Talk:Mooloolaba, Queensland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Places / Queensland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Mooloolaba, 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mooloolaba, Queensland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2016[edit]

Mooloolaba, QueenslandMooloolaba – There is no other Mooloolaba, so to have the article at Mooloolaba, Queensland, is not necessary. The original move rationale was for consistency of naming, and I assume that means with other locations in Queensland, but that is not a valid reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose per apparent naming convention, as well as WP:CRITERIA consistency and precision and recognizability. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consistency is a perfectly valid reason: per policy, being consistent with the pattern used by similar titles is one of the characteristics of a good article title. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCAUST. Clear primary topic and Australian localities do not need to have the state tacked on. Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – already a redirect here. WP:PRIMARY comes into play. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Jenks24, compounded by the fact that Mooloolaba is already a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - As "Mooloolaba" unambiguously refers to a city within the Australian state of Queensland, there is no need to disambiguate the title.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:CONCISE; adding the state is unnecessary over-disambiguation. WP:NCAUST covers this already. If it's a unique name like Mooloolaba, or a globally-recognised one like Sydney, no DAB is needed. If it's a feature within a city and needs disambiguation, DAB it with the city name (as in The Rocks, Sydney, though this should probably be changed to "The Rocks (Sydney)" to match how we'd do this for things within London or the city of New York). Otherwise, disambig by state; this is consistent with our treatment of placenames in US states, Canadian provinces, British subnational units, etc., etc. In the case of Looloolaba, the bare placename is a sufficient title, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARY (more like "WP:ONLY"), and WP:CONCISE. — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCAUST, as this town appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Mooloolaba". Dohn joe (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCAUST, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. If this is the only place by this name, there no need for the natural geographic disambiguator.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just wrong[edit]

Moot: Early close was undone, discussion has continued.

Who closed this RfC without rationale, favouring the minority of comments? Tony (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

After he closed it in favor of the 3:2 support (counting nominator as in favor). But after reverting his close he gave a vote instead, which suggests a bias and not really aligned with conventions as I know them ("already a redirect" means very little relative to the point being discussed). Still no real explanation. And I find WP:NCAUST pretty ambiguous as to what is preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's open for you to leave your opinions. I'm not sure what the problem is.... -- Tavix (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
3-2 (since the nominator favoured moving), is not a minority of comments. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)