Talk:Order of Australia

List of awardees

Is there in Wikipedia a list of all awardees of the Order of Australia over the years ? -- PFHLai 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Should we at least create the Category:Members of the Order of Australia category, similar to the one I created for the Order of Canada? --YUL89YYZ 16:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think such a category would be of use, there are many great recipients of the Order and it would be good to have some way to track them. Dpd 00:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added it and have started populating it. --YUL89YYZ 00:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Category:Members of the Order of Australia not the same as Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal? Both lists seem to have different people in them. Dpd 10:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Member of the Order of Australia is a different award to the Order of Australia Medal dR 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

There's now a List of Companions of the Order of Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

--Does anyone know how many living Companions of the Order of Australia there are (in the General and Military divisions)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.169.108 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just go the list linked above, and count those who don't show a year of death. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ribbon images

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Examples:

• https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/feature/order_of_australia_booklet_11th_edition_v2-2015.pdf - pages 11-13
• http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/_Master/images/HD/AM-obv-L.JPG
• https://www.medalsofservice.com.au/product/order-of-australia-medal-o-a-m-loose-ribbon/
• http://collectionsearch.nma.gov.au/object/3905
• etc.

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625225416/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2007/Summer_2007_CMN.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2007/Summer_2007_CMN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325130621/http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians to http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians

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

Eligibility contradiction

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)

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)

Future sources

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)

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)