Talk:Condobolin

Australia: Places / New South Wales Low‑importance

	Australia portal Condobolin 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Condo

I am removing references to "Condo". I don't think it is that common. If reinserted, please cite a source.--A Y Arktos 11:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved. Consensus is that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia does not / apply here. All editors are encouraged to form a stable, consensus-backed guideline at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Clarifying the Australia section. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Condobolin, New South Wales → Condobolin — Note that Condobolin currently redirects here. There is no need for disambiguation here. WP:TITLE states that titles should reflect the most common, recognisable and concise name. --Nightw 13:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support Condobolin is a unique name. Other uses of Condobolin (i.e. Condobolin railway station, New South Wales) are derivative. The name of the town is not, and never has been "Condobolin, New South Wales". The town is not referred to by anyone as "Condobolin, New South Wales" either in reliable sources or in common parlance. A similar discussion about a similar sized western New South Wales town with a similarly unique name was at Talk:Deniliquin#Requested move which saw that article moved to its common sense name. I should note the existence of WP:NCGN#Australia which states that most Australian populated place names are at Name, State. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Condobolin, New South Wales" is the primary topic but "Condobolin" is its common name, not "Condobolin, New South Wales". Bidgee (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Needless disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is contrary to the Naming Convention for Australia. Andrewa claims that there is no longer consensus to support the convention. However, those proposing a change have been unable to muster a consensus to either change or scrap the convention. Until they can do so, no change should take place on individual articles, rather than the situation we currently have where somebody brings forward a proposal every two or three days. Are they intending to carry on with this until they have circumvented the convention for every single settlement in Australia? And at that point will somebody finally decide to sort out the naming convention? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not contrary to any convention. WP:NCGN#Australia states "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is" This does not mandate anything for any article nor does it say anything about consensus, it merely states the facts on the ground. Compare this with the US convention "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State" which specifically mandates a particular naming convention. I fail to see why discussion on individual articles should stop while the community tries to arrive on a agreed position. This may never happen. The individual RM discussions have been helpful in clarifying where consensus lies - much more helpful than the mass dung-flinging exercises that RfCs tend to degenerate to. Regardless of the wording of the Australian convention, more of these discussions will come forward because who would know if Mount Gambier, South Australia, Townsville, Queensland and Broken Hill, New South Wales are primary topics or not? I think they are, others may quite reasonably think otherwise. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you confirm then that the only reason you oppose this move is that you believe that it contravenes the convention? More below on the matters you raise above, but I raise this particular question as part of the survey because I think it is relevant to the weight given to your vote. No change of my vote. Andrewa (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Unique name, common name, useless disambiguation. Current name violates WP:PRECISION. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Condobolin is not ambiguous. Melburnian (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

From the survey above: I should note the existence of WP:NCGN#Australia which states that most Australian populated place names are at Name, State.

There seems to be a rough consensus that this guideline should be changed, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Clarifying the Australia section, but it is a bit rough at present. More input there would be welcome, as I think a workable consensus is at least close.

There's a good consensus that the guideline shouldn't discourage moves like the one, but exactly what it should say, and whether it should be changed immediately, are both points of contention. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More from the survey: The proposal is contrary to the Naming Convention for Australia. Andrewa claims that there is no longer consensus to support the convention. However, those proposing a change have been unable to muster a consensus to either change or scrap the convention. Until they can do so, no change should take place on individual articles, rather than the situation we currently have where somebody brings forward a proposal every two or three days. Are they intending to carry on with this until they have circumvented the convention for every single settlement in Australia? And at that point will somebody finally decide to sort out the naming convention? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC).

Disagree that no change should take place on individual articles. This is an important part of the process for changing guidelines. And at that point will somebody finally decide to sort out the naming convention? ASAP. Please help. Andrewa (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.chinci.com/travel/pax/q/2170841/Condobolin/AU/Australia/0/#. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]