Jump to content

Talk:Cunnamulla

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

documentary

[edit]

Where can it be watched?Zigzig20s 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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: no consensus. harej 08:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Cunnamulla, Queensland → Cunnamulla — This article was moved to this name and then reverted earlier today. At present Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia is the guideline for Australian places. Given the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention I am not sure this reflects current consensus. Certainly, if not for the guideline, the disambiguation is pointless. There is no likelihood of any confusion regarding the name "Cunnamulla". Mattinbgn\talk 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption of good faith would be nice! Consensus changes, Cunnamulla is known as Cunnamulla and not Cunnamulla, Queensland. Common sense that a location which doesn't exist anywhere else in the world should be Cunnamulla. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having one rule for all Australian place names makes creating a link so much easier and predictable. It prevents a lot of confusion! Lets stick with the state in the place name, even if that seems overdoing it in this case. One common, reliable system is worth the price. Calistemon (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it adds confusion. I can understand Texas, Queensland but not Cunnamulla, Queensland. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Calistemon points out, having one rule for all placenames "makes creating a link so much easier and predictable. It prevents a lot of confusion!". But why confine that to Australia? For the rest of the world, with the notable exception of the United States, we do not disambiguate unless necessary. That makes a damned sight more sense for editors, who don't have to bother typing out unnecessary piped links: ''east of [[Cunnamulla]]'' is certainly easier to type in text than ''east of [[Cunnamulla, Queensland|Cunnamulla]]''. The Australian convention is an anachronism and at odds with our overall guidance of not disambiguating unnecessarily: it's time it came into line. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, Australia and the US are a bit different in regrads to the fact that they are both former British colonies and most place names that haven't got an Aboriginal origin are named after a place in Britain, or at least Europe. I'm guessing that is the reason for the seemingly excessive disambiguation. Calistemon (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. is also vast, and the majority of placenames are duplicated across different states. We in the U.S. have become quite accustomed to tacking on the state, leaving it off only when the context is obvious from prior discussion. I don't know if that's the case in Australia (which is why I haven't weighed in on this debate). Powers T 13:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, you do know you can type [[Cunnamulla, Queensland|]] and it produces the extension automatically? Orderinchaos 13:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes and no. Canada and South Africa would also fall into that category (New Zealand less so, but to an extent), and manage without excessive disambiguation, as does most of Latin America, which has the same problem of places named after Spanish (or Portuguese) locations or religious figures/terms. I suspect the Australian convention, when it was drawn up, just mirrored the existing American convention, without anyone giving the idea of excessive disambiguation much thought. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Crusoe and others. In response to Skinsmoke, I don't think South Africa and New Zealand really do manage, it's really frustrating trying to do anything within their systems. Orderinchaos 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect, there is no evidence at all that South Africa and New Zealand are struggling with their naming system for places (which, lets face is the same as the rest of the encyclopedia). There is no evidence that there are more incorrect links to those articles than Australian ones and certainly there is no call by NZ and South African editors to adopt the idiosyncratic system used in Australia. Indeed, the evidence points the other way with Canada moving away from compulsory disambiguation for locality names to a protocol more in line with the general consensus for article names that applies everywhere else. I would suggest that your struggles with NZ article names comes from your use of and familiarity with the non-compliant Australian system.
I would suggest that compulsory disambiguation causes more confusion than it fixes, the recent move and reversion of this article is a case in point as are the recent moves of Point Lonsdale, Bundaberg, Nambour and Toowoomba by editors unfamiliar with the strange Australian system for naming articles. It also leads to confusion when naming articles other geographical features such as rivers, mountains, bays etc. where editors extend compulsory disambiguation far beyond where it is supposed to apply. It has also directly lead to the absurd "consensus" for compulsory disambiguation of rail lines and train stations in Australia such as Warrnambool railway line, Victoria (What other Warrnambool railway line is there?)
The burden of maintaining compulsory disambiguation—a system that is non-compliant with the wider Wikipedia consensus on article names— should rest with those wishing to keep that system going. It should be up to them to show that using the same policy for article names that the rest of the world uses would lead to a worse outcome. In my opinion the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention fails to show any consensus for keeping the aberrant Australian system and fails to show any clear benefit for retaining compulsory disambiguation, as opposed to the system that works just fine everywhere else. Compulsory disambiguation is an idea whose time has passed. In the words of the PM, we would be better off "moving forward" to a better system and getting it right. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pick a random city in New Zealand or South Africa. Look at their articles. Check their currentness. Then get a handle on their geographic system and try to update them. It's easy in Johannesburg where they've mostly followed our guideline (, Gauteng appears after all but a very few), and next to impossible in both Auckland and Durban (the latter is woefully incomplete and likely to remain so.) I was actually intending to help update those areas but gave up after a while because it was too hard to keep track of where was what. As for "calls from editors", there are a select few editors in each and none appear to be actively engaged in places type projects as Australian editors have historically tended to be. Orderinchaos 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem as such is not with articles like "Cunnamulla" where the name is unique, the problems start where a name needs disambiguation such as, say, Henty and inconsistent forms of disambiguation are used. Rather than require unique names like Cunnamulla, Deniliquin etc. etc. to be compulsorily and unnecessarily disambiguated, the problem you describe could be much better solved by insisting on a consistent form of disambiguation where it is required. We do that now by using the state name as the sole permitted disambiguation term. Allowing unique or unquestionably PRIME names to be used without disambiguation does not mean there will suddenly become a free-for-all regarding how articles are disambiguated. We should not get the two separate issues confused. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, we don't seem to have so many problems with U.S. placenames, and they use the same convention. Powers T 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, we wouldn't have had about 200 requested moves for places in California in the last month. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Looking at this discussion and the fact that its going beyond just the renaming of this article, should this be moved to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board to allow a wider input? A decission here could after all have a knock-on effect on all Australian place name articles. Calistemon (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would appear to be primary article (only other is Cunnamulla Airport), there should be no confusion. This article has the redirect from Cunnamulla anyway. We should also give the proposal a go to see how it fits whilst wearing. If the earth wobbles off its axis we could always revert! Bleakcomb (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Crusoe8181. To start now, it would just set the precedent for the argument that non-disambiguation would have to apply to every other suburb and town article in all countries world-wide that doesn't conflict with any other town/suburb name in another country. Sb617 (Talk) 13:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Australia and the US are the only two places that currently use mandatory disambiguation for localities, everywhere else manages just fine without it now. Australia is currently the anomaly, moves such as this bring it into line with the the rest of the world. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Canadian_wikipedians'_notice_board/Cities - Canada is also under similar guidelines to Australia. Non-capitals are mandatorily disambiguated. A few countries (notably US, Australia and Canada) have required disambiguation, I hadnt gone through the pages of other countries to find out if theres any others. Sb617 (Talk) 00:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong. Canada do not use mandatory disambiguation. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#Places "Cities which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles." There is a list of undisambiguated place names in Canada at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/List of settlements at plain title. You should not just make things up if you don't know the facts. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken and I stand corrected. However my point still stands for US, Australian and any other countries that were not mentioned. This would just set the precedent for the reasons I said originally. This would be better discussed on the Australian noticeboard rather than going one by one with little/lack of discussion against current conventions. Sb617 (Talk) 01:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current system works quite fine, no need to change it or bog down the system with hundreds of potential page moves of Australian location articles. Calistemon (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2010 (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.

First interstate rugby match

[edit]

In terms of trying to confirm/deny this story, this is the earliest newspaper report that I can find about a match between the two towns (Sept 1932)

"Bourke Football Club". Western Herald. No. 403. New South Wales, Australia. 6 September 1922. p. 2. Retrieved 13 December 2016 – via National Library of Australia.

However, there is nothing making a claim that it was the first interstate game. However, it seems that the match was in the planning at least from July 1922:

"Bourke Football Club". Western Herald. No. 385. New South Wales, Australia. 5 July 1922. p. 2. Retrieved 13 December 2016 – via National Library of Australia.

with various newspaper reports between them about the progress of the arrangements for the match, including this one which claims a first but the claim is "first time an interstate match has been played at a border town"

"Bourke Football Club". Western Herald. No. 398. New South Wales, Australia. 19 August 1922. p. 2. Retrieved 13 December 2016 – via National Library of Australia.

which isn't quite the same as saying first interstate match. Can anyone come up with any better claim than this? Kerry (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found this 1905 article which talks of a Queensland vs New South Wales Rugby match (but fails to say if it was League or Union):

"SPORTS AND PASTIMES". Southern Cross. Vol. XVII, , no. 841. South Australia. 18 August 1905. p. 12. Retrieved 13 December 2016 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

but I think the likelihood that Bourke vs Cunnamulla was a first seems less likely. Kerry (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cunnamulla. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cunnamulla&oldid=1201279007"