Talk:States and territories of Australia

message: User:ZanderSchubert commented in June 2006 that the Comparative Terminology table was "ambiguous as it's impossible to tell where the cell borders are, and therefore which state/territory uses which name." I just read article for first time and was equally confused as it's still not corrected. If nobody knows how to create those "boxed" tables (I dont) may I suggest the author repeats the various titles against each state/territory, rather than showing the title at some ambiguous mid-point.
Tiddy (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative terminology

message: I've added the state capitals here since I've done a redirect from Australian capital cities from this page.  (Other options for re-direction include List of cities in Australia and List of capitals of sub-national entities, but I thought this page seemed like the best choice.)
I will also adjust Jervis Bay Territory on the list - it is a territory, but it isn't regarded as a territory the same as NT and ACT are.  I think it may actually be administered as part of ACT, but I think the External Territories should be changed to 'Minor Territories' or something similar, and add JBT to that list. Chuq
: Yes, Jervis Bay is an integral part of the ACT. JackofOz 04:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the state/territory changes, as mentioned above  (that was also me - forgot to sign it the first time) Chuq 10:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Belatedly, I wasn't quite right about JBT being a part of the ACT.  See my recent edit to the article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State capitals 

message: A note about the changes I made to the "Honorable"s attached to the names of the state/territory political leaders.  
* The word is not normally spelled in full, but the abbreviation "The Hon" (without a full stop) is highly acceptable and appropriate (not to mention shorter)
* if you do spell the word in full, PLEASE use the Australian spelling "Honourable" (with a "u"), not the American.
* The title "Honourable" arises from being a member of the relevant Executive Council, and anybody who has ever been a Minister of the Crown remains an Executive Councillor-under-summons for the rest of their life unless they are specifically removed from such a status by misbehaviour etc.
* because there are no Executive Councils in the ACT and the NT, their Chief Ministers are not "the Hon" but simply Mr, Ms or whatever. (unsigned by User:JackOfOz)
:I know this is old, but I just saw it and wanted to note for the record that this comment is completely wrong about the Northern Territory - which does use the honourable title for their Chief Ministers, not to mention all their other ministers. I'm not so sure for the ACT, however. Ambi 14:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only just seen this comment today.  I can find no reference to any NT Chief Minister or any other NT Minister ever being called "the Hon" by virtue of their NT offices.  JackofOz 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Honourable

message: The icons next to the states aren't very distinctive at that resolution. Would anyone object to using the state badges instead? This would lead to inconsistency between states and territories icons, but you'd get a better idea of what the picture was, so it'd have a bit more value IMHO. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are sized the same as the country flag templates (). I think they're better then badges, and you're right, it would mean inconsistencies between states and territories. I was planning to convert that list to a table like in Departments of Colombia.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons 

message: Ashmore and Cartier Islands' page says its part of Northern Territory. I don't know which one is right
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashmore and Cartier Islands? 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
* Support as proponent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete. Snottygobble 04:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective deletion

message: The section "State and Territory Codes" lists Lord Howe Island.  This is not a territory, but an integral part of New South Wales.  I tried to remove it but my table formatting skills let me down.  Anyone??  JackofOz 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lord Howe Island

message: The short lived territory's details have been added.  Move it to somewhere else if you think it is more appropriate, but I believe it should be included somewhere.  Kransky 06:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central Australia

message: Can someone who is good with Wiki tables please edit the 'Compared Terminology' table? As it currently appears (at least on my computer) the names of (for example) the houses of parliament are ambiguous as it's impossible to tell where the cell borders are, and therefore which state/territory uses which name. ZanderSchubert 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compared Terminology

message: I say no way, José..... These are all common terms to varying degrees. How is it going to help someone from overseas, looking for a definition, to be redirected to States and territories of Australia? Grant65 | Talk 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't :-) Grant65 | Talk 05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merger of Eastern states of Australia, Southern Australia, Northern Australia 

message: In the infobox of each state article, the form of government is listed as "constitutional monarchy". Is this really true? Is the head of state of Western Australia a monarch? That is, is Elizabeth the Queen of Western Australia, along with all the other things she is queen of? I do see how this is not a clear-cut issue, because she does appoint the Governors (and I would assume that her choice is, in theory, unrestricted). But the infoboxes of other state articles, like Alberta, Oregon and Bavaria, don't list a form of government at all. Wouldn't that be the best solution here too? -- Jao 11:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the queen is head of state of each state. The Governor represents the monarch directly, not through the Governor-general of Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 14:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? I googled a little, and this book seems to think that the question doesn't have an unambiguous answer. -- Jao 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Scott Davis is correct. Australia is really 7 monarchies, not 1. If Australia had become a republic, theoretically one of the states could have remained a monarchy despite Australia as a whole becoming a republic. We have state governors, not lieutenant-governors like the provinces of Canada - that's because of the unique way our country federated. Lonelygirl16 10:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are getting ahead of ourselves, but...if the monarch remained monarch of one or more states, she/he would become subordinate to a (federal) president, in any feasible republican constitution. I doubt the monarch would accept such a state of affairs. But maybe I'm wrong. Grant | Talk 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that's not how it works - the states are separate to the Commonwealth in terms of the executive. That's why the Governor-General and the Commonwealth Government have no say in who becomes a state governor; they only do in the case of administrators of territories (NT and NI at the moment). Lonelygirl16 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (Having come through a link from Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#United Kingdom) See Talk:Republicanism in Australia/Archive 3#1 republic or 7? for a previous discussion on this. See also the Queensland Constitution Convention Communique which seems pretty clear that a successful federal referendum alone won't abolish the Queen of Australia who rules the individual states. (Before 1986 it was even messier as the states weren't ruled by the "Queen of Australia" but by the "Queen of the United Kingdom"! Fortunately the two being the same person hid the mess.) Timrollpickering (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Queen doesn't rule Australia or its States at all. Grassynoel (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  States as constitutional monarchies 

message: Recently I was bold and added the terminology used in the inhabited external territories to the comparative terminology section. The title of the section and nothing in the section ever suggested that it was restricted only to the States and the Northern Territory, and seeing that none of the external territories are represented in any state or mainland territory's local legislature, I added them. User CJ however, reverted the edit with the simple explanation that they are not the same thing (which is pretty obvious), but doesn't explain why they are to be excluded. It is true that the Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are represented in the Australian Parliament as part of a electoral division encompassing a section of Northern Territory, but they are distinct. They have separate administrators (or in this case a shared administrator separate from the Northern Territory administrator) and are not represented in Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. In addition, the laws of Western Australia apply to Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands, which of course leaves the islands in the odd position of having W. Australian laws applying, but being represented in Australia's government along with Northern Territory, but at the same time not being represented in the legislatures of either Western Australia or the Northern Territory. Norfolk Island isn't even represented in the Australian legislature from what can be gathered on wikipedia's article on Australia's Electoral Divisions. This can be contrasted with Jervis Bay Territory which is represented in Australia's legislature along with ACT, has access to ACT courts and has ACT laws applied to it. It isn't represented in the ACT legislature either, but then neither does it seem to have any territorial terms with which to compare it to the states and other territories (no administrator or legislature, just the Jervis Bay Administration).  So if all these external territories are territories of Australia and if they are inhabited and have some form of government structure then why exclude them from this section of an article about Australia's States and Territories (presumably all of Australia's territories too)?72.27.92.79 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative Terminology only for Mainland States and Territories?

message: Three questions:
* We show the Governor-General as head of state of Australia.  This is a matter of ongoing debate, but most commentators are squarely of the view that the Queen is the head of state, because it is she who appoints the GG to represent her.  Similarly for the Governors in relation to the states - they're also appointed by the Queen.
* We show the Chief Minister of the ACT as the head of state of the ACT.  Is this really so, given that the Federal Parliament can override ACT laws (and has done so), and that any such act of the Federal Parliament would have to be given Royal Assent by the Governor-General, representing the Queen?  Is there a citation showing the Chief Minister is the head of state?
* We purport to show the terminology for the members of the various state/territory/federal legislative houses.  What I think we actually show is the abbreviations of their titles.  A case in point is members of the House of Representatives.  Their title is just that, “member of the House of Representatives”;  “member of Parliament” is also used (and I note the footnote to that effect).  The standard abbreviation of the “member of the House of Representatives” title is MHR.  The standard abbreviation of the “member of Parliament” title is MP.  In both cases, the postnominal letters they get to use are MP (although many MHR/MPs erroneously use MHR as their postnominal).  Can this be clarified somehow?  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Comparative Terminology

message: * Lede - The Commonwealth of Australia is made up of 8 states and territories …
* The States and Territories of Australia table lists 16
* Comparative terminology lists 12
* Premiers and Chief ministers lists 9
* State and territorial parliaments lists 9
* State and territory police forces lists 8.
So, how many?  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All numbers are reasonable counts: 8 states and territories without Jervis Bay Territory, which seems to formally be a territory but mostly not function as one; 9 states and territories with JBT; 12 states, territories and inhabited (not only by weather or research staff) external territories; 16 states, territories and external territories. I agree that we should try to get the numbers consistent, or when this is not possible, explain why they are not. -- Jao (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and borrowed some text from the main Australia article.  This way seems less confusing and more accurate to me.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: By the way, where are the sources? BalkanFever 01:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How many states and territories?

message: Why are there two pictures overlapping? Perhaps someone could put the two pictures in seperate boxes? I would do it myself, but I don't know how. QuackOfaThousandSuns (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Do the Australian stats each have their own constitutions, as do the states of Germany and the USA? - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: State constitutions

message: Should Nauru be added as a former territory of Australia? The administrative arrangements documents here  on an Australian governments website place Nauru as a territory of Australia, treated like the others. It was a UN territory given to Australia after WWII, and I think it should go on the list with Papua, North Australia, and Central Australia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nauru 

message: In the Comparative terminology table, for the Northern Territory and Norfolk, Christmas and Cocos Islands, why are we saying the upper house of parliament is the Administator?  Surely the correct entry there is None, exactly as we have for the ACT.  The Administrator appears under Domestic administrator.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  11:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrator is the upper house of Parliament???

message: Does anyone know which page explains the rights of states and territories, and how they are balanced by support from the federal government? Ninahexan (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the user was asking about separation of powers/competences. At least that is how I understood the question. - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights of states and territories 

message: After restoring sorting to this table, I made some other changes that were later reverted.  Although I can view the table nicely on my wide monitor, I wanted to improve its appearance for those without wide monitors.  I'll describe some of these changes here in hopes of furthering a discussion and reaching a consensus.
* I tried combining the value and rank columns, but because the ordinals weren't all the same width, this meant the value column wasn't aligned.  One alternative I didn't try was to render the ordinal in a fixed-width font.
* I added parantheses around the rank in hopes of connecting the ordinal number to the preceding column.  
* I eliminated sorting in the value columns.  I don't see the benefit of being able to sort separately by area and also by rank in area, by population and also by population rank, etc.
* I removed the 'Rank' heading so that the rank columns had only the sorting symbol in the header.
* I inserted line breaks in the headings so the line breaks would occur in predictable places.  I would have preferred having a "Population" header that spanned all of the population-related columns, but I couldn't figure out a way to do this and still retain sorting.  
Are there some other considerations I am missing?  One alternative I haven't researched would be eliminating the column rule between the value column and the associated rank column.  If this were done, the two columns would appear visually as a single column and so there would be no need for the "Rank" label or for having two sorting symbols.
Any comments? YBG (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic problem is that you want to do something that can't done, and it is not entirely clear why it should be done. You can't make sorting work with colspans; it is as simple as that. You allude to something about people without  monitors, but what you're on about is beyond me. The width of monitor shouldn't mean a thing. Eliminating sorting on the rank column because you don't see the point is all well and good, but for other people it might be more intuitive to sort by rank than by the underlying fact. Sure, the result is the same, which is to say the rows will end up in the same order, but it is a matter of focus: for them, it will be more natural to sort the rank column and use the simpler numbers to confirm the sorting worked properly. It may be a small benefit, but is greater than whatever aesthetic reason you see in eliminating it. Also, removing heading made it less clear what each of the small columns was for. With a three "Rank" columns for three main columns, it is clear which goes to which, but without even naming them, it is harder for a reader to know what is going on. The table should be easily understood; removing the heading made it less so. Adding parenthesis was odd. They were wholly unnecessary and harm visibility. Why they should "connect the ordinal number to the preceding number to the preceding column" argument is beyond me. Why should it do any such thing? Numbers for a list that are wrapped in parenthesis can as easily precede the item they relate to, and in fact more often do. -Rrius (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation.  One thing that I did not make clear is my desire to reduce the cluttered look that unplanned line breaks tend to create in page rendering.  Thanks especially for your comments about the difficulty of telling which fact column a rank column goes with.  I am also concerned about this, and I am not convinced that either version resolves this issue in a completely satisfactory manner.  Cheers. YBG (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The POPULATION sort seems to be broken now and I don't know how to fix it (I think it is sorting the items as though they are strings instead of numbers.) 98.210.178.115 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the notes/references that are making the sort go by text rather than by numeric value. I would like some help figuring out how to keep the notes there and still get the sorting right! Joshuazucker (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved by using Template:Nts for the population data. SiBr4 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving statistics table 

message: 26 January 1788 is seared into all our memories as the day on which the Colony of NSW was founded.  Except, IT WASN'T.  Various proclamations were made that day, and certainly the physical possession of the continent by the British can reasonably date from then.  But the formal legal promulgation of the Crown Colony of New South Wales did not take place until 12 days later, on 7 February 1788.  
Can someone who knows what they're doing fix the date on the map, please?  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found online tools to break and make animated GIFs from the component images such as http://ezgif.com . I doubt I would be able to match the font etc if I changed the text on just one of these 23 slides. There's a different set of 19 slides on Territorial evolution of Australia which could be composed into an animation. The image discussed here is also on that page, above the separate ones. --Scott Davis Talk 21:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The moving map perpetuates a misconception

message: I've noticed that the Australian Bureau of Statistics excludes Norfolk Island in its population figures for Australia. Also, Norfolk Island doesn't appear to be part of any federal electoral division, although the other territories are. It seems as if Norfolk Island is in some sense an external territory belonging to Australia, closer to a "possession" than an integral part of the country.
It would be illuminating to have the status of Norfolk Island clarified somewhere in this article.
Ben Arnold (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special status of Norfolk Island? 

message: This article already links to several languages, however I think it could link to some more, but for some reason this hasn't happen.
Such languages that have articles similar to this one, but aren't already linked to it are: Spanish, Chinese, Polish, among others. Yet from what I can tell the titles of these articles are titled something that translates to "Territorial organization of Australia" however the contents of these articles are really similar to and those linked to this article. I'll like to do this myself but I don't know how to do this. -- Sion8 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interlanguage links are now managed through Wikidata. You can add another one by using the "Edit links" link below the list of other languages, then the "edit" link next to the title "Wikipedia (n entries)", which will create a new blank entry at the bottom of the list for you to fill in. <Insert appropriate warnings about making sure the concepts match etc.> --Scott Davis Talk 12:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I tried to do that, but the warning about the fact that one is already linked to another tells me that such article is already likned to others, and I tried to do it from both the English article and Spanish article. Nothing I did would do anything this si the reason I can here as I know I would get someone faster than in the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Sion8 Talk 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: do the Spanish, Chinese and Polish articles have inter language links to each other? Is there a corresponding English article for that topic? If not, then there is probably a way to combine the two Wikidata concepts if they are really for the same thing. I'm happy to try to help if you post links to the articles and concepts. --Scott Davis Talk 12:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Well the articles that are linked to the English are pretty much titled the same as the English, while yes the Spanish, Polish, Chinese, etc. are both liked and titled similarly as what I know the Spanish to mean. And well the only difference I've been able to discern is that the titles of the Spanish and those linked to it translates to "Territorial organization of Australia" while those linked to the English have a similar title to the English. They may have some info that the English doesn't have and vise versa, but hey that's up to the people of those wikipedias. -- Sion8 Talk 01:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Several months later, I just got round to looking at this again. Sorry . I found the article es:Organización territorial de Australia that looks like the one you refer to. The set of interlanguage links on that article only has one language in common with the set of interlanguage links on this one. That language is Slovak (sk). The article from the "Spanish set" is sk:Administratívne členenie Austrálie which turns out to be a redirect to sk:Štáty a teritóriá Austrálie in the "English set" anyway. Set theory tells me that if all the intelanguage links are right, then the sets should be merged. I'll see if I can work out how. --Scott Davis Talk 12:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I've added a request at Wikidata Interwiki conflicts but it's number 96 in the 2015 page, so I don't know how soon anyone with knowledge will be able to look at it and resolve it. If they don't merge, hopefully we will get guidance on what the difference is. --Scott Davis Talk 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  Yes, the issue is that there are 2 groups of interlanguage sets: a) "states and territories" (only 1st level of hierarchy); b) "Territorial organization of Australia" (intended for full hierarchy). The problem is that often in B-articles there is info only about 1 level and there are no corresponding A-articles. I'd go with 2 separate groups in hope that there will be both concepts in all wikis. As temporary solution I'd propose to link in corresponding redirects (to make full set of languages in both items), as it is done with Slovak links. P.S. I am not watching en-wiki, if you want to discuss with me, ping me on Wikidata or ru-wiki. --Infovarius (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The languages links could be expanded to more languages to link to 

message: I didn't like the use of a Robinson projection in Australian external territories.png, so I made a version based on an orthographic projection: Australia states and territories blank.svg.  I would like to get some opinions before I replace the image in the article, however.
*Should I add labels or numbers, or just leave it blank?
*Should I crop it to only the minimum area necessary?
*Any other suggestions?
Thanks for any input.  --Lasunncty (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the alternate projection is nice in that it shows all the way to the pole, and presents Australia in the "usual" shape. I think the labels should be included for the outlying islands. Ideally, Coral Sea Islands should be a shaded region in my opinion rather than just a dot as on the current map, and I would label Macquarie Island, even though it is in Tasmania, to highlight the breadth of "Australia". --Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a labeled version: Australia states and territories labeled.svg.  --Lasunncty (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Having heard no further discussion, I have now replaced the old maps with the one I created.  --Lasunncty (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  map of external territories 

message: Apparently the government reform of Norfolk Island taking affect on July 1 subjects it to New South Wales (NSW) state law, which some media are calling "absorption into NSW". However, voters in Norfolk are becoming constituents not of NSW, but of the Australian Capital Territory. Does anyone know what Norfolk will officially be after July 1? Still some kind of "external territory", and "internal territory", or neither (as would be expected if it's officially "part of NSW")? GeoEvan (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it would still be an external territory, albeit one in which NSW has agreed to provide services to Norfolk Island under an agreement with the Commonwealth.  See for example this release: http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/pf/releases/2016/March/pf037_2016.aspxBasically Norfolk Island will become a non-governing external territory just like all the others, eg Christmas Island and Cocos Island to which Western Australian laws apply but are constitutionally distinct from that state. Brisvegas 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

text: It is still part of the Commonwealth of Australia.  Wikiain (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Norfolk reform remove it from list of "external territories"? 

message: I tried to link this article with its Polish version (Podział administracyjny Australii) on Wikidata but I'm having problems with it because the Polish article, along with a few other languages, is already part of Q4494320. Most other-language articles on the topic, including English, are part of Q178712, despite the fact that the two codes are about exactly the same topic. I don't know how to merge the two codes together so can someone please help me with this? Skewb? (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried the same by trying to link the Spanish page in 2015, but like yourself, could not do so. Someone tried to help but it seems that never happened. Also those aren't the only languages that need linking because there are other articles in other languages that share this same topic but aren't linked together. -- sion8  talk page 17:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a discussion in Wikidata to see if the two topics can be merged.  --Lasunncty (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you either way, could you provided a link to see the discussion if you don't mind? -- sion8  talk page 23:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, sure.  Here: Wikidata:Talk:Q4494320#merge with Q178712? --Lasunncty (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but from what I saw so far is very preliminary, but hopefully they'll sort this out. -- sion8  talk page 00:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging languages 

message: I've (mostly) reverted this recent edit, because I believe this sentence is fundamentally wrong:
The states and territories are not "the federation". "Federation" is either a process (which clearly the state/territories are not) or a group. The article is primarily about the states/territories as individual entities, not as a collective group. We have a separate article for the "the federation of six federated states, ...": Federation of Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the federation 

message: Help needed.  I've managed some corrections to "internal territories" in the table, but can't get the "Administrator" column right.  The entry "none"+ref applies only to the ACT.  The NT has an Administrator, Vicki O'Halloran.  Jervis Bay Territory should read "none"+ref and the ref would be "Administered by the Commonwealth.". Wikiain (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , how does it look now? -- Begoon 03:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Bewdy!  A cold one for your invisible mending. Wikiain (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table:  internal territories Administrators 

message: The article so far is about government in a legal sense.  The actual governmental issues as to states and territories, however, are financial.  Could editors with the requisite expertise please add a section (or two) on this? Wikiain (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal finance 

message: The first table that lists the states and territories has a land area column, that appears to be inaccurate, in that the figures don't match the later "statistics" table in the same article, nor the site in the reference at http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-location-information/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories.  
I noticed because the areas summed to ~ 8.1 million km², more than the ~ 7.7 million km² usually given for the whole of Australia.
Jlittlenz (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because the first table doesn't specify land area it says, area, so those area figures are including water area claimed to be part of the state. The table under the Statistics section specifies land area, so in that table water area isn't counted. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 16:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land area discrepancy 

message: Why does the main map for this article suck so badly? When you look at the articles for other countries, it shows the country as the main feature of the image, NOT the entire globe. This is unnecessary, and a little absurd. Despite the fact that it is considered a continent, the article is about the states and territories, so they should be the main feature of the map. Gil gosseyn (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, Australia's territory does expand beyond just mainland Australia. The Australian Antarctic Territory and external territories like the Ashmore and Cartier Islands are still part of Australia, and important to Australia's regional politics and sovereignty. Nonetheless, there is slightly excessive geography at the top - we probably don't need the countries above Papua New Guinea, but it's okay in my opinion. ItsPugle (please use  on reply) 03:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main map 

message: I don't think this is correct. The federal government and the federal parliament have much more control over the ACT and the NT.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The ACT and Northern Territory for the most part operate indistinguishably from states." 

message: Jervis Bay Territory has no capital. The note above the table says that individual territory articles have references, but Jervis Bay Territory article mentions no capital. In the next table, "External territories," four territories are listed as having capital "None," which is correct, but then there's an unexplained italicized location in parentheses following "none." Nothing explains what the thing in parentheses is supposed to be. If it's meant to be some sort of quasi-capital, again, there's no reference for any of them. "None" seems sufficient in all cases. Holy (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit is the reason for the confusion.  --Lasunncty (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and undid the edit mentioned above. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitals of territories 

message: I've removed this from another article, but perhaps it belongs on this one.--Pharos (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudd proposal for new external territories 

message: I wonder about the relevance of this sub-section to the article. It's basically about the sub-state Main Structure of the Australian Statistical Geography Standard. I have a  draft of a more complete article about the ASGS, which (once released as an article) could be referred to if felt necessary, but I think the whole sub-section can be deleted. Innesw (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this section doesn't really seem relevant to this article.  --Lasunncty (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree as well, belongs at Australian Bureau of Statistics in the meantime. CMD (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical Divisions sub-section