Talk:Australia

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 60 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Australia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Australia at the Reference desk.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Guideline for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples terminology

Be conscious of the unique, diverse and distinct identities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and understand the use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is as a collective name.

Collective names used to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples:
When writing about both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, use terms such as:

First Nations Australians
First Australians
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples
First Peoples

Although "Indigenous Australians" is in common use, and is used to encompass both Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, many First Nations Australians feel the term diminishes their identity and should be avoided; however, where the word "Indigenous" forms part of an acronym to describe entities, organisations, or government departments the use is acceptable.

When used, the words Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, First Nations, First Peoples, and First Australians are capitalised.

Note: Never use the collective name "Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander" peoples as it misrepresents the identity of Torres Strait Islander peoples as not being the original inhabitants of islands in the Torres Strait.

Self-identifying terms:
Be specific where possible by using the name of the group or community with whom the people you are referring to identify.

Murri is usually used by Aboriginal people in and from Queensland and north-west New South Wales
Goori is usually used by Aboriginal people in and from northern New South Wales coastal regions
Koori is usually used by Aboriginal people in and from parts of New South Wales and Victoria

This is not an exhaustive list

Language that can be discriminatory or offensive and should be avoided:

shorthand terms like "Aborigines", "Islanders"
abbreviations like "ATSI", "A&TSI", "1st Nations"
using terms like "myth", "legend" or "folklore" when referring to the beliefs of First Nations peoples
terms like "part-aborigine", "full-blood", "half-caste", "quarter-caste", "octoroon", "mulatto", "hybrid"
terms like "tribe", "horde", "band", "clan", "moiety"

This is not an exhaustive list

Note: It is acceptable to use abbreviations in your communications when they form part of an acronym, a web address or an organisation (e.g. AIATSIS, NAIDOC, www.atsi.org.au). Using an acronym or abbreviation to describe a race of people can be offensive and discriminatory.

For further information, please refer to:

Australian Government Style Manual[1]
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies[2]
University of New South Wales[3]
Griffith University[4]

Terminology can change over time and, where possible, it is best practice to find out what the preferred term is from the respective Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander group or individual you are referring to. For further guidance, please see the Australian Government Style Guide

Australia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 28, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
June 22, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 29, 2010	Featured article review	Kept

Current status: Featured article

Australia Top‑importance

	Australia portal Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Oceania Top‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Commonwealth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. 17 August 2009.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 100 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2009, 2010, and 2013.

Royal anthem[edit]

@Aemilius Adolphin I don't see how MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE supports the view that the royal anthem shouldn't be in the infobox, apart from perhaps moving the text in the footnote into the main page. It's an option in the template and I don't see it is so irrelevant that the field should be ignored. I don't think it is of lower relevance than other many of the other fields in the infobox. It's also consistent with Canada, New Zealand and many other countries. The anthem is also mentioned immediately after the national anthem on the government page about anthems so its not some technical and obscure trivia. Safes007 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether the Royal Anthem is such a key fact about Australia that it should be highlighted in the info box and given the same status as the Australian national anthem. Policy states that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts. I quote: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The Royal Anthem is only played (along with the national anthem) at official functions whenever a member of the royal family is present. That is, it is relatively rare. In practice it is no different from playing any foreign anthem during an official function when a high ranking foreign official is present. It is irrelevant what the Canada or NZ article does. The current treatment of the anthem in the info box has been long standing and requires a clear consensus to change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not follow how it's done in the infoboxes of the other non-UK Commonwealth realm pages. See New Zealand, Tuvalu, Canada, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Australia is not NZ or Canada or Tuvalu and there is no reason why the Australia page should follow other articles in this:WP:OTHERCONTENT. NZ has 2 official national anthems, Australia only has one. God Save the King is not a national anthem. It does not have equal status to Advance Australia Fair and should not appear in the info box as if it does. It isn't a key fact, it is a minor detail which rightly appears as a footnote to the national anthem. But we'll see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it should be in any info box ...but it will be a tough sale now that this has happened...."God Save The King’ was proclaimed as the Royal Anthem on 27 October 2022 Moxy-

22:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call it Australia's royal anthem. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That proclamation was simply updating the existing royal anthem from "God Save The Queen" to King? JennyOz (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. God Save the Queen is mentioned here Safes007 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT says a change can't be justified solely based on other pages. It does not say other pages aren't relevant and notes they may form part of an argument. I also don't think any particularly high standard of consensus is needed here—just good old fashioned consensus.

Also, the fact that the monarch does not visit often doesn't make the royal anthem totally insignificant. It also demonstrates Australia's relationship to the monarchy and local traditions. If it was abolished, seeing that other comparable countries had it and we didn't would tell you something about Australia. Even the fact that we have a royal anthem when our monarch lives thousands of kilometres away is interesting and relevant. The possibility of it replacing the national one at some events also gives context to the national one. An anthem that can be replaced for a personal one of the monarch tells you about the status of national and royal institutions.

Also, frankly I find the footnote ugly. This was the main thought in my head when I changed it in the first place. I think it would make the info box look better to just have both anthems and explain the royal anthem in the text. Safes007 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, the fact that the monarch does not visit often doesn't make the royal anthem totally insignificant."

You don't put something in the info box simply because it isn't "totally insignificant". Policy states you ony put key facts in the info box and the less the better. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding me. I was disputing your argument that that anthem is insignificant because it isn't used day to day. I then point out other reasons why it is significant.

That policy also states that "[g]eneral consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobx". I don't think we disagree on the purpose of an infobox. I just think that the anthem is a "key fact" that warrants its inclusion. The fact that the template includes it as an option and other similar countries also include it makes me think there should be a justification greater than a subjective view its not important enough to include to remove it.

Also to quote fully from the MOS, "the purpose of an infobox [is to] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". They then note exceptions for info that are difficult to integrate into the article. Neither the anthem or the royal anthem appear in the main article. They are like other symbols like the flag and coat of arms that are best identified in a list rather than a long paragraph. I think it is more useful to identify the royal anthem next to where the national anthem is, to avoid having to expand the main article with a section that doesn't really fit anywhere. I think that looks cleaner outside of the footnote.

Also, I feel like the info about the royal anthem is already in the infobox more or less because of the footnote, so just putting it in the infobox mostly just makes it look cleaner and more consistent, with the infobox having the same "key facts" at the end of the day. Safes007 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this InsertNameHereOrElse (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal anthem should not be removed from the Infobox as it is one of Australia's symbols of identity. Removing the Royal anthem is purely a political act of Australian republicanism. The Royal anthem is currently one of Australia's symbols of identity therefore should stay in the Infobox until that changes. Zakary2012 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Anthem is in the info box under note 1. Advance Australia Fair is the only official national anthem. God Save the King is only played at official functions when a member of the royal family is present. At official events, sporting events, schools, ceremonies etc. Advance Australia Fair would be played hundreds of times more often than God Save the King. Giving it equal prominence in the info box would be false balance WP:BALANCE. And the info box is only meant to summarise key facts.WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more and it is indeed a question of introducing undue balance in the article. Actually my preference is not to include it at all - it is so archaic and rarely heard.Nickm57 (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Insert below the National Anthem section of the side bar: 58.110.92.199 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and recreation[edit]

Hello all

This section needs a complete rewrite as it is full of unsouced assertions and irrelevant citations. I have marked the sections in need of attention.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sure could do with some work. For starters, I'd like to delete the claim that Australia is "the only country to have won championships in two different FIFA confederations". I believe it's true, but it's trivia, just a quirk of soccer's changing international structure over the years. It doesn't make Australia a better team than those who haven't done it. And as you flagged, it's unsourced right now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some objective data from the Australian Institute of Sport and have deleted most of the poorly sourced and dubious information. I should have some reliable sources on cricket on my bookshelf so I will fix this section up in the near future. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry and immigration[edit]

This chapter requires your attention dear Wikipedia. There are so many mistakes. percentages - do you know what it is 100%? It doesn’t add up what is written here. 49.190.240.166 (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to choose 1 or 2 responses. Therefore the total of responses is more than 100% of those responding. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanatory note to the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]