Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. | |
Place article moves. Only place/only notable place
[edit]I know this probably more appropriate for [1], but the talk is rarely viewed. I do have several requests in talk pages for pages moves for only place/only notable place suburbs. Lavender Bay, Chatswood, Pymble, Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Normanhurst, Artarmon, Naremburn, North Wahroonga and West Pymble. Just leaving the notification. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any issues with doing this. This has been discussed many times, and the consensus is always to move pages that have an unnecessary disambiguation by adding the state to the title. Viatori (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Viatori already have state name at the end and it is unnecessary on each of these articles I mentioned above. Each one is a link to the talk page BTW. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise my wording was clumsy, but I'm agreeing with you. Viatori (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Viatori You can still edit your reply to say removing the state from the title, if that is what you meant. Just a note that whilst I am very quick to read things (Noticing words in like a flash), I sometimes don't understand what people mean when they say certain things. Could you just clarify what you Actually meant to say in your first reply please? Thank you.Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- What I am saying is many town/suburb/locality articles unnecessarily disambiguate themselves in their titles by having the name of the state after their name, like in the ones you've listed, when no other article of that name exists. These generally just get moved without needing a talk page discussion to be opened every time. I move them whenever I come across them. Every time a talk page discussion has been opened about it, the conclusion is always to move it. Viatori (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Viatori I would encourage but not require you to vote in support of the proposed moves as it would not be a good idea to move a page when a discussion is open. I also have a talk page that if you know how to close, I would recommend doing it (7 Days after opening) on my proposed move of article David Warner (cricketer) to David Warner, as it looking pretty clear that there is pretty much unanimous opposition to moving the page (As I talk like a journalist on National TV Reporting by the roads). Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- What I am saying is many town/suburb/locality articles unnecessarily disambiguate themselves in their titles by having the name of the state after their name, like in the ones you've listed, when no other article of that name exists. These generally just get moved without needing a talk page discussion to be opened every time. I move them whenever I come across them. Every time a talk page discussion has been opened about it, the conclusion is always to move it. Viatori (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Viatori You can still edit your reply to say removing the state from the title, if that is what you meant. Just a note that whilst I am very quick to read things (Noticing words in like a flash), I sometimes don't understand what people mean when they say certain things. Could you just clarify what you Actually meant to say in your first reply please? Thank you.Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise my wording was clumsy, but I'm agreeing with you. Viatori (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Viatori already have state name at the end and it is unnecessary on each of these articles I mentioned above. Each one is a link to the talk page BTW. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I represent the grumpy old guy in the corner office with the long corporate history. A long time ago, articles about places in Australia had a mixture of forms, and it was impossible to guess whether a particular town/locality had an article, and if so what it would be called. There were efforts towards standardisation, and eventually a naming convention was agreed by consensus to name all articles about Australian places (other than a short list of internationally-known places) in the form of "town, state". This was not simply "unnecessary disambiguation", but standardised qualification of names, and made it much easier to accurately link to the right article when editing, and to be confident that red links for a place that didn't have an article yet would all have the same name when the article was eventually written. One or two Australian editors and at least one foreign one chose to actively attempt to move articles about random places as WP:NCAUST said it was "allowed". It sounds like you and Viatori are the latest of these editors creating confusion and lack of standardisation. --Scott Davis Talk 11:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- ScottDavis WP:NCAUST says: "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than [[Sydney, New South Wales]]). Note cases such as Newcastle, New South Wales, which needs to be disambiguated from its namesake in the UK. State/territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles." Think about it, are there any other places with an article on Wikipedia called Artarmon, Lavender Bay, Naremburn, Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Normanhurst, Pymble, North Wahroonga ETC? Simple answer is no. They were mostly redirects that already existed. So clearly pretty much all of these suburbs meet the criteria of either of either primary or only topic. WP:NCAUST allows this practice itself. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Servite et contribuere: You're right - the current version says the name may be used alone. It still doesn't say this is preferred, and I'm not going to be drawn into an argument any more. There's a body of water called Lavender Bay, and that was the primary use of the name and the suburb is named after the water. The point need not be whether there is currently an article on Wikipedia with a conflicting name, especially since the primary purpose of the longer name form is clarity not disambiguation. --Scott Davis Talk 13:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion about splitting creeks from river categories
[edit]We're starting a discussion here. Please feel free to join in the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
FAR for Goblin shark
[edit]I have nominated Goblin shark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, I have stumbled upon the Mayor of the Gold Coast's wikipedia, and I feel that it needs a lot of work. There are a number of unsupported claims, and some of the edit history seems suspect in my opinion. Any help would be appreciated. Nauseous Man (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, to say this page has issues would be an understatement... I'll see what I can do. It also looks like a lot of information was removed by this biased editor as well. Viatori (talk) Viatori (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on MOS:NATIONALITY for First Nations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Australians
[edit]Hi all, just thought people here might be interested in this request for comment about changing the Manual of Style to specify that First Nations Australians can/should have the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander nation/s they belong to mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. The MOS already mentions a similar example for Native Americans. This arose from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia, which anyone is also welcome to contribute to. Thanks! Neegzistuoja (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)