Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Pendulum diagrams are entirely possible, but one needs to do a lot of calculations to make sure the diagram is representative. The work that needs to be done to get a truly representative pendulum di |
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 63) (bot |
||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard of WikiProject Australia}}
[[Category:Regional Wikipedian notice boards|Australia]]
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 63
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<!-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -->
<!-- WELCOME TO AWNB - THE FOLLOWING IS PAGE LAYOUT -->
<!-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -->
[[Category:Regional Wikipedian notice boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:WikiProject Australia|*Noticeboard]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{shortcut|WP:AWNB}}
{{Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Header}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Layout
|toplefttitle=WikiProjects
|toprighttitle=In the news
|topleftbox=Portal:Australia/WikiProjects
|toprightbox=Portal:Australia/News
|middlelefttitle=Categories
|middlerighttitle=On this day in Australia
|middleleftbox=Portal:Australia/Categories
|middlerightbox=Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/Today
|bottomlefttitle=To-Do
|bottomrighttitle=Announcements
|bottomleftbox=Template:Australia opentask
|bottomrightbox=Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements
}}
{{Archives|image=none|banner=yes|auto=short}}
<!--
{{Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/TOC}}
{{RWNBs}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-31/WikiProject report|writer= [[User:Rudget|Rudget]]|||day =31|month=March|year=2008}}
<!-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -->
<!-- HERE BEGINS DISCUSSION - ARCHIVE THE BELOW ONLY -->
<!-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -->
== RfC: The convention for naming Australian place articles ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 10:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1755943270}}
There is a proposal to change the statements of the convention for naming (and renaming) articles about Australian places. [[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 08:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC) - <small>relisted ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 08:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)</small>
'''Proposal''':<br />
A. There should be a single place for the statement of the convention for naming articles on Australian places. Proposed new page: [[Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Australian Places)]]
* The statements at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places#General_strategy_and_discussion_forums|Project Australian Places]] and [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Australia|geographic naming conventions, Australia]] should be replaced with 'see:' links to the new page
* The [[WP:NCAUST]] shortcut should be changed to link to the new page
B. The new page to read as follows:<br />
[Reference numbers in [] have been added to the lines, for the purposes of the RfC discussion. They will be removed once a final text is agreed.]
{{box|wide=yes|background=white|
Below are the conventions for articles on Australian places.
<nowiki>== Naming of Articles ==</nowiki><br />
'''Australian Settled Places (towns, cities, suburbs, localities etc.)'''
:* [1] Articles about Australian settled places may have names in one of two forms: {{xt|"placename, state"}} or {{xt|"placename"}}
:* [2] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses, a link from the appropriate disambiguation page should be made (eg. [[Darwin]] contains a link to [[Darwin, Northern Territory]], and [[Kingston]] contains links to several Australian towns).
:* [3] Where {{xt|"placename, state"}} is used, a redirect from {{xt|"placename"}} should be made whenever the name by itself does not presently require disambiguation (eg: [[Nowra]] redirects to [[Nowra, New South Wales]]), and from a nickname if it's extremely common (eg. [[Wagga]]).
:* [4] Where the {{xt|"placename, state"}} format still has conflicts (such as [[Springfield, Victoria]] and [[Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)]]) add a regional term to the secondary ___location. Often this can be the local government area, but a more general term may be necessary when the less notable one spans multiple LGAs.
:* [5] State or territory names should ''not'' be abbreviated in article titles.
:* '''New Articles'''
:: [6] For new articles, either form of article name is acceptable, unless disambiguation or other reasons ''require'' the use of {{xt|"placename, state"}}
:* '''Moving / Renaming Existing Articles'''
:: [7] For existing articles, renaming from one name form to the other should not be done unless there is some other good reason to do it
::* [7.1] existing articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}} should '''not''' be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] allows it, nor based on an argument for 'consistency' with practice outside Australia
::* [7.2] existing articles using {{xt|"placename"}} should '''not''' be renamed based on an argument for 'consistency' with previous practice or to achieve the same form across Australian place articles. It may however become necessary for disambiguation.
:[8] '''Note:''' For a long period the convention for Australian settled places was that ''all'' articles (with only a few stated exceptions) should be named using the {{xt|"placename, state"}} form. Various statements of the convention have allowed the number of articles using the {{xt|"placename"}} form to grow in number. Both forms are now accepted.
'''Other Places'''
* [9] Local government areas should be at their official name.
* [10] Cadastral divisions should be at their name (eg: [[Hunter County]] or [[County of Bourke]]), with the state name appended if required for disambiguation
** [10.1] The form of name ('County of ...' or '... County') should be consistent within a single state.
<nowiki>== Infobox ==</nowiki><br />
* [11] All Australian place articles should use {{tl|Infobox Australian place}}. The infobox requires both {{para|type}} and {{para|state}} to be set. All articles should also set {{para|name|{{xt|placename}}}}.
See also: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads)]]
<hr />
[Templates & Categories on the page]
<nowiki>{{Wikipedia subcat guideline|naming convention|Australian places|WP:NCAUST}}</nowiki><br /><nowiki>[[Category:Australia Wikipedia administration|naming, places]]</nowiki><br /><nowiki>[[Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (geographic names)|A]]</nowiki>
}}
*'''Support as Proposer''':
** Part (A) ensures there is a single statement of the Australian conventions, to which editors can refer without ambiguity or finding conflicts between different texts
** Part (B) is largely derived from the two existing statements (at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places#General_strategy_and_discussion_forums|Project Australian Places]] and [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Australia|geographic naming conventions, Australia]] (= current [[WP:NCAUST]])), in that it allows both name forms for articles. But it now also prevents unnecessary moves / renames between the two. (Moves are not banned outright, but using an argument for 'consistency', or an argument based on [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]], is no longer sufficient to allow a move.)
** The number of articles with the {{xt|"placename"}} form, for Australian settled places, seems now to be about 15% of the total. The fact that form has grown so much means the number of articles using it is now too large to be reversible.
*** Of the approximately 12,000 articles for towns and suburbs, that makes about 1,800 use {{xt|"placename"}}
*** (For those interested, the percentage figure was derived from [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?action=valuelinks&wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+Australian+place¶m=type&value=town| template parameters data for Template:Infobox Australian place with type=town], then counting the number of articles on pages 1, 11, 21, 31, and 41 of the articles listing. The same was done for type=suburb. For the 500 articles listed in each case, the figure was 15.6% for type=town, and 14.0% for type=suburb. The data is as of 1 Apr 2025.)
::We now have so many articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}}, and so many using {{xt|"placename"}}, it is no longer sensible to enforce one over the other. The egg is now scrambled, we can't un-scramble it, we just need to get used to the use of either form of article name.
:* I am somewhat in two minds about [8]. On the one hand it detracts from a clean statement of Australian practice. On the other it explains why we now accept either of the two forms of article name. On balance I'd rather keep it.
:* The statement about allowing disambiguation using a city name instead of <nowiki><state></nowiki> (as found at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places#General_strategy_and_discussion_forums|Project Australian Places]]) has been dropped, because the only existing case I could find was [[The Block (Sydney)]]. All other examples now seem to be redirects to {{xt|"placename, state"}}.
:* Frankly, we are wasting a lot of time on move / rename requests that will not improve the ordinary reader's ability to find an article. If they don't know about the previous convention, {{xt|"placename"}} will be the article directly, a redirect to {{xt|"placename, state"}}, or a disambiguation page. And if searching in the WP search bar, the short descriptions should provide all the further detail they might need. If they do know about the previous convention, and the article is at {{xt|"placename"}}, in most cases there will be a redirect from {{xt|"placename, state"}} after a requested move. There may be a case for ensuring redirects exist in both directions, though I haven't added it to the proposed text of the convention - maybe getting those redirects in place is a task for a bot?
::[[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 08:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''support''' as it documents accepted practice but still prefer ''placename, state'' and ''geographic(state)'' as default [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Proposal to close''':
::There having been no responses to this RfC in the 7 days it has been open, I propose to close it within a few more days unless a discussion actually begins. [[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 11:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::I have been thinking about this, and will leave a reply some time soon, there is a lot to address here however. [[User:Viatori|Viatori]] ([[User talk:Viatori|talk]]) 05:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if this was the best fora for this discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::no rush to close, school holidays, long weekends theres been lots of interuptions. Give people time to think it through even though its documenting the current practice. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::Hi [[User:Innesw|Innesw]], please do not close. I am also intending on making a detailed reply, however there is much to consider here and life off wiki has been busy! Remember, [[WP:DEADLINE|there is no deadline]]. I would like to reply by giving this matter the attention it deserves to match the work you put into crafting it! [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok, no close, and thanks for showing interest. I was perhaps a bit early with that, but the ''apparent'' lack of interest was getting to me. Re: the correct forum, I've found other more specialist forums in the Australian space (including [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places|Australian Places]]) have so few participants that meaningful discussions just don't happen. We could move the discussion if people wish. [[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 21:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::No! Do not close! [[User:Servite et contribuere|Servite et contribuere]] ([[User talk:Servite et contribuere|talk]]) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. First of all, thank you {{u|innesw}} for pulling the proposal together. I think it is a great first step towards resolving the issues and stopping us wasting time on considering so many RMs, but I do have some reservations that prevent me from fully supporting it as written. I have summarised my main concerns below and provided some amendments to the proposal for consideration:
:*[1] - As I have stated in the previous discussion, [[WP:NCAUST]] is not specific enough by saying that articles ''may'' use just {{xt|"placename"}}. This does not provide sufficient clarity around when it is appropriate to omit or include the state/territory. This has resulted in a number of grouped RMs being opened on the grounds of [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]], however these discussions had limited participation, particular outside of Australian editors or those with a local interest. This proposal goes some way to address this by preventing RMs being opened on the basis of PRIMARYTOPIC alone. However, it does still not provide specific guidance around when state/territory should or should not be included.
:*[2] - see my proposed amendments below
:*[3], [4], [5] - Support as proposed.
:*[6] - Disagree. For new articles, the convention should continue to be {{xt|"placename, state"}}, except in cases where it is unambiguous (such as indigenous placenames). I refer to the many previous RMs at [[Talk:Mosman]]. While it was successfully argued in the most recent RM that the name is unique, several previous RMs also concluded that disambiguation was necessary to differentiate from [[Mossman, Queensland]] due to a very similar spelling (in fact, some historic sources use the same spelling for both places). Another example would be [[Castlecrag, New South Wales]], which does appear to be unique and was listed in an RM, but was not moved as editors pointed out that there are numerous other places and landmarks with their own articles called Castle Crag/Castle Crags/Castlecrag Mountain/Castlecraig. A convention that requires disambiguation as the default would issues like the above, without requiring places like [[Ulladulla]] be unnecessarily disambiguated.
:*[7] - I have some reservations with regards to not restoring any of the recent changes that resulted from the RMs of large groups of articles. When I raised with closers that these RMs should be considered with caution in light of these ongoing discussions. Several closers were of the view that any changes could easily be reverted if a clear consensus emerged here. However, 7.1 and 7.2 appears to close the door on this entirely and locks in inconsistency, especially if the premise that PRIMARYTOPIC alone is not justification for a name change going forward.
:*[8] - I think we should drop 8, as I strongly believe that consistency should be something we strive for. As already stated at [7], we should only deviate from an agreed standard where there is a clear reason to do so. Most people reading an encyclopedia expect it to be formatted in a consistent way as that makes information easier to find. Codifying it this way allows deviation from style conventions because it is easier in some cases (or because an editor may not be aware of places outside of their home state/country with similar names) and harms the project overall.
:* [9], [10], [11] - Support as proposed.
'''SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO PROPOSAL'''
{{box|wide=yes|background=white|
'''Australian Settled Places (towns, cities, suburbs, localities etc.)'''
Inserts the following text in place of [2], while the existing text becomes [2.1};
:*''Where a place name is clearly unambiguous, {{xt|"placename"}} may be used alone. This includes when the name is clearly unique, such as most indigenous place names; where the place is a capital or major regional city and also satisfies [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]; or where there is otherwise no potential for confusion with another place (including outside of Australia), landmark or subject. In all other cases, {{xt|"placename, state"}} should be used as the default. This includes where there are similarly named places that vary only in spelling or spaces (eg. [[Castlecrag, New South Wales]] and [[Castle Crag]], or [[Broadmeadow, New South Wales]] and [[Broadmeadows, Victoria]]''
::* [2.1] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses, a link from the appropriate disambiguation page should be made (eg. [[Darwin]] contains a link to [[Darwin, Northern Territory]], and [[Kingston]] contains links to several Australian towns).
'''Moving / Renaming Existing Articles'''
: [7] For existing articles, renaming from one name form to the other should not be done unless there is some other good reason to do it
::* [7.1] existing articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}} should '''not''' be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] allows it. <s>nor based on an argument for 'consistency' with practice outside Australia</s>
::* ''[7.2] existing articles using {{xt|"placename"}} should '''only''' be renamed where it is clearly necessary for disambiguation.''
}} [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 12:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
: Thanks {{u|Dfadden}} for the detailed and considered response.
: My commentary on your comments (on my ... aagh! ;-) ):
:* [1] - My draft was just an introductory statement, and I don't think you are suggesting any re-wording.
:* [2] - in preference to my initial 'either form ... is acceptable' for new articles (my [6]), I'm happy to use your new [2] lines, though they possibly need a little further tightening up (remove 'may'?) to be more definite statements of when to use which form.
::* The 'reasons for just placename' and 'reasons for placename, state' can be separate points
::* I take your point about similar names (spelling and spaces) justifiying disambiguation. It's worth separating as a sub-point, with my initial [2] (your [2.1]), and [3], [4] and [5] as further sub-points.
:* [6] - dropped, see above
:* [7] - re: your re-wordings of [7.1] and [7.2], I agree with both of them.
:* Re your comments on reverting recent moves, I don't want to start another battle over how far we go back and do this. The wiki-lawyer in me says 'what was done was done under the old rules, let it stand', though for the very recent ones (those that acknowledge this discussion) if they want to apply the new rules instead of the old ones, that would be valid too.
:* [8] - Was intended just as a historical note explaining why we have the inconsistency we do. If you read it as justifying inconsistency, that was not my intention. Would 'Historical Note' help as a heading?
:* Re consistency generally, yes it would be great (I presume everybody supports it as a principle), but for existing Australian-place articles I think we have now missed that boat.
<hr />
:* I've realised that, with the restrictions we are putting on renaming existing articles, most of the detailed guidelines on how to name an article only apply to new articles - so in the following draft I've moved the 'New Articles' heading to above [2]. Hopefully this will prevent statements about how to name articles being regarded as 'general', and used in RM arguments.
So, '''DRAFT 3''' (just the 'naming of settled places articles' section) in short form (all full texts are above):
{{box|wide=yes|background=white|
: [1] Articles about Australian settled places may have names in one of two forms: {{xt|"placename, state"}} or {{xt|"placename"}}.
: '''New Articles'''
:* [2] Where a place name is clearly ... landmark or subject.
:* [2.0] In all other cases ... default.
::* [2.1] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses ... Australian towns).
::* [2.2] This includes where there are similarly named places ... [[Broadmeadows, Victoria]].
::* [3] Where {{xt|"placename, state"}} is used, a redirect from {{xt|"placename"}} ... [[Wagga]]).
::* [4] Where the {{xt|"placename, state"}} form still has conflicts ... multiple LGAs.
::* [5] State or territory names should ''not'' be abbreviated in article titles.
: '''Existing Articles'''
:* [7.1] Existing articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}} should ''not'' be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] allows it.
:* [7.2] Existing articles using {{xt|"placename"}} should ''only'' be renamed where it is clearly necessary for disambiguation.
: [8] '''Historical Note:''' ... forms are accepted.
}}
[[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' [[WP:NCAUST]] is fine as it is, Additionaly, we should not be having seperate rules for new and exisiting articles. [[User:GMH Melbourne|GMH Melbourne]] ([[User talk:GMH Melbourne|talk]]) 00:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' (3rd draft) text and creating the new page [[Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Australian Places)]]
:– <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif"><b>[[User:MrAussieGuy|<span style="color: light-dark(black, white)"> MrAussieGuy</span>]] ([[User talk:MrAussieGuy|<span style="color: light-dark(black, white)">Talk</span>]])</b></span> 01:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
*Broad '''support'''. I was deeply involved in the original establishment of the standard naming of settlement articles in the form "<placename>, <state>" ''many'' years ago. It created then and continues to provide confidence for editors that they are not creating duplicate articles, and reduces the chance of inadvertently linking to wrong or disambiguation pages due to a word being clearly a placename for that editor, but clearly something else or somewhere else for other people. The convention also provides a reliable single title for future articles that have not been written yet, without risk of future events creating a new "primary topic" for a name. I have always regarded ", <state>" as a qualifying term, not just a disambiguator. It's a necessary part of an address. The undermining and chipping away at the standard naming convention contributed to me taking my first long wikibreak for mental health reasons. Centralising the guidelines to one unambiguous source of guidance (Proposal part A) should prevent multiple slightly different versions being used to create doubt and foment uncertainty. While I'm disappointed there are so many pages already moved, I support a clear statement that the ''status quo'' should remain and new articles continue to be created as "<placename>, <state>" with redirects if necessary. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] <sup>[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]</sup> 02:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' though my preference is for ''___location, state'' as default I can accept this wording in Draft 3. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 04:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose section [7.1]''' Probably would be better if it was written like "You may, but are not required to" or something like that [[User:Servite et contribuere|Servite et contribuere]] ([[User talk:Servite et contribuere|talk]]) 12:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::Happy to consider alternative wording, but I oppose the use of the word "may". After all, this whole dispute arises because [[WP:NCAUST]] is too vague in saying {{tq|...the name of a city or town '''may''' be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name}}. We really need something definitive or we are going to end up with more of the same. How about something like:
::'''[7.1]''' ''Existing articles using "placename, state" should not be renamed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. not just because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it)''? [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 10:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:: Agree with [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]], "may" lacks definiteness and is part of the cause of the rename arguments. [[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 04:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Claim of overriding policy''' The claim has been made at [[Talk:Officer_South,_Victoria#Requested_move_6_June_2025|one of the current move discussions]] that ''"[This] RFC is not going to change anything about [[WP:PTOPIC]] which is a controlling guideline sitting above any local consensus."'' I presume this is not in fact the case, as it would invalidate not only any Australian convention but presumably also the [[WP:USPLACE|convention in the US]]. [[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 12:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': [[WP:NCAUST]] is fine as is and as stated by GMH Melbourne we shouldn't have inconsistent rules about new and existing pages. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 09:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Suppport''' I agree that it is too late to unscramble the egg and I am sick and tired of the PRIMARY discussions (very much in the eye of the beholder). So I would like to see no further unnecessary article names being changed. Nobody seems to have picked up on Gnangarra's point about natural (rivers, mountains) and non-natural (towns, suburb plcess), e.g. between [[Dutton River (Queensland)]] for a river (a natural place) and [[Dutton River, Queensland]] for a locality (as a non-natural place). I would like to see that convention retained. Obviously there can be some argument over some specifics, e.g. whether a lake created by a dam is natural or not (I'd argue the dam is non-natural but the lake is natural, mainly because someone is bound to have named a nearby town/suburb/locality Lake Whatever, whereas it is unlikely there would a completely natural lake of the same name nearby to be confused with the impoundment). But broadly we do know the difference between natural and non-natural feature types and commons sense probably resolves the rare curly cases. [[User:Kerry Raymond|Kerry]] ([[User talk:Kerry Raymond|talk]]) 04:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
*Without wading through all of this, with its competing proposals, I would say that, per [[WP:CONCISE]] and [[WP:DAB]], this needs to default to "<Placename>", and only advise using "<Placename>, <State>" when necessary for disambiguation, same as is applied to most of the rest of the world. The US has become an exception because of its size, the number of settled places in it, and the extreme frequency of duplicate <Placename> elements just in different states. The US case is the exception, not a model to follow elsewhere. And even for the US, a <Placename> with high world-wide recognition (akin to [[Melbourne]], [[Sydney]], [[Canberra]] in .au) lacks the ", <State>" appendage (e.g. [[Chicago]], [[Los Angeles]], [[San Francisco]], [[New Orleans]], [[Atlanta]]). That is, even in the situation where the community has accepted not going with the shortest form by default, we {{em|still}} go with the shortest form anyway when there isn't a compelling reason to use the longer form. PS: Like Kerry_Raymond I agree with "Gnangarra's point about natural (rivers, mountains) and non-natural (towns, suburb plcess), e.g. between [[Dutton River (Queensland)]] for a river (a natural place) and [[Dutton River, Queensland]] for a locality (as a non-natural place)". This, too, is commonly done elsewhere, and there's not an Australia-specific reason to do differently. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 13:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
::{{+1}} ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
*Hi all, I had made a request for closure of this RFC at [[WP:CR]] and was informed that per [[WP:PROPOSAL]], notifications should be made to [[WT:AT]], [[WT:NCGN]], [[WP:VPP]] or [[WP:VPPR]] and that this RFC should go for at least another 30 days after those notifications are made. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="col
or:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 03:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::I half-support your proposal to close. Bringing the discussion to a conclusion would be good (as it is now over 9 weeks since draft 3), but - even if at a very slow pace - the discussion does continue to run, and hopefully the slow pace indicates thoughtful rather than knee-jerk responses. (I ''have'' learnt the lesson of my earlier proposal to close, which was rightly shouted down.) So I would ask for a fairly long period before a close, and perhaps even a draft decision before a formal close. [[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 06:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Well it needs to run for at least another 30 days. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this makes the current guideline more confusing and just seems to suggest its fine to use either the state or not to use it, which goes against [[WP:CONSISTENCY]]. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 07:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:I very much agree with @[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] on this one. It follows the mostly unproblematic choice made for Canadian place names and avoids the pre-disambiguating morass of the US naming convention.
:I have not read through all of the back and forth, but regarding the OP's comments about using city name for disambiguation, (e.g., [[The Block (Sydney)]]), there are in fact several articles that use city name rather than state with commas rather than parentheses (e.g., [[Broadway, Sydney]], [[Crestwood, Sydney]], [[Tulliallan, Melbourne]]). I would suggest that places within a city/town are better disambiguated by the city/town name rather than the state. I'd also suggest picking one format (parenthetical or comma) for such localities. It is not a universal convention, but some areas have chosen to use comma convention for populated places and parentheses for geographical features (such as lakes, rivers, islands). [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 10:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
*''Re: consistency'': The proposal was drafted in the belief consistency in this space is a lost cause. About 15% of existing articles use {{xt|placename}}, the rest use {{xt|placename, state}}, and if consistency is desired a large (c.1,800) or very large (10,000+) number of articles would have to be renamed. I don't really like it, but it is the reality we are in. Given this reality for existing articles, it didn't feel necessary for the proposal to enforce one name form or the other on new articles. However the proposal does give more definite rules about when to use which name form for new articles, rather than [[WP:NCAUST]]'s permissive 'may do x'. It is the current [[WP:NCAUST]] that has got us into this mess. It needs to be replaced with something more definite, and which stops the continuing renaming proposals.<br />
:''Re: city for disambiguation'': [[Broadway, Sydney]] is a road, and subject to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads)]] not the convention under discussion here (though I don't know what the roads community's disambiguation practices are). [[Tulliallan, Melbourne]] is subject to a notability query. The number of exisiting articles using ', cityname' seems to be very small, but if in fact it's not, I'd be happy to re-include the option in the convention - but for disambiguation purposes only (eg: [[Ascot, Bendigo]] and [[Ascot, Ballarat]]). BTW, if [[Template:Infobox Australian place|the Infobox]] in the article has {{para|type|suburb}} and {{para|city|cityname}}, the city name will appear in the short desciption in WP searches anyway.<br />
:''Re: commas or parentheses'': I agree we should continue to use commas for settled places and parentheses for natural features, whatever the second part content is.<br />[[User:Innesw|Innesw]] ([[User talk:Innesw|talk]]) 01:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:CONSISTENT]] is part of [[WP:AT]], which is policy. We shouldn't be trying to come up with new naming conventions which are contrary to existing policy. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' creation of new NC. This will easily guide new people on how to build new articles about places Australia. ''placeholder'', ''state name'' would a good format. Having a new NC would reduce ambiguity. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 04:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I am sympathetic to the concern about the ambiguity of the current [[WP:NCAUST]], and in several instances I have not agreed with what seem to me like over-extensive interpretations of [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] put forward in some RMs as justification to move away from currently disambiguated forms. However, I think what is being proposed here is still somewhat confusing, and risks conflicting with other relevant guidance, and more significantly, policy. In particular, I think the conflicts with the [[WP:TITLE]] policy that have been raised are a roadblock to adoption. For example, it is hard for me to see how to square [3] with [[WP:PRECISE]] and [[WP:CONCISE]], or indeed [[WP:CONSISTENT]], which is probably why the example given, [[Nowra, New South Wales]], was moved to [[Nowra|its undisambiguated form]] some time ago now.
:Fundamentally, I don't think that there is a need for us to have a substantially different naming convention for Australia compared to other places. Perhaps we could look to the equivalent guidance for similar places, such as [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New_Zealand)#Disambiguation of New Zealand place names|WP:NCNZ]] or [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Article names|WP:CANPLACE]]. [[User:Tomiĉo|Tomiĉo]] ([[User talk:Tomiĉo|talk]]) 02:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::If there was a proposal to have the Aus naming convention similar to [[WP:NCNZ]], I would support it. I agree that we can't adopt a naming convention that runs contrary to [[WP:TITLE]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 03:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I too would be open to supporting a convention similar to [[WP:NCNZ]]. My primary concern is the ambiguity and varying interpretations of the current convertion that states "''Most'' Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory", which implies this is the default, but then provides that the place name alone ''may'' be used alone if PTOPIC applies. I see no such ambiguity in the NZ example. Notwithstanding PTOPIC is still something that would need to be determined through RMs, however this would allow those discussions to have a single focus and more consistent outcomes and not just moving for the sake of moving. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 08:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand your concern with the ambiguity. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 08:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]] and [[User:Tomiĉo|Tomiĉo]] are either of you interested in helping to write such a proposal? [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 21:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]], once this is closed (I've listed it at [[WP:CR]]) I'll consider doing so. I'd want to read previous RFCs first to make an assessment if such a proposal has a chance of success. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
For awareness, {{user|Docciemer}} has renamed a number of Sydney suburb articles today, including [[Eastlakes, New South Wales]], which was subject to a previous RM where consensus was not moved. I have reverted this change and let the user, who is relatively new to Wikipedia, to come here and contribute to the RfC if they feel strongly. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 03:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''<Placename>''' per {{u|SMcCandlish}} as there is no Australia-specific reason for deviation from the general practice which is in line with [[WP:CONCISE]]. [[User:Graham11|Graham11]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 19:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== How do I subscribe for updates on this project ==
Hi, is there a newsletter about this project, with recently expanded or added pages, or pages that need more attention. How do I subscribe. I would like to know also what software is used to generate it and to subscribe me to it. If it is not there, then do you need such a feature? Thanks. [[User:Gryllida|Gryllida]] 10:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
:AFAIK, there is no newsletter as such. To be informed of activity on this noticeboard, add it to your watchlist and it will come up in your watchlist when anyone writes here . If you want to find things to do, then go to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia|project's page]] where you will see various lists of things that need doing. If you want an email newsletter about a wider range of Australia+Wiki matters, subscribe to Wikimedia Australia's monthly newsletter [[mail:wikimedia-au-announce|here]] (you don't have to be a member of Wikimedia Australia to subscribe). If you want to connect with people a bit more, Wikimedia Australia hold [[wmau:Events|a number of Zoom chat sessions and other events each month]] where you can chat with others (they are loosely themed but the theme isn't a straight jacket, other topics can be discussed), again these are (almost always) open to non-members. If you want the full Wikimedia Australia experience, [[wmau:Membership|become a member]] for $9.95 per annum. [[User:Kerry Raymond|Kerry]] ([[User talk:Kerry Raymond|talk]]) 05:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
::In the interests of full disclosure, I am a Wikimedia Australia member. [[User:Kerry Raymond|Kerry]] ([[User talk:Kerry Raymond|talk]]) 05:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm glad that {{u|Gryllida}} asked this question, as I have wondered why I have not been getting updates on this page, and have just noticed that there is a "Subscribe" button at the top! (And I see that I have missed quite a long discussion about place names, which I should brush up on.) [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 05:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Serious problems with [[History of Australia (1945–present)]] ==
I came across [[History of Australia (1945–present)]] which I restored from being a redirect to [[History of Australia (1945-2021)]] which itself is a redirect to [[History of Australia (1945–1983)]]. It seems like somebody tried to do a copypaste move, but then the move didn't happen? I'm not entirely sure what is going on and I don't have a great grasp of how these articles work, but I know the way they currently are is a bit of a mess. If anyone has more knowledge to help restore I'd love to help out. <span style="color: #006233">[[User:Casablanca Rock|Casablanca 🪨]]<sup>([[User talk:Casablanca Rock|T]])</sup></span> 18:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:In the past day, one editor @[[User:AverageFraud|AverageFraud]] has created a number of articles on Australian history. Specifically I can see [[History of Australia (1945–1983)|History of Australia (1945-1983)]], [[History of Australia (1983–1996)|History of Australia (1983-1996)]], [[History of Australia (1996–2007)|History of Australia (1996-2007)]], [[History of Australia (2007-2022)]], and [[History of Australia (2022–present)|History of Australia (2022-present)]]. These articles are largely based on the existing article [[History of Australia]] and the previous article History of Australia (1945-2021) (which has been cut-and-pasted to create new articles.) As far as I can see, there was no discussion for this change. The articles are poorly written and look to be example of [[Wikipedia:Recentism|recentism]] (ie giving undue space to recent events). I think one article on the History of Australia from 1945 to the present is quite sufficient. I don't have the technical skills to put humpty dumpty back together again, but if someone would like to volunteer, I suggest we reinstitute the article History of Australia (1945-present). Then we can have a discussion there as to whether it should be split into shorter articles. There is no doubt that [[History of Australia]] is currently too long, the but the solution isn't to create five new articles covering the period 1945 to the present. [[User:Aemilius Adolphin|Aemilius Adolphin]] ([[User talk:Aemilius Adolphin|talk]]) 23:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
== Mount Gee and Mount Painter question(s) ==
Hi all
Anyone who is interested in opining as to how to treat these two geographical features of geological
(and other) significance - please see what I have just written on the [[Talk:Mount Gee#Article_split_or_rename? |Mt Gee talk page]] and add comments there. Thanks. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 06:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Images of election material - take 2 ==
A couple of months ago I posted a question, now at [[Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 63#Images of election material]], but didn't get any feedback. As a result I uploaded a group of photographs of election pamphlets in varying layouts, to Commons. Unfortunately they've all been nominated for deletion! I'm not sure what can be done, but if anyone wants to contribute to the discussion - please do so - [[Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chuq|Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chuq]] -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:Chuq|(talk)]]</span> 09:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||