Talk:Australia and VCT: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted to revision 244407558 by AussieLegend. (TW)
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''VC mohan T''' is a [[three-letter abbreviation]] with multiple meanings, as described below:
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=12:56, 28 May 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Australia/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=14357991


* [[Voluntary Counseling and Testing]] for [[HIV]].
|action2=FAC
* '''[[Vinyl composition tiles|Vinyl Composition Tile]]''', or sometimes '''[[Vinyl composition tiles|Vinyl Composite Tile]]''', a type of hard vinyl floor tile usually commercial.
|action2date=06:07, 22 Jun 2005
* '''[[Variable Cam Timing]]''', which is found in modern car engines.
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australia
* '''[[Venture Capital]] Trust''', a pool of money used to invest in young, growing or struggling companies. It's the British version of a '''Venture Capital Fund'''.
|action2result=promoted
* [[Vintage Card Traders]], an online sportscard trading group.
|action2oldid=15619086
* [[VMware Compatiblity Tests]], a package to test third party extensions to VMware ESX.
* [[Volume Computed Tomography]], a medical term describing a scanning technique.
* Visual Concept Technologies, Web design and development.[http://www.vct.net]
*[[Center tap|Volts Center Tapped]]
*[[Virtual Classroom Training]]
*[[Virtual Cluster Tool]]
*[[Voltage Current Transactor]]
*[[Virtual Cable Tester]]
*[[Volvo Cars]] Torslanda, the site of the Volvo Car manufacturing near [[Göteborg]], [[Sweden]].
{{disambig}}


[[it:VCT]]
|maindate=August 16, 2005
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{WPB
|1={{WP Australia|class=FA|importance=Top}}
|2={{WPCountries|class=FA}}
|3={{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
| valign="middle"| [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|50px]]
| style="padding-left: 1em;" |
'''This article uses [[Australian English]] dialect and spelling.'''<br/>
According to the [[WP:ENGVAR|relevant style guide]], this should not be changed without broad consensus.
|}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Australia/Archive index|mask=Talk:Australia/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{Talk:Australia/Links}}
==Demonym==
Should "Aussie" really be considered an demonym, as is currently in the infobox? Because its kind of a slang term. "Australian" is the official one. [[User:M173627|M173627]] ([[User talk:M173627|talk]]) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:No, it's only people from English-speaking countries that use the term 'Aussie', and it can also be a derogatory term. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.218.4.26|121.218.4.26]] ([[User talk:121.218.4.26|talk]]) 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::A lot of Europeans use "Aussie" although they, particularly those from Scandinavian counties, Germany and Austria, pronounce it "Ossssee" --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== Australia is not a continent ==

Article states Australia is an island continent, it's not. The continent is Australasia and includes Tasmania, New Zealand etc. We should remove or amend to Australia forms the bulk of the continent of Australasia <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.19.225.2|203.19.225.2]] ([[User talk:203.19.225.2|talk]]) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Interestingly, I was involved in a discussion on this very subject in it.wiki. The article: [[Continent]], would tend to suggest that at best your interpretation is one of 6 or 7 possible interpretations; at worst you are completely wrong, since the bulk of the definitions of continent do no lump New Zealand with Australia (in fact, I'm not even sure if the aforementioned article even uses the term ''Australasia''). [[User:Pippu d'angelo|πιππίνυ δ]] - [[User talk:Pippu d'Angelo|<small>(dica)</small>]] 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-Well. In many trivia, maps, atlas, websites etc. It list Australia as a Continent But i also agree on this change. I think the continent should be named Australiasia or Oceania (<-watever its called in sports games). but sometimes they say "Australia and oceania" [[Special:Contributions/203.196.43.20|203.196.43.20]] ([[User talk:203.196.43.20|talk]]) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

::Oceania is a region as is Australiasia. If you can find a source to say that Australia itself isn't a continent then it's pointless to discuss as all it would be based on is point of views. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 06:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:Australia is not a continent? You're a bit late for April Fools jokes. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

::Always known the continent as Australasia or Oceania myself. One example: just grabbed The Times Concise Atlas of the World ('''Aus'''/Nz) edition (1989), which refers to the continent as 'Australasia'. Our other atlas, Goode's World Atlas (1966), refers to the continent as 'Oceania'. I think there's just a few ego-centric Aussies saying otherwise here. Needs to be changed in my view. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/118.92.158.65|118.92.158.65]] ([[User talk:118.92.158.65|talk]]) 09:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Wouldn't it be appropriate to keep it consistent? Wikipedia currently has two articles, one for Australia geopolitical nation and one for Australia the continent. Australia the continent includes New Guinea, as it is on the same continental shelf. New Zealand is not on the same shelf. And Tasmania, along with a number of other islands, is included in both geopolitical Australia and the continent. I guess there could be a third 'Australia', namely the Australian Mainland, which doesn't include Tasmania... but what else is there to write in it that's not included in the Australia article? [[User:Thux2828|Thux2828]] ([[User talk:Thux2828|talk]]) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

== Penal Transportation Overstated ==
Is the significance of Penal transportation being overstated in the introduction to this article? The article for the United States of America briefly references the 13 original British colonies uniting, but doesn't go into those colonies origins. Seeing as British Convicts were used in the continental British colonies as essentially slave labour, and as the colonies were settles as Crown Colonies by the British bureaucracy and military - why elevate this historical fact to a level of importance to which it isn't worthy? Many United States colonies used slave labour to build infrastructure, and yet these were not called slave colonies. In fact, the only mention of slavery in the United States article relates to a mention of the US Civil War.

Is this a double standard? Is the significance of penal transportation being overstated? I do believe it is.

We should discuss changing this introduction, applying the same standards used in the introductions of other national articles. We should also consider giving more credence to the more than 40,000 years of indigenous history in the introduction. More at least, than a single sentence.[[Special:Contributions/122.106.188.158|122.106.188.158]] ([[User talk:122.106.188.158|talk]]) 14:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Billy

:Australia ''was'' "initially settled through [[penal transportation]] to the colony of [[New South Wales]]" so I don't see how that is overstating anything. The only way to state that in a less obvious way in the introduction is to not state it at all and ignoring such an important part of our history would be denying the truth. Many Australians are actually proud of their convict heritage and convict built and convict related infrastructure such as the [[Great North Road, Australia|Great North Road]], [[Port Arthur, Tasmania|Port Arthur]] and Newcastle's convict lumber yards (and many others) are important historical sites.

:Perhaps the problem is really that the [[United States]] article understates the significance of its convict history, not at Australia overstates its history.

:As for indigenous history, the simple fact is that there is very little information about indigenous history before arrival of the First Fleet. In the introduction to the article, which is supposed to be a ''brief'' overview of the whole article, there's really not a lot more that can be said other then that indigenous Australians have been here for a long time. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

== proposal to remove date-autoformatting ==

Dear colleagues—[[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_autoformatting|MOSNUM]] no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Full_date_formatting|rules for the raw formatting]], irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Overlinking_and_underlinking|MOSLINK]] and [[Wikipedia:Context#What_generally_should_not_be_linked|CONTEXT]] are consistent with this.

There are six disadvantages in the use of date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
{{hide|bg1= #C4C3D0|contentcss=border:1px #C4C3D0solid; |headercss=color:white; |header= Disadvantages of date-autoformatting|content=</br>

*'''(1) In-house only'''
:*(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
:*(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
:*(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

*'''(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences'''
:*(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling ([[WP:ENGVAR]]) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

*'''(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates'''
:*(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
:*(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
:*(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

*'''(4) Edit-mode clutter'''
:*(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

*'''(5) Typos and misunderstood coding'''
:*(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
:*(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
:*(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

*'''(6) Of limited application'''
:*(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
:*(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in quotations; this minor inconsistency can be avoided by removal of the autoformatting.}}

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The international ddmmyy formatting used in Australia would be seen by all WPians, not just our millions of readers, and it would allow the high-value links to breathe—the article is quite heavily linked already. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 06:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:You have summarised the objections most elegantly. The wikidate thing was a kludge in the first place and although people talked about better ways of presenting dates, nothing ever happened. To my mind, the fact that date ranges could not be handled in a way that looked natural and worked for both date formats was a killer. I'll raise no objections to removing the wikidate formatting, so long as date formats for Australian subjects retain international, rather than U.S. formatting. Have you had any difficulties or inconsistencies with your script at all? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for your message, Pete. Representations have been made to start the ball rolling in coordinating the citation templates and giving editors the freedom not to autoformat. These templates have been ripe for an overhaul for some time. In any case, I believe that the most significant improvement lies in treating the main text. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 12:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

== COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA separate from Australia. ==

The COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is not the same thing as Australia. Australia is a country where as the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is a corporation registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (0000805157)
SIC: 8880 - UNKNOWN SIC - 8880
State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630
(Assistant Director Office No 99)
Business Address
1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW
C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY
WASHINGTON DC 20036

See - http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000805157&owner=include&count=40

[[Special:Contributions/144.134.229.205|144.134.229.205]] ([[User talk:144.134.229.205|talk]]) 19:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:Commonwealth of Australia is the full name of Australia. If you check the link you gave, you can see the name is registered by the Australian embassy, no doubt to protect the name against abuse by Americans. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

: I note from your IP address that you're Australian so you might like to refer to the [[Constitution of Australia]], which is formally titled the [http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/preamble.htm Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act] for additional clarification. As indicated by Michael Johnson, Commonwealth of Australia is the full and formal name of Australia. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::"Commonwealth of ..." is a vestige of the colonial period. It's the most formal, legalistic name of the country as embodied in the Constitution Act. It is analogous to "Dominion of Canada", which is rarely heard now outside the most arcane contexts.
:: It is a common misconception that "Commonwealth of Australia" is somehow the "correct" or "proper" form; this might be true in the title of a case heard by the High Court or in scholarly texts on constitutional history, but the term is now less common in other registers nowadays. Those who argue that the constitutional term is preferable should take a good look at the constitution itself: to carry that argument forward, we wouldn't be able to use the terms "Prime Minister" or "Cabinet", since they don't appear in the Act. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::: I don't think anyone was arguing that it's preferable, just that Australia and Commonwealth of Australia are the same thing. As for being "proper", that's not a misconception, at least according to the laws of the land. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
<br><br> The Commonwealth of Australia is the same thing as Australia. It is in the constitution.[User:thegoldenrule]

== a few little things ==

Why are the years in the table of historical population counts linked to "US Census"?

I intend to remove the slang term for "Australian" from the infobox, which is a formal statement.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the claim of a slightly higher living standard than France et al. Is this PPP or real-GNP per capita? Such an estimation is so muddied by multifarious factors that it would be better, I think, to say "comparable to". [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

: The historical population data used a template that was obviously made for the US. I've replaced it with a wikitable. If anyone wants to make it more fancy, go for it. As for the "slang term", the field in question is about [[demonym]]s and [[Aussie]] seems to be a valid demonym for Australians. As far as I'm aware, being slang doesn't automatically exclude it from being a demonym. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::Is a loose, slang item used like this in any other country infobox? Apart from the air of authority that I think is important at the very top of an article, many readers won't get it; and how will a non-native speaker know that one is formal and the other not, and which is which? Don't you think a better idea is to leave "Australian" there and move the "Aussie" down to a section in the main text? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with Tony on this one. It's notable enough to be included in the main body in an appropriate section, but putting it towards the top of the info box is silly. What's next - Australia's favourite pokemon player in the info box? --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::There's no choice where it goes in the infobox because the location of the demonym field within the box is fixed. Aussie is a demonym for Australians. Are you arguing that it isn't? The pokemon argument is rather trivial and irrelevant. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::It shouldn't be in the infobox at all. Tony explains the need for removal perfectly. As I said, it's notable enough for the article main body - something like that needs further explanation. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::It ''should'' be in the infobox because it's a valid demonym. There's no for need explanation in this article because it's wikilinked to its own article. This article is already 66kB so adding to its size is not really desirable. However, if you wish to explain it in the article then that provides justification for it to be in the infobox. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I don't understand that. If it is in the article, then that justifies inclusion in the info box? Most of the article's points are not in the info box - I know you are not suggesting we summarise everything in the info box. So why is the word "Aussie" special?--[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 04:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Aussie is special, in this case, because it's a commonly used demonym. If you're willing to explain it in the article then it's obviously notable so why not include it? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:: It's hardly a loose term. It's a very common way of referring to Australians, especially in English speaking countries. As for use of such terms in other country infoboxes, look no further than [[New Zealand]] which displays lists [[Kiwi (people)|Kiwi]] alongside New Zealander. As a seventh generation Aussie myself, I'm quite happy to see Aussie stay where it is. As for how to differentiate between the formal "Australian" and less formal "Aussie", again look no further than [[New Zealand]]. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::"It should be in the infobox because it's a valid demonym." I don't quite follow that logic. And while we're at it, let's put "Blighty" in the UK infobox and "Yank" in the US one. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::The field is titled "Demonym". "Aussie" is a demonym therefore it's appropriate to include it in the demonym field. It's not rocket science. As for what's in other country infoboxes, I don't really care. It smacks too much of [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. Of course you did ask "Is a loose, slang item used like this in any other country infobox?" and [[New Zealand|you were answered]]. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 13:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Moreover, "Blighty" and "Yank" (and "Limey") are not demonyms; they are, rather, epithets. "Aussie", like Kiwi, is not meant to be offensive. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk:Rrius|talk]]) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
*I see someone else objected to its inclusion [[Talk:Australia#Demonym|above]]. You seem to be outnumbered, Legend. I can see no mention of informal, slang-type equivalents in the article [[Demonym]]. I suspect there are no other informal demonyms in infoboxes apart from the copy-cat NZ one. It was your idea, yes? You still haven't responded to my points about the non-labelling of the terms as "formal" and "informal", nor my concerns that the linguistic status of "Aussie" won't be understood by non-native speakers (and some natives, probably). The proper place for it (with supporting details) is in "Demography" or "Culture". [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:: "I can see no mention of informal, slang-type equivalents" - That doesn't mean they're excluded. The articles [[Demonym]] states "A demonym or gentilic is a word that denotes the members of a people or the inhabitants of a place." Are you arguing that Aussie does not fit that definition?
:: "I suspect there are no other informal demonyms in infoboxes apart from the copy-cat NZ one." - Again, this smacks of [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. The edit to this article was made on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=206246083&oldid=206241129 18 April] while the addition to the [[New Zealand]] article was made on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand&diff=199540452&oldid=199540097 20 March], 4 weeks earlier. If any article is a copy-cat it's this one. ''But'', the two edits were made by different editors and in different ways so....
:: "It was your idea, yes?" - Quite obviously not. What are you trying to imply?
:: "You still haven't responded to my points about the non-labelling of the terms as "formal" and "informal"," - Yes I did. I said, "As for how to differentiate between the formal "Australian" and less formal "Aussie", again look no further than [[New Zealand]]." Maybe you missed it while you were thinking up ways to imply that I'm the only one who supports inclusion of demonyms in the demonym field.
:: "nor my concerns that the linguistic status of "Aussie" won't be understood by non-native speakers" - The same answer applies. Look at [[New Zealand]].
:: "(and some natives, probably)" - Do you really think people are that stupid?
:: "The proper place for it (with supporting details) is in "Demography" or "Culture"." - As I earlier stated, the place for a demonym is in the demonym field. Expansion in the prose, other than a comment in the opening paragraph, is unnecessary fluff. Since you're fond of comparing this article to other articles for guidance I suggest you look at some for examples. Most simply say something like "People from Foo are called Fooians". Mind you, there is no real consistency. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::'' "I can see no mention of informal, slang-type equivalents" - That doesn't mean they're excluded. The articles [[Demonym]] states "A demonym or gentilic is a word that denotes the members of a people or the inhabitants of a place." Are you arguing that Aussie does not fit that definition?
::::*True, but it doesn't add any support to your case that because "demonym" is the cover word, the term ''should'' be included (your italics). [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::'' "I suspect there are no other informal demonyms in infoboxes apart from the copy-cat NZ one." - Again, this smacks of [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. The edit to this article was made on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=206246083&oldid=206241129 18 April] while the addition to the [[New Zealand]] article was made on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand&diff=199540452&oldid=199540097 20 March], 4 weeks earlier. If any article is a copy-cat it's this one. ''But'', the two edits were made by different editors and in different ways so....
:::::'' "It was your idea, yes?" - Quite obviously not. What are you trying to imply?
::::*Why is it "quite obvious"? And copy-cat? ''You're the one below saying "Look at NZ". [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::'' "You still haven't responded to my points about the non-labelling of the terms as "formal" and "informal"," - Yes I did. I said, "As for how to differentiate between the formal "Australian" and less formal "Aussie", again look no further than [[New Zealand]]." Maybe you missed it while you were thinking up ways to imply that I'm the only one who supports inclusion of demonyms in the demonym field.
::::*Um ... you ''are'' the only one. I "think up" ''every''thing I write. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::'' "nor my concerns that the linguistic status of "Aussie" won't be understood by non-native speakers" - The same answer applies. Look at [[New Zealand]].
::::'' "(and some natives, probably)" - Do you really think people are that stupid?
::::*It's a matter of knowledge, not stupidity or otherwise. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::'' "The proper place for it (with supporting details) is in "Demography" or "Culture"." - As I earlier stated, the place for a demonym is in the demonym field. Expansion in the prose, other than a comment in the opening paragraph, is unnecessary fluff. Since you're fond of comparing this article to other articles for guidance I suggest you look at some for examples. Most simply say something like "People from Foo are called Fooians". Mind you, there is no real consistency. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I ''have'' looked at other articles, and see no equivalent apart from your favoured NZ. You ''still'' haven't addressed my issues about labelling the formal and the informal. If it would be "fluff" in the main text, why isn't it fluff in the infobox?
::::And just one more thing: try not to make it personal. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:::For me, what other articles do is almost always irrelevant and poor justification. Judge each case on its merits. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 04:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I almost agree completely. That's pretty much the essence of [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] and what I was trying to get across to Tony. That said, I don't think there's any harm referring to other articles as a way of ensuring consistency or getting ideas on how to do something but there's no obligation to do something in one article just because it's done that way in another. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::@Tony - I've reverted your last edit. It's inappropriate to post responses that way. If you wish to address specific points raised by another editor quote them, don't tear their posts apart and merge your response with their post. It makes it hard to read and implies that the other editor has said something that they haven't. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I admit I’m treading on shaky ground by criticising the process of an editor with whom I have a content dispute, but let me say that while I am in mild agreement with you about Tony’s insertion of text within yours, I consider wholesale revert (ie, removal) of a contributor’s post a much bigger sin. Tony arguably showed mildly poor form, but removal of contributor’s talk page contributions is, I’m sorry to say, shocking form. My suggestion is you reinstate it – even if you add the requested quotations yourself. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::If it was simply a case of removing an editor's contributions then I'd agree with you but what Tony did was to edit my contributions, which is not appropriate. All I did was to return my edits to the way they were. If he wants to re-add his contributions then it's up to him to do so, in an appropriate manner. It's not appropriate for me to edit his contributions as you've suggested. The only choices I have are to reinsert his comments as he originally posted them or leave them reverted. The latter is more appropriate. I'm following previous guidance from [[WP:WQA]] here. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
*I don't consider it "poor form" at all. I will revert unless this Legend person cuts and pastes my comments below. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:I admit I've done it before too! :-) --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 05:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
: Tony, I'd suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages]], especially the part that says, "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments" and "Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit is merely to correct a spelling or grammar error." What you did was indeed poor form and I have no right to do what you want me to do. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

;Moving on
Ok - we've all stated our views on what may or may not constitute poor form. let's move back to the point at hand (and maybe someone can reinclude Tony's comments in a form that is "win-win"). cheers --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 05:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

;Not moving on
*Legend you're trying to make an enemy of me. You've removed my comments from this talk page. I'll institute an ANI if you don't reinstate them somehow. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if it makes you feel better, I apologise for having interleaved my rejoinders; I wasn't aware of the guideline on that. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 06:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
**I'm going to respond on your talk page because this part of the discussion is inappropriate here. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
***No, ''don't'' post abusive messages on my talk page. I'll revert further such messages from my personal space. But your expunging of my responses to you on ''this'' page is a different matter: I haven't made personal accusations, and my rejoinders are substantive and deserve responses. If there's a guideline on not interpolating comments, there's a much more serious guideline on not removing comments from an article talk page. You have sabotaged this discussion by removing my rejoinders so that no one can see the thread properly. I can see from the postings above on this talk page that you have been engaging in aggressive discourse with others. When are you going to undo your destruction of this thread? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
****I suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] (especially [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable]]) and [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM]] to get an idea of what is not appropriate. This matter has nothing to do with improving the article. It's a personal dispute that is more appropriately taken to user talk pages, in accordance with policy, which is why I posted, not abusively I should add, on your talk page. As per your request, I won't post there again but I shall limit my comments here to issues pertaining to improving the article. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
****[[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum shopping]] is probably another thing you should check out. Why don't you just restore your edits (properly) and move on? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

*I won't be reading anything ''you'' suggest, thanks very much. I'll seek advice from other people wherever I wish. I'll be watching this page carefully and intervening when you become aggressive towards people. You appear to have serious ownership issues that need input from a greater range of people. Now, my time budget for circular arguments with you is just about depleted, so don't waste it further right now. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 09:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
**I'm sorry to see that you've chosen to take this attitude rather than try to work productively to improve the article. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No, don't think I'm going. I just have a limited budget for banter like this that doesn't improve the article. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 09:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:It seems, Tony, that you recognize that edits should not be jumbled-up with AussieLegend's comment, but that you are asking him to paste them somewhere below. Wouldn't make more sense for you to do so and in a way that explains what each bit is responding to? This discussion seems to have gotten out of hand and everyone should probably take a deep breath before proceeding. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk:Rrius|talk]]) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

*No. If this person had politely asked me to do so at the time, I'd have been only too pleased to. Expunging my comments completely without asking is a far more serious sin, as someone else has pointed out. It doesn't look as though the atmosphere here will improve. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 05:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:I've just finished reading this thread and almost forgot the reason for it. Tony was wrong to interweave his comments, AussiLegend should have asked Tony to move them. It didn't happen, mistakes were made, nothing was done deliberately, end of. Going back to the reason for the thread, why the need for Aussie in the infobox? I feel a mention in the article is sufficient. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 11:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

*There's sufficient support here, plus one person in a section above, to remove the item from the infobox in the first instance. I'm giving three days' notice of my intention to do so. Night of 27 July. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

**It's not just here you need to look. The validity of "Aussie" as a demonym is now clear. I've added a citation for it and somebody else has added (colloquial) next to the word to clarify its use.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=227370977&oldid=227369158] This addresses earlier concerns that you had. I've since tidied the entry further[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=227432042&oldid=227370977] to avoid any confusion. Since the entry is now properly cited there's no reason to delete it, unless you can can explain why the citation is invalid. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, we '''know''' that you disagree—you've made that abundantly clear in your aggressive way over the past few days. But I'm afraid that you alone don't rule the roost here: other people have influence, too, and four of us are of the opposite opinion. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::While you may be of the opposite opinion, the simple fact it that "Aussie"'s validity as a demonym has now been confirmed with a valid citation. You don't rule the roost either. Policy does and you need to justify removal of validly cited data. Consensus is not a vote. Please keep personal issues out of the discussion. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<s>:::::If you can find a valid citation that confirms "Aussie" as a demonym it would be acceptable, but using a wiki article is not a valid cite. personaly, I find the use of Aussie in the infobox rather unprofessional. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC</s>)

:::::I should have looked a little closer before I made that statement. As much as I don't think it looks right, my personal opinion takes second place to a valid citation. AussieLegend, if you could find more citations it might settle things. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::Regardless of whether you should have looked, you were quite correct regarding citations. It's policy that Wiki articles can't be used as citations, which is why I looked for one. There are actually quite a few but how many do we actually need to resolve the issue, especially give that about.com is widely used on Wikipedia (over 11,000 times if memory doesn't deceive me) so it's obviously as respected source. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::Second citation added. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Two is enough for me. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The count looks like 3-3, even if you include the old debate, so I would ask that you hold off on changing anything until we have a consensus. I do object to using a very short discussion from months ago, which ended in the article remaining as is, as support for a consensus to change. I have asked the user who posed the question to join the discussion, but the IP who contributed has not been active since [[20 May]] so I did not bother with him or her. I hope Merbabu rejoins the discussion, as well.

Finally, nice to see you at [[Australia]], Jack. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk:Rrius|talk]]) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

*No, citations are irrelevant to whether it stays. It's whether it's appropriate in the infobox that matters, when the tone is summary, introductory, and usually formal there, and where no detail can be included to explain to readers what it means. I was not aware of an "old" debate. Where is it? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 08:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::Citations are very relevant since they establish that the word is a valid demonym, not just a "a loose, slang item" as you claimed in one of your early posts. As a valid demonym, and as one of the two most common demonyms used to identify people from Australia, there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be included, especially since there are citations to support its status. You may not like the word but ''that'' is irrelevant. Letting personal feelings affect your decision is not maintaining a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]].
::Regarding the earlier debate, it's exactly where it was when you linked to it in a previous post.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=next&oldid=227204561] --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:The "old debate" is what you refer "a section above" (more specifically, the thread entitled "Demonym" started by M173627). I guess I don't understand your refusal to put off a change when it is clear there is no consensus.

:Further, as long as I'm mentioning things I don't understand, I don't comprehend the criticism that ''Aussie'' is only used by English-speakers. Of course it is. ''Australian'' is probably also only used by English-speakers. Demonyms are often different in different languages ''German'' is not the word used in German (which would be ''Deutsch'' or something like it), and that word is not the same word as is used in Spanish (''aleman''). Moreover, this is the English-language Wikipedia; of course we are going to use names used by English speakers. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk:Rrius|talk]]) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, that criticism is confusing. I think it's supposed to be an argument that the use of "Aussie" is not as widespread as "Australian" but as you've quite correctly pointed out, "Australian" isn't used by non-English speaking people. "Australien" (e instead of a) is one I've seen and "Ozzie", especially with Germans, is another. The citations actually support "Ozzie" as well as "Australian" and "Aussie" but since this is the English Wikipedia I think we should stick to English words. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

*Naturally, I won't make the change unless there is consensus. You two are raising entirely spurious issues. Citations? Widespread use? These are irrelevant. I've outlined what I believe are the relevant issues just above, and your posts have done nothing to convince me that the item should stay. I don't think they've convinced the others, either. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Citations are not spurious issues. [[WP:V|Verifiability]] is a core policy and must be followed but I'm going to leave that for now. Instead I'm going to ask you a single question: Do you agree that "Aussie" is a valid demonym or are you disputing that it is? It's a fairly simple question. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 13:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
*No one here is disputing its veracity. It's the appropriateness of the item in the infobox that is at issue. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::OK, you acknowledge that it is a valid demonym. That's one thing settled. The problem now with debating its appropriateness is that doing that is really not maintaining a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]], another core principle of Wikipedia. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

*'''my 2c''' after reading [[demonym]] the correct demonym is Australian rather than Aussie. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:I originally thought Aussie did not belong in the infobox, but looking at the citations, I have to agree with AussiLegend. If you look at them you will see there is no slang terms used such as Yank, Blighty or Jock, whereas Aussie is included. This convinces me that it is correct to use Aussie as a demonym. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 14:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:I should point out that [[Demonym]] actually points to one of the citations that I used. I really don't think we have a choice. Aussie has to be included. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::I find this display of informality right at the top, in the official infobox, embarrassing. It's not that I'm some kind of pucillanimous poonce; it's that I want the article to have a certain authority and dignity at the opening. The use of "Aussie" in a formal context, as though Australians are matey, blokey, everyone's friend, might be some people's kick, but to me its proper place is in a more detailed context in the body of the article—probably not in the lead (there are too many important things to say there), but in the section on culture—somewhere that language is mentioned—or perhaps it could be wound into the History section, rather than a brassy, bald declaration at the top. There, it might be more cogently introduced as a cultural artefact, or as part of the identity of the nation; perhaps the term "digger" might also be treated, because it, too, should be mentioned as an important term that has historical roots.
::By analogy, I would object to the appearance of "digger" in the infobox at the ADF article; likewise, I'd expect it to be treated further down in the main text.
:::Legend, your arguments seem to rest on a peculiar type of logic, or an exaggerated call to arms. You seem to ignore everything said about the role of the infobox versus the the sections in the main text. Talking in terms of "there is no alternative", like Margaret Thatcher, is not going to get anywhere. She was dubbed "Tina" by her colleagues for such statements; perhaps you'd like that nickname too, Legend. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are citations and then there are citations. I feel Tony has a point here. My first feeling is that Aussie was a diminutive of Australian, therefore in effect including it is just repeating the term. I then decided to consult an off-web source (remember them?) the [[Macquarie Dictionary]]:

<blockquote>
Aussie ''colloq'' -''adj'' 1. Australian -''n'' 2. an Australian 3. Australia
</blockquote>

The fact the Macquarie describes it as colloquial makes me think it is inappropiate for to the info box, but of course it should be referred to further down the article --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:I can't help thinking that AussieLegend could come up with a hundred citations and it would not be accepted. everyone should come to terms, including me, that Aussie is verifiably a demonym. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 23:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think there is any argument that it is a demonym, rather that it is a colloquial demonym, and perhaps unnecessary in the info box. Here is another source, the [http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Author/Home?author=Australia National Library of Australia]. Personally I don't think this one is a biggie, and I understand AussieLegend's argument. I guess it all comes down to a personal view as to what is appropiate and necessary. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Ouch! I've just noted the Library definintion is from Wikipedia, in effect this article! Talk about circular references! --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 01:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Johnson, I don't care much for how ''you'' conduct your relations with other editors. Go suck on that. Now, when my original thread is reinstated by this Legend person, who removed it initially, which is an outrageous breach of protocol, and rude to boot, I might think about being "nice". Not until then. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 02:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Could we please have this discussion withought tempers being lost. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 02:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

*(1) If people want to make it personal, I'll respond in kind. (2) There will be no peace here until this Legend person returns my thread. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
**If by "thread" you mean the comments you spliced into his comments, I have restored them. I would suggest that you do something to make it more obvious whose comment is whose. There is an interrupt template you could use, or you could strike out your comments and replicate them below AussieLegend's comment. As it stands, the mixture of comments is confusing. I hope everyone can calm down now. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk:Rrius|talk]]) 03:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
***<cite id=aussieleg1>I'm sorry but if Tony wants these edits restored then ''it's up to him'' to do it, in a manner that doesn't [[Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages|refactor]] my comments, rather than expect others to do what he should have done in the first place.</cite> I am quite within my rights to revert edits which refactor my comments. [[WP:REFACTOR]] is quite clear on this: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I object to the refactoring and accordingly, the changes have been reverted. If he, or anyone else, has an issue with that he/they should raise it on [[WP:WQA]]. You'd think an editor with 17,898 edits would have taken some time to read Wikipedia policy as Tony clearly has not. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 11:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bloody-minded action is going to poison this page ==

This Legend person seems to be intent on creating the worst possible atmosphere here. Someone had finally reinstated my contributions to the earlier thread above; but no, this Legend person wants to provoke: he's removed them. However, it was he who '''quite illegally'' removed them in the first place, with the possible implication that they just didn't suit him (he may protest that he had benign intentions, but I'd reject that; in any case, the appearance of propriety, as well as the following of a central tenet of talk pages, is critical here).

<cite id=tony11>While I had erred by interpolating my part of the thread against his comments, for ease of following (I come from FAC, where such a practice is routine), it was no big deal, and as I've said above, if I'd been asked to move them down at the time, I'd have done so. However, that time has passed: not surprisingly, I refuse to lift a finger to do so, since my contributions were simply scrubbed out (twice now).</cite>

I can assure you that I'm not about to leave this page. It looks as though we're in for a prolonged bout of unpleasantness. I regard this act as an attempt to sabotage the debate. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 11:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

::Please [[WP:GOODFAITH|assume good faith]]. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 12:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:If there's anyone here who seems intent on creating the worst possible atmosphere it is clearly you. This issue would have been over 2 days ago if you had just restored your edits as they should have been added in the first place. The edits were not illegally removed, [[WP:REFACTOR]] and the other articles I've linked to, as a courtesy to you (and been abused for!), show that. We're supposed to be here to discuss the inclusion of Aussie but your tantrums over the past two days about a mistake that ''you'' made have prevented us from progressing. Please, fix your edits and let's get back to the issue at hand.

:That said, this section is all inappropriate content for a talk page, as you should know. If anyone wants to delete it they have my support. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 11:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::It would have never started if you had done the right thing and not expunged what you didn't like in the debate; the polite thing was to ask me to move it. You seem to think that anything on this talk page that you don't like can be simply removed, and here you go again, suggesting that this whole section be removed. This is a continuation of the same behaviour. YOU are the one not assuming good faith, and Bidgee, you should refrain from sticking your bib in in a POV way. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::No, it would not have started if you had not refactored my comments inappropriately but we can go around and around all day long. Instead, let's get back to the topic. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 12:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Anyone is welcome to add a comment here. I wasn't pushing a POV nor was I assuming bad faith but reminding both of you of assuming good faith. This talk page is about improving the article and not using it to use about other editors. If you have an issue on the editors contributions then take it to their talk page. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::No you weren't. You were criticising my input and not that of this Legend person. That's POV. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
<undent> This is silly. Tony1 didn't refactor any comments, what he did do is add comments interspersed with other comments in a way which is deprecated because it can lead to confusion about who made what comment. AussieLegend then deleted Tony1's valid comments, which is considered to be vandalism and is a bad idea. What was needed was to [[WP:REFACTOR]] Tony1's comments, and I've done that in a way that's worked well on other talk pages. You Ozzies are a touchy lot, I thought us Scotch were the ones with the reputation for a bit of banter! . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 15:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Come on Dave, as a <s>Scotchman</s> Scotsman you should know we are called Scots. :) [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Ah ken thon fine, an think it's nonsense. "Scotch" isnae bad as an anglicisation of "Sco'ish" in [[Lallans]], also it's a grand bevvy. .. .[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Semantics. Depending on where on Wikipedia you go what you describe is also called refactoring. Regardless of what you consider the proper term to be, it's still considered to be a bad idea and that is actually written in [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]. Reversion of such a breach of etiquette is not seen as vandalism at [[WP:WQA]]. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::As I've commented at AN/I, see [[WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable]] – "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" and [[WP:TALK#Others' comments]] "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." You will note that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" do '''not''' include '''"he messed up the formatting of my comment"'', on the contrary they specifically include "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution..." However, that advises using a template, and it would have been better had Tony done that, or repeat your original post italicised, which appears to be acceptable. Hope all can learn from this. My humble opinion is that the original presentation of ''Australian'' and ''Aussie'' as equal was problematic, the current version "Aussie[1][2] (colloquial)" is ok as it makes it clear which is the slang version. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== Date autoformatting ==

I've always found the date autoformatting function to be very handy. So, I don't fully understand why the autoformatting of dates — through wikilinks — has been removed? – [[User:Marco79|Marco]][[User talk:Marco79|79]] 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:Mainly because most Wikipedia users don't have registered accounts and date preferences set. They click on links, expecting to be taken to another relevant page, but if they click on a wikidate, they get a tonne of unrelated guff. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 03:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::I've responded on Marco's talk page. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Replied on [[User talk:Marco79#Date-autoformatting|my talk]] page. – [[User:Marco79|Marco]][[User talk:Marco79|79]] 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

== Article lead fails to mention that Australia extends to a portion of the Antarctic. This must be remedied ==
{{unsigned}}

==Historical population==
How can the 1788 population have been only 900? I am sure there must have been thousands of aboriginals living there at the time. Or was Australia in 1788 a much smaller geographical area than today, including no aboriginal settlements? // '''Jens Persson''' ([[Special:Contributions/90.231.244.42|90.231.244.42]] ([[User talk:90.231.244.42|talk]]) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
:The Aboriginal population in 1788, and in fact for most of Australia's history, was unknown and was not included in the population counts. Even now there is considerable disagreement over how many Aboriginals there might have been. Some claim there were several million while others claim that the current population (~455,000) doesn't support that claim. Nobody really knows so all we can count on being accurate is the non-Aboriginal population figure. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 05:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
::Many experts do in fact agree that it was greater than 300,000 and less than 2.5m, so that's the range. The problem with the table and the whole section as it stands is that it effectively ignores the pre-European population, which is incorrect within the stated terms, eg, if they are about the population history of Australia, something should be said in the main article about the pre-European situation and not just in a footnote. [[User:SoMuchTime|SoMuchTime]] ([[User talk:SoMuchTime|talk]]) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:::That seems reasonable. If you want to add something along those lines I see no problems, as long as you provide some reasonable citations. Somebody is bound to challenge it. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:I came in here to add this exact statement - I believe there should be some type of footnote to indicate that values up to a certain point do not include aboriginals, but after that point, they are included in censuses (was it the year they were given the vote??). I don't know how to use Wiki very well, but I believe this is a VERY important piece of information to add because without it we are almost propogating an out-dated view of a valued part of our community. [[User:Pleitch|Pleitch]] ([[User talk:Pleitch|talk]]) 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::There is already a note explaining that ''"19th century figures do not include the indigenous population"'' in the citation. There's little more that can be said at this time as there is no indication when the figures used started including the indigenous population. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== Pronunciation ==

While I understand that the US pronunciation might be currently the only one available in an audio file, I really don't see how it is appropriate to have the page opening with an American pronuncation of "Australia", especially the IPA as well as an audio link. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

:Personally I find the IPA pronunciations useless at the best of times (how does one pronounce an upside down "a" or a backwards "e" without having to go through an exorcism) but I notice that the pronunciation has been through several changes recently. It was first added as "əˈstræɪ.ljə"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=prev&oldid=227930520], then "əˈstræɪljə"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=next&oldid=227930520] and finally "ɒˈstreɪljə".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=next&oldid=228102056] The pronunciation further down in the article, to which a citation was added at the last edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=next&oldid=228102056], is "əˈstɹæɪljə", which matches the second pronunciation that was used. I have no idea at all how any of the pronunciations are different but the fact that the last change added a citation which apparently supports the second pronunciation makes me question the accuracy of all of the written pronunciations. As for the audio file, I quite agree with JPD. If there is no audio file with an Australian pronunciation then there should be no audio file at all. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

::Learning IPA is not that hard and you'll have to learn it somewhere if you want to know how to pronounce a word when using an international, Australian or British dictionary. (Though those dictionaries do give a crash course in IPA.) It is the best system we have for learning pronunciations, be them of an English variety or of a foreign language.
::JPD is quite right that using an American pronunciation is inappropriate, and I agree with both JPD and AussieLegend that an audio file should only be used if there is an Australian pronunciation. The IPA pronunciation was changed from Australian to American due to the fact that the audio file is of an American pronunciation. I had thought of removing it, but the audio/IPA pronunciation has been added to most of the other articles about countries, so I decided not to, and therefore change the pronunciation accordingly.
::The 'first' ({{IPA|/əˈstræɪ.ljə/}}) pronunciation mentioned used a [[syllable]] separator (.), which was an error, and was corrected — by deleting it — to form the 'second' ({{IPA|/əˈstræɪljə/}}) pronunciation. The 'second' pronunciation was changed — as it was an Australian IPA pronunciation — to an American IPA pronunciation ({{IPA|/ɒˈstreɪljə/}}), because the audio file is of an American pronunciation. The main difference between the American and Australian pronunciations are the first vowels (ie, {{IPA|/ɒ, ə/}}), the /ɒ/ is the sound of 'o' in 'h'''o'''t' and /ə/ is the sound of 'a' in &#39;'''a'''bout'.
::The citation was added to show the 'second' pronunciation is the common pronunciation used by the majority of Australians and as such is used by the [[Macquarie Dictionary]] (using Australian vowels from [[Australian English phonology]]). I hope this helps. – [[User:Marco79|Marco]][[User talk:Marco79|79]] 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the explanation. It makes things more clear. You've done the right thing by making the written pronunciation match the audio file but I think we should stick with just the Australian pronunciation though, rather than have a second pronunciation just to suit the American audio file. Having two pronunciations just makes things complicated. I don't see any issue with removing the audio file. It's better to have no audio than an incorrect version and there's no rule mandating American pronunciations on Wikipedia. I note that our neighbour to the east is now [[New Zealand|Noo Zealand]] thanks to the same editor and I'll certainly be checking to see if [[Emu]] is now Emoo.

:::As an aside, I learned German many years ago and my wife taught me some Polish. I didn't see any need to resort to IPA for them, or even for [[Klingon language|Klingon]]. I certainly have never needed it to use a dictionary. But then, I learned English when teachers taught English. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

::::No problem. Rather than remove the audio, I'll comment it out and add a note asking for an Australian pronunciation to be created. – [[User:Marco79|Marco]][[User talk:Marco79|79]] 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

== Crown Land? ==
"One interesting difference between Australia and the United States is that because the land area of the Commonwealth has not changed since federation, crown land in the states is the property of the state governments, not the commonwealth. The crown land owned by the Commonwealth consists of crown land in the territories and isolated small parcels used as airports etc. In the United States, because of its major expansion since federation, this only applies in the original thirteen colonies and Texas."

What the heck does this mean? America doesn't have any "crown land", so I have no clue what they're talking about. Is this some sort of arcane legal difference between the original thirteen colonies and the rest of America, or is this just some odd perspective on history? And whichever it is, why isn't there a link to an article about whatever the corresponding USian concept is that's different?
[[Special:Contributions/24.44.51.38|24.44.51.38]] ([[User talk:24.44.51.38|talk]]) 05:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
*Fair question - have since linked crown land for your convenience. Others may wish to chime in also. Have also slightly refactored this page to bring your question in order to the bottom of the page. Cheers!--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 07:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

::From the [[Crown land]] article, it looks like the rough US equivalent would be [[Federal lands]]. I thing the passage is basically saying that public lands in Australia are largely managed by the state governments, as opposed to public lands in the US being mostly run by the federal government. Looking at the passage in the article though, it could use some sources, and I'm not sure why it is focusing so much on a comparison with just the US. [[User:AlexiusHoratius|AlexiusHoratius]] ([[User talk:AlexiusHoratius|talk]]) 07:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I think the paragraph in question is unecessary. The observation is not all that important or even interesting. And it tends to confuise, q.e.d. It suffices to say that the states are sovereign. This is stated clearly and implies everything that the paragraph attempts to convey.--[[User:Gazzster|Gazzster]] ([[User talk:Gazzster|talk]]) 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

== Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country ==

"Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country." This statement is not factually correct. Australia is part of the continent of Oceania. The same mistake is repeated in the entry for "continent". In turn, these entries are inconsistent with the entry for "Oceania". The view that Australia is a continent is Anglo-centric. In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent. While recognising that the origin of the word "continent" refers to a continuous landmass, the word has evolved to have a different meaning, just like the word ocean, for example. We now do not understand an ocean to be "the great river or sea surrounding the disk of the Earth".
[[User:Pcallioni|Pcallioni]] ([[User talk:Pcallioni|talk]]) 06:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
:Oceania is not a continent. It is a region. An examination of continental drift over the past 4.5 billion years supports the claim that Australia is a continent. By the way, this issue was [[#Australia is not a continent|discussed in June]] on this page. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 08:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary defines a continent as "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." That is the English meaning of the word, and that is the meaning the English Wikipedia should follow. Oceania is, apart from Australia, mostly water. If Oceania is a continent, so is the Atlantic Ocean. Can we have some evidence for the proposition that "In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent"? [[User:Intelligent Mr Toad|Intelligent Mr Toad]] ([[User talk:Intelligent Mr Toad|talk]]) 11:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My answer is a question: to which continent do New Guinea, New Zealand, Fiji et al belong? [[User:Pcallioni|Pcallioni]] ([[User talk:Pcallioni|talk]]) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They are islands. They don't belong to any continent. An island is a piece of land smaller than a continent. And that is no answer to my request for evidence for the proposition that "In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent"? [[User:Intelligent Mr Toad|Intelligent Mr Toad]] ([[User talk:Intelligent Mr Toad|talk]]) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:Well, we do have an article on [[Australia (continent)]], which describes an entity that includes New Guinea as well as the country called Australia. Just quite why geographers chose this absurbly confusing name is a mystery that will go with me to my grave. "[[Continent]]" is a matter of definition, and definitions get changed all the time, and definitions mean different things in different contexts (see also [[Borders of the continents]] for further enlightenment). If Europe can be considered a different continent than Asia when they're clearly part of the same land mass, as is Africa for that matter, then one can make a definition to suit any purpose one likes. When I was in school, a million years ago, I was taught that Australia (the country) is the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent. They seem to have forgotten that Tasmania and other islands are part of Australia, so maybe my teachers (I lived on the mainland) were talking about mainland Australia only in the "world's largest island" claim, but they never made that distinction as far as I can remember. I doubt that a Tasmanian teacher would ever have told their students that Australia (unqualified) was the world's largest island. Nowadays, better minds than ours have decided that a land mass cannot be simultaneously a continent and an island, so [[Greenland]] now gets the top honour for islands, and Australia (country) is regarded as a continental land mass. But there's still this other niggling matter of Australia (continent), which is more than just Australia (country). If all the experts could speak with one voice on this matter, it would be better for all of us. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave the standard English definition of "continent" above: "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." In a strictly geographical sense, therefore, Europe and Asia are one continent, occupying as they do one landmass and one tectonic plate. Whether Australia is a small continent or a large island is obviously a matter of opinion, but the consensus among geographers seems to be that it is a continent. New Guinea is an island which is closely associated with Australia in a geograhphical sense, but it is not part of the Australian landmass. Tasmania is part of Australia in a political sense but is not part of the Australian landmass, although it once was (as was New Guinea). What is clear, and the point of this discussion, is that there is not and never has been a continent called Oceania. There is by the way no Oceania tectonic plate. Australia and New Zealand are on the Australian plate, the rest of the Pacific, all the way up to the Aleutian Islands, is on the Pacific plate. [[User:Intelligent Mr Toad|Intelligent Mr Toad]] ([[User talk:Intelligent Mr Toad|talk]]) 23:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:In certain contexts, eg. some sporting competitions, the world is divided into "continents" and Oceania rates a mention there. It makes sense in these contexts to lump all the Pacific island nations in with Australia and New Zealand and call the merged entity by some name, the usual one being Oceania. Maybe that's what Pcallioni is referring to. The sentence "Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country" doesn't actually state that which definition of the word "continent" is being used, although it seems reasonably obvious it relates to continuous land masses. Or maybe not. You seem at odds with the writers of [[Australia (continent)]] when you say that New Guinea is not part of the Australian landmass. I don't personally support that notion, but I guess we can't just ignore the fact that geographers consider the 2 places to be part of the same continent, even if they're not a continuous land mass. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

::I guess the sporting competition you speak of is soccer, and now of course in that sport Australia is part of Asia. Not sure that helps us. I guess based on [[Australia (continent)]] the sentence should read "Australia is the only country to occupy the entire mainland of a continent". But that seems somewhat convoluted. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

:::And of course, New Guinea is its own mainland in relation to its offshore islands. The continent of "Australia" seems unique (well, what else is new) in that it has 2 mainlands. Even the people on Flinders Island refer to Tasmania as their "mainland" before they get to the Big Island. That makes three: a main mainland (Australia minus Tasmania), a middle mainland (New Guinea), and a small mainland (Tasmania). So the term "mainland" could possibly mean different things to those who've boned up on the revelations contained in Australia (continent). How we deal with this in being absolutely non-misleading but still clearly and well written and sensible, beats me right now. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

::::The UN defines the continental region as Oceania, which then breaks down into Polynesia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Australia & New Zealand. see http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/118.92.158.65|118.92.158.65]] ([[User talk:118.92.158.65|talk]]) 10:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Queen Elizabeth of Australia ==

The Autralia entry has the head of State as Queen Elizabeth II - Isn't this incorrect?

Elizabeth I was not head of State for Australia so QEII should surely be just QE in relation to Australia?

The Royal Mews near Buckingham Palace contains the Australian State Coach (presented to The Queen in 1988 by the Australian people to mark Australia's bicentenary). Whereas the other coaches include "E II" to represent Queen Elizabeth II, the Australia Coach states only "E", as Queen Elizabeth is the first Queen Elizabeth of Australia. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.25.109.196|62.25.109.196]] ([[User talk:62.25.109.196|talk]]) 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The Queen's title is Queen Elizabeth II, not Queen Elizabeth, and that is how she is referred to, regardless of the fact that she's the first Queen Elizabeth who has been Queen of Australia. If Charles ever becomes king the The Constitution will be amended to reflect that The King is now the head of state and he will be referred to as Charles II, not just Charles. Similarly, William will be referred to as William V. What's written on the state coach is not considered to be an authoritative decree of anything really. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

:::And that would be Charles III, not II. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, the Constitution isn't amended - in it, "the Queen" refers to the successors of Queen Victoria, male or female. The title of the Queen is given not by the constitution, but by the Royal Styles and Titles Act, which follows the convention that the monarch uses the highest ordinal number that is appropriate anywhere in their realms (so that a future King James would follow the Scottish numbering, not English). Also, there have been some reports that Charles will actually be known as George if he becomes king. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Exactly. The Constitution wasn't amended when kings Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI came to the throne. It still referred to the Queen, because we happened to have a queen when the Constitution was written. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

== Ungainly "Note 1" against national anthem in infobox ==

I'm sure there's a better way of doing it—at the very least, smaller font-size. I suppose it can't be just a plain superscript numeral, can it? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 00:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
:Do you mean "plain superscript" as in ''[[Advance Australia Fair]]''<sup>1</sup> ? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - you might have a point, Tony, but here's hoping it doesn't open up the old fight about how God Save the Queen is presented in the article. Let's try and keep the discussion focussed on the format of the note. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
:You may have just hit on a resolution of Tony's issue. A few days ago somebody removed English from the lannguage field[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=229709250&oldid=229709121]. While restoring it I discovered that the infobox has fields for diffent types of languages so the infobox now has fields for "Official lanuages" and "National language".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=next&oldid=229729678] Suspecting that other fields may be missing I checked the template and there is a "royal_anthem" field that isn't used. Addition of this field would eliminate the need for a note. See [[User:AussieLegend/Project 02|example]] --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 02:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
::I did mean the plain "1", yes. If that format is not used for anything else, it would be better. Just a tiny smaller would be nice. I'm being fussy because it's in such a prominent place. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I have some concerns about reducing the font size because this affects readbility for a lot of people. <!-- While the most common [[display resolution]] used to be 1024x768 it is giving way to higher resolutions on displays that have similar physical sizes. (eg a 17" 4:3 CRT monitor uses 1024x768 where a 17" 5:4 LCD monitor uses 1280x1024) In short, font sizes are getting smaller which makes it harder to read what's on screen. --> Using an abbreviation, eg ''[[Advance Australia Fair]]'' <sup>N1</sup> is probably the better option. This was the style fomerly used by the article. I think just a plain numeral is a bit ambiguous as <sup>1</sup> could be confused with <sup>[1]</sup>. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
::::The "N" in "N1" etc to distinguish notes from ref numbers seems unnecessary, given that you can click on it to zoom straight to the note at the bottom. No big deal, though. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

== overlinking ==

The opening is pretty heavily linked, and I'm concerned that the high-value links not be diluted by trivial ones. MOS deprecates the linking of dictionary-type words, and here I see plenty that are not even piped, such as "continent", "mainland", "country", "infectious disease", "United States" (see MOSLINK), "naval base" and "sea port". These are words that English-speakers are meant to know; if they don't, they can very easily tap the letters into the search box or look them up. I see "sq mi" and a very ungainly "-square-kilometre" linked; these are questionable. The latter should be a quadruple bunger: I'll recast it now. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

==Official name of Australia==
What is the Official name of Australia? '''Commonwealth of Australia''' or '''Australian Government'''?--[[User:Kanags|Kanags]] ([[User talk:Kanags|talk]]) 09:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:As explained [[Talk:Australia#COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA separate from Australia|earlier on this page]] and in the article itself the full and formal name is '''Commonwealth of Australia''' but '''Australia''' is more commonly used. The Australian Government is the administrative entity that runs the country. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AussieLegend.--[[User:Kanags|Kanags]] ([[User talk:Kanags|talk]]) 02:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:You're welcome. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 03:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


==Australia opens its doors to about 300,000 new migrants in 2008-09==

Could 2008-09 be explained. Is it 300,000 new migrants in 2008 and 2009 so 150,000 per year or does 2008-09 refer to this year? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ItemSeven|ItemSeven]] ([[User talk:ItemSeven|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ItemSeven|contribs]]) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I assume that it would refer to the 2008-09 financial year which begins on 1 July 2008 and ends on 30 June 2009. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== States and territories ==

Reading this section I see that Northern territory is not a state. Excuse my confusion, but does this make it the only part of Australia that is neither a state or part of a state? If so, what is the reason for this? [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 11:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:The [[Northern Territory]] and the [[Australian Capital Territory]] are the two mainland Australian territories. These emerged after the [[States and territories of Australia|six Australian states]] were instated and have as of yet not been given the full state status. [[User:Mvjs|Mvjs]] ([[User talk:Mvjs|talk]]) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::States are sovereign, territories are administered by the Commonwealth government. Territories were once administered directly by the feds, but now have self government. However their legislators are created by act of the fed parliament, and their legislation can be overridden as well. Both Canada and US have federal territories as well. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Northern Territory does have self government but doesn't have State hood (IE: Gets to have the powers that the states have but it has been tried but so far failed [See http://statehood.nt.gov.au but it seems to be down but try [http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1v2DLsf6CkgJ:www.statehood.nt.gov.au/+NT+state+hood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a Google Cache]]). [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the replies. I understand the articles concerning individual states and territories would go into detail on this, but would it not be a good idea to give a brief explanation in this article? Just stating the reason why Northern territory and Australian Capital territory are not states would be illuminating. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 12:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
y do they live in the south not north not this crap <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.227.115.204|72.227.115.204]] ([[User talk:72.227.115.204|talk]]) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Incorrect 2006 census population numbers ==

The article provides incorrect 2006 census population numbers.
Unfortunately, I do not have the editing rights for this page, so cannot change it myself.
Please, could someone who can edit this page place the correct number: 20,061,646?
The webpage of the Australian Bureau of Statistics containing the right number is http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/5d3cc840c7bcef0bca2573410017db9a
Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dimi-syd|Dimi-syd]] ([[User talk:Dimi-syd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dimi-syd|contribs]]) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:According to that page, the figure you've shown includes overseas visitors, ie people not normally resident in Australia, so it's not an accurate indication of the resident population figure, which is what should be shown in the article. The ABS QuickStats page for Australia[http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/LocationSearch?locationLastSearchTerm=Australia&locationSearchTerm=Australia&newarea=0&submitbutton=View+QuickStats+%3E&mapdisplay=on&collection=Census&period=2006&areacode=0&geography=&method=Place+of+Usual+Residence&productlabel=&producttype=QuickStats&topic=&navmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=PL&topholder=0&leftholder=0&currentaction=104&action=401&textversion=false&subaction=1] shows the resident population and supports the figure in the article. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 11:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

==Admiralty 1824 date==
''In 1824, the Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known officially as "Australia".''

Is there any chance of narrowing this down to a specific month and day? It would be great if we could track down the document/s in which this agreement was conveyed. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Who's ministers? ==

The following is not clear:

:the Queen is represented by the Governor-General, who by convention acts on the advice of his or her Ministers.

Does the Queen or does the GG act on the advice of their ministers? Are those the ministers of the Queen or of the GG?

--[[User:Michael Daly|Michael Daly]] ([[User talk:Michael Daly|talk]]) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:By convention the GG acts on the advice of the Queen's ministers who, by virtue of him or her being the Queen's representative, are also his or her ministers. :) --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::Effectively it it the same office. The GG acts when the Queen is not present. When the Queen is in Australia, the GG "retires" and ministers give their advice directly to the Queen. When the Queen leaves, the GG resumes the office, and ministers give their advice to the GG again. The ministers are ministers of the Crown. The GG is the representative of the Crown. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


== POPULATION ==


Tweed - Gold Coast is not counted as one city and neither is canberra - queenbeyan i should know since i live in canberra and in even my father and my wife says that. Newcastle is SIxth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.10.139.107|210.10.139.107]] ([[User talk:210.10.139.107|talk]]) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Geography==

This is a general intoductory article for the nation/continenent.The geography section rightly deals with the generality of the geogrpahy of the continent, giving general informtaionon cliamte, geology and so forth. It really isn't the place for contentious current affairs subjects such as climate change, no matter how important. [[User:Ethel Aardvark|Ethel Aardvark]] ([[User talk:Ethel Aardvark|talk]]) 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Climate change is a science topic, and should be included in the climate section. It is not a current affairs topic, however the political debate about it obviously is. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] ([[User talk:Michael Johnson|talk]]) 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Aboriginal History==

The removal of children from their families, which
*1) some historians
*2) have argued
*3) could be considered
*4) by some definitions
*5) may have contributed

That sounds like Humprhrey Appleby at his best. How many vagueries and weasel words can we manage to fit into a single sentence? This sort of thing really doesn't belong in an enxyclopedia.

If it contributed, it contributed and it needs to be included in the sectio on Aboriginal population decline (and referenced of course).

If it can be argued that some historians, on a good day, may consider that under some circumstances the possibility exists that it is plausible that it contributed, in the fullness of time, along with other factors, to an overarching and ongoing process that, in certain aspects, may reflect certain patterns pertaining to what some definitions may incorporate into a broad definition that also embraces genocide, and that its ramifictaions never precluded the possibility that unnamed subgroups may have experienced a transient or more longterm decline in numerical status relative to....

Then it doesn't belong at all. It's controversial, it's doesn't actually say anyhting and it has become original research. There are already several articles discussing this subject, it hardly belongs in an article that only touches on major points in Australian history. By all means mention the "Stolen Generation" with a link to the appropriate article, but the spurious claim that it led to population decline needs to be removed if this is the only way it can be worded.[[User:Ethel Aardvark|Ethel Aardvark]] ([[User talk:Ethel Aardvark|talk]]) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:If it can be referenced that some historians actually say this then it is not original research. Otherwise it needs to go. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The numerous weasel words also need to go. If a reliable source says it then it should be stated as fact, not as a series of increasingly vague qualifiers. It becomes original research because as far as I can see an editor has decided that the removal policy was genocide, genocide results in population decline, therefore the policy must have resulted in population decline. As you say, it needs a reference from a reliable source that states clearly that the policy reduced the number of Aboriginals. [[User:Ethel Aardvark|Ethel Aardvark]] ([[User talk:Ethel Aardvark|talk]]) 03:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

==Economy==
"Australia's balance of payments is more than 7% of GDP negative: Australia has had persistently large current account deficits for more than 50 years"

This is completely incorrect. The balance of payments is equal for countries with a floating exchange rate. It should say 'The current account deficit is 7%,Australia has had persistent current account deficits for more than 50 years'

also might be better to put the stuff on exports with the stuff on the balance of payments. id be happy to expand on this section and other sections :) [[User:Thegoldenrule|Thegoldenrule]] ([[User talk:Thegoldenrule|talk]]) 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:46, 11 October 2008

VC mohan T is a three-letter abbreviation with multiple meanings, as described below:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&oldid=244519230"