Err, Australia has a range of timezones, much the US (being the same size and all...). Seems kind of silly to put just AEST timezone there? (especially since its wrong right now with daylight savings...)
Australia is the BIG country. It has a whole continent to itself! We cannot have every city listed here. What should be the criteria for listing? Cities with an international airport? Airport hubs? Key tourist cities? Ports? Surely it should be limited to the places an international traveler should first encounter.
Other places can be pushed down to the state pages and then down to their region pages. Like I have done with Ararat, Victoria. -- Huttite 23:01, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)
Sydney has one of the world’s most cosmopolitan societies. They have an extraordinary variety of restaurants, religions, community centers and cultural activities
that can be found throughout the city. Tourists have enjoyed going to the Auburn Mosque – a lavish mosque in a Turkish community, Lakemba – a living monument to Islam, Little Italy – home to the Italian community, and the Irish Parade – Held on March 17th of every year (Brass & McKenzie 40).
Anyone know under what statute hitchhiking is illegal in Aust? And what the wording of the law is? Nurg 01:54, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)
Sounds odd to me, I can't Google up a single reference for this. Jpatokal 00:50, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)
Some research I did on this subject because it intrigued me and I had heard that it was illegal in some way. What I can find is rather obscure and suggests hitchiking is legal in Australia, but you can only hitchhike while standing on a footpath. What is illegal is the standing in or by the roadway while flaging down a ride!
The Northern Territory Government website, under (Australian) Traffic Regulations, says it is an offence to obstruct traffic if soliciting ... a ride ... from within the roadway, the roadway includes a road-related area but does not include a foot path. In other words you can hitchhike in Australia provided you stay on the footpath.
Northern Territory Police say nothing about hitchhiking being illegal, however.
Queensland Police  say do not hitchike, warn drivers not to pick up hitchhikers and say it is an offense to hitchike from a road - though do not say under what law (traffic?) - which seems to imply the Northern Territory law is an Australian traffic law.
This link  also suggests it is illegal in Queensland - which given that state's conservative nature it probably would be publicised as that anyway, whatever the law really said.
This link  also suggests hitchhiking is illegal in some Australian states and is strongly discouraged nationally.
South Australia Police say Avoid hitchhiking but do not say it is illegal there.
West Australia Police  say nothing about it in information for backpackers.
New South Wales say nothing about hitchhiking.
Tasmania Police websites down but Tasmania Online  search only returns one, non-government document, which seemed to be pro-hitchhiking, probably meaning it is not illegal there.
Victoria Police and Government websites were down when I checked but as that state is hot on road safety they probably would police any hitchhiking law if they had one.
Australian Federal Police website was also down, so no ACT or national picture.
I think the conclusion I have come to, barring more authorative information, is hitchhiking is not actually illegal in Australia but it is a traffic offence to stand on or by the road when you try to get/ask for a ride, unless you are standing on the footpath. If there is no footpath, you cannot ask for a ride from the roadside, though if somebody stopped and offered you a lift from the road that you were walking beside that is probably not illegal for them to do, assuming they could stop legally. -- Huttite 06:48, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)
Thanks Huttite, that's great. Nurg 03:59, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)
I notice that some websites are actually quoting Wikitravel as to the legality of hitch-hiking in Australia. This is very odd, when the above research is so flawed - checking a couple of websites, a few of which were not available. Hitchhiking (standing by the side of the road, signaling cars to stop, and then getting into them) is illegal in NSW. --inas 20:03, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
The Australian Road Rules seem to imply that hitchhiking is legal so long as you stay off the road. This is from the most up to date version of the rules as of Dec 2011:
236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) to (3) deleted as they're not relevent here.
(4) A pedestrian must not stand on, or move onto, a road to:
(a) solicit contributions, employment or business from an occupant of a vehicle; or
(b) hitchhike; or
(c) to (e) deleted
12 How the Road Rules define a "road"
(1) A road is an area that is open to or used by the public and is developed for, or has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles.
(2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in the Australian Road Rules (except in this Division) to a road does not include a reference to:
(a) an area so far as the area is declared, under another law of this jurisdiction, not to be a road for the Australian Road Rules; or
(b) any shoulder of the road.
(3) The shoulder of the road includes any part of the road that is not designed to be used by motor vehicles in travelling along the road, and includes:
(a) for a kerbed road — any part of the kerb; and
(b) for a sealed road — any unsealed part of the road, and any sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the road; but does not include a bicycle path, footpath or shared path.
However, the NTC website these regulations came from say that they are guidelines only and that they are modified by local legislation. That said, I carry a copy with me when I hitch so that at least if I do get stopped by the police I can show I'm a responsible hitcher (yeah I know it sounds geeky, but who needs the hassel). I've been stopped twice in two years of hitching in NSW and Vic, both times the police told me it was illegal and moved us on but didn't fine us. In NSW they were also kind enough to point out we were hitching at the wrong end of town to get to Sydney!
Police have told you it is illegal twice. The road rules say you can't enter the road area for the purposes of hitchhiking (presumably also including getting into a car that has stopped on the road). You carry around a copy of the road rules, in case you are stopped again, hoping your interpretation will be accepted, and you won't end up fined.
All this is fine and good. Except for the bit where we end up a source for hitching being legal in Australia. --Inas 19:12, 18 December 2011 (EST)
Can anyone recommend a site for searching cheap domestic fares within Australia? Most of the sites I'm using in America (travelocity, expedia, kayak) only know of Qantas. --DropDeadGorgias 11:09, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
Like the main page says, you can only get the best fare on a flight between two points in Australia by searching all the airlines that fly there directly on their web page. To the best of my knowledge, there is no search that will give you the best fare and full availability on all the airlines that fly the route. Usually you only have 2-3 airlines to check, so it doesn't take that long. None of the discount websites offer a cheaper fare than the domestic airlines do on their websites. Check the local guides for info. --inas 21:23, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
"Red Back spiders are also a major risk in Australia, people have reportedly been carried away by carpets of Red Back spiders"
Yeah right. I would love to see a source for this.
This can be corroborated here. Alternatively, you can plunge forward and make any needed corrections yourself. -- Ryan 21:34, 23 February 2006 (EST)
Since the anonymous user didn't take the bait I've removed that paragraph. To others, if something looks wrong please just go ahead and fix it, that's how a Wiki works. -- Ryan 14:27, 3 March 2006 (EST)
Ha! Sounds like the "drop-bears"!
Also in this category might be... "the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (including Jervis Bay)" -- what? I don't believe it is actually officially part of the ACT? I did hear it was a separate commonwealth territory but the point is certainly moot since the ACT achieved self-government? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure enough about this that I'm going to remove the reference for now -- Stephen Mok 16:29, 27 May 2006 (EDT)
Refering to the introduction. Why is Perth not listed alongside Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. As far as I'm concerned Perth is a more globally significant city than Adelaide. Perth is larger and faster growing than Adelaide. Perth is on the Indian ocean and is closer to international capitals like Jakarta and Singapore. Adelaide faces Antartica. Not meaning to offend anyone from the beautiful city of Adelaide I just thought I'd try and get some facts and add some equality to this article. Is there any reason why Perth should not be added.
"Those towns that do have GSM coverage are usually served only by Telstra." - this is not completely correct as there are many towns that only have Optus coverage (I have visited and driven through many), but this above statement (modified) would be true for CDMA coverage. Information that may also be worth linking: [Mobile phone coverage in Australia] & [Mobile Roaming in Australia] (These government sources are updated fairly often) 188.8.131.52 09:19, 29 October 2006 (EST) (wikipedia:User:MrMabs)
"The Red Back spider (easily identified by a red mark on its abdomen), is more common but not life threatening."
The Red Back spider bite can be fatal. It's just no one has been killed by one for a long time because there's antivenom and the poison is slow acting. I'd in no way suggest that a red back spider bite should be taken lightly though. It's probably the equivalent of the widow spider in the US. We just have more of a sense of humour when it comes to deadly animals over here. So if it takes a day to kill you, you can get to the hospital and you'll be right. I'd suggest someone changes it.
Secondly you forgot the paralysis tick. It's probably a more common one than many of the others. Though again you'll end up in hospital and they'll figure out whats wrong before you die. Couldn't find that much information on it on the internet. But from what I know unlike most ticks the ones on the east coast of Australia bring on slow paralysis over a matter of days. If untreated or not removed they can cause full respiratory failure and be fatal. Though this is far more common in animals, if you get one somewhere you don't notice it, it can do a lot of damage.
It might be good to add something about the huntsman on the deadly spider bit or somewhere too. I know it's harmless, but almost all tourists when they see it for the first time assume it's the most dangerous creature in the country :).
Someone has put a great deal of effort into listing every public transport route in Australia, but the main country article is really not the place for that - rather than listing every route for a country, it is more useful to list main ways into and out of a city in the city articles. The rationale is twofold: one, a user visiting Brisbane will be using the Brisbane article - they aren't then going to refer back to the Australia article to figure out how to move on. And second, listing every route for a country is difficult to maintain, and it makes the country article much less readable. Alternatively, articles are occasionally created such as Rail travel in Europe that offer detailed discussions of how to get around a particular area, and that might be a possibility for this information.
Although Australia is often called a continent, this is usually to discredit it as the largest island in the world......it's huge in comparison to most islands (3 times the size of Greenland).... but technically the continent of Australia also includes Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Can we agree to drop this descriptor? There are plenty of other --- more correct descriptives to use about Australia.
184.108.40.206 10:02, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
In textbooks, it is classified as a continent, and I've always interpreted that as an honorific, not an attempt by rabid pro-Greenland factions to steal what rightly belongs to fair Oz. Gorilla Jones 11:00, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm happy enough to keep referring to it as a continent: even the strict geographical truth is not quite what 220.127.116.11 alleges in any case: New Zealand is not on the Australian continental shelf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent) However, I don't claim expertise here: I've never got into so much as a calm discussion, let alone a fight, with anyone trying to deny Australia the status of an island Hypatia 09:52, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
A "continent" is a major LAND-MASS - Not a grouping of land-masses. People often make this error. Australia has always been considered a continent. PNG and NZ are seperate to the continent of Australia (as indeed is Tasmania - seperate to the continent of Australa, but part of the political union of Australia). In the same way, the UK is seperate to the "continent" of Europe, but part of the EU political union. Forget political or regional groupings however when talking about "continents". Continents are "land-masses". Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onthemove (talk • contribs) 13:42, 3 October 2010
Your description is overly-simplistic. By your definition, Long Island is not part of North America, Sicily is not part of Europe, and Sri Lanka is not part of Asia. Should we change the description of Europe to state that it is a "continent plus several other non-continental islands"? Doesn't that strike you as silly? We use a colloquial definition of the word here -- but do note, even if you use the geological definition of a continent, it quite properly includes all land masses on the same continental shelf, which in the case of Australia, certainly includes Tasmania, if not some of the other islands. LtPowers 15:03, 3 October 2010 (EDT)
Your are correct - a clear and correct description of what the word "continent" means is indeed simple. YES, you are again correct, an island, seperated from a continental landmass, does NOT form part of the continental landmass - perfect example, Hawaii, whilst part of the US political union, is not part of the continent of North Amercia. Continents are LAND-MASSES, they are not political unions, economic unions or geographic unions!
Totally agree that continents are land masses, not other artificial unions. The mention of Europe forgets the fact that the word Europe has 3 distinct meanings - the continental landmass, the landmass plus UK/Ireland etc, and the European Union countries, --Dmol 05:52, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
The Stay safe and Contact sections mention renting a satellite phone may be a good idea for trips into the outback. While renting (or buying) Iridium phones might be a bit expensive, it would be good to note that in the next few months (or even weeks) Thuraya coverage should extend and cover Australia also. Thuraya is much cheaper than Iridium or even Globalstar (which is not a good option anyway at the moment due to technical problems) and would probably be the best choice for most travelers.Jamboo 09:26, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
This article claims that BYO restaurants are important, and visitors should look out for them. Actually they are more a 1970s phenomenon, and, unfortunately, are not very common today. I tried changing this but all my changes got reverted. 18.104.22.168 02:31, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
BYO restaurants are important for a visitor to understand. Try searching eatability.com.au for the THOUSANDS of results for BYO restaurants. They are still commonly found outside of expensive city restaurants. The local Thai or Chinese is more than likely BYO. Of course if you are into fine dining, you probably won't encounter BYO, but I think visitor looking to enjoy a nice wine with their meal could do worse then to seek out their local BYO restaurant. --Inas 23:09, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree that BYO is much more common than indicated in the article. In Sydney in particular almost any restaurant will offer BYO that is not considered fine dining.
The article claims there are many bbq restaurants where one buys raw meat and barbecues it. Apart from the rare mongolian place (but where you do not actually bbq it yourself), I have never heard of such a thing in Australia. I'd love to see a list of actual places offering this! I tried changing this but all my changes got reverted. 22.214.171.124 02:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
The Phillips Foote in the rocks is famous for this. See picture for a man in from the BBQ doing exactly what is suggested. The Mosman Rower's also. Just pick your steak or chicken from the fridge, walk over to the grill, and get cooking. I've also seen the same thing around Childers in Queensland, and a few other places. It may not be common, but it certainly does exist. Phillips Foote in Sydney is certainly a place where tourist may encounter this form of dining - do not venture in without a master of the tongs... --Inas 02:02, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I dispute the accuracy of the following:
Counter lunch. If you were raised in a British household, you will know what it is to have a roast beef or lamb, potatoes and peas. Most traditional pubs in Australia offer what is called a counter lunch. For around five dollars, you can sit at the bar at lunch time and have a very hearty British meal of meat, potatoes, gravy and veggies. With a nice cold beer of course. This British influence is prevalent in a whole range of grocery store items like pasties and sausage rolls.
Firstly, I think it is a major stretch to imply that this sort of thing is in any way common these days. And what, precisely, is a traditional pub in Australia? Standard pubs in the 1970s and 1980s offered counter lunches, true, but it is not all that common today.
Secondly, the type of food described here does not sound anything like any pub meal i have ever heard of (chicken parmagiana, steaks and salad, steak and chips are more typical).
Thirdly, no counter meal i have ever heard of is eaten at the bar! It is always served in the Lounge section of the building, which was set up as a restaurant.
Fourthly, just how useful is this information to a traveller???? And the cost! Five Dollars?!? I don't think so.
126.96.36.199 02:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
There's no polite way to say this. The entire hitchhiking section is pretty useless and full of misleading and false information. Section reproduced below:
It is not illegal to hitchhike in Australia though it is an offence to obstruct traffic by "soliciting ... a ride ... from within the roadway". If you stay on the footpath, you're legally in the clear.
The great distances between towns in the Outback (or inner desert regions) can make hitchhiking difficult, but many travelers have made the coast-to-coast trek. Hitchhiking is more popular along the coastal regions (between Melbourne and Sydney, for example). During the 1990s several travellers went missing after hitchhiking along this route and were found to have been murdered by a serial killer. The perpetrator of these crimes has now been imprisoned; however, if you choose to hitchhike, you should use great caution.
The very lightly populated outback regions in Australia can provide the unique opportunity of a ride in a road train. Waits can be long and the climate harsh but the local people very warm and inviting and supportive of any venture to move around by hitchhiking (public transport is often non-existent). It is highly advisable if venturing into these regions without your own transport to carry enough food and water with you for at least a day and carry a good sun hat and warm clothes — people do die in these areas from lack of preparation.
In most Australian cities and towns, hitchhiking is often frowned upon, which can make getting a ride extremely difficult as many Australians are not generally comfortable with the idea of allowing a complete stranger to enter their car.
Hitchhiking in the outback!?!? Seems pretty unlikely to me! Has any traveller/tourist ever actually done this?! Seems highly unlikely, and in any event, foolhardy.
Hitchhiking more popular in coastal regions. I dispute that it is popular. In fact, it is rare among locals and travellers alike
Then there's mention of a serial killer!! Ivan Milat was arrested in 1994. Why is that mentioned at all? Not too relevant really. Is this the world's only crime perpretrated on hitchhikers? No?? Then in that case, why is it mentioned here on this travel site?
Riding in a road train is hardly unique, as the prime mover is the standard largesize cabin found across Australia not ot mention multiple countries. And see my comments on hitching in the outback.
The only bit that concurs with reality is the last paragraph.
I'm reluctant to make any changes myself as I've tried that and all my edits got instantly reverted. 188.8.131.52 16:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
With all due respect, have you ever hitchhiked in Australia, or are you just basing your comments on your preconceptions? There are plenty of people who have and whose experiences seem more in sync with the current text than your version. See eg. this girl, who says (and I quote) "Once you are in the rural areas it gets a lot easier, and in the Outback it's super easy." Jpatokal 08:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
She also contradicts a lot of what this page claims. She claims it very difficult outside the outback which this site does not say. She says it is virtually impossible for a male to get a ride - this site does not say that either. Most important - she is not specific about what regions she is talking about when using the term outback. Not too many people actually regard "outside Katherine" as being the outback. But since we are quting her, I'll quote this from her: "The question comes up every now and again in Australia travel forums and the answer is usually, "Oh no, don't do it. Too dangerous, not enough traffic, and the backpacker killings, yada, yada..."" 184.108.40.206 15:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
You're not quoting that from her, she gives it as the stereotypical response, and goes on to give her own opinion: "All the people who have been hitchhiking in Australia for years and years and many thousand kilometres, and who met lots of great people and had a wonderful time, you never read their story in a newspaper. My story is such a story."
And where do you see "very difficult" or "virtually impossible"? I see "If you are male you will spend a lot more time waiting at the side of the road" (true anywhere) and "The more traffic the harder it is to get a ride" (also true anywhere). Jpatokal 04:42, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
The whole concept of hitchhiking is pretty irrelevant i reckon. I know people who used to do it years ago, and people who have done it when they are desperate, but let's face it, hitchiking isn't that safe and we shouldn't be promoting it as a way to see Australia.
That is as true anywhere, as it is in Australia. Risks which exist the world over, don't need to be identified specifically to Australia. If you hitchhike, there are risks that the hitchhiker is well aware of, and has accepted. The same as the plane traveller accepts the risk of falling out of the sky. We need to identify here only additional risks or peculiarities to Australia, give the facts to the traveller, and they can decide. My biggest issue is the variation in what people call the outback. Some towns like Katherine, Broken Hill, Coober Pedy, etc advertise themselves as the outback. If you have a problem, or can't get a ride in these towns, then solving the problem is as easy as camping for the night and catching a bus the next day. These towns are also on the main truck and travel routes. When people talk about hitching the outback, I think this is what they mean. This isn't what I think of as the outback, however. Away from the trucking routes, where a bus never comes and cars can be days or weeks apart on some roads. In that outback, then you need to think differently. --Inas 17:36, 3 December 2008 (EST)
I just pruned the hitchhiking section. This is what I did and why:
The great distances between towns in the Outback (or inner desert regions) can make hitchhiking difficult
I removed this because it's blatantly misleading and wrong. Hitch-hiking is as often made easier by great distances as it is made more difficult. Having hitched the whole countrye extensively (and other countries) I know this to be true empirically.
Hitchhiking is more popular along the coastal regions (between Melbourne and Sydney, for example). During the 1990s several travellers went missing after hitchhiking along this route
This is possibly true but nothing more than an opinion with no justification to support it. If it's true I suspect it's true for the following reasons:
Most Australians live in coastal regions. So everything, from hitchhiking to nose picking is more popular common and hence possibly perceived as popular in coastal regions. So what?
Hitch-hiking is most popular (and I can find literature to support this is requested) where there is poor public transport infrastructure, much distance to cover and youth in combination. For this reason I've found it to be quite accepted and common on the south coast of NSW for example, and not in retirement villages, or suburbia.
Hitching the Hume is almost certainly as popular as any coastal route! I've lost count of the times I did that (the inland rout between Sydney and Melbourne), because its fast.
During the 1990s several travellers went missing after hitchhiking along this route and were found to have been murdered by a serial killer. The perpetrator of these crimes has now been imprisoned; however, if you choose to hitchhike, you should use great caution.
Stuff and nonsense. They were dumped in the Belangalo state forest which isn't on a coastal route by any measure (except perhaps when viewed from the moon where maybe). Moreover to caution people against hitchhiking because of one crazed lune that bumped a few off is no more warranted than cautioning them against visiting tourist sites because Martin Bryant killed 35 people at one (a heck of lot more than Ivan Milat - the afforementioned perpetrator bumped off). I've always had to berate people willing to hold up such incidents against hitching but not against going to school because folk Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold run around with semi-automatics at them bumping of other kids. It just makes no sense, and is misleading emotive stuff and nonsense. I can and will if asked cite all the research (which you yourself can find on-line as I have already reviewed and republished key extracts a decade ago) that concludes objectively that there is no reason to believe hitch-hiking is any more dangerous than most anything else you're doing (like drive, crossing the road, walking in town at night, visiting nightclubs, bars, hangliding, scuba diving ... you name it ...).
In most Australian cities and towns, hitchhiking is often frowned upon, which can make getting a ride extremely difficult as many Australians are not generally comfortable with the idea of allowing a complete stranger to enter their car.
Says who? Again, stuff and nonsense made up by someone. Sure there's a lot of people frown on hitchhiking. A lot of them live in towns and cities. So what's new? A lot of people frown on marijuana and a lot of those live in towns and cities. Hey, a lot of people frown on leather pants and a lot of those live in towns and cities. Want to share something of relevance. And then the leap of logic that this makes getting rides difficult. I've never found getting rides particularly difficult in Australia. Almost anywhere I've hitched bar the far outback, wait times averaged in urban or populated areas to about 30 minutes. About the same as all over Europe and Asia and the U.S. that I've experienced. If you think that's difficult you need to adjust your expectations before flagging a ride. And sure that's an average of about 30 minutes. Sometimes it's 2 hours, sometimes it's 1 minute.
In response then to the previous Discussion entry above:
Hitchhiking in the outback!?!? Seems pretty unlikely to me! Has any traveller/tourist ever actually done this?! Seems highly unlikely, and in any event, foolhardy.
I've done it extensively and so have many other. It is, to be frank one of the most rewarding experiences I can recommend of the Australian experience. I can wax lyrical on it, but in summary I've never waited more than 3 days for a ride and I've hitched the most unlikely outback tracks and would be prepared to hitch ANY outback track if I felt like it. Sure, I know how it's done, and I know how to prepare myself but it's not nearly as bad, logistically difficult or weird as you think. Indeed it's often an outrageously positive and rewarding experience. But there's an essay in that.
Hitchhiking more popular in coastal regions. I dispute that it is popular. In fact, it is rare among locals and travellers alike
This I'd concur with. Even in places where I've found it quite well accepted it's not popular. The young people mostly stopped doing it on account of Milat driven paranoias, but it still works quite well for those who do hitch. Not least of all because the roads are full of people wishing they saw more hitchhikers (me included, I pick em up whenever I see them and I can make space, heck I even gave a guy aride about 1km in suburbia not too long ago don't find many thumbs out there believe me).
Then there's mention of a serial killer!! Ivan Milat was arrested in 1994. Why is that mentioned at all? Not too relevant really. Is this the world's only crime perpretrated on hitchhikers? No?? Then in that case, why is it mentioned here on this travel site?
I concur! Totally weird thing to bring up, see my arguments above. So what I say? Why not throw in some more irrelevant facts like the price of tea in China. Seems obvious to me that if the price of tea in china goes up that hitch-hiking might be a little safer because more nice Chinese folk will migrate to Australia where tea is more affordable ... ha ha.
Riding in a road train is hardly unique, as the prime mover is the standard largesize cabin found across Australia not to mention multiple countries. And see my comments on hitching in the outback.
Well it's unusual. I've never ridden in road train anywhere but the North West of Queensland and by thumb. Sure it's not unique (take to its extreme that means there was one road train driven once by one person who had one experience, end of story), but I'd leave that piece of rhetoric intact conveying the relative interest many travellers might have in an experience that most travellers never have.
I'm reluctant to make any changes myself as I've tried that and all my edits got instantly reverted.
Sounds like a wiki war. The conservative prats oughtn't win ;-). Let them debate it here, and prune of remove the whole danged section until there some agreement it's not just opinionated trash, but useful information.
In summary, yeah, yada yada. I've hitched most of Australia extensively anything from alone as an unkempt hairy male standing 6'2" to in couples, and even in a group of five (and got rides that way up into the South Australian Outback!) The stuff and nonsense written by people who have never tried, nor even tried to review the literature of hitch-hikers (and there is some out there) but just parrot social stereotypes is a little perturbing and I must and do often take a stand against it.
Totally agreed it's amazing how these editors think they know the answers to all, on the matter of hitch hiking it's clear he knows nothing. Oh these academic do-gooders!!! Careful boys when you step ou of the house!! —The preceding comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
So fix it. This is your guide, too. LtPowers 09:38, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Is there any rules or notes about phone number consistency in entries? I've been browsing/editing a few South Australia related articles and there are a lot which just use the 10 digit phone numbers in one string. Some also use the (00) 1111 2222 format (which I think is better). What do you suggest?
See Wikitravel:Phone numbers and associated discussion for the policy, and feel free to join in there. Unfortunately, it is still a bit USA and Canada centric, as you can't mark the part of the number you would dial in Australia like you can in the States according to the policy. The United Kingdom which is the same boat as Australia, seems to use the (00) 1111 2222 format fairly consistently. This seems to be a little dynamic at the moment. --Inas 02:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Well if we stick to the same format as the US and Canada based Wikitravel:Phone numbers then we'd be using +61 00 1111 2222. I guess it depends on if we think numbers are going to be called from overseas or from Australia. --oli 03:19, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Hence the problem, if you express the number as +61 03 4256 7892, you end up with a number that can't be dialed from anywhere. The best way to comply with the policy would be to use a number like +61 3 4256 7892. This will work from any mobile, the downside is that have to understand that you need to drop the 61, and add a 0 to dial it from Australia. But if you use (03) 4256 7892, you won't be Robinson Crusoe, and at least the info is in there. --Inas 16:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Surely this the following, taken from the intro para, isnt correct?
"Australia is actually one of the world's most highly urbanised countries"
I thought australia was supposed to have a lower population than the uk, therefore it cant be very urbanised at all, given its relative size?
Less people, but as a proportion of the population, most live in major cities and coastal towns. So, even though the country is vast, a high proportion of the population live in a few small parts. Highly urbanised. --Inas 14:54, 3 December 2008 (EST)
something like 80% of the population live in the cities of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra and Adelaide.
I have only been to a few, but those "Farmer's markets" I have been to sell few fresh fruit and vegetables but mostly pickles, cakes, jams, olives, pasta, wines.... which are all super expensive and cost a lot more than somewhere like the Queen Victoria Market. But here it implies they are cheap. What do others thinks? Change the section?? 18.104.22.168 03:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I think what you went to is a local or country market/fare/fete which is a lot more common than a farmers market hence the lack of fresh produce.
I attended a farmer's market at Ascot Vale, Victoria, today. It was tiny, the range of items available was not great, and it was significantly more expensive that the Queen Victoria Market. Why would a tourist travel 6 kms to Ascot Vale (and then the market about 20 minute walk from the tram stop) when the huge, central city Queen Vic Market is 100s of times bigger, with a fantastic range of fresh produce, and a lot cheaper? 22.214.171.124 02:51, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
You might want to ask yourself that question. For the experience I would imagine? I would also urge caution in judging the whole category of Farmer's Markets after a couple of experiences. --Burmesedays 02:59, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
The enormous Queen Victoria Market with hundrens of stalls filed with fresh fruit and vegetables, and filled with international tourists every day who apparently think it is enough of an experience they are snapping away photographs of the food stalls is a pretty good experience. 126.96.36.199 03:14, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
i think a problem is the main article has a large-ish section on farmner's markets as if they are a really important thing to do in australia. I think it is misleading as they aren't really that a big deal/major thing in Australia. It would be more useful if, if there is a particular farmer's market that is worth visiting for a tourist, then specifically list that one. anyway, here is a link to a relevant site 188.8.131.52 23:44, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
I hate reverting good faith edits, but this edit , I am reverting, because I can't see that it adds any extra information for the extra words, but to me has an overtone that a Aboriginal person not speaking English is not an educated individual. I'm sure that meaning was not intended, so if anyone still things there is a problem with the original para, perhaps have another go. --inas 19:27, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
Hmm i agree that is sounds very un-PC. I think that the author was trying to say is that there are some very remote aboriginal communities where it may be uncommon for some individual to have completed much primary or secondary school and therefore never had to learn English.
Should we really be listing all those tour operators in a country article? I will check and make sure they all pass muster but am not sure that any should be here. --Burmesedays 10:53, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, they should not be listed here (or with regards to those listings, anywhere, I think). We've covered this here, although I think we forgot to a) remove these operators and b) update the policy article! --PeterTalk 16:20, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Which to do first? The policy, I think. --inas 18:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)
This section is obviously one of the more lighthearted in the article. It is a section for people who want to try more unusual Australian cuisine and customs, and has had a few inspired contributions over the past year or so. I think it is useful to be first time visitors to Australia. By necessity it is going to be have a point of view, and I'm going to try and put back some of what has been lost with edits making it more factual and encyclopaedic. The idea of this Australia article is to give a general introduction to a broader Australia. Of course you can buy Arnotts biscuits in a supermarket - that should be obvious, but maybe not so obvious is that if you go to the local market in any country town on a Saturday morning you will get some ANZAC biscuits that were home baked the night before. Yes, if you are staying a downtown posh-hotel, you can just ask for vegemite on toast - whether it appears on the menu or not. So by all means edit away, but if you want to replace lively text, it should be replaced with something just as lively, and not dulled down. --inas 17:48, 24 January 2010 (EST)
What was reverted to contained what I consider to be unhelpful superlatives "an experience difficult to describe" (WHAT!!??!!) and several factual errors. (The implication you can go ask for vegemite on toast in any cafe is truly ridiculous. It is also incredibly pointless thing for a tourist to do: tourists can readily sample vegemite because, as I have now added, it is routinely available in any self cater breakfast situation - like in a hostel. They do not need to go to a cafe and specifically ask for it, so why do we tell people to do that?) Many food products were not specified as commercial: so how would a toursit obtain them? By telling people that they are commercial, tourists can figure out where to buy them. We do not need to give Captain Obvious asides either. You know, this project is meant to be useful for a traveller, not an informal site to dicuss cultural things in a loose way.
Much of the article deals with specifics. The "beyond cuisine" section of the article is a little lighter in content - it describes a few different foods that an international traveller may encounter in Australia. In keeping with the content of the section, it the tone should be similar. If you want to replace any sections, then according to our policies, you should replace the text with tone that is just as lively, and not replace it with encylopedic text.
To address your specific issues - "an experience difficult to describe" - is just that. Someone else wrote it, and I agree. Mild superlatives are okay here, to make a point, and I think are appropriate in this section of the article. It says to the traveller, to give it a go, and see what you think, or not, as they like. Having sucked a tim-tam or two in my time, I genuinely would have difficulty describing the experience, but I'm sure most people would get the idea of the coffee/chocolate combination. I'll grab a tim-tam this morning, and make a few notes :-)
As far as trying vegemite is concerned, it is obvious that you can buy a jar and try it. However, it may be less obvious that if you having toast for breakfast you can order vegemite as you can any condiment - jam, etc. Any cafe that services toast at breakfast time (just about every one I would think) would serve it with vegemite. Do you know of a cafe that serves breakfast that will not do toast and vegemite on request?
Why is it pointless? Not every tourist is staying in a hostel and self-catering for breakfast.
I also don't understand what you mean by a "commercial" product. Aren't all products that you can buy commercial?
Have a look at the number of contributors to this section. I really think many of the contributions are well thought out, lighthearted, and a off-beat introduction to the area. By all means make improvements, but it would be a shame in one set of edits, we remove all the fun from the section added so many people over couple of years, without adding any additional travel information to the mix in the process. --inas 19:29, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Tone is not the only guideline of this project! Have you read any of the others? Lamingtons are not a commercial product. Why mention something vaguely but not give information about how and where to buy/try? If, re vegemite, it is obvious anyone can buy a jar and try it, then why are we describing it on a travel site at all? On vegemite, the article does not specify that a coffee shop that sells toast at breakfast will make vegemite available too, it actually does simply say "any coffee shop" which is totally ridiculous, and misleading. There are dozen, dozens, dozens of ethnic and inner city coffee shops that sell coffee where I'd say it is highly unlikely they would be catering vegemite. And do not tell me that ethnicnally diverse inner city places don't count - they are listed on this site - and those are probably the coffee shops a tourist is more likely to encounter. In terms of cost, it is pretty silly to suggest someone visit Brunetti's and ask to be catered vegemite when it is a cheap and common supermarket product readily available anywhere - some tourists might not know that, so why are you restricting the information from the site? Australian people don't go to cafes for vegemite, so it would be a pretty unusual situation for someone to order it. You argue that "it may be less obvious that if you having toast for breakfast you can order vegemite as you can any condiment - jam, etc." Well my edit - that you reverted - completely accounted for that reality. But you then removed it, so the article no longer makes that clear!
If you name the inner-city "ethnic?" coffee shop that youo think doesn't serve toast and vegemite for brekkie, then I will give them call to confirm. Australians do go to cafes for toast and vegemite. It is a moderately common order by city commmuters, etc, while having their morning cappuccino. I really do think it is obvious to most travellers who do the self-catering thing that it would be an option. It would be truly unusual that there would be a breakfast spread available from coffee-shops for breakfast, that you couldn't buy in a supermarket.
Lamingtons not commercial? I don't understand, what do you mean by commercial? The article does say where to find them.
I didn't actually revert any of your edits, as others suggested. I spent an hour or so going through each one of them indivually. Reverting would have been easier. If there are facts that would help the travvelers experience, lets add them. But it seems to be your main problem is the tone, because the facts, in the main, seem to be there. This article can only ever be an overview.
I'm happy to reach any compromise that makes clear to the traveller what they need to know. I'd like to avoid the somewhat slippery slope of saying after every type of food that you can get it cheaper from a supermarket and make it yourself, because I really don't think that need saying, and for a one-off taste it isn't necessarily true. --inas 16:59, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
Someone has been hard at work on this article lately , but unfortunately the bulk of it seems to have simply dulled down the style to a sort of low mediocrity, introduced grammatical errors, and mangled intended meanings by "correcting" perceived grammatical errors. If anyone else shares my concerns, it would probably be best to revert to the 19 April version. --PeterTalk 00:23, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
Its easy when there is nothing but dulling down, but there are a few good bits in there too. I'll have a go through it. --inas 05:12, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
There is no national speed limit in Australia. In eastern states an unposted open road speed limit is 100 km/h. In NT and WA speed limits are over 110 km/h. --inas 14:59, 21 January 2011 (EST)
Actually that is only partly correct, NT used to have no limit open road speeds, then from 1 Jan 2007, they brought in a maximum speed of 110km/h other than on major highways specifically posted as 130km/h. I did (incorrectly) think that the the states had since all unified to 110 km/h across the nation (other than where posted). However I was mistaken, 4 of the states and territories are 100km/h upper limit and those 4 states (ACT, TAS, VIC and QLD) have no 110km/h zones.
100km/h should be assumed on open roads, in rural areas and away from built up areas or townships unless posted otherwise (SA, WA, NSW and NT are the exception, many open rural roads are 110km/h, NT is also in exception on the 4 main trunk highways with a 130km/h posted limit, 110km/h elsewhere). BTY, I think your recent edit has expressed it correctly and succinctly enough for the article but it could do with some clarification at some time. I jumped in on the prior edit that stated 110km/h nationally as I was concerned about that information but did not have time to properly research it. That is why I put, "Some areas of open road may have lower posted speed limits" into the section in a previous edit.
Maybe it is reasonable to say the open road speed limit is 100km/h across Australia, except where posted otherwise, and then give a brief outline. Below are the limits state-by-state, maybe later we can review it and extract something brief and succinct for the article at some time. Important though to first establish the actual facts as appear to be current at the outset of 2011.
NT, the Stuart, Arnhem, Barkly and Victoria highways are zoned and sign-posted at 130km/h. On other open roads the default open road speed limit is 110km/h, unless posted otherwise.
Speed limits on NT open roads from: Safe Road Use-Changes at a glance-Northern Territory Government of Australia 2006. 
130km/h speed limit – Stuart, Arnhem, Barkly and Victoria highways
"the default speed limit for open areas is 110 km/h. This applies on roads outside built-up areas".
"the derestricted speed zone limit is 110 km/h and this applies only to areas as signposted outside the metropolitan area."
"the default speed limit for freeways is 100 km/h unless zoned otherwise"
NSW The default speed limit in a local or suburban area in New South Wales is 50 km/h. A speed limit of 40 km/h applies around schools in the mornings and afternoons during school terms.
110 km/h is the maximum allowable speed limit in NSW. From: NSW Speed Zoning Guidlines, 2009 Roads and Traffic Authority NSW. Overview of Speed limits in NSW pg13/40 
• Motorways (freeways/tollways) in non-built up areas
• High quality rural divided roads
• Undivided rural road with low traffic volume in western part of NSW
100 km/h is otherwise default rural speed limit
NSW Road Rules 2008, Current version for 22 October 2010 to date (accessed 23 January 2011 at 00:11). Part 3, Rule 25-Speed limit elsewhere.
(3) The default speed limit applying to a driver for any other length of road is:
(a) for a driver driving a vehicle with a GVM over 4.5 tonnes or a vehicle and trailer combination with a GCM over 4.5 tonnes—100 kilometres per hour, or
(b) for any other driver—100 kilometres per hour or as otherwise provided under another law of this jurisdiction.
NSW State Forestries have recently imposed a 60km/h limit within areas under their control, previously it was 100km/h (NSW default speed)
VIC, the default speed limit outside built-up areas is 100 km/h. 
The default speed-limit applying to a driver for any other length of road is 100 km/h 
"The default speed limit operates on roads where there is no speed limit sign".
QLD,  QLD Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009.
(1) If a speed limit sign does not apply to a length of road and the length of road is not in a speed limited area, school zone or shared zone, the speed limit applying to a driver for the length of road is the default speed limit.
(2) The default speed limit applying to a driver for a length of road is—
(a) for a road in a built-up area—50km/h; or
(b) for a road that is not in a built-up area—100km/h.
ACT The default speed-limit applying to a driver for any other... (not in built up area or other defined speed zone)... length of road is:
"100 km/h or as otherwise provided under another law of this jurisdiction". (pt2 sec 25-Australian Capital Territory Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Australian Road Rules, Incorporation 2010 (No 1).
TAS, is 100km/h,  but that is currently under review. The Tasmanian state government in partnership with the Road Safety Advisory Council apparently wants to reduce the speed limit from 100km/h to 90km/h on sealed roads and 80km/h and unsealed roads.
"When there isn’t a speed limit sign for a road, never go faster than the default speed limit. The default speed limits are"
"50 km/h in built-up areas (like in cities and towns)"
"100 km/h in country areas (outside cities and towns)"
SA, "Any road with a speed limit different to the default limit is signposted accordingly" .
"100 km/h is the maximum speed limit on roads outside a built-up area where no other speed limit is signposted".
"These default speed limits are applied in South Australia and across Australia. Any road with a speed limit different to the default limit is signposted accordingly". (This when describing the 40km/h, 25km/h, and 110km/h speed zones.)
"Some roads may be signposted at 110 km/h".
This does not apply to the following:
‘L’ plate drivers must not exceed 100 km/h
All ‘P’ plate drivers must not exceed 100 km/h
Drivers of buses of more than 5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) and heavy vehicles of more than 12 tonnes GVM must not exceed 100 km/h
A longer or wider vehicle, such as a road train or low loader, may have a lower maximum speed limit as a condition of its permit of travel.
I find the use of the describer "Aussie" inappropriate to the article as explained in the edit notes at Australia. I do not see that this term is required whether it is applied in a deprecating point of humour or not. "Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi" (alt Ozzie) is most often a call of the ignorant and those predisposed toward displays of jingoism. In the last 10-15 years it has often been adopted with fervour by sporting spectator crowds and sometimes as a battle cry of bigots and anti-immigrationists. Jingoistic displays of flag waving and flag 'wearing' in 'nationalistic' costuming displays in public places often accompanies the activity.
The nation of Australia is not populated by Aussies. This is as much a myth as the 'shrimp on the barbie' imagery promoted by the Australian Tourism campaigns of the 80s. It is similar to the absurd myth that Australians commonly greet each other with a "gooday", whereas it is in truth a quite unusual manner of greeting by Australians and more often used in jest or in mimicry of the idea itself. Most often it seems to be used by non-Australians when greeting Australians such as the propagation of this silly idea primarily in the mass media. "Gooday-mate" is even rarer. Those Australians who do genuinely identify themselves as an Aussie are not the universal benchmark of being an Australian and to promote it here at WT as a national identifier is entirely inappropriate.
It is arguable that many Australians seek the lowest common denominator in matters of culture, intellect and self identification. Many do willingly and proudly identify with a capacity to absorb generous quantities of both alcohol and misinformation and then later willingly regurgitate it to an often appreciative audience thereby defining a cultural and social benchmark. Unquestionably they do also define themselves by the image of an "Aussie" when doing this. In the last 15-20 years Australan self-image has increasingly become one dominated by mass media and jingoism. In recent years it is notable that the mass media are increasingly using the term Aussie presumably as an appeal to the apparent guiding force of Australian culture, the lowest common denominator. The Australian dollar is increasingly referred to as the Aussie dollar, the nations armed forces deployed in occupying foreign lands are referred to as Aussie troops and sporting achievements as Aussie gold. Similarly criticisms of mass cultural packaging and jingoism sometimes lead to the utterance of the term "un-Australian". Interestingly this notion is not described as "un-Aussie". To prevail with criticism or disparaging remarks concerning either Aussie or Bogan identity often results in an enthusiastic cry to "go back where you came from" or "if you don't like the country then leave". Being of multi generational Australian heritage does not make a person immune from this cry and I have even witnessed it applied to a near full blood Australian aboriginal who was instructed to "get out of the country and go back to wherever you came from" by a strident Aussie bogan a few years ago when visiting a city in the south of the sunburnt land.
In more recent times in a search for meaning and cultural understanding the sort of Australian that may readily identify as an Aussie is often referred to as a "Bogan". I will not pursue a discourse on boganism here other than to say that an Aussie and a Bogan share a great deal of common. Every nation has it's equivalent of a "bogan" but generally do not promote it as a national identifier. I see no reason for WT to assist in the process, either consciously or unwittingly.
Are we going to go the whole way here and adopt the "firies" for firefighters, "ambos" for paramedics, "abos" for aboriginals, "wogs" for various European immigrants to Australia, "frogs" for French people, "yanks" for Americans and all the rest of it that is really best not further described here.
Many people from Australia will noticeably cringe when hearing the term Aussie or Ozzie, most especially if it is directed at them and more especially if it is repeated 3 times or more in succession within their hearing range, others may not care or indeed may encourage it. Unless we are going to start calling French people "frogs" or British people "poms" because it is less "stilted" then lets stick to "Australian" for people from Australia.
As for Australians betting on two flies crawling up a wall I have yet to meet any who would bother to do so, it is a silly joke and neither needs nor benefits from the use of the term "Aussie". The inclination to gambling is quite adequately described in more factual detail in the article. The reality is that like alcoholism, chronic gambling is a both a social problem and a mental health issue in Australian society.
I am certainly not going to go in and undo your recent re-edit of my recent revision but I do respectfully request that you do not use the term Aussie as a describer and restrict it's use to describing it contextually within the articles Culture section, or better still, not at all.
Until there is a national referendum seeking a change of name of the nation state to Oz rather than Australia then lets stick to calling the residents and citizens of the nation as "Australians" here at WT. felix 02:36, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
First off, this sort of discussion belongs on Talk:Australia, not here. Please don't make this personal; this is an editorial discussion about the content of an article, not a personal gripe with me (at least I hope that's not the case).
It's clear you're very passionate about this issue, but I think you're over-reacting. To a non-Australian audience -- which is the audience for whom the article is intended -- "Aussie" is merely a colloquial abbreviation of "Australian" and carries none of the stereotypical baggage which you ascribe to it. You even note that "In recent years it is notable that the mass media are increasingly using the term Aussie" -- and I really don't agree that the media are doing so "as an appeal to the apparent guiding force of Australian culture, the lowest common denominator." It's just a casual, friendly shorthand to the media, and to media consumers.
You may see an unfair characterization in the use of the word, but I think scrupulously avoiding its use would also reflect an unfair point of view.
I don't have enough to say to go start a discussion at Talk:Australia but I would like to back up what LtPowers is saying. "Aussie" doesn't make me think of stereotypes any more than "Australian" does. It's plainly and simply a shorter way to say it. I don't recall any of my Australian friends ever taking offense to this abbreviation. Your making a big deal out of its use is the only thing that I see evoking stereotypes here. texugo 14:02, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
Good heavens of course I do not have any gripe with you..at all, nor with Texugo for that matter. However I do think that both yourself and apparently also Texugo are unaware of some aspects of this matter. Using the term may not make Texego think of stereotypes but it does have that effect on many others. Some may have Australian friends who do not take offence, however there are plenty of Australians who would be a lot happier if the term was not uttered, especially when directed at them. It is not "just a "shorter way to say it, I am sorry but that is both ill-informed and naive. The term Aussie abounds with stereotypical baggage and becomes more so as time passes by. I strongly encourage you to avoid using the term in WT articles in place of the word Australian. I do not see the use of the term "yanks" in the US articles so why accommodate this sort of thing with an Australian article? I have reviewed what I wrote above and I stand by all of it. -- felix 15:44, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, but if the article did use the word "Yanks", none of us would object to it. Same, I suspect, with "Canuck" in Canada. Wiktionary gives absolutely zero indication of a pejorative sense; neither does Merriam-Webster nor even the esteemed and very, very Australian Macquarie Dictionary (to which I can't link). So right now, we have only your word on this subject, while we have the evidence of both several dictionaries, as well as parallel constructions from the U.S. and Canada, that disagree with you. If you have any further evidence to put up, I suggest you do so at Talk:Australia rather than here. LtPowers 21:17, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
LT - I suggest you sweep all this to Talk:Australia. The term certainly does have many of the associations which Felix explained so thoroughly. It is also used as a white racist group chant, particularly in Sydney in my experience; try a weekend night out for evidence. That is also alluded to at Wikipedia , and more overtly in numerous reputable news articles if you do a search. My take is that it would much simpler just to avoid this, and use the term Australian(s).--Burmesedays 21:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
With the benefit of hindsight maybe I should have raised this at Talk:Australia but to be honest I did not for a moment think there would be such a level of misunderstanding or resistance to my suggestion. Also LT I did not, nor do I wish to berate anyone over this, including either yourself or Tuxogo. The term "Yanks" and "Canucks" is probably best dealt with in their own respective context I would not use those terms myself in a WT article unless to describe them contextually. Certainly I have heard Americans use the term "Canuck" disparagingly toward their northern neighbours and as for Yanks, I thought everyone knew that could go either way and has been used derisively in many contexts. Most certainly with no intended offence to yourself (or Tuxugo) I must comment that although I do not make a common habit of it I have sometimes used it myself in a quite quite disparagingly manner even though the term is now a little old fashioned and has been replaced my far more descriptive and more contemporary forms of derision. I would suggest that any American should not assume the term yank to necessarily be benign, sometimes it is and most definitely sometimes it is not. Whether people take offence or not is another matter but I cannot see the reason to experiment here at WT. I am similarly well aware that many people use the term Aussie in a very benign or even a proactively friendly manner and I am certain that is the filter through which both LT and Tuxugo have been viewing this matter. However, sadly the world is not such a simple place and the term does have increasingly negative connotations. I might suggest that for many the term Aussie might be a little closer to "red-neck" or "trailer trash" than many may prefer to believe. To qualify this, the Australian colloquialism Bogan is probably the best direct substitute for those terms rather than Aussie. though for many they are often interchangeable. Linguistics, in particular colloquial linguistics can be a minefield, most especially if they are mixed up with racial, jingoistic, nationalistic or supremacist overtones. Many Australians and those of other nationalities are inclined to use Aussie (alt Ozzie) either ambiguously or with clear negative connotations.
The other clear aspect of usage is one of an overtly racist and bigoted Aussie stereotyped self-identity. Some individuals with such inclination use the term expressively and will often chant it. It is sometimes used in a clear and overtly racist manner by self identifiers to distinguish themselves from either a non-Australian, a non-white or a non-racist inclined Australian who may sometimes be referred to as being "un-Australian" by these Aussie individuals. Non-white Australians will also sometimes use it derivatively toward apparently racist leaning white Australians and sometimes just offensively use it toward any white Australian whom they wish to disparage. I have not been near the place for several years but I am in regular contact with Australians from many walks of life, I meet them as tourists and as expatriates and I correspond with many Australian residents on a regular basis. I also follow developments in Australian political and social trends quite closely so my views are not just throw away commentary nor am I a linguistic prude. This site may be enlightening in an odd sort of a way... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aussie see also http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ozzie
To be quite honest until this morning I had not gone looking for any of this, I was just aware of it and that was quite enough. Having delved into it I find the Aussie pride issue far worse and a lot more developed than I was previously aware. In a way I wish I had never brought it up, in another way I am glad that I did. Apologies though to LT whom I am sure had absolutely no inkling of this nastiness when reverting my edit. I am certain that you did that entirely in good faith. If we really must then lets sweep this across to Talk:Australia but it may be best just quietly put to rest here with some informal consensus to avoid the use of pejoratives at WT, especially if they may have either overt or covert racist symbolism. -- felix 04:29, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
I read all the links you provided, and with the exception of the jokey entries on the very jokey urban dictionary site, I don't see a single use of the word "Aussie" that would read any different to me if it said "Australian" instead, including the transcribed bit above. I don't even see any evidence that these "pride groups" are even trying to appropriate the word for their own purposes-- it just looks to me like they are using it as an abbreviation for "Australian", like everyone else I've ever known. I actually think that for us to stop using it in its normal abbreviative sense would be equivalent to ceding the word over to the very people you are annoyed by, which would more or less represent a victory for them. texugo 09:20, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Until very recently it seems this term had not been used at WT? As I surmised earlier it would seem far, far simpler to me to stick to using Australian(s). Given that the Aussie term, particularly in the chanted format, has been hijacked by extreme racist groups, I can easily see why some folks will be upset when it is read here. Aside from that we do not use use diminutive slang to describe other nationalities (at least, not that I can think of?) --Burmesedays 09:48, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
It's not a recent thing. The term appears in 115 Wikitravel articles so far, all with the completely innocuous, standard denotation of "Australian".texugo 11:39, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Texugo, I am not going to start linking to a whole bunch of race hate sites here just to prove my point. A basic google search should suffice to satisfy the curious or you could just follow some of the cite links in the WP Cronulla riots article. This one is possibly a little more directly to the point than the ones I linked to above. Are you an Aussie? Australian? or What?. No they are not using it as a "shortening", rather it is being used as an identifier and a rallying call. I admit I was never fond of the term in the first place but that is of little significance here. The point is that the connotations of the term have gradually shifted from the benign and relatively innocuous to one of an entirely different focus. Even "Skippy" a name derived from a 60s Australian TV series staring a wallaby (presented as a kangaroo), once used as a quaint endearment (Skip) or as a colloquial joke, has now become yet another racist identifier. It has drifted from being generally light hearted slang for a white anglo saxon Australian to being used as a term of derision or as a racial identifier by some elements of non-white Australian society and also as a self identifier for racist or supremacist inspired white Australians. The suggestion that "Aussie" is just being used as a shortening is rather ill-informed. Aside from the quite adequate reasons I have outlined above I can see no reason why here at WT we should even be discussing using a diminutive slang term to describe either a nationality or members of any race or creed. I can see no justification for Australians being singled out for this sort of thing, especially when they most certainly do not universally identify with the term. As for giving anyone a victory I really don't think anyone would see it as much of a victory for race hate groups if WT stopped using the term Aussie as it should never have been used in the first place. In fact in regard to LtPowers's edit if anyone was going to be silly enough to bet on the two mythical flies crawling up a wall it probably would be best described as two drunk Aussies rather than two 'Australians' but I think my attributed meaning is somewhat different, most certainly derisory and definitely a lot less benign than that intended by [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers. As I mentioned earlier, fine to describe the meaning of the word or to qualify it contextually in a Culture or Language section, but not OK to use it as a describer of people of Australian nationality or identity within the article. Alternatively it could just be left out all together. -- felix 15:36, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Aussie is not considered 'offensive' in any part of Australia that I've lived in. As an Australian I don't understand why this is considered an offensive term? Yelling out 'aussie, oi oi oi!' could be seen as offensive simply because it's stupid, but calling somebody an 'aussie' is not offensive in any way shape or form.184.108.40.206 23:17, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
Agreed. I've never encountered Aussie used in an offensive way. If you go looking on race hate sites, you can find many nationalistic phrase adopted for objectionable uses, and even the Australian flag used in this way? Most people use the term Aussie in an affectionate way, and it is entirely consistent with WT style. --inas 20:42, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
I see that the ACT is not a WT region of Australia and that Canberra breadcrumbs straight to Australia. I can see that just about makes sense for Canberra only. What about though other places in the ACT? For example we have a recently started article for Hall.--Burmesedays 03:24, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
The ACT is most definitely a region equal to the other states. The region list on the Australia page combines it with NSW. I dont know much about the ACT but I will be happy to make the page and change the map etc. - Cardboardbird 04:08, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
It seems to me the ACT is a subregion of NSW, from a traveler's perspective -- especially since you have to go through NSW to get to it. It's essentially one city and its suburbs, isn't it? LtPowers 14:41, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
I can see the argument for ACT being a sub-region of NSW, in the same way that DC is part of Mid-Atlantic.--Burmesedays 21:43, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
Not having the ACT as its own region feel utterly discordant to my geographical brain, nonetheless I can appreciate that from a travellers perspective the ACT/Canberra seem like part of NSW. Given that there are precedents to this type regional organisation, then it makes sense. My question is; where should the breadcrumb navigation start at? Canberra (which looks funny) or NSW? - Cardboardbird 22:16, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
But the difference between DC and ACT is that DC consists of one city only, while ACT has a number of towns other than Canberra. And Mid-Atlantic is a multiple-state region, not a state (but NSW is). If we have to draw a similarity from US regional breakdown, then putting ACT under NSW would be like making DC a part of, say, Maryland. I understand the arguments about how a traveller might see the area, but breadcrumbing Canberra to NSW somehow looks wrong to me. – Vidimian 06:07, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
Good points from both Cardboardbird and Vidimian. I can see why having the ACT as part of NSW would seem very strange to any Australian, or indeed to many travelers familiar with Australia. On the other hand, geography says do it that way, and there is at least one such precedent I can think of with Labuan in Malaysia. This is a federal territory which we treat as part of the state of Sabah, even though it clearly isn't. However, for the sake of simplicity, I am now leaning towards proposing the ACT as a top level region. Canberra, Hall and wherever then become part of the ACT which is part of Australia. --Burmesedays 10:33, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
It's far too small to be a top-level region, in my book. LtPowers 10:44, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm having a change of heart. Having the ACT as a top level region is the option I'd prefer. As Burmesedays says, to make it simple, and I imagine less ambiguous. Yes, we must look at organising page hierarchy from a travel perspective, but blurring or ignoring the well defined borders between a countries states and/or territories has the potential of muddling where users expect to find the information. Also, Canberra is more than a single page for the city as there are other surrounding towns that are big enough to support their own articles. An ACT region article will tie them all together nicely. - Cardboardbird 11:19, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
Lets just be pragmatic. There was an Australian Capital Territory article. Go look at the history. Every bit of information in the Get In, Get Out, Get Around, Sleep and Eat sections was completely duplicated by the Canberra article. At most you could add one or two small towns (Tharwa maybe, what else?) to the Canberra article. It is infinitely more useful to the traveller to have all this information in the Canberra article rather than split into another vacuous regional article. Canberra is one of our best and most complete articles in Australia. I attribute this in no small measure to that fact that it is focussed, complete, undistricted. The redirect from the ACT to Canberra serves the traveller well. To recreate the ACT as a fully fledged article to duplicate Canberra info. If we are get obsessive over state boundaries, then we'll have to start adding Jervis Bay, etc as a separate territory as well. Lets not be wikipedia. --inas 20:35, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
Can we put "Let's not be Wikipedia" in the sitenotice? ;) LtPowers 20:52, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
So where should Hall (for example) breadcrumb to? Australia?
One option would be to simply rename New South Wales to New South Wales and the ACT. That would make sense to most travellers, if perhaps not to Australians. The region list does that already in the description, but not in the actual region name.--burmesedays 02:30, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
NSW seems poorly regionalized to me. The Sydney-area regions are too small to be top-level subregions of the state. Without cleaning those regions up a bid, it's hard to say where ACT would fit best. LtPowers 08:32, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
@LtPowers - I don't necessarily agree. The problem comes from the geography, with very large regions out west that can be covered in a couple of articles, and regions like the Blue Mountains and Southern Highlands which very much make sense as region articles. One solution to the problem as you see it would be to make a Greater Sydney region, or some such, including the smaller regions around Sydney, but that just adds another level of regional hierarchy - undesirable if it can be avoided. I see a better solution to have one of those magnifying bubbles on the map, the 200km around Sydney needs more details that the expanses of the outback. --inas 18:04, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
@burmesedays - For all intents and purposes, except for the most geographically obsessed, Hall is in Canberra. It is closer to the city centre than the southern Canberra towns and suburbs. It is a mere few hundred metres from the Canberra suburbs that surround it. --inas 18:04, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
I tend to prefer subregions to be as equal as is practical, especially at the state level. I understand the geography of Australia means cities are clustered on the coasts, but when it comes to what I'd like to see if I were to travel to NSW, I think creating a Greater Sydney subregion (or something similar) would be more helpful. LtPowers 22:20, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
What is your measure of "equal". This Greater Sydney Region contains over 2/3 of the population of the state, and I'd guess that over two thirds of the visitors to the state never leave it. --inas 23:34, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
Equal in land area, to the extent practical given population differentials. LtPowers 10:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
Would you mind if I push further for your reasoning? Is it just about readable maps, or some other benefits that you see having equal land in each region? There is some precedent for denser high population regions being top level "state" level regions, but most North American states/provinces aren't done that way. Still, no two places are the same. --inas 18:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
Well, I suppose there are two factors here. One is indeed the aesthetics of the map, though I also think that the appearance of the map is emblematic of how understandable the region divisions are. If the regions are crowded on the map, they'll be crowded in the reader's understanding as well, and that's not conducive. On the map as it stands currently, I see a few large, understandable regions, and then a jumble of tiny ones on the coast. Second of all, though kind of related, is that the number of top-level NSW regions is too large; we should have only 5–9 regions, not fifteen. LtPowers 10:05, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
Okay, but as you say the number of regions isn't really related to the land mass, and the smaller coastal regions can be made more readable by improving the map layout. The tourism new south wales goes to seven mainland regions, essentially by combining our two north coast regions, and our two south coast regions, and merging the much of the rest into a "country new south wales" region. My concern is that we end up with two or three more subregions, each of which has two or three subregions. That is a lot of regional article to fill, when the existing ones are struggling. --inas 18:32, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
Well, I'm kinda flying blind, but it seems to me that combining the seven regions that are listed under "Sydney and surrounds" on the NSW page into a real "Sydney and surrounds" region would produce an ideal number of subregions at both levels - nine for NSW and seven for Greater Sydney (or whatever we call it). (NSW would go to ten if we add ACT, still within reason.) LtPowers 19:38, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
The other cities that have tried this kind of arrangement Auckland Region, and Perth (region) I think just haven't worked well. Do you know of examples that examples that have worked well? Perth we just changed back to a unregioned city. --inas 21:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
The only city I can think of that makes sense to be unregioned is Washington, D.C.. It's extremely common in the U.S. to have a region consisting of the "greater" metro area around a city... but then, maybe that's the difference between Australian and U.S. "cities" that's coloring the discussion here. LtPowers 08:40, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
Hmmmm.. Although it paints a nice map, many of these mid-level U.S. regions tend to be weak articles, even though the U.S. is dense with population centres and attractions compared to Oz. London rates its own region within England, as does Berlin within Eastern Germany. In fact all the European major cities Paris, etc, seem to be two levels down from the country level, whereas the major cities in the U.S. tend to be three. --inas 17:21, 6 November 2011 (EST)
Re this edit, I don't understand the reasoning. "Mecca", in addition to naming the city, has also become, in English, a common noun meaning "a place many people visit or want to visit". Its use in the context provided in the link is perfectly idiomatic and not at all incorrect. LtPowers 15:33, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Agreed. The word is quite common in the usage that was removed. Both Mecca and mecca can be used.--Dmol 16:48, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Today, the following informative text was posted (and just as quickly reverted):
"Laws regarding prostitution in Australia vary between States. In the
Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and
Victoria, brothels are legally allowed to operate but are closely
regulated and observed by each respective state government.
Brothels remain illegal in the Northern Territory, Western Australia
and South Australia. All brothels and sex workers are required to
obtain the appropriate license to manage or work in the sex industry.
Although brothels are legal, one should not confuse legal prostitution
with illegal prostitution such as "Street Prostitution". Street
Prostitution is illegal and if caught in the act, the punishment will
be severe. You must be 18+ years of age to enter a brothel. All
brothels operate according to the idea of "Safe Sex". Disobeying this
law will result in heavy fines for the establishment, including
separate fines to the employee and possible revocation of license.
Paying for sexual intercourse is not common in Australia and you may
find that most people do not even know that it is legal. A survey
conducted in the early 2000s showed that 15.6% of Australian men aged
16–59 have paid for sex at least once in their life and 1.9% had done
so in the past year."
Because I believe both that the above passage may help travellers avoid getting into difficulties with the police in Australia and that it conforms to both relevant policies referenced above, I intend to restore this passage (with minor copy edits) unless someone can provide cogent reasons not to.
Previously this passage was posted under a secondary section heading of Prostitution but I intend to restore it under a new secondary section heading of Cope as per the advice specified here. --W. Franke-mailtalk 11:09, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
While you can try to justify adding this information, keep in mind the spirit of the Sex Tourism Policy and the fact that this is not Wikipedia...no encyclopedic info is needed (like survey). If you really feel like this info is important, it should probably be kept brief, like: "Prostitution is resigned to regulated/licensed brothels to ensure the safety of workers and clients. Prostitution remains illegal in Western Australia, South Australia, & Northern Territory." IMO, that's all that's necessary to protect tourists from trouble without helping or providing much useful info to people interested in these activities. AHeneen 13:58, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
Discover Credit card; acceptance in Australia
In the article it says that "Discover is never taken"
However, The nowadays discover credit cards can be processed as Diner's club cards overseas.
Coles and woolworth's (Australian grocery stores) Both taken diner's club.
Should we add that Discover can be accepted as Diner's club cards in some retail establishments?
I do not have an inside about this matter, but I would say that if the card is officially accepted by establishments in Australia then it could be added to the list of credit cards. I would like for a few more people to give their opinions so it's a community call.--OVK 04:32, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Virgin Australia on the list of budget airlines
Should Virgin Australia still be on the list of budget airlines in Australia? Mbbuser (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2014 (EDT)