Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Parks and roads

I don't think it can up previously, but how should we apply the naming conventions to parks and local roads. I'm thinking it should probably be park (city/town); road (city/town). Any thoughts? --Peta 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Islands also need clarificiation, all but the WA islands are at name, state. --Peta 10:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think roads/streets should be qualified under the comma convention by their immediate vincinity (eg, Jetty Road, Glenelg), or if it tranverses multiple locales, the principle locale (eg, Rundle Street, Adelaide, which also runs through Kent Town). Under this method, we can defer to street directories. I think parks would ok un-qualified, but if they are, I would prefer they use the comma convention. Most parks in Category:Parks in Adelaide are qualified this way. Beaches, as natural features, should follow the convention nutted out above.--cj | talk 11:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne (suburb)

What is to be done about Melbourne (suburb). It's a rather dubious article about a non-entity and which does not follow naming conventions. However, it does highlight a problem among capital cities which arises when (for example) Sydney is about the metropolitan area and City of Sydney is about the municipality. Under this scheme, where does discussion of the city-centre take place? Sydney central business district might be one place, but it doesn't necessarily cover the entire area. --cj | talk 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sticking to the CBD format would be better, I think. Rebecca 01:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought so, but now it seems that the proponents of Melbourne (suburb) are intent on usurping Melbourne, Victoria. Discussion is occuring at Talk:Melbourne.--cj | talk 05:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think for any non-Aussie it is confusing. We have an article for Adelaide the metro area, City of Adelaide the local government area (analogous to City of Marion or whatever, which contains a bunch of suburbs) and an article for one of its two suburbs, North Adelaide but no article for Adelaide (suburb). I agree it is getting finicky to have an articel for the suburb of Adelaide when it can be adequately covered in the article about the LGA, but it is confusing for people looking for information about the CBD alone -- eg. population breakdowns for Adelaide suburb and North Adelaide suburb. — Donama 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confounded by the use of "suburb" to describe the urban area suburbs are supossed to subordinate to! Fortunately, in Adelaide's case, we have an easy out: South Adelaide is the traditional name for the area which, according to the writers of Melbourne (suburb), would otherwise be Adelaide (suburb).--cj | talk 08:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Objections to calling Melbourne, 3000/3004 a suburb cannot be maintained while allowing Fitzroy, East Melbourne, Richmond, Southbank etc. to be considered ‘suburbs’, unless we redefine suburb. Your definition doesn’t even make sense when you consider that East Melbourne, Victoria is described as a suburb, but contains the Parliament of Victoria (which in some ways would make it the preeminent suburb in the city) and other parts of the CBD. The outcome of this discussion will need to be very careful in what it does to the definition of ‘suburb’ in Australian places and is in danger of requiring a lot of edits and careful watching of many articles.
The way most people I talk to here in Melbourne use the word ‘suburb’ views the prefix ‘sub-’ more as suggesting ‘subdivision’ than ‘subordinate’.
(Incidentally, the international definition of ‘suburb’ has nothing to do with being ‘subordinate’ to an urban area; they are outlying areas near or beyond the city limits. The concept is similar to ‘outer suburb’ in colloquial Australian English, and can still be seen in the most common understanding of ‘suburban’ even in Australia. You appear to be creating a new definition or misunderstanding a pre-existing one.)
Still, I can make two more suggestions for the title: (1) ‘Melbourne, Victoria ([type])’ where [type] is ‘suburb’ or ‘bounded locality’ or whatever it we decide the Melbourne in question actually is; (2) ‘Melbourne 3000’ referring to the postcode of the area in question. (1) is to be preferred I think, because it follows best the actual naming schemes of suburbs as ’[name], Victoria’, while still allows ‘Melbourne, Victoria’ to go to what is probably the most likely meaning of it; (2) is also dispreferred on the basis that there’s other postcodes for Melbourne (3001, 3004, 8001 I think is exhaustive) and the possibility for the creation of others.
I re-iterate my objection to conflating the article on the CBD with the article on suburb.
—Felix the Cassowary 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of "Melbourne"

I'd like to set some clear, correct definitions for "Melbourne", theres a hell of alot of discussion involving it. The name Melbourne can mean any of the following:

Melbourne (suburb) - the suburb that comprises the City/CBD/Hoddle Grid and several surrounding areas of land.
Its postcode is 3000, and 3004 in the area south of the Yarra River. Surrounding areas include; up Elizabeth Street, south of Brunton Av and the entire Botanic Gardens.
Greater Melbourne - the urban area that has expanded and thus, surrounds the City/CBD/Hoddle Grid.
Could technically be updated every few months with new developments occuring in the outter suburbs, with new legislation this 'urban sprawl' will be stopped and the suburbs will slowly become more dense with more high rise.
Melbourne - the City/CBD/Hoddle grid and the surrounding urban area combined to reference the entire city in the state of Victoria.
When people say 'Melbourne' this is usually what they are referring to, the terms Greater Melbourne and Melbourne as a suburb are used far less frequently, this is also what you would use to describe the entire city in an encyclopedia.
Suburb (Also refered to as Locality) - In Australia it means an area of land occupied or unoccupied that has been given a name(s) and divided up under local council/shire authority with set boundaries.
The postcodes of suburbs can spill over into the next suburb and so in many cases there is a seperate boundary called the post code boundary. There is actually a suburb for every piece of land in Australia, usually the more densly populated the section of land is, the smaller the suburb. It is technically refered to as a locality, but everyone knows them as suburbs, they mean the same thing.

I might be a bit behind the 8 ball so to speak, but I think we should figure out what to do with these other definitions, should they have articles of themselves? I feel the Melbourne (suburb) is reasonable, as if someone wants to know about the city in general they'll find the 'Melbourne' article first, then if you want to go into further detail the suburb article is also there, however small, the term Greater Melbourne dosent really need an article. It would be possible for neither of these terms to have articles as long as they're mentioned somwhere in the main Melbourne article.

It should be noted that the Melways incorporates: Suburb Boundaries, Post Code Boundaries, Locality names, Local council/shire boundaries among many other things that for me make it a very reliable source of information on this topic. Also, as I read earlier, Jolimont is actually a locality within the suburb of East Melbourne, other examples include; the locality of Glenferrie within the suburb of Hawthorn, locality-Greythorn suburb-Balwyn North, locality-Regent suburb-Preston, locality-Newmarket suburb-Flemington, locality-Bennettswood suburb-Burwood. (Localities don't have boundaries, they're just names of general areas in some cases as small as an area of shops allong a road near a train station, and in some cases used to be small suburbs that later became part of the larger suburb but many residents will still use the locality name, the post office knows all of these names and as long as they have the same post code as they're larger suburb its okay to use them as adresses! Look it up in the Melways.

Thanks for reading! Nick carson 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Metropolis/LGA/Inner city Suburb - disambiguation article titling discussion

As noted above the discussion on the article Melbourne (suburb) at Talk:Melbourne has been ongoing. Due to concern that the result of these discussions will set a precedent in naming conventions for other capital cities in Australia, it has been suggested that the discussion be continued here for the whole 'Australian Places' group to weigh in on.

Please read the discussion at Talk:Melbourne for a complete history of the discussion/debate. My attempt at a summary...

  • The scope of the area which this article would cover is shown in this map - see the area marked as 'Melbourne'
  • This area is larger than the Hoddle Grid
  • The title Melbourne (suburb) is not named according to naming conventions established by this project (or it's parent).
  • Debate was made over whether the area is technically a suburb - it appears that the definition of suburb itself is unclear in the government sources. The impact to this discussion if it technically was not a suburb was also unclear.
  • Suggestions for alternate names were made, (some subsequently withdrawn)
  • A vote on the name was opened and at present remains open, however some have expressed that they felt it was premature.
  • The latest discussion has been around the suggestion of Melbourne, Victoria as the alternate title for the 'suburb', and whether dropping the redirect to Melbourne would be detrimental

If you feel that I have missed some important point that required summary here please add it, or edit.SauliH 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this summary except for the assertion that "the title Melbourne (suburb) is not named according to naming conventions established by this project." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia states:
"Ambiguously named features that are co-located and therefore cannot be distinguished on location use [[Geographic Feature (type)]], e.g. Wolfe Creek (crater) and Wolfe Creek (watercourse)."
The title Melbourne (suburb) accords with this convention. Hesperian 07:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The part of the naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia which deals with towns etc states:
"All Australian town, city and suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and preferentially made City. The unqualified Town should be either a redirect or disambig page. Local government areas are at their official name."
You are using the geographic feature convention as a guide.SauliH 13:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone confirm whether this map actually shows the full area?SauliH 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The title Melbourne (suburb) accords with this convention.
Only if it is considered a "suburb" and that has been disputed (although I'm leaning towards the view that it does qualify in Australian usage, if not etymological usage). Also, SauliH seems to have answered the point quite well also.
Can someone confirm whether this map actually shows the full area?
That map is linked to from here, and seems pretty definitive to me.
Philip J. Rayment 14:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Does a portion spill over into 'Port Phillip between 'South Bank' and 'South Yarra' or is the redline shown a suburb boundary?
Answered my own question. A portion of the area spills over into 'Port Phillip, as seen on this mapSauliH 14:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You beat me—I was about to point that out! Philip J. Rayment 14:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I might have a compromise, or at least a direction we can go to get there.
What this would achieve would be a clear differentiation between the metropolis and this CBD area, without steping on the redirect.
Note that Melbourne CBD, Victoria already redirects to Hoddle Grid. We would possibly compromise the understanding of 'CBD' if we used this descriptor.SauliH 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe have the Hoddle Grid article redirect to Melbourne CBD, Victoria and have "Hoddle Grid" as a section of that article? Or leave Hoddle Grid how it is, and have a summary of it in Melbourne CBD, Victoria with a {{main}} template linking to Hoddle Grid as the more detailed article? -- Chuq 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Melbourne (suburb), Victoria is horrid, but I think Melbourne, Victoria (suburb) would be an excellent solution. Hesperian 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Stirling (suburb), Western Australia is one example of a WA name which relates to a river, mountain range, LGA, suburb as well as a state and federal electorate. Orderinchaos (t|c) 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If this entity didn't have an article at all...

Hang on, why is there even an article for the administrative division which covers the same area as the CBD in Melbourne? I don't see how articles about obscure administrative divisions are fulfil notability criteria where the boundaries of those divisions are largely irrelevant to the society populating them. Why not just point out in the article about the CBD that it happens to roughly correspond to an administrative region within the LGA of the city of Melbourne? Or include information about Melbourne suburb in the article about the City of Melbourne article as is done for Adelaide:

In its local administrative capacity, the City of Adelaide has responsibility for two areas analogous to suburbs: Adelaide (also known as South Adelaide, the city, the CBD, or the square mile) and North Adelaide. The city council is also responsible for the Adelaide Parklands which surrounds North Adelaide and the CBD. (source: City of Adelaide)

Note though: I'm pretty sure I actually was the original author of the above -- perhaps there is a better way to do this, but not sure we shuld assume making a separate "South Adelaide" or "Adelaide (suburb)" article is the answer. — Donama 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as notability is concerned, I can't see that the "suburb" of Melbourne is any less notable than many other Melbourne suburbs that have articles, and it's probably more notable than many. And I don't think it's appropriate to put a description of the suburb in an article about the City of Melbourne (beyond the sort of note that you did for Adelaide). See also my further comments below about the Melbourne, Victoria article.Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
While you may be content with a paragraph about the CBD of Adelaide, which talks about the administration of it, I believe an article about Adelaide, South Australia - the suburb - would be as justifiable as North Adelaide, South Australia. I think you are taking a short sighted view of what can be written. It is certainly more than a paragraph.SauliH 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Donama, this has been discussed before. The suburb of Melbourne has quite distinct boundaries from the CBD of Melbourne. The CBD is either the space inside Latrobe St, Spencer St, Flinders St and Spring St, which is a very limited view of it (excluding frex Parliament, Spencer St Station, Southbank), in which case the CBD is entirely contained in the suburb of Melbourne, or else it extends further in all directions containing areas that are parts of different suburbs and even city councils. In any case, the suburb of Melbourne extends substantially south of the city, further than most definitions of ‘CBD’ would allow.
To that extent, the CBD and the suburb of Melbourne are different entities. Is the suburb notable in any way? Well, I would think it’s at least as notable as all the other suburbs of Melbourne.
—Felix the Cassowary 00:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the CBD and the "suburb" of Melbourne share exactly the same boundaries, but for a portion of parkland across the Yarra. As an aside, it's interesting that the City of Melbourne does not profile any "suburb" of Melbourne; rather, it does the CBD. To quote: "The City of Melbourne is made up of the city centre and a number of inner-city suburbs."--cj | talk 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No you're wrong here. The map you show has no mention of the St Kilda Road area, which is at least twice the size of and has about a third the office space and nearly half as many residents as the CBD. This area should not be ignored and is a big part of the history of the suburb. In my opinion, the St Kilda Road article should be merged into Melbourne (suburb) --Biatch 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with Philip and Felix here. The suburb article is designed to contain fundamentally different information to the CBD article - the CBD article is really talking about Melbourne the world city and commercial centre of power(as CJ alluded to) whereas the suburb article is looking to a description of the bounded locality, its history and facilities (which isn't quite the same as landmarks, although would be in a less significant place). If that fundamental difference exists, it probably needs an article in the ideal world. If it doesn't (e.g. many small rural local councils where the main town and LGA share a name and the town's history and features *are* pretty much those of the LGA) then no need to duplicate the stuff or generate unnecessary articles (although in my observation there are millions of such on Wiki anyway :)) Orderinchaos (t|c) 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
When I look at the maps, the "suburb" south of the river contains slightly more than parkland, but it clearly what is left over after other areas have been designated suburbs, rather than a sensible definition of a suburb, backing up Cyberjunkie's point. As a name, Melbourne city centre seems to fit with City of Melbourne usage, and could quite easily cover the history and facilities of the business area and parkland, including the commercial power aspects. I don't see the distinction Orderinchaos is making. At any rate, many the world city aspects should be covered in the main Melbourne article. JPD (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The ‘suburb’ (I’m not wedded to that term, but I’m using it because it’s what’s conventially been used till I came across this discussion) contains also Elizabeth Street north of Victoria Street and St Kilda Road (and a bit) south to High Street. I’m personally surprised by the area they’ve chosen to include in their definition of the CBD, but if that’s what it is, that’s what it is. In any case, it seems to be based on the boundaries of the ‘suburb’ of Melbourne. (Is that based on an official definition of the CBD, or just a map by the Melbourne City Council?)
In any case, we seem to be going round in circles at this stage. My preferences are that the ‘suburb’ called ‘Melbourne’ and all the other ‘suburbs’ of Melbourne are treated the same, including in name. They are the same sort of thing. If that sort of thing is not ‘suburb’, then we should work out what the actual name is, and use it consistently throughout all articles on Melbourne’s ‘suburbs’. (What does that boundary map in the PDF CJ linked to claim to be a map of the boundaries of?)
I also think that the name of the article on the area occupied by the ‘suburb’ of Melbourne should be called ‘Melbourne, Victoria ([type])’, although there seems to be a precedent for ‘Melbourne ([type]), Victoria’.
JPD, I’m not sure what your first sentence is trying to say; and I’m a little unsure of your last (I think you meant ‘many of the world city aspects’?).
—Felix the Cassowary 04:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I did leave out the "of" in the last sentence. In the first sentence, my point was that while the part of the "suburb" south of the "CBD" is more than parkland, it seems fairly obviuos that this isn't a normal suburb. Various other parts of the city have been given names and designated suburbs, and everything left over is simply called Melbourne. The modern obsession with having the whole city split into suburbs probalby means that this left over area is possibly referred as a suburb, but I'm sure that wasn't the original intention of those boundaries. If the area defined by those boundaries really does need an article of it's own, rather than being adequately covered by something like Melbourne city centre, then [[Melbourne, Victoria ([type])]] would be the way to go. JPD (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the [[Melbourne, Victoria]] redirect

It was noted in the Talk: Melbourne page that there are 349 articles that link to [[Melbourne, Victoria]], the "vast majority" of which would need to be altered to link to [[Melbourne]] if we decide to adopt the former name for the article about the suburb. On that matter, I note the following:

  • Many of those 349 articles are user pages, which I don't think it is necessary for us to change.
  • Some of articles (e.g. Bank Place, Melbourne) should actually link to an article about the suburb, not the metropolis, and would therefore not need to be changed. Conversely, they should be changed if we adopt a different title for the suburb article.
  • With many of the articles, it will not be clear whether a change is required or not. For example, the Gough Whitlam article notes that he was born in [[Melbourne, Victoria|Melbourne]]. Is this referring to the suburb or the metropolis? I assume that if he was born in Dandenong, the article would say so. But if he was born in the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Parkville, for example, the article might just say Melbourne.
  • Many of the links should be changed anyway (and I have done a few). There is little point in an article referring to [[Melbourne, Victoria|Melbourne]] which redirects to [[Melbourne]], when it could just say [[Melbourne]] in the first place and avoid a redirect.

I am not saying that the number that would need to be changed is small. But perhaps it is probably not as many as the "vast majority", and many should be changed to avoid redirects no matter what is decided.
Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if they were all changed, new ones would be created all the time. You can't disambiguate the pages in that way because the two names do nothing to tell you which one is which. To someone from outside Wikipedia, there is no logical reason why Melbourne would mean the metropolis and Melbourne, Victoria would mean the city centre/suburb. -- Chuq 06:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
To an outsider, is there any logical reason why Melbourne would mean the metropolis and City of Melbourne would mean the local government area? Philip J. Rayment 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Melbourne is a simple name that can be used for several differently sized areas. In this case, we use the most common use of the name. "City of Melbourne", on the other hand is reasonably clearly an official name of a local government entity, which happens in this case to be significantly smaller than the metropolis. The metropolis/"suburb" distinction is a bit harder, but ", Victoria" definitely doesn't help. In fact, I would go further than Chuq and say that there is no logical reason to someone, even within Wikipedia, why one is the metropolis and one the "suburb", other than as a quirky result of naming convention that was definitely not intended for this purpose. JPD (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the results of the Straw poll

Based on the 'voting', I think we should eliminate those names that received less than 0, using the scoring system I laid out. They would be Melbourne inner city; Melbourne (suburb); Melbourne CBD, Victoria; Melbourne, Victoria; Melbourne (locality) leaving the top three candidates for the name of this article as revealed by our straw poll.

1 Melbourne city centre
2 Melbourne, Victoria (suburb)
3 Melbourne central business district

None of these options received overwhelming support - not surprising with the wide spread of ideas for names presented. I truly would be happy with any of the three, they each have merit, and the only one that I would have a question about is 'Melbourne central business district' - does it align with most people's understanding of Melbourne's CBD? I do not live there so I take others word for it. The other two, while not 'official names' for the area, I believe are accurate enough to be valid contenders. Is this area a 'suburb'? I wish we could all agree that it is. Is there actually a weighty difference between a defined 'suburb' and an 'bounded locality' as this area is? We should note that as early discussion on this revealed, these terms appear to be blurred in the official records. If we use a real pedantic definition, we will need to create new locality categories for some areas which we now understand to be suburbs - which to the reader will not add a whole lot. Some have said that because it is in the centre of the city, it is not suburban in the layman's understanding of the idea of suburb. I will grant you this. In Brisbane where I went to uni, we would go to the 'city' when we went into the CBD. It wasn't a suburb. But does that mean we do not call it a suburb?

In the end maybe we should call it Melbourne city centre, after all it received the most support. It doesn't state it is a suburb, which is ok. I do wish we could be consistent in our naming conventions, but I would hate to start another idea for a name - I wouldn't be opposed to Melbourne, Victoria (city center).

Where do we go from here? Are you wanting to let wikipedia be a democracy this time and take a (evil) vote, or do we need to beat this into the ground?SauliH 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have spent a lot of time discussing this and I'm not sure if we shouldn't just move it to Melbourne city centre and see if this causes a reaction. Alternatively we could put a notice on the article first about our intention.--Grahamec 23:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be just fine with that, providing no-one else has a reasonable objection. I am sure every alternative will draw a negative response, but this option has more support than the current article name.SauliH 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes go ahead and move it to Melbourne city centre. Even though I didn't support it, it got the most support from the others and I think everyone is thinking straight here -- just we have different opinions. So in this case first past the post is sensible. — Donama 06:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the article to Melbourne city centre.--cj | talk 09:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to comment on how stupid this decision is. There is no such place as the "Melbourne city centre". The place is logically called Melbourne as defined by the Australian Places, whether you people like it or not. Just look how stupid it looks on the info boxes. --Biatch 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that "city centre" is not capitalised makes a whole lot of difference. If it were capitalised it would designate a name, but it is quite clear that 'city center' is adjectival. SauliH 01:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne (suburb) naming straw poll

Okay, I think we are at somewhat of a stalemate, so to come to some type of resolution let's put down each name version, and record an opinion such as Support, Oppose, Neutral or a 'strong/weak' version of these, and your signature. Follow up with a short statement if you like, (if you have already stated a reason in the discussion, write as noted above). Also, if I miss any, or you still want to add another option - please add it. This is not a vote at this stage, so stating support for more than one is acceptable. If you have a longer comment or want to debate a point do so in the above area - so that this section can be kept concise.

With the results, we will rule out names that have very little support, and if one or more names have strong support universally it will reveal the options we are most likely to favour if we need to vote.

I don't know how we are supposed to sort these, but I'll add my views anyway! -- Chuq 03:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganised these in order of how it appears the support is falling. If it changes, then so be it, then we will see. Nothing below has changed - just the order.SauliH 22:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto again. A few changes in position.
How am I scoring?
  • Average of...
Ditto, again a few changes in position.SauliH 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne city centre

Tally - SS=1 S=5 WS=1 O=3 SO=1 Total 'votes' = 11 Score = 0.364 (4/11)

Melbourne, Victoria (suburb)

Tally - SS=2 S=1 WS=1 WO=1 O=4 Total 'votes' = 9 Score = 0.0 (0/9)

Melbourne central business district

Tally - SS=1 S=4 O=4 SO=1 Total 'votes' = 10 Score = 0.0 (0/10)

Melbourne inner city

Tally - S=1 WS=2 N=1 WO=1 O=4 Total 'votes' = 9 Score = -0.556 (-5/9)

Melbourne (suburb)

Tally - WS=3 O=7 Total 'votes' = 10 Score = -1.1 (-11/10)

Melbourne CBD, Victoria

Tally - SS=1 S=1 WO=1 O=4 SO=2 Total 'votes' = 9 Score = -1.111 (-10/9)

Melbourne, Victoria

Tally - S=2 N=2 WO=1 O=1 SO=5 Total 'votes' = 11 Score = -1.273 (-14/11)

Melbourne (locality)

Tally - WS=1 N=1 O=7 Total 'votes' = 9 Score = -1.444 (-13/9)

Comments

Did I miss any?

I added Melbourne CBD, Victoria. Also since this is WP:Australian places are we to take the result of this as a suggestion for naming of similar central regions of other major cities in Australia? -- Chuq 03:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that the result of this discussion when/if it happens will set a precedent. So yes, I would expect it to do that. SauliH 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I added "Melbourne central business district" for similar reasons to Chuq's addition. --Scott Davis Talk 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this would be a precedent, but it is worth considering each case on its own merits. JPD (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For the people who oppose some options on the grounds that they are ill-defined or imprecise, may I observe that it may be preferable to include information on the well-defined area that is treated as an entity in few contexts in an article with a more general subject? As for those arguing for Melbourne, Victoria based on the naming conventions, it is fairly clear that the conventions did not intend to use ", [state]" to distinguish between "suburbs" and metropolises. There are good reasons why we shouldn't make the name consistent with other suburbs, which have names that don't also have a wider meaning. I'm not sure what to make of the comparisons with other cities. Auckland doesn't seem relevant, with the main article on the metropolitan area, an article on the smaller government area using its official name, an article on the larger government area using its name, and no evidence of anything like a suburb called Auckland. Manhattan is not ambiguous, with the larger metropolitan area having another name. Similarly, in the Toronto case, the larger met. area is usually called "Greater Toronto" and the smaller area "Old Toronto". It is clearly a different case in Melbourne. Even if people still think it is valid to (ab)use the naming conventions to disambiguate between "suburbs" and larger areas with ", [state]" just because it somehow "works" for capital cities, what do we do when we reach the point where we want a separate article for the "suburb" at the heart of Newcastle, New South Wales? JPD (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: New York's central suburb is not Manhattan but Midtown Manhattan, which has its own page. We seem to have a semantic debate here in that Americans call these areas neighbourhoods, and use the term "suburb" to refer to the small local government areas which grew rapidly due to White flight in the second half of the 20th century. Thus the Americans use the term "suburb" to refer to areas outside of the large central local government areas that had been established in the late 19th and early 20th century. This usage is not Australian usage, and there is no reason we should follow it. On the other hand I have no particular objection to "Melbourne central business district", where the problem appears to be, unique to Melbourne, that St Kilda Road is included while Southbank, Victoria is excluded, producing an odd shape. --Grahamec 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no article for Auckland CBD, however. I don't mind Melbourne, Victoria. From an architectural and postcode sense, at least, the distinction is very important. I read a website by Monash University a few years back which had profiles on all of the inner city suburbs of Melbourne as Kew, Victoria etc. and what do you know, for the area the Melways defines as Melbourne, they had an article called "Melbourne, Victoria" which talked about the history, development etc of the area. There is also a book by Architectural historian Miles Lewis on the history of development of Melbourne which treats "Melbourne, Victoria" as a distinct entity from its inner and outer suburbs. Even property sites like realestate.com.au and domain.com.au have profiles on the suburb with postcodes 3000, and if you search for properties in the suburb it doesn't bring up anything in Greater Melbourne, just the CBD, Royal Parade and St Kilda Road areas .... why this is even a debate I have no idea ... sigh. --Biatch 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is that in Manhattan and Toronto there are existing names that people use to distinguish the central neighbourhood, whereas in Sydney and Melbourne we don't have anything other than CBD or city centre. The same goes for Auckland, and this issue hasn't been dealt with there. There is no article yet on the CBD/city centre, and instead references to "Auckland city centre" in Mechanics Bay, for example, are directed to the main Auckland article. This would be like directing references to Melbourne 3000/4 to Melbourne, which we obviously don't want. I don't think anyone is saying that it is not a distinct entity, but all in all the examples you give it is clear from the context that "Melbourne" means the smaller area. Here, there is no such context, and whatever is used to disambiguate should make that context clear, not simply take over a sensible redirect. JPD (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox template conflict

I brought up the conflict between these two infoboxes Template:Infobox Town AU and Template:Infobox Australian Town on the Template talk:Infobox Australian Town page. cj brought up the previous discussion on the Infobox Australian Town.

I am of the feeling that this should get resolved soon, before a whole lot more towns have either of these infoboxes in place. It is in the best interests of us all to create the consistency now rather than wait and have a ton of work to repair at a later time.

I like a lot of detail in the infobox, but at the same time the boxes do get long in the layout of the page. SO yes I am in two minds, and could go either way. However, I feel a decision needs to happen one way or the other.SauliH 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need to set a standard. In addition to this infobox, {{Infobox Canberra Suburb}} and {{Adelaide Suburb}} need to be rationalised into {{Infobox Australian Suburb}}.--cj | talk 08:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that the conflict in December 2005 referred to by cj was a conflict of town to city info box. I still do not see that the city info box can usefully be applied to towns and no way forward was suggested.--Golden Wattle talk 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason {{Perth Suburb}} (which spawned off a number of others) was created some time ago was that the Australian Suburb one was inadequate to the needs of Wikiproject Perth, and the new one is certainly quite flexible. The downside of standardisation nationwide is that, for instance, public transport systems vary across all of the cities, as does nomenclature and state-based things which are important for such an infobox. Orderinchaos (t|c) 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this discussion has lead to the designing of a universal Infobox which will replace the City/town/suburb infoboxes. Check out progress at Template talk:Infobox Australian Place and weigh in on some of the planning. It will provide greater consistency of style and content between the states and types of localities. A bot is being built to change the existing pages from their infoboxes to the new one.SauliH 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Just in case anyone's reading this now, this was resolved some time ago when the {{Infobox Australian Place}} template was fully implemented. Orderinchaos 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Park central, campbelltown

This appears to be an advertisement. I am reluctant to move it to a proper Sydney suburb name, because I don't think it is a suburb, and it probably should just be deleted.--Grahamec 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have merged it into Campbelltown, New South Wales. The article didn't actually say which Campbelltown it related to - I've used your comment here to decide. --Scott Davis Talk 14:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LGA naming convention?

What naming convention exists for LGA's? The reason I ask is that article titles vary greatly.

For instance...

As I understand the definitions of shire and district, these are the terms for the locality, and the 'council' is the governing body of that area. So as a LGA, names should be either Shire of Wyong or Wyong shire and District of Barunga West or Barunga West District and then a section within that article addresses the governance of that area. I know in the everyday usage 'district council' and 'shire council' are sometimes used synonymously with 'district' and 'shire', but I believe we need to be correct on this. Please correct me if I am totally wrong?

In any case naming conventions for LGA's are footloose and fancy free. I am for tightening these up. Anyone else?SauliH 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - I certainly agree that a naming convention needs to be decided here. Some ideas:
  • Use the official name of the LGA, if possible.
  • In the past I have understood that Xxx City Council or Xxx Shire Council refers to the organisation that runs the LGA; City of ... Shire of .. or Municipality of ... refers to the physical area covered by the LGA. I expect the articles would be about both (eg. suburbs covered (physical), past mayors (organisation))
It will be a tough one! -- Chuq 08:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In cleaning up the {{Local Government Areas of South Australia}} template and associated South Australian LGAs I matched all the names to the official names on the SA LGA website (although where the official name had "Corporation of" in it that was dropped for the page title). — Donama 08:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ones like Maralinga Tjarutja don't have shire or council in their name and I think they're probably fine as is, since the Maralinga Tjarutja people are so strongly associated with the Maralinga Tjarutja LGA that it's sensible to describe them both in one article. — Donama 08:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that LGAs in NSW can refer to the whole area (in fact area is the term used in the NSW LG Act) as Councils rather than Shires if they feel like it.--Grahamec 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If City of ... Shire of .. or Municipality of ... refers to the physical area covered by the LGA. We have two ways of approaching this, and I will argue for one of these directions.

1. The article is about the area. We change all the article titles to City of ... Shire of .. or Municipality of ... District of and the council becomes a subordinate heading to the article. I had thought this was the direction I would like to see us go, but after viewing the state LGA websites naming conventions (see [http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm SA LGA site) I can see how this will be confusing.
2. The article is about the local government. All articles are primarily about the governance of the area bounded politically. In this instance we add council (or it's equivalent) to every LGA article and then the area information becomes subordinate to the governance article. This makes more and more sense to me. The only reason we have this area bounded by this imaginary line running along, over, across hill, river, road and vale is because a group of people got together and said "we are going to be responsible for what goes on in 'this' area." The only exception to this would be the 'City of' naming convention which seems to have been established (following the lead of the capital city usage of City of Melbourne, City of Adelaide).
I propose the naming convention respect the 'official' name used by the LGA, but always referring to the governing body of the area, and without any ', New South Wales' or etc appended. (now if there happens to be ambiguity with two different LGA's - I doubt there is - we can negotiate that then).
examples in use...
Flinders Ranges Council respects the name used that LGA.
Barossa Council - Barossa Council website
examples that would need moving...
Wodonga City Council would become City of Wodonga using the 'City of' convention
Colac Otway Shire would become Colac Otway Shire Council as this is the official name of the governing body.
Tasman municipality would become Tasman Council as this is not the name of the LGA
Shire of Augusta-Margaret River would become Shire Council of Augusta-Margaret River to standarize the governance perspective on these articles.

What do you all think?SauliH 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What you've said makes sense although I didn't quite understand the key differences between #1 and #2. I think your use of "subordinate" is what's confusing me. In reality things don't necessarily fit into nice containment heirarchies although in officialdom it is attempted as much as possibly. So these articles should simply be about the LGA -- nothing is necessarily subordinate to it. LGAs have:
  1. a governmental element - mayor (or something similar) and council
  2. a geographical element - spans a defined area (in the case of SA's Outback Areas Community Development Trust, that area is whatever is left over once you map all the other LGAs
  3. a societal element - certain groups of people live there, there is typically a dominant town (for non-city councils), and there are various civic services and activities that may be notable enough to mention.
— Donama 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this proposed convention. I see no reason why we can't have articles on both local government areas and the bodies that administrate those areas. These are different entities and would contain different information. If an article is tagged into a local government area category, then it should be about a local government area, and should be named in accordance with the area's gazetted name. For example, Colac Otway Shire. If someones wants to write an article about the Colac Otway Shire Council, they should go for it, but said article shouldn't be put into a local government area category, and needn't make Colac Otway Shire redundant. Hesperian 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was the proposed convention. Now I better understand the discussion. Hesperian, do you realise that -- at least in SA -- the majority of the LGAs are named XY Council? For instance, what about Wakefield Regional Council? Should we just call this LGA Wakefield? It makes no sense to anyone who's live there. On the signs along the road it says "Welcome to Wakefield Regional Council". In such a case the article should describe both the administrative (actual council) and geographic/social elements of the LGA. Or if there is a separate article because the actual council is really notable for that it will take too many KB to fit into the LGA article then something like Wakefield Regional Council (council) would have to be created. — Donama 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "the majority of the LGA's are name XY Council" is strictly correct. From what I can tell, the signage refers to the council because SA hasn't bothered to gazette names for all their LGAs; e.g. neither Flinders Ranges Council nor Wakefield Regional Council are gazetted place names; rather, they are both administrative bodies for LGAs that don't have a name! In such a situation, I think it is correct to write an article about the council, at the council's official title, to include information about the geographic area that the council administrates, and (not so sure of this:)to tag the article into an LGA category. But in cases where the area administrated by the council does has a gazetted name, I think we should have an article about that area. Hesperian 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
My position is further weakened by the fact that some councils in Western Australia have named themselves after their local government area. For example, "City of Albany" is both a gazetted geographical place name (ref the Gazetteer of Australia) and and a registered trademark under which the council operates (ref ATMOSS). Why is reality always so frigging complicated? I still say we should be free to write separate articles where it is warranted, and I'm opposed to any convention that prevents us doing so. Hesperian 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is enough to say about most Councils to warrant two articles. I think that the Palerang Council article should be mainly about the area, including the LGA box giving a connection to the Council's web server, but if a separate article is considered warranted it could be called Palerang Council (Council).--Grahamec 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In most cases, they probably won’t be independently notable. In that case, one article called (official name of LGA) should discuss both. In the event that they are independently notable, and the official name of the LGA and Council are the same or not sufficiently distinct to be clear what’s happening, then they should have have (council) or (local government area) as a disambiguation tag. —Felix the Cassowary 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly to explain what I meant by 'subordinate'. Let's take a shire I know well Maroochy Shire. In QLD if you refered to this region on the Sunshine Coast you would say 'Maroochy Shire'. If you talked about the body that governed the region, it would be 'Maroochy Shire council'. Now I could write an article titled Maroochy Shire and it would be about the region,,, and oh BTW it is governed by the 'council' and I could describe the workings of the governing body. OR I could write an article titled Maroochy Shire council (or Council if you prefer) which would talk about the governance of the maroochy shire which BTW has these characteristics, and etc. One aspect subordinates to the other. That is what I meant.
Secondly, I would really be opposed to writing two seperate articles. The 'locality' would not exist if the local government did not exist. Any chunk of land can have an arbitrary line drawn and be called a locality but what makes a LGA a LGA is the G - Government. That is why I believe every LGA article should titled with the governing name, and then let the locality, demographics etc be described as a part of the article.SauliH 04:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You have convinced me. I can't think of any geographical, demographic or other aspects of the LGA that wouldn't be best discussed in the context of characterising the area and population over which the council has governance. I have two pleas:
  1. The LGA title must always have a presence, even if only as a redirect to the council article;
  2. If an article on a council would be improved (e.g. because it is getting too large) by pushing the area/demographics information into a separate article on the LGA, then we must have the flexibility to permit this.
Hesperian 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion down to this point possibly indicates that we will actually need separate conventions for each state :-( It seems like the actual use of the names and meanings may be different, so a single rule will not work. In South Australia, the settled areas are divided into Local Government Areas, which are used for administrative purposes only, and each is governed by a council. The council and the area it governs do not really have separate names, and do not require separate articles, but there are very few contemporary cases where an LGA contains only a single town (which was common 100 years ago when the gaps between towns were separate too). We have attempted to ensure the articles are named according to the official names on the LGASA website and the councils' own websites. For tourism, state and federal government services, CFS fire bans, wine labelling and most other purposes, the state is divided into regions whose boundaries may or may not coincide with LGA boundaries, and might even be different for each of these (and other) purposes. --Scott Davis Talk 04:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what is being discussed here. I see no problem with having an article on the City of Burnside (the LGA) as well as one on Burnside Council (the governing body). However, I think it is practical that the area take precedence, and that articles on governing bodies (or councils) should only be created when they can no longer be accommodated in articles on their respective LGAs. As for naming, the official title of the municipality should be used, whether gazetted or not. This will typically be "City of" or "Shire of", but may also include those LGAs in SA and NSW that have adopted "Area Council". --cj | talk 03:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

LGA to me speaks of governance, but I can see after reading some LGA articles more closely, how the LGA articles that have been written have a distinct 'place' perspective. I wonder how much replication of information there will be, after articles have been written about the towns in that area? I am not trying to push any particular hobby horse, I just would like to see a clear outline of the naming convention. If we really are merely coming from a 'place' perspective then LGA articles are articles about the "region". It makes our naming convention easy -we use the official name listed on each state and territories LGA website. The variants used in everyday language 'Shire of Maroochy / Maroochy shire' then redirect to the 'official title' article. When it comes to writing about the council itself then a subsection is included which should grow to a "Main Article" if needed. I can live with this just as long as we are consistent, and follow "official names". I think a naming convention should be added to the "General strategy and discussion forums" section on the WP:AUSTPLACES page. (I presume I have not stirred up a hornet's nest and that we can rest this at am easy consensus to do this)SauliH 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I support using the official name listed on each state and territories LGA website (as suggested by SauliH) and only developing a separate article on the Council governing body when required (as suggested by Cyberjunkie). --Grahamec 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree CJ. Sauli, you're right that an LGA is a governance-oriented division but often the LGA corresponds to a neat geographical or practical civic boundary too so content about the place is bound to appear in the article about the LGA, particularly in urban LGA articles because of the higher population. We just need to watch articles, especially non-urban LGA articles that they don't replicate too much content that is already in or should be in the individual articles for towns/cities in that LGA. The artilce on the LGA Lake Macquarie is a good example of where there is bound to be a LOT of place information because there is no higher level article about a metropolis as there is for Adelaide or Sydney. — Donama 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In South Australia, the LGAa are primarily administrative, and many straddle boundaries of geographic/geological/terroir/rainfall regions. For example several councils straddle the line between Riverland and Murray Mallee. The Barossa Council boundary is not exactly the same as any of:
For example, Greenock is in Light Regional Council, and Truro is included for tourism purposes, but not in the wine region or council. --Scott Davis Talk 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting off with my first reply on here, I'd have to go with the convention of Name Shire, State, for shires. As for Cities, maybe Name City Council, State - like the other articles per Cities and Suburbs. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the disambiguation style that has been used for the only known conflict: the two City of Campbelltowns. In all other cases known so far, there has been no conflict in just using official names of the third level of government, which usually contain some for of disambiguating/qualifying term (shire, council, city , ...). Some states have not adopted the idea of separate articles for local government distinct from the article for the (main) town in that LGA as far as I've noticed. --Scott Davis Talk 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the various issues that come up in different states or areas, CJ's general principle is surely the way to go. Disambiguation should only be when necessary. The Official Title, State style has been used not only for the Cambpelltowns, but for places like City of Liverpool, New South Wales, where there are similarly named entities overseas. JPD (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've reworked Local Government Areas of New South Wales to reflect what I interpret to be the consensus above for NSW. I note that although we have a template that recognises Bathurst, New South Wales, Goulburn, New South Wales, Grafton, New South Wales and Tamworth, New South Wales to be cities, this is not recognised in the names of their new regional councils (Bathurst Regional Council, Goulburn Mulwaree Council, Clarence Valley Council and Tamworth Regional Council). I think there is a case for creating separate regional articles on some of the valleys and lakesides, such as Clarence and Shoalhaven and Lake Macquarie (as noted by Donama above).--Grahamec 23:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to come in late. I think I have absorbed all of the above information. Does anyone want to have a look at Talk:Local Government Areas of Tasmania#LGA names and tell me my proposed names make sense? -- Chuq 07:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice somebody has moved Warren Shire Council to Warren Shire, New South Wales, claiming that these pages are about the shire not the council. This is at odds with my understanding of the consensus here.--Grahamec 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. My earlier position which aligned with User:Mmx, I understand is not the consensus, and that articles are to be named by how they are officially titled. I think it is time to conclude this debate and write an LGA naming guideline on the WP:AUSPLACES page. Then the editor who made the move should be alerted to the discussion held here, and to the naming guidelines. SauliH 14:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Wikiproject Australia places people. Just popping in because I've just speedy-failed Miami, Queensland for good article status, as it is far from it. I've already laid out at the talk page why I failed it, but I think more work is needed. Hopefully some of you will help out at the article, and someone please try to explain to User:Nathannoblet (who also nominated Gold Coast, Queensland for GA, which I'm going to hold off failing for now) what exactly is expected of GAs? Thanks and have a great day. Cheers – Chacor 05:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing naming system

I find the naming system for Australian places extremely confusing. For example, there is Marion, South Australia and City of Marion, but no explanation as to how they are different. Is there a difference? Specifically, do they cover different areas? -- Kjkolb 07:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The former is about the suburb of Marion. The second is about the municipality/local council named after that suburb. This should be fairly clear from the content of the respective articles. Rebecca 08:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As an American you might need to dig a little deeper to understand what is meant by Local Government Area. The closest American equivalent to it would be 'county'. Marion, South Australia is a suburb of that 'county'. Australia does have a very clear naming system which is detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places. Have a great day.SauliH 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Yes, that particular example does make me look like an idiot. I was checking out numerous similar articles in a category and just chose ones with the same name, not ones that I had read. SauliH, that does help some. I have another question. Why do the local government areas not have the name of the state following them? See Category:Local Government Areas of South Australia. For example, the article is named City of Marion, not City of Marion, South Australia. This follows the style of the towns of South Australia and the style of counties in the U.S. I looked at the U.K., but they don't seem to have states, so just the name of the county is used. Luckily, they have relatively unique names. Besides standardization and making it clearer what the article is about, there is the matter of disambiguation, as there are 30 other cities named Marion, which can all be called City of Marion. Judging by search results, they frequently are called City of Marion. The addition of "South Australia" eliminates the need for a disambiguation link at the top of the article. -- Kjkolb 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirects for place names

The words Hobson's Bay was previously redirecting to City of Hobsons Bay, but I removed it and redirected it to "Port Phillip" as the body of water known as Hobson's Bay is what the council was named after. Any comments on whether this is the correct thing to do ? I am not sure, since there does not seem to be a real need to write a huge article about the body of water which is a small part of Port Phillip Bay. --Biatch 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Have it redirecting to the most logical one for now. Later I think we can assume there could be an article on Hobson's Bay, the geographical feature, but that will probably be many years from now. — Donama 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems like a good candidate for a disambiguation page to me. Rebecca 08:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know which is right, which probably means a dab page is the right idea. At the moment, Hobsons Bay (City of Hobsons Bay) and Hobson's Bay (Port Phillip) get me to different articles, which is not a desirable outcome, especially since the Port Phillip article refers to the body of water as Hobsons Bay. --Scott Davis Talk 13:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Separate LGA pages

City of Dubbo is currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Dubbo. I was under the impression that it was policy to establish separate LGA pages from town pages.--Grahamec 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. With the changes made we should retain the article stub.SauliH 06:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_places/Archive_3&oldid=1190099778"