Talk:Ulverstone, Tasmania

Australia: Places / Tasmania Low‑importance

	Australia portal Ulverstone, Tasmania 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 Tasmania (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Bypass works

Dual Carriageway bypass - two lanes in each direction (from April 2008) on the 'Ulverstone bypass' which currently is only a single carriageway bypass - one lane in each direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.57.62 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2018

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.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to do anything. The article remains at this title, and the redirect from Ulverstone remains at this target. bd2412 T 14:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulverstone, Tasmania → Ulverstone – This is the only place name, and the article already had a hatnote to distinguish with the UK's town. B dash (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. Even if the UK town is a reasonable search term, the hatnote would suffice. ONR (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Should be a disambiguation page: see Ulverstone and Lancaster Railway for this spelling being used in the English context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per WP:PRECISE/WP:NCAUST as it already redirects here (and has always, since the move in 2004). Searching for this term with Google from England returns this town, not the English town. There are sources[1][2] that use this spelling to refer to the English town, but that looks like its uncommon, especially today (although according to Ulverstone, Tasmania#History "Ulverston, U.K. was spelled Ulverstone until late in the 19th Century"). Note that there is another place called "Ulverston" in Suffolk. If we don't move this article then we should covert "Ulverstone" into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ulverstone in UK used to be spelled with an -e until the last century, and although the two towns are the same size, they aren't of the same historical significance. Tasmania is helpful, removing Tasmania helps noone. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move A hangover from the previous and defunct practice of compulsory use of disambiguation terms for Australian places. The use of unnecessary disambiguation terms goes against logical and consistent naming principals and creates confusion for readers who are not familiar with esoteric Wikipedia protocols. Any potential ambiguity can be dealth with via a hat note. Use of a disambiguation page would make it more difficult for casual readers to find the article on the Tasmanian town (adding an extra click) without making it any easier to find the English town than a hatnote would. Arguments about relative "historical significance" of one place or the other depend on who you ask. Unsuprisingly, most European (and especially British) editors nearly always think European and British places are more "historically signficant" than New World places with common names. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "previous and defunct", nor a "hangover". Misrepresenting guidelines because you're determined to abolish them at any cost is ugly behaviour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Australian places are usually introduced with comma state, especially in reference works, and in non-local news. The Australian place name system was perfectly good and very consistent, until someone began making thousands of sneaky mage moves. There is no advantage to title minimalism. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources, eg "Ulverstone, Tasmania", "Ulverstone, TAS", show the COMMONNAME real word convention to names Australian towns and cities with comma-state. Ulverstone is not a well known town, and the comma state serves to make it recognisable, and confuses no one. Other sources that do not are wither very local, or title the town under a banner of "Tasmania". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONCISEness and WP:CONSISTENCY with how almost all other articles on WP are titled are big advantages to bringing this and other unnecessarily disambiguated titles in line with widespread conventions. Further, given this convention, the current disambiguated title falsely suggests that there is another use of "Ulverstone" on WP - why fool our readers like that? --В²C ☎ 17:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As always, you confuse CONCISE with brevity. The state the town is in is integral to the character of the place and how people think of it, and of course, how people refer to it, including overwhelmingly in reliable sources if you discount local sources. That is complicated by arguing the point on very small towns for which there are barely any reliable secondary sources to even justify the article. CONSISTENCY? Consistency can ONLY be achieved in the long form, many Australian cities and towns are like Launceston, Tasmania, named after some place or person from the other side of the planet. In 2010, we had that consistency before someone proposed breaking it, got no consensus, and then a few proceed to break it with sneaky quiet undiscussed pages moves. Reprehensible that was, and I think they should all be reverted. I think you are using this as a border-skirmish to keep alive your irrational unhappiness about USPLACE. All the English speaking colonies make heavy use of Town, State, or similar, consistently across the US, Canada (provinces), NZ and Australia. South Afrika appears to follow less strongly, probably because it was not English, or because many towns pre-existed colonialism. It doesn't happen in the old country because the towns there are older than the language, and the towns are truly the primary topic for the name. This is most definitely not true here. Ulverstone is named after something or someone, though I haven't yet worked out what. Some kind of stone I guess, and I suspect that that stone, or a person named after the stone, had some association with the early days of this town. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Mattinbgn and existing convention. Dohn joe (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "existing convention" that would support this move - Australian naming conventions specifically state that there's nothing wrong with the current title. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Any apparent convention is the result of Mattinbgn’s years of sneaky undiscussed page moves attempting to break the original convention of Town, State, the abundantly recognisable and common means of introducing Australian towns. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move against convention to not just move pages for no reason. I'm disappointed that Mattinbgn did not alert WP:AWNB to these moves and instead is supporting them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no reason to have special disambiguation rules for place names.--Grahame (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there is a reason, it is recognisability, and commonname, and the old consistency of all Australian towns and cities before some few took it upon themselves, against consensus, to break that. If is OK if you want to argue that these are not "good reasons", but to repeatedly flat-out assert that there is "no reasons" is dishonest when I have pointed it out to you before. I'm sorry if you don't like my tone and can thus use that as an excuse to never give an answer to "what reader advantage is there to shortening the city and town names". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board conversation and why this is relevent to that and that to this. JarrahTree 00:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move as there are many articles in Wikipedia about other places in Tasmania that have been named "Town name, Tasmania", to say nothing of those in Queensland using the same convention. It would be time-consuming to request and debate moves for each of them in turn and is not helpful to a reader's understanding. Oronsay (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The base name redirects here. This is quintessential unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 20:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "quintessential". Funny how you like to keep referring to this centuries old idea that has been been thoroughly disproven in detail and concept. Earth, fire, water, and air have been replaced with atoms and energy and nuclei, and there is no need to invoke a mythical extra element to explain the inconsistencies of the old ideas. "unnecessary"? Many good things are unnecessary. You too have never, despite being directly asked, articulated a reader-benefit to moving towns to short names. Aren't you just desperately trying to hold on to that pseudo-religious calling that all titles should be as short as possible? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SmokeyJoe. Omnedon (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about West Ulverstone/West Ulverstone, Tasmania, that should be moved to as that one isn't even partly ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you keep introducing nonsense? Why do you think super-short names are preferable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2018 (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.

River Leven

Anyone know the origin of the name? Is it derived from River Leven, Cumbria or River Leven, North Yorkshire, or maybe one of the rivers in Scotland with this name? Or maybe none of these? Arcturus (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which River Leven it was named after, but apparently it was named one of the Scottish ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Leven_(Tasmania) "It was named by the Van Diemen's Land Company after the River Leven in Scotland."

Psypherium^{talk page} 09:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I should have followed the link in the article! Previously I had wondered if River Leven, North Yorkshire wad the origin of the Tasmanian river name, despite River Leven, Cumbria running to the sea at Ulverston in England. I think at one point the North Yorkshire river was stated as the origin of the name. The Ulverston/Ulverstone link, with similarly-named rivers, would appear to be a coincidence. Arcturus (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]