Talk:Australia/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Demonym

Should "Aussie" really be considered an demonym, as is currently in the infobox? Because its kind of a slang term. "Australian" is the official one. M173627 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's only people from English-speaking countries that use the term 'Aussie', and it can also be a derogatory term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.4.26 (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Europeans use "Aussie" although they, particularly those from Scandinavian counties, Germany and Austria, pronounce it "Ossssee" --AussieLegend (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Australia is not a continent

Article states Australia is an island continent, it's not. The continent is Australasia and includes Tasmania, New Zealand etc. We should remove or amend to Australia forms the bulk of the continent of Australasia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.19.225.2 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I was involved in a discussion on this very subject in it.wiki. The article: Continent, would tend to suggest that at best your interpretation is one of 6 or 7 possible interpretations; at worst you are completely wrong, since the bulk of the definitions of continent do no lump New Zealand with Australia (in fact, I'm not even sure if the aforementioned article even uses the term Australasia). πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

-Well. In many trivia, maps, atlas, websites etc. It list Australia as a Continent But i also agree on this change. I think the continent should be named Australiasia or Oceania (<-watever its called in sports games). but sometimes they say "Australia and oceania" 203.196.43.20 (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oceania is a region as is Australiasia. If you can find a source to say that Australia itself isn't a continent then it's pointless to discuss as all it would be based on is point of views. Bidgee (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia is not a continent? You're a bit late for April Fools jokes. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Always known the continent as Australasia or Oceania myself. One example: just grabbed The Times Concise Atlas of the World (Aus/Nz) edition (1989), which refers to the continent as 'Australasia'. Our other atlas, Goode's World Atlas (1966), refers to the continent as 'Oceania'. I think there's just a few ego-centric Aussies(person who said this is ignorant!) saying otherwise here. Needs to be changed in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.158.65 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you think. AussieLegend is right just leave Australia alone!

Wouldn't it be appropriate to keep it consistent? Wikipedia currently has two articles, one for Australia geopolitical nation and one for Australia the continent. Australia the continent includes New Guinea, as it is on the same continental shelf. New Zealand is not on the same shelf. And Tasmania, along with a number of other islands, is included in both geopolitical Australia and the continent. I guess there could be a third 'Australia', namely the Australian Mainland, which doesn't include Tasmania... but what else is there to write in it that's not included in the Australia article? Thux2828 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Penal Transportation Overstated

Is the significance of Penal transportation being overstated in the introduction to this article? The article for the United States of America briefly references the 13 original British colonies uniting, but doesn't go into those colonies origins. Seeing as British Convicts were used in the continental British colonies as essentially slave labour, and as the colonies were settles as Crown Colonies by the British bureaucracy and military - why elevate this historical fact to a level of importance to which it isn't worthy? Many United States colonies used slave labour to build infrastructure, and yet these were not called slave colonies. In fact, the only mention of slavery in the United States article relates to a mention of the US Civil War.

Is this a double standard? Is the significance of penal transportation being overstated? I do believe it is.

We should discuss changing this introduction, applying the same standards used in the introductions of other national articles. We should also consider giving more credence to the more than 40,000 years of indigenous history in the introduction. More at least, than a single sentence.122.106.188.158 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Billy

Australia was "initially settled through penal transportation to the colony of New South Wales" so I don't see how that is overstating anything. The only way to state that in a less obvious way in the introduction is to not state it at all and ignoring such an important part of our history would be denying the truth. Many Australians are actually proud of their convict heritage and convict built and convict related infrastructure such as the Great North Road, Port Arthur and Newcastle's convict lumber yards (and many others) are important historical sites.

Perhaps the problem is really that the United States article understates the significance of its convict history, not at Australia overstates its history.

As for indigenous history, the simple fact is that there is very little information about indigenous history before arrival of the First Fleet. In the introduction to the article, which is supposed to be a brief overview of the whole article, there's really not a lot more that can be said other then that indigenous Australians have been here for a long time. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear colleagues—MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are six disadvantages in the use of date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (5) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (6) Of limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in quotations; this minor inconsistency can be avoided by removal of the autoformatting.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The international ddmmyy formatting used in Australia would be seen by all WPians, not just our millions of readers, and it would allow the high-value links to breathe—the article is quite heavily linked already. Tony (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You have summarised the objections most elegantly. The wikidate thing was a kludge in the first place and although people talked about better ways of presenting dates, nothing ever happened. To my mind, the fact that date ranges could not be handled in a way that looked natural and worked for both date formats was a killer. I'll raise no objections to removing the wikidate formatting, so long as date formats for Australian subjects retain international, rather than U.S. formatting. Have you had any difficulties or inconsistencies with your script at all? --Pete (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Pete. Representations have been made to start the ball rolling in coordinating the citation templates and giving editors the freedom not to autoformat. These templates have been ripe for an overhaul for some time. In any case, I believe that the most significant improvement lies in treating the main text. Tony (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA separate from Australia.

The COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is not the same thing as Australia. Australia is a country where as the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is a corporation registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (0000805157) SIC: 8880 - UNKNOWN SIC - 8880 State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630

 (Assistant Director Office No 99)

Business Address 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON DC 20036

See - http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000805157&owner=include&count=40

144.134.229.205 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Australia is the full name of Australia. If you check the link you gave, you can see the name is registered by the Australian embassy, no doubt to protect the name against abuse by Americans. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I note from your IP address that you're Australian so you might like to refer to the Constitution of Australia, which is formally titled the Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act for additional clarification. As indicated by Michael Johnson, Commonwealth of Australia is the full and formal name of Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Commonwealth of ..." is a vestige of the colonial period. It's the most formal, legalistic name of the country as embodied in the Constitution Act. It is analogous to "Dominion of Canada", which is rarely heard now outside the most arcane contexts.

It is a common misconception that "Commonwealth of Australia" is somehow the "correct" or "proper" form; this might be true in the title of a case heard by the High Court or in scholarly texts on constitutional history, but the term is now less common in other registers nowadays. Those who argue that the constitutional term is preferable should take a good look at the constitution itself: to carry that argument forward, we wouldn't be able to use the terms "Prime Minister" or "Cabinet", since they don't appear in the Act. Tony (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was arguing that it's preferable, just that Australia and Commonwealth of Australia are the same thing. As for being "proper", that's not a misconception, at least according to the laws of the land. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Australia is the same thing as Australia. It is in the constitution.[User:thegoldenrule]

a few little things

Why are the years in the table of historical population counts linked to "US Census"?

I intend to remove the slang term for "Australian" from the infobox, which is a formal statement.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the claim of a slightly higher living standard than France et al. Is this PPP or real-GNP per capita? Such an estimation is so muddied by multifarious factors that it would be better, I think, to say "comparable to". Tony (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The historical population data used a template that was obviously made for the US. I've replaced it with a wikitable. If anyone wants to make it more fancy, go for it. As for the "slang term", the field in question is about demonyms and Aussie seems to be a valid demonym for Australians. As far as I'm aware, being slang doesn't automatically exclude it from being a demonym. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is a loose, slang item used like this in any other country infobox? Apart from the air of authority that I think is important at the very top of an article, many readers won't get it; and how will a non-native speaker know that one is formal and the other not, and which is which? Don't you think a better idea is to leave "Australian" there and move the "Aussie" down to a section in the main text? Tony (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony on this one. It's notable enough to be included in the main body in an appropriate section, but putting it towards the top of the info box is silly. What's next - Australia's favourite pokemon player in the info box? --Merbabu (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no choice where it goes in the infobox because the location of the demonym field within the box is fixed. Aussie is a demonym for Australians. Are you arguing that it isn't? The pokemon argument is rather trivial and irrelevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the infobox at all. Tony explains the need for removal perfectly. As I said, it's notable enough for the article main body - something like that needs further explanation. --Merbabu (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be in the infobox because it's a valid demonym. There's no for need explanation in this article because it's wikilinked to its own article. This article is already 66kB so adding to its size is not really desirable. However, if you wish to explain it in the article then that provides justification for it to be in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that. If it is in the article, then that justifies inclusion in the info box? Most of the article's points are not in the info box - I know you are not suggesting we summarise everything in the info box. So why is the word "Aussie" special?--Merbabu (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Aussie is special, in this case, because it's a commonly used demonym. If you're willing to explain it in the article then it's obviously notable so why not include it? --AussieLegend (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a loose term. It's a very common way of referring to Australians, especially in English speaking countries. As for use of such terms in other country infoboxes, look no further than New Zealand which displays lists Kiwi alongside New Zealander. As a seventh generation Aussie myself, I'm quite happy to see Aussie stay where it is. As for how to differentiate between the formal "Australian" and less formal "Aussie", again look no further than New Zealand. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"It should be in the infobox because it's a valid demonym." I don't quite follow that logic. And while we're at it, let's put "Blighty" in the UK infobox and "Yank" in the US one. Tony (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The field is titled "Demonym". "Aussie" is a demonym therefore it's appropriate to include it in the demonym field. It's not rocket science. As for what's in other country infoboxes, I don't really care. It smacks too much of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Of course you did ask "Is a loose, slang item used like this in any other country infobox?" and you were answered. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, "Blighty" and "Yank" (and "Limey") are not demonyms; they are, rather, epithets. "Aussie", like Kiwi, is not meant to be offensive. -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see someone else objected to its inclusion above. You seem to be outnumbered, Legend. I can see no mention of informal, slang-type equivalents in the article Demonym. I suspect there are no other informal demonyms in infoboxes apart from the copy-cat NZ one. It was your idea, yes? You still haven't responded to my points about the non-labelling of the terms as "formal" and "informal", nor my concerns that the linguistic status of "Aussie" won't be understood by non-native speakers (and some natives, probably). The proper place for it (with supporting details) is in "Demography" or "Culture". Tony (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"I can see no mention of informal, slang-type equivalents" - That doesn't mean they're excluded. The articles Demonym states "A demonym or gentilic is a word that denotes the members of a people or the inhabitants of a place." Are you arguing that Aussie does not fit that definition?

"I suspect there are no other informal demonyms in infoboxes apart from the copy-cat NZ one." - Again, this smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The edit to this article was made on 18 April while the addition to the New Zealand article was made on 20 March, 4 weeks earlier. If any article is a copy-cat it's this one. But, the two edits were made by different editors and in different ways so....

"It was your idea, yes?" - Quite obviously not. What are you trying to imply?

"You still haven't responded to my points about the non-labelling of the terms as "formal" and "informal"," - Yes I did. I said, "As for how to differentiate between the formal "Australian" and less formal "Aussie", again look no further than New Zealand." Maybe you missed it while you were thinking up ways to imply that I'm the only one who supports inclusion of demonyms in the demonym field.

"nor my concerns that the linguistic status of "Aussie" won't be understood by non-native speakers" - The same answer applies. Look at New Zealand.

"(and some natives, probably)" - Do you really think people are that stupid?

"The proper place for it (with supporting details) is in "Demography" or "Culture"." - As I earlier stated, the place for a demonym is in the demonym field. Expansion in the prose, other than a comment in the opening paragraph, is unnecessary fluff. Since you're fond of comparing this article to other articles for guidance I suggest you look at some for examples. Most simply say something like "People from Foo are called Fooians". Mind you, there is no real consistency. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"I can see no mention of informal, slang-type equivalents" - That doesn't mean they're excluded. The articles Demonym states "A demonym or gentilic is a word that denotes the members of a people or the inhabitants of a place." Are you arguing that Aussie does not fit that definition?

• True, but it doesn't add any support to your case that because "demonym" is the cover word, the term should be included (your italics). Tony (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"I suspect there are no other informal demonyms in infoboxes apart from the copy-cat NZ one." - Again, this smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The edit to this article was made on 18 April while the addition to the New Zealand article was made on 20 March, 4 weeks earlier. If any article is a copy-cat it's this one. But, the two edits were made by different editors and in different ways so....

"It was your idea, yes?" - Quite obviously not. What are you trying to imply?

• Why is it "quite obvious"? And copy-cat? You're the one below saying "Look at NZ". Tony (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"You still haven't responded to my points about the non-labelling of the terms as "formal" and "informal"," - Yes I did. I said, "As for how to differentiate between the formal "Australian" and less formal "Aussie", again look no further than New Zealand." Maybe you missed it while you were thinking up ways to imply that I'm the only one who supports inclusion of demonyms in the demonym field.

• Um ... you are the only one. I "think up" everything I write. Tony (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"nor my concerns that the linguistic status of "Aussie" won't be understood by non-native speakers" - The same answer applies. Look at New Zealand.

"(and some natives, probably)" - Do you really think people are that stupid?

• It's a matter of knowledge, not stupidity or otherwise. Tony (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"The proper place for it (with supporting details) is in "Demography" or "Culture"." - As I earlier stated, the place for a demonym is in the demonym field. Expansion in the prose, other than a comment in the opening paragraph, is unnecessary fluff. Since you're fond of comparing this article to other articles for guidance I suggest you look at some for examples. Most simply say something like "People from Foo are called Fooians". Mind you, there is no real consistency. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at other articles, and see no equivalent apart from your favoured NZ. You still haven't addressed my issues about labelling the formal and the informal. If it would be "fluff" in the main text, why isn't it fluff in the infobox?

And just one more thing: try not to make it personal. Tony (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, what other articles do is almost always irrelevant and poor justification. Judge each case on its merits. --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I almost agree completely. That's pretty much the essence of WP:OTHERSTUFF and what I was trying to get across to Tony. That said, I don't think there's any harm referring to other articles as a way of ensuring consistency or getting ideas on how to do something but there's no obligation to do something in one article just because it's done that way in another. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tony - I've reverted your last edit. It's inappropriate to post responses that way. If you wish to address specific points raised by another editor quote them, don't tear their posts apart and merge your response with their post. It makes it hard to read and implies that the other editor has said something that they haven't. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit I’m treading on shaky ground by criticising the process of an editor with whom I have a content dispute, but let me say that while I am in mild agreement with you about Tony’s insertion of text within yours, I consider wholesale revert (ie, removal) of a contributor’s post a much bigger sin. Tony arguably showed mildly poor form, but removal of contributor’s talk page contributions is, I’m sorry to say, shocking form. My suggestion is you reinstate it – even if you add the requested quotations yourself. --Merbabu (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was simply a case of removing an editor's contributions then I'd agree with you but what Tony did was to edit my contributions, which is not appropriate. All I did was to return my edits to the way they were. If he wants to re-add his contributions then it's up to him to do so, in an appropriate manner. It's not appropriate for me to edit his contributions as you've suggested. The only choices I have are to reinsert his comments as he originally posted them or leave them reverted. The latter is more appropriate. I'm following previous guidance from WP:WQA here. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't consider it "poor form" at all. I will revert unless this Legend person cuts and pastes my comments below. Tony (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit I've done it before too! :-) --Merbabu (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages, especially the part that says, "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments" and "Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit is merely to correct a spelling or grammar error." What you did was indeed poor form and I have no right to do what you want me to do. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Ok - we've all stated our views on what may or may not constitute poor form. let's move back to the point at hand (and maybe someone can reinclude Tony's comments in a form that is "win-win"). cheers --Merbabu (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not moving on

• Legend you're trying to make an enemy of me. You've removed my comments from this talk page. I'll institute an ANI if you don't reinstate them somehow. Tony (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if it makes you feel better, I apologise for having interleaved my rejoinders; I wasn't aware of the guideline on that. Tony (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to respond on your talk page because this part of the discussion is inappropriate here. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • No, don't post abusive messages on my talk page. I'll revert further such messages from my personal space. But your expunging of my responses to you on this page is a different matter: I haven't made personal accusations, and my rejoinders are substantive and deserve responses. If there's a guideline on not interpolating comments, there's a much more serious guideline on not removing comments from an article talk page. You have sabotaged this discussion by removing my rejoinders so that no one can see the thread properly. I can see from the postings above on this talk page that you have been engaging in aggressive discourse with others. When are you going to undo your destruction of this thread? Tony (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I suggest you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (especially Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM to get an idea of what is not appropriate. This matter has nothing to do with improving the article. It's a personal dispute that is more appropriately taken to user talk pages, in accordance with policy, which is why I posted, not abusively I should add, on your talk page. As per your request, I won't post there again but I shall limit my comments here to issues pertaining to improving the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum shopping is probably another thing you should check out. Why don't you just restore your edits (properly) and move on? --AussieLegend (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I won't be reading anything you suggest, thanks very much. I'll seek advice from other people wherever I wish. I'll be watching this page carefully and intervening when you become aggressive towards people. You appear to have serious ownership issues that need input from a greater range of people. Now, my time budget for circular arguments with you is just about depleted, so don't waste it further right now. Tony (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see that you've chosen to take this attitude rather than try to work productively to improve the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, don't think I'm going. I just have a limited budget for banter like this that doesn't improve the article. Tony (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems, Tony, that you recognize that edits should not be jumbled-up with AussieLegend's comment, but that you are asking him to paste them somewhere below. Wouldn't make more sense for you to do so and in a way that explains what each bit is responding to? This discussion seems to have gotten out of hand and everyone should probably take a deep breath before proceeding. -Rrius (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. If this person had politely asked me to do so at the time, I'd have been only too pleased to. Expunging my comments completely without asking is a far more serious sin, as someone else has pointed out. It doesn't look as though the atmosphere here will improve. Tony (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished reading this thread and almost forgot the reason for it. Tony was wrong to interweave his comments, AussiLegend should have asked Tony to move them. It didn't happen, mistakes were made, nothing was done deliberately, end of. Going back to the reason for the thread, why the need for Aussie in the infobox? I feel a mention in the article is sufficient. Jack forbes (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's sufficient support here, plus one person in a section above, to remove the item from the infobox in the first instance. I'm giving three days' notice of my intention to do so. Night of 27 July. Tony (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It's not just here you need to look. The validity of "Aussie" as a demonym is now clear. I've added a citation for it and somebody else has added (colloquial) next to the word to clarify its use.[1] This addresses earlier concerns that you had. I've since tidied the entry further[2] to avoid any confusion. Since the entry is now properly cited there's no reason to delete it, unless you can can explain why the citation is invalid. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know that you disagree—you've made that abundantly clear in your aggressive way over the past few days. But I'm afraid that you alone don't rule the roost here: other people have influence, too, and four of us are of the opposite opinion. Tony (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While you may be of the opposite opinion, the simple fact it that "Aussie"'s validity as a demonym has now been confirmed with a valid citation. You don't rule the roost either. Policy does and you need to justify removal of validly cited data. Consensus is not a vote. Please keep personal issues out of the discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::If you can find a valid citation that confirms "Aussie" as a demonym it would be acceptable, but using a wiki article is not a valid cite. personaly, I find the use of Aussie in the infobox rather unprofessional. Jack forbes (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have looked a little closer before I made that statement. As much as I don't think it looks right, my personal opinion takes second place to a valid citation. AussieLegend, if you could find more citations it might settle things. Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you should have looked, you were quite correct regarding citations. It's policy that Wiki articles can't be used as citations, which is why I looked for one. There are actually quite a few but how many do we actually need to resolve the issue, especially give that about.com is widely used on Wikipedia (over 11,000 times if memory doesn't deceive me) so it's obviously as respected source. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Second citation added. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Two is enough for me. Jack forbes (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The count looks like 3-3, even if you include the old debate, so I would ask that you hold off on changing anything until we have a consensus. I do object to using a very short discussion from months ago, which ended in the article remaining as is, as support for a consensus to change. I have asked the user who posed the question to join the discussion, but the IP who contributed has not been active since 20 May so I did not bother with him or her. I hope Merbabu rejoins the discussion, as well.

Finally, nice to see you at Australia, Jack. -Rrius (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, citations are irrelevant to whether it stays. It's whether it's appropriate in the infobox that matters, when the tone is summary, introductory, and usually formal there, and where no detail can be included to explain to readers what it means. I was not aware of an "old" debate. Where is it? Tony (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations are very relevant since they establish that the word is a valid demonym, not just a "a loose, slang item" as you claimed in one of your early posts. As a valid demonym, and as one of the two most common demonyms used to identify people from Australia, there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be included, especially since there are citations to support its status. You may not like the word but that is irrelevant. Letting personal feelings affect your decision is not maintaining a neutral point of view.

Regarding the earlier debate, it's exactly where it was when you linked to it in a previous post.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The "old debate" is what you refer "a section above" (more specifically, the thread entitled "Demonym" started by M173627). I guess I don't understand your refusal to put off a change when it is clear there is no consensus.

Further, as long as I'm mentioning things I don't understand, I don't comprehend the criticism that Aussie is only used by English-speakers. Of course it is. Australian is probably also only used by English-speakers. Demonyms are often different in different languages German is not the word used in German (which would be Deutsch or something like it), and that word is not the same word as is used in Spanish (aleman). Moreover, this is the English-language Wikipedia; of course we are going to use names used by English speakers. -Rrius (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that criticism is confusing. I think it's supposed to be an argument that the use of "Aussie" is not as widespread as "Australian" but as you've quite correctly pointed out, "Australian" isn't used by non-English speaking people. "Australien" (e instead of a) is one I've seen and "Ozzie", especially with Germans, is another. The citations actually support "Ozzie" as well as "Australian" and "Aussie" but since this is the English Wikipedia I think we should stick to English words. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Naturally, I won't make the change unless there is consensus. You two are raising entirely spurious issues. Citations? Widespread use? These are irrelevant. I've outlined what I believe are the relevant issues just above, and your posts have done nothing to convince me that the item should stay. I don't think they've convinced the others, either. Tony (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations are not spurious issues. Verifiability is a core policy and must be followed but I'm going to leave that for now. Instead I'm going to ask you a single question: Do you agree that "Aussie" is a valid demonym or are you disputing that it is? It's a fairly simple question. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• No one here is disputing its veracity. It's the appropriateness of the item in the infobox that is at issue. Tony (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, you acknowledge that it is a valid demonym. That's one thing settled. The problem now with debating its appropriateness is that doing that is really not maintaining a neutral point of view, another core principle of Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• my 2c after reading demonym the correct demonym is Australian rather than Aussie. Gnangarra 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally thought Aussie did not belong in the infobox, but looking at the citations, I have to agree with AussiLegend. If you look at them you will see there is no slang terms used such as Yank, Blighty or Jock, whereas Aussie is included. This convinces me that it is correct to use Aussie as a demonym. Jack forbes (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that Demonym actually points to one of the citations that I used. I really don't think we have a choice. Aussie has to be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this display of informality right at the top, in the official infobox, embarrassing. It's not that I'm some kind of pucillanimous poonce; it's that I want the article to have a certain authority and dignity at the opening. The use of "Aussie" in a formal context, as though Australians are matey, blokey, everyone's friend, might be some people's kick, but to me its proper place is in a more detailed context in the body of the article—probably not in the lead (there are too many important things to say there), but in the section on culture—somewhere that language is mentioned—or perhaps it could be wound into the History section, rather than a brassy, bald declaration at the top. There, it might be more cogently introduced as a cultural artefact, or as part of the identity of the nation; perhaps the term "digger" might also be treated, because it, too, should be mentioned as an important term that has historical roots.

By analogy, I would object to the appearance of "digger" in the infobox at the ADF article; likewise, I'd expect it to be treated further down in the main text.

Legend, your arguments seem to rest on a peculiar type of logic, or an exaggerated call to arms. You seem to ignore everything said about the role of the infobox versus the the sections in the main text. Talking in terms of "there is no alternative", like Margaret Thatcher, is not going to get anywhere. She was dubbed "Tina" by her colleagues for such statements; perhaps you'd like that nickname too, Legend. Tony (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are citations and then there are citations. I feel Tony has a point here. My first feeling is that Aussie was a diminutive of Australian, therefore in effect including it is just repeating the term. I then decided to consult an off-web source (remember them?) the Macquarie Dictionary:

Aussie colloq -adj 1. Australian -n 2. an Australian 3. Australia

The fact the Macquarie describes it as colloquial makes me think it is inappropiate for to the info box, but of course it should be referred to further down the article --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that AussieLegend could come up with a hundred citations and it would not be accepted. everyone should come to terms, including me, that Aussie is verifiably a demonym. Jack forbes (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any argument that it is a demonym, rather that it is a colloquial demonym, and perhaps unnecessary in the info box. Here is another source, the National Library of Australia. Personally I don't think this one is a biggie, and I understand AussieLegend's argument. I guess it all comes down to a personal view as to what is appropiate and necessary. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I've just noted the Library definintion is from Wikipedia, in effect this article! Talk about circular references! --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson, I don't care much for how you conduct your relations with other editors. Go suck on that. Now, when my original thread is reinstated by this Legend person, who removed it initially, which is an outrageous breach of protocol, and rude to boot, I might think about being "nice". Not until then. Tony (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we please have this discussion withought tempers being lost. Jack forbes (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• (1) If people want to make it personal, I'll respond in kind. (2) There will be no peace here until this Legend person returns my thread. Tony (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If by "thread" you mean the comments you spliced into his comments, I have restored them. I would suggest that you do something to make it more obvious whose comment is whose. There is an interrupt template you could use, or you could strike out your comments and replicate them below AussieLegend's comment. As it stands, the mixture of comments is confusing. I hope everyone can calm down now. -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but if Tony wants these edits restored then it's up to him to do it, in a manner that doesn't refactor my comments, rather than expect others to do what he should have done in the first place. I am quite within my rights to revert edits which refactor my comments. WP:REFACTOR is quite clear on this: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I object to the refactoring and accordingly, the changes have been reverted. If he, or anyone else, has an issue with that he/they should raise it on WP:WQA. You'd think an editor with 17,898 edits would have taken some time to read Wikipedia policy as Tony clearly has not. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloody-minded action is going to poison this page

This Legend person seems to be intent on creating the worst possible atmosphere here. Someone had finally reinstated my contributions to the earlier thread above; but no, this Legend person wants to provoke: he's removed them. However, it was he who 'quite illegally removed them in the first place, with the possible implication that they just didn't suit him (he may protest that he had benign intentions, but I'd reject that; in any case, the appearance of propriety, as well as the following of a central tenet of talk pages, is critical here).

While I had erred by interpolating my part of the thread against his comments, for ease of following (I come from FAC, where such a practice is routine), it was no big deal, and as I've said above, if I'd been asked to move them down at the time, I'd have done so. However, that time has passed: not surprisingly, I refuse to lift a finger to do so, since my contributions were simply scrubbed out (twice now).

I can assure you that I'm not about to leave this page. It looks as though we're in for a prolonged bout of unpleasantness. I regard this act as an attempt to sabotage the debate. Tony (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's anyone here who seems intent on creating the worst possible atmosphere it is clearly you. This issue would have been over 2 days ago if you had just restored your edits as they should have been added in the first place. The edits were not illegally removed, WP:REFACTOR and the other articles I've linked to, as a courtesy to you (and been abused for!), show that. We're supposed to be here to discuss the inclusion of Aussie but your tantrums over the past two days about a mistake that you made have prevented us from progressing. Please, fix your edits and let's get back to the issue at hand.

That said, this section is all inappropriate content for a talk page, as you should know. If anyone wants to delete it they have my support. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would have never started if you had done the right thing and not expunged what you didn't like in the debate; the polite thing was to ask me to move it. You seem to think that anything on this talk page that you don't like can be simply removed, and here you go again, suggesting that this whole section be removed. This is a continuation of the same behaviour. YOU are the one not assuming good faith, and Bidgee, you should refrain from sticking your bib in in a POV way. Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it would not have started if you had not refactored my comments inappropriately but we can go around and around all day long. Instead, let's get back to the topic. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to add a comment here. I wasn't pushing a POV nor was I assuming bad faith but reminding both of you of assuming good faith. This talk page is about improving the article and not using it to use about other editors. If you have an issue on the editors contributions then take it to their talk page. Bidgee (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No you weren't. You were criticising my input and not that of this Legend person. That's POV. Tony (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent> This is silly. Tony1 didn't refactor any comments, what he did do is add comments interspersed with other comments in a way which is deprecated because it can lead to confusion about who made what comment. AussieLegend then deleted Tony1's valid comments, which is considered to be vandalism and is a bad idea. What was needed was to WP:REFACTOR Tony1's comments, and I've done that in a way that's worked well on other talk pages. You Ozzies are a touchy lot, I thought us Scotch were the ones with the reputation for a bit of banter! . . dave souza, talk 15:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on Dave, as a Scotchman Scotsman you should know we are called Scots. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah ken thon fine, an think it's nonsense. "Scotch" isnae bad as an anglicisation of "Sco'ish" in Lallans, also it's a grand bevvy. .. .dave souza, talk 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. Depending on where on Wikipedia you go what you describe is also called refactoring. Regardless of what you consider the proper term to be, it's still considered to be a bad idea and that is actually written in Wikipedia:Etiquette. Reversion of such a breach of etiquette is not seen as vandalism at WP:WQA. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've commented at AN/I, see WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable – "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" and WP:TALK#Others' comments "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." You will note that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" do not' include "he messed up the formatting of my comment", on the contrary they specifically include "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution..." However, that advises using a template, and it would have been better had Tony done that, or repeat your original post italicised, which appears to be acceptable. Hope all can learn from this. My humble opinion is that the original presentation of Australian and Aussie as equal was problematic, the current version "Aussie[1][2] (colloquial)" is ok as it makes it clear which is the slang version. .. dave souza, talk 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

I've always found the date autoformatting function to be very handy. So, I don't fully understand why the autoformatting of dates — through wikilinks — has been removed? – Marco79 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because most Wikipedia users don't have registered accounts and date preferences set. They click on links, expecting to be taken to another relevant page, but if they click on a wikidate, they get a tonne of unrelated guff. --Pete (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on Marco's talk page. Tony (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. – Marco79 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Article lead fails to mention that Australia extends to a portion of the Antarctic. This must be remedied

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Pronunciation

While I understand that the US pronunciation might be currently the only one available in an audio file, I really don't see how it is appropriate to have the page opening with an American pronuncation of "Australia", especially the IPA as well as an audio link. JPD (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find the IPA pronunciations useless at the best of times (how does one pronounce an upside down "a" or a backwards "e" without having to go through an exorcism) but I notice that the pronunciation has been through several changes recently. It was first added as "əˈstræɪ.ljə"[4], then "əˈstræɪljə"[5] and finally "ɒˈstreɪljə".[6] The pronunciation further down in the article, to which a citation was added at the last edit[7], is "əˈstɹæɪljə", which matches the second pronunciation that was used. I have no idea at all how any of the pronunciations are different but the fact that the last change added a citation which apparently supports the second pronunciation makes me question the accuracy of all of the written pronunciations. As for the audio file, I quite agree with JPD. If there is no audio file with an Australian pronunciation then there should be no audio file at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Learning IPA is not that hard and you'll have to learn it somewhere if you want to know how to pronounce a word when using an international, Australian or British dictionary. (Though those dictionaries do give a crash course in IPA.) It is the best system we have for learning pronunciations, be them of an English variety or of a foreign language.

JPD is quite right that using an American pronunciation is inappropriate, and I agree with both JPD and AussieLegend that an audio file should only be used if there is an Australian pronunciation. The IPA pronunciation was changed from Australian to American due to the fact that the audio file is of an American pronunciation. I had thought of removing it, but the audio/IPA pronunciation has been added to most of the other articles about countries, so I decided not to, and therefore change the pronunciation accordingly.

The 'first' (/əˈstræɪ.ljə/) pronunciation mentioned used a syllable separator (.), which was an error, and was corrected — by deleting it — to form the 'second' (/əˈstræɪljə/) pronunciation. The 'second' pronunciation was changed — as it was an Australian IPA pronunciation — to an American IPA pronunciation (/ɒˈstreɪljə/), because the audio file is of an American pronunciation. The main difference between the American and Australian pronunciations are the first vowels (ie, /ɒ, ə/), the /ɒ/ is the sound of 'o' in 'hot' and /ə/ is the sound of 'a' in 'about'.

The citation was added to show the 'second' pronunciation is the common pronunciation used by the majority of Australians and as such is used by the Macquarie Dictionary (using Australian vowels from Australian English phonology). I hope this helps. – Marco79 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It makes things more clear. You've done the right thing by making the written pronunciation match the audio file but I think we should stick with just the Australian pronunciation though, rather than have a second pronunciation just to suit the American audio file. Having two pronunciations just makes things complicated. I don't see any issue with removing the audio file. It's better to have no audio than an incorrect version and there's no rule mandating American pronunciations on Wikipedia. I note that our neighbour to the east is now Noo Zealand thanks to the same editor and I'll certainly be checking to see if Emu is now Emoo.

As an aside, I learned German many years ago and my wife taught me some Polish. I didn't see any need to resort to IPA for them, or even for Klingon. I certainly have never needed it to use a dictionary. But then, I learned English when teachers taught English. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Rather than remove the audio, I'll comment it out and add a note asking for an Australian pronunciation to be created. – Marco79 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)