Talk:South Yarra

Untitled

Come on guys, I'm sure an area like South Yarra has had a BIT more than a few recent murders happen in the last 150-odd years! I'd add more if I had access to a Melbourne library, but I'm in Perth. Orderinchaos78 09:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

New External Link added

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to a images and information about Como House and its owners.--Eleworth (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As concerned this link may have appeared to be spamming I have removed it. --Eleworth (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Yarra, Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/multimedia/gazetteer/list/southyarra.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 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: moved. Consensus is that the disambiguation is unnecessary. The concern over other places being similarly name is addressed by that there is currently no articles of the other places on Wikipedia. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• South Yarra, Victoria → South Yarra
• Port Melbourne, Victoria → Port Melbourne
• North Melbourne, Victoria → North Melbourne
• East Melbourne, Victoria → East Melbourne
• Carlton North, Victoria → Carlton North
• South Wharf, Victoria → South Wharf

– Similar to a previous discussion, (see Talk:Caramut#Requested move 18 November 2022), WP:NCAUST neither specifically endorses, nor disallows, the use of undisambiguated place names in Australia, stating "the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name". For all of these, I would argue that the localities are the clear primary topics (with no other places specifically called any of these). Note also that for most of these, the shortened title has been a redirect for in excess of 15 years (and for the exception, South Wharf has been a redirect since 2011), without any change, further suggesting that any possible ambiguity is not an issue and that these are the primary topics (see the hatnote on North Melbourne, Victoria for the only one of these that is potentially ambiguous, and even then it is with something located in North Melbourne). So then with no reason not to, I think these should be moved in line with WP:CONCISE (removing unnecessary disambiguation), and in line with WP:COMMONNAME, since these are not commonly referred to with the state. A7V2 (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all but South Yarra. These seem like a strange bunch of candidates for moving.

• "South Wharf" is an incredibly generic name, and there's at least one by that name in London and probably many others.
• There is something like 20 places called "Carlton" with Wikipedia articles; the Victorian "Carlton" is not the primary topic, and there's no reason why the Victorian "Carlton North" would be the primary topic for that name either.
• I think there's a strong case that North Melbourne football club, not the suburb, is in fact the primary topic; it's highly likely that at least anyone outside of Melbourne searching for "North Melbourne" is looking for the football club than the suburb, given that there's not all that much of note there.
• Less strongly for Port Melbourne and East Melbourne: there are nine places on Wikipedia called "Melbourne"; I'm unconvinced that because Melbourne is a primary topic that all its far less notable suburbs sharing the same name are default also primary topics.
• South Yarra is the only one that's clearly the primary topic and a sensible candidate for moving. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are they strange? They are all within the City of Melbourne LGA, so I thought it made sense to group them together. Furthermore, I find the argument that these are not the primary topics quite hard to believe given that a literal decade has gone by with these all being redirected to by the base names. Also, could you please substantiate your claims that there are other places with these names, thus making the Melbourne ones not primary topics (for example with Carlton North, where else is referred to as this?)? How can one argue that the South Wharf in London is a candidate for primary topic when there isn't even a redirect to it anywhere? For North Melbourne I'm much more open to either disambiguation or changing that redirect, though I still don't agree it can't keep the existing hatnote as primary topic. A7V2 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're Australian, Google's geotargeting is playing havoc with our search results on this kinda thing because it thinks you must want results for the Australian one. I've had it with trying to get it to stop filtering my damned results (after struggling with it for quite a while and having it explicitly tell me it was showing me results for the Melbourne term when trying to filter it out), but there is at least another Carlton North in Canada and a North Melbourne in Florida. There are multiple mentions of South Wharf in London on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure why there'd be redirects when there would have been nothing useful to target a redirect to. I think North Melbourne would make most sense as a disambiguation, but if there had to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the football club (linking to the suburb in the lead) would seem to be by far the most likely search term. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

But those places don't have wikipedia pages and as far as I could see aren't even mentioned anywhere (I was unable to find any evidence that there is a Carlton North in Canada or North Melbourne in Florida at all, but perhaps I missed something). Some ambiguity isn't a problem if one topic is significantly more notable than the others, and a complete lack of mention (and a redirect existing 15 years without issue) is reason enough to believe that is the case, I think. But for example, a hatnote to Carleton North from Carlton North/Carlton North, Victoria (and probably the reverse as well) would be appropriate to aid searching. If the South Wharf in Melbourne isn't the primary topic, then certainly something should be done with the redirect as the status quo is that it is the primary topic. A7V2 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well said. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support all except South Wharf, which is too common a name to be primary. The others have no need to be disambiguated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: Why do you think that the others have no need to be disambiguated? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Because we only disambiguate when there are other articles by that name! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support there aren't any other uses that I can find and a Google search for South Wharf from England returns only the Australian one and not a lot for London if London is added to the search but if ambiguous it should be disambiguated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Crouch, Swale: If you're an Australian Googling these terms and getting Australian results, it's because Google's geotargeting is explicitly directing people here to hits for the Australian suburbs and ignoring international places, which is exceptionally frustrating for these purposes. This is evident, for example, when one searches for "Carlton North" "Canada" and it pops up a message saying "Results for Carlton North VIC", which we do not appear to be able to easily turn off. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    • @The Drover's Wife: I'm Googling from England, my point being that even Googling from England (which would be expected to return places in England first) only returns the Australian one shows that even with that bias the Australian one seems unambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Eimeoser (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Even the South Wharf is unnecessary disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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.