Talk:Australia
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. |
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, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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. |
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. |
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, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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. |
Template loop detected: Talk:Australia/Links
First sentence
I plead for the first sentence
- ("Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a country in the southern hemisphere comprising the mainland of the world's smallest continent, the major island of Tasmania, and numerous other islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.")
to be changed thus:
- "Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, colloquially Oz, is a country in the southern hemisphere comprising the mainland of the world's smallest continent, the major island of Tasmania, and numerous other islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans."
--David Lightman (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Official Language of Australia
The official language of Australia is English. Why is the "Official Language" given as "None"? Just curious. Dinkydi (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- English does not have de jure status in Australia. English is the de facto language of Australia. In the infobox, it is listed accordingly. MvjsTalking 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's also explained in the Notes section of the article, under "N2". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've often wondered about this. I accept that there's no law that says English is the national language. But do we have to rely on a law to make something "official"? As Note 72 says: "English has no de jure status but it is so entrenched as the common language that it is de facto the official language as well as the national language". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The simple answer is yes, it does have to be supported by law to be official. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, why do we bother making the distinction between "de jure" and "de facto"? If it's not official at all, then no amount of qualification (de facto) will make it official. Can we not at least say that is the de facto official language, if not the de jure one? That's what the note already says, after all. Either it's correct, in which case we should be able to use those words elsewhere; or it's not, and it should be removed entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- One of the reasons that we make the distinction is to highlight the fact that, despite what some people may think, English isn't the official language. We also have to point out that despite its lack of de jure status is is the defacto national language so even though in law (de jure) there is no official language, in practice (de facto) there is one. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- De 'facto national language' should be the wording then, not 'de facto official language'.--David Lightman (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- One of the reasons that we make the distinction is to highlight the fact that, despite what some people may think, English isn't the official language. We also have to point out that despite its lack of de jure status is is the defacto national language so even though in law (de jure) there is no official language, in practice (de facto) there is one. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, why do we bother making the distinction between "de jure" and "de facto"? If it's not official at all, then no amount of qualification (de facto) will make it official. Can we not at least say that is the de facto official language, if not the de jure one? That's what the note already says, after all. Either it's correct, in which case we should be able to use those words elsewhere; or it's not, and it should be removed entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but this isn't entirely clear to me: Isn't the fact that the laws of the country themselves are written in English only (isn't this the ultimate support by law enough?) and acceptable to interpretation in English (the court system is in English, you must have interpreters otherwise, e.g. there is no German-speaking court where you can get by purely knowning German [and/or English-only speakers need interpreters]); the fact that the recent citizenship test requires sufficient proficiency in English, and numerous other examples that exist I'm sure, enough to call English the official language? There is no place in mainstream Australia where you could get by on official business without English or having means of interpreting yourself into English. Sounds pretty official to me. Why does it need to be written in law specifically (esp. in light of the former statements about the laws being written in English)?
This sounds like an excessively pedantic (and certainly against common sense) technical requirement that somebody came up with. What is the value of having such strict technical requirements? Suggesting only de jure status has certain connotations that come along with it, suggesting that there are exceptions to the rule. There aren't any such exceptions in Australia. What region do you know that some other language has de jure status with respect to 'official business', or where some other language comes even close to qualifying as 'official'?
Furthermore I think the fact that writing that a country has NO official language is ludicrous. There is ALWAYS at least one official language! There must be! This should be an axiom.
Might I add that Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly states without any of this mumbo-jumbo that English is Australia's official language?
I vote for revoking this and stating that English is Australia's official language.Longest Journey (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ethnicity and Population
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia was estimated to total 517,200 for 2006 (2.5% of total population). I request the 'Ethnic Groups' section should be updated to reflect this. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJF83 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That seems a quite valid suggestion but we can't just change the Aboriginal figure or we'll have a population percentage of around 102%. We need figures for the other groups. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I located an appropriate reference at the ABS site and have updated the article. However, according to 2006 Census responses, only 0.45% of the population identified as Aboriginal.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is Australia a country or a continent?
Ok I was always debating this, is Australia a country or a continent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamiz (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing to debate, it's both. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- But how is that possible? Azamiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.82.251 (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- A continent is not a grouping of multiple countries... Have a read of continent. - Mark 05:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
IS this necessary
"As in many Western countries, the level of active participation in church worship is low and in decline;[68] weekly attendance at church services in 2004 was about 1.5 million: about 7.5% of the population.[69]"
I believe this to be unnecessary and unnotable data. Does the Australian Article really require this information. --Aamirc (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's relevant to the paragraph on religion, as it shows the big difference between people who are nominally part of a religion at census time and those who are active members of a religion. And it's cited. - Aucitypops (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Just quoting census figures would give an incorrect view of the status of religion in Australian society. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Famous Sporting Personalities or people?
Why is there no mention of Sir Donald Bradman? Surely he deserves a mention on the page. He was the greatest batsmen to ever live, why is he not mentioned on the Australian page. There should be a section created for it...--Aamirc (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
First sentence
I plead for the first sentence
- ("Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a country in the southern hemisphere comprising the mainland of the world's smallest continent, the major island of Tasmania, and numerous other islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.")
to be changed thus:
- "Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, colloquially Oz, is a country in the southern hemisphere comprising the mainland of the world's smallest continent, the major island of Tasmania, and numerous other islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans."
--David Lightman (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Official Language of Australia
The official language of Australia is English. Why is the "Official Language" given as "None"? Just curious. Dinkydi (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- English does not have de jure status in Australia. English is the de facto language of Australia. In the infobox, it is listed accordingly. MvjsTalking 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's also explained in the Notes section of the article, under "N2". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've often wondered about this. I accept that there's no law that says English is the national language. But do we have to rely on a law to make something "official"? As Note 72 says: "English has no de jure status but it is so entrenched as the common language that it is de facto the official language as well as the national language". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The simple answer is yes, it does have to be supported by law to be official. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, why do we bother making the distinction between "de jure" and "de facto"? If it's not official at all, then no amount of qualification (de facto) will make it official. Can we not at least say that is the de facto official language, if not the de jure one? That's what the note already says, after all. Either it's correct, in which case we should be able to use those words elsewhere; or it's not, and it should be removed entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- One of the reasons that we make the distinction is to highlight the fact that, despite what some people may think, English isn't the official language. We also have to point out that despite its lack of de jure status is is the defacto national language so even though in law (de jure) there is no official language, in practice (de facto) there is one. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- De 'facto national language' should be the wording then, not 'de facto official language'.--David Lightman (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- One of the reasons that we make the distinction is to highlight the fact that, despite what some people may think, English isn't the official language. We also have to point out that despite its lack of de jure status is is the defacto national language so even though in law (de jure) there is no official language, in practice (de facto) there is one. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, why do we bother making the distinction between "de jure" and "de facto"? If it's not official at all, then no amount of qualification (de facto) will make it official. Can we not at least say that is the de facto official language, if not the de jure one? That's what the note already says, after all. Either it's correct, in which case we should be able to use those words elsewhere; or it's not, and it should be removed entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but this isn't entirely clear to me: Isn't the fact that the laws of the country themselves are written in English only (isn't this the ultimate support by law enough?) and acceptable to interpretation in English (the court system is in English, you must have interpreters otherwise, e.g. there is no German-speaking court where you can get by purely knowning German [and/or English-only speakers need interpreters]); the fact that the recent citizenship test requires sufficient proficiency in English, and numerous other examples that exist I'm sure, enough to call English the official language? There is no place in mainstream Australia where you could get by on official business without English or having means of interpreting yourself into English. Sounds pretty official to me. Why does it need to be written in law specifically (esp. in light of the former statements about the laws being written in English)?
This sounds like an excessively pedantic (and certainly against common sense) technical requirement that somebody came up with. What is the value of having such strict technical requirements? Suggesting only de jure status has certain connotations that come along with it, suggesting that there are exceptions to the rule. There aren't any such exceptions in Australia. What region do you know that some other language has de jure status with respect to 'official business', or where some other language comes even close to qualifying as 'official'?
Furthermore I think the fact that writing that a country has NO official language is ludicrous. There is ALWAYS at least one official language! There must be! This should be an axiom.
Might I add that Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly states without any of this mumbo-jumbo that English is Australia's official language?
I vote for revoking this and stating that English is Australia's official language.Longest Journey (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ethnicity and Population
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia was estimated to total 517,200 for 2006 (2.5% of total population). I request the 'Ethnic Groups' section should be updated to reflect this. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJF83 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That seems a quite valid suggestion but we can't just change the Aboriginal figure or we'll have a population percentage of around 102%. We need figures for the other groups. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I located an appropriate reference at the ABS site and have updated the article. However, according to 2006 Census responses, only 0.45% of the population identified as Aboriginal.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is Australia a country or a continent?
Ok I was always debating this, is Australia a country or a continent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamiz (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing to debate, it's both. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- But how is that possible? Azamiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.82.251 (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- A continent is not a grouping of multiple countries... Have a read of continent. - Mark 05:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
IS this necessary
"As in many Western countries, the level of active participation in church worship is low and in decline;[68] weekly attendance at church services in 2004 was about 1.5 million: about 7.5% of the population.[69]"
I believe this to be unnecessary and unnotable data. Does the Australian Article really require this information. --Aamirc (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's relevant to the paragraph on religion, as it shows the big difference between people who are nominally part of a religion at census time and those who are active members of a religion. And it's cited. - Aucitypops (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Just quoting census figures would give an incorrect view of the status of religion in Australian society. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Famous Sporting Personalities or people?
Why is there no mention of Sir Donald Bradman? Surely he deserves a mention on the page. He was the greatest batsmen to ever live, why is he not mentioned on the Australian page. There should be a section created for it...--Aamirc (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- Wikipedia articles that use Australian English