Talk:Western Australia

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001203306/http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/structure_wa_economy_2005.pdf to http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/structure_wa_economy_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Western Australian state song
Western Australia has an unofficial state anthem. This is called "Western Australia for me". It dates from 1831, and was sung by George Fletcher Moore at the First Governor's Ball in 1831. See references at http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/04/13/2871828.htm and https://membership.wags.org.au/swan-river-pioneers-1829-1838-mainmenu-57/256-western-australia-for-me-srp. The article needs to be updated to include the state song in the Info Box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Environmental section
I propose that a section be created which is specifically about environmental issues in Western Australia (and a similar one for Queensland). I was about to add sentences about the impacts mining and deforestation have had in Queensland and Western Australia (including their impact on aboriginal peoples), but after the reverts I decided not to, at least without discussing it first. Currently the QLD and WA articles do not really mentioning anything having to do with environmental issues (such as the bleaching of coral caused by human activity). The shark issue could occupy one sentence each in each of the proposed sections about environmental issues. LumaP15 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you start new articles rather than expand this one. Looking at your reverts it seems you have some issues with WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV - these won't just go away. Good luck! John beta (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a better approach would be to add state-specific sections to Environmental issues in Australia. Is there really enough material for a new article for each state?
 * I agree with that 's edits (now-reverted, ) don't appear as neutral as they ought to be. Once we work out where to put the material, we'll need to ensure that it is more neutrally worded. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a new article for each state, it would be a paragraph or less in each state's article briefly discussing environmental issues in that state. For example, Western Australia's article could be have a section with a paragraph or less describing mining issues, degradation of aboriginal lands, drum lines, deforestation, etc.


 * The Environmental issues in Australia article covers the entire country, whereas individual sections in each state's article would be only about those state's issues. LumaP15 (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the issues are state-specific, this makes sense, but I suspect that most issues are not state-specific. For example I think is better than individual descriptions in each state's article. But there's no harm in creating  and . The contents can always be moved/merged elsewhere later if appropriate. But what about the other states? Do they have similar sections? Should they? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080722023419/http://www.wineaustralia.com/Australia/Default.aspx?tabid=179 to http://www.wineaustralia.com/Australia/Default.aspx?tabid=179
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080722023419/http://www.wineaustralia.com/Australia/Default.aspx?tabid=179 to http://www.wineaustralia.com/Australia/Default.aspx?tabid=179

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

When. Why. Why not!
Also applies to History of Western Australia.

1. When did the term “Western Australia” come into being. Was Albany in New Holland? Was it (only) “Swan River Colony” for a while.

2. Why the emphasis on “formally 1827”? Lockyer arrived in 1826.

3. No mention of Tasman in Exploration section. 1644; he travelled the whole North coast (Qld to Exmouth). MBG02 (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How to describe WA's area relative to Australia
I still assert that inserting "almost" before 33% in "WA ... occupying almost 33% of ... Australia" is contrary to MOS:UNCERTAINTY:

in particular that for the purpose of MOS:UNCERTAINTY, "almost" is a "similar term".

Previous discussion on my talk page

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * First, it IS misleading because it isn't 33% (which, to make it worse, is often understood by normal and healthy humans to mean $1/3$). Second, this is one of the two options you offered earlier; although you presented a false dichotemy it is the lesser of two evils. Third, just a few sentences later "about" and "around" are used for the same reasons stating "the state has about 2.68 million inhabitants – around 10 percent of the national total". Betterkeks (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * it IS misleading because it isn't 33% — It's not misleading, it's rounded, and we have a MOS guideline for that.
 * The guideline doesn't apply when "the reader might otherwise be misled", as is the case here. Betterkeks (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some evidence that the readers are being misled. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I, as a reader, feel as currently written the statement is misleading. It may be improved easily by stating or indicating that it is not a rounding of $1/3$. Betterkeks (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * is often understood by normal and healthy humans to mean $1/3$ — I suggest that anyone who knew what $1/3$ was as a percentage would also know that it is 33$1/3$%, not 33%, and that those readers would thus read 33% as being approximately one-third, not exactly one-third.
 * That is black-and-white thinking Mitch. Just say or indicate its rounded. Betterkeks (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * this is one of the two options you offered earlier — the two options I proposed were "33%" or "almost one-third", not "almost 33%".
 * just a few sentences later "about" and "around" are used for the same reasons — I suggest that the words "about" and "around" should be also removed from those sentences, for the same reasons - that they are contrary to MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please dont' do that. It would make it worse, not better. Betterkeks (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would make it worse, not better. — That is your opinion, but MOS:UNCERTAINTY suggests that it is not the consensus view. Surely you don't think that the readers will misinterpret "2.68 million" as exactly 2,680,000 if we remove the word "about". And "10% has literally now "been ... rounded in a normal and expected way". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "10%" is too perfect and needs to be explained, such as by including "around". Betterkeks (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just say "around one third". 33% implies a precision that isn't there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not great, but better than what is there now. Or say its the portion of Australia that is west of 129°E. 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the portion of Australia that is west of 129°E — That does not give an immediate idea the proportion of the land area, which is what we are trying to convey. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is currently being said does not accomplish that goal. Betterkeks (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)