Talk:Australia

Formatting and language conventions For articles about Australia, please use the 12-hour clock to show times, e.g. 9AM-noon and 6PM-midnight. Please show prices in this format: $100 and not AUD 100, 100 dollars or A$100. Please use Australian spelling (colour, realise, program, centre, labour (but Labor Party), analog). Phone numbers should be formatted as +61 X XXXX XXXX (landline), +61 XXX XXX XXXX (mobile) or +672 XXXXX (NFI/AAT).

Archived discussions Talk:Australia/Archive 2003-2012 Talk:Australia/Archive 2013-2020 Talk:Australia/Archive 2021 Talk:Australia/Archive 2022

Visa

I made certain edits regarding the Visa section, here. User:The dog2 reverted it without comment. When I asked on their Talk page they say "I just don't think your edits improved the article" and "there's no point in listing the visas based on price".

I don't agree with both points.

I believe my edits improved the writing, simplified the text, and updated the information.

Also depending on your nationality you may be eligible for the three types of visa and by listing the visa by price will help readers choose.

I'm willing to have certain compromises on the second point but I feel my writing does improve the article. Would like to hear the thoughts of the community. 219.88.232.230 05:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Visiting Indigenous land

@ChubbyWimbus: In what way is "clearer"? Except in this case, two users (myself and The dog2) favour The dog2's wording, and respecting Indigenous wishes has been a major point of contention for decades now. Why do you think it's appropriate to endorse something that travellers should not do while in Australia? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Objection is not endorsement. My issue is that it makes the status less clear, and there is an important distinction between "illegal" and "impolite". The best we can do regarding respecting Aborigines is to let people know what will/won't offend them. That should not include implying illegality where there is none or purposefully being unclear about the legal status of Aboriginal lands. That is not helpful to any traveler. The first two paragraphs passively mention Aboriginal lands that are "free to enter", Aboriginal lands that are free to enter but have signs asking people not to enter out of respect, and Aboriginal lands that require permits. Are the distinctions clear? Are there signs about the permits around those zones? Would a traveler know the difference? Is the signage different between each of these designations? I think these should be made clearer in terms of the legality and how to know which type you are approaching. In the case of the places that are "free to enter but visitors are requested not to", the explanation about why (respecting the Aborigines) should be given, but it should be clear that you CAN enter. If there is more to say, such as "even though you can enter, you will likely be driven out" or that you could face violence, extra information can be added. Please do not confuse being truthful, honest, and clear with "endorsing" how each person who reads it may respond. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the wording by The dog2 ("Some areas carry a request from the Aboriginal people not to enter, and you should respect that request.") is quite clear: "a request" and "should" do not imply it is illegal to enter those areas. Thus there is no need for clarification. On the other hand, I read "you may choose yourself whether or not to honour or respect that request" as an assurance that is is OK not to comply. We don't have such wordings on any other issues (at least I hope so). –LPfi (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My counterpoint is this. If you go to a church in the U.S., it's not illegal for you to climb onto the altar to pose for photos, but should we tell people that you can decide whether or not to do it? For that matter, in the article on the U.S., we tell people not to display the Swastika because it is very offensive and associated with anti-Semitism, even though it is not illegal to do so, and millions of Buddhists and Hindus in Asia display it as part of their religious traditions without any anti-Semitic connotations. Nowhere in that paragraph does it say it's illegal to ignore signs put up by the local Aboriginal people not to enter, so I don't think we're misleading anyone here. For me, telling people to respect the wishes of the local Aboriginal people when you're on their land in Australia is no different from telling Asian tourists visiting the U.S. not to display the Swastika. The dog2 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

When I read the first version, it's very clear to me that the request is about respect. When I read it with just "should", it makes me think of an "or else" scenario, like something will happen if you don't, which could be legal issues, issues with police even if it's not "technically" illegal, or some other serious problem that is not being specified. I'm not saying that the original wording was a great way to word it, because it did sound rather blause, just that it was very clear and did not illicit thoughts of legal consequences or otherwise. In the US Swastika example given above, you SHOULD avoid it, because you could be PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED for displaying it. There is a more pressing reason regarding the personal safety of the traveler than simply respecting Americans to avoid wearing or displaying Swastikas in the US. Is violence/physical assault also meant to be implied in this case?

More broadly, though, I'll repeat that I do think the wording could be clearer throughout the first two paragraphs in making the distinctions and telling visitors how to know the difference between each type of Aboriginal land statuses. They are all given rather passive mention, but knowing the difference seems important for the traveler who WANTS to be respectful, as well as who wants to be law-abiding. I don't know where the different distinctions are located, how common they are, how big the signs are, or how likely a visitor is to run into the villages with the respect signs. I also don't know if the villages with these signs are out-of-the-way or in places where someone might consider passing through and if they did, would driving through be considered part of the disrespect or is it more about people stopping to gawk at "the natives"? I'm not saying we have to answer ALL of these questions, but the current wording leaves me with a lot of questions. Even just some assurance that you will KNOW what the status of where you are considering entering (if that is true) would be helpful. Or if it is very difficult to know or some areas are clearly marked while others are not would be good to know, albeit less reassuring. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The way I read the original version, it looks like we are telling tourists that it is perfectly fine if they wish to disrespect the local Aboriginal culture. It may be fine from a legal standpoint, but I think it's generally good practice for a tourist to respect the local culture whenever they visit a place. You wouldn't want me disrespecting American culture while I am in the U.S., so why should we tell tourists that they can just ignore Aboriginal cultural sensitivities and do as they please when they visit Aboriginal land in Australia? Telling people that they can just disregard the local Aboriginal culture and do as they please is simply not good travel advice. The dog2 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto – except even from a legal viewpoint, it can come across as trespassing (in some places such as Arnhem Land). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Reorganization Proposal

As I stated above, I think this would benefit from having the accessibility status information explained altogether rather than arguing over a specific sentence in what I see is a disorganized two paragraphs, so this is my proposed change:

"For travelers, Aboriginal lands have varying degrees of accessibility. While many areas can be entered freely, some Aboriginal land requires permission or a permit, and some areas are protected and illegal to enter. Permits are usually just a formality for areas which regularly see visitors, or if you have some other business in the area you are travelling through. Often they are just an agreement to respect the land you are travelling on as Aboriginal land. Some Aboriginal Land Councils make them available online.

Some communities and areas [have placed sign requests] from Aboriginal people not to enter. While tourism is welcome and beneficial to Aboriginal communities, efforts are ongoing to balance cultural tourism with cultural preservation, separating living spaces from tourist spaces, and respecting sites of worship. Even if your map states that an area is "free to enter", failure to abide by these requests are highly disrespectful and could also be considered trespassing. You should check before making plans to travel off the beaten track to confirm whether your intended destination is welcoming to tourists and whether a permit is necessary to avoid problems.

Uluru, Australia's most well-known natural landmark, holds great spiritual significance to the Anangu people who live in the area; while climibing it used to be a popular tourist activity, it has been illegal since 2019. The Angangu feel themselves responsible if someone is killed or injured on their land (as has happened during past climbs), so please keep off."

A large portion of the writing here is copied from the previous paragraphs but placed where I think it makes more sense to state and reads better overall. Of course, it satisfies my own concerns by getting rid of the clunky sentence that was disputed, but also by placing pertinent information about accessibility together. It also addresses the concerns about sounding overly permissive of flouting the requests. I think this is very clearly advising against entering these places. I included a bit of extra information from the discussion for context.

The brackets are something I couldn't actually confirm. The original wording actually says "request" rather than "signs". I assumed this was done via signage but realized it needs to be confirmed first. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems good to me. I haven't yet compared it to the original text (and I don't know whether there actually is relevant trespassing legislation), but I think it solves the dispute. –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

So far that looks good to me. Let's see what SHB2000 says. The dog2 (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Australian terminology section - stick to terminology that is... Australian?

Can I ask keeping the 'Australian terminology' infobox to select terms that are uniquely Australian, and would probably be unusual for the visitor? The Australian use of the words 'entree', 'capsicum' and 'crayfish' are just not particularly Australian and distract from actually unique terminology.

There is always English_language_varieties and Australian_slang if anyone really wants to explain extra terms. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a few others which aren't uniquely Australian, like soccer (also used in the US, Canada and Ireland to distinguish the game from other forms of football). And half of the words are probably shared with New Zealand. Gizza ^(roam) 03:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting that 'football' probably needs explaining just because it relates to multiple different sports inside Australia Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@thedog2 - the international English word for Crawfish is 'Crawfish'. Please see wikipedia w:crawfish if in doubt. Why does the Singaporean definition matter in the Australian context? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not The dog2 here, but the Singaporean definition as I understand it is one that's widely understood in many parts of Asia. I still hear many people use the Singaporean term here, too (esp. in Eastwood). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikt:crayfish gives two Australian meanings for "crayfish": "rock lobster (family Palinuridae)", shared with New Zealand and South Africa, and "freshwater crayfish (family Parastacidae), such as the gilgie, marron, or yabby", just Australia. Wiktionary claims that the Singaporean meaning is Thenus orientalis (a slipper lobster). –LPfi (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct: a Singapore crayfish (Thenus orientalis) is the same species as a Balmain bug in Australia. I'm just going to remove this because I don't think I've ever even heard the word "crayfish" in Australia, people talk about bugs, yabbies, etc. Jpatokal (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jpatokal: I've seen the term "crayfish" in Australian menus, and it always referred to lobsters. Australians understand what you mean if you say "lobster", but more often than not "crayfish" is what appears in menus. That said, the lobsters in Australia typically do not have pincers, unlike lobsters in the U.S., so I'm not sure if maybe in Australian parlance, a "lobster" has pincers and a "crayfish" does not. The dog2 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I live in Sydney, am a regular at the Fish Markets, and I've never seen them called anything but lobsters here (sample). Maybe it's a regional thing? And the pincerless kind in Australia are technically rock lobsters, not "real" lobsters. Jpatokal (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jpatokal: OK, maybe it's regional then. I used to live in Adelaide, and rock lobsters were called "crayfish" in restaurant menus. I never saw lobsters with pincers in my years living in Adelaide. I did notice that when I visited Perth, the pincerless lobsters were called "rock lobsters" in menus just as you described in Sydney. The dog2 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "crawfish" a spelling error? The infobox says "crayfish", and "crawfish" seems not to be used in Australia (although the two seem to be nearly synonymous in some parts of the world). –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "crawfish" is only used in Louisiana, while the same thing would be called a "crayfish" elsewhere in the U.S. What Americans call a "crayfish" would be called a "yabby" in Australia. In Singapore, "crayfish" refers to what Australians call a "Moreton Bay bug", something which you can't find in the U.S., and hence there is no American word for it. Many Singaporean tourists visit Australia, and this is a term that could be confusing for Singaporean visitors. The dog2 (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, anyone in the U.S. who knows Louisiana cuisine (Cajun or Creole) knows what a crawfish is. By contrast, crayfish with that spelling is not normally used in American cuisines. However, some other Southerners call it a mudbug. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Respect - British legacy?

TBH, I don't really see the value of this section - this is really a subject that Australians are not that sensitive about. For the most part you will just get laughed at for saying this stuff. There are a whole list of topics that we don't list which can offend general Australians including environmentalism, equitable distribution of internet broadband, anti-vaccine sentiment, Captain Cook statues, sane reform of property investment tax breaks, culling Brumby horses that are destroying national parks, and I'm sure a lot more. Can we just remove? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Australians certainly don't identify as British today, but I've never heard of an Australian getting offended because someone mentioned that it used to be a British colony. Australia's British colonial history is something that is a matter of fact and cannot be denied. The dog2 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@SHB2000:? Ground Zero (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the OP as it is likely to offend many (which by definition is not all or most for that matter) – but then I'm woke and spend far too much time in a lot of environmentalist/social progressive circles which may not be a good representation of what most people think. But saying "this is really a subject that Australians are not that sensitive about" is a blanket overgeneralisation that is simply untrue. So ultimately, I prefer keeping. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I still stand by blanket statement. There are other parts of the article that address (legitimate) Aboriginal sensitivities about colonialism. If the 'respect' section is going to be a list of every single thing the (minority) hard left would consider offensive, then it will be longer than the rest of the Australia article put together. Ultimately, I really don't feel that most Australians you will encounter care about this subject at all, and therefore it is misleading to describe it as such. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing this section doesn't deny British colonial history Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm not sure what the following sentences about people being "from all over the world" and non-Europeans, namely Americans, having a small modicum of influence are trying to say either. If someone moves to Australia today from Vietnam, how does that make it "offensive" to say that Australia was a British colony? Why would it offend new immigrants that they moved to a location with a history that existed prior to their residency? If Australians would be offended, it's worth mentioning but it's quite extreme so I'm doubtful. The part about outside influences doesn't have a clear point. No one actually thinks that being a former British colony means no other cultures can influence a country or that the country cannot develop its own distinct culture. I think deleting the section seems fine. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really: it's a common sentiment held by ONP voters so not "no one". I know ONP and Pauline Hanson have traditionally enjoyed next-to-zero support in Australian politics, but their party is on the rise (with the latest polls by the Sydney Morning Herald indicating 6 per cent). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Australia like most countries has a hard left and a hard right - but we don't need dedicate page space to them when frankly you are unlikely to encounter them. Perhaps you could be specific around who you think would be offended by being described as a British colony? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. had to fight a war of independence to shake off the Brits, and I can't imagine anyone in this country being offended at the truthful statement that the U.S. used to be 13 British colonies. We learn that stuff in school. Is denying history necessary for politesse in Australia? I can't imagine. Seems tendentious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No one is denying history here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And the wording is pretty flat-out clear: "It can be offensive to some to suggest". I don't think there is anything to be done here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

To suggest what exactly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Australia#British legacy has it all. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, Australia wasn't a "British country," but it was British colonies, so what does that mean? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah, I can certainly see how it could potentially be offensive if you call an Australian "British", but it's a historical fact that Australia was once 6 British colonies, so I can't fathom how simply mentioning this historical fact would offend a normal person. With regard to the Aboriginal people, they were subject to the same kind of genocides and forced assimilation that the Native Americans were subject to, so if anything, I would think that denying the British settler colonial history in front of an Aboriginal person would be the equivalent of denying the Holocaust in front of a Jew. The dog2 (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue here isn't so much at hand denying that Australia was a British colony (or more so 6 different colonies) – what is offensive to many is to suggest that its culture has entirely stemmed from the UK and is essentially a "sunnier UK" (which inadvertently comes out as a denial of Indigenous culture at the very least). And yes, denying the atrocities of colonisation is indeed very offensive – but that's not what the wording says. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case the section needs to be re-worded. The way it is written now makes it seem like Australians are a bunch of historical denialists. The dog2 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh, is the current wording better? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The supplemental information still doesn't make sense. If they don't want to be called "Sunny UK" then isn't it that they want to be seen as having their own distinct culture? Currently it feels like they just want to acknowledge that they're also like the US which I doubt is the case. I took a stab at adding this. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And my experience living there is that Australians aren't too fond of the Americans either, and were especially pissed off about having been dragged into the Iraq war. Unlike in the U.S. where the Iraq war enjoyed overwhelming support in the beginning, it was deeply unpopular in Australia right from the get go. If you talk to young Australians, most of them dream of spending a year or so touring Europe, including the UK, either before or after university, but most people aren't interested in visiting the U.S. My experience was that Australians would generally pick Canada over the U.S. to visit as a tourist. Those that visit the U.S. usually do so for work. As a side note, Australia is the only country in the world with a net positive immigration rate from the U.S. In other words, there are more Americans moving to Australia then Australians moving to the U.S. The dog2 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Unlike in the U.S. where the Iraq war enjoyed overwhelming support in the beginning", you say? Opinion was closely divided at the time that the U.S. Congress voted to give Bush a blank check to launch a war of aggression against Iraq. You apparently forgot that some of the largest demonstrations in U.S. history took place against the war, and then Kerry almost defeated Bush for reelection in 2004, coming much closer than the economic fundamentals would have suggested at the time, because the war was already controversial. You mean that most Americans supported the invasion for a year or two after the authorization resolution. Unfortunately so. But you did not express yourself clearly. And then there's the question of whether Australians really were mad at all Americans, unlike my experience in France in 2002 and Malaysia in 2003, where people had very little trouble with me when I told them I never voted Republican, hated Bush and was just as angry about the aggression against Iraq as they were. I doubt Australians find it more difficult to understand opposition and voting for the opposition than French people and Malaysians do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Australians aren't hostile to American tourists visiting their country, and are by and large welcoming. What I meant was that many Australians aren't very fond of the U.S. as a country, and by and large have no interest in visiting the U.S., but they have absolutely no problem with American people as individuals. And I recall that polls showed that public support in the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq was around 70% or so when it first happened, but later began to fall as more and more American soldiers returned home dead, so by now, the war no longer has widespread support among the American population. The dog2 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Support for the war was more like 50-50 before Congressional Democrats surrendered to GW Bush in the authorization resolution. We've never lacked for Australian tourists in New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add that social media is not a good representation of the reality on the ground. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Opinions here were also rather mixed, but anti-Americanism did rise after 2003. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I wasn't expecting such a passionate discussion, although thanks for the inputs. Just to bring things back to the original question - I believe the current section is misleading to the traveler because it suggests that the general Australian population (EXCLUDING the Aboriginal community - covered elsewhere) is very sensitive towards British colonial history. In reality it is not a thing at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

By general Australian population, are you also excluding activists? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes - Wikivoyage:Be_fair - Political Disputes - "On Wikivoyage, bring them up only if they are truly relevant to the traveller. " Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Good to know I was excluded from being a "general Australian" because of what I stand for IRL. Okay, bye, I'm not tolerating any more of this if I can't have my basic nationality respected. Do whatever you want with this section, but I'm not participating. I didn't know a community this size would use exclusionist terms based on identity. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm an activist of a kind in my country. Activists are relevant to any society. However, there's a difference between what a relatively small number of very progressive activists think and what a majority of citizens of a country think. Would you agree with that? That said, why is the current phrasing problematic? For the record: "It can be offensive to some to suggest that Australia is nothing else but a sunnier United Kingdom. Comparisons to the UK are not necessarily offensive, but people will appreciate being acknowledged as a separate nation with their own distinct culture." What is misleading about that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ChubbyWimbus reworded it so it isn't problematic anymore – I think we've resolved the issue with the wording. My comment directly above was more so relating to Andrewssi's exclusionary comment referring to "general Australians". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I got that. Activists are part of the population. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I wasn't attempting to exclude a specific contributor - and it seems they have twisted my position about relevance and called me exclusionary towards them personally. That is really unfortunate, and frankly highlights why people shouldn't bring their personal politics into what is a travel guide. We should be focused on what is relevant for the traveler. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

We should, but it's important to steer clear of any language that could reasonably interpreted as classifying only certain citizens of a country as "real [Name of Country]ans." This kind of classification in the U.S. has suggested that people who live in big cities, are non-white or not socially conservative Christians, are not real Americans, something that would be a big surprise to any of the foreign terrorists who've attacked American cities specifically because they were American (as opposed to domestic terrorists who may have attacked targets in big cities because the victims weren't "real Americans" to them). If you want to clear the air, you should clarify that you didn't mean to say that activists are not part of the general population in Australia, but to make a statement about what you believe a majority of Australians think, but that's up to you. I would say that no apology from you is what's unfortunate, because collegiality and interpersonal respect are crucial for cooperation on a wiki. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Ikan. Glad to have someone stand up. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it was clear that he was talking about the views of the general population, and I think it's adding unneccessarily to the politicization of the topic and is grossly unfair to put words in his mouth by implying he was talking about "real Australians", which he never said, and to try to push a user to appologize by casually associating him with bigotry, white supremacy, and being uncaring towards terrorist victims. All of this is unfounded, yet a user is being asked to appologize or "clarify" lest we assume all of these baseless and fabricated claims are true? It's very mainipulative.

In my observations over the years, a lot of leftist rhetoric is accepted on this website (mostly in discussions fortunately), because users not only don't expect pushback but are often backed up by other users. It probably also makes those users feel a sense of comradery. Users feel emboldened to insert their political beliefs (if they are leftists), knowing that if a user inserts conservative or right-wing beliefs, they'll be quashed and told to "stop politicizing" or casually associated with the most extreme on the right with lots of support. It's off-putting not just to conservative contributors but to a lot of users who just want to focus on improving travel content. All of this speaks further to Andrewssi2's point for people to stop pushing their politics and focus on travel guides.

The "general population" of each country is considered in literally every article when mentioning what is considered offensive or acceptable (with specific groups being mentioned as offenses pertain to them). I don't see why Australia is any different. If Andrewssi2 needs to clarify that activists are part of the "general population", should he also be asked if ballet dancers and rock climbers are part of the "general population"? It's absurd. Every Australian is part of the general population of Australia, but the views of the general population may differ vastly from the views of individuals within the population. All of this is understood. Most people have at least a few beliefs that differ from the general population of their nation. It doesn't make them any more or less a part of the general population. It just means that those beliefs will not be represented in an article about national sentiments. It's not that deep. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of your points are valid and well taken, but in your first paragraph, you really misread my remarks. Wow, you think I suggested insensitivity toward terror victims? I don't think it's worthwhile for me to even explain anything if you really read my remarks that way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Rereading that part, I see that you were saying something different about terrorists. I have retracted that above to reflect this. Even so, bringing up terrorism was taking things to far, in my opinion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It was just by way of explaining how people in places like New York feel when people claim we're not real Americans. But I would have thought that was clear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"In my observations over the years, a lot of leftist rhetoric is accepted on this website (mostly in discussions fortunately), because users not only don't expect pushback but are often backed up by other users." – hard disagree on this one with this exact case being one. I've received pushback for mentioning similar lefty issues before throughout Wikimedia (though it'd be considered hard left in many parts of the world, which is maybe why?). Also, Ikan's wording was pretty clear to me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If I may chip in, I think most of us understand that there is a difference between our own personal political views, and the sensitivities of the majority of the population. I don't like it when people say that Christopher Columbus discovered America, or that Captain James Cook discovered Australia, because I consider it dehumansing to the indigenous people that had already been living there for millennia by the time Columbus or Cook arrived. But I also acknowledge that for the vast majority of non-indigenous Americans and Australians, this is pretty much a non-issue, and that's what a travel guide like this should reflect. The dog2 (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that all major issues in this thread have been addressed and it seems that everyone understands one another, so the discussion can probably wind down or wrap up unless someone still takes issue with what's written in the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. And again, I do think you made a lot of accurate points. I really don't intend to make polemical points in travel articles and should be called on anytime I do, but we should have some sensitivity and respect for each other in discussions, irrespective of our ideological orientations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Bonza

@Sgroey: The airline went into voluntary administration yesterday – should we remove all mentions of Bonza right now, or wait until the drama fully unfolds? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it is worth having a single sentence saying that the airline is in administration. Then update in a couple of months, when we know what has happened - eg the airline gets bought and changes name etc. If it just disappears, a single mention should be kept for a couple of years to help returning visitors etc. AlasdairW (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. I wouldn't be surprised if this airline completely collapses and becomes defunct, as has the fate of 300 other airlines in Australia over the last century. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"In administration" is a term an American wouldn't understand, and I sure wouldn't have known what that meant out of context. Does it mean bankrupt? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorta. It's primarily only used in Common Law systems. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Australian law, but in the US bankruptcy can have many outcomes, and it's not unusual for a company to go bankrupt but stay active, restructure in some way, and continue serving customers. The car rental company Hertz went bankrupt four years ago but has recovered and is very much still serving travellers. If Australian law is similar, we shouldn't be over-hasty in removing companies in administration from the travel guide, though I guess in this case all the cancelled flights don't bode well. AlasdairW's suggestion sounds reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hooooooly moly I can't believe it! Let's hope the airline stays afloat. I agree with AlasdairW's suggestion. Thanks for tagging me! Sgroey (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sad that this + Tigerair have gone; instead now we have a duopoly (again) :-(. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

More drama (not inherently related to this discussion), apparently their staff won't get their April wages. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Rex (Regional Express)

@Sgroey, The dog2: Like Bonza, Rex has now also entered voluntary administration yesterday. However, unlike Bonza, we're actually likely to see some government intervention given it's a lifeline for many regional communities. Should we just put a note here + its six hubs or leave things as-is until things settle down? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see what comes out. If the flights are still operating, then that's all that matters for travellers. The dog2 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Flights are still operating but you also can't book any new flights. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In that case then yes, it should be mentioned that you can't book flights anymore. The dog2 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sheep product import?

Back in the 1970s I talked to some Brits who had bought sheepskin coats in Afghanistan & were upset that Aussie officials at the airport had confiscated & incinerated them. The officials said Central Asian tanning was unreliable so there was a risk of the coats carrying anthrax. I thought whining about this was remarkably stupid.

Is this still a policy? Should we warn about it? Where? Can we provide a list of what countries it applies to? Pashley (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If this is more or less unique to Australia, we could. We should (instead or additionally) include a link to a relevant official webpage. I suppose few travel from Afghanistan to Australia, so if more common destinations aren't affected, we should instead link to a list of forbidden items, perhaps mentioning this as an example of surprising ones (if still in effect; it could be included as an example also in Border crossing or some similar article). –LPfi (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Australia#Customs_and_quarantine would be the place to add it. Many if not most countries have some restrictions on food- and plant and similar products you can bring in, especially if coming from other continents, but Australia and New Zealand have taken this to the next level. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe few countries have restrictions on clothing, other than related to threatened (or "threatened") species, even if non-synthetic. –LPfi (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

From memory I don't ever remember having to declare clothing (other than used hiking equipment) when returning home, but don't quote me on that. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 13:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

3G shutdown

I've made a quick edit about emergency calls that definitely needs rewriting (I'm a bit sleep deprived today), but it's arguably critical information that even a seasoned traveller can easily overlook (and are perhaps more likely to overlook, if their experience is that emergency calls are always possible).

I also added a paragraph to the section on phones to clarify that the situation is unclear. It will need an update when the impact has shaken out (maybe in November or December) and we can be more definitive, but it is highly relevant to arrival planning and budgeting (since a traveller may have to pay for both a SIM and a new phone). It could throw a spanner in the works to arrive in a country and be surprised to find you can't use a phone you bought last week 203.221.193.125 04:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Northern Australia

This term describes the north fringe of the continent (crossing WA, NT and Q) that has a cyclonic monsoon climate. And once you've said that, you've really said all that needs saying. This page is extra-hierarchical but IMO goes way beyond the content needed for such a page - climate and similar info needs to be (and mostly is) set out for each State and each town, as it's travel-critical. My first thought was to edit it down, but the end result is likely to be a miserable scrap which it would be kinder to clear and re-direct in the first place. Does anyone wish to argue for extended coverage here? Grahamsands (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right. The term "Northern Australia" makes me think of the Northern Territory only. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I redirected there, as the place readers would most likely be trying to find. Grahamsands (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose redirect – it's not an uncommon term used (having lived up here before) and extraregions don't need to be anything more than the regions covered. SHB (t | c | m) 23:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has an article for this region, not that Wikipedia should be our basis for an article. I don't think the article needed to exist on Wikivoyage in the first place, but now we have it, I don't think there is any purpose served by deleting it or redirecting it.

However, I think we should be cautious going forward to not create extraregion articles unless they are truly cohesive regions a traveler would visit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

But this is a term that is quite frequently used by the media and is a perfectly fine article per Wikivoyage:Extraregion, though. SHB (t | c | m) 06:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice banner, shame about the content. To me it was dead wood, a scrappy part-duplication of material better (and appropriately) presented on standard region / city pages. And these references in media, common speech and on WV pages, where do they actually mean? The band beyond 26 South, which was the government definition? The narrower band that has a marked cyclonic climate? The croc-infested coasts? They're just vague hand-waves in a northerly direction, and it's not helpful to direct readers to a page like this. Grahamsands (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Grahamsands, your concerns with that page aren't limited to that page but rather most extraregions. A redirect to Northern Territory is very unhelpful as they aren't the same and nobody ever treats it the same, so your argument isn't holding up here. --SHB (t | c | m) 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I stand corrected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Some extraregions are informative and helpful so I'd consider each one on its merits. This one is dead wood. I swithered over where to redirect but went for NT thinking most readers typing "Northern Australia" were likely looking for NT, but we can switch it to "Australia". I added a note on use of the term which should be copied to the definitive destination. Grahamsands (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

How is redirecting that term here helpful either? --SHB (t | c | m) 12:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"Northern Australia" should be redirected, ergo it needs a destination page. None is ideal (IMO not a reason to retain it) so I'm open to suggestions. That would not be necessary if it was deleted, don't tempt me.

It is good practice to straighten links so that blue-links on other pages go straight to where they intend to go. I tried to do so on the five substantive pages with mentions, but it wasn't obvious they were aiming anywhere in particular, and I agree that sending them to NT wouldn't help. I therefore de-linked them to plain text. Grahamsands (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, no counter-argument on that, so it remains my view that "Northern Australia" is dead wood and should re-direct, and I'll do that in 24 hours. I would not have proposed this if I saw a way to make the page add value, but alas. Northern Territory appears the least worst destination option; I'll leave the curators of mentioning pages to decide where those links should now point but my suggestion is plain text. Grahamsands (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Done - the banner was parked on Kakadu page and looks a better banner for that. Grahamsands (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverted – Graham, you don't have consensus to redirect the page. --SHB (t | c | m) 21:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is dog-in-the-manger behaviour. You advance no coherent counter-argument for retaining this superfluous, miserable scrap of a page, nor lift a hand's turn to improve it. Is this the quality of page that you'd be happy for a reader to light upon? It contains nothing that's not better covered in the city - region standard hierarchy. Grahamsands (talk) —The preceding undated comment was added on 21:40, January 21, 2025 (UTC)

I already stated my reasoning that as someone who has lived in this area before, it's not an entirely uncommon term used. Extraregion pages don't need to be extensive, this is probably more extensive than most extraregions anyway, and the fact that Wikivoyage operates on consensus, which not only you don't have (you're the only person in this discussion who supports redirecting this page), and also status quo bias, which you also need to overturn. --SHB (t | c | m) 22:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I also don't see consensus to make the changes. I don't have a strong stance either way on the proposal, but there is a lack of overall support for the move right now, so it shouldn't be done. I don't see a problem with the state of this article. Many disambiguation pages, stubs, and outline articles are less informative. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)