Talk:Geography of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Geography of 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


I just added the latest GA Australia map, but the aspect ratio on the main page is wrong. The original is a PDF. Could someone please fix this? Thanks,

ad15:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adinov (talkcontribs)


I don't get the bit at maritime claims: nm? Isn't that nanometres? A very small unit? I'm confused... - Mark Ryan

  • I believe that nm in this context means a nautical mile. Its length is defined to be the length of an arc of angle one minute (1/60th of a degree) at the equator. That is, 1 nautical mile is approximately 1.852 kilometers or 1.1508 miles. It is frequently used when measuring distance on the sea or in the air, probably for historical reasons. -MarkReid

Query - I don't understand the land usage statistics. 6% arable land etc... Does that mean UNUSED arable land? Then it says X% grazing land and so on... I assume the totals of all those numbers will add up to 100% Karen Johnson

Subject of page[edit]

The current article seems to be about the Geography of the Commonwealth of Australia instead of the Australian continent.

Is Britain part of Europe ? Yes / Is Japan part of Asia ? Yes / Is Tasmania part of Australia ? Yes / Is New Guinea part of Australia ? Yes. Because each of these is a continental island on their continental shelf. Can the authors please either update the article to reflect the geography of Australia, or otherwise rename it as the Geography of the Commonwealth of Australia (in which case please add information about Christmas & Lord Howe Islands. All Best :). 17:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is New Guinea part of Australia? Is Northern Ireland part of Ireland? Yes and no. Australia is both the name of the Commonwealth of Australia and the continent just as we might use Ireland to refer either to the Irish Republic or the island.
The Geography and climate section of the article on the Commonwealth of Australia refers readers to this article as the main article so I would say that it is intended to be about the geography of the Commonwealth of Australia. I would agree, though, that Geography of the Commonwealth of Australia would be the better title: this avoids the ambiguity.
However, if the article were about the continent, then it should be merged to Australia (continent) as discussed on that article's talk page. The authors (up till now) obviously don't make the distinction as can be seen by the opening sentence: "The geography of Australia encompasses a wide variety of biogeographic regions being the world's smallest continent but the sixth-largest country." Jimp 07:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note at the top of the article to make readers aware that the article is about the geography of the Commonwealth of Australia and included a link to Australia (continent). Jimp 31 January 2006
I concur, J. We must also be mindful when referring to this and that: while there is duality/ambiguity in this instance, there are topics specific to the geography of the country (especially geopolitics, national subdivisions), others that are more macro in nature (plate tectonics), and others yet that may apply to both. For example regarding zoogeography, et al., we should also consider biomes, ecoregions, et al. too. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Monolith == bull shit

It's stated on the Monolith page that Uluru is not a Monolith, but this article claims it is... Annihilatenow 16:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to mention Mount Augustus, which is actually the world's largest monolith, even though it is not as well known. I believe [1] is a very reliable source, and should be believed. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


I have mentioned the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, but it might be worthwhile that quite a bit of the weather (especially during summer) is caused by cold fronts coming up from the Southern Ocean.

Proposed Merge[edit]


  • Keep - important and largely notable. Smbarnzy 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever useful information the article contains. I'm concerned the article is attempting to establish a classification in violation of our no original research policy. Surely, any useful discussion of Australian landforms is containable within the geography of Australia article.--cj | talk 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge --Peta 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep more is better then less, just because an article is small now does not mean it will be small in the future and in the future there might be a problem of too much information and people will start deleting information just because there is too much.Potaaatos 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Shiftchange 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Snow in Australia[edit]

  • Merge as too narrow scope. Smbarnzy 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge.--cj | talk 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge --Peta
  • Keep more is better then less, just because an article is small now does not mean it will be small in the future and in the future there might be a problem of too much information and people will start deleting information just because there is too much.Potaaatos 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Shiftchange 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dryness of the Australian Continent[edit]

  • Merge - sounds like a section of this article to me! too narrow scope. Smbarnzy 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge attempt a section in this article first. If it proves too unwieldy, then split off into daughter article per the summary style. --cj | talk 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge --Peta 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep more is better then less, just because an article is small now does not mean it will be small in the future and in the future there might be a problem of too much information and people will start deleting information just because there is too much.Potaaatos 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The dryness of the continent is a characterisic of our climate. - Shiftchange 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Fair[edit]

I also think merging is bad, the problem will arise in the future when the article becomes too big and people will start to delete information, it is better to have many small articles because they will take much longer to grow and keep away to crazy deletersPotaaatos 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

please read WP:OWN - just because you created an article doesn't give you any greater ownership of the article now than anyone else. You do own copyright in your contributions, but by contributing them to Wikipedia you have explicitly licenced them under the GNU Free Documentation License. You claim on talk:Dryness of the Australian continent that you're not done and inten to complete the article, but it hasn't happened in over two months.

Potaaatos, people will not delete well-referenced information. If this article ever became too big, it would be split in summary style, to create daughter articles, just like this article is in turn a daughter of Australia, linked from Australia#Geography. Two of these three have no references whatsoever, and the third has rather vague "Sources".
My first opinion based on the titles was to use two of these to create a new Climate of Australia article as a daughter of this one, and merge the other one in here. On reading them all, I think merge is best, possibly followed later by a split if too much information ends up collected. The split might not create any of these articles. Note that a proposal to merge explicitly means we value the information you have contributed, but would like to arrange it differently. --Scott Davis Talk 10:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mount Kosciuszko not the highest point[edit]

... according to Wikipedia, the highest point is actually here. Since the article specifically deals with the Commonwealth, I'm making the change. Leon 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the highest point of the country is different than the highest point of the continent. This type of inaccuracy that stems from the confusion of the article's definition will be reoccurring until it is better defined. Perhaps the first paragraph should more explicitly define the scope of the article. To me, an example of a better defined article would be the Geography_of_the_United_States article. VIOLENTRULER (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

40% Sand Dunes???[edit]

Really? I think they mean 40% desert - but most of the Australian desert is not Sahara style sand dunes. Anyway, it definitely contradicts this Wikipedia article - Deserts of Australia - which says 18% of Australia is desert (which is also wrong) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Australia satellite plane.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Australia satellite plane.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Satellite image of Australia

The geography of Australia, the world's smallest continent, encompasses a wide variety of biogeographic regions. By surface area, it is the sixth-largest country in the world, but as can be seen in this composite satellite image, much of the interior is arid desert. The vast majority of the human population is concentrated along the eastern and southeastern coasts, and it is the fiftieth most populous nation.

ArchiveMore featured pictures...

This gives absolutely no information[edit]

"Coastline 25,765 km (16,000 mi)" Costlines are fractals, meaning if you measure it with a yardstick it will be very different then if you are measuring it with a inch or mile stick. Without saying what the measuring unit is 25,765 km means absolutely nothing. This is known as the Coastline paradox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooe15 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC) The sidebar also completely contradicts the main article, possibly for the reasons stated above. "The Australian mainland has a total coastline length of 35,877 km (22,293 mi)" "Coastline 25,765 km (16,000 mi)"

Incomplete Section[edit]

The section [Natural Hazards] in Geography of Australia does not have enough detail and should have more info added (such as when they happen). Add tornadoes? (reference from [Climate]) Gr8vince - Vincent Tang (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. This article is incomplete and rated as C class. More referenced details on natural hazards would be excellent. I think the issue is that the continent is very large with a varied geography and a low population density. It therefore takes a long time to be comprehensive unless an editor or group of editors spend effort to achieve it. I recently identified the lack of context on the Severe storms in Australia article as well. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geography of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Geography of Australia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article has some inmportance as covering a specialised subset of Australian geography. However, the construction of the article is deficient - there is virtually no introduction and the total content is sparse, and spelling and grammar need attention. Most importantly, there are verifiability issues, and I have tagged the article for possible original research policy breach. Darcyj 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)