Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAustralia 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2005.
Article milestones
May 28, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 22, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
June 29, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Request for comment on inclusion of the term "anglosphere"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article include any mention of the term "anglosphere"? Meticulo (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. This is far too vague for a valid RfC. You will need to recommend specific wording for a change to the article. You should also firrst try to seek consensus on the Talkpage. There have already been two or three proposals for specific wording. We should see if a consensus emerges on any of these. I can't force you to do anything, but I suggest you remove the RfC for the moment until the issues and proposed wording are clarified. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I considered adding a specific wording but thought this might depart from the advice at WP:RFCOPEN to "Include a brief, neutral statement". My posting an RfC is not out of keeping, I feel, with your comment earlier on this talk page, "But let's see what others think". Once consensus has been reached about whether a mention of the concept of an Anglosphere has any place at all in the article, we can then quibble about the wording if needed. I think the term is relevant and valid as it is has been a strand of foreign policy, defence and intelligence thinking in Australia historically; and remains so, hence my earlier comment about "300 billion reasons", referring to the cost of the recent submarine deal. It is synonymous with neither the Five Eyes alliance nor the Commonwealth as a whole, being more than the former and less than the latter (and gets a mention in the article on the United Kingdom, but admittedly not those on Canada, New Zealand or the United States). I am not a proponent of it, and acknowledge it potentially has problematic racial elements with origins in the white Dominions and Anglo-Saxonism, and that the trend of the comments here so far seems to be against including the term. I've posted a notification of this RfC on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and if there's no significant response within the next couple of weeks, I propose to post a closure request. Meticulo (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Even if there is a consensus for including the term, it will be harder to get consensus on the actual wording. We'll see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No....not a common term... the average English speaker would have no clue what this's akin to saying white Commonwealth. A few years ago we had something similar added all over CANZUK. Just a recent attempt to add this everywhere as if somehow it became notable all of a sudden and no one thought of using the term before."Opinion - Britain, Time to Let Go of the 'Anglosphere'". The New York Times. 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2023-03-26.... simply not something discussed in the history of these countries that is covered by other terms.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The term is in the news now, and all of the sources provided above were news sources. Do any high-level sources use the term, and what weight do they accord it? CMD (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not surpisingly, we have an article on Anglosphere. It describes Australia as one of the five core countries. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Australia is certainly core to the concept of an "Anglosphere", not sure I've seen a use of anglosphere that excludes it. What is less sure is how core the concept of an Anglosphere is to Australia. At a broad level, the Commonwealth covers similar ground. At a restricted level you simply get the Five Eyes, at which point you're better off just discussing the Five Eyes. CMD (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Australia is clearly part of the Anglosphere. The concept is broad and extends beyond defence and foreign policy matters, and – immigrants, multiculturalism, and Asia focus notwithstanding – it deeply applies to Australia. Whether this article's prose can be shaped to include the term in a natural way is another matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Anglosphere is an imagined community of English-speaking nations....what could be mentioned is the Five Eyes an actual alliance Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 11:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I believe the term was first introduced by The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-first Century By James C. Bennett .
I think references to books like this support the inclusion whatever the connotation but I have not scanned the literature for more recent. The term itself is intuitive and describes a kinship all citizens of English speaking nations have which is very real. Biz (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed RFC[edit]

Hello! Per the listing at Wikipedia:Closure requests, I've endeavored to close this RFC. Unfortunately, I believe the fairest reading of the comments suggests the result was "no consensus" based on the participation numbers and the valid arguments on both sides. (I will say that the editors who opposed inclusion were more likely to strongly oppose that inclusion, but I didn't think the distinction was so apparent as to push the result one way or the other.)

As a complete aside, my first instinct would have been the same as Meticulo's—to first ask whether the term should be used and then worry about specific wording. But Aemilius Adolphin may be right that presenting two specific sentences (or passages, as it were) and asking other users to express their preference may be more likely to achieve a consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Largest" City in Australia[edit]

Hi all,

There were a few articles on 17 April that indicated that Melbourne has become the largest city in Australia based on population numbers of "Significant Urban Areas" from the Australian Bureau of Statistics but in the "estimated regional population" metric, it states that Sydney is larger. What are everyone's thought on which statistical metric that aligns most with 'largest city' here? GarbageKarate (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC) BBC Article SMH ArticleReply[reply]

We have used the Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA) definition for some time and should continue to use it for consistency over time and between cities. None are intrinsically better than another, but the ABS uses the GCCSA definition for most of its major publications so it makes sense to stick with it. If we want to change to another definition then there should be a good reason to do so and a broad consensus for the change. The fact that one definition now shows Melbourne to be more populous than Sydney doesn't seem to be a good reason to change our definitions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Put both, Sydney(largest city) Melbourne (largest metro area). Just like the India article does. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was under the impression that largest city in Australia was based on the statistical division, not the urban area? (I mean, technically Brisbane is the largest actual city.) I'm fine with listing Melbourne as the largest, but if we're basing it now on urban area wouldn't we have to change rankings in a lot of articles? Advocateaxis (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not totally sure what distinction you're making. Brisbane is indeed the largest urban local council in terms of population. Melbourne now has the largest Significant Urban Area population which defines contiguous urban areas, and which aligns with most accepted definitions of an urban (city) populations, notably the populations used in most Wikipedia city Infoboxes. As such I agree we should be listing Melbourne as the largest city in the Infobox. Jimmythemini2 (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I was working in Adelaide for the ABS on the 1991 Census, the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) hierarchy then used was based on Statistical Divisions (corresponding to regions, such as Greater Adelaide, etc.) made up of Statistical Local Areas (which usually corresponded to Local Government Areas). For the 2011 Census, the AGSC was replaced by the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) (see ABS: Frequently Asked Questions).
The ASGS structure is more complex (see the ASGS diagram on this page and the definitions on the Census geography glossary.
Historically we have used the "Statistical Division" pop stats for "Greater Metro xxx" articles, and under the AGSC structure, "Statistical Divisions" have been replaced by "Greater Capital City Statistical Areas" (GCCSA), which IMHO should still be used for consistency, rather than "Significant Urban Areas" (SUA). As the SMH article points out, using SUA rather than GCCSA figures makes Melbourne currently larger than Sydney, but this is based on a technicality, rather than the official GCCSA metric. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I'm meaning is that there are multiple ways to define city, but up until now for Australian articles we've been using the metric by which Sydney is still the largest. We can change that, absolutely, but we'd have to edit a lot more to make it consistent across all Australian city articles. Advocateaxis (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem we have is that the statement from the ABS that Melbourne now has the largest population has, not surprisingly, gained massive publicity, and not just in Australia. It's nice for us to try to be consistent in our definitions over time, but we simply cannot ignore what the ABS has said and what the world has heard. We must acknowledge the ABS statement in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No we don't. We have a beatup from the BBC. The BBC asked the ABS for a comment and the ABS were at pains to point out it is a technicality in one definition and that in their (and our) preferred definition Sydney is still the most populous city. Read to the bottom of the BBC article and search the ABS website and you will see that there is no official statement saying that Melbourne has overtaken Sydney as the most populous city. Indeed the official ABS data still shows Sydney as the most populous city.[1] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I sounded so bossy. I just think we need to wait to this settles down then we can make a reasoned decision on which is the best definition of the city populations in Australia. We shouldn't just react to random media articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point still stands. The media HAS said Melbourne is the biggest city. It has become big news. We cannot ignore it. We need to say something. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The media has latched onto whatever gets clicks, and they'll do the same when Melbourne does indeed become the largest city by the measurement that Wikipedia and the relevant authorities have always used. We are not there yet and as it stands Sydney is the largest city in Australia by population. Emerald3333 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes no sense to suddenly change from using GCCSA to SUA to measure the population of cities in Australia. If the SUA had been the most relevant metric of a city's population, Melbourne had a larger SUA than Sydney in 2018, however, there was not a push to change the description of the largest city in Australia to Melbourne when this happened. This event in 2018 did not attract much media attention either. However, the surpassing of Sydney by Melbourne in SUA population in 2023 has somehow attracted widespread media attention and has sparked a departure from the historic measure of a city's population which is the GCCSA.
Technically, the "largest city" could be defined in three ways:
Largest Metro Area: Sydney
Largest Urban Area: Melbourne
Largest City Proper: Brisbane Sydtransportwriter (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved it back to Sydney and added a footnote explaining the SUA vs GCCSA. Let me know what you all think. GarbageKarate (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your footnote states: "On 17 April 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics announced that Melbourne had become Australia's most populous city based on Significant Urban Areas (SUAs) ..." However, there's currently nothing on the ABS website about any such announcement or official media release, and there's no reporting of this on the ABC News website. The BBC article's source is the SMH article, which seems to be based on the reporter delving into the more obscure SUA data (rather than GCCSA), followed by his interview with the ABS staffer. This selective statistical reporting seems to be just a beatup to stoke historic Melbourne-Sydney rivalry, which has worked, judging by the ensuing edit warring on the respective articles. Bahudhara (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, an amendment is to the footnote is fine then. GarbageKarate (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks for the clarification @Bahudhara. I have now removed the footnote and left as is. There has also been some edit warring on mainly the Sydney page and one of my reverts was considered 'unconstructive'. I've changed it again and added my justification as well as a previous source. GarbageKarate (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for reposting this here, I am not sure if this is seperate from an edit request and I wanted to add it to the discussion- im not trying to spam. I had an idea that I think would work well, what if Sydney was kept displayed in the infobox as largest city but in brackets next to it it specified that its the largest by the greater Sydney region, and Melbourne was displayed underneath stating that it was the Largest by urban area? I feel like this would clear up the confusion between people who read the article about the differences in why Sydney is still being listed, despite it being all over the news that Melbourne has overtaken it. Also, the fact that the Urban area is closer to how the population of many cities on wikipedia is measured makes it seem like Melbourne should at least be mentioned and the difference explained, if not it seems inconsistent with the demographic info of many world cities information on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Given this will continue to be an issue and source of confusion until the Melbourne GCCSA overtakes that of Sydney, I think we should essentially make a distinction between a 'Largest metro' and 'Largest urban area' and leave it at that. Perhaps it would be best to wait until the ABS releases/updates its regional population release on 20 April 2023 to see what's included there.
As others have said, I think we should consider consistently using the SUA populations for demographic data relating to "cities" across the Australian pages. Jimmythemini2 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea that we should be changing from GCCSA to SUA does not make any sense. We have been using the GCCSA's for a long time and they are the most common definition of a city's population as used by the ABS. It is also consistent with how city populations are calculated in other countries. I've yet to see any compelling evidence as to why this should be changed. MDRX (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this, GCCSA should remain the standard. But I also think (as we've been discussion on the Melbourne talkpage) that SUA should be listed with appropriate explanatory notes on the infoboxes of the capital cities alongside GCCSA. It would help clear up this confusion, and SUA provides a more accurate measure of city density that's closer to international standard. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Yet again, Melbourne would only bigger if you include Melton, which is like including the Blue Mountains in metropolitan Sydney. Anyway, it's a similar issue with other countries, a good example of this is Belgium. Brussels is listed as the capital and largest city because it is, but as municipality Antwerp is larger. We have a note on the article about Antwerp that says: "The capital region of Brussels, whose metropolitan area comprises the city itself plus 18 independent communal entities, counts over 1,700,000 inhabitants, but these communities are counted separately by the Belgian Statistics Office."
Also, hardly anyone has heard about this, not even in Australia. I only found out because of Wikipedia. Therefore, it has not gained significant publicity, Sydney is still known as the bigger city and the more culturally significant/iconic city, plus NSW is still the most populous state (no exceptions). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a very silly and parochial comment. Including Melton is absolutely nothing like including the Blue Mountains. Half the rest of your comment is boasting about how great Sydney is. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not but anyway. Believe whatever crap you want. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This sounds like when an American presidential candidate wins the popular vote but loses in the electoral college. Why not just say that Melbourne is the biggest city when measured in this way but Syndey is when measured that specific other way? The largest cities in the U.S. by population and geographic area are not the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The US has a consistent list of most populated cities. As does Australia. The measurement used for the latter both with the ABS and on here is the GCCSA, which is in line with international standards for similar lists. For the time being, Sydney remains the largest city in Australia by population. Emerald3333 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I suggest:

1) We change the info box to something like this: (I'm no good at source editing, so please feel free to adjust the wording and notes.)
2) We change the wording of the lead to: "Canberra is the nation's capital. While Australia's most populous city is Sydney, Melbourne is more populous in its contiguous urban area." This wording is consistent with that currently in the Sydney and Melbourne articles.
3) In the Demographics section there is a table of Largest Populated Areas in Australia. We add a footnote to Melbourne in that Table stating that it is the most populous in contiguous urban area.
4) We retain GCCSA as the main definition of capital city populations for the time being.
5) We make any necessary edits to the Sydney and Melbourne articles to ensure that the wording and footnotes are consistent with whatever we decide here.
6) The issue of whether we move to SUA as our standard definition of city populations be deferred and discussed separately when the current Sydney/Melbourne issue dies down.
Happy to discuss— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talkcontribs) 02:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should not have those acronyms in the infobox, they are going to be completely meaningless to almost all readers. As for the lead, such detail over a point of trivia is undue; it would be better to simplify the sentence or remove the list of cities. CMD (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that those acronyms will be meaningless to most readers, however a note like Sydney (Metropolitan area) and Melbounre (Urban Area) use definitions that most people will understand, whilst retaining the definition meant by those acronyms. (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changes to info box made. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yeah that looks like it would work (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who says Melbourne is bigger in its contiguous area? According to the last Census, Greater Sydney has just under five and a half million people, Greater Melbourne has around five million people. In terms of the city itself, Sydney is also bigger. Just keep it as Sydney, do not change it. Anyway, "contiguous" is a word that might confuse readers if put in the lead section. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, note that your definition of "Urban Sydney" probably doesn't include places like Camden, Pittwater or Windsor, which are in Sydney, which probably decreases the population, whereas your definition of "Urban Melbourne" probably includes Melton, which is not in Melbourne. As pointed out in several articles I found, the only reason Melbourne would be bigger is if you included Melton. So including Melton as part of Melbourne is like Sydney including the Central Coast or the Blue Mountains as part of Sydney. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Melbourne is indeed more populous in its contiguous urban area. This is a fact which has had enormous media coverage in the past few days and is supported by the ABS definition of Significant Urban Area. Contiguous is an ordinary English word and the concept is explained in the link in the article. Please read the attached links and the discussion above. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the ABS' definition of urban area, SUA, just as the Greater Capital City Statistical Area are determined by the ABS and are also defined by arbitrary decisions about what to include and what not to include in the boundary. Importantly, they roughly correspond to common international measures of cities, the "Metro" and "Urban" population. The question is how much weight to place on the two distinct measures, and what we can do to stop people constantly revising the articles based on news coverage. I think @Aemilius Adolphin's solution seems effective, easily understandable and accurate, and I think we'll need to make similar changes to both cities. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the Blue Mountains counted towards Sydney's statistical division population? I prefer using the statistical division / metro as the basis of city population, but Sydney's hardly better defined than Melbourne. Advocateaxis (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I think our best option is to list them both, one way or another. Considering the legal definition of the "City of Melbourne" and the "City of Sydney" are not the most populous cities in Australia (that being the "City of Brisbane", the "significant urban area" would most likely best fit the typical (albeit unofficial) definition of a "city", while the "greater region" or "functional area" would more likely be considered a "metropolitan area".
So, I think listing them as Melbourne (urban) and Sydney (metropolitan/region), or separating them into two separate "Largest city" and "Largest metropolitan areas" sections, could be best suited. I think it would be a poor decision to list one rather than the other, especially considering the number of sources that reported Melbourne overtaking Sydney, even if deeper in the article it was described as a technicality. However it is listed, they both should be up there, probably with a footnote as well. Estar8806 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That still sounds needlessly confusing.
GCSSA has always been the standard here. Why the desire to change? Emerald3333 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should also include a citation in the lead with a link to the latest ABS regional data released yesterday. Policy allows for referencing of statement in the lead if they are likely to be challenged. Also when people are confronted with official data which contradicts what the media told them they might think twice before making an edit. The same source should be cited in the Sydney and Melbourne pages.
So add a link to: "Canberra is the nation's capital. While Australia's most populous city is Sydney, Melbourne is more populous in its contiguous urban area." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Initial survey[edit]

This discussion currently seems to be going nowhere, and has broadened significantly. On the issue of Australia's largest city, should this article say Australia's largest city is:

  • Sydney
  • Melbourne
  • Both
  • Neither

Pinging previous participants: @GarbageKarate, Aemilius Adolphin, Wkpdsrnm2023, Advocateaxis, Jimmythemini2, Bahudhara, HiLo48, Emerald3333, Sydtransportwriter, MDRX, Gracchus250, Thiscouldbeauser, Chipmunkdavis, and Estar8806: Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Missed some: @Scatos, Velorus, and ScottishFinnishRadish: Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both. It should say Sydney is the most populous city in its metropolitan area. However, it should also say that Melbourne is more populous in its urban area. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should probably not be in the lead section though. Explain it in a footnote instead because on Wikipedia we have used GCCSA (which is what the ABS uses) for years, it's weird to just suddenly change to SUA. Plus Melbourne is only bigger because they want to include Melton.
This is a similar thing to the issue with Belgium and its largest city. I'm sure we all think it's Brussels, the country's capital. Well, you're correct in the common definition but in terms of municipalities, Antwerp, the capital of Flanders, is the largest.
Anyway, Australians (at least the ones in my area) still know Sydney as the largest city in Australia, because GCCSA is what really matters. Again, nobody calls Brisbane the largest city by population (it is by area), yet the Brisbane City Council has over a million people because Brisbane is mostly just this one LGA (unlike other state capitals or even some large regional cities e.g Newcastle, which has two).
So if you're really desperate to include it, put a footnote and please note the differences between definitions (i.e the common/ABS definition (GCCSA) and the alternative definition (SUA)). The infobox should stay as Sydney, with the footnote if you truly insist. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I and others have said above, we should keep Sydney because it makes no sense to change from GCCSA (greater capital city statistical area, which has been the standard here for years) to SUA (significant urban area). The ABS uses GCCSA, so we should stick with that here on Wikipedia. Plus, if you think about it: Sydney is the largest city in GCCSA, Melbourne is if you include Melton as part of the SUA and Brisbane is if you look at city councils (but that's because Brisbane (and other Queensland cities), unlike most other large cities, has one main LGA (local government area/council), which is the City of Brisbane, which functions like a state parliament, whereas other capital cities have a bunch of different LGAs, e.g the City of Sydney is just inner-city Sydney). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would opt to keep Sydney, absent more sustained change. That there is a statistical way to make Melbourne larger has clearly made news, but that doesn't make it more than trivia so far. Either way, the debate should not come remotely close to the lead, and anything in the body should clearly explain terms rather than expecting readers to know the technical difference being used to differentiate "metropolitan area" and "urban area". CMD (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't got a clue what the formal definitions are of metropolitan area, urban area, and GCCSA, nor do most of our readers. (During COVID lockdown times, the Victorian government's definition of Melbourne went as far 115 km east of the city centre, because of where municipal boundaries are.) So it's actually pretty silly for us to be insisting that one of these definitions is better than the others. I would like to see Wikipedia tell the world that Australia has two large cities of roughly equal size. That's actually more significant than one of those two cities having a population 1% bigger than the other, this month, by some arbitrary measure. Trying to be absolutely precise with numbers on these things is a mug's game. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. This argument seems like alot of different people arguing from arbitrary metrics. You're right that most overseas readers may not realise that Melbourne is one of the biggest English-speaking cities in the world and that is worth pointing out. Poketama (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And just as significantly, Australia's two biggest cities are virtually the same size. That's a rather unusual thing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The standard has always been GCCSA. Based on that, Sydney is the largest city in Australia. Ergo, that should be reflected whenever the topic comes up.
The 'Demographics' section of the Melbourne page could however make mention of Melbourne's SUA status in addition to this. Emerald3333 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with basing on the GCCSA, and therefore Sydney. But I do also believe we should make mention of Melbourne's SUA. GarbageKarate (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should make a distinction between Melbourne being Australia's largest urban area (i.e. the form of a "city" as most people would conceive it and which the recent media articles are alluding to, and which aligns with the Significant Urban Area classification), and Sydney being the largest metro area (which aligns with the GCCSA classification).
The fact of the matter is Australia essentially has two different largest cities depending on which of two totally valid ABS classifications you want to use, and we should acknowledge that. It seems the media will be using the SUA definition going forward so not reflecting this reality will just cause confusion. (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both - Melbourne and Sydney could both be Australia's largest city depending on what your definition of largest city is. It's not like listing two cities as the largest is unheard of, we've already done it on India and in several U.S. states (albeit as separate "city" vs. "metro area"). In any case, numerous reliable sources reported on Melbourne overtaking Sydney as the largest city (albeit on a technicality), so we must mention it one way or another. --Estar8806 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both. Recommend using the India page as a model i.e. Largest city: Melbourne (urban area); Sydney (metropolitan area) Jimmythemini2 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both as I said in my original comment: Put both, Sydney(largest city) Melbourne (largest metro area). Just like the India article does Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that makes some sense, but I'd still prefer a footnote. Anyway, every other language Wikipedia still has Sydney as the largest city. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've had a fair bit of the argument "We've always done it that way" here. Now you're using "But everyone else does it that way". Neither is terribly helpful. Surely the Wikipedia written in the language used in Australia can be be reasonably expected to lead the way on a matter about Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2023[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change 'Sydney' to 'Melbourne' as largest city? Scatos (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: See above discussion. CMD (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's been done at the moment, but there is not a firm consensus above. CMD (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had an idea that I think would work well, what if Sydney was kept displayed in the infobox as largest city but in brackets next to it it specified that its the largest by the greater Sydney region, and Melbourne was displayed underneath stating that it was the Largest by urban area? I feel like this would clear up the confusion between people who read the article about the differences in why Sydney is still being listed, despite it being all over the news that Melbourne has overtaken it. Also, the fact that the Urban area is closer to how the population of many cities on wikipedia is measured makes it seem like Melbourne should at least be mentioned and the difference explained, if not it seems inconsistent with the demographic info of many world cities information on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing this discussion to avoid duplication with the previous section. CMD (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 20 April 2023[edit]

Australia largest city is Melbourne Velorus (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Please take part in the discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Languages of Australia[edit]

It seems that this addition to the article does have to be discussed here rather than have an edit war.

  • Let me kick this off by saying that I think the edit was fine and that those who who oppose it should carefully explain why they oppose it on the talk page and that it should stay at least until that discuss is concluded. --Bduke (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not how it works. The stable version stays until consensus is reached on a disputed change. The first problem is that the info box is not the place to put new information which isn't in the body of the article. MOS:INFOBOX. The second problem is that the information is misleading if not outright wrong. Australia is a multicultural country with hundreds of spoken languages. The census collects data on languages spoken at home and this needs to be adequately covered in the body of the article rather than the infobox. I have no problem with more information on Indigenous languages, but this is a complex and disputed area which would need to be properly sourced and included under an appropriate sub-section of the article. I would be happy to work with others to produce such a section but it needs to be done properly rather than crammed in a misleading way into the infobox. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want, you can exclude non-indigenous languages and limit "Spoken languages" to "Indigenous languages" Arallilbb (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not the point. The whole idea of "spoken languages" is complex and probably does not belong in the info box. No other country article that I know of has a separate "spoken languages" section in the info box for a very good reason-it isn't meaningful for multicultural countries with large migrant populations. The source also doesn't look reliable. For example, it states that English is the official language of Australia which, as far as I know, isn't the case. What you should do is try to improve the discussion of languages in the relevant section of the article. That section is hopelessly out of date, quoting information from 2005 in some cases. Please read the policy on infoboxes and the policy on disputed edits WP:BRD. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with you. "Spoken languages" in Australia, crammed into the info box, is not an improvement to the article. Nickm57 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Infoboxes have their limitations. There is extensive discussion in the article about the complex situation in Australia regarding languages other than English, but it's too much to try to squeeze into the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
exactly, agreed Velorus (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i also agree, it shouldn’t be there plus it’s wrong and misleading Michael Reinolds (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bruh literally puts every single language that is spoken in Australia on the info box lol Aussielandian (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly thank you mate, should not be added Wualifier ors (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been converted to Indigenous languages like in Papua New Guinea, I think it might be appropriate for you. Dêrsimî62 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no countries with native people state a link to all the languages that even the slightest people speak, if that was the case then Papua new Guinea and South Africa would have over 1000 languages on their section. Keep the Australia article clean and correct Michael Reinolds (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i don’t agree, shouldn’t be added Velorus (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not the point. There is an "Indigenous languages" tab of 851 languages in Papua New Guinea. Dêrsimî62 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canada and Usa also have many languages spoken. Do you see a link for all of them on their info box? nope Wualifier ors (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does not belong to the info box Aussielandian (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
remove it now Factgifter (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's removed. So hopefully, discussion about the usefulness of languages in the info box can be had here instead. Nickm57 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indigenous languages[edit]

One editor has made several attempts to change the info box to include a definite number of Indigenous languages. Once again, the problem is that the exact number of living Indigenous languages in Australia is disputed. Ethnologue says there are 214. This article states that the number is 123. I have read other scholarly articles which give different figures. The info box is not the place to present this complex issue. It needs to be addressed in the main body of the article.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be in the spirit of WP if those editors in favor of this change could actually present their ideas for improvements here on the talk page. I don’t mean a one line edit summary either. Nickm57 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes remove it please it is wrong Michael Reinolds (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove the misleading information he added it’s still there Factgifter (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have updated the relevant section of the article which should aid discussion on whether anything should be added to the infobox.

Sovereign country[edit]

Does it say "sovereign country" because Australia has a king who is referred to as the sovereign? Why does Canada not have this term? (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's a term of art in international law. If you click on the link you will see the explanation. Also see the discussion above in this talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg The redirect 호주 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § 호주 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random list vs real infomation reverted ?[edit]

What version is more informative about the country and has better links and sources? Simply put what version is more educational?

New version....WP:COUNTRYLEAD

Australia has a highly developed market economy and one of the highest per capita incomes globally.[1][2] Its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade relations are crucial to the country's economy.[3] Australia is recognized as a middle and regional power for its role in international affairs,[4] with a tendency to pursue multilateral and regional solutions.[5] To support its foreign policy commitments, the country maintains a well-equipped military having the thirteenth-highest expenditure.[6] Australia is part of multiple major international and intergovernmental institutions.[7]



Australia has a highly developed market economy and one of the highest per capita incomes globally.[8][9] Australia is a regional power, and has the world's thirteenth-highest military expenditure.[10] It is a member of international groupings including the United Nations; the G20; the OECD; the World Trade Organization; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation; the Pacific Islands Forum; the Pacific Community the Commonwealth of Nations; and the defence/security organisations ANZUS, AUKUS, the Five Eyes, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. It is a major non-NATO ally of the United States.[11]


  1. ^ "World Economic Outlook Database, April 2015". International Monetary Fund. 6 September 2015. Archived from the original on 6 September 2015. Retrieved 1 April 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  2. ^ "Human Development Report 2021-22" (PDF). United Nations Development Programme. 2022. Retrieved 9 September 2022.
  3. ^ "Australia and the Global Economy – The Terms of Trade Boom - Explainer - Education". Reserve Bank of Australia. May 4, 2023. Retrieved May 12, 2023.
  4. ^ Abbondanza, Gabriele (2022). "Whither the Indo-Pacific? Middle power strategies from Australia, South Korea and Indonesia". International Affairs. Oxford University Press (OUP). 98 (2): 403–421. doi:10.1093/ia/iiab231. ISSN 0020-5850.
  5. ^ "Development Co-operation Profiles – Australia". OECD iLibrary. Retrieved May 12, 2023.
  6. ^ "World Bank Open Data". World Bank Open Data (in Latin). Retrieved May 12, 2023.
  7. ^ "International organisations". Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Retrieved 2023-05-05.
  8. ^ "World Economic Outlook Database, April 2015". International Monetary Fund. 6 September 2015. Archived from the original on 6 September 2015. Retrieved 1 April 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  9. ^ "Human Development Report 2021-22" (PDF). United Nations Development Programme. 2022. Retrieved 9 September 2022.
  10. ^ "Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2017" (PDF).
  11. ^ Rachman, Gideon (2023-03-13). "Aukus, the Anglosphere and the return of great power rivalry". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-03-19.

Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 11:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I explained on your Talk page, I can see why you want to summarise the information about Australia's international relations, but your wording is too general and vague. One could take any country in the world and say that they "are part of multiple major international and intergovernmental institutions" and "with a tendency to pursue multilateral and regional solutions.". We need to be more specific than that, but perhaps without adding a shopping list of international agreements.
Some of the current sources are a bit dated, but they support the content which still generally holds true. The current version of the lead also says, "Australia's abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade relations are crucial to the country's economy, which generates its income from various sources including services, mining exports, banking, manufacturing, agriculture and international education." You deleted the second half of this sentence for no apparent reason and replaced the sources with an article from the Reserve Bank Bulletin which doesn't support your truncated content. (The article is actually about the Terms of Trade Boom from 2005-11.)
WP:INDISCIMINATE is about entire articles which are nothing but an indiscriminate collection of facts. It is irrelevant for the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the article. I think the lead as it currently stands is a better summary of the article than your version, but I agree it could do with some refinement. That said, I think the Economy Section of the article needs to be improved before we takle the relevant part of the lead. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now see that you copied your changes to the lead pretty much from the Canada article which you also recently rewrote. Australia isn't Canada you know. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup was trying to bring the article up to what other FA articles do..that is drop link spam to articles that don't mention this topic and drop sea of blue with links to main/parent articles that are oddly missing over ever sub article. As for "multilateral and regional solutions" I think with its source and basic info that is covred in the article its much better then link spam and sea of blue to inform our readers. Its clear to me the educational value difference here. Your version or the old version does not link to parent articles on economy, foreign affairs, or even the military... instead it links things like Pacific Islands Forum; the Pacific Community the Commonwealth of Nations; and the defence/security organisations ANZUS, AUKUS, Five Eyes and the even the United States. Just have to say it's disappointing to see a revert to a less informative version based on it could be better over trying to improve the edit. Done here!! .... as one of the main contributors to this article over a decade I find recently there has been trouble with implementing educational upgrades.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]