Jump to content

Talk:Alonnah, Tasmania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 06:33, 24 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Australia}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Requested move 24 November 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. Time to close this debate, and we see no general agreement below to rename and drop the qualifier. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may try again in a few months to garner consensus for this title change. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alonnah, Tasmania → Alonnah – This is the only place name in the world, unnecessary to have disambigulation. B dash (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 17:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. JC7V (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per WP:PRECISE/WP:NCAUST as "Alonnah" already redirects here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Australian places are almost always introduced with comma state, the exceptions being only local stuff. PRIMARYREDIRECTs have a low threshold for creation that doesn’t equate to a good reason to minimise the title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose, despite the eloquent arguments from those who wish to remove state or country names, and however they much try, as the creator of this talk page, I support keeping a referent to where it might be, regardless of where that fits with supporters of removal of the qualifying term. JarrahTree 13:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wait for the outcome of current discussion of WP:NCAUST guideline (vote changed MegaSloth (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)) Page moves are to be guided in the first instance by policy and guidelines, and WP:NCAUST seems both highly pertinent to this article and unambiguous in its support of removing the qualifier in conjunction with WP:PRECISE; "the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name" and "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". The example Sydney is cited. People who oppose this move need to show why we should apply WP:IAR here or influence a change to the current guideline, rather than relying on personal taste alone. MegaSloth (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Sydney is a world famous city, similar to the USPLACE exceptions of the AP_Stylebook. Nobody introduces “Sydney, NSW” like they do for country towns, where the state is an integral part of the character. Proponents for change need IAR, for the status quo see TITLECHANGES. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCAUST. Dohn joe (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NCAUST says no such thing. In fact it says nothing at all to this beyond acknowledging the status quo. The results of this discussion have been disregarded dishonestly by many. Sydney, Australia, is a worldwide famous city and is not a good example. Lesser known towns in Australia are always comma disambiguated except in local sources. Australian places were very consistent and recognisable for a long time until people ignore reader considered and started sneaky moves to remove comma state. They should all be moved back. I challenge again to all supporting, what reader advantage to the minimalists’ title give? Why do you not care for consistency, consistency with other places, and consistency with the real world? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note the discussion you cite was closed as hung in 2010. How much weight are we supposed to continue to give it? If you are still dissatisfied with the guidelines and the examples they give, i suggest that if there is no intervening discussion, sufficient time has now passed to have a new discussion on the issue. MegaSloth (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed. The answer is WP:TITLECHANGES. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the current discussion, see Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Suggestion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is now a central discussion on changing the guidelines, which currently looks like it will succeed, I have changed my vote to wait for the outcome of that discussion. MegaSloth (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The conversation linked above is one of many. Long-standing consensus has been that if an article was created with the short name, it could be left there, but articles with the state as a qualifying term in the title should not be moved. A small number of users refuse to accept this and occasionally pop up, move a few articles or attempt to make an innocuous tweak to the guideline to bolster their next attempt. --Scott Davis Talk 11:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:NCAUST. Clear case of unnecessary disambiguation which is misleading because it wrongly implies that there are other comparably notable topics named "Alonnah" when there are not. Long-standing consensus that favors leaving this here is misguided. Besides, NCAUST explicitly allows it. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • NCAUST does not advocate this change, but for maintaining the status quo, per the original article writer. PRECISE says nothing here. The current is the COMMONNANE, CONSISTENT with standard town and city naming across all the English speaking ex colonies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - As pointed out by the nom Alonnah redirects here. It's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and including "'Tasmania"" is unnecessary disambiguation. I actually prefer disambiguation for these articles but Wikiedia doesn't mandate disambiguation. That said WP:ATDAB does say With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire (see Geographic names). so disambiguation here seems acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And that specifies that it is generally commas if needed, but disambiguation is not needed here, similar to Ramsholt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Alonnah, Tasmania, is not like Ramsholt. Towns of the colonies were usually named after European places or people, or from something taken from the local native language, and so it was always standard to introduce them with the state, nation, province or some form of region name. And this continues. This is not so for towns in the old country. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alonnah,_Tasmania&oldid=1198479927"