Talk:Australia/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Australia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Misc

Wikipedians wishing to contribute with an Australian focus are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board -- Chuq 02:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Australian is supererogatory with reference to Aborigines because of the context. scanos

I disagree. The correct and official terminology is 'Australian Aborigine'. The term 'Aboriginal' simply refers to something being the first of its kind in a particular region. - Mark 15:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Formatting

See also essentially means the same thing as Other topics. Why don't we just follow the convention and use see also? I havent seen one other article that has listed Other topics under Main article. Let's stay consistent.

Many of the topics listed under other topics are listed under ==Miscellaneous topics== on all other country template. I have standardized that for this article. Do not revert.

Why is military and foreign relations put under politics? Australian Prime Ministers under history and not politics? Communications and transportation under demographics! These are definately not the same topic.

--Jiang 20:38, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you had ever contributed to this topic area, people might take you seriously. As it stands, you are just mindlessly deleting links and moving stuff about to the detriment of the entry, and you will continue to be reverted by the people who actually write these pages until such a time as you take the trouble to figure out what articles go where and link to them appropriately. Tannin 22:32, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Address the issues. Stop attacking the person. How am I "mindlessly deleting links and moving stuff about to the detriment of the entry". What did I delete? Explain. --Jiang 22:34, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just show me some other pages that format articles like this. --Jiang 22:35, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I did look over the articles I moved to miscellanous. Those are standard country template components taken from the CIA factbook. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. Thank you. --Jiang 22:39, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Look, just stop buggerising about with the page until you have familiarised yourself with the topic area, please. It is perfectly clear that you don't know what you are doing - which is no surprise, as you have not worked in this area before. Learn first, then make changes. Tannin

Don't want to address my concerns? So you want this to be a flame war? Okay, then, what other country templates have you regularly edited? Why dont you just stop buggerising about with the page until you have familiarised yourself with the country template?

I've looked over the articles I rearranged. They belong where I put them in order to standardize the template. No other articles have this silly format other topics listed under main article. --Jiang 22:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was quite deliberately not "answering your concerns", Jiang. Tim Starling already answered them: I intervened here not as a direct participant, but in order to maintain the established and successful page layout - in other words, this is essentially a dispute between you and Tim Starling. I stepped in when I saw that you had reverted Tim's revert of your unwise changes. Tannin 22:56, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What was the explaination? "it's not really something different to see, it's part of the same topic"? My issue here is with a lack of standardization and relation between lumped articles. If it were the same topic, the "Other topics" label would not be necessary. How is other topics different from see also? Why should these articles be listed under the main article heading instead of below the section? What makes this situation so special that it is inapproprate for all other articles I have seen in WP?

I don't see the logic behind lumping the articles under the topics they are placed under. Like all other countries, these articles are basically copied text from the CIA factbook/state dept. What makes Australia's transporation statistics so special that it should be listed under "demographics" rather than "miscellaneous". What's wrong with a miscenllaneous section?

If you and Tim believe the template needs to be changed, go argue that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Countries. Don't unilaterally change the agreed upon style and format and make WP inconsistent. --Jiang 23:11, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Look, I don't have time for this shit right now - I have to go. Meanwhile, just look over the mess you are making. For example, right in the first topic (history) you have blown away the section with a great deal of Australian political history: Australian Prime Ministers. Your "work WITH me" edit summaries are highly misleading - you had the oportunity to work WITH Tim, but chose not to. You had the opportunity to DISCUSS your proposed changes with the people who work in this topic area, but chose not to. For now, just go ahead and bugger it up, I'll fix it when I get back tonight. Tannin

We can only choose one section to put the PM article in. The PM article has closer relation with politics (since even the history is over the history of the role, ie, a political history) than with history in general, which has more to do with a wider range of events. Note the the PM articles for the UK, Canada, New Zealand (and probably more) are incorporated into the text of the politics section, as I have done here. The article focuses on what powers the PM has, not the policies of various past PM's. This makes it a political article.

Please cut the personal attacks. They're not helping. --Jiang 23:24, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page. Of couse, the protection is entirely symbolic in this case.

I provide these data for the interest of the disputants:

The miscellaneous links section is indeed part of WikiProject Countries. (See WikiProject Countries#Miscellaneous topics.) Having this section is the norm among country articles to which the template has been applied.

Inspecting Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Mexico, Poland, Romania, and Portugal, I never found a list of "other topics". There was a smattering of "see also" lists; these were found at the bottom of the relevant sections, with the exception of the "see also" list under Romania#Politics. (There was a "see also" in the middle of a table in Mexico; but since it pertains only to a single table entry, it's not really germaine.)

On another topic, this whole conflict reminds me a lot of the recent edit war over VfD. Two experienced and trustworthy contributors get overexcited and somehow forget that anyone's change is easily undone. It just doesn't make sense to get into a revert war - it's wasted effort! It doesn't matter what format the article is in for a few hours today or tomorrow; continuous reverting is a hostile action, and is entirely counterproductive to the disputants' efforts to understand and address each other's concerns. -- Cyan 00:55, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page, Cyan. However, you have protected the wrong version. In the case of a dispute, it is conventional and proper to use the last version prior to the dispute, and most certainly not the version that the instigator of the dispute is insisting on. Tannin

The page history was a little too messy to determine which version was pre-edit war, what with Jiang's edit being reverted by Tim Starling, whose changes were then reverted by Jiang and then reverted back and forth by Jiang and yourself, and other contributors making small changes in the middle. Under the premise that the question of which particular version is preserved for the cooling-off period is far less important than just moving the action to the talk page, I simply protected it in the condition I found it. In short, neither revision was "wrong" - both were temporary, and the version I protected on was luck of the draw. -- Cyan 21:05, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually on first inspection I'm inclined to agree with Tannin re: placement of "Military of..." and some other sections. However, we should respect the fine work in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries and stick with their format. Lots of thought and debate there have created a good boilerplate. Think of it as freedom -- instead of wasting time on format, spend your energies on putting in good content, which is the value you bring to this article. Also, threatening to use sysop powers to protect a page you're involved with is clearly against community policy, so don't do it. You'll have morning-after guilt. Fuzheado 00:13, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please, for the love of Mike read the edit history. I am NOT personally involved in this dispute. I stepped in to prevent Jiang buggering up the work of other people - not my work at all. Tannin

Whilst I personally prefer Tannin's version, other countries are listing their "see also's" at the end rather than directly under the "main article" link. See England, United States and Spain for example. Consistency would be a good thing. Angela 00:42, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

It is NOT "Tannin's version", Angela. Read the edit history, please. Tannin

I meant the version you were arguing for, not your version as such. Angela

Let's get one thing straight right away. We are not talking about my version here, nor have I been involved in the dispute, until I stepped in to protect other people's work from Jiang's revert-on-sight policy. (Read the edit history: it's all there.) I would indeed have protected the page earlier today - it is the duty of all sysops to stop revert-happy stupidities, and to do our best to allow the peope who create and improve content to get on with things free from interference by the likes of Jiang. Unfortunately, I had a 9:00AM appointment, and while protecting a page takes practically no time at all, it takes more time than I had available to post a properly detailed sest of reasons. Tannin

You are very much involved in the dispute and it would have been wrong for either one of you to protect the page. As well as editing the page, you have been expressing strong opinions on the talk page. Both of these things make you involved. Angela

On returning, I see that someone has protected the wrong version! This is crazy. If Jiang wants to horn in here (where he has no expertise and has never contributed anything of note), then the onus is on him to persuade the people who are working on these pages that his suggestions are good ones. Tannin

There is no "wrong version". The guidelines for protecting a page state that an admin may edit the page in order to revert to an old version, but they do not say that this must be done. I assume Cyan protected the page as it happened to be when he decided to protect it. I very much doubt he purposely waited for Jiang to make an edit before protecting it. Angela

Now, let us turn to the meat of the matter, and examine the merits of the Jiang insists on so mindlessly:

Right at the top, he deletes the links to two important Australian history topics: Australian Constitutional History, and Australian Prime Ministers. Next he deletes the links aain: this time to three articles about political matters, only one of which gets a mention in the "see also" section he adds. I don't think anyone has an objection to setting a good, standard format and sticking to it - but deleting important links purely in order to mindlessly impose a particular format is not a good idea.

Insisting on doing this in the face of objections (rather than being prepared to discuss things and work towards a mutually acceptable result) is very poor behaviour indeed. Tannin 09:34, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You are not required to be the original author to partake in an edit war. As long as you side with a certain content (or in this case, formatting), you are taking a side. If you were truly neutral, you would not care which version is used.

It is true that this formatting was originally inserted by Tim Starling and not you. However, this was not the original formatting. The current format ("my format") was present when the template was first implemented until Tim changed it against the established conventions. I can say too that I am preventing Tim Starling (not that I have anything against him) from "buggering up the work of other people" - all the people who created the country template.

Attacking me for lacking crediblity is a fallacy. I probably have worked with the country template more than you have. (This is besides the point. There is no need to prove to each other who has more experience here.) You still fail to convince us why this article deserves an exception to the established convention. Please discuss the issues. Don't attack the person.

Those links you claim have been deleted all are still on the page. Please check again. Now who is trying to elicit an explaination from whom? You're not convinving anyone here. --Jiang 09:47, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The format is not an issue I care about either way. Well, Tim's version is better, but it's really a small point. However, deleting links is another question entirely. Restore the links you deleted, and (so far as I care) you can have any format you want (within reason). But, of course, this may or may not meet with the approval of other interested parties. Tannin 09:55, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I did not delete any links. Do a CTRL-F and you'll find it on the page. --Jiang 09:56, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If I have to use control-F to find a link to an important article, whoever laid out the page is incompetent. Tannin

You don't have to. I don't have to. I just thought it would help since you seem to be having some difficulty seeing (or scrolling). Maybe the PM link is not prominent enough. The text should be reworded to include "Prime Minister of Australia" as a phrase so the entire link can be seen. Other than that, nothing is hidden. --Jiang 10:09, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, let's try this. With your agreement, I'll unprotect the page and make what I see as the minimum required changes to it (i.e., edit your version so that the links work sensibly, as opposed to a complete revert of it). That should take 5 minutes or so. Then, you run your eye over the changes. If you are happy with them, problem solved. If we can't agree on them, then we revert to the current version (it really should be Tim's version, but I'll let that point go for the time being) and protect it again. Fair enough?

(Note that this woud not commit any other users, of course, only you and me.) Tannin

Okay...go ahead. I think it basically amounts to changing "a [[Prime Minister of Australia|prime minister]]" to "the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]". What else do you propose to change? (It's already 3:22 AM here. Go ahead and edit as you see fit. I won't be checking until a few hours later.) --Jiang 10:22, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Give me 2 minutes. Tannin

Done. Probably a duplicate or two there still, bit close enough to give a general idea, in any case. Tannin

I just spent about 30 seconds scanning over this debate, so I can't comment in depth. But Jiang is right in one respect: we should go over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries and make our case. Our formatting is better than that of the other countries. I didn't apply my changes to the rest of the countries, due to selfish patriotic pride. -- Tim Starling 13:06, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

No agreement from Jiang, restored the protection. (Correctly. it should be restored to the version BEFORE his edits, but in order to demonstrate fairness I restored Jiang's disputed version. I leave it to another sysop to restore the last non-controversial version, however - i.e., the Tim Starling version. Tannin 00:22, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I have now made my case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. -- Tim Starling 01:41, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Summary of Tannin's edits and my comments:

moved "Australian Constitutional History" from see also under history section to part of the main articles list. - although I'd rather not have it there, reserving the main article to the main article, I don't really mind since this is a history article
Added "Republic Advisory Committee" and "Foreign relations of Australia" to the see also list of the politics section - First, "Republic Advisory Committee" is already there. Don't link it twice on the same line! Second, foreign relations should be at the miscellaneous section since that is how the template has it. I see how it relates to politics, but moving it there would require we change the template (and have some mention of foreign relations be added to the discussion of government in that section).
Moved "Australian birds" from the see also list to the main article list Flora and Fauna - Please reserve main articles for just that. Birds are only a subset of the fauna, obviously not qualifying as a "main" article.Perhaps the link could be incorporated into the text, which only discusses flora at this moment.

--Jiang 01:44, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Crap. Australian birds are quite extraordinary, and have great significance. The linked article does not yet explain this (someone, probably me, should do a major re-write), but (a) Australia has ~900 species, significantly more than you would expect from its small land ara relative to other continents, particularly so given that the continent is so barren. and (b) the development of birds in Australia-New Guinea was crucial to the development of bird life worldwide: more than half of all living birds are passerines: i.e., they are directly descended from the birds of Australasia. So far as worldwide significance goes, Australian plants are not important, and neither are Australian mammals, reptiles, or any other group. The birds, however, are. In short, if you don't understand a subject, you shouldn't try to edit it. If you do edit it anyway, that's fine, but be prepared to accept corrections to your work from people who do know what they are taliking about. Tannin 04:16, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just because Australian birds are unique does not elevate them to a higher category. If australian birds could munch off the heads of humans, they would still be birds. Being special does not make them "all animals." It's not about the importance. It's about the scope of the article. If you think birds are so important, create a new section. If the section is not entitled "birds", it can't be considered a "main article." Get you vocabulary straight. --Jiang 05:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Even if we put Australian birds in the main articles of "Flora and Fauna", people may not realise how important it is. A subsection "birds" under "Flora and Fauna" does a better job than that. (a view from the point of a layman) --wshun 05:44, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can we please sort out the overall structure of the article before we start bickering about the importance of Australian birds? It may well become a moot point by the time we've sorted out the layout. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. -- Tim Starling 05:53, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the positions of information about Australian birds, I have to ask Tannin why Australian mammals aren't important. Though I'm no biologist, I would think that the presence of a nearly unique major grouping

(marsupials) would make Australian mammals a useful article. In what way are Australian birds so important that doesn't apply to Australian mammals? Tuf-Kat 06:03, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Because (judging by Tannin's comment above) marsupials merely hop and scurry and make a nuisance of themselves, whereas the birds colonised the rest of the world. -- Tim Starling 07:36, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

I would not object to that, Tuf-Kat. Indeed, I have contributed many thousands of words on that very topic. Over time, I expect to add as many more. But yes, as Tim says, the birds have a special significance. Of more import to this current dispute, however, is that Jiang stop buggerising about in this area where he has no contribution record, accept the more-than-generous compromise I offered, and stop wasting everyone's time. Tannin

Address the issues. My cotribution record is irrelevant here. I am not adding content to the page. The dipute is over the formatting. Since you cannot logically refute my point that the article does not qualify as a "main article", my point stands. Of more import to this current dispute, however, is that Tannin stop buggerising about in this area where he has no contribution record, accept the more-than-generous compromise I offered, and stop wasting everyone's time. --Jiang

The implication of some type of entititlement or expertise here which disallows edits by non-Aussies or non-biologists is quite un-Wikipedian. Smells like a strain of m:academic_standards_kick. Let's get less abusive and get back to the content. Fuzheado

Please add pl:Australia user:80.55.19.182

Done. I assume that as this is not a content change it's ok to do whilst the page is protected. Revert if not. Angela 13:56, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is why page protection in an argument between two sysops is a bad idea. Jiang just ignored it anyway. The only people it affects are the many readers of this page, and innocent bystanders like 80.55.19.182. I've unprotected it. -- Tim Starling 00:27, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? As far as I can tell, Jiang's sole edit after I protected it was in the period where Tannin had unprotected it to see if Jiang would start reverting again.

When I enacted the protection, I realized that the people who would be most tangibly affected were the innocent bystanders. I felt this was unfortunate, but necessary. My goal was to move the action out of the article namespace and into the talk namespace; even though the protection was symbolic, in the sense that it had no hard-security-type binding power on the disputing parties, I believe it was effective nonetheless. (Symbols have power, after all.) -- Cyan 01:09, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is anyone any good with maps? The current one needs correcting: the Southern Ocean is mislabelled as the Indian Ocean. Tannin

Yep, I'll just fix it right now. Apparently some group of 'important people' have decided that the Southern Ocean is a whole band around Antarctica. Well, the Southern Ocean has always been the bit of water between Australia and Antarctica. I know that Cape Leewin (the southern tip of WA) is where the two oceans meet. - Mark Ryan 12:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done. - Mark Ryan 13:11, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is there anything in wikipedia about the rabbit fence? I don't even know how to look it up :) Kyk 06:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This might sound odd, but I'm surprised at the Jervis Bay Territory being treated like a 'regular' territory. Sure, it is one, but it's not at the same 'level' as NT or the ACT. I always thought JBT was part of the ACT myself. If separate, I thought it would be on the same level as Macquarie Island or Christmas Island or Cocos Islands, etc.--Chuq 04:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

External links removed

I have removed some external links. For following reasons.

The link to the Worldwide press freedom index was out of date, also the freedom of the press in Australia is not even mention in the article.

The link to AUSMAG was removed because it didn't have much information on the site.

I replaced the link to the Sunnybank directory with a link the the Australia section of the Open Directory Project because it is more comprehensive.

-- Popsracer 12:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hutt river province

I removed the HRP reference from the main page, because it gives an amusing little hobby of a few cranks a prominence that it does not deserve. Nobody else takes the claims seriously, unlike, say, the "Provisional Aboriginal Republic" stunt pulled by Michael Mansell and his Tasmanian Aboriginal buddies in the 1980's. --Robert Merkel 12:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Categori[zs]ation

Australia had been removed from Category:Oceanic countries and added to Category:Australia. However all sub-sub-articles of Category:Countries should only contain country articles. Category:Australia contains many more articles that just Australia, for example, Australian fauna. See the Beatles/John Lennon example at Wikipedia talk:Categorization -- Chuq 00:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In Australasia or only country in a continent

The article contains "sixth-largest country in the world (geographically), the only one to occupy an entire continent, and the largest in Australasia" in the opening paragraph. This contains mutually contradictory statements:

the only one to occupy an entire continent
the largest in Australasia (which is described as including the country of New Zealand)

Will those with an interest in this article please modify this as required? Jamesday 15:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Where is the problem, James? Are you getting Australia and Australasia mixed up?Tannin 19:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No! What James is saying is that if Australia is the largest country in Australasia, being larger than New Zealand, it cannot therefore be the only country in the continent. I understood James, thinks most of us did! have changed accordingly. Grunners194.168.3.18 11:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are under the mistaken assumption that Australasia is a continent. It is not - it is a region. Examine its article. The article continent also spells out that "a continent ... is a large continuous mass of land... ." It says that Oceania and Australasia are terms used to define the region including Australia and the Pacific Islands. The article Oceania also mentions that the islands of Oceania do not form part of a true continent. Thus, I see no problem with the article as it stood. However, I will change it to more clearly state that Australasia is merely a regional grouping of islands. - Mark 12:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SAMPA pronunciation

I have removed the SAMPA and IPA pronunciations from the first sentence of this article. They were far too long for the first sentence (it is jarring for the reader) and the IPA ones do not display properly on a standard XP/IE setup. I have placed them in their own section entitled "pronunciation" until someone can write a more interesting thing about the pronunciation (though I cannot see how it can be made to be interesting at all). Anyway, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have Wiktionary for things like pronunciation. - Mark 05:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excessive categories

I've just removed the following categories from the article (which were just added today):

Category:Geochemistry Category:Earthquakes Category:Geography Category:Geologic timescale Category:Geology Category:Geophysics Category:Plate tectonics Category:Seismology

This may suit Gondwana and Laurasia, for example, but I think even for them, it's a bit over the top seeing as all of these could be condensed into the one category, if needed. (Probably Plate tectonics, but I'll leave that to someone more experienced in the area.)

As far as this article goes, I don't think this is the right place for this sort of category - because it is about Australia the country, not Australia the continent, Australasia, Oceania or the Indo-Australian tectonic plate.

Maybe an article Australia (continent) is needed? Thought I wouldn't want to encourage this if it isn't definitely needed.

Chuq 00:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good thinking, Chuq. There is no need for Australia (continent): we have a perfectly good article on that topic already in Australia-New Guinea. Not to mention Geography of Australia. Tannin 00:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ahh thanks - I hadn't noticed that article before. I took a look at Plate tectonics and List of tectonic plates, they refer to the articles Australian Plate, Indo-Australian Plate, both of which are also good candidates for this sort of categorisation. Chuq 01:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

¡Sorry!

I suppose that the trouble is that Australia is both a continent and a country. I am sorry for the inconvenience. I do love continents. I just finished all of the big supercontinents, with the article about Pannotia. I still have lots of lesser supercontinents to do; such as Euramerica, regular ancient continents like Laurentia, and small continental fragments like Avalonia. I did not mean to cause trouble.

Ŭalabio 04:18, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

It's ok, Ŭalabio, it's all part of the learning curve of becoming a Wikipedia editor! There are more tips etc. at the Wikipedia:Community Portal, but don't worry, most people will point things out to you on Talk pages as I have done. -- Chuq 04:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Force Fonts

For the pronunciation section in the Australia page?

What do you mean don't forces fonts?

Exactly what I said. Don't force the font to be something other than what the user wants.

How are we suppost to see the IPA symbols?

They should work. If you cannot see them, then it is a problem on your end.

How do I fix this with a Windows XP OS? --203.220.171.162 12:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How is "r" incorrect?

In the IPA, 'r' is heavily trilled. http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/snd/IPA122.mp3 is a sample of how 'r' is pronounced in the IPA.

This is a sample of the 'r' pronounced in English: http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/snd/IPA151.mp3. Symbol is a turned r, IPA /ɹ/, X-SAMPA /r\/. --203.220.171.156 11:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--203.220.171.162 11:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Darrien 12:32, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Violet Crumble

I am considering reverting this; even if it is true, I don't think that Violet Crumble warrants a link as an Australian-related article - it's just another chocolate bar. -- Chuq 02:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no "Food of Australia" or "Cuisine in Australia" article to link to it from. - Mark 03:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I found Australian cuisine :) -- Chuq 09:16, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about the Continent?

I was reading the Australia page, and I cannot figure out why there is no distinction between Australia the continent and Australia the country. Since many people confuse Oceania and Australia, should this not be made more clear? Just a thought.

--LuYu

Hi LuYu. The country and the continent are coextensive, so 'Geography of Australia' should describe both the country and the continent adequately. Having said that, I would not be opposed to a separate treatment of the continent and the country, so long as Australia remains as the country article. - Mark 07:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)