Talk:South West Tasmania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Tasmania (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon South West Tasmania 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 Tasmania.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Merge proposal[edit]

Dont support on the basis that the two items are really separate subjects - to the outsider they probably mean the same thing - to have a closer understanding of the history and a number of issues over the last 50 years - they could be separate - if enough work was done on both articles, or if there is a consensus (remember that many tasmanian articles are on no-ones watch lists - and sometimes some suggestions take up to 3 or 4 months to see a reply - much better to put comment at WP Australia or WP Tasmania discussion pages - and even then there is hardly any Tasmanian editors or tasmanian interest left ) SatuSuro 06:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. I see more to be gained by merging these heavily overlapping articles into something worthwhile than keeping two wishy-washy definitions separate. I sense that the term "South West Wilderness" is not so much a different animal but more a tourism moniker which refers to South West Tasmania. –Moondyne 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Very different things. This article has evolved into a piece about the whole area of South West Tasmania, South West Wilderness is about one specific, though very large, part of this area. It's like arguing that all the articles about suburbs in a city should be merged with the main article on that city. --jjron (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Support The information on both articles is very simular and the two articles are not large enough to both warrant their own existence. And on another note, implying that south west Tasmania is only associated with the damming saga many years ago, is treading dangerous ground.
regards, Wiki ian 00:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-newed comments[edit]

An attempt at merging by cut and paste (and not distinguishing between the two) was made this am - after the discussion above, I am hoping that others may join in the discussion sats 23:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Joining discussion - it seems to me that having a single article makes more sense. The south west wilderness is not a distinct area as such - that is the Southwest National Park. Perhaps that is where south west wilderness should redirect.
From my understanding, SatuSuro is wanting some fresh eyes on this before a merge takes place. Additionally, please remember to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Wiki ian 00:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
OK - the issues that arise from joining the two:
  1. I disagree strongly that the wilderness 'is not a distinct area', or that the issue is simply 'wilderness' within the southwest national park. That does not correlate to the primary and secondary source materials that I have with dealt with for over 30 years +.
  1. The South west of tasmania - as a label or term - is much older than 'south west wilderness'. The south west term was utilised in a number of reports and government documents - state and federal - long before the usage of the term 'wilderness' was ever used publicly or in any publications. The usage of the term south west wilderness is relatively new - there is quite a lot of material that has nothining to do with the 'wilderness' term that still needs to be put into the south west tasmania article - if the late Helen Gee's book South West Book is anything to have as a test, the article still has a large amount of material that does not relate to the 'wilderness' issue. There are many (potential or created) stubs that relate to the history of the south west like Thomas Bather Moore that to use the term 'wilderness' would be both misleading and historically innacurate.
  2. The problem with combining the two is that they do not have easily accomodated 'boundaries' - the (1)determination of the world heritage status of those lands contained within or adjacent to national parks in other forms of reserves, and the (2) actual geographic tasmanian state region, and (3) the notions of what constitutes the 'south west wilderness' are three very different things.
it would be appreciated if the merge was abandoned so that the articles can be edited and sufficiently expanded to make the distinction self evident. It would save the time of having to resurrect articles after a rather misguided merge - if it was to happen. sats 02:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • These are clearly three separate things - SW Tas, the SW Wilderness, and the SW National Park. The unilateral decision to merge SW Tas and SW Wilderness by User:Jamesx12345 needs to be reverted. Can the articles be furthered expanded? Sure, as can millions of other articles on Wikipedia. Will the expansion further differentiate them? Of course it will. How someone can argue that a vast area of the planet like this should be subsumed into a single article, while Blackford Pond, Edinburgh should have an article separate from Blackford, Edinburgh, both minuscule stubs, reeks of hypocrisy and parochialism to the extreme. --jjron (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • In fact, let me add, probably the biggest mistake was that no-one thought to remove the 'merge' tag from the SW Wilderness about two years ago, after it had received 1 support and 2 opposes in almost a year. This did happen after about 6mths on this article in 2009 by the same user that originally proposed a merge. --jjron (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't get personal. I have reverted all my edits, as you requested - I do a lot of work merging articles that clearly cover the same topic, which you have probably gathered from my edit history. Sometimes I get it wrong. Sorry. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)