Talk:Order of Australia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Order of Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Orders, decorations, and medals High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numismatics Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Mid‑importance

Order of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article is not assigned to a WikiProject or workgroup. Please help with your suggestions.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Ribbon images[edit]

WP Commons template "vector version available" says, when a vector version (e.g. .svg) of an image exists: "It should be used in place of the raster image (e.g. .jpg) when not inferior." The problem with the vector version of the images of the Order of Australia ribbons is that the vector versions are inferior to the raster images. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(After-word: I am currently unable to locate a copy of the "official" photo I had of the version of the ribbon that matches .png)

File:OrderAustraliaRibbon.png	File:Order of Australia (Military) ribbon.png
File:AUS Order of Australia (civil) BAR.svg	File:AUS Order of Australia (military) BAR.svg

The .svg versions are unquestionably superior and indeed are very accurate. In my view, the vector version IS inferior, and therefore should be replaced.Lexysexy (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the vector versions are "unquestionably superior", why would I say the vector versions are inferior? Clearly, it isn't unquestionable.

Wouldn't it be more useful if you explained why and/or how you think they are superior? And why do you say they are accurate?

What IS clear and unquestionable is that both of us moving away from opinion and towards fact would be an improvement. I look forward to reading your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a terminology problem here, pdf? What I wrote was, I thought, entirely in agreement with your comment. I said the .svg versions are unquestionably superior, and by that I meant the bottom two bars. Are they not .svg? As I sit here comparing the actual ribbon with the illustration, I say they are unquestionably superior because the rosette accurately reflects the reality. Would you like me to post a photograph?Lexysexy (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I took the "vector version" to mean the .png bars.Lexysexy (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a terminology problem here - Maybe, but I don't think so. (Vector=.svg; Raster=.jpg/etc.)

I think what we have is different base references. Unfortunately I can't locate my base reference. But yes please, if you could point me at your base reference that would be very useful. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am entirely confused. You seemed to be criticising the images that are displayed, ie, the blurry bars, which are .png. If they are indeed the better version, why on earth did you raise the subject in the first place? And as I said, the .svg reflect reality, the wattle flower is nothing like the .png version (and there are too many on the bar. Only three will fit on a bar, two whole, one in part). My reality sits on the desk in front of me, but I suppose you will consider that original research<g>Lexysexy (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! It's been a long day. I'll come back when my brain is working better and try to be clearer. (i.e. I know exactly what I mean, but I'm not saying it at all clearly!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/_Master/images/HD/AM-obv-L.JPG .jpg but still reasonably goodLexysexy (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I have to admit to being upside down in my terminology (vector/raster) but have now researched the matter. Nevertheless I maintain the notion (opinion!) that the .svg version is superior.Lexysexy (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you think, pdf? Time to replace the images with the .svg versions?Lexysexy (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I can't find my base reference, but more relevantly, given that every reference that I now find looks like the one you found, I have no evidence to support disagreement. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

Given the detail available in the cited sources, it seems clear that the SVG/vector versions are the better choice. The PNG/raster versions are blurry and indistinct. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would suggest that the SVG versions be uploaded to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia Commons. There seems to be no indication that the user who uploaded them to Commons is any way authorized to release them as uncopyrighted. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility contradiction[edit]

The lead sentence is

The Order of Australia is an honour that recognises Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or meritorious service.

This is almost immediately contradicted in the infobox, by the omission of noncitizens:

Eligibility

All living Australian citizens

--Thnidu (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only citizens qualify for a substantive award. Non-citizens may be given an honorary award. So, both statements are correct. The honour does recognise "Australian citizens and other persons", but only citizens are "eligible". Non-citizens get their honorary award as an act of grace. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future sources[edit]

Just putting this source here to look at later and potentially include in the article

Taylor, G. (2020). Knighthoods and the Order of Australia. AUSTRALIAN BAR REVIEW, 49(2), 323–356. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20201201040511

Safes007 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to access the full article? (It looks like an interesting read). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add source of advice to infobox[edit]

Hi,

I made a change that was restored that included Gough Whitlam as the source of advice to the monarch in the founder section of the infobox. I think this should be included for the following reasons:

Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience and we can't assume that readers know how constitutional monarchies work. Without that prior information, the infobox would suggest that Queen Elizabeth II founded the order on her own initiative. The Order of Australia is also different from previous awards like the Victorian Cross and the Order of British Empire, where the monarch was heavily involved in the creation of the award. Instead, the Australian Government at the time were de facto founders at the time and it was their policy preferences that led to the creation of the award.
Without knowing the source of advice to the monarch, knowledge of the founder of the order only tells you who happened to be the monarch at the time they were advised to create the order. This isn't important enough to be included in the infobox.

(Also, sorry for undoing your restore without explanation @Nford. I had the edit window open and didn't see your change when I made a different edit.) Safes007 (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]