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- 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)

Australian government or federal government?

Hello all,

I propose that we consistently use the term Australian government, rather than federal government when referring to the Australian government. While it's true that some sources, especially the media, use the terms interchangeably, the fact is that the term Australian government is universally in official use. All Australian government websites and official publications refer to the government of Australia as the Australian government. For example here, here, here, and any other official government website or publication you care to google. One editor has argued that it is useful to use the term federal government when we need to distinguish it from other levels of government such as state governments and local governments. But the official term Australian government does just as well: eg the Australian government has power over this but the state governments have power over that. Of course, the term "federal" can be used in other contexts when that is the official term: eg the Federal Executive Council. Some might argue that the official name of the Australian government is the Commonwealth Governnment, as this is the name given in the constitution. But the constitution is not the only official document governing Australia, and the term Australian Government has been in official use by all government since the 1970s.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Calling it the Australian government doesn't make it clear that it IS the federal government in a multi-level system. And there IS confusion internationally. During COVID, I saw a lot of comment, often surprisingly from Americans, that the Australian government had imposed all the tough restrictions that had, in fact, been imposed by state governments. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Well we can't change official Australian usage for the benefit of myopic Americans. The article makes it clear that Australia is a federation of states and that there are state governments and an Australian government. See the official advice to Australian parliamentarians: "In the context of the government, the three terms ‘Australian’, ‘Federal’ and ‘Commonwealth’ can be used interchangeably. However, Australian Government is preferred usage within the government itself. An advantage of using the term ‘Australian Government’ rather than ‘Federal Government’ or ‘Commonwealth Government’ is that there is less likely to be confusion in the minds of those not familiar with Australia’s system of government. For example in this context ‘Commonwealth’ can often refer to the Commonwealth of Nations, and ‘Federal’ may be used by Americans when referring to their national government." See: "What's the difference?". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not just myopic Americans. That was simply one example of the problem everywhere outside Australia. It's quite common to see someone not familiar with our system to write "the Australian government" when they mean "AN Australian government", i.e. an Australian state government. I mentioned Americans because they, of all people, should understand a federal system, but often don't seem to. "Federal government" removes that confusion. Wikipedia is global. We need to write for people who don't realise that there are many governments in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The use of the terminology "Australian Government" by the Commonwealth government is not a neutral one, but specifically designed in order to blur the distinctions between federal and state governments and to justify increasing federal power. While the federal government may really want you to use its new official name, wikipedia isn't bound to follow its preference. I assume WP:COMMONNAME applies equally to the names of bodies in the text such that the common use of the term "federal government" in the media supports the use of this term in the text. Also, DFAT recognises the use of federal government as a name and it is used by the NSW government.

I think we should use the name that is the most useful in context. Usually this is the Australian Government, but when comparing between both levels of government the use of names like Commonwealth and federal government are useful at emphasising the fact that Australia is a federation with states that are as sovereign in their respective spheres as the Commonwealth. Safes007 (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of official/government sources that use "federal government" see here. As HiLo noted above, there is good reason to use this terminology to avoid confusion with the states. This is not some sort of recent Americanism, it's been in use since day dot. In any case we have a Washminster system so it's natural there will be some overlap. ITBF (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I presume outside Australia, it's known as the Australian government, where's inside Australia, it's known as the Federal government. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it is officially known as the Australian government inside Australia, as has been so since the Acts Interpretation Act was ammended in 1973 to refer to the Australian Government."What's the difference?" it is also widely used in the media: eg: here.[5]https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/australian-government-paid-millions-for-unusable-covid-face-masks-from-obscure-online-retailer-ntwnfb. Although in the media, Australian government and federal government are often used interchangeably. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Very well, use Australian government. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's only officially known as the Australian Government by institutions under the authority of the federal government, not Australia as a whole. Constitutionally, it is officially the "government of the Commonwealth" (s 62), which is the name used in courts and often by that states, who rejected the new name as inaccurate. Safes007 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am happy to accept the compromise suggested by Safes007 whereby we use Australian government in most contexts, but federal government when we are distinguishing between the federal, state/territory and local levels of government. Commonwealth government should only be used for direct quotes or when referring to specific constitutional provisions using the term. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't trying to set down a universal rule. I think its ultimately a case by case basis and I don't think it's useful to set down general rules. I think Commonwealth government can be useful in many different contexts and I don't agree that it should only be used in direct quotes. Safes007 (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

How to deal with 'as of year'?

I notice that many sentences in the article contain an expression like 'as of [year]' or something similar. Are there any general rules for when this is needed or can it be implied when a source is available? Safes007 (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The general rule is WP:ASOF. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Safes007 (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

Insert below the National Anthem section of the side bar: 58.110.92.199 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sport and recreation

Hello all

This section needs a complete rewrite as it is full of unsouced assertions and irrelevant citations. I have marked the sections in need of attention.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it sure could do with some work. For starters, I'd like to delete the claim that Australia is "the only country to have won championships in two different FIFA confederations". I believe it's true, but it's trivia, just a quirk of soccer's changing international structure over the years. It doesn't make Australia a better team than those who haven't done it. And as you flagged, it's unsourced right now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added some objective data from the Australian Institute of Sport and have deleted most of the poorly sourced and dubious information. I should have some reliable sources on cricket on my bookshelf so I will fix this section up in the near future. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)