Talk:Australia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

This article was nominated for deletion on July 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Talk page archives:
1	2	3	4	5

Contents 1 Darwin link crooked 2 Protection 3 Our failed VFH nomination 4 Editing 5 entry for Adelaide needs to be corrected 5.1 Avert thine eyes! 5.2 Currently Rewriting 6 AC/DC 7 Perth 8 The opening 9 Comment 10 Australian Army 11 Tall Poopy Syndrome 12 I live in Australia 13 Transport 14 Natives 15 Australian rugby union team 16 Straya 17 National Anthem 18 Really Boring and Unfunny 19 Paranoia 20 Swearing

[edit] Darwin link crooked

Somebody fix up the Darwin links on this page please - they all lead to Charles Darwin instead of the city. --QXZ 05:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've written a page for Darwin, but i had to use a different link to the one on this page. That link points to a page which doesn't exist yet, but it's locked by LedBalloon, who (according to their profile page) isn't currently active. Could someone change the links here to point to that page? It's at Darwin_(Northern_Territory) . Swaggie 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Can we allow permission for certain people to edit this? I find it completely unfair that Australians have their topic up for protection whereas us kiwis don't. --Thematrixeatsyou 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected for two reasons:

1. I'm a big nag.
2. We are tired of stupid IP edits and have decided to put an end to the ongoing annoyance.

Actually, I can go and ask to have this unprotected just for the sake of showing you some "fairness", but then, you'll have to stay here and clean up the page on a daily basis or I'll nag you until your head explodes.

--Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just block guest edits? --Thematrixeatsyou 03:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, go and nag the staff members (sannse in particular). I don't operate the software here, nor do I work for Wikia Inc in any form of agreement. Even the sysops (which I am not) can only do what MediaWiki and Wikia Inc allow them to. So, you are pretty much wasting your time yelling at me - a regular user - here. -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is no doubt purely personal opinion, but does anyone else think we could do a bit better with the quote at the top of the page? You don't actually have an enema 'removed' do you? Or is that part of the joke? Lowee 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC) looks like i picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue

There are three options:

1. Make it better.
2. Leave it alone.
3. Get rid of it.

Apparantly, due to the fact that the entire page has been semi-protected, there is not much you can do about the quote. So, here's a solution: put a new quote here, and if it's indeed better, then I'll just replace the old one with it. Otherwise, I'll just put the old quote on the chopping board - the page will do well without one anyway. -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our failed VFH nomination

• Nom and for. Maybe I am really pushing for this, but I would really like to see the article featured. It was the work of 50+ individuals over a period of one year, and 1000+ hours were spent with all blood, sweat and tears... Meh, what the heck! Just sit down and enjoy the article, and don't forget to vote! -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• For, I've got a soft spot for Australia. Right there. Don't poke it! Now it's all bruised! --Sir Modusoperandi 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. A thousand hours. Wasted. Dull, tiresome, predictable and clinging to cliche for life support. A depressing mediocrity. Australia deserves a lot better than this. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• I do like it, though it is a bit long. Some nice little Antipodian funnies. For. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 15:38 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Decidedly For(!). --DW ^III 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• For maaaaaaaaaate, please ignore me 'Strayan bias, being a 'Strayan meself. --Cs1987 05:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Too long, which would be good, if it were funny, which it's not that much of, which it could be with some work, which someone won't do, which witch is the witchiest?.--Anyone 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• For, cos I like it. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]  MUN CM NS F@H (drivel) 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• For - Better than anything <insert name here> could write. -- [SIR] e|m|c ^[talk] 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against, I'm afraid. Australian-English Dictionary is much better. 15Mickey20 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• For because emc sux -- VFP Eincyc (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Not even going to read that long, long, article. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against Nah. Austrailia isn't popular. Those who live there should be ashamed and feel unclean all the time.-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 11:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mickey Mouse against. Nah. Severian isn't popular. Those who vote here should be ashamed and feel unclean all the time. -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment wait, you nom'd this, right?--Sir Modusoperandi 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Guess what? I am going to put this on the discussion page. Eveyone has something to say about this article. One IP came in and wrote this one whole page about how "un-Australian" the article was, but did anything get done at the end of the day? Another IP came in and made a comment in every section of the article on what sort of "dickwallop" I was [1] for what I did to their blatant vandalism [2], but how many people actually stood up and told eveyone that Uncyc is not a place where everything goes? I would like to see this featured (although I admit I was kind of pushing for the nomination), but how can this going to be possible when there are people standing in your way at every opportunity instead of helping ? (Just think about how many times I have reverted those "Melbourne is gay" edits.) This voting result is going to serve as a jesture of contempt towards all these individuals, and they will be here to either make the article better or get lost. Editing this crap isn't easy at all, and if there's a way to lower the difficulty a bit, I'll just take it. -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• For Marree Men Unite. Premier Tom Mayfair 14:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Although thanks for Holly Valance. 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Overlong, and while there are a few good jokes in there it's a little too diluted --Jamtrousers 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Things need to be a bit more evened out. Is is article managed and edited by Australians? Well, most of it glorifies Australia. I find it unfair that kiwi's can't edit Australia but you can do whatever you want to ours.

Any logged in user can edit it (you may also need a certain number of other edits as well I'm not 100% sure) just not those too lazy to register.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 09:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You need a certain number of edits. It's still not completely fair. This article [australia] has turned into a patriotic mess and is in need of editing.

It's pretty clear that I have mentioned this some time before, but just let me explain to you again why we have protected the "patriotic mess" you are talking about.

These are the only reverts I still remember - [3], [4] - and do you think they are any more appreciable than this so-called "patriotic mess"? How fair do you think it will be to those who have to clean up the mess anon-IP's left behind if we just go and get the page unprotected? Look, mate! Like I said - I am more than happy to get someone to remove the semi-protection for you, but in return you'll have to stay here on a daily basis and weed out all the trash people left behind. Does that sound fair enough to you? -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, though, what ought to be suggested, is, instead of semi-protection being removed from this article, that the New Zealand article should be protected too, to prevent edits such as this and the other one, both today, coincidentally (or maybe not) from the same IP as the one who began this discussion (just thought I'd point that out, I know it's not directly related to this article)... --scaley1234 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

An interesting observation you have made there. ;) -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do something about australia's army! Like 50% kangaroos, and 49.99% Cloned Steve Irwins

Exuse me well it's still a bit unfair, don't you think? If people are going to bag Australia, so what! Have you read the New Zealand article recently? It goes on directly insulting the country and people itself, then making sick disgusting jokes about sexual intimacy with sheep. Can't we have something a little bit more original? It's not that hard to make up something like that about anyone or anything. New Zealand is described as a "Maori waste-land" in the first sentence, where as Australia is convienetly defined as "the magical land of oz - Australia, the splendiferous beer filled land". I still don't understand why you (col swordman) think it's alright for NZ's article to be trashed, but Australia's is highly protected.

Ok. Let me put it this way - why is it fair to full-protect AAAAAAAAA!, whereas all those pages I created are allowed to be edited by everyone? Look! Do you know what you are doing here? You are asking to get this page unprotected solely on the basis of a totally irrelevent issue. In fact, it doesn't matter if you are from New Zealand, Fiji or Kansas, US. As long as you are a regular user here, you can edit this page whenever you want. If you are a newbie or simply unregistered, then what can I say? Too bad! I don't even know if you are planning to blank the whole page and then chuck in a few dead kangaroos. This is bascially what semi-protection is all about - to prevent untrusted individuals from editing the page. Yeah, I know that sucks, but that doesn't mean we should from now on allow a not-so-good page to go even worse. Please, folks, give this protection thing a rest - don't get your panties in a twist over a page that even I don't terribly like. *sigh* -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The solution is simple: tone down the stereotypical humour in both articles. Wikis are a DIY format, nothing is usually achieved by asking people in the talk pages to do something. - Diceman 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exuse me? I want you, col.swordman, to tell everyone here why you think Australia deserves semi-protection and New Zealand doesn't. It is obvious Australians linger around this article and change it if anyone dares to humiliate Australia. The Australian article isn't even funny, it just glorifies Australia in a humourous way. You say, too bad? Too bad that we can't edit Australia? I want it to get unprotected so that it may acctually have some real humour in it. There is no reason why Australia should get trashed more than New Zealand does.

No, I am not commenting on whether New Zealand deserves semi-protection, just as I am not commenting on whether United Kingdom or East Timor should get protected. There are almost 30,000 articles in this wiki. Some of them are protected, but most of them aren't. Now tell me why all these perhaps US or UK related articles are protected, but the New Zealand one isn't? Should they from now on be all unprotected so you can edit them in whatever way you want? Look, what I am saying here is that you are confrontational and your arguement is totally invalid, and I suggest that on these grounds alone the protection on the Australia article should never, ever be lifted. Still don't get it? Let me put in a different way - vandals are what semi-protection is here to guard against, and, unfortunately, you just sound like one. Plus, despite you had already got an account here, and despite you sent me an email by the same nickname on the same date just to get me here to hear you complain, you simply chose to write your message on this very page anonymously. How odd!

And oh, yeah! By the way, did you say the article was written "in a humourous way"? Thanks, mates! Do you know how hard our folks actually worked on it? You know, it's not easy to write about a big piece of dirt and make it sound humourous. Just think about how flattered they must be now...

-- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct about the protection of the UK article. However the article of England is protected. I still stick by my opinion that it is unfair that you can edit ours and we can't edit yours. It just ruins this whole uncyclopedia. Isn't it meant to be, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? My arguement is not invalid. Some articles are protected (perhaps bigger countries such as Australia, England, United States of America, Canada) and others are not proteted (New Zealand) This seems to be a trend and it just pisses everyone off. It's just the big countries bagging the little countries! Admit it. Why can't you comment on whether smaller country articles deserve protection, or do you only care about Australia and nothing else? And about the vandalism, I was just deleting some bullshit.

All this hot air over simply having to register first (you don't even need to submit an email address). Firstly, why are you wasting thought over the waste of time that is Uncyclopedia. Secondly this is just a chance for you to vent your dislike/hatred of Australia. Australia and New Zealand have much more in common than in difference, why don't you focus on that and do your homework instead of screwing around here. I've met a person just like you on IMDB's Rove Live forums, you two give the people of NZ a bad name in my mind. - Diceman 12:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

on the table on the top right of the page, it says oz's exports are kylie minogue, etc. what about our imports, like russel crow and other ppl we stole from new zealand?

[edit] entry for Adelaide needs to be corrected

it should read "city of churches (and axe murderers and chopper)"

[edit] Avert thine eyes!

I have been looking after this mess for some time but it seems to me that despite all the effort people will simple continue to see the article as a public toliet and take a dump there whenever they feel like to. Now it's up to you - yes, you - to do something about it.

It all started when I did some major changes to the article. My first thought was that random things would look a bit nicer if they were arranged in lists, but then I began to realise that they needed to be trimmed in order to keep the article in good quality. However, when I started to weed out the garbage people became somewhat irritated and in a few occasions, I found myself engaged in edit war, with absurdity that only the wildest of minds can imagine (see [5], [6], [7] and last but not least, [8]). I am now totally exhausted and tired of seeing this non-redeemable mess and would like some sincere individuals to put an end to this madness.

Major edits to be done include:

1. Rewriting the "history" section. (Read this first!!!)
2. Shooting down any non-coherent list entries.
3. Killing the quotes.
4. Ironing out incoherence in all sections.

Suggested changes to be made:

1. Move the "Chuck Norris facts" look-alike (i.e. the "Fast Facts" section) to a seperate page.
2. Kill the "Famous Australians" list and end the ongoing nonsense.

So, any volunteers?

[edit] Currently Rewriting

This whole article is a huge morass of unamusing one-liners that seem to have been written by a twelve-year-old. I've removed multiple paragraphs or even sections entirely, to be replaced when someone comes up with something worthwhile to put there.

Even so, it's taking a long time and since it's too long to completely rewrite large sectons are still quite unfunny, so I'd appreciate any help given.

- Bk 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. -- Col. Schwertfechter (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AC/DC

An entire aritcle about Australia that doesn't even MENTION AC/DC? They're practically the best joke there!

[edit] Perth

I'm too lazy to register or log in at the mo. Hell, I'm Australian, I shouldn't have to bloody well log-in - that's un-Australian! Anyways, I reckon Perth needs a bit more info - "Often referred to as "Dullsville" but that seems somewhat complimentary." So, if one of you tall poppies with an account can just add that, she'll be apples mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.7.209.63 (talk • contribs)

[edit] The opening

Does anybody like the way I put that opening sentence?

"Ahhh....Australia. The Great Southern Land, Down Under, The Sunburnt Country, Terra Australis, Oz, The Better Version of New Zealand..."

Or does it need more cleaning up? I guess it's a little unfair, but we have a lack of people with a sense of humour. Teehee no-one cares about NZ when they make a map! Scoombie 11:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

someone edit in somthing about the fact that they like to say they have the biggest and best stuff in the southern hemisphere. yet they can only do this because of no civilised compotition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.188.16 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Australian Army

please fix up references to the Army makeup, they are inaccurate.

everyone knows that the accurate description is

"an Abrams Tank and a kelpie with rabies"

Australians are AWESOME

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.174.105.247 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Tall Poopy Syndrome

Why doesn't this deserve a mention? One of the greatest woes of existence on that god-forsaken hell hole.

Australians are Awesome. They Shit all over America

[edit] I live in Australia

I live in my damn country full of abos. Blakeman was banned for a week, MU HA HA HA!03:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add in the transport and natives into the article??? Their half decent

[edit] Transport

What can I say, Austrlian's love the soft touch and rythimic bouncing of a kangaroo's pouch. This common form of transport was first produced in responce to the kyoto project where people in a desperate attempt to reduce their green house gas emmissions, have turned back to a primitive form of transport. Research done by the CSIRO has created a giant kangaroo that is capable of transporting 25 students or workmen to and from their destined location. It is highly frowned upon when a fellow "Aussie" tries to convince other coutries that we travel around in auto mobiles as this is absured and untrue.

[edit] Natives

• • tourist Warning**

The shooting and baiting of natives is now illegal under the "wecome the coloured ones Act, 2005". ANYONE caught shooting, baiting and/or feeding the aboriginies will be dealt with a $200 fine. Giving monkey is ok as the government is alreading doing so.

Australians are MONKEYS

(someone please add more!)

[edit] Australian rugby union team

This comment was removed from the Wikipedia article on the Australian rugby union team, however I think that is funny enough to be included here. I can't add it myself as I don't have an account.

Australians are MONKEYS. The victory, Englands third on the spin, means that England get to keep Australia.

England have won three straight games against Oz at various Rugby World Cups.81.156.71.21 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straya

124.183.243.146 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

   Australians are MONKEYS. I love this article! but i would like to see the word Australia spelt "stralya" rather than "straya"

thx muchly

[edit] National Anthem

Our national anthem is really not Land down under by Men at Work, but The Vegemite Song... *Ninja look* Sezzaxox 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Really Boring and Unfunny

Hi, as an Australian I am kind of embarrassed by how unfunny the whole page is. Obviously it's being moderated by some anal kid with self-esteem issues who needs his country to be seen in the best light .. understandable perhaps but works against the whole funniness bit. A bit of lampooning is good. The whole thing comes across as weirdly defensive and

If the page needs to be moderated, can it please be by non-australians, who can get past their protective instinct and concentrate on funniness? It's shameful to compare this article to, say, Canada's, which is hilarious. It's fully of kind-of in-jokes and political jabs which are meaningless to anyone outside the country and unfunny even if you're in - even if you agree with the general sentiment. I didn't come to uncyclopedia to nod and tut sympathetically with some unbearably lame political "jokes", I came here to laugh, and the page falls completely flat.

The article on Australian Language and the cities are way, way better. Whatever was done for them, do it for Australia proper!

[edit] Paranoia

Why cannot the public edit this article? We have a band of paranoid culture cringers apposed to anyone who isnt on the inside editing the Aussie articles?

We all know how fragile our ego is, but c'mon, we dont want the world to know! Its the great aussie secret!!

I just wanted to add a section on our new motto being 'LEBS OUT', because we've well and truly killed any stereotype we once had about being friendly.

[edit] Swearing

I thought I'd ask before I went to the trouble, so does anyone have any objections if I add the odd "fuckin", "shit" or "cunt" every here and there? I thought a nice prelude would be to add "So where the fuckin hell are ya, you fuckin prick?" to the end of the intro.Fuqueue 13:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)