Talk:Australia/Archive 6

message: Nixie has (rightly) reverted the anon edit which added 140,000 years to the intro. The intro says about 50,000 years. The History section says 42,0000 to 48,000 with a reference. History of Australia says at least 50,000 years. History of Australia before 1901 says "about 53,000 years ago, but much room for debate remains". Australian Aborigines says probably over 50,000 years, and possibly up to 100,000 years. The intro seems a fair summary of the other estimates, but we should possibly try to rationalise the other estimates. --ScottDavis 10:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mungo Man is about 60,000 years old, according to dating done in 1999 by researchers at ANU. Their results were in Journal of Human Evolution, vol 36 pp 591-612 (I only have the reference in front of me, I'll try to dig up the article). Stratigraphic testing gives 43,000 years. Electron spin resonance on a piece of tooth enamel gave 62,000 +- 6000 years, as did uranium-series dating. Optically stimulated luminescence dating gave 61,000 +- 2000 years. In 2003 a multi-disciplinary team led by MU got a more conservative figure of 40,000 years . The older dates come from other archeological evidence which suggests human interaction with the landscape, eg. use of fire for land management. This theory began in the 1980s, and is still controversial . I'll do some more research tomorrow. There's no reason why we can't mention more than one date though. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Period of habitation

message: I removed Template:Australia because all the links contained in the template already exist in the section on "States and Territories". The template is redundant and not needed on the page - the template is for navigating among the compontent articles on "States and Territories". The topical article (Australia) is definately linked in all these articles and not part of the same set or same level of articles in a series. --Jiang 17:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Australia 

message: We discussed this on the previous page, and people seemed to favour upper case for items such as 'Prime Minister'. I note that the Wikipedia Style Manual recommends lower case for generic uses, giving the example: 'De Gaulle was the French president.' So perhaps I'll not revert my lower case changes (as I said I would) until people have had a chance to form a view about the W Style Manual on this matter.
Tony 13:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lower case versions rub quite badly against my instincts.  I'm going to re-install the upper-case versions, since as far as I've encountered (constitutional texts, etc.) they are meant to be capitalised.  I think this is probably more a feature of Australian than American English.  Slac speak up! 09:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The MoS is a guideline, and its two most fundamental recommendations are that an article's original style be respected and that there should be consistency of style within an article. Moreover, there are exceptions to recommendations insofar as they conform with the national variety of English used. I have stated before (not without disagreeance) that Australian English capitalises the words in question.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't quite understand what's going on here. The MoS just after the sentence that Tony quotes, suggests that capital letters are appropriate for most of the references in this article, as they are formal names of office, or references to a specific office. As I read it, the MoS is possibly contradicting itself in some areas, but is definitely supporting the use of upper case for describing the office of Prime Minister, etc. JPD 11:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper case initials for positions? 

message: Please see the discussion above.
I propose that the following words be delinked; these are probably the uncontentious ones. Later, I'll post another list that may be generate more debate.
Opening
islands  (dictionary function),
km  (dictionary function)
Name
Roman (latin already linked just above),
Dutch
:This section hasn't got that many links anyway - why remove them? Latin is a language, Roman is talking about hte time of the roman empire.
History
infectious disease (dictionary function/too general),
forced migration (dictionary function/too general),
the removal of children (dictionary function—better to link from the daughter article on Aust. Aborigines?),
genocide (dictionary function)
:removal of children links to Stolen Generation - worth keeping. IMHO dictionary function of genocide is also worth while.
Foreign relations and military
United States (unhelpful, since ubiquitous)
States and territories
state and territory (duplicate, see under subtitle),
heads of governments (unnecessary)
Geography and climate
km2 (dictionary function),
km (dictionary function and repeated),
drought (dictionary function),
desert (dictionary function)—retain semi-arid link, which probably links to 'desert'?,
:no, it doesn't - they are not the same thing. I am undecided on these links.
sand dunes (dictionary function),
m (dictionary function)
Flora and fauna
desert (repeated),
semi-arid (repeated),
:definitely agree, because they are repeated.
diverse (dictionary function),
flowering plants, mammals, birds (twice!), fish (dictionary functions), but leave 'marsupials' and 'montremes' linked?
endemic (dictionary function),
protected areas (too general/unnecessary),
:no - it links to Protected areas of Australia; worth keeping.
Economy
the other nations (better to leave those links to the daughter arcticle),
floating,
telecommunications (links to tellecommunications in Australia),
recession,
unemployment,
tourism,
education,
financial services,
agriculture,
export
:I don't see any harm in having these links, particularly agriculture linking to Agriculture in Australia. Remove export, though.
Demographics
LInk White Australia Policy here, but not further up?
:It's worth having in both places.
the other nations,
the other languages,
apprenticeships,
endangered,
:Endangered -> Endangered languages is good.
bilingual,
human rights
:Links to Human rights in Australia
Culture
indigenous (that link won't be focused on Australia)
:It links to Australian Aborigine
symphony orchestra,
cave,
opera,
television networks,
cycling,
etc etc etc
:keep sports for consistency
:For most of the rest, I agree that they can be removed. However, I think it's worth remembering that a summary article like this is always going to have significantly more links than the average article. JPD 17:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm mostly in favor, except for (a) the country names (b) the links which you've called 'too general' that actually link to something like communications in Australia. In the opening section, I'd further remove Southern Hemisphere (dictionary), penal colony (should be linked in history, not here), parliametary, democracy (but 'parliamentary democracy' is a legitamate link to 'parliamentary system') and Elizabeth II (though perhaps the Queen of Australia link should expand to swallow her and the 'as' in between). I would be in favor of even more removal from the intro on the grounds that it's duplicated in the infobox. Felix the Cassowary 04:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of candidates for delinking 

message: This main article is lookin' pretty good, I think, even though it will continue to evolve. However, many of the daughter articles are seriously wanting. I wonder whether contributors might have time to direct their talents to them over the next few months. I'm willing to contribute to 'Economy of Australia', which is much less developed than the best analogous articles.
Tony 04:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the daughter articles! 

message: The section on politics currently finishes this way:
There are three major political parties: the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, and the National Party of Australia. The Liberal/National Coalition has been in power since the 1996 election; the Coalition won control of the Senate in the 2004 election. Since 1996, the Prime Minister of Australia has been John Howard. The Labor Party is in power in every state and territory.
For the foreigner, this is a bit of a jumble of party names that provides no useful description of the state of play in Australian politics (perhaps there's nothing to say?). I wonder whether we could go with John Howard's own description of his party, add a pretty uncontentious equivalent for the ALP, and mention the minor parties. Here's a draft.
There are three major political parties: the centrist Australian Labor Party, and the centre-right Liberal and National Parties (which traditionally form a coalition representing, for the most part, urban and rural/regional constituencies, respectively). Independent members and several minor parties—including the Greens and the Australian Democrats—have achieved representation in Australian parliaments, mostly in upper houses, although their influence has been marginal. The Liberal/National Coalition led by the Prime Minister, John Howard, has been in power in Canberra since the 1996 election. In the 2004 election, the federal government won control of the Senate, the first time that this has happened in more than 30 years. The Labor Party is in power in every state and territory.
Tony 04:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, I was just thinking that that pargraph could use some work.--nixie 04:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd be quite opposed to describing the ALP as "Centrist".  Slac speak up! 08:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not especially left anymore.--nixie 08:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the Australian political spectrum, centre-left is probably a good description for Labor. --bainer (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite true, especially since "Left" and "right" only have usefulness as comparative terms.  I don't know if they'd be all that informative included in the article.  How about either social democratic or trade union-linked? Slac speak up! 08:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, social democratic would imply centre-left wouldn't it? I think either centre-left or social democratic would be appropriate descriptors for this brief explaination; although I'm leaning towards centre-left as the better of the two. Nice reword Tony.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Centre-left, as opposed to centre (Australian Democrats), and as opposed to left (Australian Greens). As long as it's clear we're talking about the Australian political spectrum here, and when we say 'left' or 'right' we mean it relative to other Australian parties. --bainer (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is why defining parties in terms of each other is difficult (as a matter of interest, historically this is how the Australian political spectrum works but in reverse: every other party defines itself primarily as not being Labor.  This is seen most obviously with the Democrats and the Greens).  Treating "Left" and "Right" as some sort of absolute leads to problematic assumptions such as the idea that a left-wing party is one that is "a significant force against unbridled capitalism" - cf. Lech Walesa. The very problem with "centrist" is its non-specicifity.  As Granny Weatherwax once said, "it's not where you stand, it's which direction you're facing".  I know some Greens who dismiss the idea that they are "left-wing" any more than they are "right wing" - Green politics doesn't focus on such a spectrum.  Similarly, it doesn't necessarily matter how close the ALP's policies are to anyone else's, since we're looking for what makes it distinct, not what makes it similar to anything else.  Slac speak up! 23:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: (Coming in late here)  I don't like the idea of describing parties as "right", "centre", "left", etc.  Every country has its own ideas of what the political spectrum means (how many Australians would consider the US Democratic Party left-wing?), and this entry (IMHO) is of most value if written for an audience outside Australia.  Is it possible to write the party descriptions so that their core constituencies/ideals (union-rural-greenies-protesters etc.) become the primary thingies?  I must admit I can't see a way of doing it well.  For one thing, the Liberal Party would prove a sticking point. --fuddlemark 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the bit on political parties? 

message: /əˈstɹæɪljə/? Unless I'm fundamentally mistaken I'm pretty sure I and everyone around me says /əˈstɹæɪli:ə/. Is this some regional thing? My Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the same pronunciation more or less. I have physical difficulty even saying the first version.--Randwicked 16:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'd be surprised if there was a whole extra syllable in there.  Think of Advance Australia Fair: do you really say Austra-li-ans all let us rejoice?  If you can't say it, maybe you're trying too hard; it's a very weak glide.  I don't know if it's a regional thing; John Howard says /ljə/ and he's from Sydney.  But I don't know, maybe if we keep an ear out for someone saying it on the radio or something.  Slac speak up! 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I (from Melbourne) agree with Randwicked. The two pronunciations I'm familiar with are /Ostræij@/ and /@stræili.@/. A song is a bad guide to pronunciation, particularly the number of syllables, because it mandates them. 'Toil', for instance, is normally pronounced to rhyme with 'royal', but in the anthem I often hear it more like 'tawl' because it's meant to be one syllable. I also agree that [lj] is difficult to say; my pronunciation of 'aluminium' approaches ['æ.j@mInj@m] and of 'failure' tends to be more like [fæili@], still rhyming with a four-syllable version of Australia. (As for John Howard, his accent sounds fake, so I wouldn't use it as a guide.) — Felix the Cassowary 22:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely has four syllables when I speak it. I will add this pronunciation to the article if noone objects too violently. - Randwicked 10:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: What defines a "pay TV service" that there are two in Australia? Foxtel is either the only one I know of, or one of at least three in Australia — others being Austar and Optus Television. We might also wish to count Telstra, AAPT and Primus. Are these all counted as one, and I am unaware of the other, or is the article wrong/out-of-date? --Scott Davis Talk 06:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Two'' Pay TV services 

message: Comments from Kyle Andrew Brown 01:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, it was a confusing addition--nixie 01:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is already covered in the politics section. The federal government is a coalition.--nixie 01:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This roles of the state governments are covered in the states and territories section. I think its a bit soon to comment on the changes of government in NSW and what difference it will make to state/federal realtions, and it is probably not relevant to this article--nixie 01:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Done--nixie 01:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There are 10,030,300 people in the workforce , but I'm not going to add it to the article now since it would take a long time to re-number the notes, added the figure is in same publication as the unemployment rate.--nixie 01:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting is not compulsory for council (ie Local Government Area elections in South Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 13:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: South Australia has always been the most averse to compulsory voting. Enrolment is still voluntary here: so if you're not on the list, you don't have to vote. Oh, and some LGAs do employ compulsory voting. I can't remember which (doubtfull any in SA), but some do. I think we need a paragraph on the electoral system for the "Politics" section. If nobody else does, I'll try and write one next week. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In Victoria, voting in local elections is compulsory, unless some conditions are meant, such as being over 70(ish). This might be the same as for state/federal elections, I'm not sure. (Some people I know forgot to vote at the most recent elections for Moreland city council, and received nasty letters from the VEC. I don't think they were fined though; I think writing a well-mannered letter in response is good enough.) —Felix the Cassowary () 14:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm pretty sure that in Victoria, if you don't pay rates, then you do not have to vote in local council elections.  BTW I've never voted in any local council elections and I haven't received any "nasty letters" from the VEC in the post. – AxSkov (☏) 06:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the old rule. now anyone who resides in the area can vote. Xtra 08:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Since when? And is that "can vote" or "has to vote"? – AxSkov (☏) 08:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to go into this level of detail in an article on Australia, especially since local government hasn't even been mentioned at that point. If it were uniform across all states, it might be ok, but since it isn't, why not leave it for other articles? On the other hand, some more detail on the federal system would be good. JPD 16:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: I noticed that the compulsory voting was changed to state that for all levels of government it is compulsory. This may be the case in some states, but I found out in my studies recently that not all states have compulsory voting at the local level.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MJK (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 September 2005.
::Voting is not compulsory for council (ie Local Government Area elections in South Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 13:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: South Australia has always been the most averse to compulsory voting. Enrolment is still voluntary here: so if you're not on the list, you don't have to vote. Oh, and some LGAs do employ compulsory voting. I can't remember which (doubtfull any in SA), but some do. I think we need a paragraph on the electoral system for the "Politics" section. If nobody else does, I'll try and write one next week. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In Victoria, voting in local elections is compulsory, unless some conditions are meant, such as being over 70(ish). This might be the same as for state/federal elections, I'm not sure. (Some people I know forgot to vote at the most recent elections for Moreland city council, and received nasty letters from the VEC. I don't think they were fined though; I think writing a well-mannered letter in response is good enough.) —Felix the Cassowary () 14:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm pretty sure that in Victoria, if you don't pay rates, then you do not have to vote in local council elections.  BTW I've never voted in any local council elections and I haven't received any "nasty letters" from the VEC in the post. – AxSkov (☏) 06:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the old rule. now anyone who resides in the area can vote. Xtra 08:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Since when? And is that "can vote" or "has to vote"? – AxSkov (☏) 08:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to go into this level of detail in an article on Australia, especially since local government hasn't even been mentioned at that point. If it were uniform across all states, it might be ok, but since it isn't, why not leave it for other articles? On the other hand, some more detail on the federal system would be good. JPD 16:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compulsory voting

message: How do the regular editors of this article like the vastly expanded lead section?--nixie 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I think it's too big.  The lead needs to be short so that readers are actually encouraged to move on to the substance of the article.  Long sentences and detail in the introduction are not desirable.  Some of the stuff could probably be moved to the article body; other stuff could be deleted.  Slac speak up! 02:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell there is nothing new there, a long lead on an already long article seems counterproductive. --nixie 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It isn't the oldest, but it is probably the most stable land mass hence the old soils etc, it hasn't always been arid- geological time scales are a pain. --nixie 02:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't like the expansion much either. It kind of read like a Lonely Planet guide. However, our touch-ups seem to have made it better, though I'm not entirely sure about the paragraphs. It looks better, nonetheless.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead expansion

message: It is a mistake to say ¨the HM Bark Endeavour¨. HM stands for His Majesty, so you are saying ¨the His Majesty´s Bark Endeavour¨, and that just isn´t right. Either ¨HM Bark Endeavour¨ or ¨the Endeavour¨ would be correct.
:Thanks, boat names aren't my speciality.--nixie 04:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HM Ships

message: Reference to 'significantly outstripping' other countries in per capita medals won caught my attention.  Not according to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/spo_sum_oly_med_all_tim_cap&int=100, anyway.  Should be checked.
:Thanks for pointing that out, that non-fact has crept into the article several times only to be removed and reinserted. With the recent flurry of editing on this page it got overlooked.--nixie 02:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic medals per capita 

message: In Sydney there is a monument to the first settlers of Australia, the Famer, Soldier, Convict.  I feel this is a vital and unique motiff and would like a good editor to fit it into perhaps near the top.  It is so much more unique than other nations founding and contains a great deal of information in a little amount of space.  I think if a photo was obtained of this monument it would be terrific.  I cant describe the neighborhood it is in but it is in sort of a "historic" neighborhood where small shops are located near the CBD.Kyle Andrew Brown 12:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI it's The Rocks. Slac speak up! 09:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think it would be particularly relevant. Perhaps more suited to discussion in the Sydney or New South Wales articles? This is an article about Australia as a whole, and the history of settlement extends beyond that of New South Wales. Some areas were settled in completely different fashions, especially South Australia which was founded on the unique Wakefieldian principle of systematic colonisation. So again, probably best mentioned in Sydney or NSW.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farmer, Soldier, Convict 

message: While it may be true that there is a big flag controversy I'll be frank, that from a distance in North America reading online The Age, SMH, Brisbane Courier, The Australian,  as well as listening to John Laws, 4BC, 3AW and Southern Cross News I have never heard reference to this controversy.  That does not mean it has not been an issue in these forums, I only state that I have never come across it or heard it discussed in the electronic media. So if it's there, it's not very visible in MHO.
Nothing pops up in google.com.au news on "flag redesign + australia"
Anyway, the placement in the article seems awkward to me where it is, and also seems to make a political point, perhaps POV, that is one sided just by bringing it up.  If editorial sentiment says keep the information, I would suggest it be placed in another context/subheading.
The opposition could restate the same issue by saying: "There is a movement in some quarters to keep republican sentiment from destroying the historic relationship of Australia with Great Britain by fighting attempts to redesign the flag..."  Either way I see this as a hornet's nest as presented.Kyle Andrew Brown 20:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonys Flag Contro 

message: For your information, I've created this PD image template  which is self-explanatory:  -- Ian ≡ talk 06:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tad... yellow. — ceejayoz ★ 16:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD Images 

message: I think it's a very good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabye if it was an actual disambiguation page, all it has is Australian and one red link. I have made AUS the disambif, much lik US ius a disambig. --nixie 10:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise I now have to fix your copy and paste article duplication, don't you? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back and apologise for the comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redir template 

message: The Port Arthur picture appears to be located slightly higher than it should; it covers up a line of text. Is this an artifact of my computer, or can it be fixed on the web site?
Three pictures on the right-hand side—Cook, Last Post, and Parliament House—are a bit of a jumble. Can someone who has more experience than I have at manipulating images in Wikipedia please arrange them more attractively?
Tony 04:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: I noticed recent editing surrounding AFL and was wondering whether it was worth noting somewhere that the avg attendance at AFL matches is close to 40,000 and NRL matches is around 15,000. Also AFL had a far higher supporter rate than NRL. I read it in some newspaper article a while back but can't remember where. Xtra 00:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think ranking sports by attendance or anyother criteria is necessary in the article. Do what the New Zealanders have done and write Sport in Australia.--nixie 00:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some data from the ABS back from 2002: . Of all people over 18 who attended a sporting event in the previous 12 months (48% of all Australians) 17% (2.5 million) attended an AFL game, 13%  (1.9 million) attended horse racing, 10% (1.5 million) attended motor racing and 10% attended rugby league. So yes, AFL is the most popular. But as nixie says, it's probably better to mention this on a separate article where statistics can be considered in full detail (such as the fact that people who attend sports like AFL or league are more likely to attend more than once). --bainer (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFL 

message: What about adding some info on why Australia was considered an island in the past and why it isn't now? ChadThomson 10:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, it still is considered an island, just not universally. It's not usually thought of as an island singularly, but rather as an "island continent". I would think this is what Australians are still taught. I accept and was taught that Australia is both the smallest continent and the largest island. Although I think geologist's generally agree that Australia is a continent, some disagree with the island descriptor and insist that Greenland is in fact the largest island. Perhaps "island continent" was a phrase coined in compromise because Australia has features of both formations? I think this should be mentioned as well. However, geology is not really my area (okay, not at all. It's, like, rocks and stuff..:). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing I've never got is according to the definition by which Australia's an island, why isn't Antarctica the biggest island? —Felix the Cassowary () 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another aspect. I think the issue is a disagreeance over what an island actually is, beyond that it's surrounded by water. If it were as simple as that, everything landmass could be considered an island. But an island continent, I beleive, is something that could rule out other continents bar Antarctica. Why isn't it, too, considered an island? Perhaps because it is vastly larger than Australia? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always considered the statement "Australia is the world's largest island" to be problematic. It conveys an impression that is not accurate. Like telling a tourist in Sydney that "Yeah, Perth's just over the other side of the island, mate." Or saying that Africa is a peninsula. Is it important that we include it? After all, a glance at the map and even the dimmest can see that Australia is a landmass totally surrounded by water. --Surgeonsmate 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: On a similar vein - is there a name for the main island of Australia - that is, the part of Australia that doesn't include Tasmania, Flinders Island, Kangaroo Island, Bathurst Island, Phillip Island, etc.  I've also wondered if there is a similar name for "mainland Tasmania" - ie. without Flinders Island, King Island, Bruny Island, etc. -- Chuq 01:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Chuq: Australia and Tasmania, respectively. The terms are ambiguous, obviously, similar to the way ‘Europe’ can mean just the continent or can also mean the Contintent plus Britain/Island/Malta etc. or can mean the EU. For Slac's comments, that's precisely what I meant—but Antarctica's not connected to any other continent, either! —Felix the Cassowary () 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been looking at the article on Island, and it doesn't seem to say what defines an island. I recall in the very distant past reading something saying that an island doesn't have any inland water bodies without outflow to the sea, or something like that. But I'm sure Japan has lakes that are landlocked. So what are the criteria for calling a land mass an island? If we could answer that then we'd know why Australia is an island or not. ChadThomson 12:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed the key. However, when geologists themselves cannot decide, we cannot really progress. As I understand it, geologists still can't offer a resolute definition of either a continent or an island - hence Australia's problem. If a continent is considered in terms of endemism, than Madagascar proves a stumper. Others argue that culture should be considered when determining what constitutes a continent (or island); ie, Europe is a continent because its inhabitants see it such, whereas Australia is also an island by the view of its inhabitants.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Island

message: I removed this from the article:
:There is no right to free speech in Australia.
I figure: a) it's not exactly true (thanks to those gosh-darned activist justices, always screwing govts over ...), and b) it certainly didn't fit where it was placed (tacked on to a para in the "culture" section, as I recall).
What do y'all think?  Is it worth mentioning the differences in free speech 'twixt the Aussie people and the American people (who are, of course, the ones who most tend to point out the significant, ahem, freedoms they possess and we don't)?  If so, where do we put it, and in how much detail?  I think I've still got my ConLaw textbooks somewhere ... --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  free as in speech 

message: The statement:
'The bicameral Commonwealth Parliament consists of the Senate (the upper house) of 76 senators, and a House of Representatives (the lower house) of 150 members.'
is inconsistent with the first bullet, which includes, quite rightly, the Queen.
Who knows how to fix this? Tony 07:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Slac speak up! 09:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Parliament 

message: I notice that Golbez has rather inappropriately removed . There is currently a debate over whether it should be deleted. The template was created to keep the long and imposing  code out of the article, thus allowing for easier editing and preventing casual vandalism. I would immediately restore  to the article if not for that especially ugly TfD notice. Once the discussion - in which I encourage you all to participate - is complete I will put it back - provided the result is keep, of course.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Australia

message: aperantly the australian antarctic territory is about 6 million km2. and the area of australia is about 7 million km2. does that include the antarctic territory, is australia 1 million km2?
:I think it is reasonably clear that Australia does not include external territories such as the Australian Antarctic Territory and pedantic clarification would only lengthen an already long article.  However, perhaps the external territories reference at Australia#States_and_territories could be tightened.--User:AYArktos |  Talk 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  area? 

message: What the hell is with that? Australia is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic.
:Must be vandalism, Ill take it out in a sec Cfitzart 03:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic? 

message: I found this sentence: "The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, inhabited the Torres Strait Islands and parts of far-north Queensland; they possess distinct cultural practices and practised subsistence agriculture" (emphasis mine). Seems like a verb tense problem, but I'm not sure whether they should both be past or present tense... – ugen64 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They still inhabit those areas and possess distinct cultural practices. I'm not sure if they still practice subsistence agriculture.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While we should definitely avoid implying that they are no longer living there with distinct cultural practices, the sentence is in a paragraph discussing (ancient) history, so it shouldn't hurt to have the whole thing in past tense. JPD (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm...

message: Australia is not and was never a British colony. The states of Australia were all individually British colonies. But this all ceased at federation. Also, the present legal/political sittuation in Australia is not that of a British colony.  Xtra 14:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In any case, I don't like .--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with the category?  I take no offense in the notion that my nation was colonized by the British, existing under the Queen's protection and at the expense of the natives.  It's the hard truth, and I can't change history.  Mareino 17:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Xtra makes the excellent point that Australia is not a former colony.  New South Wales is, Victoria is, but Australia never was. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Australia was a Dominion from federation, at which point the colonies ceased to exist. The more common term now is Commonwealth realm. --bainer (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Colony