Talk:Australia#Infobox at NPOVN

{{Resolved}}

We have a real problem with updating and modernizing this article all the time. Can we get better excuses than find consensus for your changes pls review WP:REVEXP. Moxy🍁 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's best we have tangible information rather than a laundry list of random links to articles with minimal information about the country as outlined at WP:COUNTRYDETAIL. Moxy🍁 23:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{quotation|Australia is recognised as a middle power, with the world's thirteenth-highest military expenditure. Foreign relations of Australia are influenced by its position as a leading trading nation and as a significant donor of humanitarian aid. Its foreign policy is guided by multilateralism and regionalism, as well as strong bilateral relations with its allies. The country is part of multiple international organisations and forums.}}

:::VS

::{{Quotation|Australia is a middle power, and has the world's thirteenth-highest military expenditure. It is a member of international groups including the United Nations; the G20; the OECD; the World Trade Organization; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation; the Pacific Islands Forum; the Pacific Community; the Commonwealth of Nations; and the defence and security organisations ANZUS, AUKUS, and the Five Eyes. It is also a major non-NATO ally of the United States}} Moxy🍁 23:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You made a bold edit and I formally object to it because the previous wording accurately summarises the contents of the article and was achieved through discussion and consensus. You have unilaterally replaced it with vague and general wording which could apply to any country in the world. You previously tried to replace the stable wording and gained no consensus for it. (See Talk archives 21). I also object to your edit summary in which you accuse me of "stealing the article" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I will revert your change again. I have no problem with changes in stable wording as long as it is an obvious improvement and there is a clear consensus for such a change here on Talk. See WP:BRD and WP:consensus. See also policy on civility which also applies to edit summaries. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah generally pointless here.... vague wording is the reasoning. Despite it being used in the sources in the article and in the foreign relations article. Really a link to NATO and United Nations is more informative than foreign relations of Australia for educating our readers about Australia. A net negative revert for our readers and the article again. Not sure how summarizing the article stating the facts that multilateralism, regionalism foreign aid our major part of Australia's foreign policy is not better than a random laundry list of organizations. I consider this a blind revert just to keep the status quo with a flimsy excuse. Country articles have slowly been upgrading as per WP:COUNTRYDETAIL to eliminate a random list of organizations from the lead that is regurgitated in the body.Moxy🍁 00:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::People read the article and the lead in order to quickly find out something about Australia as opposed to all the other countries in the world. Your wording: "Foreign relations of X are influenced by its position as a leading trading nation and as a significant donor of humanitarian aid. Its foreign policy is guided by multilateralism and regionalism, as well as strong bilateral relations with its allies. The country is part of multiple international organisations and forums" could be said about almost every country in the world. People should not be forced to click on links to find out basic information about what makes Australia different from oither countries. That's what this article is for. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::You seem to be arguing to inform our readers.... but insist on a generic list of organizations that links to nothing about the country over what the actual foreign policy is and the links to more information about it. How does listing organization explain to the readers Australia's foreign policy? You're claiming this could be said about any country..... This may be correct for other countries that have the same type of foreign policy but you're not going to see this in Russia or Iraq or Afghanistan article. This is literally the type of example we use at WP:COUNTRYDETAIL of what not to do. Hoping to get input by others if not we'll ask for third party request. Moxy🍁 00:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Aemilius Adolphin, @Moxy. I tracked down the relevant [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1275604577 diff] about this disagreement. It is about the last paragraph in the lede. I prefer the "laundry list" of organisations (the second option above, the current state of the article). At a glance I can see G20 membership, Pacific influence, Commonwealth membership and ties with New Zealand and the USA.

:::::::I appreciate that readers may want to follow wikilinks to other articles that cover Australian relationships, but I think they should find them in the body of the article. A balance may be able to be found.

:::::::I was surprised to see in WP:COUNTRYDETAIL (which was linked to above by Moxy) that the "laundry list" style is highly discouraged, particularly in the Canada red tick green tick example. It seems [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Countries&diff=prev&oldid=1229239039 Moxy added that example] on June 2024. Commander Keane (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes it was added by me not that long ago..... simply what most have been doing for some time now in FA and GA articles reviews and upgrades. That is giving tangible information and linking articles about the country itself. If editors here think that linking a whole bunch of articles that don't mention Australia like World Trade Organization over linking sub articles about the country like Foreign relations of Australia that Australian editor's work on is more useful.... so be it ...as explained at the wikiproject big bold letters. if editors here feel that having the laundry list twice in an article is relevant I guess that's okay. Moxy🍁 04:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Australia|answered=yes}}

There is no mention of the fascism that is ruling Australia. Australia is a fascist dictatorship. simply look at the place. internet is restricted and censored to only what they want you to see. law to control what you can and cant do down to the smallest things. international law states that a person may leave a country without a passport to seek asylum elsewhere, yet Australia will not allow you to leave for such reasons. Australia appeared in Geneva and via video conferencing for an interactive dialogue on 20 January 2021. During the session, 122 Member States delivered statements and made recommendations regarding Australia's human rights record. Australia received 344 recommendations. none of which has been considered. the country doesn't give its population human rights. Somalia has more human rights for it population. 14.203.229.236 (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. CMD (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Says the person who lives in Sydney themselves Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Australia|answered=yes}}

Add oxford comma to note 6. 2600:387:F:6915:0:0:0:6 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Not done. Oxford commas are not used in Australian English except to avoid ambiguity. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi your wiki page is showing that Wooloowin station is on Hudson st. It’s not it is on Hudson rd. Please fix and update to Hudson Rd. Thanks 2403:4800:7207:6119:AD4B:3117:1955:8700 (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Which article are you talking about? Please put your edit request on that article. or you can change it yourself if you want. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Fixed Wooloowin railway station. Thanks for the tip :-) Commander Keane (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

In the sentence, "By the time of British settlement, Aboriginal Australians spoke 250 distinct languages and had one of the oldest living cultures in the world.", can we change 250 to 440? The number 250 seems to have been quoted as an approximate number defined by linguistic measures for many years (Wurm 1972; Dixon 1980) and in later literature cited as uncontroversial. However, the 2023 Oxford Guide of Australian Languages lays out why 440 is more accurate.

Reference: Bowern, C. (2023). How many languages are and were spoken in Australia? In: The Oxford Guide to Australian Languages. Edited by Claire Bowern, Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198824978.003.0007 Gurrgali (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The article is referring to the number of Indigenous languages at the time of colonisation. Bowern is only one linguist and her classification of languages has not been generally accepted. When this happens, we can change the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sure thing! Let's see if this quantification gains broader acceptance. Just to note: Bowern's (2023) chapter is a systematic study investigating the number of languages, rather than taking the much-cited figure of 250 for granted without an actual count. The revised number also appears in the following recent book on Indigenous Australian languages:

::Tudor-Smith, G., Williams, P., & Meakins, F. (2024). Bina: First Nations Languages, Old and New. La Trobe University Press. Gurrgali (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)