Talk:Oodnadatta

Australia: Places / South Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Oodnadatta 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 South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

External Links[edit]

There are external links in this article to sites that have content which could be referenced by Wikipedia. It's probably better for someone to reference them, rather than linking externally to the other sites. Though, given that it's such a small town, it's hardly an urgent job! Triki-wiki 01:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki not[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oodnadatta, South Australia → Oodnadatta — Note that Oodnadatta currently redirects here. There is no need for disambiguation here. WP:TITLE states that titles should reflect the most common, recognisable and concise name. Nightw 12:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support Clearly does not need disambiguating. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason to go against the naming convention for Australia. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Other than the fact that there is no widely accepted naming convention for Australia. Nightw 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, old naming convention is no longer the convention.--Grahame (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even if there was a naming convention for Australian cities, following a naming convention -- and for no other reason -- is, by definition, not a good reason to choose a name. In contrast, concision has intrinsic value, as explained at WP:TITLE, as does choosing names that are only as precise as necessary. Oodnadatta is the normal, common and natural name for this topic, not Oodnadatta, South Australia. Providing additional descriptive information in a title, like ", South Australia", is not something normally done in WP article titles, unless it is necessary for disambiguation, which in this clearly unique case, it is not. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oodnadatta is not ambiguous. Melburnian (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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.

proposed merge from Angle Pole[edit]

I have proposed a merge from Angle Pole into Oodnadatta. Angle Pole appears to have been a landmark on the telegraph line, used as a point of reference in the desert to build the railway towards. When the railway was actually built, a town was surveyed and named Oodnadatta. Angle Pole is not a gazetted LOCB (bounded locality), nor the name of a historic pastoral property which are the usual criteria for naming articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Merge completed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Oodnadatta[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Oodnadatta's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Stuart":

From Lyndhurst, South Australia: "District of Stuart Background Profile". Electoral Commission SA. Retrieved 30 September 2015.
From Far North (South Australia): "District of Stuart Background Profile". Electoral Commission of South Australia. Retrieved 20 August 2015.
From Quorn, South Australia: "District of Stuart Background Profile". Electoral Commission SA. Retrieved 26 September 2015.
From Parachilna, South Australia: "Electoral district profiles - Stuart". Electoral Commission SA. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
From Innamincka, South Australia: "Electoral district profiles – Stuart". Electoral Commission SA. Retrieved 18 July 2019.

Reference named "FN":

From Lyndhurst, South Australia: "Far North SA government region" (PDF). The Government of South Australia. Retrieved 16 August 2015.
From Woomera, South Australia: "Far North SA government region" (PDF). The Government of South Australia. Retrieved 16 August 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]