![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Lowest minimum temperature: -6.7 °C (19.9 °F), Booylgoo Springs, 187.3 km (116.4 miles) from Meekatharra, 12 July 1969 [1] this isn't right, there was a cold snap a couple of months ago i'm sure it got colder than that.Oxinabox1 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Perth, Fremantle and Rockingham are all part of the region of Mteropolitan Perth, and since Mandurah is fast becoming so can we please include the rankings of some of the other regional cities (Albany and Geraldton would be good) with up to date population figures. Foreigners are always interested to rate their city/town against those of WA.
John D. Croft 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Can every body take five minutes to check the list to see if they can add any towns that have been missed from the list. Case in point I added Wubin which already has a wiki article, Cue and Paynes Find all are gazzetted towns with residentual populations.
I suggest including gazetted towns that are now abandoned as they sill played a significant part in our history and that of other countries, by this I mean towns that have been surveyed and lots designated for developement. Case in point Hebert Clerk Hoover President of the United States of America 1929 to 1933 was employed by a London Based Mining Syndicate and worked in Big Bell now abandoned during 1913-1914 Gnangarra 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed because of inaccuracy:
It is interesting to note that, even though the state encompasses only 10 per cent of the Australian population, it contributes around 25% of the country's wealth.
What do you mean? Do you mean 25% of Australia's wealth resides in WA (I don't think so)? Do you mean that WA contributes 25% of Australia's export income (which sounds quite plausible)? If so, correct the sentence and put it back in the main article. --Robert Merkel
Removed it again: Western Australia leads the country in wealth, with the state supplying 25% of Australia's overall wealth, despite less than 10% of the country's population residing there.
This is a variation on a theme consistently argued by partisans of the "WA is the best state, all the other states suck" school. Needless to add, it's nonsense.
There are any number of ways to calculate relative wealth and relative contribtions to the overall economy. By chosing an extreme and biased one, it is a simple matter to "demonstrate" whichever point one wishes to make.
Probably the fairest overall method is to simply calculate the total paid by each state to the commonwealth and then compare it with the total of funds paid by the Commonwealth to each state. The details change a little over time, of course, but the overall picture is perfectly clear: the majority of Australia's funds come from Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland (which should be no surprise, as there are the most populous states with the most fertile agricultural areas and the heaviest concentration of both industry and commerce). All three subsidise the smaller states ("smaller", that is, in population terms).
Last time I looked at the exact figures for this, about ten years or so ago I think it was, Victoria remained the heaviest subsidiser, closely followed by NSW, and then Queensland - which had actually been a subsidisee (if you will excuse the made-up word) for a long time before its rapid economic and population growth in the 1960s and '70s and '80s. The most heavily subsidised states were Tasmania, WA, and SA. Again, this is exactly what you would expect.
All of the states regularly jockey for position in the funding carve-up. Victoria, NSW and more recently Queensland complain about having to pay more than their share, and the smaller states just as regularly advance reasons why the disparity should be seen as a good thing. While the larger states usually just tote up the figues and use these as evidence for their point of view, the three smaller states (for reasons unknown to me) tend to use quite different strategies: SA just asks for more money. Tasmania claims rather hysterically that if it doesn't get more money right away something really horrible will happen! WA uses the bizarre but surprisingly effective tactic of just telling astonishingly large fibs and ignoring the numbers altogether.
Regards John D. Croft 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In consequence, for many years back in the days of the old Premiers' Conferences when the financial carve-up was decided in meetings between the states and the Commonwealth once every year a small minority of numerically-challenged but belligerantly vocal West Australians used to peddle silly untruths about how their state "supported the rest of the nation" and then argue that the between-states breakup must be made "more fair".
Unfortunately, it seems that a few still believe this hoary old nonsense. It might be appropriate for Wikipedia to describe this decades-old interstate conflict somewhere (though I imagine that most other nations go through much the same sort of silliness when it comes to budget time and Oz is hardly unique), but if we are going to have state vs state productivity and expenditure figures at all, then we must insist that they be the correct ones, not imaginary things tossed out as half-remembered rhetoric from a speech by parochial politicians preaching to the choir.
Now if we are going to have some figures, let's get the right ones, shall we?
Proportion of revenue returned to each state or territory (cents in the dollar)
Hmmmm .. Interesting. It seems that times have indeeed changed since I last looked at this issue a decade or two ago. Victoria (rather to my surprise) remains the state that pays the most and gets the least, NSW is close behind, and WA has now begun to pay a fraction more than its share. (For every dollar WA citizens pay in tax to the Commonwealth, in other words, they now get back 98c, as compared with 87c for Victorians, $1.01 for Queenslanders, or $1.55 for Tasmanians.) Doesn't seem to have made any difference to the prevalance of innumerate opinion though. But then, one wonders if the actual figures were ever really relevant. Tannin 09:38 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
From the Australian Bureau of Statistics: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/737D7D065952AE3CCA25688D000ABB09?Open
The gross state product of Western Australia per capita of population is greater than any other state, and greater than the gross domestic product per capita across Australia.
I am curious about the lack of consistancy of the GDP per capita rankings. Seeing as all states and territories use the same template, perhaps all states and territories should be ranked correctly also.
According to the wikipedia pages of the various states and territories, the GDP per capita statistics are as follows:
Both the pages of the A.C.T and W.A. show a ranking of first in this category.
I am also concerned at the use of wikipedia as a tool for inter-state bragging. W.A. has its high G.D.P. per capita for the simple reason of a tiny population for the massive area combined with high mineral wealth (remove the mineral sector and W.A. would be in poor shape). Does that make W.A. in any way superior or inferior? I can't see how. Furthermore, is it even relevant? No it is not. Mdgr 05:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
→Yes, I noticed this browsing between the state articles. Of course extraneous discussion about WA's economy is irrelevant, the GDP per capita for WA is third, not first. Would it not be appropriate to fix this? Jarrod (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the foregoing the real figures are contained here where you'll see that the true picture far exceeds what some in the Eastern States think we dream up. Unfortunately most of the wealth that the Commonwealth collects from WA isn't from Income Tax nor GST, so to quote the Grants Commission figures actually hides the truth. Much easier to see the picture when you look at the Treasury website "In 2003-04, it was estimated that Western Australia received $196 million more in GST revenue grants than the amount of GST that was raised in Western Australia. However, when all Australian Government revenues and expenditures are taken into account, the Australian Government raised around $3 billion more in taxes and other revenues from Western Australia than it returned to Western Australia in expenditures."[1] "In per capita terms, Western Australia’s contribution is substantially larger than the other two contributors, New South Wales and Victoria (the other States are all net recipients). Western Australia’s net fiscal subsidy to the Federation has grown substantially over the last two decades, coinciding with the boom in petroleum production (including LNG) and the emergence of Western Australia as a force in the Australian economy generally."[2] petedavo 09:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why WA celebrates its Queens Birthday holiday at a different time to the other Australian states? Its been bugging me since a friend pointed it out and asked if Australia still had a queen.
How is it that Western Australia's population is zero at 1829 - are we really still counting Aboriginal people as flora and fauna as we did until 1967? This really is a disgrace. It's no wonder this site is rated b class 121.221.96.214 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for a data series showing the population growth in WA since 1829. Does anyone know where this may be? -- —Moondyne 07:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ian. This page from the ABS Year Book 2005 shows the populations of the States and Territories in certain years from 1901.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Ian, ABS produced individual WA Year Books up until recently- they have population data going back to 1829, including Indigenous numbers as well. Available at State Library or most unis. 22December 2005
Perhaps someone could find the right place to add the three referendums we have had on daylight savings (1975, 1984, 1992), all rejected [1]. Also the trials that preceeded the referendums in 1983 and 1991 I think it was, and perhaps the general public opinion at the time? Nachoman-au 12:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
'Western Australia does not have daylight saving, considering the major population centres in the south of the state experience very early sunrises in summer and early sunsets. This means that most outdoor activities, for which Western Australia is famous, wind down by about 8pm.'
“ | A FEW TIMELY REMINDERS
|
” |
petedavo 10:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
—Moondyne 14:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the bias and negativity from the part about retail hours and corrected time errors. Maybe it should be expanded to some industry specific hours like alcohol, motor vehicles, chemists etc Gnangarra 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I question the accuracy as the source page isn't by the BOM. I know Adelaide has exceeded the temperature max (50.7) for SA as stated on the site. I'm sure a number of centres have recorded higher then the 50.5 claimed Gnangarra 22:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Also what about highest rainfall, made these could be included in the info box Gnangarra
As I already wrote on Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 2#History this article here does not have historical info at all, while the Perth article does have some bits and pieces which are related to the whole WA. Comments and flames are welcome. -- Goldie (tell me) 00:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The claim that aussie rules is the most popular needs to be defined, it certainly has the most accumulated spectators per season but Netball has more participants and lawn bowls has more club members. Both have state teams and have hosted international competitions Gnangarra 10:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that Western Australia has the strictest gun laws of any State in Australia, much to the eternal annoyance of Sporting Shooters both there and elsewhere in Australia... WA doesn't recognise out of state Firearms Licences automatically, and shooters intending to import "High Calibre" weapons need permission from the Police Commissioner, AFAIK.
Anyone know why WA has such strict gun laws? As far as I understand, the State is more or less completely empty outside the five major population centres named in the article, so you'd think there'd a be very strong rural element wanting less restrictions on legitimate firearms ownership. --Commander Zulu 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
The question of how long Western Australia has been peopled is still a huge bone of contention in archaeological and anthropological circles. I suggest that we probably shouldn't be claiming anything more specific than between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago, and the assertion should be referenced, and ideally it should be presented as one of a number of positions on the issue. Snottygobble 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Above article is now open for business. Additions and photographic additions are welcomed. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should be aware of this project - here -- I@n ≡ talk 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Gogo Fish Mcnamaraspis kaprios has been added to the Premier's web site since it was put up for proclamation as such in 1995.
I am attracted to recognition of the fossil flora and fauna as being just as distinctive to a geographical region as its living biome but would like others to confirm that this is a recognised emblem and not just a publicity gimmick. The practise is already widespread in the United States, but I can understand those who would want to keep "symbol creep" to a minimum.
Thedarky 05:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
A recent change to the Westen Australia article, regarding fertility of the soils was made. Unfortunately the way the article now reads it sounds like all of the soil is infertile. This is clearly not true. What do people thing? Maybe reword, i.e. due to the infertility of parts of the West Australia soil (e.g. place a, place b, place c) (reference here)...? Rob (Talk) 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have move the subsection (list of events) from this article to Sport in Western Australia. The reason being its a list of unconnected events, not entirely relevant to the main article on WA. Gnangarra 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I was listen to 6PR tonight and they gave a new just started web page for Albany historical Society. This site may have some useful information to expand this article and others on the region. --Gnangarra 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the motto. As far as I can tell, it is not official; it was part of an unofficial coat of arms, but nothing more. [2] Pruneautalk 09:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sandgroper - the insect, is more correctly referred to as a mole cricket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.208.117 (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sandgropers are not refering to the sandy soils of WA. It reffers to a small bug found on sand dunes.
I would argue that it is still found - see item at 32 below SatuSuro 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this the place to ask questions? Vicki R 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Scott davis answered me, thanks.Vicki R 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
what is the relevance of this section? it's not consistent with other states, or indeed other states/provinces entries from overseas elsewhere in Wikipedia. Michellecrisp 06:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
To anyone who wrote that Perth is the most isolated city with one million people in the world, Adelaide is found 2104km away from Perth and that Jakarta, Indonesia is found nearer to it than Sydney, please include your information on the article "Perth, Western Australia. This article is about WA, not about Perth. If you have anything to say, please have it posted on my talk page. Thank you. -Pika ten10 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The article on Lord Howe Island claims _it_ has the southern-most coral reefs. Can Rottnest's reefs be truly described as coral reefs? Or is Lord Howe Island turning some true but narrow claim (which I can't be bothered to chase down) to uniquesness into a (false) broad one?
(I edited the article to only claim coral reefs since since I'm sure any number of Southern ocean islands not to mention Tierra Del Fuego must have more southerly rock-reefs).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.cant (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the illustration for the state flag is "riding high" and overlaps the intro sentence.I don't know the wiki tools to adjust it to correct position.Please fix,thanks(User talk:Ern malleyscrub)Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Focussed on this article today because I saw a note about a DVD soon being prepared using selected stuff from the WA Project including this article. Will do a version recompare tomorrow to recheck typo's or other mistakes I've made. Been thinking about this article for a while but thought rather than initiate reams of discussion I'd be bold and do a wholesale edit first, return tomorrow to fix errors and add citations etc and let others comment/change at will. In doing this I've obviously risked the ire of past editors who had crafted the article into an already great report on our great state...hope you'll forgive the audacity of this newcomer. GlenDillon 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Noticed a re-reversion regarding the terms "Southern Ocean" in the lead-in. It was in my big edit a week or so ago that I introduced "Southern Ocean" (and other bits) to the lead-in although of course I didn't check my facts first regarding the Southern Ocean. Seems to me the un-sourced note is accurate and useful though it needs a source included of course. Either that, or "Southern Ocean" be removed from the lead-in if it is not strictly true. GlenDillon 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct, after much back and forth on this in '07, the Australia and the Southern Ocean article was created....it has all the sources. Seems that the IHO, which says the Southern Ocean never goes above 60 degrees south (nowhere near Australia) is the authority in the English-speaking world, and since this is the English language WP, not the Australian WP, we have to at the very least include this footnote.DLinth (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It is very hard to assess this information when the article sources 'The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) defines the "Southern Ocean" as those waters surrounding Antarctica south of the 60° S circle of latitude' to a broken link to the Antarctic Treat Act 1960. Am I to understand that this assertion has been taken not directly from the IHO, but indirectly via an assertion made in a treaty nearly 50 years ago? Hesperian 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
OHNO this has been gone through till the cows have been home and back again across so many article talk pages how come it has been let loose again (do we have to be subjected to this?) - there is a history across a whole lot of articles where basically the POV issue has left some people in utter despair - the Southern Ocean denial game has gone too long - the point here about Western Australia is the specific land information and management department specifically identifies its coastal region as having the Southern Ocean abut its southern shores full stop. If they are wrong I suggest the complaining editor approaches the Western Australian Landgate department and have it out with them - not wikipedia editors SatuSuro 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
One can only conclude that (a) The proposal to reinstate the Southern Ocean has not yet been ratified and so is not yet in force; (b) the IHO currently does not recognise the Southern Ocean; and (c) the notion that it does is based on a premature and error-riddled press release."The edition in force is still the 3rd edition, dated 1953, which is available from the IHO website. A 4th edition of the publication has been under preparation for some time. It has not yet been finalized."
Quick summary of where we're at:
What we need to decide here is whether to call it Indian Ocean in accordance with international practice; or Southern Ocean in accordance with Australian practice; and also the extent to which we want to get into the details of the dispute in the lead section of this article. The options, as I see them, are:
To my mind, the options get better as we move down the list. Hesperian 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The meat could be also the item placed above hesperians summary by gnangarra - however I have not sufficiently plumbed as to why local, state and federal bodies have adopted the usage - if in fact the issue as it has been done at Australia and the Southern Ocean is a valid article or basically an exercise in WP:POINT regarding either Australia usage or the woefully inadequate nature of the CIA factbook SatuSuro 12:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[7] Superbly worded Gnangara. Moondyne 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Good that Gnangarra has resolved the issue - well done! SatuSuro 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to a recent edit by an anon to the article, I had a look at the ABS data for population of statistical districts, and had a bit of a think about it. The population we give in this article for major regional centres (or at least, until the anon edited it) was for the statistical districts with the name of the town. But, at least in my view, these statistical districts aren't always representative of the urban population of a town. Here's an example:
I think it's a very long stretch to classify everyone living in the Shire of Murray (including Pinjarra) as living in Mandurah. I know we don't really have any real alternative, especially in cases like Bunbury where a substantial chunk of the urban population is in another local government area. And I also acknowledge that the Perth metropolitan area is well-represented by the relevant statistical districts. I just want to know if there's a better way to represent regional towns and cities. - Mark 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If the consensus is for (2) above, I'd suggest reverting the anon edits for Albany and Geraldton too. GlenDillon 07:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
ohmigawd this all got hammered out at australian places years ago didnt it? orderinchaos hesperian or moondyne probably remember :( - and this should be at the project notieboard btw SatuSuro 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Is not an offensive nick name for citizens of Perth-please do not modify - note the varying usage at state reference library entries here: - http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X?SEARCH=sandgroper&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A it has been usage for at least a 100 years and is not inoffensive SatuSuro 13:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The nickname "sandgroper" is simply a colloquial term that refers to a person from Western Australia. It is not inherently an offensive or an inoffensive nickname. It depends upon who is using the word and the context in which it is used. Generally it is inoffensive and Western Australians use it in reference to themselves. (Lanyon (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC))
Who? I've been living here for almost a decade and never heard it, ever. It's stupid coming to Wikipedia and hearing that West Australians refer to themselves by something that we simply don't (with citation from old museum webpage about sandgropers), and if other people (again, who?) refer to us by that name why should it be on the Wikipedia page about us? I don't care if it's offensive or inoffensive, it's just stupid. Like having on the Australia page, right at the top of the article, "Australians are often referred to as Kangaroos" or something equally stupid, based on what they happen to call us in Denmark or some random webpage on Kangaroos that makes passing reference to it. Kestasjk (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
And incidentally you get 9 results searching the state reference library for sandgroper via the link SatuSuro posted, and at least one of them doesn't use the term to refer to west-australians but rather to refer to a tunnel boring machine.. If it's a colloquial thing in country areas, or a historical thing, it shouldn't be put up that it's "often" used, and shouldn't be in the article header/summary. Feel free to put it under trivia. Kestasjk (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
History of the different versions of the line:
I think that the use of "rural" wasn't in the cited source so I agree I shouldn't have added that in, but "born and raised" is directly from the cited source. I've also left in "are" rather than change it back to "have been" as I entered before. Now that it sticks as closely as possible with the cited source it should be easier for a third party to determine whether it should be in such a prominent position. I've also added a "dubious" marker to it, so people won't change it without seeing the talk page first (If there's a more appropriate flag than "dubious" feel free to change it)
Also it should be remembered that the cited source isn't about what people in WA call themselves, it's about an West Australian insect, and the relevant part is only a passing reference.
I understand it's not an offensive nickname, and I don't want to completely remove it, I simply don't think it's appropriate to give it such a prominent position or to imply that it ubiquitous.
Also the fact this section exists before I came across this shows I'm not the only one who feels this way. Also let's not make this personal; I don't have any animosity to people living in rural WA, and loved North (and South) WA whenever I've gone up/down there, and know people who regularly fly out to these towns for IT/health training. I don't like being called "geographically challenged" or anything though, let's keep that attitude out of this and resolve this reasonably. Kestasjk (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
References
![]() |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Western Australia/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: Let me also note in passing that I'm a Native Texan and have no ties to Australia. I think that the current version is the preferable form, except perhaps for the linking and second clause tying the term to the insect (discussed below). As for the first clause, the sources presented seem a little iffy from a Wikipedia–reliable–source point of view, but certainly seem to give cumulative support to the actual existence of the term. A high-quality late-20th century, if controversial, source can be found here, and uses the term in passing to refer to Western Australians without explanation, which suggests that the author presumes that Australians, at least, will know what it means. Quite a few other current and historic examples of use can be found in this search. I dislike "often" because it seems to suggest frequent current everyday use, which the sources do not support, but the contemporary uses and listing in current–slang lists show that there is plenty of support for the term not being entirely archaic or unused. As for the linking and second clause, I do have some doubt about the tie between the insect and the term. The current formulation suggests that the use of the term for the people comes from the name of the insect, but I find no support for that in the sources. Indeed, one of the sources given (Angelo) and this (high–quality, I think) source suggest that the term means "one who walks through soft sand." I'd suggest keeping the first clause, as is, eliminating the second one, and relinking the term to the disambiguation page, not to the insect. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the well thought out opinion. Given the extra sources that have recently been added I can see it is used colloquially and at least is referred to in tourism books about slang, and I agree that "often" wasn't appropriate but that's now gone.
I wouldn't mind seeing it moved under the culture section or something though; I don't think it's something that belongs in the short summary section. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Thanks again, and thanks to Hesperian for adding the extra citations (you have an impressive collection of aussie slang books, you must be quite incomprehensible to talk to ;-) ).
Kestasjk (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The image which is off to the left showing the major highways and roadhouses of WA seems to be incorrect, where it shows Pannawonica, i think that it is actually Tom Price. I dont know how to change it. Can someone assist. Five Years 08:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if the movies Gallipoli and Rabbit-Proof Fence should be mentioned among the movies and TV shows? I'm not sure if they were filmed in Western Australia but they were certainly set in it; I think Gallipoli was filmed at Port Lincoln in South Australia. Both films, I believe, are culturally significant and well-known works in Australia and I was thinking that they should perhaps be included in a short list among the movies and TV shows saying that they were set in WA. Does anyone have any thoughts, objections or endorsements of this idea? 1.125.213.78 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unless a really good qualifications with reliable sources/cites is made in the text - I do not consider that mostly desert and uninhabited for the lead paragraph should be re-inserted at all. I am not denying that here are desert and uninhabited portions of the state - but what is needed is adequate flagging of the fact that most desert identifications on maps of wa - are actually vegetated areas - with quite significant plant groups and wildlife present. As for uninhabited - there are significant stretches of sparsely populated areas - but I would suggest that the term uninhabited can have a lot of associations that are inadequate for the reality of areas with either floating population, or areas which are regularly traversed but do not have permamnent settled habitation. sats 00:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
closed as per the main discussion *Retraction: Please note that, taking account, among other things, of comments above there is enough to show that it was an error (mine) to have proposed that the states of Australia are properly named "the State of...". Thanks to those who have helped in resolving the point (for me. at least). Qexigator (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[9].... Gnangarra 00:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The info box links to States and territories of Australia but neither the lead nor the body of the article informs, or confirms for, a reader that "the State of...." is the proper name of this and other states of the Commonwealth of Australia, per the preamble to the Australia Act 1986[10] and its sections applying to all the states generally, except 13 and 14 which apply respectively to Queensland and Western Australia specifically. States of a federal union may have different names, as in USA, and not all the constituent parts the Commonwealth of Australia are States. Many readers will know that, but not all. Qexigator (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
+Discussion continues at Talk:Victoria (Australia). --Qexigator (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This edit puts Western Australia into Category:1829 establishments in Australia - the year the Swan River Colony was started - which is consistent with History of Western Australia. However a settlement was established in King George Sound (now Albany, Western Australia) in 1826 specifically for the purposes of claiming the rest of the continent (to stop the French from doing it), so why is the state not deemed to have been established in 1826? Why was the state not deemed to be established until the Swan River Colony in 1829? Is there some legal distinction between a "settlement" and a "colony"? Is it because the Albany settlement was purely a penal settlement with no free settlers? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You have answered your own question JarrahTree 01:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)