Talk:Doomadgee, Queensland

Australia: Places / Queensland / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Doomadgee, Queensland is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Queensland may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Relocation

Nicholson River is two states, and several thousand miles away. This 'fact' needs checking. DermottBanana (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternatively, there are two Nicholson Rivers in Australia.[1]. I will fix the link. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know where to put it, but this article comes across as biased in favour of the Queensland government. It makes no mention of the problems in the town (http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/doomadgee/video.htm) etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.42.187 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doomadgee, Queensland → Doomadgee – Redirect from name without precision to name with it. 217.117.125.83 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is probably okay per WP:NCAUST~~, I just noticed that there are a lot of similar cases under Category:Towns in Queensland (and probably other states) we might want to look at. It seems like we are using "place, state" pretty consistently ASUKITE 14:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Having just noticed Talk:Goulburn,_New_South_Wales#Requested_move_4_May_2022, it seems there is at least a bit of controversy to this topic, with one editor suggesting changes to WP:NCAUST might be worth looking into. There might be just enough controversy that we should hold off on this. ASUKITE 16:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering if there's a case for Doomadgee being a DAB page, given that there's this locality, the Aboriginal Shire of Doomadgee, Doomadgee Airport, Doomadgee Mission (currently in this article but which may be hived off into its own article at some point) and Cameron Doomadgee. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear PRIMARYTOPIC for which the base name is already a PRIMARYREDIRECT so this would be mitigation of unnecessary disambiguation. None of the other uses listed above are of just the base name and there is no evidence any of them are commonly known as just Doomadgee like this locality is. Regarding other localities in Australia that include the state in their respective article titles, the state is the natural disambiguator whenever disambiguation is necessary. The number of those is irrelevant. When we disambiguate we are indicating there are other uses of that name, and this disambiguated one is not primary. That’s misleading. —В²C ☎ 06:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looking at Category:Towns in Queensland, the proportion of titles that require the state name is overwhelming, seemingly ~90% or more. When a clarifier like this is needed for such a vast majority of titles within a set, it's better for the naming convention to apply it to all in the interests of consistency, predictability, etc. As such, the guidance in NCAUST for unambiguous placenames needs to be revisited. (Consensus has strongly favored similar convention changes elsewhere.) ╠╣uw [talk] 12:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re conflating a consensus in favor of removing an explicit requirement to avoid disambiguating in these situations as redundant to what WP:CRITERIA and WP:D already requires, with a consensus favoring disambiguation in these situations. —В²C ☎ 15:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not conflating them, just noting that using geographical clarifiers beyond what's strictly required for title disambiguation is something we do... and that amending naming conventions accordingly is something that's gained strong support elsewhere. It's reasonable to consider the same here. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that amending geographical naming conventions to say that has not occurred except for US states where the argument that the COMMONNAME of even uniquely named cities includes the state prevailed. —В²C ☎ 20:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - It wasn't just COMMONNAME. As often noted, "Always appending the state produces a consistent and predictable set of titles." Again, I think it's reasonable to consider something similar here. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The minority contingent is always there for whom consistency even in the face of misleading unnecessary disambiguation is enough. But for consensus it’s not enough. To get that consensus for US cities the COMMONNAME argument had to be used. —В²C ☎ 22:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        My view doesn't satisfy you and I get that. Let's let it rest. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Just looking for mutual understanding so we know what we’re agreeing to disagree about. I understand your view. I also know it doesn’t reflect consensus. I wish you would stop pretending it does. —В²C ☎ 23:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If I, as a non-Queenslander, see the term "Doomadgee", I think 2004 Palm Island death in custody (which made national news and controversy for years) rather than a small town on the other side of Queensland. There's no evidence that the town is the primary topic at all beyond a couple of people with a reflexive dislike of states in town article titles, and even the nominator didn't suggest that it was. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All Australian towns and cities are better named with comma state suffixation. Better for readers, which is far more important than convoluted back room culture. Without comma state, it looks like it is not a populated place. The redirect is the weakest of reasons to justify a move, redirects are cheap, few care about them, and their existence does not speak to source use or the value of a meaningful title to the readers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.