Talk:Australia/Archive 2021-2031

Aussie link tax?

Swept in from the pub

Australia has a new law requiring sites like Facebook & Google to pay news organisations whenever they link to content on a news site (or whenever someone follows the link?) and to share some data about the user with the linkee. I'm more than a little hazy on details.

Here's a summary, not for those easily offended by language.

Will this affect us? How? It certainly looks like a problem for WP, who routinely cite news articles, but I cannot see that it will matter much to us. Pashley (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

AIUI that law specifically applies to only Facebook and Google, and I'm not sure that it's about the URL ("link") as much as it is about the content (headline/first sentence/image preview). Someone recommended the analysis at https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ to me, and it has more information than the page you linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's best to not include any links to news articles. TravelAroundOz (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This will not have any implications for any Wikimedia projects. It is explicitly only about Facebook and Google. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if it did apply to Wikimedia Projects, why would this affect WikiVoyage? TravelAroundOz (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Pashley said "I cannot see that it will matter much to us", I think he was posting in the hope that other people could confirm his impression (or tell him that he'd missed something). He didn't claim that it would affect Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The goverment FAQ says "Digital platforms must participate in the code if the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google.", so it won't apply to us. We (or Wikinews) also can't apply to receive money as we don't "operate primarily in Australia" and have annual revenue over $150,000. AlasdairW (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Phone numbers starting with 13

At Connect/Telephone​/Special numbers​ starting with 13 are mentioned as charged at a local call rate, which is not zero. So why are they often given at a "tollfree=" in a listing? --FredTC (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The same applies for 18 as well. SHB2000 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but for 18 it is correct, if I understand the text at "Special numbers" well. --FredTC (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Spelling

We have our own spelling, but it's hard to explain it, it's a mix of British, American and Canadian spelling:

e.g. Colour sanitize sterilise gaol

It's complex but I don't think using the British is a good idea at all. Considering that we're shifting away from Europe and more towards Asia and North America.

Anyone else agree? SHB2000 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've changed it to Australian spelling, per Wikivoyage:Spelling, which says you use Australian spelling in Australian articles. I don't know why it said British spelling. That makes no sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Ground Zero (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It would've made sense 10 years ago but not now. SHB2000 (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Time in Australia

Swept in from the pub

In section Australia#Trading hours​ I see:

• 09:00-17:00
• 4PM
• 6pm

Is there one way to specify time in Australia? If not what should the standard be for Wikivoyage articles? Something like "in one article only one standard". Or is it "do what ever you like", as is done now in the mentioned Australia article section? --FredTC (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm planning to create a new article for Australia's time. Not only is the time zones confusing but the way we write it is also confusing.

So for

• 09:00-17:00 - North Queensland
• 4PM - Victoria
• 6pm - Everywhere else but NSW, S Qld and SA
• 06:00pm - NSW, SA and South Queensland

Tbh, we're just a weird country. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. In Wikivoyage:Time and date formats it says Use upper case "AM" and "PM". In the case of Australia, as a traveler, I would expect to see the formatting in the "Time" section, not in a separate article. I think it could be added as a new column in the table that is there already. That column could have this information like:

• 24-hours notation
• AM/PM notation
• AM/PM, locally often written as am/pm
• 24-hours notation in the bigger cities, AM/PM in most villages

--FredTC (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This thing's hard for Aussie's to understand as well but thanks to my mum who's been all over the country, I sort of get this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Phone number format

Editors are now told not to use hyphens or spaces when adding phone numbers to listings: "+61XXXXXXXX. (with no spaces)". That format is very hard to read (for taking a paper note or copying to some device), and the information about the prefix is lost (OK, seems all prefixes are 2-digit, but still, they are harder to recognise than if they were separated by spaces or hyphens). –LPfi (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Is there a technical reason to format them without spaces, like the dialling-from-the-article feature, or can we give non-Australian readers a break by adding in spaces? The Wikipedia article shows spaces in numbers, and say that the "Typical format" is (0x) xxxx xxxx. Ground Zero (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The listing template (or rather a module it uses) strips spaces and hyphens from the number, so they do not affect dialling-from-the-article. You can see that by copying the tel: url to the clipboard and pasting it somewhere (or looking at the status line, if your browser shows link url:s there). –LPfi (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Most workplaces request your number without spaces, and it's how it's generally written, even though it looks ugly. Also check out by clicking the copy button on Google Maps. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The copy button on Google Maps does the same for numbers all over the world. What's more important to know is how real businesses format their numbers on their own website.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. You'd have to recognise that format as a traveller (and thus it has to be noted in Connect), and editors have to be able to format the number given in that way to the format we chose to use, and that format should serve the travellers as well as possible. We don't use "(02) 123 456" in our listings even if that is format you will see posted in Finland. Stupid web forms require people to type numbers without spaces, although stripping them away would be a one-liner in the form parsing software. –LPfi (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Bit late to the party, but I very rarely see numbers without any spaces. Speaking purely subjectively, I don't like the way it looks. I think in terms of technical accessibility, it's easier to go with listings that are common domestically, especially in a country like Australia. In most cases, you simply don't have to call these listings overseas. Maybe for booking accomodation, but if you want to see how long the restaurant is open for, you're not going to call while you're still in your home country. My personal preference would be to format numbers as you see them in Australia, +61 XX XXXX XXXX. If we must keep it internationalised, then it should be +61 X XXXX XXXX. I don't have a strong preference either way, the difference is 1 digit after all, but I think that removing spaces isn't a good idea. --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you call using a mobile from another country, and don't include the country, it may try to call that number in your home country. So the country code is required. I agree that some spaces should be included, but I don't have a view on how it should be spaced. AlasdairW (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Australia as a continent

This article repeatedly refers to Australia as its own continent, however it is part of Oceania. Should we change this or keep it as it is? —The preceding comment was added by 82.3.185.12 (talk • contribs)

Keep as is - Australia is a continent (a landmass on its own continental shelf). Oceania is treated as a continent (a grouping of countries in a region of the world), but is not really a continent.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been somewhat debatable, and the history goes back to 1788. When the British first came, it wasn't called Australia, but the bit that they claimed as terra nullius was only in the eastern bit, all called "New South Wales" after departing from Wales. Later in the 1800s, when the Europeans came to modern day WA, it was the second colony. Then other colonies split up from New South Wales like Van Diemens Land (now tassie), South Australia, Victoria and Queensland. so there were 6 colonies, and all together on that one continent: Australia. Later when the federation formed to become an independent country, it was Australia. However, it was still a continent and a country. The country refers to the mainland, 6 island territories, Tasmania and the Australian Antarctic Territory. The continent only refers to the Australian Mainland, New Guinea, Tasmania, New Cal, Norfolk Island and a few other islands. This of course does not include Cocos and Christmas Island. But this still confuses many. This does remind me when I did geography tests and there'd be questions of "Which countries do deserts exist" and some will name continents - but getting a mark because Australia can be deemed both. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is too deep in the weeds. Should we argue that Central America and Arabia are separate continents because they have their own continental plates? I don't think so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Also everyone who lives in Australia refers to it as a country. I've not really heard anyone describe it as a continent, even though it might technically qualify. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I was always taught that it was a continent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I was also taught it was one of the 7 continents. (but really, there's only three; Afraustroeurasia, The Americas and Antarctica) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, what we should call a continent depends on our geographical hierarchy and what serves the travellers. A continent with a single country is not good for the hierarchy, and having Australia as a country in Oceania (and calling Oceania a continent) is not too confusing – it is reasonably common also outside Wikivoyage. Wikipedia avoids calling Oceania a continent, but covers it in its article on continents. We generally don't keep to the formal definitions when the traveller is better served by some compromise. –LPfi (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anyone calling for a change in the hierarchy, just a question about the use of the word "continent" in this article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Oops, yes. So: Wikipedia says (citing National Geographic): "Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents. Ordered from largest in area to smallest, these seven regions are: Asia, [...], and Australia. No problem calling Australia a continent, but when we talk about the country (such as in a context of immigration or money) we should call it a country – I hope that is what we are doing. –LPfi (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There was one instance where it was used incorrectly, that I've just changed. The rest (CTRL+F "continent") look alright.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

PNG is also part of the Australian continent. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Searching for continent neither I saw any instance of the word being used where "country" would have been better. I am not even sure about ThunderingTyphoons!'s change of continent to country in "As a large continent Australia has a wide variety of climates." citing "some of the most different climates are on Australian islands in the Pacific". I think "continent" was better. When the Climate section where the sentence is found says "Temperatures in [...] some southern regions can drop below freezing in winter (and sometimes even in the summer)" I don't take that to refer the Macquarie Island. Generally, somebody going to an island far from the main parts of a country should refer to the Climate section of that island (or in this case Subantarctic Islands), not to the country article.. –LPfi (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a huge preference over wording, except that it's not correct to say that Australia is a "large continent". Asia and America are large continents; Australia, by comparison, is a tiddler. What about "As a continent-sized country, Australia has..."?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I was locked in by the previous discussion. Country might be the best after all, but there should be a sentence or a few about the islands. "For the islands, see their respective article"? Or are we covering Christmas Island and Macquarie Island here? In that case perhaps "from Christmas Island at 10° to Macquarie Island at 55°, ...", to make clear we are in fact discussing also those. –LPfi (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @ThunderingTyphoons!: I don't like the phrase "a continent-sized country" as I don't think Russia or China (both having more land area than Australia) would ever be called that. 82.3.185.12 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally we should refer to it as a country, but it would not be inaccurate to say that Australia has an entire continent to itself. The dog2 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@The dog2: If Australia is its own continent, do countries like New Zealand and Papua New Guinea count as part of Australia? 82.3.185.12 18:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They're not part of Australia. We group them as part of Oceania just for logistical reasons, even though Oceania isn't really a continent. The dog2 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@The dog2: I see. 82.3.185.12 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to say: New Guinea is not part of Australia. It's the 3rd-largest island in the world. And if someone is arguing that PNG is part of Oceania and Irian Jaya is not, that's an obviously political argument not based on anything having to do with geography - which doesn't mean we should classify them differently, because ttcf is the fundamental basis for everything we do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Just so you know, the name Irian Jaya is no longer in official use in Indonesia. After the fall of Suharto, the name of the Indonesian half of the island was changed to "Papua". The dog2 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot that, but I think the point is made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

PNG is, the Solomon Islands is, NZ is not. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

24 hour clock for the following:

I propose to use 24 hour clocks for the following:

• Airport - a high must. there's not a single use of 12 hour clock here.
• Public Transport
• National Parks

This is because it's all written in 24 hr time. While North Queensland and the Northern Territory use 24, it gets confusing. Cafes also use 24 hr time, and more newer restaurants are using 24, but for now, it's better to leave it as 12.

Anyone disagrees. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a general policy of using only one time format in an article for ease of reading. In most cases, we stick with one time format per country for the same reason, with Scotland and Quebec being exceptions. There will be establishments that choose to show their hours in a different format from what is standard in the country, but does it really benefit the reader to follow their preferences, or does doing so just make Wikivoyage look inconsistent and messy? I haven't been to Australia, so I can't comment on usage there, but I think that our policy succeeds in making Wikivoyage easier to read and not so haphazard-looking. Ground Zero (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Since our first policy is the traveller comes first, it does become tedious to do converting after some time. Unlike the US, the UK or Canada, airports are always 24 hour and never 12. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There's also this:

“ Use one of these formats: 09:30–17:00 or 9:30AM–5PM. Do not use both 24- and 12-hour formats within one article. Choose between formats by following predominant local usage. ”

—Wikivoyage:TDF

So wouldn't it be better to use 24 hour time. Also, I've seen travellers look at the wrong section of timetables on public transport. e.g. People look at 0700 for 7PM when they're supposed to look at 1900. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000:It also says "Ask yourself which format visitors will see in timetables, on shop doors and in newspapers." It depends if 24-hour time is more common than 12-hour time in Australia. 82.3.185.12 17:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely disagree. Those things are not written in 24-hour time in either of the states I've lived in. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Because victoria and south australia absolutely do not use 24 hr time. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Strange effect of an edit

After this edit, that has nothing to do with the use of the regionlist template, the regionlist with its map has disappeared. The only remaining thing is the text Template:Regionlist. What is happening here? --FredTC (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the region list and a static map OK. Should there be something else? For the effect of the edit: it can affect caching, and a good version in your cache might have been exchanged for a broken one. The dynamic map and related features are sensitive to timeouts and similar problems, so can break if there is severe server load, generally or for some specific server. –LPfi (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

More info: the problem occurs only when I'm logged in withe several browsers. After Log out the page is displayed correct. After logging in again, the problem returns. --FredTC (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Right now, after a few edits by SHB2000, the problem has gone. --FredTC (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Logged-in users get a version that bypasses some of the caches, which should explain that behaviour. There was a good version in a cache somewhere, while in a cache closer to the source something was broken, but got updated by some of the edits (which per se had nothing to do with it). That's how I'd explain it anyway. –LPfi (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Australian phone numbers

Swept in from the pub

Hi all,

Would just like to seek clarification on Australian phone numbers. For most of my articles, I've formatted them like +61 [2 digit area code] [8 digit number], so, say, +61 03 1234 5678. I've noticed on a lot of other articles, the 0 will be removed, leaving just the single digit of the area code. This seems a bit counterintuitive to me. In almost all the businesses I see (though, granted, I have seen some that format it without the 0) the phone number starts with 03. Certainly, within Australia, if I call a number without the 0 it won't work. I get that the phone numbers are designed for international use, but given it works just as fine with the 0, should the 0 be used when formatting Australian numbers? --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On a mobile phone, can you enter "+610312345678", and get connected? AlasdairW (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not connected on my end, but I did make the number up so that's probably why. I tried calling my local KFC as a test, once without the 0 and once with. Worked with the 0 but not without. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The most important part of our phone number guidelines is that the numbers should be written in a way that works as such on (non-domestic) mobile phones, and as a result, when clicking on a phone number in a listing.

In most of the world, the leading zero in the area code is removed when calling from abroad or using the +... notation (there are a few exceptions). In a large country, most calls are made domestically, and thus writing out the zero makes sense, and the country code is often left out. When writing the zero together with country code, it is often in parenthesis, meaning it should be left out when using the country code. This convention makes sense locally, but it is not universally known and not what we use on Wikivoyage, and thus often confusing.

So if +31 2 1234 5678 works, then that is the format to use. It is also the format listed in Wikivoyage:Phone numbers-

–LPfi (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if I dial +610895819463 (fake phone number), it will work but it's generally preferred as +61895819463 rather than with the 0. And to User:LivelyRatification, that's the case since we're dialling the number locally and not internationally. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So including the "0" will work for those writing the numbers, but not for those calling from overseas? I'd suppose calls from abroad would work equally, as the part after +61 should be parsed by an Australian exchange. Anyway, including the zero is confusing as it is left out in most of the world, and both Wikivoyage:Phone numbers and Australia#Dialling codes leaves it out.

The phone number format is explained in Australia#Dialling codes, as it should. Having read it, travellers can easily transform our number format to something usable on land lines (the same system is used in most of the world, so confusing for few). The section includes discussion on the "+" notation, which is valid globally and could probably be left out.

–LPfi (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hope this table helps:

Example	+61	not +61
0412345678	Works	Will not work
491837573	Will not work (this will go to the local dialling area)	Will not work
+61820395205	Works (sometimes won't work if +61 is not included)	Works
+610733817204	Works, but not always	Works

SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the real question is resolved: we should use +61 x 123-456 without the leading zero of the area code.

But the table is confusing (including or not including +61 both horizontally and vertically). As I interpret it it makes little sense, are the +61/not +61 columns reversed? Are some of these numbers special (such as 04 the Australian-wide prefix)?

–LPfi (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Only use 04 if it's an Aussie phone. If not, then use +614. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

But what does it mean that +61820395205 works without +61, sometimes also with +61? You say "will not work" for 0412345678 means "works only with Aussie phones", which is not the obvious interpretation. You say 0412345678 works with +61 (presumably as +610412345678) while +61491837573 "will go to local dialling area", is that equivalent to 12345678 from a landline? And what is the difference between +61820395205 with and without +61, and how does +61820395205 with "not +61" differ from with "+61, with +61 not included"? I am afraid the table did not help me to figure out how the scheme works. –LPfi (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If I may, I believe the column headers refer to whether or not the call is being placed from the +61 country code, not whether the +61 is included in the number dialed. Powers ^(talk) 16:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as i'as too lazy to type Australian mobile and vice versa. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ned Kelly worth mentioning in the history section

Is it? He's one of the most notable historic people who ended corruption against the Irish who were discriminated? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

South Australian spelling

I did quite some digging into the different spelling of harbor in SA, and whether it was official or not. Turns out that SA actually officially spells harbour as harbor. This government website quotes:

In the 1860s when port facilities were established, the name 'Port Victor' came into use. There was ongoing confusion with Port Victoria on the west coast, culminating in the barque Eugene Schneider running aground at Port Victoria in January 1921. Later that year the State government gazetted all South Australian harbours with the spelling 'harbor' - including official reversion of the name to Victor Harbor. This is not an American spelling, but an archaic English spelling. People who grew up at Victor could attend the Victor Harbour High School - opposite the Victor Harbor Council - and travel to Adelaide by train from the Victor Harbour Railway Station. In the 1980s the local newspaper (originally named Victor Harbour Times but by then re-named Victor Harbor Times) ran a name and shame campaign against all instances of non use of the 'official' spelling. Consequently the colourful (colorful?) inconsistencies ceased -apart from the name of the railway station.

I've highlighted all the important bits, and my main question is to whether to use "harbor" for South Australian articles given that the SA government officially uses "harbor" (not "harbour"), do we accept the use of "harbor" only in SA articles (but still use "harbour" in the Australia article, even when it talks about SA harbo[u]rs) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That only showcases the official spelling of some proper nouns, but at least during my time there, the "harbour" spelling with the "u" is more common when not part of a proper noun. The dog2 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nitmiluk National Park being an "Other destination"

No offense to whoever made that list, but... I'd prefer to replace that destination. Not only is it not an article, it's only just simply mentioned in Katherine#Do, giving voy a terrible look. Given the large new number of park articles I've recently created, would replacing it with Dorrigo National Park or Daintree National Park make sense? (a guide and a usable park respectively). Both are UNESCO world heritage sites as well, and I feel that Nitmiluk is too similar to Kakadu NP minus the cultural significance of Kakadu.

Another reason to possibly replace that, is that Australia isn't well known for it's rainforests, despite it being home to some of the world's oldest rainforests, but I personally feel it should be given some recognition. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you are best equipped to weight the importance of the different parks. I am a little confused by your saying that Nitmiluk is too similar to Kakadu NP, although for the former, its geological features are emphasised, while not mentioned in the article on the latter. Another observation: Kakadu National Park says "Kakadu National Park and Arnhem Land comprise more than 110,000 km²" without telling what Arnhem has to do with the park. –LPfi (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

When I mean "too similar", I mean in geography. If you compare the photos below

• 
  Kakadu Nat Park
• 
  A saltwater (Australian slang: Salty) in Kakadu
• 
  More of Kakadu
• 
  Edith Falls in Nitmiluk. Notice the same "dry but wet" scene?
• 
  This is somewhat the look if you go to the southern areas of Kakadu NP which is about -13/-14° from the equator, but this photo is in Nitmiluk NP

Given the large number of new guide rainforest articles (currently sits at two, but I plan to get w:New England National Park to guide as well. currently in my userspace) we have, why not replace it with that? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

And to Arnhem Land, it's a large area of sacred land which Kakadu falls under. It's the only place in Arnhem land easily accessible, but I think that was intended to convey the vast distance, which the area is often underestimated (more particularly by people from Europe minus the Nordic countries, the US and SE Asia given it looks tiny on a map given it's so close to the equator) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we just need to add something on the relation between the park and Arnhem. Aomething like "the park covers the XX corner of Arnhem Land, which [something about its vastness]". For the geology: OK, the section on landscape is just too short currently. –LPfi (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

On another note, if we do replace this with either Dorrigo or Daintree, we'll need to find a better alternative to go in the New South Wales or Queensland article. I'm not sure what to replace in the Queensland article, but Dorrigo can certainly be replaced with New England Nat Park or Budderoo Nat Park, two newly created guide articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And when I mentioned "I plan to get New England National Park to guide", it's now a guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To solve this issue with the state articles, I presume that this plan works:

if:

• Dorrigo NP comes to this page, the NSW page should be substituted with either New England NP (guide), Budderoo NP (guide) or Oxley Wild Rivers NP (usable)

else if:

• Daintree NP comes to this page, the Queensland page should be substituted with Boodjamulla National Park, which works

or

• replace Nitmiluk NP with one of these parks, and leave the NSW or Queensland article as it is

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm replacing that with Daintree Nat Park, even though it's only usable, not guide merely because it's only a couple of degrees from the equator. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Replacing Watarrka National Park with Mungo National Park

• A usable article vs. a star nomination article
• An ordinary park vs. a UNESCO world heritage park in the mixed category
• A park that's very similar to that of Kakadu vs. something of a landscape that's not mentioned here at all

I think you get the point. Mungo Nat Park in my opinion, is a much better article to put in the #Other destinations section, and it gives voy a better impression than just a usable park (I'm not denying that it's a good article, but when there's a better article to add, we may as well do that).

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A different park that is a UNESCO world heritage vs a similar that isn't seems like a no-brainer, unless Watarrka National Park is very popular or well-known, or has something else to speak for it. –LPfi (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Watarrka, I don't think it's that well known. The likely cause of why Mungo is more popular is because it's only a 150 km diversion from the highway linking Sydney and Adelaide, and while Watarrka Nat Park is just about 15 km more at 165 km, very few people travel the five or six hour journey from Alice Springs to Uluru as most Australians haven't even been to Uluru. And while there is a shortcut from north of Watarrka Nat Park to Alice Springs, that road doesn't seem to be a paved road, and probably why it likely gets a vehicle once every two or three days and why the park isn't known by many. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely Mungo, I’ve never heard of the other one. Tai123.123 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also never heard of the other one as well before I came to voy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Dandy ranges

Are the Dandenong Ranges really that interesting to go in the other destinations section? Last time I went there (it was the only time as well and I'm never going there again), I was only to come back very disappointed. How about replacing that with Purnululu National Park, as there's no other destinations from Western Australia listed? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Australia#Other destinations says: "these beautiful ranges offer world class gardens and picturesque villages". That is different from the other destinations listed. Is it just that you don't appreciate gardens and picturesque villages, or where the landscapes, gardens and villages mediocre (or difficult to experience in a good way)? The national park is a world heritage site, so is certainly a good candidate unless something speaks for the villages. –LPfi (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Those villages were indeed nice, but the unfortunate issue is that now in the past couple of years, that area has always been hit by storms, there's never been a good time to visit the place these days as the recovery takes time, only for another storm to hit the area again.

My uncle used to live near those ranges in the 90s, before the storms got violent, and he did indeed say it was a nice place back then. But these days, it's not that same kind of place, and you'd see trees lying all over the place and there's been three major storms since June. Oh and there are also beautiful villages in the Blue Mountains, but those don't get hit by storms that frequently. (this article has a little bit of the issue facing this region, as the region has been declining for a while now, except the lower areas, which aren't the highlight of the area)

But my experience was that capital of Canberra was more known for these, and those were indeed nice, something that I'd like to see again, and I used go there every spring for their Floriade festival (it's been some time since I last went there, as my schedule since 2016 has not been freeing and hence I've not been able to go here).

But in my opinion, I'd like to have one place from every state here. Unfortunately, there's none in Western Australia, the largest one, so why not? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Redoing the #Other destinations bit

As you may have seen from my threads above, I'd like to propose a complete new set of #Other destinations, which I'd like to comprise of mostly UNESCO World Heritage Sites or very important non-UNESCO sites. Here's them below.

• 1 Blue Mountains — a mountainous region in New South Wales, including the "Three Sisters" natural feature
• 2 Daintree National Park — includes a well preserved tropical rainforest, home to the largest groups of Cassowaries
• 3 Great Barrier Reef — see first hand this natural wonder, off the coast of Queensland and the world's largest coral reef system
• 4 Great Ocean Road — a spectacular coastal drive in Victoria past many scenic icons including the "Twelve Apostles" rocks standing in the ocean and the world's largest war memorial
• 5 Kakadu National Park — outback adventure travel, aboriginal culture and nature activities in the Northern Territory
• 6 Kosciuszko National Park — largest national park in New South Wales, home to a number of ski resorts and one of the seven summits
• 7 Mungo National Park – home to some of the oldest human bodies outside Africa and also the world's oldest cremated body; Mungo Lady
• 8 Purnululu National Park – includes the Bungle Bungle Range, a spectacularly incised landscape of sculptured rocks rising over 250 metres high
• 9 Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park — Uluru (also known as Ayers Rock) and Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) are iconic rock formations in the "Red Centre" in the middle of the Australian desert

If needed, I suppose something like a park from the Tasmanian Wilderness could also be included too or swapped with Kosciuszko Nat Park, but the list has gotten too long per 7+2. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Or in simple, the only two listed here that are not UNESCO WHS are Kosciuszko National Park and the Great Ocean Road. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's no objections, will replace tomorrow. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Done SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What happens when all articles breadcrumbed under a country become usable or higher?

Swept in from the pub

Sorry for not knowing this, even though I seem to have 28k edits under my belt, I haven't been here long enough to know how this works. But back to the point, I have as of today 22:00 UTC+11, finished upgrading all articles breadcrumbed under Australia to usable or higher thanks to the work of numerous contributors (sole exception is Heard Island and McDonald Islands, but that's not breadcrumbed under Australia), but what would happen to the country article? Would it become a guide article or not? (I'm sorry if I sound like I know nothing here, because I've never seen this happen so have no idea) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WV:Country article status lists the criteria for 'Guide' level. Even if they're not all met, getting all those articles up to 'Usable' was by far the biggest job, and a great achievement in its own right.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TT. I would get important destinations like Uluru and Sydney to guide and a couple regions/states to guide in order to make Australia a guide-status country article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact I don't see that any other articles need to be guide for a region or country to be guide. The problem is getting the linked articles (regions, cities etc.) up to usable. It seems you now can get any region – or the country – up to guide just by improving the page itself. Having important destinations up to guide would of course be nice. –LPfi (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've upgraded it to guide. Thanks to all of you :) (Uluru and Sydney are already guide though) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 19:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Having a look at all of them, all state capitals apart from Perth and Brisbane seem to be a guide article, along with the capital of Canberra.

When it comes to major parks, Uluru, and Kakadu are both guide, and some others such as Dorrigo National Park and New England National Park (not well known) are also guide. Only one star park (Sydney Harbor National Park) and Mungo National Park will soon be there. Great Barrier Reef and Purnululu National Park are usable, but those should be guide articles (might get some help from an editor from Wikipedia for Purnululu and might to the GBR myself.

And then there's good rural towns such as Stratford (Victoria) that LivelyRatification mostly wrote, Kununurra, having been written in the old days of Wikitravel and KevRobbAU/KevRobbSCO's numerous guide articles. Think that's enough guide articles for the country article to be a guide article, but there's never enough guide articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)