Talk:Australia/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Government type in Infobox

(Tagging Safes007 as they were involved in reverting)

I altered the Infobox country government parameter to be "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" (I should have linked to Federalism/federation as opposed to just federal but that is mostly besides the point) from the former/current "Federation of parliamentary governments under a constitutional monarchy". That version is unlike almost every other country page which broadly follows the general format of "Unitary/federal presidential/semi-presidential/parliamentary republic/constitutional monarchy". Examples of this format are fellow Commonwealth realms Canada (Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy) and New Zealand (Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy). The "under a" part is usually only featured in extraordinary cases like Russia (Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship) or Venezuela (Federal presidential republic under a centralized authoritarian state) to highlight circumstances. Tombricks (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, "Federation of parliamentary governments under a constitutional monarchy" isn't what the infobox parameter is meant for. That definition describes the parliamentary nature of government in the federated units of the country rather than the government of the whole country. Tombricks (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree the phrasing could be improved, however I think the goal of separating out the elements of the government (namely federal, parliamentary and constitutional monarchy) so the blue links aren't all together is needed. Australia is a weird hybrid of systems and there is no page for federal parliamemtary constitutional monarchy so I think the links need to be separate.

Perhaps you could have three as a plainlist with the elements. E.g.:

• Federation
• Parliamentary democracy
• Constitutional monarchy

Or maybe "Federal and parliamentary government as part of a constitutional monarchy" or "Constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary and federal government". Other phrasings are welcome if someone can make it more concise.

I prefer the plainlist option looking at how other elements in the infobox use it. Do you think this or another rephrasing would be an option? Safes007 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It is correct and more concise. The infobox isn't the place for nuances and complex detail. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that WP is relevant, as the changes aren't about increasing the information in the infobox, but just making what's already there clearer.

No version is perfect, but here are what I see as the options for this parameter and the pros and cons.

1. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Australian Government|Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy]

I think the link here is misleading, as the point of this parameter is to link to the type of government in the broader sense. Currently "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" links to Australian Government, which is incorrect as that page is about the group of Parliamentarians that form the government, not the broader political structure of the country. Politics of Australia is already linked as the parameter "Government:" (like most other countries), so it would not make sense to have two links to that page.

2. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Federalism|Federal] [Parliamentary system|parliamentary] [constitutional monarchy]

This is what is used for Canada, however the links are a WP:SEAOFBLUE. It also suggests 'federal' and 'parliamentary' are modifiers of 'constitutional monarchy', when they are actually independent of each other

3. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Constitutional monarchy] with a [Parliamentary system|parliamentary] and [Federalism|Federal] government

This solves the sea of blue issue, whilst increasing the height of the infobox less than the list. Its downside is that it is longer than option 2.

4. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- (list below to go here)

• [Federation]
• [Parliamentary democracy]
• [Constitutional monarchy]

This slightly increases the height of the infobox, but I think solves the problem of sea of blue whilst showing each element is separate. I also think it makes comparing government types of different countries easier by seeing the common and different elements more clearly.

For these options, I would prefer them in order of 4, 3, 2, 1. I believe the benefit of solving the sea of blue issue and making comparisons easier is worth the very minor increase in words and/or height of the infobox. Safes007 (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed 1st, 3rd, and 4th solutions are just more complicated and needlessly different, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no reason for the Australian infobox to be any different than every single other country infobox which all follow the same format. The Australian government isn't special and neither is its infobox. Tombricks (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think a problem does exist, it's WP:SEAOFBLUE. That's basically the whole problem I was trying to solve. It's valid to argue the other options aren't preferrable due to other problems, but I strongly disagree that no problems exist.

I think maybe adding an and would go a little bit to addressing SOB whilst keeping changes to a minimum. I.e. "[Federal] and [parliamentary] [constitutional monarchy]".

What do you think of this as a compromise? Safes007 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Australia is one independent country, not six independent countries. Best we keep that in mind, as Safes007's initial changes in the infobox gave the latter impression. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view inportant to say "Constitutional monarchy" so its clear to all that the monarch do not rule they are ceremonial. Moxy- 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

We do need a link to Constitutional monarchy, at least. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Naming Willem Janszoon in lead? Naming anyone in lead?

Only two people are named in the lead, those being in order: Dutch explorer Willem Janszoon, and Cook. I bothered to link Janszoon, and mentioned his nationality and career, because so few people know who he is. Yet, going by the lead, many non-Australians will probably walk away thinking he is the most celebrated person in the nation's history. Again, one of only two mentioned. Someone whose fame must be on par with or exceeding that of Columbus in the US (note the United States lead does not mention Columbus). Maybe we should have been celebrating Janszoon Day all this time? But we don't. I don't think Janszoon is worth mentioning, nor anyone else. In a history cut down to a paragraph, there isn't anyone of such prominence they are worth elevating above many millions of others. Australia isn't a country that revolves around a personality, like Ho Chi Minh. Note that India's lead doesn't even mention Mahatma Gandhi. Apart from extreme cases of sustained national influence, leads should really be condensed to events. I propose an edit along the lines of: "Australia's written history commenced with European maritime exploration. The Dutch were the first known Europeans to reach Australia, in 1606. In 1778, the First Fleet of British ships arrived at Sydney to establish the penal colony of New South Wales." - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead here needs a big fix ......or should i say update like many other pages as per WP:COUNTRYLEAD."

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. See Canada or Japan for examples.....see India for an example of a very bad lead.".... Should drop sources, drop repeating stats, random examples and naming people just for starters. Moxy- 21:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Not even the Infobox, IMHO. European "exploration" of the Australian region is complicated. It cannot be easily and meaningfully summarised at all. No names in lead please. Note that we don't celebrate Cook with a special day, and Columbus never made it to what is now the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)