Talk:Australia/Archive 2013-2020

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

Cities

I would suggest that the 9 biggest cities would be shown on the list.

Reasonable, but we prefer to list the ones of most interest to a traveller: Ttcf -- Alice✉ 08:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Together with some diversity. --Inas (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACT

The ACT is quite different from NSW, from looks to destinations.

No more than Broken Hill is quite different from Sydney, and the Flinders Ranges are quite different from Adelaide and Mildura is quite different from Melbourne. This is purely a high level grouping, and the ACT is entirely contained within NSW. It makes sense to have it in the same high level region. --Inas (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As on the map, If zoomed in, there is a tiny pink spot around Canberra, which is the ACT.

I may be very biased, being a Victorian, but putting the ACT in NSW irritates me. Canberra is its own city, with its own airport and procedures. ACT is its own territory, with separate laws, a separate government, and most importantly, an independent tourism board. The New South Wales article, understandably, raves on about NSW attractions while the ACT barely gets a mention. If we are going to treat the ACT differently in the breadcrumb trail, we should treat it different on the regions map as well. JamesA >talk 04:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our regions don't correspond to the tourism regions. Often, for good reason. For example, we have the "Capital Country" tourism region [1] that doesn't actually include the capital! Obviously, it is a political/funding distinction that we're not bound by here. For all intents and purposes for the visitor, the laws of the territory government are no different to NSW. I'd also make the observation that if we're going to add a region at the Australia level, FNQ may make a better separate region than the ACT. It has its own airports, flights that are actually international, and is a long way from anywhere else. Probably sees more tourists too. --Inas (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Risk

also I am concerned that most Australian tropical region articles/itineraries are almost in denial about cyclones, and their issues - what is your thought on that...? - cheers sats (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly be happy to discuss how we talk about the risks in Australia. In the tropics, you need to we aware of cylones, crocs, stingers. Everywhere we have risk of bushfire, flood. Beach safety, rips, etc. We don't want to write about these in every single article, so I think that we're just best mentioning them in the Australia article, otherwise they will end up with the same or variations of the same advice in thousands of articles. WDYT? --Inas (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - (a) I have lived in Darwin, many old timers move south in cyclone season, every year without fail - it is a bit more complex than you make out (b) I am trying to suggest we are writing about the whole of northern australia - not just urban darwin...
Do you agree with the idea of concentrating the material into the outback and driving... articles, and reducing what is in effect duplicated stay safe material in many other articles... ? (like I have started at Great Northern Highway) ? It would be good to establish to what extent a link versus some particular text might seem suitable... sats (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think we only need separate articles if the information outgrows the main article. In the case of tropical cyclones, I don't think there is too much to be said. Be aware they happen, be aware they occur on a scale ranging from mild inconvenience to potentially deadly, and be aware of the official advice and channels to be prepared. I've added that to this article now. See Australia#Cyclones. What more do you think needs to be said? --Inas (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the piece is well written, sparse and adequate, and sufficient. I think the real issue is to clear any repetitive material in articles about locations in the tropical north (ie stay safe sections etc ).
If you decide to go ahead and create a page about tropical cyclones, you are welcome to move User:AHeneen/Sandbox/Tropical Cyclone Safety into the mainspace as a starting point. I intended to model the page after Tornado safety, but it's been abandoned it for the last 4 years. AHeneen (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it needs to be repeated in part in the 'outback' article - and in the article 'driving in Australia' - just those 3 articles imho need info that might appear to duplicate (I think the emphasis can vary, so as to give a bit more information than the australia article) - otherwise all other articles I think should be swept clear of cyclone weather and driving in cyclone season info. I hope that is not too confusing answer - I'd be only too happy to explain further rationale for the idea... sats (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds most reasonable to me. --Inas (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article status

I've downgraded this guide from guide status to outline, which might look confusing at first glance, but is appropriate per Wikivoyage:Country guide status. The key point about {{usablecountry}} status is that all linked guides in the "cities" and "other destinations" lists must also be of usable status or better. To confuse things further, three of the linked "other destinations" are region articles: Blue Mountains, Great Ocean Road, and Sunshine Coast (Queensland). All three are at outline status per Wikivoyage:Region guide status (which requires that the most important linked cities and other destinations be at usable status).

  1. Blue Mountains: in very good shape—just needs Blue Mountains National Park and Wollemi National Park brought up to usable status. Blue Mountains NP just needs a "Get in" section; Wollemi NP needs info on Fees/permits.
  2. Great Ocean Road: the article has lots of good info, but is a mess, with listings in the region article. The most important linked destinations need to be at usable status (I don't know which those are, since I've never been there, and it's not evident from the region article).
  3. Sunshine Coast (Queensland): exact same problems as Great Ocean Road.

So the Blue Mountains can be fixed in a hurry with some very basic research, but Great Ocean Road and the Sunshine Coast will need a fair amount of attention from someone who is at least somewhat familiar with those regions. Or we could replace them in the "other destinations" list with more traditional ODs (usually national parks). --Peter Talk 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to change the banner to something sharper. Here's three proposals, please let me know what you think, or propose another:

1. Greenpatch Beach, Jervis Bay Territory.
2. Mount Conner and Lasseter Highway, Northern Territory.
3. Tamar Valley, Tasmania.

I think 1. is the most classic Australian tourism image, followed by 2. with the straight highway going off into the distance. As someone who lives in Australia, farmland and gum trees will always be my biggest memory, spend a lot of time driving through it to get around, so that's why I've thrown in 3. --tiimta (hello) 10:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think #1 could be any tropical island and three could also be NZ or other green areas. I agree that a new banner would be nice because the current one is rather gloomey (too grey). Something with a roo and a rock would be outstanding. So #2 at the moment. jan (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We gotta have roos in the banner. I know Aussies might not like it, but come on! LtPowers (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The existing photo is too dark, but the three suggested replacements are hardly distinctive of Australia. I'm sure we can do better. --Inas (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like #2. Jjtkk (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about these for a couple of scenes more iconically Australia:

4. Uluru, Northern Territory
5. The Twelve Apostles, Victoria

Hard to find kangaroo pics that work at 7:1 - can't find any on commons and my own are all too close up and come out like this:

A Roo.

And ya, you're right LtPowers, they're a damn pest. --tiimta (hello) 10:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ayers Rock is the pick of the bunch, so far. Needs a touch of horizontal tweaking? The others are nice photos, but not distinctive enough. --Inas (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inas, i second for the rock. Just the roo is not enough. jan (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the Uluru image Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. That's the rare image that looks really good at 7:1, nice choice. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a consensus to me, I've added the banner to the page. Thanks all. --tiimta (hello) 07:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superannuation

I know superannuation can be a contentious topic for Australians, however temporary residents are allowed to take it with them as they leave (as well as having paid far lower tax on their contributions). Although Wikivoyage shouldn't provide financial advise, why is it wrong to make them aware of this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think superannuation is contentious. I just think the advice is wrong. Temporary visa holders should ensure they reclaim their super then whey leave. However, withholding tax is payable on the pre-tax contributions equivalent to the highest marginal rate of tax so there isn't a financial benefit to them making higher than compulsory super contributions and then withdrawing when they leave. --Inas (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is different to what I had thought was the case so I'll have to look into it. In any case leaving out specific financial advice out of WV is probably a good idea anyhow. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing banners

Australia has a lot of missing banners. There are 546 articles missing custom banners.

This for the most part is down to an article being created for every tiny settlement in Australia (and possibly some merging may be required at some point). Nevertheless there are still quite a few large articles that we can work with. To get started the following 7 articles are all over 30,000 bytes but do not have a banner yet:

Another 14 are over 20,000 bytes and another 50 are over 10,000 bytes.

Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for updated banner

I noticed the existing banner is only 2,100 pixels across, and that no origional source is available to make a higher resolution.

Proposed banner

I created this banner because it has both higher resolution, and the detail of the rock itself is clearer. Any thoughts? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Yes, the new banner is a clearer image of Uluru, but I like the composition of the current banner and the way that Uluru sticks out in the middle of the Outback landscape better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another two candidates with higher resolution
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
--Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
current image
I agree that the current banner has the best composition of the four. I don't know why "only" 2,100 pixels is a problem. Powers (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a near tossup between the current banner and Proposal 2, perhaps with a slight edge to the current banner. Proposal 2 could be subbed for the banner of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, though I don't find it so compelling to sub that out, and I'm not sure I find it compelling to sub for the current banner of Red Centre, either. Northern Territory, perhaps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Beam?!

Just came across this odd sentence:

Jim Beam bourbon is the most commonly drunk, so those from Kentucky should feel right at home.

LOL What? This makes no sense (and I'm from Kentucky, I ought to know). Jim Beam is bottom-tier in pretty much every bar in the U.S.; it's usually the well liquor that they serve if you don't ask for anything better. --Bigpeteb (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, their Knob Creek whiskey is not bad, but I agree that Jim Beam sucks. Please edit or delete accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uninhabited islands

According to Wiaa we should not have articles for uninhabited islands, however it seems like Australia has a lot of them!

Each article does actually have some content, so what would be the best approach to fix them? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct would be to merge them into a general "Outlying Australian islands" article. But that could result in some complexity. Powers (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have earlier fixed the Hong Kong article so that the Hong Kong small islands were merged into Hong_Kong/Outlying_Islands . (In HK, they are actually termed 'Outlying islands', making this fairly easy.
For Australia you are right about the complexity, given that some islands will have more than 5,000km between them!
Would a merge article for each state (WA, NSW, etc) be more appropriate? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about territories? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably they can be divided up as per http://regional.gov.au/territories/ --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are divided up that way. So you're OK with not deleting articles about those? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter region in NSW

I am making a suggestion to merge all the region articles found in Hunter up into the main region article. Discussion at Talk:Hunter . Good to have any Australian views. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of NSW Banners

Please see here:

Talk:New_South_Wales#New_South_Wales_banners --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race Vilification

"There are laws against any form of racial vilification or discrimination" This should be elaborated on a bit. In looking up the Racial Vilification Act, it seems that "vilification" here means acting or threatening violence to a person or group based on race (as well as other non-race discrimination) however, the above quote seems to be in direct conflict with the sentence that follows: "It isn't hard to find someone who will express some form of racist views in a pub in Australia" as racist statements can easily be vilifying and/or discriminatory. I assume that's not the case, since it's quite common for Asians living in and visiting Australia to report experiencing racial hostility. What do these laws restrict and what do they mean for the average non-white person? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is accurate to say that there are both laws against racial discrimination and a fair deal of 'casual racism' in Australia. A long standing official 'White Australia' immigration policy only came to an end in 1966, and today Australia is still not quite as multi-cultural as it would like to be.
Visiting South Asians and to a lesser extent East Asians should at least be prepared for overt racial abuse, especially in a city centre late at night, although it is rarely dangerous.
The laws do not really restrict much behaviour such as this. There are however examples where Asian people have experienced abuse on the bus in Sydney (for example), had that abuse recorded and the police actually investigate and charge the abuser. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that Australia is such a multi-cultural society, no-one is going to know if you're a tourist or if you've lived here your entire life unless you choose to tell them. I don't think that visiting East Asians should be prepared for overt racial abuse. I think that's ridiculous. The racial tirades on public transport (that we've seen a handful of) are exceptional enough to make the front page of the papers. I wrote that section about racist views in a pub. What I meant by it is that if you catch up with a group of people over a beer, you won't find a problem with finding someone with something to say about some racial group. But they'll go to work, and walk the streets with all races, and it isn't an issue. I didn't mean that people in a pub will seek out people to abuse. --Inas (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now and then in central Sydney and Melbourne. Maybe if you haven't seen it at all then you might call it 'ridiculous', but I would say at least be prepared that it might happen. Saying it won't happen is misleading, even if most of these incidents don't appear in the newspapers. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney and Melbourne are two of the most racially diverse and tolerant places on the planet. Anything you could encounter there you could encounter in any European or U.S. city to at least the same or greater extent, in the context of a far greater mono-culture (excepting the other multi-cultural cities, like London, etc). It's an unfortunate fact in the world, that there is a percentage of nasty people. If we start calling out the possibility of name calling by a passing drunk or druggo in any western city.. it's just silly. For something that wouldn't be in encountered by 99.999% of visitors.. Do a search for Racism on Wikivoyage. If we put a warning in of the nature you suggest, it would make Australia about the strongest racism warning of any destination - something that's surely absurd. --Inas (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with your 99.999% assessment (and the unfortunate tone that you are using, but anyway), but I also don't recall asking to put a warning anywhere. If you are denying racism occurs in Australia then I would rather question your objectivity or knowledge on the issue. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I've never been an Asian of any sort in Australia, so I can only report what I've heard from others, but it gave me the impression that anti-Asian sentiments are experienced by quite a fair number of people. Racially diverse cities don't equate to racially harmonious cities. I don't believe in silly things like ranking the "racial harmony" of nations, but I don't think Australia would rank high on such a list at all. It's a former British colony formed on white racial supremacy and the genocide of the natives, and the fact that you also agree that Asians should EXPECT overt racism I would say is an indicator that we should be specific here in the article. While we don't want to imply that it's unsafe if it is not, we also should mention directly that racist banter is the norm, even if the locals themselves don't believe they're being offensive (or don't care). We should rid ourselves of the notion that the existence of racism is so obvious that it doesn't need mention or that all non-whites worldwide are accustomed to being treated like shit or talked about or addressed in disparaging ways, because they're not.

On my asking for clarification, it's not intuitive what "racial vilification" and "racial discrimination" mean, especially when it says ANY FORM is illegal. It should be briefly summarized exactly what kinds of offenses have legal ramifications. Mostly it seems the same as other Western nations, but there may be differences that are unapparent. Even if it's actually just the same, it should be better clarified.

Most discussions of "Racism" on Wikivoyage are centered solely on the United States, which as I said in another discussion, is probably not even the worst of racist countries. Our European coverage is very sad, considering how rampant it is there (racism is a European invention after all), so searching for how we deal with racism on Wikivoyage shows how little our editors have thought about the topic rather; it should not be used as a guideline to show that it's not a worthy topic or one that we shouldn't delve into when relevant. We should be working to expand on the topic worldwide and if the US and Australia can be written in ways that are honest, for better and for worse, and helpful for travelers, they could then be used as references for how to approach the topic in other countries. Right now, none of our countries seem to have satisfactory coverage. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racially diverse doesn't necessarily equate to racial harmony. It does, however, mean that a visitor of any race is not going to 'stand-out' from the locals, for want of a better form of expression.
I think you'd find every 'white' country at that time had a fairly solid foundation of white racial supremacy. If I was writing a travel guide for Aboriginal people in the 18th century, that would get a fairly solid coverage in the 'Stay safe'. Fortunately, it now belongs in 'Understand -> History'. --Inas (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


To respond to how this should be covered, I believe it is just hard to address casual racism in a collaborative travel guide because views and experiences vary considerably. Some people will deny there is racism in their own country out of pride, some may have had one bad experience on a train and vilify that country as a completely racist, some countries have different perceptions of different racial groups so a Pakistani may have an awful time in Japan but a German a wonderful one.
I agree in principle that it should be a worthwhile topic to write about, but Wikivoyage contributors can't even agree whether the word 'Gringo' is offensive or not. I wouldn't want to actually write content on this subject unless it had significant travel implications. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the section. I've got rid of 'vilification', because it's less clear than discrimination. I hope I've improved the clarity. I hope I've left my rose-coloured glasses in their case. --Inas (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian English

There has been a bit of a dispute here that is going on in my talk page. I still think that Australian English is closer to British than to American English, though there are instances where Australia uses American vocabulary, and of course, everyone knows that Australia uses many slang words that are unique and not used anywhere else. The other person in this dispute claims that the way that the statement is written is misleading, and that Australian English is equally influenced by British and American English. I am not disputing the fact that Australian English is a unique variety that differs from both British and American English, and that visitors from both the US and the UK would need to adjust their English to a certain extent to be fully understood by Australians, but I really don't think the way the statement is worded is particularly misleading. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but I do think in general Australian English does use British rather than American vocabulary choices. What does everyone think? The dog2 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a guide for travellers. If the meaning of the word isn't going to be clear to everyone reading the article, then pick a better word. It's usually not hard to skip over words that have a local meaning. If the meaning is clear to all, then there is no issue, move on. If we really can't avoid these words, I'd always err towards the American. Simply because they have had a far greater cultural influence on the world, than any other culture. People may not always use the American form, or even like the American form. But in most cases they will recognise it, and it's conveying meaning to the widest international audience that is most important in our guide. --Inas (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm referring to is the "Talk" section. If you look at my talk page, someone is disputing my opinion that Australian English is closer to British than American English, which I don't think is inaccurate. Saying that Australian English is identical to British English is of course nonsense, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that with some exceptions, Australian vocabulary choices typically follow British rather than American usage. The dog2 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your home page - but was lacking context. I just naturally assumed I was falling into a sticky molasses of regions spelling controversy. With the additional context, I agree with you :-) --Inas (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being both British and living in Australia, I would say that the colloquial language is definitely closer between British and Australian than either is to American. It probably doesn't need too much analysis in the article though... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think the way the "Talk" section is currently written looks good. In any case, we've covered some of the differences in English language varieties, so there is no need to get into more detail here. The dog2 (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dispute" is too strong a word, but I think "in general" doesn't get the balance rite. The relative influence of "British" and "American" vocabulary varies by topic, and older generations would use more "British" influenced vocabulary than, say, anyone under 45. Also, a lot of UK terms are used in Australia with very different meanings: "pants", or "pudding". I think people for the UK and US would also be surprised how many words commonly used by both seem foreign to Australians, such as "rucksack", "cobbler", "pepper" (compared to capsicum) or "duvet". As someone who's lived most of my life in Australia, I'm keenly aware that UK and US vocabulary can both seem quite "different" from time to time.FromregionalNSW (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2G Networks are Switching Off

The Connect section does not mention that Australian operators are shutting down 2G (GSM) networks in 2017 / 2018.

24.212.246.80 02:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth mentioning briefly. The disappearance of 2G networks has been picking up (at least in Western countries) so hopefully won't be a major surprise to visitors. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Registering with Medicare

I'm a UK citizen, visiting Australia later this year, and a clause in my travel insurance says:

Can someone who understands these things please add something to the article about registration; including how to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy I will have a look - I will check for you - JarrahTree (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a UK citizen you can access hospital emergency treatment simply presenting yourself with a passport, to utilise a GP you need to pay up front, and some repayment from the medicare system (apparently not much) can ensue. To register - I have the form for you Andy, with medicare - might not necessarily bring that much protection in the end. JarrahTree (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; failure to register would invalidate my insurance - so, for me, that's not an option. But I was asking here for more general info to be added, for the benefit of others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK I get it - tricky, my suspicion is that it varies between countries of origin as to what extent the australian agreements extend to in terms of requirements ... JarrahTree (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full answer is here: https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/rhca-medical-care-visitors-australia/27436#a1 JarrahTree (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article could usefully have a sentence or two about registering for Medicare, saying that it usually needs to be done in person and linking to the page above. The need to register on arrival may be unusual - my UK travel insurance says that I would need to enrol when I first receive treatment, not on arrival. I now know to look at this aspect of policy wording when choosing a policy. AlasdairW (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social classes

I don't know if it's just my perception, but what I found was that social classes do not feature as prominently in Australian culture as they do in say, American culture. Sure, they do exist, but my impression is that as a general rule, Australian tradesmen and blue collar workers get a lot more respect from society at large than their American counterparts. I wonder if we should have a small blurb about this under "Respect" about the fact that Australian culture is a lot less hierarchal than many other countries' culture, and that in general, you are expected to respect all jobs and not appear to look down on anyone regardless of what their job or position is. The dog2 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A two year delay in a response but yes, you are expected to respect all jobs, including the lease appealing jobs. SHB2000 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page is missing permission

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page is missing permission information and may be deleted:

You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia/Archive_2013-2020&oldid=4210724"