Talk:Australia

Royal anthem
@Aemilius Adolphin I don't see how MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE supports the view that the royal anthem shouldn't be in the infobox, apart from perhaps moving the text in the footnote into the main page. It's an option in the template and I don't see it is so irrelevant that the field should be ignored. I don't think it is of lower relevance than other many of the other fields in the infobox. It's also consistent with Canada, New Zealand and many other countries. The anthem is also mentioned immediately after the national anthem on the government page about anthems so its not some technical and obscure trivia. Safes007 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the Royal Anthem is such a key fact about Australia that it should be highlighted in the info box and given the same status as the Australian national anthem. Policy states that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts. I quote: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The Royal Anthem is only played (along with the national anthem) at official functions whenever a member of the royal family is present. That is, it is relatively rare. In practice it is no different from playing any foreign anthem during an official function when a high ranking foreign official is present. It is irrelevant what the Canada or NZ article does. The current treatment of the anthem in the info box has been long standing and requires a clear consensus to change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not follow how it's done in the infoboxes of the other non-UK Commonwealth realm pages. See New Zealand, Tuvalu, Canada, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Australia is not NZ or Canada or Tuvalu and there is no reason why the Australia page should follow other articles in this:WP:OTHERCONTENT. NZ has 2 official national anthems, Australia only has one. God Save the King is not a national anthem. It does not have equal status to Advance Australia Fair and should not appear in the info box as if it does. It isn't a key fact, it is a minor detail which rightly appears as a footnote to the national anthem. But we'll see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it should be in any info box ...but it will be a tough sale now that this has happened...."God Save The King’ was proclaimed as the Royal Anthem on 27 October 2022 Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Call it Australia's royal anthem. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That proclamation was simply updating the existing royal anthem from "God Save The Queen" to King? JennyOz (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's correct. God Save the Queen is mentioned here Safes007 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCONTENT says a change can't be justified solely based on other pages. It does not say other pages aren't relevant and notes they may form part of an argument. I also don't think any particularly high standard of consensus is needed here—just good old fashioned consensus.
 * Also, the fact that the monarch does not visit often doesn't make the royal anthem totally insignificant. It also demonstrates Australia's relationship to the monarchy and local traditions. If it was abolished, seeing that other comparable countries had it and we didn't would tell you something about Australia. Even the fact that we have a royal anthem when our monarch lives thousands of kilometres away is interesting and relevant. The possibility of it replacing the national one at some events also gives context to the national one. An anthem that can be replaced for a personal one of the monarch tells you about the status of national and royal institutions.
 * Also, frankly I find the footnote ugly. This was the main thought in my head when I changed it in the first place. I think it would make the info box look better to just have both anthems and explain the royal anthem in the text. Safes007 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Also, the fact that the monarch does not visit often doesn't make the royal anthem totally insignificant."
 * You don't put something in the info box simply because it isn't "totally insignificant". Policy states you ony put key facts in the info box and the less the better. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding me. I was disputing your argument that that anthem is insignificant because it isn't used day to day. I then point out other reasons why it is significant.
 * That policy also states that "[g]eneral consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobx". I don't think we disagree on the purpose of an infobox. I just think that the anthem is a "key fact" that warrants its inclusion. The fact that the template includes it as an option and other similar countries also include it makes me think there should be a justification greater than a subjective view its not important enough to include to remove it.
 * Also to quote fully from the MOS, "the purpose of an infobox [is to] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". They then note exceptions for info that are difficult to integrate into the article. Neither the anthem or the royal anthem appear in the main article. They are like other symbols like the flag and coat of arms that are best identified in a list rather than a long paragraph. I think it is more useful to identify the royal anthem next to where the national anthem is, to avoid having to expand the main article with a section that doesn't really fit anywhere. I think that looks cleaner outside of the footnote.
 * Also, I feel like the info about the royal anthem is already in the infobox more or less because of the footnote, so just putting it in the infobox mostly just makes it look cleaner and more consistent, with the infobox having the same "key facts" at the end of the day. Safes007 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this InsertNameHereOrElse (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Royal anthem should not be removed from the Infobox as it is one of Australia's symbols of identity. Removing the Royal anthem is purely a political act of Australian republicanism. The Royal anthem is currently one of Australia's symbols of identity therefore should stay in the Infobox until that changes. Zakary2012 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Royal Anthem is in the info box under note 1. Advance Australia Fair is the only official national anthem. God Save the King is only played at official functions when a member of the royal family is present. At official events, sporting events, schools, ceremonies etc. Advance Australia Fair would be played hundreds of times more often than God Save the King. Giving it equal prominence in the info box would be false balance WP:BALANCE. And the info box is only meant to summarise key facts.WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more and it is indeed a question of introducing undue balance in the article. Actually my preference is not to include it at all - it is so archaic and rarely heard.Nickm57 (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * People are allowed to choose 1 or 2 responses. Therefore the total of responses is more than 100% of those responding. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added an explanatory note to the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Native languages in Infobox
I suggest that we add a "native languages" section in the Infobox like what is in the Infobox in the article about India. In this section it would say "250 languages" wiki linked to the Australian Aboriginal languages article. Would do you think? Zakary2012 (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I reverted this because it has been discussed before and the consensus was that it is a complex issue which is best discussed in the article rather than the info box. Different sources give different estimates of the number of Indigenous languages because there is no agreement on what is a distinct language and what is a dialect. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you got a link to that discussion? I wasn't able to track it down from a cursory search.
 * With the obvious caveat that I haven't read the previous discussion mentioned though, I do think it would be worthwhile having some recognition to the presence of indigenous languages across the country. Perhaps if the number itself is the ambiguous part, we could mention a range (and include a note if necessary to explain that the total number is up for debate?) Turnagra (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is this supposed discussion then because I can't find it anywhere? It would be great if you could actually back up your claims and give a link to the discussion you have referenced. Zakary2012 (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Australia/Archive 21#Languages of Australia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it's this discussion? That doesn't really seem like something super strong and worthy of protecting if there is a better discussion that results in an inclusion - I'm seeing a lot of single line comments from low-use accounts rather than actual discussion.
 * I totally understand the issue with the range of different figures, but I think that's easily remedied by giving a range in the infobox as mentioned and don't see that as grounds to not include something there. Turnagra (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Infobox will never contain full details of native languages. That's no what Infoboexs do. Create a brief but accurate summary of the situation, and propose it here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing full details. If you read my message, what I'm proposing is we give a range, and perhaps an explanatory note. For example, that section could say "250 - 363 languages" with a note that says something along the lines of "Different sources give widely differing figures, primarily based on how the terms "language" and "dialect" are defined and grouped", as per the equivalent in the infobox on the India article. Turnagra (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the tens of thousands who speak Mandarin almost exclusively as an actively used first language? Or Korean? Or...? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how that's relevant to a section of the infobox entitled "Native languages". Turnagra (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because if we put in a range of indigenous languages (not "native" languages) with a complicated footnote then someone else will insist that also add all the "community" languages spoken in Australia with a complicated footnote. This isn't speculation, it has happened in the recent past and was discussed and rejected. The info box is supposed to be a quick summary of key information from the article. It is not supposed to include complex information which is best explained in prose in the article. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. By the way, estimates of living indigenous languages actually ranges from about 20 upwards. The 250 figure is the estimated number of languages at the time of European settlement. The high number of 300 plus are mostly dialects and mostly not living languages. I just don't see the value of a ranged figure such as 20 to 300 plus. It's better to read the article to see the complications. But I tend to be an info box minimalist. Let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was going off the section in the India page and didn't realise the term could be changed. But I don't think that's really a concern, there's a pretty clear delineation between indigenous languages and minority introduced languages of specific communities. As for the point about range, I'm sure there would be enough of an agreed upon main range - there will absolutely always be outliers in both directions, but we should look at the overall number. Alternatively we could just be clear that we're basing it off a single authoritative source but acknowledge that there is discrepancy and disagreement on the number - the 2018-19 National Indigenous Languages Survey seems like it could be a decent option, which found 123 languages being spoken. Turnagra (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure adding more language links meets infoboxpurpose, but if it is added I would not include the range. See Brazil for example, which provides a link without a number to its recognized indigenous languages. CMD (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zakary2012 I reverted your edit. Please don't try to force through your preferred version of the infobox while the issue is still under discussion. You have no consensus for your proposal. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As an aside, @Turnagra and @Zakary2012 manage to ask the exact same question; of whether they can have a link to the discussion, but Turnagra asks it very politely and respectfully and Zakary asks it in an accusatory and rude way. Would be nice if we could all be respectful in discussions like this. GraziePrego (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024
Add Oxford comma to the note about territory claimed in Antarctica. 64.189.18.51 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted this as Oxford commas are not used in Australian English except to avoid ambiguity. Also on my reading the article does not consistently use oxford commas.

Just to be clear: I think this needs to be discussed. As with most articles, you will probably find that it has not been used consistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talk • contribs) 21:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I wasn't aware that Australian English had a preference against it. Looking more closely you're right that it isn't consistently used in this article, somehow on my skim through originally I only saw cases where it was used, my bad. Tollens (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024
Change listed Governor-General from David Hurley to Sam Mostyn following Governor-General Mostyn’s swearing in today. Ted86 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)