Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 4

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

Regions - NSW

After starting to edit the City of Dubbo I became interested in the regions of NSW articles in particular after reading on page 7 of the 2004-2005 Annual report that...

Dubbo is the only city located in the Orana Region, having developed over time as a major service centre and is situated at the meeting point of the Newell, Mitchell and Golden Highways.

I think that we should agree to the boundaries of regions for each state, and use some government source just like we do with LGA's. Grahamec and I had a very short exchage on this at our talk pages - see User talk:SauliH#Regions in NSW, in which a more arbitrary naming convention was preferred. For NSW the government body for 'regions' would be the [Department of State and Regional Development] I should think. They lists the following regions.

  • Australian Capital Region
  • Central Coast
  • Central West
  • Greater Western Sydney
  • Far West
  • The Hunter
  • Illawarra
  • Mid North Coast
  • Murray
  • New England - North West
  • Northern Rivers
  • Orana
  • Riverina
  • Sydney

Secondly the Department of Local Government show a very similar set of regions using similar defined boundaries.

  • Central West
  • Mid North Coast
  • North Western (the Orana region)
  • Far West
  • Murray
  • Richmond Tweed (a smaller version of Northern Rivers)
  • The Hunter
  • Murrumbidgee (the Riverina)
  • South Eastern (includes the (as Grahamec put it) 'horrible' Australian Capital Region)
  • Illawarra
  • Northern (the New England - North West region)

I think I lost a few of the distinctions in there, but I feel we can work with these as guidelines for naming, and boundaries when we create regional level articles. I wanted to put this up so we could tease this out, and maybe create some stability as the LGA articles develop.

Also the Category:Regions of New South Wales needs a lot of sorting out and cleaning up.SauliH 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any generally accepted list of NSW regions. Both of the lists used above are drawn up by bureaucrats for the benefit of the State Government and LGAs. I particularly don't like Orana (only used by Governments), Australian Capital Region (a tourist-promoters name, which substitutes for the traditional and perfectly acceptable Southern Tablelands and the Murray (which real people consider part of the Riverina). These names don't fit names used by geographers either.
In principle I prefer the Bureau of Meteorology's NSW regions map, although it seems that most people prefer New England to Northern Tablelands (and New England includes the low-lying Tamworth Regional Council). I also consider that it reasonable to combine BoM's forecast areas of Upper Western and Lower Western as Far West, which in any event correspond to the legal definition of the Western Division established under the New South Wales Western Lands Act 1901.
In addition, there are other popular definitions. Monaro is generally applied to the Southern Tablelands, south of Canberra, and I don't object to it. The Southern Highlands is properly applied only to Wingecarribee Shire Council and is not really necessary. Shoalhaven doesn't even apply to the southern parts of the City of Shoalhaven (these currently redirect to same place) and the residents of Shoalhaven and the Illawarra also accept the term South Coast. I don't think Shoalhaven is useful, but Illawarra on balance probably is.
The BoM definitions imply a division of the Central West into Central Tablelands and Central West Slopes and Plains, which would be reasonable.
Using a modified version of the BoM regions also raises the question as whether they should be modified to include whole LGAs: eg it splits Walgett Shire Council into three regions.--Grahamec 07:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the definition of region by Geographical Names Board of NSW we find...

A region is a relatively large tract of land distinguished by certain common characteristics, natural or cultural. Natural unifying features could include same drainage basin., similar landforms, or climatic conditions, a special flora or fauna, or the like. Cultural determining features could include boundaries proclaimed for administrative purposes, common land use patterns etc.

It would appear that what we are discussing is the differences between cultural and natural. Orana is a cultural name, which is being used by the councils (see Dubbo annual report. I have seen it on other LGA sites.SauliH 14:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Councils like to join together in sufficent numbers to lobby State and Federal Governments (and to attend conferences with), and are quite happy to support any name for a grouping that is allocated. This is not quite the same as constituting a "cultural" region. These names get changed at the whim of governments (besides they are things of the NSW Dept of Local Govt, and can be told what to accept). I appreciate that for Wikipedia to impose its own name scheme is close to original research, but I'm uncomfortable with names that the general public are unaware of. I am sure my grandfather who was brought up in Dubbo would have been appalled to know that he lived in Orana, as I am to find that I live in the Australian Capital Region.--Grahamec 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see in using the NSW BoM regions map is that it will be difficult to write a definitive article beyond the climate, and physical attributes. With the LGA based districts, you have stats (Orana is merged with the far north west region), and Organisations, (and Organisation 2). Furthermore it is these regions that are the basis of the Regional Organisation of Councils (ROCs).
Oh, and the Australian Capital region? Check out this page :)SauliH 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote articles on the various regions of Western Australia ages ago. Initially the exercise was extremely confusing, and I thought, as stated above, that "there does not appear to be any generally accepted list". In hindsight, the confusion was caused by the fact that there are too many lists, due to laxity in language in referring to the various regionalisations of Australia (boy do I wish someone would write that article). People will use the word "regions" to mean electoral districts, statistical divisions, ecoregions, floristic provinces, meteorological subdivisions, heaven knows what else. Nonetheless, I did, eventually, manage to track down the legislation that defined just what they were. I highly recommend not undertaking the project until you have a well-defined regionalisation to work to. It will be a dog's breakfast if multiple regionalisations get mushed up together. Hesperian 05:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well tonight I started an article Geographic Divisions of New South Wales. Maybe not the perfect name, but for now it will do. Please add to it as we see fit, I intend to keep going and create a more extensive outlining of the various 'regionalisations' as Hesperian put it. I think doing this on a state by state basis will be better than Australia-wide.SauliH 08:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
WA's a good example of how it should work, but in our case the names of the regions aren't exceptionally weird, although the boundaries are contestable. If you say any of the names to any Western Australian, they'll know where you mean - all the names are well established. The official guideline for WA regions is on the Local Government & Regional Development website. The WA tourist agency has a very confusing one that's imprecise and absolutely terrible, and the business promotion people are even worse. One other oddity is WA's changed - the Mid West used to relate solely to the southern part of that region with the northern part called the "Murchison" region. Orderinchaos (t|c) 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Do they equate to the Statistical Divisions shown on the first page of this ABS pdf file? I am leaning towards seeing these used as the guideline for regions. They have been established for many years. They are studied statistically, and they will be stable for many years to come... judging by the SD definition. AND we can cite a source that is in the business of 'regions'.SauliH 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a NSW equivalent to the ABS pdf file you quote above? I can't find one. The ABS Statistical Regions are quite good for regional NSW, although I think Northern Rivers is a better name than Richmond-Tweed and Riverina is better than Murray-Murrumbidgee and mean the same thing. I presume Northern is the same as New England or Northern Tablelands (and either of these terms may be preferable). It lumps Southern Tablelands with South Coast, which are rather separated by the escarpment and have different climates, and hence is debatable. Also I would retain the split between North Western and Far West, used for Statistical Divisions.--Grahamec 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
All the links to the estate maps start from this page. It has been the best outlining of regions I have found as I have searched online. Out of the ABS regions types the Statiscal Division lines up closest in my mind to the areas we are discussing here.SauliH 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I could live with the ABS regions (but I prefer the name Northern Rivers to Richmond-Tweed and I don't particularly see the need for separate Murray and Murrumbidgee regions).--Grahamec 07:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, these are statistical regions used internally by the ABS. The Wheatbelt is quite well understood, but if you said "the Midlands" to somebody they'd think you meant the suburb of Midland, 15 km northeast of Perth. This also introduces an unnecessary conflict between Wheatbelt and Great Southern, who nobody (except DLGRD) can ever agree on where the boundary is anyway - does Katanning have more in common with Albany, a port town, than with Narrogin, a wheat and sheep town and agricultural centre? If there was a logic to the differentiation, I'd agree with it. Orderinchaos 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles names about a city centre

After the above debate, it appears Melbourne city centre was the preferred name. Well, might as well make them all the same - I take it that <City> city centre is the preferred name for articles that are about the central region of a city that is equivalent to a suburb? I guess it would be appropriate for any city which has suburbs. Not that I want to make this into a vote, but...

Note: Added the word central above, for clarification. -- Chuq 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the article should be at Melbourne CBD Gnangarra 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously missed the long debate held here. Melbourne CBD was ruled out.SauliH 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Penrose, New South Wales

I recently created a stub for Penrose, New South Wales in Wingecarribee Shire Council, which is an old established (but small) rail town. But there is a new suburb of Wollongong, New South Wales, which may well be bigger by now. Should it be Penrose (Wingecarribee), New South Wales or should the other one be Penrose (Illawarra), New South Wales?--Grahamec 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOCAL

This is in interesting proposed guideline as it's still being discussed I thought I'd draw it to the attention of editors here Gnangarra 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LGAs

Hi Wikipedians, a discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#LGAs about Local Government Areas, your contribution would be appreciated. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So that the discussion is keept in one place and given the comment at WP:AWNB, could I suggest that responses be posted here rather than on the Townsville page.
To repeat my note at WP:AWNB, and to clarify the issue as I see it... I think the original question was whether ther should be separate articles for the council that governs a municipaliy, and the geographical area which falls within that municipality.
I think the question of "City of XYZ" vs "XYZ City Council" is largely solved by the official name of the LGA concerned, although this can add to confusion where "XYZ City Council" can also imply 'the council which governs XYZ". In either case, I think that all aspects of an LGA can be covered in one article unless there is sufficient information about the council, its history, politics, personalities etc to warrant a separate article. ... just my thoughts to get the ball rolling. Cheers. -- Adz|talk 12:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly every LGA should have its own article. The LGA is a distinct entity from the urban locality, and often do not share boundaries etc. Even in cases such as Roma, Queensland and Roma Town Council; and Dalby, Queensland and Dalby Town Council the town may leak over the LGA boundary. The LGA also has a specific role worth noting. Secondly, unless the LGA article is quite large I do not see there is much point in separate articles. An LGA exists only as an administrative area that is provided with a Local Government service by its Council and one does not (normally) exist without the other. LGAs have no constitutional status and exist at the whim of State governments. Thirdly, and not to digress too much (I hope) should LGA articles be maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics or both? -Mattinbgn 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This previous discussion may be relevant. JPD (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. To re-iterate the general conclusions of that discussion, it was agreed that all LGAs should have separate articles, that these articles would be located at the LGA's official name, and that they should cover all matters related to the LGA, including its governance. Should an LGA article be unable to fully accomodate information regarding its council, then the council may be spun off into into its own article, per the summary style.
Mattinbgn, there is an overlap between WP:AUSPLACES and WP:AUSPOL with regards to LGA articles, but most discussion about them has taken place here thus far, so it is probably convenient to continue that trend unless the topic is obviously more pertinent to WP:AUSPOL.--cj | talk 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think there would be objection (although not from me) in this case to moving City of Thuringowa to Thuringowa City Council which is the official title of the Council. It would lead back to the problems we have been having with people who wish to define the distinctiveness of being Thuringowan as opposed to Townsvillian and focus for this has always been on the Townsville, Queensland article. See discussion at Talk:Townsville,_Queensland#Arbitrary_section_break. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thuringowa City Council is not the official name of the local government area. It is the governing body of the local government area which is known as either the City of Thuringowa or Thuringowa City.--cj | talk 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Local Government Area - Disambigulation page

The Local Government Area page is now a disambigulation page. There are well over 500 articles, the vast majority Australian places, that link to this page. Is there a simple and quick way to edit these links to point to the new Local Government Areas in Australia article?--Mattinbgn 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Firstly: I hate it when my proxy stuffs up and I lose an edit! (end rant) I bought up an issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian history and it was suggested I mention it here. I am after some comment on how much of the shared aboriginal history to mention on each of the suburb articles for the suburbs of City of Blacktown. I would appreciate it if you could go past this talk page and provide your opinion. I'm not watching this space but I will follow that one... Garrie 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Palm Island, Queensland

Hi Wikipedians, as you might already know Palm Island has become the most recent Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, however due to lack of votes for other articles I think it was voted in a little prematurely with only 3 people having supported it to that point. Anyway I'd like to put out a general request to members of WikiProject Australian places to help out if you can with this topic which is in much need of a better quality article considering the national attention it always gets. Besides being a historical and political hotspot it is also an extremely Beautiful/scenic and unique island. WikiTownsvillian 08:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Riverina

{{Gazetteer of Australia}}

I've just created this template to help with the myriad references and external links to the online gazetteer. Please use it lots. It would be great if any of you want to help me templatise the 160 current links to the gazetteer. And of course you guys need no invitation to improve the template. Hesperian 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Category for deletion and / or also merging : Category:Double-named places

Over twenty Australian towns have double names, for example Beggan Beggan or Grong Grong. A category that includes these towns, Category:Double-named places in Australia is up for deletion at Categories for discussion and / or merger in the related discussion above which also suggests renaming.--Golden Wattle talk 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Same town - Billinudgel/Billnudgel???

Billinudgel, New South Wales Billnudgel, New South Wales Are these the same town? SauliH 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Moe, Victoria

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Moe, Victoria about what is a "city" as opposed to a "town". Any thoughts from others would be welcome.--Mattinbgn/ talk 08:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Road District Boards

Can someone give me a hand with Road District Boards? Couldn't find any mention of them in the archives. My property, until late last year at least, was referred to as Sussex Location ####. This refers to the historic Sussex Road District located in the Busselton. There appears to be little in the way of what a Road District is on the net [1][2] however there is information on the former areas called road districts [3]. They appear to have been used in Victoria, Queensland and WA (phasing out in 1961). Now I'm not sure if Busselton was the last shire to remove all references to road districts (Sussex in their case) but they may still be currently used in other places. - Ctbolt 02:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some history of Victorian Road Boards here Haven't yet found the equivalent WA history - but perhaps it is a line of research. Regards--Golden Wattle talk 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Golden Wattle, I'll keep a lookout while in the library. - Ctbolt 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Redesford, Victoria

I have had a bit of a look on google but I can't see any evidence this town exists. Does anyone know it?--Mattinbgn/ talk 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a single hit on http://www.ga.gov.au 's place name search. I've tagged the article with {{hoax}}. -- Chuq 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have looked through all five of my search for a Victorian location websites - not one hit. Should be marked for speedy deletion I suggest.--VS talk 08:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Geelong translation to Japanese

The Geelong article has been requested to be translated on the Japanese Wikipedia. [4] If anyone has good skills in Japanese and would like to help out, please feel welcome! --Candy-Panda 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lancaster, Victoria

I did some work on Lancaster, Victoria after someone tagged the article for speedy deletion, but the article is still just a stub. Someone else might be able to expand the article. --Eastmain 13:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New South Wales town stubs

I note that Djautumn81 (talk · contribs) has created a great number of stubs for tiny NSW localities. I'm not sure this should be encouraged.--Grahamec 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that as well. I am not generally a fan of one line stubs, even for localities. If you can't create an article with at least minimal content such as Mayrung, New South Wales or Lancaster, Victoria, you should probably hold off. I have tagged their talk pages for this project, but otherwise left them alone. I am not against any of these places, no matter how small, having an article in Wikipedia, just that the article should have some content over and above its location and existence. Rather than creating one line stub articles, perhaps the articles should have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Localities. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Census data

I note that the 2006 Census QuickStats data will be released on 27 June 2007. I have linked a lot of articles to the 2001 Census QuickStats data and wonder if anyone knows what will happen to this data after the release. Obviously, they will all need to be updated with the new figures sooner or later, but if the links will become dead I may need to get through the update a lot sooner. Any ideas? -- Mattinbgn/ talk 06:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll just have to cross that bridge when we get to it. Hopefully they'll keep it up, but even if they don't, if we get a few people together, we should be able to get through it within a couple of weeks. I'm on break at the moment, so I'm happy to dedicate as much as time as necessary if needed. Rebecca 10:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. I guess we wait and see what is on the ABS site tomorrow! Cheers, Mattinbgn/ talk 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Boyne Valley, Australia

I found this article today and would like others thoughts on the naming convention. The name is used for the area surrounding four small very small towns and as a general term for the community there. Boyne Valley redirects to the Irish version -Brú na Bóinne, a world heritage site so some form of disambiguation is needed. Should it be Boyne Valley, Australia; Boyne Valley, Queensland; Boyne Valley or Boyne Valley (Queensland)?

As an aside this may be complicated by the fact that there are two Boyne Rivers in Queensland, not all that far from each other. One starts near Many Peaks and meets the Pacific Ocean at Boyne Island, a virtual suburb of Gladstone. The other Boyne River starts near Kingaroy, and flows generally north to meet the Burnett River at Mundubbera. The Burnett then meets the ocean at Burnett Heads, a virtual suburb of Bundaberg. Therefore, Boyne River (Queensland) or even Boyne River (Central Queensland) does not resolve ambiguity. Of course neither river has an article at this stage. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Local Government Areas of Queensland

Following the release of the Report of the Local Government Reform Commission, what are others thoughts on how to progress from here. As Premier Beattie has suggested he will adopt the report recommendations in full and has control of Parliament it is virtually certain the amalgamations will take place. Should there be mention of the future of the LGAs in the relevant articles or would that breach WP:CRYSTAL? Would articles on the future LGAs such as North Burnett Regional Council be appropriate at this stage? -- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

While the boundaries will be adopted the Premier has stated that they may change the names of the future LGAs. WikiTownsvillian 08:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
While you are right, the recommendation in the report regarding names is as follows:

"Where two or more councils have been amalgamated and these councils share concerns regarding the name adopted by the Commission, that the State Government accept a unanimous submission from the councils which form the new entity for a different name. Any such submission must be with the State Government for consideration prior to the passage of any enabling legislation that gives effect to the recommendations of the Commission."

I doubt this will be all that common and if it does happen the articles can be renamed. There may also be variations from the report recommendations with regards to the election of Councillors with LGAs either divided into wards or undivided. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be good to get articles on them. There's likely to be some interest, and it isn't as if there's much chance of the changes not happening. Rebecca 08:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Draft article here - User:Mattinbgn/Sandbox/North Burnett Regional Council. I don't think this is too much crystalballery. If there is no major objections I will stick this up in article space later this evening and see how it goes. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Saint Andrews, Victoria

Shouldn't this article (and Saint Arnaud, Victoria for that matter) be renamed to St Andrews, Victoria and St Arnaud, Victoria. I know that we use names such as Mount Beauty, Victoria rather than Mt Beauty, but I can't ever recall seeing Saint Arnuad in print. Is there any convention on towns named after saints? -- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this all such place names in Victoria officially have the full "Saint" prefix but I have never seen it used in practice for any of these, and it certainly looks odd. --Melburnian 09:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting how Victoria is out of step with the other states. I note the ABS uses St rather than Saint for Victorian towns - [5] -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and we already have:

I think the principle behind Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) comes in to play here and that the two that you mentioned should be moved to the commonly used names of St Andrews, Victoria and St Arnaud, Victoria, which will also make them consistent with the above. --Melburnian 10:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Common sense should apply even the shire uses St Arnaud on its web site is good indication that most people will be looking for it under that name. Though I suggest that Saint XXX become redirect pages just in case. Gnangarra 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved St Arnaud but an administrator needs to move Saint Andrews, Victoria. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Done --Melburnian 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I created an article on Kallakoopah Creek

Please improve it. Thanks. AppleJuggler 10:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Townsville suburbs

I don't think that is an "established protocol in naming suburbs" (as claimed by User:ROxBo in edit summaries) that supports the naming of Pimlico, Townsville, Pallarenda, Townsville, Anderson Park, Townsville, North Ward, Townsville etc. The situation is no different from the naming of Sydney or Melbourne suburbs. I think these should be moved to [[x, Queensland]] format.Grahamec 02:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've moved the lot of them to x,Queensland. -- Longhair\talk 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agree 100%. These should be moved. The name of the city should only be used if there is a need to disambiguate such as West End, Queensland and West End, Queensland (Townsville). Is Anderson Park actually a suburb or a park? If it is a park it should be called Anderson Park (Townsville). -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed Anderson Park. Well spotted. -- Longhair\talk 02:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm easy to go along with this, but I think your example of West End is effective - in showing that West End, Brisbane and West End, Townsville would be clearer and easier to search for than West End, Queensland (Townsville), which seems rather convoluted and inelegant. But whatever. ROxBo 03:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the old history for the suburb articles. I can't work out where which article is for Anderson Park, there seem to have been several forks of the history, and a bunch of double redirects. I think it should be Anderson Park (Townsville), but I'm not certain. Basically, ", state" should be used for towns and suburbs that are postal addresses, " (city)" should be used for notable parks, gardens, buildings, housing estates etc. that are not used as postal addresses. West End, Queensland really is ambiguous without a postcode. --Scott Davis Talk 09:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Southern or Indian Ocean

There seems to have been a flurry of editing overnight to move the south coast of Australia from the Southern Ocean to the Indian Ocean in a number of articles, as some other country says the Southern Ocean is only further south. I have to go to work now, so can't participate in a discussion till later, but though it worth noting now. See articles like Murray River for example. --Scott Davis Talk 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Project statistics

The statistics on the project page show that none of the articles have been rated for importance for the project. I would suggest that the vast majority of Australian places articles would be rated at the same importance for this sub-project as they would be for WP:AUSTRALIA as a whole. Would it therefore be possible to somehow use the WP:AUSTRALIA importance rating for this project. I don't know what the best way to do this is; a bot that copied the ratings over on each article talk page; or writing the code that creates the statistics for this project to look for the WP:AUSTRALIA rating. Others thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ACAT

Why does WP:ACAT redirect here? Hesperian 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know for sure but at a guess - Australian Cities and Towns. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, thats what it was - see here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is every Australian place with a gazetted name automatically notable enough to warrant an article?

Is every Australian place with a gazetted name automatically notable enough to warrant an article? I would say yes, partly because I think gazettal confers notability, and partly for the pragmatic reason that google maps is now scraping the geotagging out of our articles and using it to populate their map layers; we want every gazetted Australia place to show up there, with a link back here, and the only way to achieve that is to create articles on every single Australian place. Plus I suppose sooner or later Wikimedia may have its own mapping project up and running.

To seed this discussion, I shall sacrifice my recent article The Big Breaker, which is about a small piece of reef over which waves break — surely one of the least notable Australian places imaginable. Does this article have a place on Wikipedia? I think so, but I shall bow to a dissenting consensus.

Hesperian 12:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how many people watch this page (you might get better feedback at the noticeboard) however for my money I agree that gazetting confers notability. Personally, I would still wait until there was sufficient sources to write at least four of five sentences, but now that it is written I would support keeping it. Of course, if more sources existed the article would satisfy WP:N and wouldn't need automatic notability.
There has been plenty of places in the Riverina such as Womboota with little in the way of notability that I felt sure would be nominated but they have survived unmolested to this date. Admittedly yours is the extreme case but the place exists, it has an official name, it can be located and possibly some further sources may be found in the future. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Second oldest city?

Is Hobart the second oldest city in Australia as claimed in the article? Or is it Newcastle as also comes up in a Google search? Is Launceston the third oldest as claimed in the article? I can't find any references.. Should we abandon these claims? Barrylb (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barry. You might get a better response at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board where more than a few editors have an interest in Australian history. I think the claims are certainly verifiable and the crew at AWNB should be able to point you in the right direction. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention (places) - renewed discussion - towards a single convention

I am pasting the following discussion pertinent to this heading as copied from my talk page. The conversation follows some action undertaken by me in relation to articles in Tasmania and the subsequent interest shown by other editors with regards a revisit of the current Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Australia and reconsideration to the development of a single convention. I invite editors to consider this issue and put their views towards the development of a such a single convention....--VS talk 10:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from user talk:VirtualSteve

Gudday mate,

moved Bruny Island to Bruny Island, Tasmania: All Australian town/city/suburb/place articles should be at Place, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is.

You should read the naming conventions again: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Australia. You'll find that Australian cities, towns and suburbs are always at Place, State no matter what their status of ambiguity, but geographic features are only disambiguated when necessary, and then with the parentheses convention. Hesperian 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What you just wrote couldn't be better stated - but I didn't want to say words to same effect first in case anyone thought I was being uppity! Cheers again. --VS talk 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's too late for me; everyone knows by now I am prone to get bees in my bonnet over such issues. I was heavily involved in framing that convention, and if I recall correctly I was the long voice amongst many calling for a single convention. The fact that we could potentially have a town article at "Margaret River, Western Australia" and a river article at "Margaret River (Western Australia)" was of no concern to anyone but me. I am glad to have an ally after all this time, even if it is too late to change, which it isn't, but I suspect most people would think it is. Hesperian 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in but if you are saying what I think you are saying (i.e. All disambiguation for Australian places should be done with parentheses) then I am all in favour of this as well. If you are saying that towns like Orroroo for example should not be disambiguated then I am not so sure. I am prepared to raise option 1 again if there is any interest and if someone can tell me where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My priority would be a single convention for all places. Any single convention is bettern than multiple clashing conventions. My personal preferences are (i) to disambiguate only when necessary, and (ii) to disambiguate with parentheses. However I would happily concede both points if we could attain a single convention. Hesperian 01:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Never any need for you to apologise for coming to this page Matt. And, well because this is my talk page and I am happy to maintain the thread of the conversation here (until we decide a more suitable location and copy paste) I would add that my preference is also to have a single Australian convention. Personally I prefer the following for all (other than capital cities and obvious impossible places like Murray River) >>> Place, State i.e. Orroroo, South Australia or Mt Buffalo, Victoria but for the sake of a single convention I would also concede to another convention of similar common sense. --VS talk 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely in agreement - I think the need for separation between geographic features, regions and informal locations on one hand, and gazetted suburbs and localities on the other does need to be made, although there may be a better way to make this distinction. I use AWB a fair bit to make mass changes and it's handy to be able to search on one string and know I'll pull in only one type of article. Orderinchaos 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is categorisation a way of allowing for this to occur?--VS talk 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
They're already categorised, but that doesn't work as well as it could when you've already isolated a list and can simply use the filter option to get what you want. I did this the other day with links to the major political parties. Orderinchaos 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm also opposed to mandating a "State" disambiguator. Admittedly the state is the best disambiguator 90% of the time, but that still leaves ten percent where there are better disambiguators: islands in an island group e.g. North Island (Houtman Abrolhos); islands in a river or lake e.g. Alexander Island (Collie River); tributaries, sometimes; arguably suburbs in a city. Hesperian 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep that's a good point - and shows me I wasn't putting my thoughts down as clearly as I could have. I guess that means that the point of this discussion revolves more around whether we use a comma "," , or parentheses ()in the case of any disambiguation? So the next thing might be to re-open the discourse (with a cut and paste of this conversation) in a central location. Any ideas?--VS talk 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The current convention was hammered out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places. But that page was more active then than it is now, so if you move this discussion there, consider advertising the discussion at WP:AWNB. Hesperian 07:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add further discussion below this sub-heading

I'd like to lend my support for a better convention because I've found it quite confusing at times but I think part of the process should be working out what we are actually naming. One example that is close, both figuratively and literally, is Newcastle which has several identities commonly referred to as "Newcastle":

  • Seventh largest city in Australia - Actually not Newcastle per se. Actually "Greater Newcastle" or the "Newcastle Statistical District" or more commonly "The Lower Hunter Region" which covers several LGAs including Newcastle.
  • The LGA - Should be simple but isn't. In NSW the city called Newcastle is officially the LGA called Newcastle but I've had "heated discussions" with other editors about what the city of Newcastle actually is. One editor argues that the Newcastle UCL is the city while another argued that Greater Newcastle is the city. The fact that such arguments occur demonstrate why a better convention is needed. That said, we did eventually agree, although one editor isn't really happy about it, that the UCL is the city.
  • The city - As agreed this is the UCL although officially it's the same as the LGA.
  • The suburb - Yes, there is a suburb called Newcastle.
The suburb based on what's been done elsewhere should be Newcastle central business district or Newcastle city centre. Care would need to be taken to avoid a clash with the Newcastle in England, but I'm just highlighting that city centres have their own issues with naming due to the inevitable clash with the city they form the centre of. Orderinchaos 20:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Newcastle CBD isn't limited to just the suburb called Newcastle. It includes, according to Newcastle City Council, Newcastle East and Newcastle West as well (but it doesn't include every part of those suburbs!) so it would be quite reasonable for anyone editing the Newcastle city centre/CBD article to include information that isn't related to the suburb called Newcastle and it's really easy to write a huge article on just the suburb. Individual suburb articles get their own articles like "Adamstown, New South Wales", "Wallsend, New South Wales" and "Stockton, New South Wales" so, following convention, "Newcastle, New South Wales" should be about the suburb and not the city. The article about the city of Newcastle should probably be City of Newcastle, which is currently about the LGA, which is actually and officially (I just got off the phone with the Department of Local Government) called Newcastle City Council although, as I've already pointed out, Newcastle City Council and The City of Newcastle are actually the same thing. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the current naming convention the suburb's article should probably be at Newcastle, New South Wales but that article, which we had agreed should be the UCL which includes part of the City of Lake Macquarie and one suburb from Port Stephens Council, is primarily (~98%) about the Newcastle LGA. The Newcastle LGA has it's own article which seems to be named in accordance with the naming convention but I don't see how Greater Newcastle or the UCL, which are both essentially just statistical regions, fit into the convention. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

People are getting way confused about the extent of the guideline. The state disambiguating naming convention only applies to localities. It was never meant to apply to local government areas, which are and have always been referred to by their actual names. It's not exactly relevant, but the Newcastle article you refer to does exactly what it's supposed to do - cover the content about the city. Very little if any actually pertains to the actual entity the City of Newcastle.
I don't have a problem with the LGA naming convention. That seems fairly clear. It's only what people choose as the "official" name that I have issue with. Regarding the Newcastle article, as I've said in response to Orderinchaos, the Newcastle, New South Wales article should really be about the suburb as this follows convention. Also as I pointed out, the entity the City of Newcastle and the city of Newcastle are the same animal. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Equally, Hesperian's example above about the Houtman Abrolhos suggests that others are overdoing the guideline as well. His example of North Island (Houtman Abrolhos) is a perfectly sensible means of disambiguation in the circumstances, and there's no real need to get stressed out about trying to fit conventions to it.
I'm not really fussed about what happens with the geographic features guideline, but please don't try and get rid of the locality one. We instituted it in the first place because disambiguation was an absolute bloody nightmare - if you wanted to know where an article on a town might be, you had to (and I'm not exaggerating) at times check about six different potential article names. It's a pretty minor inconvenience, but it's meant that for the last couple of years we've been able to ensure that every link to a town or suburb actually points where it's supposed to, whether the article exists or not, which we certainly couldn't before. Rebecca (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca's pretty much summed up my point of view on this. Orderinchaos 20:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The conversation so far still leaves the question whether the same disambiguator, for example a comma or paretheses could be used for all disambiguations? In other words rather than parentheses in the case of North Island (Houtman Abrolhos) could it have been disambiguated as North Island, Houtman Abrolhos? Orderinchaos' point therefore about searching would need to be further considered which he puts above and then notes: I think the need for separation between geographic features, regions and informal locations on one hand, and gazetted suburbs and localities on the other does need to be made, although there may be a better way to make this distinction. Maybe there is no easy solution but still - Is there a better way to make this distinction whilst using the same style of disambiguation for all articles?--VS talk 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the Houtman Abrolhos case shouldn't even fall under our geography guideline so it's up to editors on that set of articles to determine the best standards for subsets of subsets. As long as it's internally consistent I see few problems. Orderinchaos 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I throw in two cents worth of support for:

Localities should always be associated with a State/Territory name. Geographic features might be associated with a State/Territory name, or might be better described by reference to another geographic feature (per the North Island example above). LGA's will have various names (City of .., Shire of....., xx Council and so on) depending on circumstance) Where there is overlap this could potentially give us Canada Bay, New South Wales, Canada Bay (Parramatta River) and the City of Canada Bay. The small number of anomalies could be addressed in whatever manner seemed best, in the comfortable knowledge that the vast bulk of articles were easily locatable and that disambiguations were uniformly handled. So - this is essentially a comment in support of the status quo. Combining the convention for localities with the convention for geographic feaures would be more confusing for readers than having two simple systems (the commas and parentheses). Euryalus (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Euryalus is spot on. Rebecca (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Euryalus is close but I believe expansion is needed to avoid ambiguity in the situation where there are two or more things with the same name. For example, where a city and suburb have the same name, "name, state" should refer to the suburb while "City of name" (or something else that can be agreed upon) should refer to the city. For an explanation of my reasoning please refer to my edits above. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is a problem in the case where there is a suburb name that matches the town name. Both are localities, so both in theory deserve the "name, state" nomenclature. Thankfully these circumstances are pretty rare.
I don't think the town article should be renamed "City of xx" because that would clash with standard naming of LGA's. Using "newcastle CBD" doesn't always work either,a s the CBD is bigger than the suburb. Could I suggest as a one-off alternative to address these rare occasions that we use "Newcastle (suburb), New South Wales" for the suburb, then keep "Newcastle, New South Wales" for the town and "City of Newcastle" for the LGA? Euryalus (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We have the problem anywhere there is a major town or city which also has suburbs, and there's a need to write about the central suburb. This applies to every Australian capital city and many regional cities. I agree that "CBD" or "city centre" are incorrect in factual terms - the Perth CBD would also include any part of West Perth or East Perth south of the Fremantle/Midland railway, which would exclude a fair proportion of Perth the suburb, while Melbourne's would exclude any part of Melbourne the suburb south of the Yarra. My personal solution would be eg Perth, Western Australia (suburb) - we have that for Melton which is a rather strange case of its own. Orderinchaos 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This "City of ..." issue is a red herring. If you check the Gazetteer of Australia, you'll find that every state gazettes its local government areas with names of the form "City/Town/Shire of ...", except for South Australia, which doesn't gazette its local government areas at all. "City of Newcastle" is therefore the formally gazetted name of a local government area. The name is not the outcome of our internal naming conventions. It is neither disambiguated nor in need of disambiguation. Confusing it may be to some, but it is completely outside the scope of this discussion. Hesperian 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked out Gazetteer of Australia which lead me to Australian place name search. A search for "Newcastle" lead me here which says that "City of Newcastle" is unofficial and, as I pointed out, the Department of Local Government, which is the state authority, says that the correct name is "Newcastle City Council". --AussieLegend (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Still it bothers me that the conventions clash wherever a locality is named after a nearby geographic feature. People seem unconcerned by this, and understandably so because these are still fairly rare edge cases. Yet the fact remains that if I want to create separate articles for Margaret River the river and Margaret River the town, I would be expected to create them at Margaret River, Western Australia and Margaret River (Western Australia) respectively. To the passing casual reader, this looks utterly ridiculous, and any attempt to explain it away by recourse to our naming conventions would sound like a load of navel-gazing nonsense. Hesperian 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on hybrid possibility

True, but there seems no alternative other than creating articles such as "Margaret River (river)" and "Margaret River (town)". This could have been done instead of the current system but would have generated its own set of edge cases. In its place I think the current system works pretty well but I won't die in a ditch if consensus changes it to something else. Euryalus (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"Margaret River (river)" and "Margaret River (town)" aren't exactly the titles I would have chosen, but I'll accept them for the sake of the argument. The reason why these are superior to "Margaret River (Western Australia)" and "Margaret River, Western Australia" is because the former are clear and obviously not arbitrary, whereas the latter are completely arbitrary and give no clue as to the subject of the article, unless you've been a Wikipedian for a year or so. To put it another way, if we're going to choose "Margaret River (Western Australia)" and "Margaret River, Western Australia" for a town and river respectively, then we might just as well number off all the "John Smith" articles as John Smith (1), John Smith (2), etc. This example is no less obscure and arbitrary than what we're doing here. Hesperian 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And it seems would allow for superior searching techniques. What titles do you suggest Hesperian?--VS talk 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a Margaret River in the Northern Territory, I'd prefer Margaret River (Northern Territory), Margaret River (Western Australian river) and Margaret River (Western Australian town). But I'd have no objection to the last being just Margaret River (town). I would also happily accept a hybrid convention: Margaret River, Northern Territory, Margaret River, Western Australia (river) and Margaret River, Western Australia (town). A pure comma convention i.e. Margaret River, Western Australian river doesn't do much for me, but I could tolerate it. In short, anything that disambiguates meaningfully rather than arbitrarily has my support. Hesperian 11:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to all of this, so forgive my ignorance, but in my short time editing I have often encountered specially written 'disambiguation pages' to deal with articles that may otherwise have shared exactly the same name?
By way of example, taking Hesperian's lead, I typed John Smith into the search bar and arrived at the following John Smith disambiguation page.
If there is a very good and effective disambiguation page .. then that actual naming of articles that might otherwise share the same name (ie articles that do not have unique name) would seem to be largely irrelevant, as long as the given name is unique. Perhaps, instead of seeking to use names and naming conventions to 'disambiguate', effective and efficient use of disambiguation pages could be used for situations like Margaret River, which currently simply redirects to the town irrespective of any naming conventions, and irrespective of whether or not there is also a Margaret River (River) in Western Australia or a Margret River in the United States.
With regard to 'Australian place names' and place naming.. perhaps attention could be given to a template map of Australia to be used for Australian place name disambiguations.. on which places or features sharing the same name might be numbered/located, with symbols indicating 'town', 'mountain', 'river', such that users searching the name arrive at the page and use the map to select the appropriate article.
Just some thoughts from a complete novice who believes single and/or simple, wholly unique names of places should be able to be entered on their own without being encumbered with whole pile of add ons (whether in parenthisis, or comma's or what) ..Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Bruceanthro. Perhaps the use of John Smith is not as useful as it appears. This discussion really only relates to the naming of Australian places. However your reference to a disambiguation page still brings up the issue of how a place (or for that matter person) is disambiguated on that page to point to the correct article. Bearing in mind then Rebecca's reminder points above on (a) retaining the current locality system, and (b) on only disambiguating places that are not localities (i.e. geographic features) where necessary, it would seem to me that Hesperian's idea of a hybrid (when disambiguation is necessary) would provide us with something that retains the current locality guideline and then with the parenthesis addition of (town) (river) (lake) etc would also add to the neatness and logicality of the system. Other thoughts? --VS talk 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The hybrid option is growing on me. But we're begging the real issue here. In order to adopt the hybrid option to resolve conflicts, we would need agreement to adopt the comma convention for geographical features, and there appears to be no consensus for that. Hesperian 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed - that is I agree we need to seek a joint consensus on moving to a comma convention at the same time as gaining a consensus on using a hybrid similar to what you have first suggested. To my mind the comma is best because (a) it means no variation to current locality disambiguation; (b) therefore means no adjustment to most existing pages of this type, and (c) would allow for a relatively easy adjustment for current geographical feature disambiguations (where disambiguation is necessary). I would be very interested to hear more views on this possibility - both from editors already commenting here and from Aussie editors in general.--VS talk 02:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Would moving to a comma convention for geographical features imply moving to compulsory preemptive disambiguation of geographical features? I don't think I like that idea very much. How do you like the sound of Uluru, Northern Territory? Ugh.
    To be frank, I've never understood why it is necessary or even desirable to preemptively disambiguate any articles, even those on localities. Why is it necessary to put our article on Jerramungup at Jerramungup, Western Australia rather than the obvious and intuitive Jerramungup? I realise I'm heavily outnumbered on that point, but I simply can't see any merit in the arguments for doing so.
    By the way, there is a locality gazetted by New South Wales under the name New South Wales Queensland Border Crossing Boonanga.[6] Would anyone care to put a ", New South Wales" after that?
    Hesperian 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't want us to get too far off track on this issue so I would respond by saying I understand your view on locality disambiguation - however the issue with localities is far more likely to result in more than one - for example Mitta Mitta and thus automatic disambiguation seems a good idea. However in terms of geographical features Rebecca makes the point (as agreed by most it seems) that they need only be disambiguated if necessary. That is why I have written (where disambiguation is necessary) above. I assume (hopefully correctly) that there is only one Uluru and thus no need for disambiguation (comma or parenthesis). Similarly the one off border crossing you refer to is by definition one off and no need for further disambiguation. If this is agreed then the comma/hybrid possibility (including the overall convention that disambiguation only occurs for Geo Features where necessary) still appears to be a valid solution.--VS talk 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    I agree we're getting off track, but this proposal seems dead in the water anyhow, so I'll indulge. The argument that localities are more likely to result in more than one is incorrect. In fact the opposite is true. In Australia, there are 540 places named "Spring Creek"; 520 named "Sandy Creek"; 351 named "Stony Creek"; 340 named "Back Creek"; 293 named "Oaky Creek"; 268 named "Middle Creek"; 250 named "Deep Creek"; 234 named "Rocky Creek"; 174 named "Bald Hill"; 171 named "Reedy Creek"; 152 named "Stockyard Creek"; 151 named "Long Gully"; 148 named "Scrubby Creek"; 144 named "Red Hill"; 141 named "Four Mile Creek"; 133 named "Dingo Creek"; ... need I go on? And what of localities? The most common name for a town or suburb is "Happy Valley", with 5 towns and 2 suburbs for a grand total of 7. It is demonstrably the case that localities are far, far less likely to have non-unique names. We haven't suffered any inconvenience from not preemptively disambiguating other geographical places, so it is impossible to credit that we would do so from not preemptively disambiguating localities, which are actually more likely to have unique names. Hesperian 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Re localities - it ensures consistent formatting, which is useful for localities due to their very similar nature to each other. It does, however, seem an unnecessary amount of work for a coder to have to go to to look up which form is being used, as was the case before the disambiguation became universal. As an example - a neighbour box on Duncraig, Western Australia would have to link to Greenwood, Western Australia; Warwick, Western Australia; Hamersley; Carine; Watermans Bay; Marmion; Sorrento, Western Australia; Hillarys; Padbury; and Kingsley. The post-disambiguated form can be assumed with an Excel spreadsheet and doesn't need any checking whatsoever. I agree thought that it is not useful for geographic regions, features etc as the location is only meant to be a disambiguator or somehow helpful. Orderinchaos 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Question - Euralysus has two proposal's above - I assume you mean his modified one? --VS talk 21:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not proposing a modified one - I support the current system. My second post above was just to say I can see some logic in the alternative as a second-best choice. Euryalus (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification Euralyus. I also note the other comments above - especially Hesperian's who is probably quite correct when he says that this proposal appears to be dead in the water. No doubt time will tell whether we should have made adjustments earlier rather than later as WP:AUS continues to grow - especially when we consider the extraordinary number of geographical feature articles of the same name that are still to be created. Unless someone wants to continue the discussion, from me, for now however thank you to all for your comments. --VS talk 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Railway stations

Can I add a comment on railway stations? I've been doing some work on these for a while and it would be nice to have a consistent style here as well. What has been done officially is to have "X railway station, City" where the station lies within the capital cities' metropolitan rail system (and they are all externally defined) and "X railway station, State" where it falls outside of that. The only exceptions are where the station name is the same as the city's name (eg. "Perth railway station, Perth" is ridiculous, so Perth railway station is fine) or the station is a major landmark (eg. "Southern Cross Station" but there is a redirect from the consistent one as well). Can we have some agreement on this so we can have something to show others when they attempt to redirect an entire city's stations (this has happened before)? Thanks. JRG (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just been adopted as an unofficial convention in the past, because there's enough coinciding names between cities that it'd be a pain to have to keep checking when one adds links. As such, I think we may as well just codify the norm. (And in the event that someone tries to redirect an entire city's stations, I think the only proper course of action is to tell them to get stuffed.) Rebecca (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty much with Rebecca on this. (An interesting exception applies to stations on the new Mandurah line, and I don't doubt it exists elsewhere too, where Mandurah which is beyond the Perth metropolitan boundaries has a Perth station and a Perth line). Orderinchaos 03:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do most articles on Australian railway stations have a Google Maps link prominently in the infobox?[7] Most other location related articles on Wikipedia only have the coordinates of the location, and clicking on them leads to a list of services for that location. Wikipedia's policy on neutrality extends to external links as well, and we shouldn't favor any single external map service (and there's been some discussion of the topic at WP:GEO). Could the links be converted into coordinates in articles that don't have coordinates yet (most of them, it seems), the direct links removed from articles and the MAP parameter removed from the templates to not encourage editors to add more such links in the future? --Para (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Major region arts

I have placed a merge tag with the two articles Eastern states of Australia and East Coast of Australia as unless either one is sufficiently expanded (for whatever reason) they seem to be unnecessarily duplicating and potential candidates for merging despite what at first might be seen as different subjects SatuSuro 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Moondyne 08:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming clarification

I think the following pairs of articles could be better named: Two Long Island's in New South Wales:

Two Hunter Island's in Tasmania:

The "former" Hunter Island was only tens or hundreds of metres offshore in the Hobart harbour and the land between it and "mainland" Tasmania was reclaimed - hence it being a former island. I don't know about the "former" Long Island. Making the unverified assumption that there are no other former islands of either name, I suggest:

  • Long Island (New South Wales) (for Hawksbury River island)
  • Long Island (former island)
  • Hunter Island (Tasmania) (for the North-west Tasmania island)
  • Hunter Island (former island)

Suggestions? -- Chuq (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are actually 6 current Long Island's in NSW.[8][9][10][11][12][13] --AussieLegend (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with your proposal chuq - former islands have a slight monty python ring - but nevertheless makes sense as explained SatuSuro 11:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Australian places

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Galah, Victoria redirect

Let me explain what I was doing here- the localities of the Rural City of Mildura are listed here [14] The area which once was Galah IS now part of the the Ouyen locality , as are also what were once Galah North and Tiega.(none of these now have postcodes or any other official recognition). (Galah and Tiega once had railway stations) If you look at Werrimull, Victoria you will see about seven "sub-locations" listed (again, my work); the population of the Werrimull census area (which is much bigger than Werrimull locality) is about 140, which is an average of less than 20 per "sub-location". I was attempting to preserve the historical localities from the time the Mallee had a much larger population, by ensuring they receive a mention under the actual locality of which they are now a part and I stand by what I have done. I cant see the justification for articles on almost unpopulated areas. Where should I discuss? (Epistemos (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)).

  • Hi Epistemos - your discussion here is adequate thank you very much. You seem to have an intimate knowledge of the area, but if you don't mind what I would like to do is discuss with another colleague who has been working on the sub-localities in the region and get back to you. Would you please give me a day or so? with thanks --VS talk 06:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I've come to realise these edits are erasing history. Take Karawinna, Victoria for example. I've been overly busy for the past two weeks but I will add my piece and say that these recent edits are erasing valid Australian placenames in a way I'm not liking. I'll give more time to this topic when time permits, sorry VS. I've got a full deck here ATM. -- Longhair\talk 09:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Longhair - I have similar concerns. I will leave this topic open and invite Epistemos (and any others reading) to correspond. I should add also that a similar example might be Wagga Wagga which has a township nearby called Alfred Town - both the same postcode but Alfred Town is its own location also. In that case we have kept these towns separately (and I might add there are many similar examples). The reality seems to me that localities are in fact notable even if they have a small population and our history in Australia and the respect we have for these areas should allow them to remain. Let's see what Epistemos et al have to say also.--VS talk 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Galah, Victoria should stay as an article even if the location may no longer (If it's the case that it's no longer a locality) as it should be kept for historical purposes. There are a number of locations in Australia that are no longer localities and just because it's no longer doesn't mean there should be an article for that location/place. Well looking on http://services.land.vic.gov.au/vicnames it still shows it official and also has a railway station/sliding listed. Bidgee (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Al et here = there used to be a project called australian places - and it hammered out some very useful guidelines which it would seem get lost in the mists of time or most editors memories. Subsuming places into larger locations that are adjacent is problematic - if he is up and running - Orderinchaos is well worth a check on this issue, as he has a rather interesting collection of localities under his belt so to speak. I in the long run have no problem at a personal level if a subsumed older locality is adequately incorporated (redirects and adequate mention) into a larger more recent locality - however a lot would depends on the material about the older locality and its historical context - for example - I personally think that Boulder western australian should not be a redirect into City of Kalgoorlie Boulder for instance - the separate identity of the locality and local authority for so long deserve attention - however for the moment it is subsumed. SatuSuro 10:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes SS - that project is still alive but it appears rarely visited - hence my keeping the topic here for now. In due course we can move the discussion there for ease of posterity. Best wishes to you. --VS talk 10:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am sure most have noticed this but just to make it abundantly clear, whilst this thread commences with Galah there is in fact a bigger question as to whether small localities should be subsumed because of their small population. Thank you, and also in advance for your comments.--VS talk 10:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Epistemos has done wonderful work on Victorian towns, adding the type of basic information across the board that doesn't get added by those editors who focus on individual towns. He shows an interest in these small towns that not many others share. I am not overly concerned with merging the contents of very small localities with the nearby town, provided information is not lost and a split is possible in the future. However, a simple redirect loses some of this information. Former localities are a little like former LGAs; the history still exists and we don't delete and/or redirect the article on Shire of Cobram into Shire of Moira, just because it no longer exists. One Tree, New South Wales is the perfect example of a virtually uninhabited locality that has been developed and expanded into a decent article. The same could be the case for some of these redirected articles in the future. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC) The way I see it, the erasing history line of thinking is probably not helpful here. This seems to me to be nothing more than a lumpers and splitters issue. Assuming we all agree that Galah, Victoria is an encyclopedic topic; and assuming we all agree that it is theoretically possible to pull together enough information on it to merit an article; then the question becomes whether, given the information we currently have, the article should be lumped or split at the moment. My personal view is that articles should only be merged if they should be merged forever. That is, you shouldn't merge articles if you think they might merit splitting out again further down the track. In such cases the status quo should be allowed to stand. (The flip side is that articles should not be split until this is necessary for their further development. The status quo should be allowed to stand in that case too) But I'm not sure I can summon an articulate argument in defense of that position. Hesperian 11:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattinbgn said it best. If references support the notion that the place was a distinct locality, even if at some time in the past, IMHO it deserves its own article. That is the encyclopaedic way. –Moondyne 11:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I was going to offer a considered view but really Hesperian, Moondyne and Mattinbgn between them have captured my thoughts rather well. If we can write an encyclopaedic article about it and it's of clear historical significance, I don't see the problem. We have many articles on ghost towns for example. Orderinchaos 17:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse the discussion above and OIC's summary of it - I don't think I have anything else meaningful to add - if an article can be written about the locality then even though it is a former locality (ghost town, subsumed into a larger locality, whatever) then it could be written (I was going to put should but it isn't mandatory to write an article - the dispute comes as to whether we should keep an article written). If the locality is now part of a larger locality it becomes a matter of judgment as to whether to lump or split (per Hesperian - imaging that we have an article on that - how surprising but useful!) . It depends what the article on larger locality looks like and on the content of the article on the now subsumed locality. I don't think we want a rule either way. It doesn't have to be a separate article but it could be. At the moment it is a little bit stubbish - but there is nothing liek a challenge ;-)
    Thank you for inviting my comments even though I have nothing clever or meaningful to say. --Matilda talk 20:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well there could be some sourceable information held in the archives at the Mildura Library (I know that Wagga Wagga Library has a local archive section and so does CSU's South Wagga campus). Bidgee (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse the delay. I can see no real argument for creating articles on even localities when no content is included and it is unlikely to be included, even less argument for bits of localities and I think they are a valid merge (on the argument given above; I see no prospect of anyone ever adding notable content to the Galah, Victoria article).

However I do have a particular interest in preserving the historic names and I have a grand project of listing all the "localities" that have ever had Post Offices open since late 1830s, and many that didnt (changed names etc) - 4000+ localities extracted from the 7000+ Post Offices listed on the reference, and I intended to put that up for discussion before proceeding (wont happen this week!). There is a draft list for the Shire of Glenelg on my Talk page- the list is by official locality, within brackets are either earlier names or "sub-localities", italicised means there was never a PO, dates are simplified PO dates. It will be seen that most localities for this Shire have no articles, and many probably dont deserve them. I believe there is merit in preserving earlier names as an encyclopaedic reference but the question is how to organise them. LGA/Official locality seemed best and the rather moribund List of localities (Victoria) would seem to be the place for the list (outside Melbourne). To link from this (projected) list to any further exposition almost requires that the content be listed on an Official Locality article- that was the sole reason for my redirects. Whether I should redirect The Glenelg, Victoria to Casterton, Victoria is an argument for another time. I can think of a few non-localities that could well have their own articles, the mining ghost towns of Grant, Talbotville, Crooked River would be example(Epistemos (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)).

The grand project sounds terrific. Question, if you came across the Galah article - does that mean it had a post office? You note it also had a railway station. That's 2 factoids (plus the sheep that are there today). I think it is worth a stub so when somebody drives along the highway and sees a sign, they can look up wikipedia and find what was there. The other big reason is genealogical interest - the place was probably more important in the past than today. Two examples I can think of are Lamplough, Victoria and Homebush, Victoria - my interest in these is family history. They are still signposted and I chose a BP road atlas over another brand because it had these old localities marked. Galah is going to be a bit harder to research than some other localities because of the potential confusion of search results with the bird. Can you (Epistemos) please give us a cite for the PO and the railway station for Galah? Thanks --Matilda talk 06:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Galah Railway Station (services.land.vic.gov.au) and also Galah shows up as a Neighborhood (services.land.vic.gov.au). Bidgee (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your return Epistemos and certainly no need to apologise for any delay in your response. As you can see all of us think you are an excellent editor and that feeling continues - we do however have a different opinion (in the main) for the retention of the content and history of these location stub articles. Whilst I do appreciate your feeling that there may be no prospect of anyone ever adding notable content to the Galah, Victoria article the reality is that locations are by convention for the most part considered inherently notable, and often when pushed (see for example Mattinbgn's link to One Tree, New South Wales and perhaps also my own example of Boinka, Victoria) articles actually not only end up having more notability added but they actually get to be DYK's and better. Anyway I do not want to belabour the point overly except to ask whether I am reading your words correctly in that you are happy enough to leave the Galah article and similar small localities in their original rather than a redirected state?--VS talk 05:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"I see no prospect of anyone ever adding notable content to the Galah, Victoria article" Well that's your opinion and you're open to have one but I wouldn't say it has no prospect since it only takes one new editor or even an long term editor to add sourced content to any article including Galah (Epistemos don't take this personally as I'm not trying to attack you just explain a possibility). Bidgee (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am happy to leave them, but will keep to my plan of listing names under Localities but with a link back to the article e.g. Galah -perhaps a bit of duplication but no problem.

To Matilda, all Vic. post offices are here [15] - I think thers a Wikipedia ref. to the railway station somewhere, however [16] will verify (Epistemos (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

  • Thanks Epistemos - I appreciate your response. I don't think the duplication will be too much of a problem. To you and all others my intention is to await a couple more days for any extra comments and then to move a copy of this post to this project, I will also go back to a few other of these redirects already completed and reverse them (but if I miss any please feel free to step in). Again thank you. --VS talk 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I've been to the Wagga Wagga Library looking for anything on the History of Victorian towns and villages as well as Galah and the Mildura region but could only find history on Northern Victoria (Not NW Vic) and every other cities and towns in Vic. :( Only hope I see is for something to be in the Victorian Archives and maybe in the Mildura Library. Also I will not be on much tomorrow as I've got a long list of things to photograph in Wagga including Barry O'Farrell and Bill Heffernan. Bidgee (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_places/Archive_4&oldid=1190100401"