water areas in the state's infoboxes you'll get a total of 158,677 sq mi of water.  Divide that  by the total sq. miles of 2,988,888 (and multiply by 100) and you'll get 5.3%.  According to the figures from the CIA you'll get 0.8% water.  So maybe some sources need to be double-checked.  —MJCdetroit 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a large discrepancy.  Possibly refering to "internal water bodies" (ie. Lake Eyre) vs "portion of territory which is water" (ie. including Bass Strait and a certain distance out from the coastline around the whole country?) -- Chuq 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water as % of area 

message: Instead of arguing how to describe things, and what adjectives are POV and what are NPOV, why not just let facts speak for themselves? Read this - it's not long.  --Merbabu 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just the facts please...

message: I think it's time to separate articles about the Commonwealth of Australia and the continent. Note that we already do have separated articles for America and United States of America, for Europe and the European Union and do not mix the terms. I was very surprized to hear from this article that Australia is a country. It sounds something like "America is a country", i.e. non-encyclopedic.--Planemo 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have Australia (continent). Your comparisons are incorrect however: the United States and European Union do not comprise their respective continents.--cj | talk 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia does not as well. Read the Australia (continent) article. Since this article exists I suggest to move Australia to Commonwealth of Australia since this is the official name of the country.--Planemo 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's naming conventions are determined by common usage, not official usage. As the word "Australia" most commonly refers to the country, this article is located here.--cj | talk 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "America" is also commonly refers to a country. But the article is named The United States of America. Wikipedia uses official names for countries.--Planemo 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is contrary to common sense.  Compare United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Iran, (not Islamic Republic of Iran) and Russia (not Russian Federation). Slac speak up! 00:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Russia" is the official term. Russian constitution states it is equal to "Russian Federation". Anyway I think UK should be move to the official name with a redirect from "United Kingdom".--Planemo 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, get that one moved first :). In any case, it's United States, not United States of America. Slac speak up! 10:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, at least since the Whitlam era, the federal government has almost ignored the title "Commonwealth of Australia" for the simple "Australia". Look for instance at the coat of arms. --Michael Johnson 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I think the continent should have priority over country.--Planemo 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The question isn't which one is bigger, the question is, given that "Australia" can mean two things, which one does it most often mean? "Australia" as a continent defined geologically is not often talked about. Australia the country is. JPD (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I type "Australia" I search information on the continent, not about country.--Planemo 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being incredibly pedantic Planemo. Can you think of anyone besides yourself who refers to Australia, the continent, rather then Australia, the country? Noone in this country, including our own government, refers to our own country as the "Commonwealth of Australia". Wikipedia allocates parent keywords to the most popular, and relevant articles, unless there are a multitude of sub-meanings that could cover that keyword. The article about the country easily surpasses the importance of the article about the continent. James Pinnell 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  With all due respect Planemo, you are the only one thinking this way. Yeah it's a fair point but it isnt what is done at wikipedia.--Rob 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Australia is the official and common name of the country. The Commonwealth of Australia is its official title which should be, and is, noted in the first line of the article. I would point to http://www.un.int/australia/ - "the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations" - versus http://www.un.int/usa/ - "United States Mission to the United Nations". The Parliamentary website, http://www.aph.gov.au/, is titled "Parliament of Australia", while the US equivalents, http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov, clearly state "United States House of Representatives" and "United States Senate". The two situations are not comparable at all. Orderinchaos78 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles? 

message: I think we should say in the introduction (or at least in the geography section) that Australia is the sixth-largest country in the world.  After all, it's huge size is one of its defining characteristics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wideywideboy3 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you do, be sure to mention in what terms Australia is the 6th largest country in the world. Its population for example certainly is not the 6th largest in the world. SolitaryWolf 06:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth-largest country 

message: "As of July 2006, unemployment was 4.8% with 10,223,300 persons employed."
Am I missing something about how unemployment is calculated?  Because 10 million person unemployed would be roughly 50% of Australia's population. 
Also, and this is just based on a rough guess of which I am most probably wrong: Wouldn't the south of WA be temperate?  I find it hard to believe it is subtropical. Disco 14:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unemployment is that part of the workforce who do not have work. Children, retirees, and stay-at-home parents are not included in the workforce. "Employed" can be defined as low as a few hours of paid casual work per week. --Scott Davis Talk 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott is right of course, but I'm guessing this is the usual "employed/unemployed" misreading (see earlier section. I think subtropical is right, and some definitions of these terms quite clearly overlap. JPD (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  (As I said in terms of temperature, I have no idea what constitutes one or another, having lived in Melbourne and Perth I find it hard to believe they count as different zones. But I'm happy to bow to consensus) Disco 13:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unemployment 

message: The section under "Origin and history of the name" in this article mentions nothing of the part played by Pedro Fernandes de Queirós in the naming of Australia. Even the article on Queiros on Wikipedia states the following: 
"The name of Pedro Fernandes de Queirós is today chiefly remembered in Australia. Many writers credit Queirós with coining the word "Australia" in the belief that he named his islands "Australia del Espiritu Santo", whereas he actually called them Austrialia del Espiritu Santo. (The name "Australia" was actually coined by his translator in 1625 and later was strongly endorsed by Matthew Flinders.)"
This also fails to mention that it is a widely held view that he named (what he thought was) Australia, "Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" after the King of Spain at the time, Phillip III who was from the house of "Austria" (Habsberg), hence the name "Austrialia". Here is link to one place that confirms this but it may require confirmation: 
It seems that no-one is 100% sure of where the name is really from but if we're stating theories on how the name was derived, surely all of them should get some coverage. Regardless, Queiros should be mentioned.
203.202.43.62 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The place he named "Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" was not what we now know as Australia but the islands that became known as the New Hebrides, and later Vanuatu.   His title was derived from "Austria" (Österreich), meaning eastern kingdom in German, whereas Australia is derived from the Latin word for south.  The words Austrialia and Australia are superficially similar, but relate to quite different points on the compass.  JackofOz 04:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been maps produced for ions which have named a presumed southern continent as "Terre Australis Incognita" or something similar (my latin is non-existant). It translates as unknown southern land. Early cartographers assumed there must be a southern continent to "balance out" the northern continents. This is where the term "Australia" comes from. I have never heard of Queiros before but it would be logical for him to name newfound lands in the south of the equator as part of this continent. But I doubt he originated the name. --Michael Johnson 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Queiros named the lands after the House of Austria, the rulers of Spain at the time, not from the Latin "Australis". Whether the name "Australia" comes directly from the Latin or from Dalrymple's translation will probably never be known. However Dalrymple used it earlier than 1771. It was in his 1765 translation of Juan Luis Arias de Loyola's book about Torres. Joesph Banks took a copy of this book on Cook's 1768 voyage. In any case, Queiros and Austrialia del Espiritu Santo do deserve a mention. Dbromage 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can provide a source to the contrary, it is clear that the name Australia came from the Latin Terre Australis , or South Land, a term that was widely used before Queiros. See for instance the Johannes Schöner globe, which was made 50 years before Queiros was born. There were no mistaken translations. The only things Queiros named were some of the islands of Vanuatu. --Michael Johnson 02:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Australia 

message: The History section of this article says:
:"South Australia was founded as a "free province" — that is, it was never a penal colony. Victoria and Western Australia were also founded "free", but later accepted transported convicts."
The Settlement and colonisation section of the article History of Australia says:
:"Victoria and South Australia were founded as "free colonies" — that is, they were never penal colonies, although the former did receive some convicts from Tasmania. Western Australia was also founded "free", but later accepted transported convicts due to an acute labour shortage."
Did the region that is now South Australia accept penal transportation before its fundation?
Did the region that is now Victoria accept penal transportation before or after its fundation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.215.110 (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) The only settlements in what is now SA before Adelaide was founded in late 1836 were on Kangaroo Island - a whaling/sealing camp which I think had more like Aboriginal slaves stolen from Van Diemen's Land than convicts, and then the first settlers lived there for a few months while the site of Adelaide was selected. The only exploration was Flinders and Baudin along the coast around 1802, and Sturt's party down the Murray around 1830. --Scott Davis Talk 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't, as far as I am aware. --Michael Johnson 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Any desire for the culture, (or perhaps start a trivia section) to include that fact that Australia is ranked #4 in beer consumption in the world?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_consumption_by_country Well, it makes me proud.  :) Disco 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  beer 

message: On SBS last night it said a new yearbook of ABS statistics had come out - does anyone have a copy, or have the main statistics been updated? Leon 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd try the ABS if I were you.  JackofOz 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ABS statistics

message: i heard somewhere that clocks in australia run counterclockwise. is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.204.159 (talk • contribs) 
:This is totally not true, they run clockwise as everywhere else in the world. AxG (talk) (guest book) 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, if clocks did run counterclockwise there, wouldn't they just rename the direction to match with their clocks by definition of "clockwise"?--Loodog 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What clock section?  I have never seen a clock section in the article, and if there ever was it was removed very quickly, without fuss.  Also, if there weren't any public amendments allowed to Wikipedia, then the article wouldn't exist, since the entire contents of every article was contributed by the public. -- Chuq 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  there is a joke clock that needs to be read in a mirror, but these are not restricted to Australia prehaps this section should be removed???Philsgirl 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clocks 

message: The economy section is W R O N G
There is no global downturn. All industrialized countries are having the greatest boom since the 2000 IT days. If Australia is having problems with the economy it is not because there is something wrong with the world but because there is something wrong with Australia. The whole section is misleading because there is no global downturn, there might be in a few years if the USA housing market does not pick up but right now today the world economy is booming. So I will remove it within one week of today, someone else can if he/she wishes rewrite the section but to say that there is a global economic downturn is just wrong Potaaatos 22:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What global economic downturn?

message: It is clear from Australia (continent) that Tasmania is not part of the mainland (surprise, surprise!).  Therefore we need to add it in to the mix.  As the lead para was written, Tasmania seemed to figure nowhere in the makeup of Australia.  JackofOz 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tasmania is, however, an island. JPD (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed it is. But it hardly does it justice to describe it as an anonymous member of "a number of islands in the Southern, Indian, and Pacific Oceans".  That relegates it to the same status as some uninhabited island off the coast of Western Australia that nobody except geographers has ever heard of.  Tasmania is a state, all by itself.  We mention the miscellaneous islands and we mention the mainland.  Tasmania also deserves separate mention.  JackofOz 11:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it, the "uninhabited island off the coast of Western Australia" is usefully included in the references to islands, which mainly refers to Tasmania, Kangaroo Island, the TSI, Tiwi Islands, etc. as well as Lord Howe and possibly the external territories. This is a purely physical description, so statehood is irrelevant. If there is justification for mentioning Tasmania separately, it is on grounds of size together with distance from the mainland, and would probably be better phrased as "the largest of which is Tasmania".  JPD (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Tasmania is orders of magnitude larger than the other islands of Australia; it's not like, say, Canada which includes a mainland and many largish islands of similar size. I've mentioned Tasmania and also linked to list of islands of Australia. --bainer (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tasmania

message: how about adding in a table with australia's rankings on the HDI, the economist quality of life index etc. just like the article for norway has... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.136.8 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The electoral act specifically requires voting, not "being recorded at a both".  So yes, voting is really compulsory. Slac speak up! 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "international rankings" 

message: Australia has been add to the new :Category:Germanic culture by an editor. Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Germanic culture]]

message: What is the basis for the statements about the oral culture and and spiritual values of the first immigrants to Australia, 48,000 years ago? The statement "The first Australians were the ancestors of the current Indigenous Australians; they arrived via land bridges and short sea-crossings from present-day Southeast Asia. Most of these people were hunter-gatherers, with a complex oral culture and spiritual values based on reverence for the land and a belief in the Dreamtime." ought to be supported by a citation if one is available, and deleted otherwise.
Agemegos 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs of first immigrants, 48,000 years ago 

message: Please add Kazakh interwiki: kk:Аустралия --82.200.172.12 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazakh interwiki 

message: I noticed that under the Flora and Fauna section Australia is considered a megadiverse country. 
However, when I click on the megadiverse countries link, Australia is not on that list, nor is Australia highlighted on the map of that page. 
So,either Australia is indeed considered a megadiverse country and it should be on that list, or it is not and the reference to it being a megadiverse country should be removed from its description.
Just thought you might want to follow this up. 
Cheers!
Geckoz 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article megadiverse countries only lists the signatories to the Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries (I think, its hard to tell with no source information provided); regardless it's not a complete lists of places that have been described as megadiverse by various organisations.--Peta 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megadiverse country 

message: Just read through this section which states: 
The first undisputed recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606.
 Should this be re-worded slightly to make it clear that there are theories about other sightings such as the article in ? In notide that there is also a History of Australia before 1788 page and a European exploration of Australia page which each give slightly different versions. I'm not sure how much detail should be found here, but to me the current sentence is a little ambiguous. I'm not an expert in Australian history so will leave it to others who are no doubt more qualified than I am to determin what if any treatment should be given to competing historical claims. --Hmette 06:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specificity you would like is best kept to the daughter articles, being as this is a summary article. The sentence you quote does not deny there are other claims; in fact, it implies there are others, but states that this is the earliest undisputed European sighting. For overview purpose, I think this is fine.--cj | talk 08:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: According to my copy of the Australian Government's Style Manual (1978 edition, page 10), program is the preferred spelling of this word. I think this spelling should be used in the article and not the longer version. Does anyone have any objection to this? Michael Glass 12:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both forms are correct in Australian English, so (per the Manual of Style) you should not be changing one form to another. Where in this article is it an issue anyway?--cj | talk 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Program

message: The first use of the word "Australia" in the English language was in 1625.
The words "A note of Australia del Espiritu Santo, written by Master Hakluyt" - were published by Samuel Purchas in 1625 - Purchas, vol. iv, p. 1422-1432. It was an anglicised translation of Captain de Quiros's words from 1606, who, seeking Terra Australis, named the land he landed at on the day of Pentecost "La Austrialia del Espiritu Santo". Although Cook later clarified that he had been at Vanuatu at the time, by then, the word "Australia" as a name for "Terra Australis" had been in publication 150 years. External Reference - an image of the actual page in the original publication:
SWCS 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should retain your addition, which essentially references a typo in a document about Austrialia del Espiritu Santo – ie, Vanuatu not Australia.--cj | talk 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the explorer in question was seeking Terra Australis - and believing he had found it,  declared that Austrialia del Espiritu Santo would become the new name of all this part of the South as far as the pole i.e. not just the island on which he was standing. Regardless of that point, as far as whether the English translation document then contained a "typo" or an "Anglicization" of his word "Austrialia" is not really the point here, as the subject is "Etymology" i.e. the study of historical linguistic change. Historically, that word was published in 1625, and was referenced by Dalrymple and Cook in their journals. SWCS (talk 05:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Map proves Portuguese discovered Australia: new book. All these articles need to be updated with at least a sentence about the claims made in the book Beyond Capricorn:
* Australia
* History of Australia
* European exploration of Australia
I can't do that because this article is protected, and I don't want to mess up the other articles. 220.227.179.4 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia. It remains disputed.--cj | talk 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldnt say this counts as proof. If that is supposed to be Botany Bay, why are there two huge islands in the middle of it, and what are all the islands to the east? --Astrokey44 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be updated 

message: The demographics of Australia should be added. Number of Australians overseas, languages spoken in Australia, breakdown of ethic backgrounds etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.161.196 (talk • contribs).
:Such information is already present in Australia#Demographics.--cj | talk 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: I think this page needs to be protected for at least 6 mths from the anons and new users who continually vandalise the page.This is something I cannot understand, do they find it fun to be so disruptive? -- Mark 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, so-called civilised society has those elements within it who clearly have such a low self-esteem that, when combined with their evident lack of intellect, together with access to technology, enables them to satisfy their pubescent urges through misusing the facilities available to them.  These are the same type of sub-sentients who attempt to earn an identity through 'tagging' and grafitti as well as other mindless acts in the real world.  Nevertheless we, the mature section of society, are expected to preserve the planet for their use and the use of their offspring, and to pay for their ill-deserved chance to get a university education.  How utterly depressing. --JohnArmagh 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect page for 6 mths 

message: I think that :Image:Australian external territories.png should be included in the info box similar to France's article (ie underneath the world map). There isn't anything different between Australia's external territories and France's, is there? I'd add the map myself but the page is locked to me. --203.208.88.170 07:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Territories