Jump to content

Talk:Wyndham Vale

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

Requested move 30 November 2019

[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: no consensus to move the page away from the current stable title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wyndham Vale → ? – I'd like to move this page to include the name 'Victoria' in its title, in line with the articles for Melbourne's other suburbs. PK2 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no such policy.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a carry over from the old days. It no longer has consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation. Naming places in Australia as "Name, State" used to be standard but, after lengthy discussions at WP:NCAUST, this is no longer the case. We don't disambiguate for consistency, we disambiguate when necessary and it's clearly not necessary here. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do seek consistency: it's one of the criteria of a good article title: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Regardless of discussions, nearly all of Wyndham Vale's peers in the category still carry the clarifier, and while that remains the case I see nothing unique about this neighborhood in particular that would exempt it from that. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suburbs of Melbourne should be disambiguated with "Victoria" (as opposed to "Australia") for consistency when disambiguation is needed, however like most other places (and other topics) we usually don't disambiguate so this is consistent with other topics that don't require disambiguation. If others are disambiguated that's probably because they either require disambiguation or haven't been moved to comply with the new NC (and we shouldn't propagate that error). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, prefer concision when no disambiguation is necessary. – Teratix ₵ 00:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article appears to have been unilaterally moved away from the proposed title in July 2013. Convention is also that articles don't get moved arbitrarily. AussieLegend is right that WP:NCAUST has been watered down to document the practice rather than prescribe the name as it used to. Practice is still to qualify town/suburb names with the state in most cases, but short forms now "may be used". --Scott Davis Talk 04:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After 9 years at this location there is little to be gained by moving the article back. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:15, 8 December 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 January 2020

[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: No consensus to move the page away from its present title. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Wyndham Vale → Wyndham Vale, Victoria – I'd like to move this page to include the name 'Victoria' in its title, in line with the articles for Melbourne's other suburbs. PK2 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put in another requested move was because I felt like I did the previous one incorrectly, with the name 'Melbourne' instead of 'Victoria' in my previous move request. -- PK2 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what has changed from last time? – Teratix ₵ 08:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per last time and it shouldn't have been nominated so soon after the previous discussion (see WP:RENOM) which a no consensus should usually wait at least 2 months (and should probably be longer for the nom or someone involved in the previous discussion) and should have information to address the previous discussion. In this case the statement is exactly the same and by the same user. The previous discussion could easily have been closed as not moved due to the fact that the 1st support !vote was based on a missapplication of said policy (it doesn't apply to cases when one requires disambiguation and one doesn't) and the other oppose seems to go against the guideline anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm sorry about that. -- PK2 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, if you have anything to add to you're nomination statement then you could add it here but its looking like this is moving towards consensus against. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it ain't broke do not fix it. Unless there is another Wyndham Vale somewhere, and, it is better known than this one, why change this one? Aoziwe (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This discussion (about adding state names at the end of Australian placename articles) comes up again and again. We have two policy statements that support one or the other. The community is divided about which they prefer. Some time back I proposed that instead of arguing any more about it, we could simply follow the same rule as "which kind of English to use" in the absence of a strong national tie which is "first in gets to decide it" so if you create the article, it's your choice which title is used until such time as disambiguation becomes necessary. I think we are agreed though that the other name should exist as a redirect (or disambiguation page as appropriate) and in this case the redirect exists. Given that "frustration with the community" is the major reason that active contributors quit, I think the more we all do for "just getting on with it" and not constantly arguing about everything little thing again and again is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Kerry (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this isn't a case like Newcastle where disambiguation is needed but one like Sydney (except this one is unambiguous while there are other places called Sydney) and while it doesn't appear to require it being as the plain name there doesn't seem a need to have a longer title here per WP:PRECISE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No need for disambiguation.--Grahame (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Bookscale (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Was there ever a discussion, or was it a WP:BOLD move that renamed the article originally created as Wyndham Vale, Victoria? At the time that WP:NCAUST was changed from saying that settlement articles should be qualified by state to saying that most are but the short form is permitted, it was generally agreed not to move articles just because the guideline changed, so this article would still be at its original title. As far as "there's nothing else called Wyndham Vale", what about the Wyndham Vale railway station (in the suburb of Manor Lakes, Victoria) and Wyndhamvale Football Club (whose home ground is Wyndham Vale South Reserve in the suburb of Werribee, Victoria)? Category:Suburbs of Melbourne also shows the vast majority have ", Victoria". The only reason they are not ambiguous is context. If I am "catching a train to meet a friend at Wyndham Vale", do I mean the suburb or the railway station? --Scott Davis Talk 10:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that it was a bold move but it was 6.5 years ago so it's really irrelevant now and there is nothing to be gained from moving it back. What NCAUST said at the time is also really irrelevant as it has always been the case that we only disambiguate when necessary and it doesn't seem necessary. The mover's justification that nothing else was called Wyndham Vale is quite correct. The articles you mention are not called Wyndham Vale, they have qualifiers in the article titles, specifically "railway station" and "Football Club". As far as If I am "catching a train to meet a friend at Wyndham Vale", do I mean the suburb or the railway station? goes, most people would assume the locality. If they wanted to meet you at the railway station they would add that. That's why Wyndham Vale railway station is not just called "Wyndham Vale". It's not rocket science. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Wyndham Vale (disambiguation) just in case it should move to Wyndham Vale. --Scott Davis Talk 10:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The football club and station are both located in the suburb so WP:DABCONCEPT would apply furthermore both of these are in Victoria to! so the title "Wyndham Vale, Victoria" wouldn't disambiguate so we would instead use Wyndham Vale (suburb) and redirect Wyndham Vale, Victoria to the DAB as well but as noted it doesn't need disambiguation anyway. Also if you look 2 years ago the guideline said the same thing (so if a move had been preformed then it would have been enough time to be stable). At the time of the move the guideline seemed to give more wight to diambiguation but said that cities and towns can be at the simple name in some cases. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Wyndham Vale refers to the suburb, not the railway station. Several pointless disambiguation pages of this nature have been created for South Australian locations.--Grahame (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's possibly me who has created disambiguation pages for SA places. Maybe it's a dialect thing that I might "catch a train to Wyndham Vale" even if I intend to get off at Wyndhan Vale railway station in the suburb of Manor Lakes. Adelaide metro railway stations are not always named for suburbs at all. --Scott Davis Talk 23:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Catching a train to meet a friend at Wyndham Vale" is different to "catch a train to Wyndham Vale". If, for example, I was in Sydney I can say "I'm catching a train to meet a friend at Newcastle Airport" but I can't say "I'm going to catch a train to Newcastle Airport". With the former I can catch a train to Broadmeadow, Hamilton or Hexham and then a bus or taxi to the airport but I can't catch a train to the airport because there is no railway line. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't only Scott who created the SA pages I was refering to. If I catch a tram to Macarthur Avenue, I do not expect to be let off in the traffic at the intersection of Northbourne and Macarthur Avenues. I know this is short for the nearby Macarthur Avenue light rail stop. Grahame (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2020 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wyndham_Vale&oldid=1204081386"