Talk:Perth

	Perth Meetup Next: 3 December 2023 (watch) Last: 22 July 2023 Other events: WikiClubWest events were suspended due to COVID-19; future events may or may not be subject to restrictions.
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Perth Residents are known as:

Sandgropers... Never heard of Perthsiders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.99.245 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandgropers are people from WA (not necessarily Perth) according to SOED 6th ed, 2007, and Macquarie Dictionary 2nd ed, 1991. I've not heard the term "Perthsiders" before (I've lived in Perth all my life), but I have heard "Sydneysiders" (used by people in Perth), so it doesn't surprise me if people in the eastern states refer to "Perthsiders". A google search for perthsiders turns up 269 hits, vs 231,000 for sydneysider. Both aforementioned dictionaries include "Sydneysider", but neither has "Perthsider". (SOED doesn't include "Perth" at all, but it does list Sydney: "Used attrib. to designate things from or associated with Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, Australia". Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A demonym isn't really used for Perth people - we had this discussion before and "Perthites" seems to be the agreed upon term, but it's only ever used colloquially or in jest. Orderinchaos 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always used/heard "Perthian". 10800 hits on Google (Perthite results are corrupted by some sort of mineral...) Metao (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course Wikipedia has an article - OK, a redirect - on at least some things: Sydneysider, Perthsider, Perthite?!. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of "Perthsider", sounds like a drink to me though ;), Agree with Orderinchaos. Bidgee (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm born and raised in Perth but am currently living in Sydney, I've heard people say Perthsiders here, but never heard it when I was still living in Perth. I've also never heard of sandgropers. 210.84.59.222 (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate vandalism

222.154.124.247 has been frequently vandalising the climate section. It hasn't gotten too out of hand so far, but if it continues, maybe semi-protecting the page could help? Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal is now blocked. –Moondyne 02:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine

Resolved

 – Apparent vandalism reverted. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, new editer (sic) here. I love how someone has said Perth is also known as the yellow submarine, but I suspect it is untrue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.245.225 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Governance

Nearly all of the information in the 'Governance' section is about WA governance, not about Perth or its local council (which is what I was looking for). This information should be moved to WA or if already duplicated there deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneedy (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for information on Perth local council, try City of Perth or Perth, Western Australia (suburb). Hope you can find what you are looking for. IgnorantArmies 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pruning needed?

The article was already becoming overblown before someone started adding large pics (admittedly quite good ones). We now have a jumbled collection of pics in clashing sizes and formats, some of which are unnecessary. I suggest we cut down on the bandwidth and maybe lump the best of the pet images into a gallery. Any thoughts? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest removing:

(From montage in info box)

• Sunset at City Beach - not recognisably Perth (could be anywhere)
• Black swan and family by the Swan River - There are better pics of the city and river. If we specifically want a picture of swans, find a better one.
• the city skyline from Kings Park - there are other/better ones
• Sorrento Beach - not particularly notable
• Parliament House - it's duplicated further down

(From article body)

• One of the two large consecutive pics in Perth, Western Australia#Central business district. (And yes, I know I did move them together!)

I also suggest keeping only the most recent of the Perth CBD/skyline pictures. But perhaps we should move the others into History of Perth, Western Australia or similar. A list of consecutive pictures showing the development of the CBD/skyline over time would be interesting and informative - but it needs to be in the correct place, and formatted appropriately (so as not to clutter or force the reader to scroll past them unnecessarily). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions - Anything that is not cbd Perth should be removed without further discussion IMHO SatuSuro 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Mitch. Disagree about "not CBD Perth" as this article is about the metro, but only a handful of the pictures are non-local. A photo of either Scarborough or Cottesloe, a photo of the Perth Hills, an aerial shot of the metro if we have one, and a really good one of the CBD skyline from either South Perth or Kings Park would work without being overly cluttered. If you look at postcards for sale in the City, that's the kind of range they have. Orderinchaos 04:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree to disagree - even if the article is about metro perth - back to the way I read Mitch's list - less photos and only very good quality if need be - it would almost be an idea to have separate articles for CBD perth, and Metro Perth - conflating the two can be deceptive and misleading - unless the main article clearly separates the spread - I dont see why the spread should be utilised by photos- the article itself should make that clear SatuSuro 05:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"... separate articles ..." - perhaps someone should create a Perth, Western Australia (disambiguation) page. :-) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perth, Scotland is an former capital of a once independent country. It was been an important administrative centre since the eighth century. A modern population of 44,000 is not insignificant. It should comfortably win the long term significance test. Perth, Western Australia is an international city which is probably more notable in terms of usage. I still think the current disambiguation page setup is most appropriate here. Moondyne (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (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: pages moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I will update the hatnote to include a direct link to the location in Scotland, so that readers seeking that will still be the same one-click from it. Both have long-term significance, but the readership usage does indicate a better efficient arrangement by putting the Australian city at the base name, and being the namesake is not one of the primary topic criteria (which also leads to the arrangement of places like Boston). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed to no consensus. Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close. Discussion has clearly yielded no consensus nor has it revealed any clear policy application. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My closing comments were not a vote, but a summary of the applicable guidelines brought up in the discussion. If you ignore WP:NOTVOTE and simply count heads, yes, there appears to be no consensus, but if you read the text and discard the ones that do not line up with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:RMCI), there move was indicated. You should have gotten an uninvolved admin to review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

J, there is indisputably no consensus on the discussion; that's not "head-counting", that's reading the discussion. "Consensus" is not a synonym for "something I agree with", it is a state of agreement/disagreement. If you wanted to express your opinion on the topic like you've done, you should be taking part in the discussion, not closing (as it stands you've made no reference to the discussion you implicitly claim to have read). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive 755#Perth to ask that the original closure be restored, and then any editor who wishes can take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

D, there is only disputably no consensus in the discussion, and I dispute it after sifting the !votes through relevant guidelines and policies. You are a member of the Scotland Wikiproject and not impartial. Search for "PRIMARYTOPIC", "primary", "usage", "significance", and "namesake" in the discussion below to see the parts that I made reference to in my closing comments. the proper reference to the "primary topic" guidelines. I have no connection to Australia or its project, and some MacAdams ancestry, so any partiality I have (other than towards Wikipedia guidelines) would have been opposite the close I made. "A close I don't agree with" is not a synonym for "not impartial". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• Perth, Western Australia → Perth
• Perth → Perth (disambiguation)

– With no disrespect to Scotland, the Australian Perth is pretty clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for international name recognition outside of Australia or Scotland. Although mere size is not a conclusive indicator, Perth in Australia has a population of 1.74 million; Perth in Scotland has a population of 45,000. This move would be consistent with, for instance, Boston in Massachusetts being the primary topic in preference to its namesake Boston, Lincolnshire.

Of course, there would be a hatnote at the top of Perth to make readers aware of Perth (disambiguation), in the usual manner.

Note: Perth, Western Australia (disambiguation) could be merged into the new Perth (disambiguation) as part of this move; currently Perth (disambiguation) is just a redirect to Perth. The recent resolution of the move of Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas (in preference to having Las Vegas be a disambiguation page with Las Vegas Strip and other choices) could perhaps serve as a model here. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC). P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is no good reason to remove the current disambiguation page, which works quite well. There are too many different Perths, and both “main” Perths have an equal claim to fame, despite the population difference. RGloucester (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I have always felt that the current situation does not reflect the importance of the Australian Perth - and not just because I live there. Perth is the capital of a state, has a population of almost 2 million, is the headquarters of several major companies and home to the world's richest woman, has a significant net migration rate from the UK in general so that in the other one's home region, "Perth" more often than not means the Western Australian one, and even in Scottish terms, has over 20,000 people born in Scotland as at the 2006 census. I don't think the claims held on the primary name by the Scottish Perth match up, and the other Perths beyond the two discussed have no claim at all. Orderinchaos 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I'm inclined to support the move, but I'd like to see some concrete evidence that Perth WA article is the primary topic, and that it meets the criteria described in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As a resident of Perth WA, I'm the first to admit that my perception of its primacy is likely to be biased. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  One of the criteria suggested at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is Wikipedia traffic statistics, as provided by http://stats.grok.se/ . As of today, this shows that the Perth, Western Australia article has been viewed 7 times more often than the Perth, Scotland article in the month of May 2012. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. It does appear that the one on the west coast of Australia is most prominent of the choices. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - using the criteria from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

-Incoming wikilinks from mainspace - Perth, Western Australia 7822 vs Perth, Scotland 1550

-Page view stats - Perth, Western Australia 74747 vs Perth, Scotland 10828 (May 2012)

-Google search (with personal search options deactivated) - search for "Perth -Scotland" 383m results vs "Perth -Australia" 188m results.

The google results aren't really that scientific but the internal stats are very clearly in favour of Perth, Western Australia being the primary topic. Hack (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm. As a Perth-based editor I'm not sure I want to comment on this just yet. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "[t]here are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is". I've posted a message on the noticeboards for WikiProject Scotland and WikiProject WA, but I hope this discussion won't degenerate into an Australia vs Scotland thing as previous move discussions at Talk:Perth seem to have done. I♦A 09:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous lengthy discussions at Talk:Perth/Archive 1 - PRIMARYTOPIC provides no clear justification for such a move. Re "I hope this discussion won't degenerate..." I wonder why this discussion has been re-started here rather than at Talk:Perth - not exactly an action rooted in diplomacy or good faith. Ben MacDui 09:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I guess you just failed to assume good faith to P.T. Aufrette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom is an Canadian. Bidgee (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• The origins of the author or authors concerned are irrelevant - it is the attempt gain an advantage that I am objecting to. Whether or not this was conscious is of course an unknown and it is the action rather than the intention that I am offering a critique of. Are you suggesting that this is the appropriate place to raise the discussion? Ben MacDui 10:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The section at WP:RM regarding controversial moves suggests that the discussion be at the talk page of the article being moved. Hack (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Perth (Western Australia) is clearly the primary topic, the consensus at Talk:Perth/Archive 1 is over six years old and can't see the issue in having a fresh discussion and it doesn't have to be done at Talk:Perth. Bidgee (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are two major guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which deal with usage and long term significance, traffic and links are not criteria, just a way of trying to judge these, and obviously lean to the first one. It seems to me that a given the disparity in the length of existence of different places with the name, a single primary use is pretty unlikely to emerge and that a disambiguation page is the best and most workable solution. Determining the primary topic here is not a comparison between the one in Scotland and the one in W. Australia, but, in the terms framed, between finding the one in Western Austria and everything else and that is a strong argument for keeping the existing pattern. As to where this discussion is located: it makes very little sense to have it here, which is not the primary article on which a decision will have an impact. It is also likely to impact on the balance of the responses (although I appreciate the spreading of links by one editor once the discussion here had begun). Think about how that might look if the nature of a disam page were being conducted on the Perth, Scotland page. That doesn't assume bad faith, but it remains an issue.--SabreBD (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves. Under the guidelines, this discussion can't be hosted at Talk:Perth, Scotland because that page would not be renamed under this proposal. I put notifications at Talk:Perth (automatically done by the bot, actually), Talk:Perth, Scotland, Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board (manually a few minutes later). I don't follow the reasoning of your last four sentences at all. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Perth would have been more neutral. Several previous move discussions and comments at Talk:Perth/Archive 1. Moondyne (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I want suggesting this should be at Perth, Scotland, but at Perth.--SabreBD (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As per previous debates. There is no way of determining primary topic here, it just depends on which part of the globe you're sitting on. Come on folks, there are more pressing issue that re-opening this particular debate. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As it says for usage "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". If it is only 7 times as many page hits, that is not "much more likely". --Vclaw (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment but that was for the month. Perth, Western Australia has had 258,480 views in the past 90 days and is ranked at 4,100 but Perth, Scotland has only had 44,995 views in the last 90 days and isn't ranked. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The 90-day ratio is skewed because there was a big spike in traffic to Perth, Scotland around March 13. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A ratio of 7 to 1 arguably does qualify as "much more likely". Compare London to London, Ontario with a ratio of "only" about 13 to 1, although London, UK is one of the world's truly major cities, perhaps even in the top ten. Yet how many of you who aren't Canadian had ever heard of London, Ontario? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. (For the record, I've been to London, Ontario :P Nice place.) Orderinchaos 01:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perth, Scotland is an former capital of a once independent country. It was been an important administrative centre since the eighth century. A modern population of 44,000 is not insignificant. It should comfortably win the long term significance test. Perth, Western Australia is an international city which is probably more notable in terms of usage. I still think the current disambiguation page setup is most appropriate here. Moondyne (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So every former capital is the primary topic? (such as every single city state in history? ) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support; the city in Australia is both more important globally and far more often sought by readers. Powers ^T 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see what's wrong with the current disamb system. Perth, Australia has more hits and more traffic, as it's high population and famous city. I don't quite agree that it completely meets the two main criteria in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - I think Perth, Scotland is pretty significant too, and has high educational value. As said, I think the current disamb set up works best. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Close as out of process - this discussion is quite clearly taking place in the wrong place. As another User said above: "Think about how that might look if the nature of a disam page were being conducted on the Perth, Scotland page." Well, quite! --Mais oui! (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The disambiguation page has been properly notified. Look at Talk:Perth where this discussion is indicated. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps this discussion should be on the dab page, but coming from the US, the Australian Perth is clearly dominant. I doubt one person in a thousand here has even heard of the Scottish city, but most people know the Australian one. I'd have to say "Perth, Scotland" just as I would "Paris, Texas". If I told people I was "going to Perth", there would be no misunderstanding of where I was going. That pretty much defines primary topic. — kwami (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Orderinchaos, Hack, et al. Looking at the criteria, the West Australian city is clear primary topic, and I do believe that a 7:1 ratio meets the "much more likely" criterion. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the article readership statistics; this is clearly what most readers expect to see when they search for 'Perth' Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I'd have to agree with most of the points raised in the above arguements (supporting the request), in that Perth, Western Australia is the primary place when anyone is undertaking a search of Perth.Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty clear-cut case of primary topic here, borne out by page views, links, web searches, etc. Dohn joe (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing in the stats has changed appreciably since the last proposed move. Disambiguation is fine. - Mark 12:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support For a number of reasons the Australian city is now primary. PatGallacher (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with supported stats. Zarcadia (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. By far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've taken my time considering this, being Perth, WA born and bred. But I think Moondyne, a fellow local summed it up best (noting that many of the supports are also locals). Long term significance should sometimes take precedence over google hits or number of links. I think the fact that the WA Perth took it's name from the Scottish one makes it a draw in terms of importance, so the current situation of disambiguate all is best. The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Does the mere fact of being a namesake really satisfy the "long-term significance" criterion? I am not saying there are no other arguments in favour of Perth, Scotland; only that you have not made any, above. In any case, Boston is a counterexample, since Boston USA took its name from Boston, Lincolnshire, yet Boston is not a disambiguation page. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Even after all the arguments are considered (and most of them are special pleading), the fact still remains that by reasonable measure the Western Australian city is quite clearly the primary topic. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Thinking about it over the last few days and looking at the points raised here, it seems clear that "Perth, Western Australia" is the primary topic. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose firstly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isnt necessarily very good at defining the primary topic where there is dispute hence the compromise of disambiguation. The only way to utilise a google type search to define primary usage would be to enter just Perth then list the 200,000,000 hits and sort by location, even that is skewed by population base, media base, and other usage factors all while ignoring other non web sources. As for WP page hits, bots can skew that, the most reliable would be to find where people go after landing at Perth. No matter what statistical metric you choose there are ways to question its accuracy and challenge its validity. Take for example the most(IMHO) recognisable city of Washington even that has the disambiguation of Washington, D.C.. Personally when you think of cities around the world that are automatically(80-90%) associated with a country just by name Perth isnt one of them, most people will arrive at about 30 cities fairly easily and be able to expand that to 50-60 in a short time even if you set yourself a target of 100 I doubt that Perth would be one of them. The very fact that for the last 10 years a clear consensus of primary usage has never been achieved is enough to demonstrate that Perth, Western Australia couldnot be defined as the primary usage. As a Western Australian Perth, Western Australia is the defining term not Perth to me Perth is the CBD, Perth Western Australia is the City. Gnangarra 10:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Just watched a TV show about Perth, Scotland, clearly a historically significant place, but I was extremely surprised to find Perth, WA was not being treated as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Oosh (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As someone commented in 2004 on this worn-out emotional debate, "Let's shake hands and move on to more productive work." Long live the separate and distinct glories and prides of Perth, Scotland and Perth, Western Australia! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  Many current users of Wikipedia were not even around in 2004. You do not really present an argument, other than indirectly implying that national pride would be wounded by determination of a primary topic, as though it were some kind of perceived "demotion". I would hope that this current discussion would not be viewed in that light, or in emotional terms. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  Its something that been discussed many times over the last 10 years, there has never been a definitive resolution to identify the primary topic. This isnt about national pride, even now its clear that many people irregardless of where they live/born/work/sleep have differing opinions given that division the status quo should remain. Gnangarra 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Australian city clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jevansen (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Obvious first-name familiarity, Perth WA is clearly the more internationally recognisable of the two. Alishakitty (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• NB Suspicious account. This is user's eighth edit to Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• oppose per Moondyne & the-Pope. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - probably worth closing this as no consensus is likely. Hack (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Bjenks (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (and agree with those calling for closure). The very fact that we keep discussing this demonstrates that there is no consensus as to a primary topic. --Deskford (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As it seems to be running fairly close to 50/50, I'd tend to agree with this, in spite of the fact that I feel many of the opposes are on grounds which are entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Orderinchaos 23:17, 8 June 2012 (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.

You have got to be kidding!--SabreBD (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There's no way that you could look this over and come to the conclusion that Wikipedia editors involved in this topic are generally of the opinion that it should be moved. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Status Quo

I have return all pages back to the status quo prior to the closure of the RM by JHunterJ this is after waiting for a response from JHUnterJ who in this edit said that because it had been reverse he coudlnt do any more[1] I take that as being JhunterJ isnt interested in discussing the matter and was happy that the reversal had occur. No other discussion has taken place to indicate otherwise an An/I discussion has shown that this isnt an uncommon response to such matters. At this stage I suggest a new discussion over who to ditinguish the primary topic be started rather than another RM. Gnangarra 07:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Disregarding anything else surrounding the move request, the diff you provided doesn't, in my opinion, support your claims that JHunterJ is disinterested in discussing the matter – I took it to mean that he did not need to revert his own actions, as they had already been reverted for him. I don't like the way this move has been handled by either side. In fact, moving the page back to what you call the status quo (not saying that I don't agree with you) smacks of WP:WHEEL-warring. I think establishing a provisional article title, and then WP:MOVProtecting the article subject to further discussion, would be an appropriate course of action (with emphasis on the discussion, through whichever channel that may occur). I♦A 09:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Talk:Perth now redirects here, when previously it had a long discussion page (edit history is blank). Has this just been deleted, or archived somewhere I haven't noticed, or...? never mind... I♦A 09:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This was really, really poor judgment on Gnangarra's part. You claim to have waited for a response from JHunterJ, but his user page indicates he's in Ohio, USA. He probably just called it a night. On the basis of that single 12-word sentence (made at 11:08 pm, his local time), you not only claim that "he also question his decision"[2] but you also claim your actions were "per discussion at closing admin talk page"[3]. It was nothing of the sort, not even in a remotely ambiguous way. JHunterJ simply pointed out to you that the course of action you were urging on him had already been preempted by someone else. That's all. Reading anything else into it was at best highly wishful thinking, and at that, only if we accept good faith on your part. This now goes well beyond the initial proposed move, it's a question of how some admins are conducting themselves. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• • JhunterJ response was to say his moves were reversed and he had no further interest nor any concern about the reversal, in fact he hasnt at any stage defended his closure nor explained how he could attest to there being any consensus. Gnangarra 11:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think personalities need to be ignored here - what's done is done, the end result was correct by whatever means it was ultimately reached, and that was a no consensus close. That was the only safe action for a closing admin to take given the above. (A correspondent has suggested privately that 19:13 is not that close - in good faith I will strike but leave my previous assessment.) An actual count of votes narrowly favours moving the article (19 support to 13 oppose, ignoring the one suspicious vote near the end), and this to me suggests that the status quo is on shaky ground, but that more adequate discussion is called for to sort out what to do in the future, otherwise we'll end up with a slow-motion RM war between two established WikiProjects which benefits neither of them nor Wikipedia as a whole. I am grateful to the mover, and to those who voted and commented above, for taking the time to bring this issue closer to resolution. One interesting thing that's come out is that while some wanting to keep it where it is have reasonable grounds for making that judgement, others have not really advanced an argument of any kind at all beyond "it's been there for years". If AfD rules were applied (noting that this is not an AfD), many of those would be able to be ignored by the closing admin in coming to a decision. Orderinchaos 11:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sad to see who this ended up and makes me feel sick that I had added my support. I think that this is another case of no consensus, therefore disambiguation remains the same. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said on JHunterJ's talk page, I think that for PRIMARYTOPIC argument, if it isn't obvious to virtually everyone that there is a single primary topic then disambiguating all is the obvious answer. And I do feel a bit aggrieved that my (and others) oppose votes are being disregarded as "not per policy", "wanting the status quo" or "it's a namesake" reasons, when it was clearly giving the "long-term significance" section of primary topic guideline equal or greater weighting than the usage section. IMO, Perth, Scotland has similar long-term significance as Perth, WA, or more precisely, Perth WA does not have much more long-term significance than Scotland, which would be required to make it the Primary Topic. If we took usage as the main decision, then you better go and explain that to WP:CRICKET in respect to Talk:Bill O'Reilly. The-Pope (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my "oppose" vote didn't sufficiently explain my position. I assumed that anyone closing this move discussion would consider it in the context of previous proposed move discussions which have taken place. - Mark 12:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Orderinchaos: you are an admin, yet from your comments above you seem oblivious to WP:NOTVOTE. That is disappointing. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just speaking with Gnangarra (we hold opposing views on this discussion but are friends offline) and I think the best way forward is an RfC to look at the various arguments for and against in a less heated way, and hopefully attract the attention of some neutrals so that the end conclusion isn't seen or thought of as based on a national contest. Orderinchaos 12:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. This really isn't an issue which people should get worked up about, and therefore it's strange to read the above. - Mark 13:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Its weird and such a waste of time - RfC - go get it! (maybe primarytopic could be given the boot as well) SatuSuro 13:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is material for an RfC. Gnangarra would normally be sanctioned for wheel-warring for doing what he did. See WP:WHEELWAR, which says: "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." In his edit summaries, Gnangarra simply invented the existence of a discussion, all based on a single 12-word sentence from JHunterJ. I believe he did so deceptively in order to carry out his action while still escaping sanction for wheelwarring, and I believe he should not escape such sanction.

There are a number of "exceptional circumstances" listed on the WHEELWAR page, but "the end justifies the means" isn't one of them; that is, even if the community consensus in the final analysis were to agree with Gnangarra's position on the issue that triggered the wheel war. Nor is there any clause that justifies the wheelwarring action if the opposing administrator, after the fact, simply throws up his hands in disgust and wants to forget about the whole matter. Based on the available evidence, Gnangarra carried out the third revert by an administrator without any actual discussion at all.

Note that WP:WHEELWAR says "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration." So it may be more serious than a mere RfC. Gnangarra needs a rap on the knuckles and a formal reminder that his conduct has fallen short of what would be expected from an administrator. PS, this part is not about the original WP:RM anymore, so if replying to this please avoid rehashing that original issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHEELWAR also says "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." I'm not sure why you are singling Gnangarra out here when the first wheel warring seems to have been done by User:Kwamikagami. "With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus." Why are we pointing fingers here? Gnangarra's reversion came in the context of ongoing discussions about the appropriateness of the original administrative action. - Mark 14:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) was the first to revert another administrator with no discussion at all, either at the other administrator's talk page or anywhere else. His very first action was moving the article back [4], followed a few minutes later by his after-the-fact justification at this talk page.[5] But Gnangarra's action was particularly egregious, because it occurred at a late stage when the wheel war should have been cooling down rather than being perpetuated, and because his edit summary deceptively invoked a non-existent discussion with JHunterJ, as JHunterJ himself has now confirmed.[6] The latter point is especially important because the core definition of wheel-warring involves an admin reverting another admin without discussing with him/her first. Gnangarra tried to get away with doing something that he knew he should not have done. Anyways, this will almost certainly go to an Rf-something-or-other, and will be sorted out there. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted. the closure was disputed there was no clear support for the closure and the admin closing had dismissed further discussion by saying You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me, by which its clear the admin had no issue with a reversal. Gnangarra 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ has already told you some time ago, directly on your talk page, that your (claimed) interpretation of his statement is false. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:WHEELWAR, your interpretation above (that User:Deacon of Pndapetzim commenced the wheel warring) is wrong. Reverting a disputed admin action is not wheel warring - it is the person who subsequently reverts back who is wheel warring. - Mark 14:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

In the process of the above moves and counter-moves the archive file Talk:Perth/Archive 1, which I think included the previous discussions, appears to have been deleted and replaced with a redirect to Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 1. Can an administrator please restore it? (Or if I'm looking in the wrong place, can someone please point me to the previous discussions?) --Deskford (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Found it: it's at Talk:Perth (disambiguation)/Archive 1, which now appears to be orphaned. Can this be moved to Talk:Perth/Archive 1? I'm relunctant to try in case I create even more of a tangled mess. --Deskford (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I was wondering where that had got to, too. - Mark 13:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Deskford (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review

The Wikipedia:Move review process (formerly titled Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review) now appears ready to be tried, after a flurry of recent refinements and a title change. Does anyone who contests the original requested move closure by JHunterJ wish to step forward and initiate a move review?

Anyone interested can consult the talk page or contact Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) or the other editors who have been putting some finishing touches on the move review procedure.

This move review would take place under the exceptional circumstance that the current status of the move is already reversed, in the wake of a wheel war. The normal procedure would be for the review to take place first. The wheel war itself is likely to be the subject of an RfC or RfArb, but in the meantime we should try to clarify and straighten out the original WP:RM and its closure.

Let's try to get a useful and promising resolution process off to a good start. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

its tagged with {{proposal}} and a note 'After this has been better developed, a straw poll will be used to see if there is consensus to bring this to the wider community for adoption. so its not ready. Gnangarra 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, what's your proposal to resolve the contention over the original move closure? Which forum or which dispute resolution mechanism should be used? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The matter was brought to ANI at the time and the it did not get much traction like in past cases where a RM had gone seriously wrong and someone simply corrected it. Agathoclea (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I brought it to ANI already and it was closed there with the suggestion that it was not the right forum. So if Gnangarra, as the creator of the current status quo that resulted from a wheel war, rejects Move review, and ANI has already been ruled out, then what mechanism does he suggest to arrive at a final resolution? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You overlook the fact that the wheelwaring began with restoring JHunter's close. The previous was a revert. You can do two things - gauge consensus by re-reading the various discussions to see if JHunters close has the remotest chance of sticking or (an issue that needs addressing anyway) get consensus that the move review process can be applied to moves prior to its inception. From what I have been reading on the various discussions around RM that might even bring a few more of JHunters moves on the table. The interesting thing about this case is that while people depending on which part of the world they are in have a preverence of what they perceive as the primary topic there most have come to accept that there will never be a real consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overlooking, I'm just trying to draw out from Gnangarra (who is here, posting in this section) how he proposes to move forward from here. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating an ArbCom case proposal seems a rather odd way of "drawing out" communication. The question you are asking was answered 20 hours ago: [7] Orderinchaos 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom case is about the wheel-warring that occurred after the original move closure, its scope does not include resolving the contentious move closure situation itself. More importantly, even if we were to let the matter drop, how will things be handled the next time there is a contentious move request closure? It would be useful to have some mechanism like Wikipedia:Move review in place. Or if not that, what alternative do you suggest? That is the only thing I am trying to "draw out" in this talk page section. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about reviewing it. Firstly - a fifth admin getting involved is likely to end up part of the ArbCom case, and secondly - we might end up with a slow-burn RM war between two WikiProjects that have no other reason to have animosity with each other. On the other side - we have a process for establishing opinion on these things, people spoke up, and an outcome was judged by the first (neutral) admin to have been reached. Accepting what has happened since risks setting a precedent that closes only need to be abided by if they meet with the approval of individual admins (whether for or against the move) - every admin involved thereafter was in some way non-neutral as to what the outcome should be, even though I believe they all acted in good faith - one to unset what they felt was a wrong close, another to enforce the original move, and another to return to status quo so discussion could be had. I've sought advice off neutral admins who I trust, with no links to either place, but who don't want to get publicly involved in the matter especially now that it's gone to ArbCom, and they are supporting the original close. The difficulty is that Move Review seems to be a new and untested forum and is unlikely to produce an outcome all parties can accept; RfC is slow, drawn out and tends to get buried in words rather quickly; it's not within ArbCom's scope to review content matters; AN/I has already said no; and like I said, a fifth admin opting to enforce the original close would risk coming under the purview of the case. Really don't know what the best way forward is. Orderinchaos 19:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all RfCs get buried in words. Maybe we can have a streamlined one. Or another move request, but that might be a bit unproductive. Powers ^T 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Urm WTF! While I supported the move, I can not get over the fact that a process (move review) that does not have community consensus has over turned the status-quo! Sorry but the move was bullshite! There is no consensus! Bidgee (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really makes much difference that move review doesn't have consensus or is otherwise not "official". What matters is that a robust discussion that was adequately advertised took place. It could have been here in the form of anther RM or RfC, at ANI, WT:RM, etc; I don't think it makes too much difference. The point is it was discussed. You may disagree with the closure of that discussion or how it was closed, or any of a number of other things that happened here, but I don't think Move Review's status has anything to do with anything. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Erm?

What's wrong with ditching the above jargonisms and just letting it go to where it should be at a DAB page? Storm in a teacup, this one's happened countless times on this subject since I joined WP whenever it was. Brendandh (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Too late - the teacup has been totally destroyed and the over-large wheels of bureaucracy have gone beyond what could have been a simple trout slap (imho in all directions) and it has developed into scapegoating and idiocy... what an incredible waste of time and energy SatuSuro 00:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In firm agreement with Satu here. While I disagreed with the way people acted, it should never have ended at ArbCom within 24 hours - we have a long history of tolerating differences of opinion and working together constructively in spite of them. I would feel differently if actual damage had been done to anything more than a few egos. In reality what we have is the status quo, and something of a stalemate for which a solution needs to be brokered, and bureaucracy only gets in the way of that. Orderinchaos 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed that this has ended up at ArbCom and also disappointed with myself for supporting the move since I feel responsible for this mess but in the future it has me opposing such move. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think if the end result of this situation is people voting strategically rather than what they think, then we've all lost, regardless of the outcome. Orderinchaos 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reason it ended up at ArbCom is because of wording in policy that indicates wheel warring is grounds for immediate arbitration. Quite frankly, I'm surprised ArbCom is accepting the case. In any case, the only lesson we should take from it is that wheel warring is bad, not that any particular category of move request is bad. Powers ^T 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty fair assessment. Orderinchaos 14:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever it comes from, and I cannot be arsed looking through the geek-entrails of the chat on about 8 pages so far, this move stinks. Perth is a name used by a city in Scotland that used to be its Capital, and a city in Australia that was named for it, and a few other places too. Some c*** tried to do something similar with Hamilton in Ontario, and Hamilton, Scotland a couple of years ago too. All I have to say is Balls to it. (there's a dab page there too!) This type of absolute twattery is the sort of thing that makes half way useful editors decide to hang their hats and say byebye to the whole thing. Good Show, well done, clap...clap...clap...clap...&c,&c,&c..... Brendandh (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not, not related to Move, Move review or Arb Com case, but something else

The most isolated capital city in the world has be reinstated by a single edit IP - it floats in and out of the lead para like... (well the possible metaphors are endless) - I am asking local informed editors - any idea who might have a WP:RS or where or how the reasonable basis for the claim might be verified (or not) ? SatuSuro 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement really doesn't belong in the article, let alone the lead, without a reliable source and, I'm guessing, a few caveats (the most isolated capital city of a first-level administrative subdivision with a population of over one million people, perhaps?) I'm going to WP:BOLDly remove it. On a slightly related topic, the article's lead is a mess. Two sentences are devoted to an obscure nickname, and the rest hardly does an adequate job of summing up the article (culture, sport, demographics, transport, economy...) I♦A 11:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ, and can imagine your reversion will be re-reverted some time - I was asking for any ideas of where it came from - not the squashing it... if it is either a piece of folklore (I know they take on lives of their own) or something that was established - I was hoping if it was a wait and see item (not a bold item) - somebody, in time might remember why or how the claim evolved. As for the article lead para - (nothing related to the Move and Arb com issues) - I would think that cleaning up the article is always on the books... SatuSuro 11:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Auckland, per Extreme_points_of_Earth#Remoteness. Nuke this folklore. Moondyne (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the answer - that was all i was originally asking... SatuSuro 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

• Perth → Perth, Western Australia
• Perth, Scotland → Perth, Perthshire
• Perth (disambiguation) → Perth

– As per rather a lot of the above, and some very hasty recent closures. I'm called John, you're called John, who's the biggest Johnny etc.? Brendandh (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)