Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help
Australian state parliaments[edit]
Are the Parliament of South Australia & the Parliament of Tasmania different from the other four Australian state parliaments? I ask this as @Safes007: keeps deleting the Australian monarch from their infoboxes & changing the sovereign, from the king to the state governors. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Constitutionally speaking, yes they are. Sovereign in this context links to King-in-Parliament and refers to the person who shares legislative power with the houses of parliament, in the same way that the UK King acts in relation to the UK parliament. It doesn't refer to independence, who is the head of state or anything like that.
- While the other state parliaments are defined as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament[1], in SA the parliament is defined as consisting of only the houses of parliament however actually legislative power is vested in the governor acting with the advice and consent of the houses. In Tasmania, the constitution defines the Parliament as consisting of the monarch and the houses of parliament[2]. This difference can be seen in the old enacting phrases. In WA, it was "Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent..."[3] while in Tasmania it is "Be it enacted by Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, by and with the advice and consent...".[4] I found this information from this source:[5]. Safes007 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. But again, I'd recommend deleting the monarch and or governor from the intros & infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why so? I think its necessary for it to be there in some capacity because Parliament is defined as including the monarch/governor in an at least equal capacity to the houses. Safes007 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Either include them both or exclude them both. Best not to add confusion to our readers, by introducing such inconsistencies among the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think inconsistencies will confuse readers if they refer to differences that exist. Would you be ok with a footnote next to the governor explaining the difference? Safes007 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- All six state parliaments are Westminster style. But, perhaps it's best if we wait for input from others on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean when you say all the parliaments are Westminster style? Safes007 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. They're based on the Westminster system of government. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean when you say all the parliaments are Westminster style? Safes007 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- All six state parliaments are Westminster style. But, perhaps it's best if we wait for input from others on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think inconsistencies will confuse readers if they refer to differences that exist. Would you be ok with a footnote next to the governor explaining the difference? Safes007 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Either include them both or exclude them both. Best not to add confusion to our readers, by introducing such inconsistencies among the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why so? I think its necessary for it to be there in some capacity because Parliament is defined as including the monarch/governor in an at least equal capacity to the houses. Safes007 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. But again, I'd recommend deleting the monarch and or governor from the intros & infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
That being said. I do recommend a solution. Delete the sovereign parameter from all the state parliaments. Remove the monarch & governors from the infoboxes of all the state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: The constitution of every state makes it clear what constitues their respective parliaments. Please refer to constitution acts as they are explicit in defining that. You can also refer to this source, which states:
For the Commonwealth and Victoria, Parliament is comprised of the Queen and two elected Houses of Parliament. For Tasmania, Parliament is comprised of the Governor, as the Queen's representative, and two elected Houses of Parliament. For Queensland, Parliament is comprised of the Queen and one elected House of Parliament. For New South Wales and Western Australia, it is the Queen acting with the advice and consent of two elected Houses of Parliament that has the power to make Acts. The position in South Australia is different. There the Queen or the Governor does not form part of the Parliament as such. That Parliament consists of two elected Houses. However, Bills passed by the Parliament of South Australia must be assented to by the Governor in the name and on the behalf of the Queen.
- The same source cited above also states:
All the powers and functions of the Queen in relation to the making of an Act by a state Parliament are exercisable only by the Governor of the state. However, if the Queen is personally present in a State, she is not precluded from exercising any of those powers and functions.
- Therefore, I wouldn't be opposed to adding both the monarch and the governor in the infoboxes. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Ormond: I too wouldn't be opposed to having both the monarch & governor in the infoboxes of all six state parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ e.g. Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) s 2A
- ^ Constitution Act 1934 (Tas) s 10
- ^ Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (WA)
- ^ Brickmakers Point Landslip Act 2021 (Tas)
- ^ Carney, Gerard (2006). The Constitutional Systems of the Australian States and Territories. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–79. ISBN 9780521863056.
- Seeking clarification: @Peter Ormond:, are you supporting the changes that have been made at the Tasmanian & the South Australian parliament pages? GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This article has some major formatting issues. My weak attempt to fix the problem was reverted. The article could do with some TLC from someone in this project. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Is "an historical" valid in modern Australian English?[edit]
The article COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania#Nauru uses "an historical case", where I would use "a historical case". The article is tagged as using Australian English. I am aware that "an historical" is used by some English speakers, and it was used in Australian works from a few decades ago. Is it part of modern Australian English? I'm responding to an edit request at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania#Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024 and need guidance.-Gadfium (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- "An historical" works for me, but "a history book". It's about which syllable is stressed. Maybe a South Australian affectation. Doug butler (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've found a Department of Education document which uses "an historical", so it clearly is acceptable in Australian English.-Gadfium (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- It might be acceptable, but it's uncommon. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- In modern Australian English, I'd bet more on someone using it being born/educated overseas, using a US autocorrect, or using material from a US source. That said, the addition was made here, and the editor was editing a whole bunch of COVID-19 pages and does not appear to be a fluent Australian English speaker (eg: see User_talk:John_B123/Archive_23#Why_not_a_covid_article_for_Kiribati?), so I'd say go ahead and edit it to "a" and see if it gets reverted ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's uncommon and clunky. In most usages I would prefer "a historical case". TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've found a Department of Education document which uses "an historical", so it clearly is acceptable in Australian English.-Gadfium (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would only consider "a historical" acceptable in written form, although some people vary when spoken depending on regional accents. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure both are acceptable. I use "an" (and never dropped my aitches), but I've heard both here in South Australia. Suspect modern usage tends towards "a", and there are probably regional difference. See Australian English: an historical study of the vocabulary 1788-1898. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Australians pronounce our h's, so "an historical" is correct. However, we have spent so long watching American TV, American movies and listening to American songs that we often use American pronunciation, American grammar and American spelling. The English also drop their h's, so we blindly copy them too. Sighhhhh Stepho talk 11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The theory is that the an form arose from people dropping their aitches, or assuming silent aitches on this word. Only some regional dialects (notably Cockney) of English traditionally drop aitches, but as we know language evolves constantly and there are many outside influences on Australian English. IMO we should just accept both. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can't resist recounting here this gem from our article on Australian rules footballer Jack Dyer, who did drop his aitches - "He also had a regular column which went under the name "Dyer 'ere" (a pun on diarrhoea) in Melbourne's Truth newspaper." HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The theory is that the an form arose from people dropping their aitches, or assuming silent aitches on this word. Only some regional dialects (notably Cockney) of English traditionally drop aitches, but as we know language evolves constantly and there are many outside influences on Australian English. IMO we should just accept both. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Australians pronounce our h's, so "an historical" is correct. However, we have spent so long watching American TV, American movies and listening to American songs that we often use American pronunciation, American grammar and American spelling. The English also drop their h's, so we blindly copy them too. Sighhhhh Stepho talk 11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure both are acceptable. I use "an" (and never dropped my aitches), but I've heard both here in South Australia. Suspect modern usage tends towards "a", and there are probably regional difference. See Australian English: an historical study of the vocabulary 1788-1898. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would personally never use "an historical" but I can't speak for Australians more broadly. – Teratix ₵ 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your feedback.-Gadfium (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am here trying to solicit some feedback for a featured list candidate I put up, the List of premiers of Victoria. The discussion has been stagnant for over a month and I'd hate for it to fail nomination due to a lack of discussion and to have to start all over again. Thank you! GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]
 Hello, |
Bill Morgan (lottery winner)[edit]
I am not convinced that Bill Morgan (lottery winner) is notable. Please see discussion at Talk:Bill_Morgan_(lottery_winner)#Notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)