Talk:Australia

progress
I'm using this page as a measure to track the progress of eventually getting Australia to a star article.
 * Cities


 * Sydney - guide
 * Canberra - guide
 * Adelaide - guide
 * Melbourne - guide
 * Hobart - guide
 * Cairns - guide
 * Perth - guide
 * These ones need work to become guide


 * Brisbane - usable
 * Darwin - usable
 * Other destinations


 * Uluru - guide
 * Kakadu National Park - guide, although needs some work
 * Mungo National Park - starnom
 * Great Ocean Road - guide
 * Great Barrier Reef - guide
 * Daintree Rainforest guide
 * Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park - guide
 * These ones need a little bit of work to become guide


 * Purnululu National Park - usable, nearing guide
 * Blue Mountains National Park - usable
 * Regions (jurisdictions)

-- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NSW/ACT - guide
 * Qld - guide
 * NT - guide
 * Tas - guide
 * SA - guide
 * Vic and WA need some work
 * Offshore territories also need work, but it's nearly impossible to get all of those to guide


 * Or in simple, the ones that need work:
 * Brisbane
 * Darwin
 * Purnululu NP
 * Blue Mountains NP
 * Victoria
 * Western Australia SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 04:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As there's three from NSW and zero in SA, I'll be replacing Kosciuszko with Cradle Mountain SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The Australia article on Wikitravel
I just noticed that a Wikitravel admin (likely an IB staff), indef protected Wikitravel's Australia article to "allow only admins" to edit. It's no surprise why that museum piece is dying ;). -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Makassan contact from Indonesia
I'm a little surprised that there's nothing about the Makassan contact. Perhaps Makassan contact with Australia is a good guide but would that make it too encyclopedic? -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's interesting. I don't think 1-3 sentences would be out of line at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a little bit about it. I think mainly the Islamic cultural elements brought in is the most relevant part since that's the main thing that a traveler can experience. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Australia as a US corporation
I just read this very interesting Wikipedia article. One part of me wants to include it, while the other part says it's too trivial and out of the scope for a travel guide. Any other opinions? -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, too (the government is putting 5G in the water supply!), but it's not travel-related. —The preceding comment was added by Ground Zero (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah. It's not related to travel. The dog2 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the input. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Replacing Mungo NP with Ikara-Flinders Ranges NP?
The reason why Mungo was initially added was because we had no Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park article before (replacing the previous Watarrka NP), but now that we do, should that park article be replaced with Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park? It is much more well-known, on the tentative list for world heritage, and the fact that we have at least one other destination from every state and the NT except South Australia, so it seems more logical to me to replace it. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

1800 NO CASH
Please, let's use mainstream digits. I don't want to search for an image of an Australian dialling pad to figure out what numbers the letters stand for, and I am certainly not the only reader who isn't acquainted to the letter scheme: for me the "NO CASH" looks like just a comment, as phone numbers consist of digits over here. By all means include that format, but either add it in parenthesis and quotes or add the real number in a parenthesis.

I think we should include a short paragraph on the letter codes here and in other country articles where relevant, and have a section on them in Telephone service, including a table on the letter-digit equivalents. Are these the same all over the world or do we need several tables and appropriate warnings?

–LPfi (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Letter codes are extremely rare to encounter these days in Australia, and I myself have no idea what 1800 NO CASH means. may probably have a better answer to this one. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In some countries, notably the USA, dials have letters assigned to the digits, mostly in groups of three, starting from the "2". "6" has "MNO" so e.g. "NO" will be dialled "66". Thus "NO CASH" translates to "66 2274" on US phones. No idea whether the distribution of letters is the same in Australia. If you've had a non-smart mobile phone, you recognise the markings, although instead of a many-to-one scheme the mobile phones had a one-to-many one, requiring several presses of a key to get the right letter (for an SMS or the like), until predictive text technologies such as T9. –LPfi (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Australian banknotes in wallet.jpg


 * Australian banknotes. If we want a picture of them in the article, we're going to have to upload it as fair use, but does https://banknotes.rba.gov.au/legal/reproducing-banknotes/ even allow that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd let this one go. These aren't even the current banknotes (they've slowly been replaced since 2016) (see this website for what the new banknotes look like). SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 00:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the nominated image is much help to a visitor, and it would be more useful to have a link to the Reserve Bank page showing pictures. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Spirit of Tasmania ferry terminal relocation from Melbourne to Geelong
Since October 23, the Spirit of Tasmania's Victorian terminal has relocated to Geelong from the Port of Melbourne. As of writing this, I've updated Devonport, Geelong, Victoria (state), and Tasmania. I might've missed a page where it is mentioned, and if I did, please update accordingly or let me know. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * +Melbourne. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be tempted to leave a single sentence about the move in Melbourne for the next 3-5 years. Travellers with old guidebooks may come here looking for it (or wonder why they don't see the ferry even if they aren't going across the strait). There is also scope for improving the directions in Geelong - which station should I get off the train for the ferry? (I am sorry to see the move, as I remember getting the ferry to Melbourne in 2000, and there is something special about a ferry approaching a major city.) AlasdairW (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'm also not sure why they moved, but at least it might boost the Bellarine Peninsula's tourism ;-). I plan to visit Tasmania this summer using the Spirit of Tasmania and I didn't have plans to visit Geelong (I've only been on the Princes Freeway around it), but now I do. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 20:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for Special:Diff/4549272. Don't know how I missed this page. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

How to handle external territories?
I must say, Wikivoyage does a poor job at handling Australian external territories (except the (Sub)antarctic islands).

While these are conventionally linked and can be accessible through our breadcrumb hierarchy, it's not instantly obvious, unlike how the US's organized territories, France's overseas departments, or New Zealand's dependent territories are handled. In fact, while five of the six articles are directly breadcrumbed to Australia, they're only mentioned in Australia, along with islands that are part of a state (e.g. Lord Howe Island, which is a part of NSW, the Torres Strait Islands, which is mostly in Queensland, or Kangaroo Island, a popular tourist spot in South Australia).

Possible suggestions:
 * 1) Keep the status quo. That is, do nothing and hope that users will eventually find it
 * 2) Keep the status quo on this article, but breadcrumb the territory to whatever region it's in (so Norfolk Island and Coral Sea Islands under Melanesia, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and possibly the Ashmore and Cartier Islands under Southeast Asia, and keep the Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HMI) under Subantarctic islands
 * 3) Essentially proposal two, but breadcrumb Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands under Australian Indian Ocean Territories (IOT). Although the Ashmore and Cartier Islands is not officially a part of the IOT, we can include it for practical purposes – the territory is uninhabited, and Wikivoyage is not bound to following official administration anyway
 * 4) Proposal 3 but all external territories (except HMI) are breadcrumbed underneath Australia
 * 5) Don't change the breadcrumbs, but add the three external territories under "Regions" (I fear this will make a few insignificant islands of no more than 5,000 combined overprominent)

I don't really have a strong preference for any but 1 for the reasons I've mentioned above.

Other thoughts? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, for the rationale behind why external territories be breadcrumbed under Southeast Asia and Melanesia, it's because these aren't really fully integrated into Australia (they're dependent territories for a reason). I can't speak for the Indian Ocean territories, but if you were to visit Norfolk Island from Sydney, all visitors have to go through the international terminal. In other words, even Australians will need to carry their passport when visiting NF (this is not a problem for most people, but from a practical perspective, it's a separate jurisdiction). SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Are any overseas territories missing from the entirety of the "Regions" section including the concluding sentence after the "Islands" listings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None are missing (exl. the Australian Antarctic Territory), they're just not instantly obvious. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I think things are fine the way they are now. Making the overseas territories more prominent by moving them up will make contiguous or closer-in parts of Australia less prominent, and I think that's likely to be of less benefit to most travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What about a two- or three-liner listing all external territories along the lines of United States of America or New Zealand? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 03:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Something like this:
 * "In addition to the six states and two main territories, Australia has seven other external territories scattered throughout its nearby surrounds, though only three of them are inhabited by civilians. Australia administers three territories Southeast Asia: Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The former inhabited two are sometimes both collectively grouped as the Australian Indian Ocean Territories, or simply the Indian Ocean Territories (IOT). In Melanesia, Australia administers two territories: Norfolk Island is the third inhabited territory, home to around 2,000 inhabitants around halfway between New Zealand and New Caledonia, and the Coral Sea Islands, which mostly contains a bunch of atolls and islands halfway between Queensland and New Caledonia. The other two territories are in the Antarctic, but largely off-limits. Heard Island and McDonald Islands is an Antarctic archipelago in the Subantarctic, while the other is the Australian Antarctic Territory, which is only recognised by the United Kingdom, France, Norway and New Zealand."
 * It's more like an eight-liner, though. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * User-unfriendly wall of text, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what about this?
 * "In addition to the six states and two main territories, Australia has seven other external territories scattered throughout its nearby surrounds, though only three of them are inhabited by civilians. Australia administers the following territories in:
 * Melanesia: Norfolk Island and the Coral Sea Islands
 * Southeast Asia: Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The latter two are sometimes collectively grouped as the Australian Indian Ocean Territories.
 * Antarctica: Heard Island and McDonald Islands and the Australian Antarctic Territory, only recognised by the United Kingdom, France, Norway and New Zealand.
 * "Conversely, many offshore islands that have a strong regional identity or are well-known are a part of a state or territory. Of particular note are Lord Howe Island, which is a part of New South Wales, the Torres Strait Islands, which are a part of Queensland, or the uninhabited Macquarie Island, which is administered from Tasmania.
 * " SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. I can copy edit when I have time and am less tired. One quick thing, though: it needs to be made clearer that it is only the Antarctic territory that is recognised by only X, Y and Z, not Heard and McDonald, which has much wider recognition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rereading this again, I too think it should be more clearer. Maybe "Antarctica: Australian Antarctic Territory, only recognised by the United Kingdom, France, Norway and New Zealand and the Heard Island and McDonald Islands, recognised by every UN member state"? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does who recognizes what matter that much at this level? Would "Antarctica: Heard Island and McDonald Islands and Australian Antarctic Territory, a largely unrecognized claim on the Antarctic mainland" (or perhaps "... in East Antarctica") make sense? Vidimian (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ... or listing them in reverse, so it's both alphabetical and clear that the largely unrecognized claim is for the Antarctic territory only. Vidimian (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Given that the same could be said for the British, Kiwi, French, and Norwegian claims, sure. I'm sort of opinionless on whether to include East Antarctica or not. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Given that the same could be said for the British, Kiwi, French, and Norwegian claims, sure. I'm sort of opinionless on whether to include East Antarctica or not. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Banner
I've thought about this for a few days now and I'm still undecided. One of the reasons I wanted to change the banner was because Uluru is way too recognisable of a landmark to be representative for the entirety of Australia. I don't have the knowledge to answer this question, but I've heard that most non-Australians would think of either Uluru, the GBR or the Sydney Opera House when they first think of Australia (please tell me what you first think of Australia – it might influence my opinion).

The new banner is of the Kata Tjuṯa, about 30 or so kilometres west of Uluru (part of the same national park). One of the reasons I picked this site is because while it's not too recognisable, many people have still heard of it. It's also a significant Indigenous site, and the greenery is a mix-mash of what much of the country looks like. The downside is that, although 350-metre-high rocks like these out in the middle of nowhere are uncommon, the banner does not emphasise this and there's no way to distinguish this whether this is in Australia or South Africa.

So there goes it. I'm undecided, but opinions welcome. In particular, I'd also like to hear what's your first impression of Australia – if it's a site that wasn't on my mind (e.g. the Daintree, the Tasmanian Wilderness, or the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne), then we may very well consider a banner that represents that. After all, it's not easy cherry-picking a banner for a country that stretches from 9°S to 43°S (exl. Mac. Island + ext. territories).

And before I wrap it up: before I get any suggestions of the Sydney Opera House, I'm going to upfront say no to that. It's way too Sydney-specific which is why New South Wales also does not have a banner of Sydney Harbour. It's also not representative of the whole country.

-- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If it makes any difference, I flat-out like Banner 1 as a photograph more than Banner 0. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Banner 1 is my preference as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ (albeit very late). SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Roadhouses
It seems a "roadhouse" in Australia is different from one in the USA, and I don't know that word from over here. Is it something that should be explained? I note that the word is used without further comment (i.e. the reader depends on understanding the word itself) e.g. in Coolongolook. –LPfi (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See Roadhouse (premises). Basically these are food stores (that usually sell pies and other takeaway food) on long-distance routes. In Coolongolook's case, its roadhouses primarily serve travellers travelling from Queensland down south to Newcastle or Sydney. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 02:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, but shouldn't that be told in Australia? I don't think we should expect non-Australian readers to check the word in Wikipedia or a dictionary – and American readers might expect that the roadhouses in Coolongolook are like those in the USA. A bit more of a description in that article would be good even if "roadhouse" is explained in this article. –LPfi (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Or possibly Australian cuisine., what do you think? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably cover it in English language varieties, under "By car", since travellers are most likely to want to use these facilities when driving. I recall the roadhouses I visited in Australia were just very basic truck stops, so they had basic accommodation, a cafe selling things like pies and, if you're lucky, roast chicken, and with an attached fuel station. The dog2 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently the roadhouses with basic accommodation are limited to more remote roadhouses such as those on the Eyre or Stewart Highways. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's possible. Those roadhouses I passed through were close to Ceduna, South Australia, which is on the main road between Adelaide and Perth. The dog2 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense (which is also why Coolongolook does not have any accommodation). I'll update when I visit Ghan, NT sometime next year. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 21:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

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
In what way is "clearer"? Except in this case, two users (myself and ) 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * ? 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To suggest what exactly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Australia has it all. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Opinions here were also rather mixed, but anti-Americanism did rise after 2003. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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
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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; 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 &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 05:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)