Talk:Town of Victoria Park

Move

I think this article should be moved to Town of Victoria Park as its about the lga not the burb Gnangarra 14:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Wiki-Standard for naming these articles? I recently went through List of Perth suburbs and rationalise all of the LGA headings to [[..., Western Australia|...]], but Orderinchaos78 put some of them back to [[City/Town of ...]], which led promptly to redir pages. Apart from any Wiki-Standard, one wonders how much duplication of information we would get? And how much are we prepared to put up with? Gordon | Talk, 1 November 2006 @13:13 UTC

I'd normally agree, but in the case of a suburb and a much larger LGA there really isn't the risk of duplication. The LGA article ends up being the less comprehensive of the two usually, the main subject is the council and its stats, whereas the suburb has the key features. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok pull up a large coffee, maybe even a direct feed from the machine its a long story as to why Orderinchaos78 was moving them around but the whole discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places including the final policy outcomes. Gnangarra 13:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason I came away with the clear impression that the solution is as confused as the problem we are trying to fix... I have developed a horror of redirs, and disambigs are just as bad -- you should have seen me trying to find Victoria Park when I was new! Do you know how many Victoria Parks there are? And I would also pick up the info-duplication again, which was referred to a lot on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places page. My personal feeling is what was mentioned a couple of times, that only if the differences are sufficiently notable then we could split the articles -- however, most LGA's can be wrapped up in one "..., Western Australia|City/Town of ..." page. Gordon | Talk, 1 November 2006 @14:10 UTC

The standard agreed by Wikiproject Australian Places is for the *gazetted* name to be the correct name. As in general this has not been the case, it has been necessary to move or split articles between an LGA and a suburb. "Victoria Park, Western Australia" should refer only to the suburb of Victoria Park, as bounded by East Vic Park, Kensington, Lathlain etc, while "Town of Victoria Park" describes the council/LGA specifically. Part of the reason for the urgency is the soon-to-be-replaced templates (see discussion at Template talk:Infobox Australian Place) which are going to confuse everything if things aren't clear and precise. This article seems to have a bizarre dual identity where at times it's talking about one and at other times the other. Realistically both are big and important enough that they should have their own article anyway, unlike, say, the example of Cuballing which I always seem to end up citing as an example of an article which really should cover both. Orderinchaos78 15:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Orderinchaos78, your explanation makes more sense than the Wikiproject discussion. (BTW, I've been sleeping and then working while most of this here discussion was happening...) The article is indeed bizarre -- I wrote most of it, expanding gradually from a stub and hoping that somebody else with greater knowledge of the Town would maybe pick it up. I see you have brought up the issue of notability I mentioned in my last above, which I saw as being probably the most important reason to split these articles. Gordon | Talk, 2 November 2006 @13:56 UTC

BTW I don't think this article should be moved, rather a new one created for the Town and fix this one to be more specific to the suburb. Shouldn't be too hard. I have a whole stack of Vic Park pics from my election bid, or there's actually a really nice one from Washington and McMaster over the buildings into the City if anyone's game to take it. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

that sounds like a worthy challenge I'll see what I can do. the move was just that its more LGA related than burb related, maybe just cut and paste this onto that then edit them both to subject. Gnangarra 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. :) I'm busy with the northern and far outer suburbs anyway atm. And yeah, I agree. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

will do copy/paste but do we need to take history as well, i'll check before i do anything Gnangarra 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As this article is primarily about the LGA, it should be moved to Town of Victoria Park, and a new article started here. That way readers can find out who authored (bits of) the article by looking in the article history. If we copy-paste, the history will imply that the article was authored entirely by the copy-paster. I know it probably seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but it is a legal condition of the GFDL that authorship be attributed. Hesperian 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not splitting hairs at all - good point. Any way of splitting the article? I've put in an LGA infobox and standardised some of the content to LGA-specific. There's a few blocks which are suburb related. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 06:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article Gnangarra 07:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion -- my 2 cents worth

Ummmm. Er. Ahhhh... No, I seem to be missing something. OK, I do see the schools info has been removed, so now there are no centers of learning in either of the Victoria Parks -- but that's not it. Aaaaahh! Now all we need is some notable info about "Victoria Park, Western Australia" which can add to our existing (but depleted) knowledge.

Sorry to be so negative, but I've just read through two convoluted discussions about the proper way of naming an urban entity article, only to find that the net gain is the surgical removal of the schools in the area and some geographical coordinates hanging like Banquo's ghost over the Town of Victoria Park.

Aren't we missing something somewhere in all this? Gordon | Talk, 2 November 2006 @14:26 UTC

I couldn't do much last night as I was looking at an article that was soon to be an LGA article, so fixed those bits then had to wait for the split before doing any more. The schools issue came down to a conversion from a deprecated template - the standard template does not include schools or parks, as they should be in the narrative. I've filled out the stub a bit for the suburb article, feel free to improve it (esp history and facilities/education etc). And yeah, the Banquo's ghost has been scared away, it actually belonged to the suburb article :) Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Update

This page has had its infobox updated to Infobox Australian Place. This update has been automatically preformed by TheJoshBot. Please be aware that poorly filled templates can have infomation lost in the transition that is unknown to the bot. Check the page history for more infomation. The following infomation has been lost in the transition, and will need to be converted to the document prose:

Field Name	Field Value
ausborn	56
atsi	1.7
deputymayor	Bruce Stevenson

Swan River an LGA?

Ummmm... Really "near-nw = Swan River" in the info-box? Wouldn't East Perth be a better choice? BTW, who has Heirisson Island? I always thought it was Perth.  Gordon | Talk, 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Would be City of Perth in any case, as it's specifically neighbour LGAs. The IAP bunch (as a compromise to Victoria during a prolonged debate) agreed on a standard for very large bodies of water that they be noted in locality boxes and italicised. It also helps to locate TVP I think on the southeast bank of the Swan River. And yep, I have seen City of Perth signs on there Orderinchaos78 13:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The City of Nedlands is giving me a headache already... And so is Mosman Park...  :(  Gordon | Talk, 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to know exactly what the original drafters of our LGA boundaries were on. Stirling is honestly about the only one that makes any sense, and even it's got issues. Nedlands comes close to taking the price for worst, I think. Orderinchaos78 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Something derived from cacti I think. However, I was looking at the "very large bodies of water" that bound them both -- the Indian Ocean and the Swan river...  Gordon | Talk, 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)