This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Go to the list of countries by GDP (nominal)
update the GDP figures for both nominal and the less relevant PPP in the right hand side column and economy section
they currently show 2009 figures
the GDP figures for 2010 are now listed on the aforementioned articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 05:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
My god. One would think such a major and crucial detail would be updated immediately, let alone still be left unchanged weeks after the suggestion was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 14:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Figures have now been updated but the nominal figure is in the format of 1,_ _ _ billion, rather than 1._ _ _ trillion, which is the format used for other countries' articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "Approximately 56 per cent of Australia's population live in either Victoria or New South Wales, and approximately 77 per cent live on the mainland's east coast" should be removed from the intro as there is already a sentence in regards to the proportion of population living in the 5 major capitals, any more is too detailed for the intro and unnecessary. Further, selecting Vic and NSW is very arbitrary, why not say __% live in vic, nsw and qld, as these states have the largest populations by far, and the difference between the nsw and vic population is greater than the diff between the vic and qld population. As such, it is an arbritrary figure to be putting in an intro which is supposed to be succinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 06:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
...And 24.39/km2 (vic) is even further away again from 9.04km2 (nsw) ! I cannot see any reason for this wholely arbitrary and overly detailed fact to be in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 08:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This revert is fair enough, it gives a source
http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government
which certainly looks relevant. I'll investigate further.
Many years ago when I worked for the Australan Government, after a change of government they made quite a big thing of removing the words Commonwealth of from all our stationery and correspondence. Perhaps this has been quietly reversed!
Agree that if it's the official name it should be in the infobox. Andrewa ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell me, what are the nearest neighbors to Australia, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.139.27 ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
And AussieLegend wins the Nationalist Pedant Award of the Day with that change that took me quite a while to figure out ;-) HiLo48 ( talk) 08:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Not to be confused with Austria." is kind of silly. I suggest it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.114.113 ( talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Not disputing this decision at all (and I didn't add the text in question), but I thought I'd add a little anecdote to illustrate that the confusion does occur, silly as it may seem.
At one stage I was corresponding, from Australia, regularly with a party in rural France. The letters, by air post, typically arrived in the second day after posting, very impressive considering that Paris-Sydney was at the time a 28 hour flight.
Then one from France to Australia diaappeared, to arrive, intact, three weeks later. Inspecting the envelope, it had been postmarked in Vienna. So despite beng clearly addressed Australie, it had been sent via Austria.
The bizarre thing being, the French name for Austria is Autriche, and the French often call it Österreich in my experience, while Australia is always known as Australie, so the confusion is far more likely in English than in French. Andrewa ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Not to be confused with Austria."-note should stay. I'v noticed on YouTube comments how many people seems to confuse them, propably because Austria is not so popular country. However, I do not have any good source for that, so I do understand if this will not pass. -- Pek ( talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a note directing them to the Simple English Wikipedia (which by the way does not have this note, despite its "simple" nature) would be more appropriate: Click here if you were looking for Austria. Seriously guys, this discussion does not need to be happening - if you can't find Austria instead of Australia, shame on you. Ignorant Armie s 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to make that : ( But Nickm57 said "Sorry this edit is poorly expressed or doesnt make much sense" ) , then i post here to inform you.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Aleno_de_St_Alo%C3%BCarn By Picaballo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picaballo ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted this addition to the article which cites this CNBC article to claim that "one in six" young Australians (15 24 year olds) are unemployed and that this is a serious problem. The problem with youth unemployment data is that most of the relevant share of the population is out of the labour force as they're studying (for instance, the great bulk of 15-18 year olds are at high school and a majority of people aged in their early 20s are in some form of education). As a result, the number of people in this age group who are eligible to be counted in the ABS' definition of unemployment is pretty small, and they tend to be highly disadvantaged (as they have low levels of education and tend to come from a low socioeconomic status background). To cut a long story short, the proportion of young Australians who are both out of work and not studying is pretty small (much lower than one in six) and that news story is totally wrong-headed. The fact that it directly compares Australia's youth unemployment rate with the total unemployment rate in other countries says it all really (these countries with high total unemployment rates have even higher youth unemployment rates). This OECD paper from late last year shows that the proportion of 15-19 year olds in Australia who were not in education or employment in 2008 (which is the most recent year data are available for) was actually about 6 percent and is below the OECD average (though it was a bit higher than the rates in a lot of other OECD countries). Nick-D ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
n 5 May 2011 at 18:33:16 (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:
22,600,426
This is an example
IT SHOULD BE UPDATED DAILY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniarulez ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have recently finished editing the Australian English article so that it now very detailed includes a substantial history, phonology, regional dialects, cultural dialects, etc.
Given that English is currently listed in the table as australia's 'de facto' language, i think it obvious that the de facto language of this country is Australian English given the fact that de facto means by default. For example, British or American English would not be the de facto language of Australia.
Given that this is an article on Australia, it follows that the de facto language should be listed as the variety of english that is native to and particular to this country, just as culture links to culture of australia, specific to australia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago, I added the 3rd + 2nd last sentences in the 'religion' section.. citing a survey of the Bertelsmann Foundation.. I believe my sentences express the feeling + sentiment of the last sentence, supporting it with the research of the Bertelsmann Foundation; to make the last sentence more relevant, I could do a 'Church attendance and identification with religions has fallen dramatically over the past few decades...' citing information from the article 'Australians losing the faith', which the last sentence uses as a citation. Tjpob ( talk) 16:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Why does the 'non-indigenous population' heading end at 1850 (in the population table under 'demographics')? The populations of Aboriginal Australians were unmeasured (estimated) until 1971. (See ABS 2005 yearbook (time-line)) Or are the official estimates included in the 1900-1960 statistics..? I can check with the creator of the source Population statistics. It seems semi-reliable. Though he has a page of sources used Sources, he doesn't say on the Australian page what source he used. - census data much better imo. Tjpob ( talk) 14:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
When examining the estimates ('20, '30, '40, '50, '60) in relation to census data, they look pretty good actually. 1920 estimate ('000): 5 411, 1921 Census data ('000): 5 435; 1930 6 501, 1933 6 629; 1940 7078, 1947 7 579; 1950 8 307, 1954 8 986; 1960 10 392, 1961 10 508 Tjpob ( talk) 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the figures are fairly accurate, I assume they're based on the census data. Hence, they don't include the Indigenous population, and should state that. Tjpob ( talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
ASIAN AUSTRALIAN In the article about "Asian Australians" there have been clearly vandalism with the percentage of Asians living in Sidney and Melbourne.-- 83.39.3.6 ( talk) 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed Ignorant Armies ? ! 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's now compulsory to enrol to vote in South Australia, when you turn 18. It was changed in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.216.249 ( talk) 06:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Can someone add in information on Chinese exploration and links with Australia through 1250-1420 This page only mentions European exploration. Like not mentioning Viking exploration of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.151.193 ( talk) 05:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Of possible interest to editors of Australia–related articles: 12 unusual facts about Australia -- Pawyilee ( talk) 02:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia's national is english. [1] but it states some 3 millions speak other languages. would that classify English as the "official" language? Nobletripe ( talk) 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you :( looking at those past talks, others have brought it up. Nobletripe ( talk) 09:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You have to add the Aussie Antarctic Territory as in Chile Makedonija ( talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no international treaty recognising the sovereignty of Australia over the Antarctic territory. Indeed no claims of any country over Antarctica are universally recognised. Nevertheless it cpuild be noted that Australia 'claims' sovereignty over a section of Antartica. Gazzster ( talk) 23:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Another meaning for the word Australia is "land of the (fallen) star." This is derived from the word 'astra' meaning 'star,' and the suffix -alia "of the area." The reason for this is that both the Judeo-Christian Bible and modern geology hint at the fact that the earth used to be one land mass. Regarding the Bible, this is found in Genesis 10:25, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan."
The word Peleg has the meaning division. While one would think that this refers to a migratory division of the peoples of the earth, it does not fit the text, in that many peoples already were upon the earth at this time and had spread out from their location near the mountains of Ararat (Urartu.) The real meaning of Peleg refers to the breaking up of the 'Gondwana' supercontinent.
Contrary to what evolutionary science tells us regarding this, the impact was not a water-based landing for the asteroid, but rather land-based. As can be gathered by the numerous impact craters scattered around the planet, the earth was involved in a super meteor shower except that it was asteroids.
If such a thing happened, whether biblical or evolutionary, there would be evidence of such a large asteroid residing somewhere on the planet, whether under the sea or on land. I believe that this super-asteroid is none other than Mt. Uluru/Ayers Rock located in west-central Australia. It may be that evidence of its non-terrestrial origin can be found if looked at closely enough.
75.107.35.137 ( talk) 06:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The climate map is missing the temperate zone in the southwest of Western Australia, it currently incorrectly shows it as being subtropical
Here is a link to the original map showing the complete southwest section of WA. http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/climate/environ/other/kpn_group.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.142.73 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
After a relevant and reversion the article now says "All children receive eleven years of compulsory education from the age of 6 to 16 (Year Prep/Kindergarten to 10)", however this does not agree with the cited ref which says that prep/kindergarten is not compulsory - ie the compulsory years are 1 to 10 (ie "ten years of compulsory eduction"). Unfortunately the ref doesn't actually say that it's compulsory up to year 10. I think the matter may be complicated by the fact that:
The above points are based purely on my recollection of the rules - obviously we need to find appropriate current references with the current rules. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but the Environment section appears to refer to the Rudd Ministry in the present tense. It also does not mention what the Gillard Government has done in terms of Greenhouse gas emission legislation. I think this section needs an update.
It also refers to Water Restrictions due to drought, however I think these have been partially lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckydog429 ( talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This page needs updating as the general archaeological evidence for aboriginal habitation goes back at least 66,000 years and the possibilty of a further 10-20,000 yrs has support. Recent genetic research shows the aboriginal types (gracile/robustus), to have separated from the "african root" of humanity before its spread to the european/asian continent. There was a claim of human "rock pitting"/art in the Kimberley in the 1990's of 110,000-120,000 yrs ago, but this claim has been dismissed as being "too" old to be acceptable. By now - 2012, newer researh is supporting these claims and is fairly easy to track down.
This subject should be of major significance globally as the Aboriginal culture is by far the oldest continual culture known.
The deplorable treatment by non-indigenous "Australians" and especially the Government should be taken up by the United Nations as a situation of utmost importance and pressure brought to bear on said government to finally get real about this cultural genocide.
How the traditional owners of this land have not to any great degree retaliated as almost all other cultures have done worldwide under similar circumstances, is beyond me. I can only guess that they are so demoralized by their repression, they find it hard to envisage any action on their part as being successful. With newer generations of non-indigenous people populating this country that incorporate less racist attitudes, and further indigenous education, perhaps a glimmer of a future can be detected, but it had better happen soon or their will only be dust to study.
Hopefully I've not overstepped the bounds of this site causing this page to be deleted, signed, Kram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.73.157 ( talk) 04:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any good basis for referring to the star on the Australian flag as the "Commonwealth Star". So, for example: (1) when was this phrase first used? (2) does the Australian Government refer to it as the "Commonwealth Star"? (3) is this "Commonwealth Star" description any more commonly used than other names attributed to the Star? (4) is the "Commonwealth Star" description a term that only came into use by virtue of Wikipedia (bar isolated use before that) ?
I don't know the answers but am interested in informed comment (which refers to sources). 86.42.28.118 ( talk) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
REPLY:
Thank you for providing a good response. It was well sourced and strikes me as a good faith contribution. Thanks. I note that the following:
in each case, in addition to the term "Commonwealth Star". In my view the most important source by far which you have pointed to is the "Review of Reviews" [5] and the detailed flag description therein. It does indeed use the "name" "Commonwealth Star". That is the best and most authoritive source I have seen to date. I wonder was the flag approved by the Royal Herald (or whatever the relevant title is in this case); I would have thought it would be and that in so doing the flag would be described. If you found that source, it might well use the term "Commonwealth Star" also. That would put the question to bed entirely. At present, I am happy that "Commonwealth Star" is not a bogus Wiki invention or some such but a genuine term. I am also happy with the name of the article. I may add in a para showing some of the sources you have pointed to as it would seem a waste not to (as you have gone off and found this valuable information). 86.42.178.193 ( talk) 11:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
On my last visit to Australia I noticed many Australians have very bad teeth. I have been told there is dental care in Australia. Maybe you should add it under health so people know why Australians have bad teeth.
Also, I found interesting the long (years and years) queues for social housing. That was in fact very shocking to me. Maybe you could aslo add this. Finally, I find the Australia article doesnt really represent the truth. It is more like a tourist brochure - only nice things are stated. I assume it is written moslty by the Australians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.104.213.70 ( talk) 11:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently the infor box says Aust. got its indo. from the United Kingdom. I suggest this be amended to be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom" (linked). Could some one make the small linking change. I am an IP editor and can't edit the article. 86.42.28.118 ( talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the first user in that the generally accepted date of independence cited in the vast majority of cases worldwide is 1901. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 12:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Well it was not my suggestion so i do not care much either way, however using UK of GB and Irl would probably be more consistent as the US is listed as getting independence from "the Kingdom of Great Britain". I agree that independence was a process, however to back up the person who made the original suggestion I will say that if 1901 is taken as the key date in that process, which i believe it was (more important than stat. westminst., aust. act...), then the conventional and consistent practice would be to link to the UK of GB and Irl article, as the UK of GB and N.I. did not exist on that date. I will not change it myself, though, because it doesnt bother me much either way. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have just altered the UTC offsets from 10.5 in normal and 11.5 in Daylight saving to 10 and 11 which is the true status. I wonder why it was given as 10.5 and 11.5 in the first place? All the Eastern States are UTC +10 (and those with Daylight Saving go to 11 in summer). SA and NT are UTC +9.5 which is possibly where the confusion lies. In fact as far as I know there is NO time zone at all that's UTC +10.5. Vanuatu, Solomons and probably parts of Russia (etc) are +11 and New Zealand (etc) is +12. In fact SA/NT are quite unusual with a half-hour time zone: geographically they are well and truly UTC +9 - the borders line up really well with 120-135 degrees longitude but they've chosen to be only half an hour behind the Eastern states for "convenience" (and so are essentially on permanent 1/2 hr daylight saving - SA goes 1-1/2 hrs forward in summer!!). Anyway, I digress: can someone suggest why we had UTC +10.5/11.5 in there at all, or was it simply a misinterpretation of where South Australia is in the scheme of things?? TheBustopher ( talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's take a step back. First of all, Hawaii is as much a US state as California, so of course it is included in the range. Note that the Northern Marianas and U.S. Virgin Islands, both of which elect non-voting delegates to Congress, are not included in the range. Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are not included in Britain's range, and France's various overseas departments aren't included at France. That said, the real question is how much the fact that Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island are populated and physically close to Australia matters versus the fact that their political position is significantly different from NT and the ACT. Mine own view is that it really doesn't matter because Australia's time zone situation is so complicated. - Rrius ( talk) 12:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, australia now has free tv (digital). The article says it has sbs, abc and 3 commercial channels. I live in Melbourne and we now have like 15 channels including sbs and abc, not to mention sbs 2 and 3 and abc 1,2 and 3!!!! Can someone fix this??!! 182.12.56.154 ( talk) Kolin —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
In reference to the info box on the right side of the article, specifically: "- Density 2.8/km2, 7.3/sq mi"
A mile is longer than a kilometer, thus a square mile is bigger than a square kilometer. Consequently, should the density per square mile not be lower than the density per square kilometer? Of course I might misunderstand the intention of the data, any clarification is welcome. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.169.201.86 (
talk) 10:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in this multiple RM that I have initiated. My preamble:
These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles.
Your vote ("Support" or "Oppose") would be welcome, along with your reasons.
Noetica Tea? 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In the Australia InfoBox, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is not listed. There are articles on French CJ and the position of Chief Justice of Australia. Rjgcooper ( talk) 02:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "chief justice of australia" and "robert french" should be listed under PM in the info box, as with the US article, as the judiciary is one of the three vital arms of our government as set out in the Constitution. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 04:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that the position be marked as "Chief Justice", not "Chief Justice of Australia". The "of Australia" bit would seem redundant. Rjgcooper ( talk) 05:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
yeah sorry of course
Saruman-the-white (
talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In the section on this page about the royal anthem, the sound file for the National Anthem gets a few mentions. It seems to me that this article (particularly the top of the info box where it's been inserted) is not the place for this file. While I suggest its a no-brainer that this article should mention the National Anthem some where (although perhaps not in the top of the info box - but that's another discussion), the inclusion of the sound file is a tad irrelevant. It makes much more sense to leave it to the Advance Australia Fair article - there is a very obvious and easy link to that page. We don't need to include ALL info on all Australia-related topics. Rather, WP:SUMMARY style requires, well, a summary with links to the details - i.e., the sound file.
I see at least three, maybe four, people supporting this in the mention above. This link shows the change in question - and shows that at least another editor supports keeping it out and we have one in suppoty of inclusion]. Can we confirm (or otherwise)? -- Merbabu ( talk) 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Commonwealth of Australia | |
---|---|
Anthem: " Advance Australia Fair" [N 1] |
well it would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yes philpm930 Philpm930 ( talk) 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably the main reason that I voted to remove the sound file is that the link is relatively large and obtrusive. I've proposed a solution at Template talk:Infobox country#Can we add a small button to play the anthem? - although I don't know whether it is feasible to do. Interested parties should take up the discussion on that template talk page. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to add it, but there was an issue: |royal_anthem =
"
God Save the Queen
Twillisjr ( talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Unbeknownst to most Australians, it is indeed still the "royal anthem", used in the presence of the monarch when they come to visit (although this tradition may have fallen out of favour). However this has been discussed several times before and it was resolved each time not to put it on the information bar on the right hand side as "Advance Australia Fair" is the only widely known (or indeed, for the vast majority of Australians, the only known) anthem which is used in all situations except for Royal visits (not clear if god save the queen is still even used for these). Thus I would request you not to revisit the issue and attempt to add it again. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 12:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've just undone Conay's change, there is clearly no consensus. I have to agree with HiLo48, AussieLegend and Politas, God Save The Queen has not been an anthem in Australia since the mid 1980s. Bidgee ( talk) 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe we need to come to a consensus here. Do we formally include God Save the Queen as the Australian Royal Anthem, as is official and used on other Commonwealth Realm pages? Conay ( talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Really, this is not getting us anywhere. Despite the fact that some people may not know about the Royal Anthem, it is the official Royal Anthem, and as such is worthy of note. I doubt most Australians know what our GPD is, or our population density but we don't remove those facts from from the infobox do we? On this statement, I suggest we simply reach a consensus now. Aye or Nay?
Anjwalker
Talk 11:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wowsers, I wonder if these 'royal anthem' inclusion/exclusion discussions are occuring on all Commonwealth realm infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears that this conversation has wound down, yet no conclusion has been reached. Could people please cast a final vote, so we can work out this matter? Anjwalker Talk 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Australia Nationalistic & patriotic songs | |
---|---|
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Australia |
I'm very strongly with Merbabu on this. Wikipedia does not work by voting. In particular, consensus can never be achieved that way. They mean entirely different things. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm consensus is never achieved by voting but a wote! is used as a means to guage consensus, consensus should be decided by the weight if arguments presented but mostly its by the weight of numbers. I havet commented on this discussion but if I came here as a neutral admin I guage the weight of arguments and come to the conclusion that GSTQ should be include because of its official status, where as the exclusion side of the argument is about whether its in actual use. The position is Australia has two anthems it can officially use one is used more broadly than the other, which has a specific purpose in a specific context. My opinion is that both should be included in the infobox and linked but only AAF should actually have a play button as that recognises the position of both but only links to one which is the standard in use, under 99% of circumstances. Gnan garra 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Commonwealth of Australia | |
---|---|
Anthem: " Advance Australia Fair [N 2]" |
No idea where this discussion/vote is (this page is a mess), but I still oppose having GSTQ in such a prominent place in the Infobox. Yes, it's a true fact about Australia, but it's fact that most Australians neither know nor care about, so don't give the world a false impression. Mention it somewhere in the text, but not where the Infobox forces it to appear. (Wikipedia really has to improve on the Infobox front. They should not control content so much.) HiLo48 ( talk) 03:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
exclude from infobox, leave as a footnote at the bottom of the article. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Due to the fact that no conclusion has been reached, I'd like to make a request for comment on the following question; Should the Australian royal anthem be included in the infobox? And if so, in what form (Wikilink to God Save The Queen or sound file)? Anjwalker Talk 07:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"Human habitation of the Australian continent is variously estimated to have begun between c. 6,000[37] and 48,000 years ago,[38]"
I note the arrival of a NPOVD tag on the article. I think we have consensus here already, but just to be sure, let's test it. The Australia article includes the statement, Human habitation of the Australian continent is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago... and is supported by the source, Dating the First Australians. This statement belongs in the article.
|
According to Australia#Language
A 2010–2011 study by the Australia Early Development Index found that ...
According to its web page, the AEDI is a "collection of information", which to me suggest that the Index itself is unlikely to do a study. The AEDI is apparently collated by The Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and State and Territory Governments (working in partnership with others). I suggest that the article needs rewording, but without having access to the cited ref ( Agence France-Presse/ Jiji Press, "Arabic Australia's second language", Japan Times, 16 April 2011, p. 4.), I can't determine whether DEEWR et al did the study or someone else did it using the data. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The population density info is incorrect - It should be 2.83 people per square kilometer and 1.08 per square mile.
I think that is incorrect. This saysThis says it is ah-strail-yuh. TheThomas ( talk) 11:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The one in the article is the one used by Australians. In informal speech Australians may pronounce it as "straya" or similar, dropping letters, but clearly this is colloquial and should not be included, and when singing advance australia fair sometimes (including when julia gillard pronounces it, strangely), some say "aws-stralia" which is a mock british pronunciation, as choral style singing of nonpopular music in both australia and the us often uses by convention something similar to received pronunciation. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We needn't worry about colloquial pronunciations, but if the ah and uh pronunciations are both common in normal register, then we should consider using both. Then again, if it is a question of accent, we should consider the principles discussed at Wikipedia:Pronunciation#Distinction between British, American and Australian pronunciation (I don't have the patience right now to figure out if that guideline applies to intra-country differences). - Rrius ( talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Two logical options. One two use all three common pronunciations (estralia, or there abouts, for Aust. English), (awstralia, or there abouts, for British English [RP]), (ahhstralia, or there abouts, for American English [Gen Am]). The other alternative is to just use the pronunciation that is used by about 99% of Australian English speakers (sans the exception of singing the national anthem for some), which the is pronunciation that is already there. This seems more concise, as i'm sure articles on England or the UK for example do not include American or Australian pronunciations, nor would the article on the USA or an american state or city include British or Australian pronunciations. Fair enough I say. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 10:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The dropping of the 'l' should not be dismissed as informal. I have heard several excerpts recently of reasonably formal speeches by Australian politicians, and in every case the 'l' was not pronounced. It should probably be acknowledged as at least as a major variety of standard Australian pronunciation of the name. Whenever I have paid attention to Aussie pronunciation, the 'l' is not there. Whether this is just a New South Wales feature or more widely spread, I don't know.
On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree with HiLo48's contention that only local pronunciations should be considered, though they should be given due weight. I don't use the French pronunciation of 'France' when I'm speaking English; by the same token I don't use an Australian pronunciation of 'Australia' when I'm speaking my usual New Zealand English. No doubt all Irish pronounce the 'r' in 'Ireland', but the form that drops the 'r', and pronounces 'Ire-' as a triphthong is standard southern British, and in very frequent use.
It's also worth considering how an Australian would prefer to see the name represented in the context of a Wikipedia article. However they normally pronounce the name, they may prefer a formal version in print.
Koro Neil ( talk) 02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a recent minor dispute between User:Phung Wilson and others over the pronunciation of Australia. Looking into the article history, I found this edit where User:Saruman-the-white removed two additional pronunciations. Saruman's justification, elaborated here shows the belief that the three pronunciations indicated Australian, British and American norms, respectively and that the single transcription at Canada serves as a guide to how to deal with variable pronunciations across regions.
Given the discussion above and in the archives, here are my two cents. Our guide at WP:IPA for English is an attempt to provide one transcription for any given English word that accounts for dialectal variation. When pronunciations vary based on regular, accentual differences (such as the different pronunciations of the vowel in pay, which are phonetically different but phonemically identical, or the phonemic distinction between the vowels of cot and caught, which we encode for even though not all accents make such a distinction), our transcription system is such that we need only one transcription. Excessive parsing of regional variation goes against the point of having one transcription system for multiple dialects (as explained at the explanatory guide at WP:IPA for English), but there are instances where there is a difference in "incidence." That is to say, the different pronunciation is not due to a regular sound change that we encode for in our transcription system. It could be a tomayto/tomahto thing (that is, the difference is not regular) or it could be like the vowel of bath (that is, the change is regular, but we don't encode for it); either way, when the system can't account for the variation, it's appropriate to show multiple pronunciations.
It does seem to be the case that there is variation in how Australia is pronounced (namely, with the first vowel); this variation goes beyond that found in other words, like Canada and can't be accounted for in the system laid out at WP:IPA for English. I didn't see this conversation before I reintroduced one of the deleted pronunciations, as well as the citation attached to it (though, per this edit, I'm not so sure that the source backs up both pronunciations), so I hope I'm not unnecessarily fanning flames of contention. I've also labeled one of the terms as "local" in a fashion paralleling that of New Orleans.
I'm not particularly wedded to how I've placed the two pronunciations; if there is more variation than this or if people feel like more explanation is necessary, an explanatory footnote may be in order, rather than cluttering up the lede. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be happy to see no pronunciation guide. Really, how useful is it? (although at least here we don't have the issue of 2 or three lines of multiple names, and translations before we even define the topic - why, for example, are people sticking in Chinese character translations in so many leads now???? but i digress...) And the question of which pronunciations get included and which don't, for me is even more ridiculous. Like most other articles, there are more important issues at hand. But that's just my opinion and I accept that it sits outside the apparent Wikipedia way. Just saying. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My proposed change in the article entails expanding the range in the list of estimates to include a date as early as c. 6000 years ago, even though that date is connected to the politically incorrect view of a young earth (not MY view). I have about 100 more citations (70 percent by authors with earned doctorates) to support my little edit to make the bibliographical reference to the latitude of variation in date more accurate. Now before I post them, tell me: Is anyone so bigoted that he has already decided to find some way to object, no matter what citations I post, regardless of when they were published (despite the pretense that Morris is to be ignored because published in 1961), regardless of the academic credentials of the authors? Are you already pre-judged? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC))
EnochBethany, based on the previous discussion there's obviously no support to add material claiming that the human habitation of Australia began 6000 years ago on the grounds that this is a fringe view. As such, if you add any such material to this article, it's going to get removed very quickly and you're likely to end up being blocked from editing for POV pushing against consensus.
Nick-D (
talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
To address both who responded to me, I said that the words could be interpreted as saying Americans shouldn't edit here, not that it was intended that way. The point is that referring to the person's national origin was needlessly provocative. As for the body of United States being more detailed, so what? I seriously doubt this particular editor would have read that far. Americans of a certain political and religious bent figure they know everything about their country without actually reading anything. In any event, I concur with the suggestion that we close this discussion (and archive it in a few days). - Rrius ( talk) 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
Under the "Government" section there is a missing word as can be seen here:
"There are two major political groups that usually form government, federally and in the states:"
It should read:
"There are two major political groups that usually form the government, federally and in the states:"
I would fix it myself, but the article is protected from non-membership edits.
66.227.150.150 ( talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Re. this statement:
" Asian Australians make up by far the largest ethnic minority, at 12% of the population. SMH source ABS source"
SMH source states: "From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent." ABS source is the 2005 Australian Standard Classification of Cultural & Ethnic Groups.
I removed the words "make up by far the largest ethnic minority" because nothing in the SMH article seemed to support the "largest" claim. The words were re-added along with the second source, but I still don't see where either source states that this is the largest ethnic minority - or even that it's meaningful to describe "Asian-Australian" (covering everything from Japanese to Kazakh to Tamil) as a single "ethnic minority". ASCCEG don't have a single "Asian" category; even at the top level of "broad group", it lists "South-East Asian", "North-East Asian", and "Southern and Central Asian" as separate groups.
(BTW, the version of ASCCEG linked is outdated - see here for 2011 version. I don't think the changes have much bearing on this issue, but if we're going to cite it we should cite the one applicable to the 2011 Census. Unfortunately the ABS search engine has a bad habit of turning up outdated versions of stuff.) -- GenericBob ( talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to take out the 'largest ethnic minority' and leave it at just the 12% then go ahead. I included it because most other articles on Anglosphere Western nations have some info on broad ethnic categories and I included Asian Australians as clearly they are the only significant ethnic minority in Australia in terms of numbers (the great bulk being East Asian of course). However if you think that the figures based on ancestry (ie 35% English, 10% Irish, 5% Chinese, etc (from memory)) that are given already in that section then by all means remove the largest ethnic minority sentence. I feel that mentioning that Asian Australians, which have their own wiki article and correspond to Asian Canadians, Asian Americans, etc, which receive a mention in their respective articles - as with "African Americans" (who could come from anywhere in Africa, from Morocco to Zimbabwe) is warranted however, along with the fact that they make up 12% of the population, given that "Indigenous Australians" get a significant mention despite being a far, far smaller group. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Australian cyclist Cadel Evans should be added as the winner of the 2011 Le Tour de France Audioantique ( talk) 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
the first link in the external links doesnt have a star by it but the rest do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.242.133.101 ( talk) 18:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should talk about an Australian national anthem change. Seriously, we need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImHerelol ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I notice in the sport section that Australian rules football isn't mentioned. I think it should be mentioned as the sport the most popular winter sport in the country with the sport having the most participants out of all of the major main stream team sports, and the AFL is the highest attended sports league in the country and the 3rd highest in the world. Also the AFL Grand Final is regularly the most viewed program on Australian television. 144.132.28.156 ( talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I recently made a request that was answered that Australian rules football is not mentioned in the sports section. It was answered that it is, but all that is mentioned is that there is a league called the Australian Football League, people from over seas won't know what the sport is as there are many different codes of Football. I think it should be stated that the sport of Australian rules football is played in Australia for the reason's I stated in the last request.
It is also mentioned that the NRL Grand Final is one of the most viewed sport programs yearly and the AFL Grand Final isn't mentioned. I Think it should be mentioned that the AFL Grand Final is one of the most viewed sports program yearly, and I think it should be mentioned before the NRL Grand Final. Because it is one of the most viewed sports programs yearly and it regulary gets higher numbers than the NRL Grand Final. 203.24.110.83 ( talk) 06:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that each city in Australia has an inconsistently structured info-box. Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide for example have the run-of-the-mill "image montage", while Darwin, Newcastle and Sydney do not. What's the status quo? Indsnd ( talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a Request for comment about the question, "does a largest cities template/city population template add value to the articles about nations (esp. featured ones)?" This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 09:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A common mislabel as well as the Australian coins as of 1975 the official title of the queen is Elizabeth of Australia and not Elizabeth II (this a British title only) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.115.95 ( talk) 17:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In American English, it's pronounced /ɔːˈstreɪljə/. Fête ( talk) 00:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The coat of arms displayed here shows the coat of arms of the private corporation registered with the Securities Exchange Commission in Washington DC; www.sec.gov ABN: 122 104 616. The commonwealth act of 1900 uses a different coat of arms, and as no referendum has as yet changed the legal status, it doesn't really represent the legal government. Can this be changed please to the coat of arms representing the lawful 'Commonwealth of Australia'? Lord Chao ( talk) 14:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed two sentences that said: Some historians say the "Stolen Generations should be referred to as "genocide"." "Other historians say it's a load of b.s."
These two opinions constitute a debate. The two opinions have a very important place in the article Stolen Generations where they can be dealt with thoroughly, to the satisfaction of anyone who wants "opinion" as well as fact.
For the purpose of a generic article of very large scope, it is best to just stick to the facts. The fact is that a great number of children were removed from their families and communities.
I will source and add a further fact which confirms that this has caused problems.
Amandajm ( talk) 11:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
a racist response defended by a typical pseudointellectual arguement-- Lonepilgrim007 ( talk) 13:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
NDIA has become Australia's biggest source of migrants for the first time, eclipsing China and the once-dominant Britain.
In 2011-12, permanent migration from India reached 29,018 - 15.7 per cent of the total program, according to figures released yesterday by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen.
"The scale of recent Indian migration is striking," said the University of Melbourne's Lesleyanne Hawthorne, who studies migration and workforce needs.
"We can assume large numbers were former international students who had qualified onshore."
In 2010-11, China was Australia's No 1 source of permanent migrants with 29,549 visas. The year before it was Britain, with 25,738 migrants. Britain had held the top position right back to 1996-97, when current records began, Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said.
However, India and China grew strongly as source countries last decade, partly in step with the international student business.
A decade ago, loose government policy led to an explosion in courses such as accounting, cookery and hairdressing that would give students skilled migration visas. Job outcomes were poor, with weak English a problem.
New rules mean that in future it will be harder for non-native speakers of English to qualify as skilled migrants but many thousands of ex-students are still in the queue for permanent residence.
Amitabh Mattoo, director of the Melbourne-based Australia-India Institute, welcomed yesterday's migration figures, saying India and Australia had much in common as "democratic, English-speaking, federal" countries.
He predicted that India, with 500 million people under 25, would continue to be a source of skilled migration.
"While most of the rest of the world is ageing, India will remain young for the next 20-25 years," Professor Mattoo said.
In the latest figures, a quarter of Indian migrants were approved in visa categories associated with ex-students and family members already in Australia.
In the skilled stream of the migration program, there were still 143,000 people "in the pipeline" at June 30, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said.
In 2011-12, the number of cooks to be accepted as permanent migrants doubled to 4836, an increase that was questioned on labour market grounds by Professor Hawthorne.
Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said 43 per cent of these cooks were from India. Students from India were prominent in the 2004-08 boom in cookery courses.
Visas under a sponsorship scheme aimed at recruiting staff for employers in regional areas, including the city of Perth, grew 48 per cent in 2011-12.
This was likely to include Indian cookery graduates, according to Sydney migration and education agent Jonathan Granger.
"People stuck in that backlog (for independent skilled migration) have . . . sought other (visa) alternatives," he said.
In stark contrast to cooks, the number of accountants taken in as permanent migrants in 2011-12 fell by half to 6914.
Mr Granger said this probably reflected the emphasis on higher levels of English proficiency in the new skilled migration system.
Professor Hawthorne said skilled migration, dominated not long ago by ex-students in the independent visa category, had been "privatised" with the new emphasis on employer sponsorship.
And the permanent migration figures gave "only half the labour migration picture" because of today's government preference for temporary workers.
"Last year, Australia admitted an additional 131,000 people in the 457 (visa) temporary worker category, compared to around 34,000 temporary sponsored migrants seven years back," she said.
"Temporary migration is now dominant in select fields - (it is) the pathway, for instance, of four-fifths of recent medical migrants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.104.226 ( talk) 14:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"the name Australia is derived from the Latin australis, meaning "southern""
Australia=Austrias=Habsburgo dinasty=Spain=Austral=South, Australia is an spanish word, not a latin derivation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.11.176.100 ( talk) 15:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the name came from Spain! No doubt for this, also the first europeans were from Spain but the english history want to erase the real true, the name of that is "black legend" and even today stiil they use this to manipulate the real history. here Hertzen1945 ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help) (
talk) 08:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Think its time for a new article on "Etymology" so we can trim this down - like Name of Canada - what do others think? Moxy ( talk) 21:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It was Matthew Flinders, English navigator (and the first person to circumnavigate and map Australia's coastline), who first expressed a strong preference for the name Australia. He gave his reasons in 1805:
It is necessary, however, to geographical propriety, that the whole body of land should be designated under one general name; on this account, and under the circumstances of the discovery of the different parts, it seems best to refer back to the original Terra Australis, or Australia; which being descriptive of its situation, having antiquity to recommend it, and no reference to either of the two claiming nations, is perhaps the least objectionable that could have been chosen; for it is little to apprehended, that any considerable body of land, in a more southern situation, will be hereafter discovered.
Re: "the name Australia is derived from the Latin australis, meaning "southern"". This is not referenced. It either should be correctly referenced, or removed. I believe it should be replaced with a summary of the following from Gerritsen,Rupert(cited below):-
There can be little doubt that Quirós originally intended to apply the name “Austrialia Espíritu Santo” to Espíritu Santo in 1606. The term “Australia” then appeared in subsequent texts, either as an alternative spelling or a spelling error. Quirós’ memorials were only intended to have limited circulation, for King Philip III and royal officials. As the result of an unknown sequence of events the 8th Memorial found its way out of Spain, and by 1625 it had been translated into Italian, Dutch, French and lastly English (Purchas 1625, 4:1422-27). By this means it entered the lexicon of several languages and was ultimately applied to our nation, with the word “Australia” appearing for the first time in English in Purchas His Pilgrimes in 1625 (Purchas 1625, 4:1423 & 1432).8 Were it not for that historical accident, this discussion would not need to be taking place. LawrieM ( talk) 22:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{Clothing brands by country |state=autocollapse}} GbySmn talk2me07:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
In the beginning it says that Australia is the 12th largest economy and in the economic section it says that Australia is the 13th largest economy. Both of these claims redirect to the same link on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) which states that in fact Australia is the 12th largest economy!! It is a shame this article is semi protected! Hope this mistake has a quick fix soon! Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.27.148 ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Australia is to study Better Life Index Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the happiest among developing countries in the world, according to the BBC. The criteria were living space per person, employment, education, pollution, average life expectancy, general satisfaction, security, time spent at work. More than 73 percent of the population of Australia from 15-64 years has a paid job, and the average life expectancy is nearly 82 years. Among the ten happiest countries are Sweden, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the U.S., Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland and the United Kingdom. The 15 Countries With The Highest Quality Of Life - and - OECD Better Life Index. Australia -- 78.2.88.115 ( talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
[2]Gillard has resigned the commission of PM and the office is now vacant.
Flat Out
let's discuss it 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the info box along the side of the article, the Prime Minister needs to be changed from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd due to the Labor internal poll on Tuesday the 26th of June, 2013. Fritxweb ( talk) 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
< http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/kevin-rudd-returns-to-labor-leadership-after-beating-julia-gillard-with-57-45-victory/story-fnii5s3x-1226670510502> Fritxweb ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a change today from "gaol" to "jail", citing the Macquarie dictionary. However, "gaol" is the traditional spelling. We even have a category full of articles titled "<foo> Gaol". We don't seem to have any titled "<foo> Jail". There's no doubt that gaol has fallen from popular use, most these days are called "<foo> Correctional Centre", or "<foo> Correctional Complex", as in the "new" name for Bathurst Gaol. Despite what one summary implied, [15] use of "jail" isn't the predominant use. The increasing use of jail can be traced back to the introduction of PCs, when spell checkers were predominantly US by default (I spent half my life fixing this on corporate PCs, especially those using MS Word). Prior to then, "gaol" was used almost exclusively, but that and the increasing availability of US TV programs has increased its popularity. That doesn't mean we should use it here. "Jail" is used by journalists, but they also use mdy dates, while the Australian standard is dmy. Arguing that jail is the modern spelling is no more valid than claimimg that "lt" and "mtr" are acceptable abbreviations for litre and metre. A quick check of AustlII shows that "gaol" is predominant in our legislation, [16] while a search for "jail" shows much fewer results, with a lot coming from New Zealand. [17] For these reasons, and more, we should stick with the traditional Australian spelling, not the recent Americanized version. The change that was made is really not appropriate anyway. Port Arthur was never a "jail", it was a "gaol". It was closed long before the "modern" spelling. That said, Port Arthur, Tasmania calls it a prison, which both gaol and jail redirect to, so that seems a far better word to use. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The Macquarie Dictionary is the accepted standard for spelling in Australia, used by courts, in statute (yes there are two regular but not universal exceptions namely judgement as opposed to judgement and gaol as opposed to jail however these are legal specific spellings traditionally used in the legal profession just like fetus is specific to scientific professions rather than general; also, the drafting guides for statutes nevertheless specify Macquarie be followed), in university and press style guides, and by the ABC. As such, its spellings are of course the go-to for Australian spelling of words. The Macquarie has listed 'jail' since its inception. You are quite right that many old prisons in this country use the gaol spelling but the key is that these are all old jails. Spelling changes have occured frequently over time in this country with encyclopaedia => encyclopedia, programme => program being two other examples. The fact is 'jail' is listed as the preferred spelling by BOTH Australian English dictionaries (Macquarie and Oxford Australian) whereas 'gaol' is not listed in any and needs to go. Your misunderstanding is probably the same one that some people within Australia have regarding spelling, which is that Australian spelling is and remains the same as traditional British spelling (gaol, programme, etc) but this is not the case and historically speaking never has been. The fact is that 'jail' is the one which is backed up by all the style guides and dictionaries today, prevails in usage, and depending on the pedanticness of the examiner, if you used 'gaol' in an academic context in Australia (certainly in an editiorial context or published work) it would likely be marked wrong or changed. -- Saruman-the-white ( talk) 11:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=N>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Go to the list of countries by GDP (nominal)
update the GDP figures for both nominal and the less relevant PPP in the right hand side column and economy section
they currently show 2009 figures
the GDP figures for 2010 are now listed on the aforementioned articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 05:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
My god. One would think such a major and crucial detail would be updated immediately, let alone still be left unchanged weeks after the suggestion was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 14:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Figures have now been updated but the nominal figure is in the format of 1,_ _ _ billion, rather than 1._ _ _ trillion, which is the format used for other countries' articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "Approximately 56 per cent of Australia's population live in either Victoria or New South Wales, and approximately 77 per cent live on the mainland's east coast" should be removed from the intro as there is already a sentence in regards to the proportion of population living in the 5 major capitals, any more is too detailed for the intro and unnecessary. Further, selecting Vic and NSW is very arbitrary, why not say __% live in vic, nsw and qld, as these states have the largest populations by far, and the difference between the nsw and vic population is greater than the diff between the vic and qld population. As such, it is an arbritrary figure to be putting in an intro which is supposed to be succinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 06:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
...And 24.39/km2 (vic) is even further away again from 9.04km2 (nsw) ! I cannot see any reason for this wholely arbitrary and overly detailed fact to be in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.254.44 ( talk) 08:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This revert is fair enough, it gives a source
http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government
which certainly looks relevant. I'll investigate further.
Many years ago when I worked for the Australan Government, after a change of government they made quite a big thing of removing the words Commonwealth of from all our stationery and correspondence. Perhaps this has been quietly reversed!
Agree that if it's the official name it should be in the infobox. Andrewa ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell me, what are the nearest neighbors to Australia, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.139.27 ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
And AussieLegend wins the Nationalist Pedant Award of the Day with that change that took me quite a while to figure out ;-) HiLo48 ( talk) 08:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Not to be confused with Austria." is kind of silly. I suggest it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.114.113 ( talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Not disputing this decision at all (and I didn't add the text in question), but I thought I'd add a little anecdote to illustrate that the confusion does occur, silly as it may seem.
At one stage I was corresponding, from Australia, regularly with a party in rural France. The letters, by air post, typically arrived in the second day after posting, very impressive considering that Paris-Sydney was at the time a 28 hour flight.
Then one from France to Australia diaappeared, to arrive, intact, three weeks later. Inspecting the envelope, it had been postmarked in Vienna. So despite beng clearly addressed Australie, it had been sent via Austria.
The bizarre thing being, the French name for Austria is Autriche, and the French often call it Österreich in my experience, while Australia is always known as Australie, so the confusion is far more likely in English than in French. Andrewa ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Not to be confused with Austria."-note should stay. I'v noticed on YouTube comments how many people seems to confuse them, propably because Austria is not so popular country. However, I do not have any good source for that, so I do understand if this will not pass. -- Pek ( talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a note directing them to the Simple English Wikipedia (which by the way does not have this note, despite its "simple" nature) would be more appropriate: Click here if you were looking for Austria. Seriously guys, this discussion does not need to be happening - if you can't find Austria instead of Australia, shame on you. Ignorant Armie s 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to make that : ( But Nickm57 said "Sorry this edit is poorly expressed or doesnt make much sense" ) , then i post here to inform you.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Aleno_de_St_Alo%C3%BCarn By Picaballo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picaballo ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted this addition to the article which cites this CNBC article to claim that "one in six" young Australians (15 24 year olds) are unemployed and that this is a serious problem. The problem with youth unemployment data is that most of the relevant share of the population is out of the labour force as they're studying (for instance, the great bulk of 15-18 year olds are at high school and a majority of people aged in their early 20s are in some form of education). As a result, the number of people in this age group who are eligible to be counted in the ABS' definition of unemployment is pretty small, and they tend to be highly disadvantaged (as they have low levels of education and tend to come from a low socioeconomic status background). To cut a long story short, the proportion of young Australians who are both out of work and not studying is pretty small (much lower than one in six) and that news story is totally wrong-headed. The fact that it directly compares Australia's youth unemployment rate with the total unemployment rate in other countries says it all really (these countries with high total unemployment rates have even higher youth unemployment rates). This OECD paper from late last year shows that the proportion of 15-19 year olds in Australia who were not in education or employment in 2008 (which is the most recent year data are available for) was actually about 6 percent and is below the OECD average (though it was a bit higher than the rates in a lot of other OECD countries). Nick-D ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
n 5 May 2011 at 18:33:16 (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:
22,600,426
This is an example
IT SHOULD BE UPDATED DAILY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniarulez ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have recently finished editing the Australian English article so that it now very detailed includes a substantial history, phonology, regional dialects, cultural dialects, etc.
Given that English is currently listed in the table as australia's 'de facto' language, i think it obvious that the de facto language of this country is Australian English given the fact that de facto means by default. For example, British or American English would not be the de facto language of Australia.
Given that this is an article on Australia, it follows that the de facto language should be listed as the variety of english that is native to and particular to this country, just as culture links to culture of australia, specific to australia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago, I added the 3rd + 2nd last sentences in the 'religion' section.. citing a survey of the Bertelsmann Foundation.. I believe my sentences express the feeling + sentiment of the last sentence, supporting it with the research of the Bertelsmann Foundation; to make the last sentence more relevant, I could do a 'Church attendance and identification with religions has fallen dramatically over the past few decades...' citing information from the article 'Australians losing the faith', which the last sentence uses as a citation. Tjpob ( talk) 16:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Why does the 'non-indigenous population' heading end at 1850 (in the population table under 'demographics')? The populations of Aboriginal Australians were unmeasured (estimated) until 1971. (See ABS 2005 yearbook (time-line)) Or are the official estimates included in the 1900-1960 statistics..? I can check with the creator of the source Population statistics. It seems semi-reliable. Though he has a page of sources used Sources, he doesn't say on the Australian page what source he used. - census data much better imo. Tjpob ( talk) 14:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
When examining the estimates ('20, '30, '40, '50, '60) in relation to census data, they look pretty good actually. 1920 estimate ('000): 5 411, 1921 Census data ('000): 5 435; 1930 6 501, 1933 6 629; 1940 7078, 1947 7 579; 1950 8 307, 1954 8 986; 1960 10 392, 1961 10 508 Tjpob ( talk) 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the figures are fairly accurate, I assume they're based on the census data. Hence, they don't include the Indigenous population, and should state that. Tjpob ( talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
ASIAN AUSTRALIAN In the article about "Asian Australians" there have been clearly vandalism with the percentage of Asians living in Sidney and Melbourne.-- 83.39.3.6 ( talk) 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed Ignorant Armies ? ! 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's now compulsory to enrol to vote in South Australia, when you turn 18. It was changed in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.216.249 ( talk) 06:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Can someone add in information on Chinese exploration and links with Australia through 1250-1420 This page only mentions European exploration. Like not mentioning Viking exploration of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.151.193 ( talk) 05:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Of possible interest to editors of Australia–related articles: 12 unusual facts about Australia -- Pawyilee ( talk) 02:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia's national is english. [1] but it states some 3 millions speak other languages. would that classify English as the "official" language? Nobletripe ( talk) 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you :( looking at those past talks, others have brought it up. Nobletripe ( talk) 09:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You have to add the Aussie Antarctic Territory as in Chile Makedonija ( talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no international treaty recognising the sovereignty of Australia over the Antarctic territory. Indeed no claims of any country over Antarctica are universally recognised. Nevertheless it cpuild be noted that Australia 'claims' sovereignty over a section of Antartica. Gazzster ( talk) 23:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Another meaning for the word Australia is "land of the (fallen) star." This is derived from the word 'astra' meaning 'star,' and the suffix -alia "of the area." The reason for this is that both the Judeo-Christian Bible and modern geology hint at the fact that the earth used to be one land mass. Regarding the Bible, this is found in Genesis 10:25, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan."
The word Peleg has the meaning division. While one would think that this refers to a migratory division of the peoples of the earth, it does not fit the text, in that many peoples already were upon the earth at this time and had spread out from their location near the mountains of Ararat (Urartu.) The real meaning of Peleg refers to the breaking up of the 'Gondwana' supercontinent.
Contrary to what evolutionary science tells us regarding this, the impact was not a water-based landing for the asteroid, but rather land-based. As can be gathered by the numerous impact craters scattered around the planet, the earth was involved in a super meteor shower except that it was asteroids.
If such a thing happened, whether biblical or evolutionary, there would be evidence of such a large asteroid residing somewhere on the planet, whether under the sea or on land. I believe that this super-asteroid is none other than Mt. Uluru/Ayers Rock located in west-central Australia. It may be that evidence of its non-terrestrial origin can be found if looked at closely enough.
75.107.35.137 ( talk) 06:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The climate map is missing the temperate zone in the southwest of Western Australia, it currently incorrectly shows it as being subtropical
Here is a link to the original map showing the complete southwest section of WA. http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/climate/environ/other/kpn_group.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.142.73 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
After a relevant and reversion the article now says "All children receive eleven years of compulsory education from the age of 6 to 16 (Year Prep/Kindergarten to 10)", however this does not agree with the cited ref which says that prep/kindergarten is not compulsory - ie the compulsory years are 1 to 10 (ie "ten years of compulsory eduction"). Unfortunately the ref doesn't actually say that it's compulsory up to year 10. I think the matter may be complicated by the fact that:
The above points are based purely on my recollection of the rules - obviously we need to find appropriate current references with the current rules. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but the Environment section appears to refer to the Rudd Ministry in the present tense. It also does not mention what the Gillard Government has done in terms of Greenhouse gas emission legislation. I think this section needs an update.
It also refers to Water Restrictions due to drought, however I think these have been partially lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckydog429 ( talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This page needs updating as the general archaeological evidence for aboriginal habitation goes back at least 66,000 years and the possibilty of a further 10-20,000 yrs has support. Recent genetic research shows the aboriginal types (gracile/robustus), to have separated from the "african root" of humanity before its spread to the european/asian continent. There was a claim of human "rock pitting"/art in the Kimberley in the 1990's of 110,000-120,000 yrs ago, but this claim has been dismissed as being "too" old to be acceptable. By now - 2012, newer researh is supporting these claims and is fairly easy to track down.
This subject should be of major significance globally as the Aboriginal culture is by far the oldest continual culture known.
The deplorable treatment by non-indigenous "Australians" and especially the Government should be taken up by the United Nations as a situation of utmost importance and pressure brought to bear on said government to finally get real about this cultural genocide.
How the traditional owners of this land have not to any great degree retaliated as almost all other cultures have done worldwide under similar circumstances, is beyond me. I can only guess that they are so demoralized by their repression, they find it hard to envisage any action on their part as being successful. With newer generations of non-indigenous people populating this country that incorporate less racist attitudes, and further indigenous education, perhaps a glimmer of a future can be detected, but it had better happen soon or their will only be dust to study.
Hopefully I've not overstepped the bounds of this site causing this page to be deleted, signed, Kram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.73.157 ( talk) 04:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any good basis for referring to the star on the Australian flag as the "Commonwealth Star". So, for example: (1) when was this phrase first used? (2) does the Australian Government refer to it as the "Commonwealth Star"? (3) is this "Commonwealth Star" description any more commonly used than other names attributed to the Star? (4) is the "Commonwealth Star" description a term that only came into use by virtue of Wikipedia (bar isolated use before that) ?
I don't know the answers but am interested in informed comment (which refers to sources). 86.42.28.118 ( talk) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
REPLY:
Thank you for providing a good response. It was well sourced and strikes me as a good faith contribution. Thanks. I note that the following:
in each case, in addition to the term "Commonwealth Star". In my view the most important source by far which you have pointed to is the "Review of Reviews" [5] and the detailed flag description therein. It does indeed use the "name" "Commonwealth Star". That is the best and most authoritive source I have seen to date. I wonder was the flag approved by the Royal Herald (or whatever the relevant title is in this case); I would have thought it would be and that in so doing the flag would be described. If you found that source, it might well use the term "Commonwealth Star" also. That would put the question to bed entirely. At present, I am happy that "Commonwealth Star" is not a bogus Wiki invention or some such but a genuine term. I am also happy with the name of the article. I may add in a para showing some of the sources you have pointed to as it would seem a waste not to (as you have gone off and found this valuable information). 86.42.178.193 ( talk) 11:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
On my last visit to Australia I noticed many Australians have very bad teeth. I have been told there is dental care in Australia. Maybe you should add it under health so people know why Australians have bad teeth.
Also, I found interesting the long (years and years) queues for social housing. That was in fact very shocking to me. Maybe you could aslo add this. Finally, I find the Australia article doesnt really represent the truth. It is more like a tourist brochure - only nice things are stated. I assume it is written moslty by the Australians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.104.213.70 ( talk) 11:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently the infor box says Aust. got its indo. from the United Kingdom. I suggest this be amended to be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom" (linked). Could some one make the small linking change. I am an IP editor and can't edit the article. 86.42.28.118 ( talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the first user in that the generally accepted date of independence cited in the vast majority of cases worldwide is 1901. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 12:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Well it was not my suggestion so i do not care much either way, however using UK of GB and Irl would probably be more consistent as the US is listed as getting independence from "the Kingdom of Great Britain". I agree that independence was a process, however to back up the person who made the original suggestion I will say that if 1901 is taken as the key date in that process, which i believe it was (more important than stat. westminst., aust. act...), then the conventional and consistent practice would be to link to the UK of GB and Irl article, as the UK of GB and N.I. did not exist on that date. I will not change it myself, though, because it doesnt bother me much either way. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have just altered the UTC offsets from 10.5 in normal and 11.5 in Daylight saving to 10 and 11 which is the true status. I wonder why it was given as 10.5 and 11.5 in the first place? All the Eastern States are UTC +10 (and those with Daylight Saving go to 11 in summer). SA and NT are UTC +9.5 which is possibly where the confusion lies. In fact as far as I know there is NO time zone at all that's UTC +10.5. Vanuatu, Solomons and probably parts of Russia (etc) are +11 and New Zealand (etc) is +12. In fact SA/NT are quite unusual with a half-hour time zone: geographically they are well and truly UTC +9 - the borders line up really well with 120-135 degrees longitude but they've chosen to be only half an hour behind the Eastern states for "convenience" (and so are essentially on permanent 1/2 hr daylight saving - SA goes 1-1/2 hrs forward in summer!!). Anyway, I digress: can someone suggest why we had UTC +10.5/11.5 in there at all, or was it simply a misinterpretation of where South Australia is in the scheme of things?? TheBustopher ( talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's take a step back. First of all, Hawaii is as much a US state as California, so of course it is included in the range. Note that the Northern Marianas and U.S. Virgin Islands, both of which elect non-voting delegates to Congress, are not included in the range. Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are not included in Britain's range, and France's various overseas departments aren't included at France. That said, the real question is how much the fact that Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island are populated and physically close to Australia matters versus the fact that their political position is significantly different from NT and the ACT. Mine own view is that it really doesn't matter because Australia's time zone situation is so complicated. - Rrius ( talk) 12:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, australia now has free tv (digital). The article says it has sbs, abc and 3 commercial channels. I live in Melbourne and we now have like 15 channels including sbs and abc, not to mention sbs 2 and 3 and abc 1,2 and 3!!!! Can someone fix this??!! 182.12.56.154 ( talk) Kolin —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
In reference to the info box on the right side of the article, specifically: "- Density 2.8/km2, 7.3/sq mi"
A mile is longer than a kilometer, thus a square mile is bigger than a square kilometer. Consequently, should the density per square mile not be lower than the density per square kilometer? Of course I might misunderstand the intention of the data, any clarification is welcome. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.169.201.86 (
talk) 10:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in this multiple RM that I have initiated. My preamble:
These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles.
Your vote ("Support" or "Oppose") would be welcome, along with your reasons.
Noetica Tea? 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In the Australia InfoBox, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is not listed. There are articles on French CJ and the position of Chief Justice of Australia. Rjgcooper ( talk) 02:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "chief justice of australia" and "robert french" should be listed under PM in the info box, as with the US article, as the judiciary is one of the three vital arms of our government as set out in the Constitution. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 04:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that the position be marked as "Chief Justice", not "Chief Justice of Australia". The "of Australia" bit would seem redundant. Rjgcooper ( talk) 05:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
yeah sorry of course
Saruman-the-white (
talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In the section on this page about the royal anthem, the sound file for the National Anthem gets a few mentions. It seems to me that this article (particularly the top of the info box where it's been inserted) is not the place for this file. While I suggest its a no-brainer that this article should mention the National Anthem some where (although perhaps not in the top of the info box - but that's another discussion), the inclusion of the sound file is a tad irrelevant. It makes much more sense to leave it to the Advance Australia Fair article - there is a very obvious and easy link to that page. We don't need to include ALL info on all Australia-related topics. Rather, WP:SUMMARY style requires, well, a summary with links to the details - i.e., the sound file.
I see at least three, maybe four, people supporting this in the mention above. This link shows the change in question - and shows that at least another editor supports keeping it out and we have one in suppoty of inclusion]. Can we confirm (or otherwise)? -- Merbabu ( talk) 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Commonwealth of Australia | |
---|---|
Anthem: " Advance Australia Fair" [N 1] |
well it would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yes philpm930 Philpm930 ( talk) 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably the main reason that I voted to remove the sound file is that the link is relatively large and obtrusive. I've proposed a solution at Template talk:Infobox country#Can we add a small button to play the anthem? - although I don't know whether it is feasible to do. Interested parties should take up the discussion on that template talk page. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to add it, but there was an issue: |royal_anthem =
"
God Save the Queen
Twillisjr ( talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Unbeknownst to most Australians, it is indeed still the "royal anthem", used in the presence of the monarch when they come to visit (although this tradition may have fallen out of favour). However this has been discussed several times before and it was resolved each time not to put it on the information bar on the right hand side as "Advance Australia Fair" is the only widely known (or indeed, for the vast majority of Australians, the only known) anthem which is used in all situations except for Royal visits (not clear if god save the queen is still even used for these). Thus I would request you not to revisit the issue and attempt to add it again. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 12:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've just undone Conay's change, there is clearly no consensus. I have to agree with HiLo48, AussieLegend and Politas, God Save The Queen has not been an anthem in Australia since the mid 1980s. Bidgee ( talk) 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe we need to come to a consensus here. Do we formally include God Save the Queen as the Australian Royal Anthem, as is official and used on other Commonwealth Realm pages? Conay ( talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Really, this is not getting us anywhere. Despite the fact that some people may not know about the Royal Anthem, it is the official Royal Anthem, and as such is worthy of note. I doubt most Australians know what our GPD is, or our population density but we don't remove those facts from from the infobox do we? On this statement, I suggest we simply reach a consensus now. Aye or Nay?
Anjwalker
Talk 11:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wowsers, I wonder if these 'royal anthem' inclusion/exclusion discussions are occuring on all Commonwealth realm infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears that this conversation has wound down, yet no conclusion has been reached. Could people please cast a final vote, so we can work out this matter? Anjwalker Talk 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Australia Nationalistic & patriotic songs | |
---|---|
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Australia |
I'm very strongly with Merbabu on this. Wikipedia does not work by voting. In particular, consensus can never be achieved that way. They mean entirely different things. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm consensus is never achieved by voting but a wote! is used as a means to guage consensus, consensus should be decided by the weight if arguments presented but mostly its by the weight of numbers. I havet commented on this discussion but if I came here as a neutral admin I guage the weight of arguments and come to the conclusion that GSTQ should be include because of its official status, where as the exclusion side of the argument is about whether its in actual use. The position is Australia has two anthems it can officially use one is used more broadly than the other, which has a specific purpose in a specific context. My opinion is that both should be included in the infobox and linked but only AAF should actually have a play button as that recognises the position of both but only links to one which is the standard in use, under 99% of circumstances. Gnan garra 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Commonwealth of Australia | |
---|---|
Anthem: " Advance Australia Fair [N 2]" |
No idea where this discussion/vote is (this page is a mess), but I still oppose having GSTQ in such a prominent place in the Infobox. Yes, it's a true fact about Australia, but it's fact that most Australians neither know nor care about, so don't give the world a false impression. Mention it somewhere in the text, but not where the Infobox forces it to appear. (Wikipedia really has to improve on the Infobox front. They should not control content so much.) HiLo48 ( talk) 03:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
exclude from infobox, leave as a footnote at the bottom of the article. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Due to the fact that no conclusion has been reached, I'd like to make a request for comment on the following question; Should the Australian royal anthem be included in the infobox? And if so, in what form (Wikilink to God Save The Queen or sound file)? Anjwalker Talk 07:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"Human habitation of the Australian continent is variously estimated to have begun between c. 6,000[37] and 48,000 years ago,[38]"
I note the arrival of a NPOVD tag on the article. I think we have consensus here already, but just to be sure, let's test it. The Australia article includes the statement, Human habitation of the Australian continent is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago... and is supported by the source, Dating the First Australians. This statement belongs in the article.
|
According to Australia#Language
A 2010–2011 study by the Australia Early Development Index found that ...
According to its web page, the AEDI is a "collection of information", which to me suggest that the Index itself is unlikely to do a study. The AEDI is apparently collated by The Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and State and Territory Governments (working in partnership with others). I suggest that the article needs rewording, but without having access to the cited ref ( Agence France-Presse/ Jiji Press, "Arabic Australia's second language", Japan Times, 16 April 2011, p. 4.), I can't determine whether DEEWR et al did the study or someone else did it using the data. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The population density info is incorrect - It should be 2.83 people per square kilometer and 1.08 per square mile.
I think that is incorrect. This saysThis says it is ah-strail-yuh. TheThomas ( talk) 11:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The one in the article is the one used by Australians. In informal speech Australians may pronounce it as "straya" or similar, dropping letters, but clearly this is colloquial and should not be included, and when singing advance australia fair sometimes (including when julia gillard pronounces it, strangely), some say "aws-stralia" which is a mock british pronunciation, as choral style singing of nonpopular music in both australia and the us often uses by convention something similar to received pronunciation. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We needn't worry about colloquial pronunciations, but if the ah and uh pronunciations are both common in normal register, then we should consider using both. Then again, if it is a question of accent, we should consider the principles discussed at Wikipedia:Pronunciation#Distinction between British, American and Australian pronunciation (I don't have the patience right now to figure out if that guideline applies to intra-country differences). - Rrius ( talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Two logical options. One two use all three common pronunciations (estralia, or there abouts, for Aust. English), (awstralia, or there abouts, for British English [RP]), (ahhstralia, or there abouts, for American English [Gen Am]). The other alternative is to just use the pronunciation that is used by about 99% of Australian English speakers (sans the exception of singing the national anthem for some), which the is pronunciation that is already there. This seems more concise, as i'm sure articles on England or the UK for example do not include American or Australian pronunciations, nor would the article on the USA or an american state or city include British or Australian pronunciations. Fair enough I say. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 10:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The dropping of the 'l' should not be dismissed as informal. I have heard several excerpts recently of reasonably formal speeches by Australian politicians, and in every case the 'l' was not pronounced. It should probably be acknowledged as at least as a major variety of standard Australian pronunciation of the name. Whenever I have paid attention to Aussie pronunciation, the 'l' is not there. Whether this is just a New South Wales feature or more widely spread, I don't know.
On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree with HiLo48's contention that only local pronunciations should be considered, though they should be given due weight. I don't use the French pronunciation of 'France' when I'm speaking English; by the same token I don't use an Australian pronunciation of 'Australia' when I'm speaking my usual New Zealand English. No doubt all Irish pronounce the 'r' in 'Ireland', but the form that drops the 'r', and pronounces 'Ire-' as a triphthong is standard southern British, and in very frequent use.
It's also worth considering how an Australian would prefer to see the name represented in the context of a Wikipedia article. However they normally pronounce the name, they may prefer a formal version in print.
Koro Neil ( talk) 02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a recent minor dispute between User:Phung Wilson and others over the pronunciation of Australia. Looking into the article history, I found this edit where User:Saruman-the-white removed two additional pronunciations. Saruman's justification, elaborated here shows the belief that the three pronunciations indicated Australian, British and American norms, respectively and that the single transcription at Canada serves as a guide to how to deal with variable pronunciations across regions.
Given the discussion above and in the archives, here are my two cents. Our guide at WP:IPA for English is an attempt to provide one transcription for any given English word that accounts for dialectal variation. When pronunciations vary based on regular, accentual differences (such as the different pronunciations of the vowel in pay, which are phonetically different but phonemically identical, or the phonemic distinction between the vowels of cot and caught, which we encode for even though not all accents make such a distinction), our transcription system is such that we need only one transcription. Excessive parsing of regional variation goes against the point of having one transcription system for multiple dialects (as explained at the explanatory guide at WP:IPA for English), but there are instances where there is a difference in "incidence." That is to say, the different pronunciation is not due to a regular sound change that we encode for in our transcription system. It could be a tomayto/tomahto thing (that is, the difference is not regular) or it could be like the vowel of bath (that is, the change is regular, but we don't encode for it); either way, when the system can't account for the variation, it's appropriate to show multiple pronunciations.
It does seem to be the case that there is variation in how Australia is pronounced (namely, with the first vowel); this variation goes beyond that found in other words, like Canada and can't be accounted for in the system laid out at WP:IPA for English. I didn't see this conversation before I reintroduced one of the deleted pronunciations, as well as the citation attached to it (though, per this edit, I'm not so sure that the source backs up both pronunciations), so I hope I'm not unnecessarily fanning flames of contention. I've also labeled one of the terms as "local" in a fashion paralleling that of New Orleans.
I'm not particularly wedded to how I've placed the two pronunciations; if there is more variation than this or if people feel like more explanation is necessary, an explanatory footnote may be in order, rather than cluttering up the lede. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be happy to see no pronunciation guide. Really, how useful is it? (although at least here we don't have the issue of 2 or three lines of multiple names, and translations before we even define the topic - why, for example, are people sticking in Chinese character translations in so many leads now???? but i digress...) And the question of which pronunciations get included and which don't, for me is even more ridiculous. Like most other articles, there are more important issues at hand. But that's just my opinion and I accept that it sits outside the apparent Wikipedia way. Just saying. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My proposed change in the article entails expanding the range in the list of estimates to include a date as early as c. 6000 years ago, even though that date is connected to the politically incorrect view of a young earth (not MY view). I have about 100 more citations (70 percent by authors with earned doctorates) to support my little edit to make the bibliographical reference to the latitude of variation in date more accurate. Now before I post them, tell me: Is anyone so bigoted that he has already decided to find some way to object, no matter what citations I post, regardless of when they were published (despite the pretense that Morris is to be ignored because published in 1961), regardless of the academic credentials of the authors? Are you already pre-judged? ( EnochBethany ( talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC))
EnochBethany, based on the previous discussion there's obviously no support to add material claiming that the human habitation of Australia began 6000 years ago on the grounds that this is a fringe view. As such, if you add any such material to this article, it's going to get removed very quickly and you're likely to end up being blocked from editing for POV pushing against consensus.
Nick-D (
talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
To address both who responded to me, I said that the words could be interpreted as saying Americans shouldn't edit here, not that it was intended that way. The point is that referring to the person's national origin was needlessly provocative. As for the body of United States being more detailed, so what? I seriously doubt this particular editor would have read that far. Americans of a certain political and religious bent figure they know everything about their country without actually reading anything. In any event, I concur with the suggestion that we close this discussion (and archive it in a few days). - Rrius ( talk) 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
Under the "Government" section there is a missing word as can be seen here:
"There are two major political groups that usually form government, federally and in the states:"
It should read:
"There are two major political groups that usually form the government, federally and in the states:"
I would fix it myself, but the article is protected from non-membership edits.
66.227.150.150 ( talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Re. this statement:
" Asian Australians make up by far the largest ethnic minority, at 12% of the population. SMH source ABS source"
SMH source states: "From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent." ABS source is the 2005 Australian Standard Classification of Cultural & Ethnic Groups.
I removed the words "make up by far the largest ethnic minority" because nothing in the SMH article seemed to support the "largest" claim. The words were re-added along with the second source, but I still don't see where either source states that this is the largest ethnic minority - or even that it's meaningful to describe "Asian-Australian" (covering everything from Japanese to Kazakh to Tamil) as a single "ethnic minority". ASCCEG don't have a single "Asian" category; even at the top level of "broad group", it lists "South-East Asian", "North-East Asian", and "Southern and Central Asian" as separate groups.
(BTW, the version of ASCCEG linked is outdated - see here for 2011 version. I don't think the changes have much bearing on this issue, but if we're going to cite it we should cite the one applicable to the 2011 Census. Unfortunately the ABS search engine has a bad habit of turning up outdated versions of stuff.) -- GenericBob ( talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to take out the 'largest ethnic minority' and leave it at just the 12% then go ahead. I included it because most other articles on Anglosphere Western nations have some info on broad ethnic categories and I included Asian Australians as clearly they are the only significant ethnic minority in Australia in terms of numbers (the great bulk being East Asian of course). However if you think that the figures based on ancestry (ie 35% English, 10% Irish, 5% Chinese, etc (from memory)) that are given already in that section then by all means remove the largest ethnic minority sentence. I feel that mentioning that Asian Australians, which have their own wiki article and correspond to Asian Canadians, Asian Americans, etc, which receive a mention in their respective articles - as with "African Americans" (who could come from anywhere in Africa, from Morocco to Zimbabwe) is warranted however, along with the fact that they make up 12% of the population, given that "Indigenous Australians" get a significant mention despite being a far, far smaller group. Saruman-the-white ( talk) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Australian cyclist Cadel Evans should be added as the winner of the 2011 Le Tour de France Audioantique ( talk) 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
the first link in the external links doesnt have a star by it but the rest do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.242.133.101 ( talk) 18:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should talk about an Australian national anthem change. Seriously, we need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImHerelol ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I notice in the sport section that Australian rules football isn't mentioned. I think it should be mentioned as the sport the most popular winter sport in the country with the sport having the most participants out of all of the major main stream team sports, and the AFL is the highest attended sports league in the country and the 3rd highest in the world. Also the AFL Grand Final is regularly the most viewed program on Australian television. 144.132.28.156 ( talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I recently made a request that was answered that Australian rules football is not mentioned in the sports section. It was answered that it is, but all that is mentioned is that there is a league called the Australian Football League, people from over seas won't know what the sport is as there are many different codes of Football. I think it should be stated that the sport of Australian rules football is played in Australia for the reason's I stated in the last request.
It is also mentioned that the NRL Grand Final is one of the most viewed sport programs yearly and the AFL Grand Final isn't mentioned. I Think it should be mentioned that the AFL Grand Final is one of the most viewed sports program yearly, and I think it should be mentioned before the NRL Grand Final. Because it is one of the most viewed sports programs yearly and it regulary gets higher numbers than the NRL Grand Final. 203.24.110.83 ( talk) 06:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that each city in Australia has an inconsistently structured info-box. Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide for example have the run-of-the-mill "image montage", while Darwin, Newcastle and Sydney do not. What's the status quo? Indsnd ( talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a Request for comment about the question, "does a largest cities template/city population template add value to the articles about nations (esp. featured ones)?" This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 09:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A common mislabel as well as the Australian coins as of 1975 the official title of the queen is Elizabeth of Australia and not Elizabeth II (this a British title only) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.115.95 ( talk) 17:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In American English, it's pronounced /ɔːˈstreɪljə/. Fête ( talk) 00:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The coat of arms displayed here shows the coat of arms of the private corporation registered with the Securities Exchange Commission in Washington DC; www.sec.gov ABN: 122 104 616. The commonwealth act of 1900 uses a different coat of arms, and as no referendum has as yet changed the legal status, it doesn't really represent the legal government. Can this be changed please to the coat of arms representing the lawful 'Commonwealth of Australia'? Lord Chao ( talk) 14:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed two sentences that said: Some historians say the "Stolen Generations should be referred to as "genocide"." "Other historians say it's a load of b.s."
These two opinions constitute a debate. The two opinions have a very important place in the article Stolen Generations where they can be dealt with thoroughly, to the satisfaction of anyone who wants "opinion" as well as fact.
For the purpose of a generic article of very large scope, it is best to just stick to the facts. The fact is that a great number of children were removed from their families and communities.
I will source and add a further fact which confirms that this has caused problems.
Amandajm ( talk) 11:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
a racist response defended by a typical pseudointellectual arguement-- Lonepilgrim007 ( talk) 13:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
NDIA has become Australia's biggest source of migrants for the first time, eclipsing China and the once-dominant Britain.
In 2011-12, permanent migration from India reached 29,018 - 15.7 per cent of the total program, according to figures released yesterday by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen.
"The scale of recent Indian migration is striking," said the University of Melbourne's Lesleyanne Hawthorne, who studies migration and workforce needs.
"We can assume large numbers were former international students who had qualified onshore."
In 2010-11, China was Australia's No 1 source of permanent migrants with 29,549 visas. The year before it was Britain, with 25,738 migrants. Britain had held the top position right back to 1996-97, when current records began, Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said.
However, India and China grew strongly as source countries last decade, partly in step with the international student business.
A decade ago, loose government policy led to an explosion in courses such as accounting, cookery and hairdressing that would give students skilled migration visas. Job outcomes were poor, with weak English a problem.
New rules mean that in future it will be harder for non-native speakers of English to qualify as skilled migrants but many thousands of ex-students are still in the queue for permanent residence.
Amitabh Mattoo, director of the Melbourne-based Australia-India Institute, welcomed yesterday's migration figures, saying India and Australia had much in common as "democratic, English-speaking, federal" countries.
He predicted that India, with 500 million people under 25, would continue to be a source of skilled migration.
"While most of the rest of the world is ageing, India will remain young for the next 20-25 years," Professor Mattoo said.
In the latest figures, a quarter of Indian migrants were approved in visa categories associated with ex-students and family members already in Australia.
In the skilled stream of the migration program, there were still 143,000 people "in the pipeline" at June 30, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said.
In 2011-12, the number of cooks to be accepted as permanent migrants doubled to 4836, an increase that was questioned on labour market grounds by Professor Hawthorne.
Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said 43 per cent of these cooks were from India. Students from India were prominent in the 2004-08 boom in cookery courses.
Visas under a sponsorship scheme aimed at recruiting staff for employers in regional areas, including the city of Perth, grew 48 per cent in 2011-12.
This was likely to include Indian cookery graduates, according to Sydney migration and education agent Jonathan Granger.
"People stuck in that backlog (for independent skilled migration) have . . . sought other (visa) alternatives," he said.
In stark contrast to cooks, the number of accountants taken in as permanent migrants in 2011-12 fell by half to 6914.
Mr Granger said this probably reflected the emphasis on higher levels of English proficiency in the new skilled migration system.
Professor Hawthorne said skilled migration, dominated not long ago by ex-students in the independent visa category, had been "privatised" with the new emphasis on employer sponsorship.
And the permanent migration figures gave "only half the labour migration picture" because of today's government preference for temporary workers.
"Last year, Australia admitted an additional 131,000 people in the 457 (visa) temporary worker category, compared to around 34,000 temporary sponsored migrants seven years back," she said.
"Temporary migration is now dominant in select fields - (it is) the pathway, for instance, of four-fifths of recent medical migrants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.104.226 ( talk) 14:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"the name Australia is derived from the Latin australis, meaning "southern""
Australia=Austrias=Habsburgo dinasty=Spain=Austral=South, Australia is an spanish word, not a latin derivation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.11.176.100 ( talk) 15:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the name came from Spain! No doubt for this, also the first europeans were from Spain but the english history want to erase the real true, the name of that is "black legend" and even today stiil they use this to manipulate the real history. here Hertzen1945 ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help) (
talk) 08:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Think its time for a new article on "Etymology" so we can trim this down - like Name of Canada - what do others think? Moxy ( talk) 21:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It was Matthew Flinders, English navigator (and the first person to circumnavigate and map Australia's coastline), who first expressed a strong preference for the name Australia. He gave his reasons in 1805:
It is necessary, however, to geographical propriety, that the whole body of land should be designated under one general name; on this account, and under the circumstances of the discovery of the different parts, it seems best to refer back to the original Terra Australis, or Australia; which being descriptive of its situation, having antiquity to recommend it, and no reference to either of the two claiming nations, is perhaps the least objectionable that could have been chosen; for it is little to apprehended, that any considerable body of land, in a more southern situation, will be hereafter discovered.
Re: "the name Australia is derived from the Latin australis, meaning "southern"". This is not referenced. It either should be correctly referenced, or removed. I believe it should be replaced with a summary of the following from Gerritsen,Rupert(cited below):-
There can be little doubt that Quirós originally intended to apply the name “Austrialia Espíritu Santo” to Espíritu Santo in 1606. The term “Australia” then appeared in subsequent texts, either as an alternative spelling or a spelling error. Quirós’ memorials were only intended to have limited circulation, for King Philip III and royal officials. As the result of an unknown sequence of events the 8th Memorial found its way out of Spain, and by 1625 it had been translated into Italian, Dutch, French and lastly English (Purchas 1625, 4:1422-27). By this means it entered the lexicon of several languages and was ultimately applied to our nation, with the word “Australia” appearing for the first time in English in Purchas His Pilgrimes in 1625 (Purchas 1625, 4:1423 & 1432).8 Were it not for that historical accident, this discussion would not need to be taking place. LawrieM ( talk) 22:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{Clothing brands by country |state=autocollapse}} GbySmn talk2me07:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
In the beginning it says that Australia is the 12th largest economy and in the economic section it says that Australia is the 13th largest economy. Both of these claims redirect to the same link on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) which states that in fact Australia is the 12th largest economy!! It is a shame this article is semi protected! Hope this mistake has a quick fix soon! Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.27.148 ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Australia is to study Better Life Index Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the happiest among developing countries in the world, according to the BBC. The criteria were living space per person, employment, education, pollution, average life expectancy, general satisfaction, security, time spent at work. More than 73 percent of the population of Australia from 15-64 years has a paid job, and the average life expectancy is nearly 82 years. Among the ten happiest countries are Sweden, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the U.S., Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland and the United Kingdom. The 15 Countries With The Highest Quality Of Life - and - OECD Better Life Index. Australia -- 78.2.88.115 ( talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
[2]Gillard has resigned the commission of PM and the office is now vacant.
Flat Out
let's discuss it 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the info box along the side of the article, the Prime Minister needs to be changed from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd due to the Labor internal poll on Tuesday the 26th of June, 2013. Fritxweb ( talk) 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
< http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/kevin-rudd-returns-to-labor-leadership-after-beating-julia-gillard-with-57-45-victory/story-fnii5s3x-1226670510502> Fritxweb ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a change today from "gaol" to "jail", citing the Macquarie dictionary. However, "gaol" is the traditional spelling. We even have a category full of articles titled "<foo> Gaol". We don't seem to have any titled "<foo> Jail". There's no doubt that gaol has fallen from popular use, most these days are called "<foo> Correctional Centre", or "<foo> Correctional Complex", as in the "new" name for Bathurst Gaol. Despite what one summary implied, [15] use of "jail" isn't the predominant use. The increasing use of jail can be traced back to the introduction of PCs, when spell checkers were predominantly US by default (I spent half my life fixing this on corporate PCs, especially those using MS Word). Prior to then, "gaol" was used almost exclusively, but that and the increasing availability of US TV programs has increased its popularity. That doesn't mean we should use it here. "Jail" is used by journalists, but they also use mdy dates, while the Australian standard is dmy. Arguing that jail is the modern spelling is no more valid than claimimg that "lt" and "mtr" are acceptable abbreviations for litre and metre. A quick check of AustlII shows that "gaol" is predominant in our legislation, [16] while a search for "jail" shows much fewer results, with a lot coming from New Zealand. [17] For these reasons, and more, we should stick with the traditional Australian spelling, not the recent Americanized version. The change that was made is really not appropriate anyway. Port Arthur was never a "jail", it was a "gaol". It was closed long before the "modern" spelling. That said, Port Arthur, Tasmania calls it a prison, which both gaol and jail redirect to, so that seems a far better word to use. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The Macquarie Dictionary is the accepted standard for spelling in Australia, used by courts, in statute (yes there are two regular but not universal exceptions namely judgement as opposed to judgement and gaol as opposed to jail however these are legal specific spellings traditionally used in the legal profession just like fetus is specific to scientific professions rather than general; also, the drafting guides for statutes nevertheless specify Macquarie be followed), in university and press style guides, and by the ABC. As such, its spellings are of course the go-to for Australian spelling of words. The Macquarie has listed 'jail' since its inception. You are quite right that many old prisons in this country use the gaol spelling but the key is that these are all old jails. Spelling changes have occured frequently over time in this country with encyclopaedia => encyclopedia, programme => program being two other examples. The fact is 'jail' is listed as the preferred spelling by BOTH Australian English dictionaries (Macquarie and Oxford Australian) whereas 'gaol' is not listed in any and needs to go. Your misunderstanding is probably the same one that some people within Australia have regarding spelling, which is that Australian spelling is and remains the same as traditional British spelling (gaol, programme, etc) but this is not the case and historically speaking never has been. The fact is that 'jail' is the one which is backed up by all the style guides and dictionaries today, prevails in usage, and depending on the pedanticness of the examiner, if you used 'gaol' in an academic context in Australia (certainly in an editiorial context or published work) it would likely be marked wrong or changed. -- Saruman-the-white ( talk) 11:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=N>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}}
template (see the
help page).