Talk:Eudunda

Population Data

I find the population data to be very inaccurate (Although there is a census soon :D). Does anyone know of a place with regional population estimates in Australia? Sellyminime (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We use census counts on all Australian articles rather than estimates in order to maintain consistency. Interestingly, every time I replace an "estimated" population with a census figure, the estimate is much larger. My working theory is that all towns, consciously or unconsciously, overestimate their population. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for telling me. But I could swear there's about 900 to 1000 people in Eudunda. Yesterday I actually stood at the lookout tower, and counted how many houses there were, multiplied it by the 2006 census people-per-household number, and came up with far greater than the number shown. Well, seems like the town must be growing then.

Has any thought been given to having a definitive census number, and then, to the side, an estimate number? Sellyminime (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The move request is quite correct, there's no need for disambiguation if there's only one Eudunda. Those opposing don't seem to understand our naming conventions, and consensus is with the proposal. Fences&Windows 11:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Eudunda, South Australia → Eudunda — There is only one Eudunda, so why is this article's name Eudunda, South Australia when it can be Eudunda? JaumeBG 10:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - So? Eudunda redirects to here, and the current article name is much more informative, and complies with the Wikipedia Protocol. I don't see how "It can be x" is a valid reason for it to change Sellyminime (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If so, why not name it Eudunda, South Australia, Australia, Oceania, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe? That makes it so much more accurate than the current one, don't you think? Eudunda is commonly referred to as Eudunda, no one calls it Eudunda, South Australia. You'd only name it as it is if in real life people named it Eudunda, South Australia. In thus U.S., there are towns and counties with unique names, but with the , state format as people there refer to it with the whole name, whereas they don't call Eudunda Eudunda, South Australia, people popularly call it Eudunda. JaumeBG 10:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Because Eudunda could refer to anything, whereas Eudunda, South Australia clearly refers to a location. From WP:AT "Article names should be familiar to the reader, unambiguous...".

Also, "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at [[Town, State]] , e.g. Ipswich, Queensland, although there is no longer agreement that this convention is always to be followed when disambiguation is not required – state capitals and certain other places (decided by discussion at article talk pages) do not require the ", State" suffix, as with Adelaide and Toowoomba. (Note also Mungindi, which straddles two states.)"". Eudunda is clearly not recognisable to be in the list of exceptions to this rule. Sellyminime (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment "... certain other places (decided by discussion at article talk pages)" Um, isn't that what we are doing here? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sellyminime, by convention, each Wikipedia article title (unambiguously) reflects the name of the article topic; a title is not supposed to describe the topic (adding information to identify it as a place or location is descriptive, and says nothing about its name). The lead of an article, not the title, describes the topic. Only when disambiguation is necessary is descriptive information added to the title to distinguish a particular use of the name from other uses of the same name. No disambiguation is required here, and we should not wrongly convey that it is. By leaving this article at Eudunda,_South_Australia we are wrongly conveying that it needs to disambiguated presumably because there are uses of "Eudanda". That's just misleading. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- a long time useful convention, used throughout Australia (and the US etc) which is a reasonable exception to WP:AT (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)).

• Support Disambiguation where is unnecessary is confusing to readers, serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever and expressly contradicts clear Wikipedia policy per WP:AT. JaumeBG's logic about Eudunda, South Australia, Australia, Oceania, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe is impeccable. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to point out, as I've cited above, WP:AT clearly says Australian place names should include a state suffix unless it is notable enough on its own (Adelaide/Melbourne/Toowoomba wouldn't need suffixes). I'm sure Eudunda isn't that notable. Think of it as telling your American friend where you live. You'd say "Melbourne" and if they weren't ignorant (Okay, so "American" isn't a good example) they'd probably know what you're talking about. If you said "Eudunda" they'd say "Where's that?" and so they should. So "Eudunda, South Australia" is probably the best format for this. As far as I can tell, the standards for Australian place names are to be specific to the point where other information is unnecessary. It's obvious that South Australia is in Australia, and that Australia is in Oceania and so on, so that isn't needed, and the logic is invalid. Sellyminime (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sellyminime. I believe disambiguation should serve the interests of readers. Orderinchaos 05:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose What's Eudunda? Barely 1k people living in the town - most people will have no idea where this is. ☢Pufferfish¹⁰¹⑨ 18:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Opposition clearly is inconsistent with consensus as reflected in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and arguments in opposition should be weighed accordingly. First, no clearer case of primary topic could be made; there simply is no other use for the name "Eudunda" except to refer to this topic of this article. Second, adding ", South Australia" to the title is blatant unnecessary precision. See the policy WP:TITLE which states: "Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". "Eudunda" is "as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously"; "Eudunda, South Australia" is more precise than is necessary for that purpose. Finally, there is no reason specific to this case to ignore the rules, so the rules should be followed. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You mustn't have read the Australian section of WP:TITLE, as it says "... Australian town/city/suburb articles are at [[Town, State]] , e.g. Ipswich, Queensland...", so it is following the rules. Sellyminime^Talk 04:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the rules that apply to all articles trump more specific rules when there is a conflict; that the more specific rules should indicate a name only when the general rules don't. In this case, the basic naming criteria indicates a clear and obvious name; there is no need to consult more specific rules at all, much less to come up with a different and less concise title. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference to cities, much less Australian cities, at WP:TITLE. Perhaps you're thinking of Wikipedia:NC:CITY#Australia, which states: "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is." That guideline is also marked as being in dispute. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, it doesn't matter how obscure something is, Wikipedia uses article titles simply to tell people what something's called, plus give any necessary disambiguation. Here no disambiguation is necessary, as there's nothing to disambiguate from, so adding the state is just unnecessary complication.--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION. There is no reason to disambiguate this town because of its size. jonkerz♠ 12:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- WP:PRECISION is policy, which enjoys substantial consensus. The Australian naming convention, which would amount to an exception to it, does not. I see no good reason to favour a long article title to a short one or an overspecific article title to one that does the job with less fuss. What is the point of "distinguishing" this Eudunda from the exactly zero other Eudundas? Reyk _YO! 10:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Eudunda is in South Australia. So what. (In any case, if you wanted to know what an article was about from the title alone, why shouldn't it be Eudunda (rural town)?) —Felix the Cassowary 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:PRECISION. No need for the disambig. Jonchapple (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus appears to be strongly in favor of the move. Not only do those in support outnumber those opposed 8 (including nom) to 4 (or 2 to 1), but everyone in support cites, or relies implicitly on, policy and guidelines in their arguments (primarily only as precise as necessary), while those who are opposed give arguments not based in policy and guidelines. Those opposed say:

• "[The current title is] much more informative" Irrelevant; "informative" is not a title naming criteria.
• "[Current title] complies with the Wikipedia Protocol" What is "Wikipedia Protocol"?
• "disambiguation should serve the interests of readers" What does that mean?
• "most people will have no idea where this is" Irrelevant; informing readers where the subject place is is not a title naming criteria.

In other words, the oppose arguments are all rationalizations of I just like it, and need to be discounted accordingly when determining consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.