Talk:Australia/Archive 10

message: Wow. The article states that 4.6% of Australia's roughly 20,000,000 people are unemployed, and lists the number as over 10,000,000. Ummm, let's do math right, OK Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.104.249.211 (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it states that over 10,000,000 are employed. not unemployed. The 4.6% unemployed is of those who would want a job, which obviously excludes children, students, prison inmates, the sick and disabled, homemakers, the independently wealthy, and the retired. --Michael Johnson 05:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where exactly is the problem? Are you sure you are not confusing unemployment and employment? --Merbabu 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article again. It says 10,000,000 are employed, not unemployed. --Michael Johnson 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking we're going need to create a FAQ page, with the number of times this comes up.--cj | talk 01:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction: it is not 4.6% of the total population - the unemployment rate is 4.6% of the workforce. The workforce is in turn defined as those who have a job PLUS those who don't have a job and want a job. Ie, the workforce = the employed and the unemployed. The unemployed don't include that large group of people that are not looking for a job, ie, children, retirees, etc. HOWEVER, those who want a job but have given up looking are not included in as unemployed - ie, one must be actively looking for a job. And, I'm not sure whether one needs to be on unemployment benefits to count as unemployed, although there would certainly be a correlation. Merbabu 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employment question 

message: Independence. Um ... did federation have anything at all to do with independence? I rather doubt it. And the use of the term "Constitution" is puzzling. All of the colonial parliaments already had self-enacted constitutions, which calls into question whether the creation of the federal constitution by the mother parliament isn't the wrong angle here. Isn't it preferable to to note first "Federation" (ignore "Constitution" as an obvious instrument of that change), then Independence (in the two stages). The Statute of W. was not ratified by the federal parliament until 1942; it's misleading to cite its date of enactment in 1931 by the Westminster parliament.
The PPP values for GDP should surely be higher than the nominal values. Have these values been inadvertently switched? Are they in US or A dollars? Whichever, it needs to be stated, perhaps only on the first appearance of a dollar value. Tony 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PPP and nominal GDP figures seem to be the same as their source articles -  I can't say if the source articles are right or wrong though. If you have access to figures maybe you could follow up. US$ are used. Probably should be made clear that US$ are used, although US$ usually are used for such figures. --Michael Johnson 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On the first matter, federation did have a lot to do with independence.  Before it, there was no Australia: no High Court, no RAN or Australian Army; no Ministry for External Affairs; no White Australia Act (which was drastically different to the British Empire's standard colonialist immigration philosophy); no uniform national tariffs; no Commonwealth industrial arbitration system; no uniform national policy on any number of domestic issues; no Australian flag.  So it was quite important to full Australian independence, since, like the republic, it was not inevitable, and certainly dididn't have to come about in the form that it did. The Australia Act was passed by the federal parliament, not just six colonial legislatures.  So federation was a step along the road. Slac speak up! 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Independence for Australia is very much a gradual thing, and trying to pin down critical dates is very difficult. Federation is very important, but remember prior to federation each colony had responsible government, their own postage stamps, customs departments, diplomats, flags, and armed forces. The Statute of Windsor was important but when was the last time Westminster actually passed an Act that overoad either an Australian, or before that Colonial, law? Many years previously, I would guess. And while the Federal government adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1942, State governments didn't till the 1980's. WWII saw Australia place diplomatic representatives in foreign capitals for the first time, surely an act of an independent nation. The fall of Singapore probably did more to break ties and force independence on Australia than any other event. So picking a date is very difficult. --Michael Johnson 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The critical thing, though, is that the Statute of Westminster gave the dominions independent foreign policies.  Before that stage, in international relations terms, they were all satellite states of the UK.  Of course, Australia didn't actually bring Westminster into force until half-way through WWII. Slac speak up! 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But I think the info box does the best it can with the limited space available. All three dates are important. The interested reader will just have to read on. --Michael Johnson 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with the gradualist angle here. But no one has addressed my queries regarding the 1932 vs 1941 Statute of Westminster, which surely should be fixed, and the PPP issue. Tony 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose the point of the gradualist perspective is that all of these events (Federation, the passage of Westminster, with which Australian delegates were involved, the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act, the Australia Act, are relevant, and should be included. But explication has to live in the article.  The existence of Westminster did have an effect on the Empire overall - the very fact that Australia was so entangled in the Empire and not distinct meant that its passage had an effect before it was specifically adopted locally. Slac speak up! 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes yes, I agree now with the gradualist approach. But tell me why the 1939 or 1942 dates are not more important WRT to the path to Australian independence than 1931. It certainly had no legal impact until 1939. What exactly was the effect you mention that pertained between 1931 and 1939? (I'm not being perverse: (1) I'm genuinely interested; and (2) I think that weighing this effect with those which pertained from the later dates is the answer to which date should appear in the infobox.) At the moment, there's tension between the infobox and the main text, and especially between the infobox and the direct link to the article on the SoW. The GNP thing remains to be resolved. Tony 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no one objects if I change the date to "ratified 1942"? Tony 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: All of these dates have significance. I've added "(adopted 9 September 1939)" after the date of the Statute of Westminster which includes a link to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. --bainer (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox queries 

message: To comply with current FA criteria, more references are required. The sections on Geography, Flora and fauna, and Politics are particular problems in this respect. For example, the first has none, the second has only one (concerning biodiversity), and in the last, there are only two references: one for the GG's reserve powers and one for compulsory voting (the Consitution is not formally referenced, but should be, since there are several copies on the Internet). Demography could do with a few more: "Australia has maintained one of the most active immigration programs in the world to boost population growth. Most immigrants are skilled, but the immigration quota includes categories for family members and refugees." Says who? Some readers might contest the scope of the first claim.
I think this article will need to go to WP:FAR on the basis of failure to satisfy Criterion 1c if the matter is unresolved within a week or two. Tony 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's quite a bit of uncited hard data; relative to recent Country FAs and current standards, this article is seriously undercited.  It should be possible to upgrade the citations to avoid a featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Steve; thanks! Tony 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under-referenced 

message: I'm not real happy with this: "Australian voters rejected a move to become a republic in 1999 by a 55% majority". this is POV in that it gives the impression that most Australians don't want a republic. The only reason that the vote failed was that voting for it also mandated a President chosen by the Prime Minister. The majority of Australians wanted a directly elected President and many voted "no" solely to prevent that. This was a major debate at the time with accusations of the referendum being rigged to guarantee a no vote by including this requirement. Can it be reworded to make it more NPOV? Wayne 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a caveat on the statement. I seem to remember it having had one, but I don't know when it might have been removed. Or maybe that was another article...it seems to come up a lot. --cj | talk 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a caveat. It should be clear that a specific proposal was rejected, not the notion of a republic, but suggestions of rigging by including a specific requirement are more POV than the current statement - any binding referendum has to be about a specific proposal. JPD (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic vote

message: I've reverted the change to the infobox. I think Tony was trying to 'de-pluralise' "Official languages", but the effect of the change was to remove the parameter entirely (for it requires official_languages=). The actual wording which appears can only be changed in the template proper.--cj | talk 00:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I cannot abide by the spattering of blue to link simple years all over the article. This has been done without warning or consultation. The piped years (e.g., 1824 are OK, except that these articles tend to be very threadbare stubs; I'd have been more comfortable about this if these Australian year articles were at a reasonable stage of development; instead, their links are plastered everywhere, to many pages have just a few stubby little points). The linking of full dates for the purpose of autoformatting I suppose we'll have to put up with until the techs finally separate the two functions. However, the line must be drawn between these and the indiscriminate, slavish linking to pages that, frankly, have little or nothing to do with the topic of Australia. 
Now this is going to lead to a huge war unless they're reverted, I can assure you. The first one, 1770, leads to a page that tells us that the year started on a Monday; then it talks of the Boston Massacre, Marie Antoinette's arrival at the French court; more on her, fireworks at some French wedding; something in Spain; the California Republic; and it goes on and on. Buried somewhere down there is that the eastern coast of Australia was claimed for Britain, but that information is in the very sentence that contains this trivial link. Now this might be all very interesting to a reader who likes being led all over the place like a sheep, but here, we want to keep the focus on a summary of Australia.
The article was already very heavily linked. This further, quite unnecessary blueing out with links to unfocused destinations that dilute the high-value links damages the readability, not to mention the appearance, of the article. This issue came up in 2005 in relation to this article, and was resolved satisfactorily. Many WPians object to overlinking, including reviewers in the FAC room, as subprofessional formatting.
I intend to delink these useless links tomorrow (there are, in fact, only a few unpiped ones), unless someone can come up with a very good reason to retain them. I will also review the linking of dictionary terms, such as "mammal" and "desert", which are not piped to an Australian-focused topic. Tony 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I over-wikified, when I recently went through a GA process I was asked to wikify all dates, thus I thought this was general policy, there has been some recent questions as to whether this article complies with current FA requirements, I therefore was just doing my bit (in good faith) to improve this articles compliance with current wikipeadia standards, I would be happy to remedy any over-wikifying I have done should that be necessary (by consensuses here). Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 00:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see CJ has already reverted it, no harm done. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonight's linking of trivial years 

message: The coordinates given for Canberra (35°15'S 149°28'E) are inaccurate. That location is near Bungendore, a town in N.S.W. 30km east of Canberra.
The location 35°18'S 149°08'E is close to the centre of Canberra to the nearest minute. Niftydog 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canberra Coordinates 

message: hi all - i see from the article that we date the aboriginal population as having been in oz for at least 42,000 years - is there a source for that? - my understanding is that there is some discussion as to the dating (up to 60,000+ years?) - and perhaps we should be less certain on such a sensitive topic? - thoughts? thanks! - Petesmiles 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and just to clarify, having read the discussion above, and previously - perhaps we should directly reference this statement, or provide a date range, or refer to the discussion that is still occurring - i don't really believe that there is a general consensus out there (but i could be wrong of course....) - thanks, Petesmiles 12:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's my understanding that there is no general consensus, except for that the indigenous peoples have inhabited Australia for at least 40,000 years, though it is widely believed that this time could have been anywhere up to 120,000 years. However, proof of this is hard to come by. Perhaps some reliable references need to be found, but I wouldn't know where to start looking. Glooper 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiginous population 

message: The second paragraph includes the statement: "As the population grew and new areas were explored, another five largely self-governing Crown Colonies were established during the 19th century."  New South Wales when it was first established included much of the continent and the islands of New Zealand. (The islands of New Zealand was part of New South Wales until 1840 - see both the History of Australia and the History of New Zealand) I would suggest that there was an additional self governing colony from New South Wales - but in the 1890s unlike the mainland colonies and unlike Tasmania, the self governing colony of New Zealand decided not to be part of the Australian federation.  I suppose the sentence is meant to mean - in relation to the country now known as Australia there were another five ...  Also there was another colony, the short lived colony of North Australia in 1846 - however it did not reach the status of becoming self governing. Alan Davidson 04:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, the context makes it quite clear that the sentence is saying five colonies were established in the area that is the subject of the article, not that five additional colonies came from New South Wales. There is no reference at all to the relationship between the colonies and the original extent of New South Wales (after all, there were only five from New South Wales even counting NZ - Western Australia was never included). New Zealand being part of NSW is not really relevant enough to be mentioned in the intro - do you think the current wording actually implies that it wasn't included? JPD (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What struck me was the sentence "As the population grew and new areas were explored, another five largely self-governing Crown Colonies were established during the 19th century." In the region six were established. What distingusihes the five which became part of Australia in addition to NSW?  Well you are right that all were part of NSW except WA.  Well, so was NZ.  All are not mainland colonies, because Tasmania was not.  NZ is mentioned in the Australian Constitution as it was considered to be part of the discussion for federation.  In the end six of seven established colonies decided to join. I agree that the NZ issue should not be mentioned, but I do not like the inaccuracy of the sentence. Alan Davidson 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see any inaccuracy. The article does not say there were five colonies established in the region, it just says that there were five established. It is true that if you read that sentence by itself, it is completely unclear (not quite inaccurate, but unclear) where these five colonies were, but the context is the history of the area now known as Australia. There is some room for confusion in the paragraph starts by talking specifically about the mainland, but I think there is more inaccuracy in the previous sentence, where the description of the NSW claim does not include Tasmania, let alone NZ. If that were changed, the issues you raise might be dealt with anyway. JPD (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: On the Royal-anthem-in-infobox-problem, I've got a better idea: let's get rid of this ugly chancer altogether. The information it contains is either already in the main text or should be integrated into the appropriate sections, not dissociated from them (GDP etc is a good example of this—who's going to flash back to the elephant, unprompted, when reading the Economy section?). See the current debate at MoS. The flag and coat of arms would be more attractive if they appeared unencumbered. Tony 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest taking your vision to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries? --Pete 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. Tony 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. But feel free to put forward other bright ideas. Put 'em on the table and see who takes a bite. --Pete 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  getting rid of the elephant 

message: Well I'm back to see how you guys are going, and despite the fact that you might feel you've gotten nowhere, I think you're nearly there. In the table below is my tentative assessment of various editors approval of the various options. Please feel free to update or clarify your own positions.
If you change any rows other than your own, please leave a note here explaining why.
Hesperian 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Hesperian, for setting this up as an excellent visual aid to discussion and consensus formation. I sought feelings about removal of the information, rather than inclusion, but perhaps that's a subtlety that others won't appreciate. --Pete 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, even if pointing out that that subtlety is a valid point, it's exactly the sort of wikilawyering that won't help us get anywhere. As for consensus, I'd be perfectly happy to consider the above a consensus for deletion in an AfD. JPD (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: I've fully protected this article as it seems editors in this dispute are still prone to edit-warring. Drop me a line when you've come to agreement through discussion.--cj | talk 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, CJ! I was beginning to think all the admins had their heads up their bum. Or each other's. I think Hesperian's little aid showed a result some time back. --Pete 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Sigh, this is totally pointless. IMO, I believe the Royal Anthem should be in this article.
“God Save the Queen" is by law the Royal Anthem of Australia. On 19 April 1984 a Proclamation was issued, which proclaimed “Advance Australia Fair” as Australia’s National Anthem and “God Save The Queen” as Australia’s Royal Anthem 
The footnote, is a weak substitute for staying the Royal Anthem of Australia, also it is incorrect, The Royal anthem is not only “played only in the presence of a member of the Australian Royal Family when they are in Australia.” This is a mistake that dates back to a Press Release, issued by the then Prime Minister Hawke. The draft Proclamation that was first submitted to the Governor-General stated that the Australian Royal Anthem was to be used only in the presence of The Queen or a member of the Royal Family.   
However, at the Executive Council, the Draft Proclamation was amended, by deleting the word "only" from the Proclamation, after which it as approved, and gazetted. 
Nevertheless, when Hawke’s press came out, there was an error, as the press statement contained the word “only” which in fact had been deleted from the Proclamation.  .
The fact is that “God Save the Queen”, the Royal Anthem of Australia, may be played or sung by Australians wherever and whenever they think it appropriate, regardless of whether the Queen or a member of the Royal Family is present, provided only that it is not used as a substitute for either the National Anthem or the Vice-Regal Salute.
Quite Frankly, I believe it should remain in the infobox, with a footnote, explaining this, it had been in the Articles for months, passed FA with it in, and there is no need to change that fact, or at the very least, please make sure the footnote there is factually correct. Brian | (Talk) 05:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified this once or twice already, but the misconception apparently persists. It was not present when the article passed FA, and even if it were, it would not speak anything of its merit now or ever.--cj | talk 05:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of cause it does not, after all, consensus can change.  Mea culpa, I was reading through the above discussion and could swear I read it was there at FA, anyway, that’s not important. If this editwaring continues, it could damage this articles chance of remaining at FA. Brian | (Talk) 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Brian, while I still think prominent inclusion in the box is overstating a technical curiosity, it is good to see someone actually dealing with its notability in Australia, and not simply seeking to establish notability by saying other wikipedia country articles do it. if the info in the footnote is incorrect, then of course change it, if it is verifiable. Merbabu 05:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see where you are coming from. In my opinion, as long as it is mentioned, in the article somewhere (either infobox or footnote), is fine. Anyway, the Monarchy in Australia article could be expanded to cover all these 'technical curiosity' Brian | (Talk) 05:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? I don't know whether you mean me or cj, and I don't really see how either of us has been particularly tolerant. Anyway, whichever version we use, there must not be any more edit warring. JPD (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is not, the display of both anthems on equal footing in the highly prominent top of info box giving the Royal Anthem a little too much weight? The Royal anthem is currently mentioned in the footnotes - is that not an appropriate place for a technical curiosity? Anyway, I don't know of any reason why you can't add you name to the table above.  A majority opinion on the issue (unanimous consensus seems impossible) was starting to form. Merbabu 09:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Footnote anyway

message: has been going around to all the Commonwealth country articles and removing references to the royal anthem from the infoboxes, citing that concensus has been reached in the Australia talk page to do this. It doesn't seem like he's correct, so I'm noting this here. Carson 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any agreement, consensus or majority decisions reached here that specifically relate to Australia, should not be used as 'consensus' for other country articles - in exactly the same way that a decision for another country should not be forced upon this country article. regards --Merbabu 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen there would definitely be justification to have the royal anthem in the New Zealand infobox and possibly Canada as it is used regularly there too, it is part of the contemporary identity of those countries.  So I would agree strongly with Merbabu, any final conclusion that is reached on this article could not be considered a consensus for any other article, other than being a good reference point for contextual points for and against the inclusion of a royal anthem. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unilateral mass-edits to remove royal anthem

message: I've removed the forced pixel size from all images in accordance with the recommendation on the relevant section of MOS. In some 'portrait' shaped pics, I have used the (new?) 'upright' parameter. Merbabu 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Is there any reason why this style of reference listing is preferred over , which gives a neat two-column listing? I understand it has no effect in IE (it just gives a single listing) but it works well in Firefox, and makes no visible difference in IE. I've put  back for now. Merbabu 07:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please reconsider, I really prefer the old way, I can't stand the two column references, the gap in the middle looks like something rude. I can't stand it, but I just have to look. PLEASE!!!!!!! Why do you care so much about it anyway? I'M BEGGING YOU!!!! Change it back. Firelover1 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference format... 

message: Hi, can anyone add the Mongolian Interwiki link mn:Австрали?
--Chinneeb 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Please update the population figure in the infobox under the heading of "2007 estimate" to the newest population clock figure of 20,997,000 . This figure may be verified by clicking the superscript above the current figure, and then following the link to the population clock. The large jump in numbers is due to the Australian Bureau of Statistics re-basing the figure on newer data (probably from the 2006 census). —Upper Lines 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This task has not been executed as stated here. Somebody please do so. —Upper Lines 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely done now, must have been a glitch. --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Estimate Population Figure 

message: I added in the sentence "The removal of children from their families" "half-aboriginal half-white" so that it becomes "The removal of half-aboriginal half-white children from their families" as they were the kind of children that were taken. If anyone wants to debate with me about it, feel free to on my talk page.  BlackSlivers 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A subarticle on health care in Australia would be useful to provide overview information, similar to  and .  It would be the main article for :Category:Healthcare in Australia, which currently has none. -- Beland 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been watching Sicko? Slac speak up! 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health care in Australia 

message: i added hobart to the part about where the population is located because it is a state capital. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casenj (talk • contribs).
:I've reverted. There are 6 more non-capital cities which have greater populations than Hobart.--cj | talk 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hobart 

message: Do we have to update this daily? It's really annoying in my watch list. It's also gimicky in my opinion. Can't we just use the census data? Really, do we need to update every 1000 people?  I mean, really?  --Merbabu
:One option would be too use a less precise figure, accurate to 100,000, 0.1 million or even 1 million. The census data is for last year, not this year. However, I suspect that the country infobox was originally intended to include a single population estimate for the current year (possibly the 1 Jan estimate?), and it would be quite good if all country infoboxes used this standard. JPD (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population clock... 

message: The Gun_politics#Balance_of_power article describes Australia as a police state. I would think that this is not correct! Evidently a lot of Yanks use this for an "example of what happens if you have liberal gun laws", and it is popularly believed in the USA that Australia is a police state. Please could someone knowledgeable add a refutation with references, or remove the statement and justify it in references. -- Q Chris 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "and it is popularly believed in the USA that Australia is a police state."......ummm....no it isn't. O_o Travis Cleveland 04:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia a police state? help required 

message: Please anybody give me a reference on source (on this page) about  and Republican referendum on Cocos (Keeling) islands, Christmas island and Norfolk island. --User:212.98.173.133 14:35 28 July 2007.
:I don't quite understand the question. There is no reason why this page would go into that much detail about the referendum. However, reference number 13 is a link to the AEC's reports and statistics from the 1999 referendums. The don't give any details about the non-mainland territories, but I presume that electors inthese territories were entitled to vote as part of the electorates they usually vote, generally Canberra or Lingiari, so their votes would not have been counted seperately. JPD (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was asked at Talk:Referendums in Australia, and I answered there. They apparently don't vote because their territories are not separately represented in the House of Reps. ajdlinux | utc 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referendum of  November 6th, 1999 in external Australian territories

message: Australia's size should be increased to 13637720 taking account of the AAT seeing that the USA get away with Hawaii and Alaska. and its not a sovereignty debate because Hawaii still considers it self to be independent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.13.38 (talk • contribs).
:No, it doesn't. Sovereignty does have everything to do with it. Australia, under treaty obligations, does not actively assert sovereignty over its Antarctic claim. Alaska and Hawaiʻi are US states. The comparison doesn't fly.--cj | talk 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia's size

message: There is a dumb sentence about Australian male organs right after the etymology, I do not know how one can do so because it is not in the source. the title is "the BEST".
:You were unlucky, an automated bot fixed it up less than a minute after it was added, which is why it disappeared by the time you tried to edit it. ajdlinux | utc 08:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix this immediately

message: I've just removed this table that was recently added to the "Demography" section. It was unreferenced and I question whether (a) the parameters shown are all relevant balanced and (b) do we even need such table form information? Ie, if something is important enough to be in the article, should it not go into the prose? We already have an info box for the main article/lead; do we really need one for potentially each section? Or is there actually a place for such a box as long as (a) the fields are well-chosen and (b) reliably referenced. 
By the way - is the section best named "demography" or should it be changed to "Demographics"? --Merbabu 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I don't even see what many of the parameters have to do with demography. JPD (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added demography table... 

message: I'm not sure if it's been mentioned earlier since I haven't been around much recently - but the some of the 2006 census data is out. There is certainly enough there to update demographic information for Australia and the capitals. --Peta 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Census

message: People here have expertise in constructing and maintaining a country article (that I lack). I've raised a few issues on the talk page of India, and there appears to be a lot of turbulence at the moment.
If anyone has time to have a look, their input at India would probably be an advantage. Tony 03:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India, explicitly modelled on this article, is in a storm