 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | | Australia has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as FA-Class. |  | This subject is featured in the Outline of Australia, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | | | | | [edit] An actual Satellite image is needed for the article page  The Commonwealth of Australia seen from space An actual picture of Australia as seen from outa space is required for the Australia article page. Possibly something like this below or perhaps as a part of the planet. What are your thoughts on this? (Racism Watch Australia (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)) - What about this one? --Merbabu (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
21.2 million is the population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.87.127 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] NOT A MEMBER OF NATO Australia is NOT a member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm Please change this. Cjk1000 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Done - and well spotted. I wonder who added this in the first place? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- After a bit of checking, it was added in this edit about 36 hours ago. At least it didn't stay in the article too long. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjk1000 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Grammar of lead sentence Well, English is not my native language, but you folks should know better. As it stands, the following lead sentence does not make quite sense: - Australia is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the continental mainland (the world's smallest),...
Australia does not have the smallest continental mainland in the world; maybe Equatorial Guinea has. The intention was, obviously, to say that the continent of Australia is the smallest, but the parenthesis does not point to "continent" but to "mainland". Either the first should be changed to "continent of Australia" or the parenthesis removed, but they cannot be combined in this way. No such user (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) - There are a couple of problems with your edit. Firstly, there are different opinions as to what constitutes the "continent of Australia". One of these includes New Guinea as part of the continent and New Guinea is most definitely not part of the country, which is why "continental mainland" is specified, since the Australian mainland is the mainland of the continent regardless of which theory you subscribe to. The other issue is that you're changing "Australia (continent)" to "continent of Australia". The first is a direct link to the article while the latter is a redirect to the same article. It makes no sense here to change to point to a redirect, rather than the actual article. You're correct that it doesn't read correctly. Unfortunately, this was the result of a dispute over what is the largest island in the world. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- OK, the rewrite chiefly fixes the issue. As for the redirects, please see Wikipedia:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN -- "There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects." No such user (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- This works both ways. There's no point replacing a direct link to an article with a redirect especially when, as was the case here, the redirect used was misleading. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion discussion There's a deletion discussion here that is relevant to the city of Sydney, input would be greatly appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Religion box.... Why do we need this table? All those details are in the text - where they should be. It's not like it must be expressed graphically for comprehension - written sentences can describe what is a basic idea quite satisfactorily. Or, shall we make this a precedent and repeat everything in the prose in table form? I removed it from the article, but it was reinstated with an edit summary I don't understand. --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's a trite answer but I'd say the graphic is there because it can be there.
- I personally like it and think it would assist the understanding of those more aligned to visual presentation of information rather than textual. I was going to leave my comment at that, but thought I'd see if I could track down any Wikipedia policy on illustrations. I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration which, while seemingly fairly inactive, encourages the use of appropriate illustrations. I couldn't find anything discouraging illustrations. Obviously the tools to create such a graphic are provided in Wikipedia, which suggests to me that such images are "approved".
- HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, "I like it" and "because it can be" are trite, and not very good justifications. If something is redundant, then it doesn't need to be there. The table provides nothing that cannot be understood from the text. A table is not an image, and there is indeed much that an image can represent that "a thousand words" cannot. Look at the lead pics in Mona Lisa and Dog to use disparate examples. Not so with that table.
- Further, it should not be left based on the notion that it does no harm - on the contrary, it's ugly, and that part of the article is already cluttered. regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- It's unnecessary duplication of information and pointless. As Merbabu has said, the breakdown is explained quite well in the prose, so there's no need for the table. If we were, for example, showing the breakdown of Christian religions, where there are a number of branches with percentages reasonably close to each other, then that might be useful as a visual comparison. Here, where the "major" non-Christian religions are all at least 61.9% less than Christianity, all it tells you is that Australia is predominantly Christian. There is no useful visual comparison between the non-Christian religions because they're all little more than straight lines. The table has very little going for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
|
