Talk:Tumbarumba

Australia: Places / Riverina Low‑importance

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

Requested move 18 May 2016

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.

Speedily closed as a procedural move. Since WP:RM requires discussion prior to disambiguation, the original move was out of process, and is speedily reverted. bd2412 T 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– An article recently moved from its natural name, the rationale being "lots of things derive their name from the town". Of the items on the disambiguation page - only one is actually called "Tumbarumba" - the town. The rest already have natural disambiguation terms. The town is clearly the primary topic, demonstrated by the fact that all the other topics on the disambiguation page derive their name from the town. WP:NCAUST is clear that the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name. If the rationale of "lots of things derive their name from the town" is used for Australian towns (or localities wordwide!) - then none would ever be at their natural name. Mattinbgn (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The nominator's rationale is essentially the same as what I said at this RM discussion after the article at Port Stephens was moved. There was clear opposition to that RM and, based on the consensus there, I have to oppose. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Declaration of interest: I am the editor who yesterday moved the article from Tumbarumba back to Tumbarumba, New South Wales, the title it had held from its creation in 2004 until the proposer moved it in 2012 with the explanation at that time of "Unnecessary redirect". Almost all of the things in the disambiguation page could be the intended meaning of "Tumbarumba" as the answer to some question like "where did the grapes for this wine come from?" or "what team did so-and-so play for before he joined the AFL?" The shire and wine region are both larger than the town/locality (and do not have coincident boundaries). WP:NCAUST first says "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory". It is also not clear that Tumbarumba Creek, hill and parish are named for the town rather than the other way round. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tumbarumba (the town) is the primary topic. The other name articles already have disambiguated names.--Grahame (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ScottDavis' rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, neither entry enlisted at Tumbarumba (disambiguation) is simply known as Tumbarumba other than this town, so this alone fails the most simple guidelines of when to disambiguate. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of the Tumbarumba articles in the disamb page have natural names including suffixes like 'Creek', 'Shire', 'railway line', and are not in contention here. The town appears to the be only and primary topic. Rund717 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 23 May 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that the town deserves WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status. The WP:NCAUST guideline, mentioned by the nominator, allows for the name of a city or town to be used alone if it is the primary topic for that name, rendering the proposed move unnecessary. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The procedural close above did not attempt to resolve consensus and asserted [WP:RM]] requires discussion prior to disambiguation, the original move was out of process.

This proposed move is to restore the page to the title it had held from its creation in 2004 until it was moved in 2012 with the explanation at that time of "Unnecessary redirect". The proposed name is consistent with WP:NCAUST and there is now a disambiguation page with six items on it. All of them are related to the area that includes the town, but some are larger, some are smaller and some are nearby. WP:NCAUST first says "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory", which is the title this move would return the article to. Scott Davis ^Talk 01:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The discussion about disambiguated article names for Australian places was had in 2010 at Talk:Deniliquin#Requested move and elsewhere ad nauseum and re-running that debate here seems like an indulgence. While consensus can change, I am not seeing any evidence of this. Again, the only item on the disambiguation list whose name is Tumbarumba. All the remaining items on the disambiguation page have a natural disambiguation term and all derive their name from the town. Tumbarumba is not a natural search term. The end result of this move will be to make it harder for people not familiar with Wikipedia's idiosyncratic naming guidelines for places to find the article about the town Tumbarumba. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both the town and the wine region (Australian Geographical Indicator) are named Tumbarumba. The qualifying state name and expansion of region type both provide appropriate precision consistent with WP:PRECISION. No references show whether Tumbarumba Creek and Tumbarumba Hill (named as its source) are named after the town or the town is named after them. The word is of Wiradjuri origin for the area or some aspect of it which probably does not coincide with any of the current boundaries. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tumbarumba has a clear primary meaning of the name of the town. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the primary meaning of Tumbarumba is the town.--Grahame (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hillas?

No mention of the Hillas family who established a run at Tumbarumba in the 1830s, and called it that? 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:745A:DDB9:A0CA:DE4E (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]