Talk:Whyalla

I cannot think of any good reason why this page should be at Whyalla, Australia. Indeed, I cannot think of a bad reason either. Is there a reason? If so, please speak up and I'll stop reverting the move. Otherwise, this should stay here at Whyalla. Tannin

I moved it - twice! ;) Now I know why the first change didn't seem to "stick"; I thought maybe I was going mad! I moved it because a) when I first saw the article I had no idea where the place was at all, and I'm IN Australia... and b) my article about Armidale got moved to Armidale, Australia, even though as fas as I know there isn't another one. So in that regard it was about consistency. As for a) the article hads been edited now to make it clearer that the place is in Australia, but in that case maybe Armidale should be moved back? GRAHAMUK 09:58 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ahh, thankyou Graham. The general rule is use just the name except

1. in the USA (because the Americans like to do it that way and we honour their convention). US cities are in the form Sacramento, California.
2. where there are two or more places with the same name and none of them is clearly the best-known - i.e., use Paris, not Paris (France). I think other, less-well-known cities of the same name usually have their disambiguation term in parenthesis: Armidale (Australia). For the Paris in the USA, though, the USA rule applies and we use Paris, Texas instead.

The general rule seems to be to use the country name rather than the state, county, or territory name as the dsambiguation term, though I'd want to see someone confirm this - I am a little uncertain.

Armidale is an exception, however, and I'm glad you noticed it, as there are at lest two Armidales in Australia: one in NSW, and one in Melbourne. Both are quite well-known but I imagine that the NSW one is the better-known of the two (except here in Victoria, of course). I'm going to move Armidale, Australia to Armidale (New South Wales) so as to leave room for Armidale (Victoria) and (possibly) any other Armidales around the world as well. If someone wants to put the NSW one at Armidale instead, I have no objection, so long as it has a disambiguation block.

Tannin

Damn, that bloody harvey norman really ruined the view of Hummock Hill

Spelling of Armadale, Victoria

CMIIAW, but isn't Armidale Vic spelled Armadale?

203.12.97.47 05:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Population

The most recent ABS population estimate for Whyalla (c) is 21,306 at June 2005.

Source: ABS (2006), 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2004-05

Cmicik 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Education

Do we really need to list every single school in whyalla? Its a bit much... ive tried to break it up and add links, but it seem kind of pointless when like half of the damn article talks about the town's schools. Yeah? The Catcher 08:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

personal I think you do Ray-Rays (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2008 (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: Move all. Jafeluv (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Whyalla, South Australia → Whyalla — These three cities are all uniquely named and do not require disambiguation. As such, in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DISAMBIG, these articles should be at their common name: i.e. Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln. Australian place name articles have historically been named in the [Town, State] format but it is no longer clear that the idiosyncratic process of mandatory "disambiguation" has widespread support. See Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36#RM -- moving forward and Talk:Ballarat#Requested move. Mattinbgn (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Port Pirie, South Australia → Port Pirie
• Port Lincoln, South Australia → Port Lincoln

• Support No disambiguation required.--Melburnian (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unconvinced Hmmm. You have a good point, and in principle I agree. But there are 5,999,000,000 people that live outside of South Australia who, in practice, have probably never heard of these 3 cities. They're not really comparable with, for example, Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, so the "South Australia" does actually add value. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(Note, however, that I am not adamantly opposed to the idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

• Weak oppose, especially for Port Pirie. I honestly don't think they're well-known enough to not generate some level of confusion. I also think all these discussions should be taking place in a central location rather than scattered across little RM discussions all over Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - we don't add information to titles to clarify them to people who don't know the topic anyway, only to distinguish them from other topics with the same name (which apparently isn't necessary here).--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Another "Hmmm." I don't disagree, but I think you've missed the point. I find that I support Orderinchaos's POV. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Orderinchaos: I also think all these discussions should be taking place in a central location - I'm inclined to agree with you. Where do you suggest? Pdfpdf (talk)

• Support - I agree with with Kotniski. There isn't a need for disambiguation if there is no ambiguity in the first place.T.carnifex (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I also agree with Kotniski, and don't understand why Pdfpdf thinks Kotniski missed the point, citing agreement with Orderinchaos. Orderinchaos' argument seems to be based on the assumption that someone unfamiliar with a topic should be able to glean what it is about from the title, and notes that the ", South Australia" in the title does that. Kotniski's comment addresses and refutes the Orderinchaos concern (which is not based in policy or guidelines at all) directly. What point is missed? Titles should be precise, but only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other titles. The shorter titles proposed here accomplish that exactly. The current titles are in violation of naming criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Dear Born2cycle, please reread what I've written - it should be obvious why I think Kotniski missed the point. Please note, however, that I am NOT saying that I disagree with what you and others have said. On the one hand I agree with T.carnifex. (There isn't a need for disambiguation if there is no ambiguity in the first place.) On the other, I also agree with Orderinchaos. (I honestly don't think they're well-known enough to not generate some level of confusion.). In other words, I don't think it's a simple "black & white" situation. I hope that clarifies things for you. If not, please ask. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've reread the entire discussion and am still not following. That is, until I found this discussion, I'd never heard of "Whyalla", and, so, of course Whyalla, South Australia is more informative to someone like me than is just "Whyalla". No debate about that. But that should not be a consideration for deciding articles. As Kotniski noted, "we don't add information to titles to clarify them to people who don't know the topic anyway", period. I think some get the impression that we do that, because it might seem like we do when you see a title extended with more precise information, but usually that's because the additional precision is needed for disambiguation. Here, it is clearly not, since there is no other use for "Whyalla". So it does seem simply "black &white" to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. No disambiguation required. Avoid redirects by just using the name readers would expect to find the article at...you know, the actual name of the place. Nightw 15:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks to me like there is a concensus. What happens now? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- Per WP:PRIMARY we should only disambiguate when there is actually something to distinguish the subject from. When there are no other Whyallas or Port Piries or Port Lincolns anywhere, there's no need for it. Reyk _YO! 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

fork

• Oppose: per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names)#Australia. This convention was changed late last month with no explanation other than, "this seems to best describe the status quo". I have reverted back to the previous definition. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support: per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names)#Australia. This convention was updated last month to reflect the current conventions, after lengthy discussion. I've restored the consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Unless there is a verified consensus to change the policy, it can't really be changed. Which administrator declared consensus? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Perhaps you two can resolve your disagreement elsewhere? You're not adding any value to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 2 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.

"Only" 3.6 % of the population are Indigenous

Since the Indigenous population of South Australia is 1.7%, Whyalla's Indigenous population is actually above the state average. I've removed the "only". Hexyhex (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)