Talk:Western Australia/Archive 1

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.

12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost. It got to -6.0°C at Collie on 17 June 2006. See here. Gazjo 12:21, 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

17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a grand idea, although I think perhaps it would be best to have it as List of abandoned Western Australian towns, linked to prominently from this list. One possibility for the list is, if insufficient information exists for such communities is to make an article Abandoned communities of Western Australia or something like that (instead of making it a generic list), sectioned off by community, and those for which more than a sentence or three can be written linked to a main article for them. Tomer^talk 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of these town sites still physically exist ad they are still recorded as town sites by DOLA (dept of Land Admin). A group article on the those abandoned is great and if a town warrants its own page then it could be linked from that. The link could be through the word abandoned. Gnangarra 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thought is to just include the names of abandoned towns in

List of Western Australian towns that has as its sole contents {{:List of abandoned Western Australian towns}} (that would load the contents of the "abandoned" list when the regular list is loaded, without having to worry about double maintenance). The "abandoned" list could have a link to an article on top Abandoned towns in Western Australia, which article would actually discuss the fact that these towns exist and why, and then go on to list them each with a brief description. Meanwhile, in the "abandoned" list, I would recommend linking to each such community, and making those links redirects to the Abandoned towns in WA article, unless and until such time as they have articles of sufficient length to warrant their own independent articles. Thoughts? Tomer^talk

02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate "income" text

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.

---

Robert, this is not true. See my amendment now to the income test. Western Australia does not fib. In fact it bases its claim to its disproprotionate contribution to export royalties, particularly to the mining sector. Western Australia does contribute more than 25% of Australia's export revenues. The more populous states contribute proportionately less per capita than do Western Australians.

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)

• STATE - - - 1981/82 figure - - - 2001 figure - - - 2002 figure
• Victoria: 82 88 87
• NSW: 84 92 91
• WA: 134 98 97
• Queensland: 111 103 101
• SA: 123 118 120
• Tasmania: 162 150 155
• ACT: 85 1.15 114
• NT: 165 402 424

(Sources: Commonwealth Grants Commission, State revenue sharing relativities, 2002 update and CGC discussion paper 2001/14.)

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/[email protected]/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:

• 1st. A.C.T. - 56,303
• 2nd N.T - 51,634
• 3rd W.A. - 50,355
• 4th N.S.W - 45,153
• 5th Vic - 44,443
• 6th Qld - 40,170
• 7th S.A. - 38,838
• 8th Tas - 33,243

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.

The national Queen's Birthday holiday clashes with the state Foundation Day holiday.
Foundation Day is a genuine anniversary, unlike the Queen's Birthday which is an arbitrary date, so the problem was resolved by moving the Queen's Birthday to a different arbitrary date, even though this means WA is out of sync with the rest of the country. —Paul A 03:03, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Additional to this its timing was originaly chosen to align with the Perth Royal (Agricultural) Show, which its still does and this also co-insides with the school holidays. Gnangarra 03:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

This graph shows proportional population since 1881, but it may still be of interest -- Chuq 11:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. From the reference on that chart I was able to pick up some data, but I'm still looking. -- —Moondyne 04:05, 9 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.--

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.'

the section I cut from the main page, my reason. Given that Western Australians have on three seperate occasions freely voted for no day light saving this has no relevance on a page about Western Australian in a topic on Geography. Queensalnd also has no daysaving but its page doesnt mention it in any way. The appropriate placement would be on the page about Australia as part of disection of the time zones across the country, even there it would only be as a minor footnote.

Also what is an early sunset is it 3pm, 6pm, 7pm 8pm. Perth experiences the same amount of daylight as anywhere else on same lattitude. Any activity requiring daylight will always have the same amount/quantity of time available to use irreguardless of when the timed day starts and finishes. Gnangarra 07:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What I find extremely funny is that into the second year the State Government still has this little misiff on one of their website extolling the virtues of not having daylight saving...

“

A FEW TIMELY REMINDERS When it's 9.00 a.m. in Perth, it's the same time in Singapore, Manila, Hong Kong, Beijing and Seoul. Like the rest of the Asian region, Western Australia does not have daylight saving period during summer. Perth is the only major capital city in Australia in which it is possible to contact Europe during normal business hours. [3]

”

petedavo 10:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• WA Inc royal commission
  (new)
• Brian Burke (expanded)

—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

00:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Most popular sport - please define

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)

I think your question answers itself. The restrictions appear to be on people importing weapons from the outside. People, rural or otherwise, who want to shoot here already have the appropriate licenses and guns, no? --Nickj69 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No licensing has always been very controlled in WA, think there are some political events behind the reasonings, in 1996 the WA gun licensing requirements were stricter than those imposed/proposed after Port Arthur, the only effect the new laws had in WA was with the guns that could be owned. Gnangarra 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

The first inhabitants of Western Australia arrived on the northwest coast about 55,000 years ago. Over the next 20,000 years they slowly moved southward and eastward across the landmass.

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)

• This was taken from the History of Western Australia article which regretably does not appear to be referenced so both articles may need adjustments (I even checked Prehistory_of_Australia - no ref there either). The best refs are in Indigenous Australians (History) but only one ref to a Nature article on Mungo Man. Feel free to edit. Gazjo 12:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The recent WA Mseum reports on the finding of a stone axe on Rottnest estimates human settlement of the state at 70,000 years ago (based on the dating of Aeolian sandstone above and below the site. Perhaps we should extend the 60,000 upwards to 70,000.

Regards John D. Croft 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Above article is now open for business. Additions and photographic additions are welcomed. --

13:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should be aware of this project - here --

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)

• The main section on radio services in WA seems a little 'light-on'. More like a plug for a major commercial stations. I would think it more useful if we stated the number of stations across both bands, maybe the split between those located in Perth and those outside etc.? Rob 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Zilch on either the earlier incarnations and earlier mix of radio stations as well SatuSuro 09:12, 16 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 done a bit of a fix, but I'm no soil expert if someone can improve on it. Gazjo 11:47, 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)

• http://www.historicalbany.com.au/

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] Pruneau^talk 09:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Though that motto is unofficial, it must be included, for, in practice, it is the motto of WA. -Pika ten10 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2007 (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.

• What the hell is this anyway? I live in WA and I've never heard or been referred to as a "sandgroper". Damien Russell (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • No, it's not so common these days, is it. Anyone over 30 will be familiar with the term. Hesperian 06:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm under 30 and I'm familiar with the term. - Mark 06:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that it is still found - see item at 32 below

13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• The group of insects known as "sandgropers" are still commonly found. They are not exclusive to Western Australia. The term "Sandgroper" as used to refer to a person from Western Australia is still in common use. To a certain extent used more commonly outside the State to refer to or identify a person or persons whose origins are from Western Australia. Local Western Australians should recall a fluffy toy marketed to raise funds by the West Australian charity "Telethon" which toy was called "Sunny Sandgroper". (Lanyon (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Is this the place to ask questions? Vicki R 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

About what?

Suro

12:32, 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)

I agree and I've removed it. The information can already be found at this site and the wages aren't needed here. Graham87 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Michellecrisp 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who wrote that

) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Most Southerly Coral Reef In The World

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)

• Info box pop'n stats - minor update and citation
• Minor rewrite of lead-in (no need to menton Russia as the link explains the reference)
• Climate: one or two very minor edits
• History - two or three very minor edits for clarity
• Demographics - update to latest data from ABS; new map of distribution (approx); simple chart of growth of population; added stats for main pop'n centres; added numerous citations
• Economy- most edits are in this section. Kept the same length (900words) but added five or six citations (there were two previously) and removed some stuff which wasn't supported etc. this secition is probably still too long (relative to rest of article) with some stuff belonging in the separate Economy article which I intend to edit. Also "beefed up" (!) the references to agricultural production and added citations for agriculture, though I admit there's more needed.

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)

just noticed that a paragraph by paragrpah comparison of my changes has been rendered very difficult by something I've done - not sure what. Apologies. Formatting fixes required I think esp. images. GlenDillon 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

HELP! Government section has been sucked up into Economy and the image has disappeared. Can't figure what I've done wrong. In edit mode it looks okay but I can't separate the sections. Don't want to risk further damage - Can someone help here? GlenDillon 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up a citation - seems OK now Melburnian (talk) 04:48, 17 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

) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please supply a citation from an

Australia and the Southern Ocean. cygnis insignis

18:39, 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

23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the good oil. Back in 2000 various newsy websites picked up a story that the IHO had released a 3rd edition of their Limits of Oceans and Seas, in which they reinstated the Southern Ocean, defining it as the water south of 60°S. There are a couple of obvious errors there: firstly, the 3rd edition was published in 1953, so it would have to be a 4th edition; and secondly, a 4th edition was not published in 2000, and in fact has not been published yet. The IHO website's only reference to a 4th edition is "4th edition in preparation".[3] In August 2007, long after this "news" hit the wires, the IHO provided a report to the Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardisation of Geographic Names, which stated:[4]

"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."

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.

Where do we go from here: 1. The footnote needs to be reverted as incorrect; 2. the article

Australia and the Southern Ocean probably needs to be deleted as pointless; 3. the article Southern Ocean

needs to be corrected; 4. I need to go for a long walk, and only come back when my urge to rant about second-rate research based on crap sources has subsided.

Hesperian 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored "Indian Ocean"' (as well as the note explaining Southern Ocean) per Australia, and per the references I've listed at Talk:Southern Ocean. Hopefully, those refs. will help resolve this; I'm not sure why refs. weren't added here when the issue was discussed at length at Australia some time back. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One wonders the issue of why geosciences australia and other authorities institutional capacity to see a furphy when they see one - why is it then that http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=southern+ocean&placetype=0&state=0 exists - a figment of imagination - or is the IHO the figment - and that there might be some other source of info that clarifies the issue?

Suro

03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• What I read is that we have Federal, State, Local Government, and other
  undue weight to the proposal. Gnangarra
  11:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Quick summary of where we're at:

1. The International Hydrographic Organization hasn't recognised an ocean named "Southern Ocean" since 1953. In 2000, the IHO made a (still unratified) decision to recognise the "Southern Ocean", but defined as south of 60°S. So either way, the IHO considers the waters south of Western Australia to be the Indian Ocean.
2. In Australia, the waters to the south have long been considered the "Southern Ocean". Western Australia has officially gazetted this place name,[5] as has Tasmania. Interesting, the name is not listed in the gazetteer of the Australian Hydrographic Office, but we know where they stand because they have lodged a reservation to the IHO's decision,[6] which is presumably part of the reason the IHO still haven't formalised the definition.

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:

i. use Indian Ocean;

ii. use Southern Ocean;

iii. use Indian Ocean, with dispute footnoted;

iv. use Southern Ocean, with dispute footnoted;

v. remain non-committal, with dispute footnoted;

vi. remain non-committal, with dispute mentioned (briefly) in the text;

vii. recast lead to avoid the issue.

To my mind, the options get better as we move down the list. Hesperian 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the issue that I raised in relation to actual usage and previous edit warring across articles to do with locations in Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia - i-iv, vi not viable - v and vii seem more appropriate so as to not attract IHO arguments ad infinutum

Suro

04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Hesperian for summarising - I was struggling with what the meat of this was. I cannot see a problem with some clever wording which says "...the Southern Ocean to the south" couched so as to not imply that it attaches to the coast and a footnote explaining the dispute. Perhaps this is a bit like vii. Australia uses the term which should be good enough for the purposes of this article. BTW, here is the 1953 IHO document (p.6) which struck out the term. It's interesting that it refers to it also being called the 'Antarctic Ocean' in some quarters. Moondyne 10:26, 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

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!

15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This can hardly be described as

"undue weight", given that the term in question is a) proposed by an international body; b) actually in use by the same body, and other international bodies; and c) also in use by other organizations such as the CIA Factbook. To give preference to the local term over the international term would be undue weight. (Furthermore, saying "arguably" is not encyclopedic.) --Ckatz^chat_spy

16:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the most recent change which removed Southern Ocean and kept the explanatory note, though for completeness the note should reference the IHO report and the Age article (in the absence of any decent document from the Aust Hydrographic Office). I've struggled with this whole issue for several hours. In some ways I wish I hadn't started this discussion, or at least I wished that I'd checked the archives first. So I'm sorry if its just rehashed old turf for most of you. Still, everyeone kept cool and every single contribution/summarisation above has been intelligent and focussed so thank-you for responding. Having boldly/thoughtlessly (re)inserted "Southern Ocean" two weeks ago, I felt some responsibility for proposing a settlement and worked it offline. Initially I was okay with Gnangarra's solution though I wanted to remove "arguably" (mostly because I felt that WA's core WP article shouldn't have an relatively inconsequential issue raised in its lead-in paragraph. Perhaps okay for Spratley Islands or Sakhalin but for WA, Southern/Indian Ocean is a nomenclature issue not a key territorial dispute). Gradually, the more I looked at all the sources, the less appropriate "Southern Ocean" seemed. What clinched it for me was the perspective seen in (even though the map is unsourced and pushes the Indian Ocean way past the 60º line) though on a strict WP policy basis, I feel the IHO proclamation must trump any national designation.GlenDillon 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per Glen's note above, regarding whether we should give preference to the local term or the international term. The precedent on Wikipedia appears to give priority to the international (with mention of local concerns where appropriate). For example, Pluto is described as a dwarf planet, with mention of the dispute over the reclassification. The Northwest Passage is described making mention of Canada's claim to it, not as "Canadian waters". Given, however, that it is somewhat contentious, is it worth seeking comments from the wider community? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:47, 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:

• Mandurah Statistical District (2007 data) (see map)
  • City of Mandurah: population 60,560
  • Shire of Murray: population 12,917
• Total "Mandurah" population: 73,477

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)

Mark - good point raised. Hadn't bothered to check on the recent anonymous edit until now. Prior to my significant edit on 17 September (my insertion/deletion of blank lines makes a side-by-side version comparison a bit awkward - apologies), the section dealing with regional centres didn't have any pop'n data - I just thought that instead of referring to "important or well-known centres" (important on what basis? / well known to whom?) it would strengthen the paragraph by showing population (rounded down to nearest '000). Of course once I started that I faced the issues that you raised in your coment above. If you look at the ABS spreadsheet which I cited, you can follow my 'logic' ie I grouped certain Statistical Local Areas to derive a total for the main population centre (eg for Albany: Albany Central + Albany Other = 33,000. Note that the anon editor changed this to 36,000 though it's hard to see any basis for this higher figure, nor for the "new" number for Geraldton). Your point about Mandurah is certainly valid. For Bunbury, whereas I had used the Statistical subdivision rounded down (59,000), it looks like the anon editor has taken just the Bunbury Local Govt Area and rounded up! (32,000). Using the higher number made more sense, given that "Greater Bunbury" covers three/four Local Govt areas see [8]with a contiguous population of 59,000. When I did my big edit a few weeks back I asked myself - what info might be 'useful' in this article then proceeded to verify and cite. The whole area of reporting population statistics is not without complexity (ie there's so many ways to cut the numbers - eg the Bureau's provides LGAs StatDists, StatDivisions, SLAs SSDs etc), and the WA article is probably not the place to get bogged down with detailed stats and even more detailed explanations of the basis for the stats. If WP readers want more, they can follow my ABS link or the linked articles. I can see two solutions - though I'm sure there are others:

1. remove the bracketed numbers entirely for the main regional centres
2. keep them, but add brief explanatory notes to the reflist such as:
   1. Mandurah: Local Government Area only? (ie change the number to 60,000?)
   2. Bunbury: Statistical Subdivision (revert to 59,000 or maintain same approach as Mandurah?)

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

07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this at the time for some reason. We should use the UCL population, which is 67,813. Orderinchaos 09:57, 14 March 2009 (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

13:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not inoffensive? ;) - Mark 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - not offensive in its earlier usage as found in names of magazines and groups of people - however shift in context of words is such, a good linguist might well find a change in usage at some point - there are many words that have complete 180 degree shifts in 100 years

Suro

06:04, 15 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)

Two things the first is that it doesnt matter that you've lived here for 10 years editing to what you've have or havent heard is

original resaerch. Sandgroppers has been a long established term hence the use of the museum link, its use has been link with the biggest charity event in Western Australia in the form of a stuffed toy called Sunny Sandgropper. The second you term your are referring to is "Skippy", "Skips" both of which are derogatory terms used to refer to Australians by migrants, for better comparison suggest you look up Croweaters, Eastern Staters, Banana benders, Mexicans.... Gnangarra

01:53, 23 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)

1. I removed the line and had the change reverted by SatuSuro
2. I tried to write a more reasonable version that stuck more closely with what the citation said, while trying to discuss the problem with SatuSuro, but it was also reverted by SatuSuro and he hasn't continued the discussion here or via the talk page
3. I've called for a third opinion on this. SatuSuro recommended getting it from the WA project page but I think it'd be more appropriate to get it from an outsider. It seems there are Northern rural area folks trying to keep this in, but the vast majority of us aren't rural and (more importantly) the citations provided give no evidence that it's a ubiquitous colloquial nickname. (I doubt they refer to themselves as sandgropers in Margaret River, for example)

History of the different versions of the line:

1. The people of Western Australia are often colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.^[1]
2. Occasionally the people of Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.^[2]
3. The people of Western Australia have been colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.^[3]
4. People born and raised in Western Australia have been colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.^[4]
5. People born and raised in rural Western Australia have been colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.^[5]
6. The people of Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.^[6]
7. People born and raised in Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.^{[7] [dubious – discuss]}

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)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at 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)

Ribuck. :-) Hesperian 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's one of those dated things - it was used heavily until the 1980s (when I was a child in Perth, and I remember it well) but I never hear it now except in tourism type things - it's kinda sad actually, I even owned a Sunny the Sandgroper (I probably still do, if so, he's in a box somewhere.). I'm guessing the massive amounts of mining related internal and external immigration are a key factor - Perth's doubled in population since my arrival here. Orderinchaos 07:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is a very salient point - many recent immigrants either internal from other states or from overseas will no doubt give a very different flavour to west australian demographics and culture now and in the near future - for instance I would hazard a guess that the steady influx of white south africans from post apartheid south africa have in most cases done interesting things to our political climate

Suro

07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Electoral district of Wanneroo Orderinchaos 12:50, 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)

I just took a look at IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252444/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt) and it says that Rabbit-Proof Fence was partially filmed in WA, in Perth, the Pilbara and the Gisbon Desert. Also, while I think of it, should Red Dog also be included? According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0803061/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt) Red Dog was filmed Roebourne, Dampier, Karratha and the Pilbara in WA. 1.125.213.78 (talk) 14:40, 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.

00:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I made the edit that added that sentence but looking but looking back the language was extremely poorly chosen. Current version reflects what I was trying to say. Sometimes words just fall out of my fingers before they spend enough time in my brain.Rikeus (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131210083636/http://www.iho.shom.fr/publicat/free/files/S23_1953.pdf to http://www.iho.shom.fr/publicat/free/files/S23_1953.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080801025410/http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/structure_wa_economy_2005.pdf to http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/structure_wa_economy_2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719182931/http://abare.gov.au/publications_html/cr/cr_08/cr08_June.pdf to http://abare.gov.au/publications_html/cr/cr_08/cr08_June.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719182756/http://abare.gov.au/publications_html/livestock/livestock_08/LiveExports.pdf to http://abare.gov.au/publications_html/livestock/livestock_08/LiveExports.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120711222505/http://studywest.des.wa.gov.au/Studying/studying_schooling to http://studywest.des.wa.gov.au/Studying/studying_schooling
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121202030545/http://www.iho.int:80/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf to http://www.iho.int/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf

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.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

:Online 22:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit puts

) 01:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You have answered your own question JarrahTree 01:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is it? "Legal distinction between settlement/colony" or "we don't count crims"? A slightly more comprehensive answer would assist my understanding. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is because the Albany settlement was under the control of the NSW government, whilst the 1829 colony was independent. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

sounds good JarrahTree 02:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I think I have found the answer - Stirling was acting under a British Act of Parliament when he established the colony. On the other hand, the consitutional centre's website calls Albany a military outpost.

Interestingly, I have found that this page has the unsourced statement: "21 January 1827 – Western Australia was established when a small British settlement was established at King George's Sound (Albany) by Major Edmund Lockyer who was to provide a deterrent to the French presence in the area." However, external sources such as this do not even mention the earlier settlement, so I think the History of Australia (1788-1850) article should be fixed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110122025201/http://www.ga.gov.au:80/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/coastline-lengths.html to http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/coastline-lengths.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080801025410/http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/structure_wa_economy_2005.pdf to http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/structure_wa_economy_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 15:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)