Jump to content

Talk:Brewarrina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The coordinates on this page are incorrect. The town is much farther to the west. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) The co-ordinates have been checked and are correct.CamV8 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of Bre perhaps this info could be added. CamV8 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC) http://monumentaustralia.org.au/monument_display.php?id=20518&image=0[reply]

Looking at the history of Bre perhaps this info could be added. 1920 map of Bre. national library http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-vn4457475-e-cd — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamV8 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable citizens

[edit]

A notable citizens section is very subjective and is more akin to trivia. For example Leo Schofield (while a notable person in his own way) his achievements are not significant to Brewarrina. "Leo Schofield, restaurant critic, advertising professional and arts festival director." CamV8 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee could you please expand your comments supporting having a Notable citizens section. Just because other articles have it doesn't seem to fit here.

What are your thoughts on Leo Schofield. (yes he was born in Bre however he left when he was 7) How are his achievments significant to Bre? CamV8 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion but we have notable people/citizens in most if not all articles relating to locations, just because it needs improving doesn't mean that it would be removed or merged. In fact the worst thing to do is merge notable people into local sport. Example of such sections Wagga Wagga, Townsville and even Aurora, CO. You'll be needing a strong consensus to remove such sections. Bidgee (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you feedback Bidgee. I did a little more homework and can see your point of view. I too think that more needs to be done to improve this article.
Also you may have noticed my recent attempt to update and improve this article. Any suggestions welcome. CamV8 (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are many things that need fixing across wikipedia. Nothing should be beyond challenging. Just becuase it might be prevalent, it doesn't mean it's any good.
Personally, I agree that notable citizens are really just another type of trivia list (that fortunately have largely been banished - with the exception of notable citizens). Just because Brewarrina might be relevant to Schofield, it doesn't necessarily mean the reverse is true. If he is, then surely a place could be found in the article proper. If no relevant place can be found, then one must question its, um, relevance. --Merbabu (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Wreck

[edit]

Paddle steamer wreck gathering info. Wandering Jew; 66 tons; 22x4.4x1.5 m.; Built in 1866. Registered at Sydney. On 15 December 1914, Wandering Jew was lost due to a fire off Darling River, Brewarrina.

Cite https://apps5a.ris.environment.gov.au/shipwreck/public/wreck/wreck.do?key=2026 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamV8 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Darling River, NSW Maritime Archaeological Survey 26-30 July 2002 August 2003 The 'Wandering Jew' represents an earlier maritime era and technology and a direct link to the riverine heritage of Brewarrina. Its colourful history and repeated damage by fire is evocative of the dramas associated with riverboat travel. cite http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/maritime/surveydarlingriver.pdf CamV8 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Heritage

[edit]

The Brewarrina Aboriginal Mission was the oldest institutional-type community in the state that was still managed in 1965. Brewarrina Mission was the first institution formally established by the Aborigines Protection Board as part of its policy to segregate Aboriginal people. cite http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5053415 CamV8 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Traps

[edit]

Gathering info: Powerhouse Museum. "96/79/1 Photograph, 'Brewarrina Fish Traps', paper, [Henry King], Australia, c 1880-1900". Powerhouse Museum, Australia. Retrieved 21 January 2013. Read more: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=154427#ixzz2IZYAB3yl Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial CamV8 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Powerhouse Museum. "85/1286-721 Glass plate negative, full plate, 'Aboriginal fisheries, Darling River', unattributed studio, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 1880-1923". Powerhouse Museum, Australia. Retrieved 21 January 2013. CamV8 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a new section for Demography

[edit]

This article is missing a section on demographics. The 2011 census should be a place to start. I will have a look. You are welcome to help out. CamV8 (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Brewarrina/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references and pictures--Grahamec 09:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC) The photo of the former railway station is incorrect, it looks like the railway station building from Bourke. Sandyriva (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 10:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brewarrina, New South Wales. 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) 08:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Brewarrina. Supporters of the move rightly point out that disambiguation is not necessary, and that the town is the primary topic for the title (the shire being named after it, and also in NSW). The opposing arguments that "Brewarrina, New South Wales" is the common name have been refuted. The argumentation that "the state also helps readily place the town", while true, is in dispute since the bare name "recognizable to anyone familiar with the topic". WP:NCAUST is descriptive, not prescriptive, about the practice, and in this discussion there is rather clear - albeit narrow - consensus that the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name applies here. No such user (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brewarrina, New South Wales → Brewarrina – There is literally no other place called "Brewarrina" and Brewarrina is just a redirect to here. SHB2000 (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. No such user (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are a lot of articles beginning with "Brewarrina", on specific topics which could conceivably be searched for as the single word. Also, these include Brewarrina Shire, and the Australian place name guidelines specify [locality], [state or territory], so as a locality, I believe that it is more correct to leave this one as it is. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. There may even be a case for a DAB page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why the shire is kind of a sub topic of the town but if this was needed we would use Brewarrina (town) per WP:PLACEDAB per Necrothesp's point about the shire also being in NSW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DAB: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." Here we have the town, the shire, the riot, the Aboriginal fish traps (recently often referred to in the press), the mission and the jail, and conceivably the railway line and airport, which could be referred to by a single word, depending on context. In my view there's a strong case for disambiguation, because it would be a quicker path for the user looking for one of those rather than the town. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY. Towns are virtually always introduced as Town, region, including in the sources to this article. On Wikipedia, the title serves as the introduction without context. In Australia, the region is always the state or territory. Strip that off, and the title becomes unrecognisable as an Australian town. The criteria for the PRIMARYREDIRECT are weak, and cannot be considered evidence for the best article title. The Town, State format means urls and incoming link hovertext are consistent and recognisable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With so many towns and locales within Australia, the state also helps readily place the town. Concur with SmokeyJoe – consistency. Would be nice for all towns/locales to have this. This is different to how it is displayed in-text.–Q8682 (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It is not true at all that most towns on Wikipedia have the region appended; in fact, this is only standard in the US, and it is controversial even there. Elsewhere it is generally used only for disambiguation purposes. This is the only place (probably other than the shire named after it, which is also obviously in NSW, so appending NSW to this is meaningless) that is known by the single word Brewarrina. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is standard in all English speaking colony nations, the US, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Controversially, some title minimalist fanatics attempted to shorten all place names in Australia until they were called out. These towns are not well recognised without the comma-state attached. Outside of the context of the town, is it never assumed to be known by just the name, and indeed the name alone has underlying meanings, the town is in a place that predates the town, and is known by some local flora from which the place name derives. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, this is simply not true, as any glance at the categories will confirm. Australia has a mixture of appending the state and not appending the state, although I'll grant you the former is more common. Most New Zealand places do not append the country. Canadian and South African places generally only have the province appended for disambiguation purposes. So this is a complete misrepresentation of the actual situation. In fact, only places in the United States have the state name obsessively appended. Which, I believe, is what I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What you observe is the result of very few editors obsessively shortening place names. Check the history of the shortened cases. NZ, SA, and Canada have a lot of exceptions due to unique indigenous place names, but Australian names that are derived from indigenous names tend, like this one, to be quite different. The town is not originally indigenous, but was a European settlement named after the surrounding land. Ascribing PrimaryTopic to the town erases history. “The first people to own land where the town now stands were the Lawson brothers”. The fiction of terra nullius. Stolen land. Indigenous Australians did not live in towns. For recognisability, and consistency, towns should be kept in the standard town naming format. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a current resident of the country in question for sometime (thank you very much Coronavirus, not travelling anywhere at the moment...), as a Wikiuser I find the addition of the comma-state helpful; while I appreciate for unique places in the world it may appear superfluous (e.g. Woolloongabba, Wagga Wagga), but are still helpful to quickly mentally place a place within a state for anything less than a major provincial city (e.g. Cunnamulla, Mount Gambier). There are the occasional subtle differences, so state removes ambiguity (e.g. Armidale and Armadale). Then, although outside this discussion, are the numerous reuses – Araluen (NSW, Qld), Yatala (Qld, SA; the latter coming up when doing historical research), Richmond (NSW, Qld, SA, Tas, Vic). Just my view as a user.–Q8682 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguating when we do not need to disambiguate is simply not what we do on Wikipedia. Your argument seems to be very much WP:ILIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note this would reverse
07:20, 1 February 2006‎ CambridgeBayWeather talk contribs block‎  41 bytes +41‎  moved Brewarrina to Brewarrina, New South Wales: naming

and CambridgeBayWeather is still active so should IMO be given the opportunity to comment here. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is this rule that also governs the shire name ("Local government areas are at their official name"). (And see additional note about DAB above.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The common name is very clearly Brewarrina, not Brewarrina, New South Wales. Is it regularly referred to with the state name? Sure! But like any city, it is far more common without. We have a pretty set standard (except unfortunately in the U.S, where we have to ignore common sense and common name to have situations like Nashville, Tennessee) that applies to cities around the world, and it's silly to pretend something like Brewarrina requires further descriptive info but something like Rrogozhinë is immediately recognizable without any more info.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not Brewarrina, New South Wales? You are working on the fallacy that COMMONNAME is a singular thing. No, "Brewarrina, New South Wales" definitely qualifies as a COMMONNAME, and if you look into introductory uses, it is more common. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is incorrect. Out of curiosity, I searched Brewarinna in Google news -- of the around 1,150 recent articles coming up, only a few dozen appear when searching "Brewarinna, New South Wales" (or NSW). Is it commonly used? Sure, but, as with nearly any city in the world, it's far more common to not be in city, state format. Just as "Severomorsk, Murmansk" is perfectly common, but it's less common than just Severomorsk. We can argue that it is helpful to have more info in the title, or that it aids reader navigation, but unless we totally twist COMMONNAME there's not a case to be made there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can’t credibly used statistical methods to compare searches that have a different number of search terms. A much better method, but much work work, is to actually look into each hit. This is supported by WP:COMMONNAME’s “prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above” and the suggestion to look at the current references. Real, useful, sources, and the references, either use “New South Wales”, or “NSW”, or are already explicitly in the context of NSW towns. The comma state format is not disambiguation, but is for recognisability, consistency and COMMONNAME. Look to quality sources, not search engine statistics, and where quality sources are few, look to CONSISTENCY. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is also incorrect. I just went through the top news stories coming up in a search, from reliable, quality sources. The overwhelming majority did not use that phrasing. Do they mention NSW somewhere? Absolutely, but that is not saying it is the common name, any more than coverage about Steve Jobs always mentioning him being Apple's founder makes it part of his common name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So did I. Not an overwhelming majority, just lots, and if you discard cases that are a collection of articles on similar towns, where context is extremely well established and the state would be massively repetitive from article to article, it’s a simple majority. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through https://www.google.com/search?q=Brewarrina
    1. https://www.visitnsw.com › destinations › brewarrina-area
    PgaeTitle = Brewarrina NSW - Plan a Holiday | Visit NSW
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Brewarrina,_New_Sou...
    ignore
    3. https://www.brewarrina.nsw.gov.au
    Title = Brewarrina Shire Council
    Not primarily about the town
    4. https://www.aussietowns.com.au › ... › Upper Western
    Title = Brewarrina, NSW - Aussie Towns
    5. https://www.indigenous.gov.au › community › brewarri...
    Title = Brewarrina | Indigenous.gov.au
    "Brewarrina is a town on the banks of the Barwon River in northwest New South Wales, ..."
    The shortened form is used.
    6. https://darlingriver.com.au › brewarrina
    Title = Brewarrina - Darling River Run
    The shortened form is used because this is a series on towns sequentially, and they are all ", NSW".
    7. https://www.niaa.gov.au › brewarrina-ngemba-billabon...
    Title = Brewarrina Ngemba Billabong IPA | National Indigenous ...
    Not about the town
    8. https://www.whereis.com › nsw › brewarrina-2839
    Title = Map of Brewarrina, NSW 2839 | Whereis
    9. https://brewarrinafishtraps.com.au
    Title = Brewarrina Fish Traps and Aboriginal Cultural Museum
    Not about the town, strictly.
    Town, State occurs lots. Where it doesn't, there is frequently the explanation that the source would be using the state with annoying repetition, and it is just like how a book on Cats tends to drop "cat" from the COMMONNAME of cat breeds whenever technically unambiguous. Wikipedia titles are not like use within a book, Wikipedia titles for NSW towns do not sit in a book on NSW towns, but sit at the top level without context.
    The above sources may not be good examples of "quality" sources. Neither are the current references, which give similar results if you go through them. But where quality sources are lacking, that is a very strong reason to stick with CONSISTENCY. Many towns MUST have disambiguation, and Town, State is easily justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for reasons already elaborated above by Laterthanyouthink, SmokeyJoe, et al. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as one of those "fanatics" mentioned above by Smokey Joe. This idea that populated places in Australia are commonly called [NAME], [STATE] is just not true and not supported by anyt evidence. The only time [NAME], [STATE] is used in Australia (outside of Wikipedia) is where there is genuine ambiguity. The overwhelming majority of town names in Australia (like Brewarrina) are unique and don't require disambiguation. Usefulness - and I dispute that unnecessary disambiguation is actualy useful - is not a reason to disambiguate. Sadly this discussion - and others like it - have been hijacked by the USPLACE "fanatics" (why is this language not being called out?) as a proxy war to defend their own position in the US. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not true. Sources are replete with Town, State, and improved RECOGNISABILITY, and CONSISTENCY, are not “useless”. The fanatical title minimalists have never explained how it helps any reader, and the sliver of help to editors is dubious. This title minimalism is not justified by CONCISE because it it removing non-redundant information. There is a difference between “concise” and “brief”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36#RM -- moving forward. There was no consensus for changing from the status quo. However, subsequently, you embarked on an awful lot unjustified bold moves[1], and I ask you again to revert them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been harrassed off this topic and the entire encyclopedia in the past, I now refuse to engage with editors acting in bad faith and assuming bad faith in others. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How does faith play into this. You were actively involved the discussion that clearly did not achieve consensus for the shortening of all Australian towns, and a little later you quietly and unilaterally moved a very large number of them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite the attempts to turn this into a broader discussion on naming principles (primarily the defence of USPLACE, which is in no way relevant to this topic), our focus needs to be on this particular article title - "Brewarrina". As such, there are three questions need to be answered:
  • What is the ordinary and common name of this topic? - It is normally called "Brewarrina", not "Brewarrina, New South Wales". The responsible naming authority, the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales, could not be any clearer that the name of the town is "Brewarrina" without any appendage - see this link. "Brewarrina" is the name used by locals (i.e. Australians) and the name used in all relevant sources despite claims made after two minutes searching on Google. The use of "Brewarrina, New South Wales" would be seen as a rather strange affectation if used in a media article. It just doesn't happen.
  • Is the name unique? Yes, there is no other place called Brewarrina in the world.
  • Is the name the primary topic? Yes - there are other articles whose name includes "Brewarrina" but these (like Brewarrina Airport etc.) are clearly subsidiary, and named for, the place for which they are located - i.e. "Brewarrina".
Given the answers above, there is no case for retaining the unnecessary disambiguation for this article other than trying to maintain consistency with USPLACE - which in a weird bit of cultural imperialism US-based editors are insisting applies for Australian topics. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The responsible naming authority, the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales, could not be any clearer that the name of the town is "Brewarrina" without any appendage Did you not see my point above about books on cats? Of course the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales is going to drop "New South Wales" wherever possible, because extreme repetition of anything is poor style.
The use of "Brewarrina, New South Wales" would be seen as a rather strange affectation if used in a media article. It just doesn't happen. How about https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ocea.5087 which begins "This short paper discusses Barry Morris's account of the ‘riot’ at Brewarrina, New South Wales, in 1987 and its legal aftermath, which continued for some years" (empahsis added). It does happen, and it happens an awful lot, and it tends to almost always happen then in a very broad context. Wikipedia article titles sit alone and in the international context.
other articles whose name includes "Brewarrina" but these (like Brewarrina Airport etc.) are clearly subsidiary. No, and this is where it goes most wrong. Places with ambiguous names, typically because the name is take from a person or place in the old country, tend to be colonial settlements where the settlement was named fresh and everything around came after. The technically unique places, like this one, tend to be indigenous names, where the settlement is named after the local area or geography, or flora as in this case. So, a quick an easy application of "town name must be the primary topic for everything local" is just wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unnecessary disambiguation, and there is no naming convention that overrides this in the case of Australian towns. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Andrewa. Many (technically) unnecessary things are still a good idea. Recognisability, Consistency, etc, can mean that the most brief title is not necessarily the best title. And there was agreement to NOT engage in isolated Town <--> Town, State page swaps given the even spilt on discussion at the central location. But, more importantly, perhaps *you* can give me a considered answer: What is the advantage in going to the shorter form? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The shorter form is both more common and recognisable. If I say "I'm going to Brewarrina" (as I have done, both the saying and the going) that means to the town. There are contexts in which Brewarrina could mean Brewarrina Shire but these are clear from the context. The sign leading into the town would say Welcome to Brewarrina while the sign at the shire boundary would say Welcome to Brewarrina Shire. There's not a lot in it, and as you know I'm generally opposed to having articles at any ambiguous base name such as this one. But current policy is against me on this. Many people would know of Brewarrina the town and not even be aware that the shire exists. Andrewa (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Andrewa, "shorter form is both more common", I contend is NOT true, IF you only count introductory uses, which means excluding articles that are already deeply in the context of NSW towns or the local area.
    "The shorter form is both more ... recognisable"? How do you get to that conclusion? "Brewarrina, New South Wales" is the standard format for a town, different to the standard format for a geographical feature, and includes "New South Wales which is an internationally recognised topic, a place, which aids in the recognition of "Brewarrina, New South Wales" as a place.
    "these are clear from the context". Titles sit at a level that are frequently devoid of context. The benefit of a more recognisable title is that the hovertext, and the url, give a title for high level context, and the reason one looks to the hovertext, or url, is that the reader is finding the meaning unclear.
    "(as I have done, both the saying and the going)" implies that you are looking at this from an already-local context. No one goes to Brewarrina from overseas. There is no direct public transport to it from major cities. When you said you were going to Brewarrina, you were probably almost there.
    "current policy is against me on this"? What policy? WP:NCAUST is the closest thing to "policy" on this, and it encourages Town, State/Territory. This is documented as under dispute, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places#Pre-existing standards and consensi, and I strongly maintain that "and subsequently many articles on Australian towns and non-capital cities have been moved" refers to surreptitious disruption. The argument is not over the named Wagga Wagga, which is one of only 21 cities on the NSW Geographical Names Register and #28 largest Australian city by population, and so is readily acknowledged as an internationally recognisable city, but over small towns that are unrecognisable as towns to an international audience. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, SmokeyJoe argues in favor of the current title because it is more “recognizable”. More recognizable to whom? Per title WP:CRITERIA recognizability is defined in terms of someone familiar with the topic: “The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.” We have no obligation or desire to make topics of titles recognizable from titles alone to anyone unfamiliar with the given topic. A few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM make this obvious: Holly Grange, Hemei, Kala Pul, Chanchal I. None of these are recognizable to me. Chances are not to you either. But if you click on each and learn what they are, then you’ll see they are recognizable to someone familiar with the respective topics. Each one could be made recognizable to the vast majority not familiar with these topics, but we don’t do that on Wikipedia. And so it is with Brewarrina—perfectly recognizable to anyone familiar with the topic. As it should be. —В²C ☎ 14:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no ambiguity and no Australian guideline that supports the current name, despite assertions to the contrary.--Grahame (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nom. Sorry, but this is exasperating. Editors that oppose moves like this is why we have such a large RM backlog. We have guidelines. Let’s follow them. The guidelines say to use COMMONNAME, plus disambiguation when necessary. In this case disambiguation is clearly not necessary. The surrounding Brewarrina Shire is not commonly called just Brewarrina, and even if it were, the town dominates per PRIMARYTOPIC[2]. This should be an uncontroversial technical move since it’s fully supported by policy and community consensus. But a small but active contingent seeking to make titles more descriptive contrary to community-supported policy and guidelines just gums up the process. The closer is reminded to discount their !votes accordingly for lack of (sound) basis in policy. —В²C ☎ 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exasperating is people with a mindless drive to shorter titles who cannot answer the simple question: What is the advantage of the shorter form?
    Town, State is not disambiguation, it is how towns are named. A very good number of them are technically ambiguous, and so the naming format Town, State dominates, long pre-Wikipedia.
    CONSISTENCY is good. RECOGNISABILTY is achieved by the real-world format, virtually always used in introduction. CONCISE is sufficiently met because there is no redundancy, the State is important information. Both the shorter "Brewarrina" and longer "Brewarrina, New South Wales" are frequently used in reliable sources, in introduction.
    Category:Towns in New South Wales shows the very strong convention. If it is Name, State, it is a town, and if there is no comma-state then it is not a town. The exceptions!, check the move log, and see if it was surreptitiously unilaterally moved, after the failed attempt to have all Australian town names shorted.
    I have given the links to the discussion above, here it is again. That was not a consensus to shorten. B2C was even there. The proponents for moving all towns to minimised titles where technically possible are playing disruption by agitating at isolated remote towns. This time, it was triggered by someone inexperienced, confusing the existence of a primary redirect with sufficient reason to change a title.
    CONSISTENCY and RECOGNISABILTY are very strong reasons to stick with the status quo. These are reasons that benefit the readers. What is the benefit of shortening? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was never any consensus that titles couldn't be moved with a discussion. Of course they can.--Grahame (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Grahamec. Agreed. There is no rule that Australian towns should or shouldn’t be lengthened/shortened. The 2010 15-15 vote has stood a surprisingly long time. So what are the merits either way? I think I’ve given a few substantive reasons, but those wanting to shorten have not. A PrimaryRedirect is not a good reason. No guideline saying not to do it is not a good reason to do it.
    One reason I remember being given is that titles should match likely running text use, to make Wikilinking easier, but that is entirely an editor centric reason, and reader centric. It defeats the purpose of hoverlink text.
    Your !vote did not give a positive substantive advantage for shortening. Can you give one?
    I think that this is a proxy debate for the general case. If the Brewarrina title is better shortened, then why not Walgett and Bourke, and so on? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did give a reason: to avoid an unnecessary ambiguation. No further explanation is necessary.--Grahame (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. To that, I say, it is not disambiguation, it is a COMMONNAME seen frequently in reliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, you keep using colloquial definitions for terms with specific technical meanings on WP. First you conflate WP:RECOGNIZABILITY which applies only to those familiar with a topic with colloquial recognizability which arguably favors trying to make titles recognizable to even those unfamiliar with a given topic--that would render almost every title on WP inadequate. Now you're conflating the colloquial "common name" meaning with WP's (the most) COMMONNAME. Except when (the most) common name can't be a title for an article do we normally consider other, less common, common names, like Brewarrina, New South Wales for Brewarrina. So, yeah, it is disambiguation. And please don't bring up your "in introduction" point; there is no precedent in guidelines or usage for that measure, much less in community consensus. If that were an actual standard, again, most of our titles would be far different. Finally, your interpretation of CONCISE being "sufficiently met because there is no redundancy" is just plain absurd. Since most titles could be more descriptive without adding redundancy, that interpretation renders CONCISE largely moot. The point of CONCISE is not simply to be met accordingly to SmokeyJoe's personal subjective standard; it's to compare two or more options to see which is more concise. Two titles can both be brief but comprehensive, but if one is more brief without being less comprehensive, then it is more concise; it meets WP:CONCISION better. That is the case with Brewarrina vs. Brewarrina, New South Wales. In short, the proposed shorter title is preferable to the longer existing title because the proposed title meets WP:CRITERIA much better in every way. And it should go without saying that any title meeting CRITERIA better is also better for the reader, but apparently it doesn't go without saying, for you. First of all, the current longer title leaves the wrong impression that there is another comparably significant topic named Brewarrina covered on WP. The proposed shorter title doesn't do that. It's a disservice to our readers to mislead them like that. Secondly, leaving the state on there when there isn't another Brewarrina wrongly implies we include the state even when it's not needed for disambiguation; another disservice. But in the end leaving it on there just encourages the practice of using crufty titles; no one benefits from that. Crufty titles are a disservice to all. --В²C ☎ 20:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom, clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no disambiguation required. Colonqu (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brewarrina&oldid=1200347960"