Talk:Yellowdine, Western Australia

Requested move 21 May 2015

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.

Not moved; there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and a reasonable argument that other subjects may be ambiguous to the proposed title. bd2412 T 17:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yellowdine, Western Australia → Yellowdine – unnecessary disambiguation, the town is the only topic with this name per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia Hack (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment no one else uses an isolated title as Yellowdine. I am wondering as to the point/value of this request. GregKaye 20:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment, geographical naming tends to be controversial, just following the process. Hack (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - unnecessary disambiguation is confusing and unhelpful for the reader. This article name is a legacy of the former practice of madated disambiguation for Australian place name - similar to current practice with US place names. Time to move on. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are other alternatives for the Yellowdine name, including a railway station which I'm surprised lacks an article as is and a number of resources companies. The current title is clear and consistent with broader conventions, whereas moving it creates clear and foreseeable disambiguation issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the background explained by Gnangarra below. Support. If any other "Yellodine" articles turn up we can put a hatnote at the top of this one pointing the reader to them. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Updated 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - regardless of convention either way, the majority of western australian place names have the qualifier 'western australia' as part of their name... to accept the apparent simplicity of this process and move provides some potential precedent to more or less change hundreds of western australian place names on the same basis. This is disruptive, and does not benefit the project or the wider australian project to proceed with removing state qualifiers in place names. User:JarrahTree 10:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose earlier policy was to disambiguate all Australian place names, when the change to current policy occurred it was agreed that a)no wholesale article moves due the potential damage to 100,000s article links affecting readability. b) only articles which were being actively expanded would be renamed if sufficient evidence could be shown that it the primary usage...given this towns name is of aboriginal origin there is an alternative meaning to the name that first needs to be resolved. Gnangarra 11:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per comments above, the town is far and away the primary use. There was a railway station, that may be the subject of a future article, but the town article always takes precedent over those on its component parts, councils, schools, sporting clubs, etc. Only reference to companies I can find are to a gold miner deregistered in 1938 and the local roadhouse. Total25 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Gnangarra and JarrahTree. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Total25. I strongly urge the closer to weight policy stronger than opinion-based votes here. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would point out that the naming convention doesn't actually support you here. It says they may be moved if appropriate, not that that there is an actual standard. There is certainly no consensus here to support such a move The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - primary and policy are red herrings, what no one has done as recovered the diffs of the earlier conversations, some up to 8 years old, that qualified what happens in the Australian/Australian Places projects, as to the way the naming of places was established by that particular set of editors established... now we have an amnesiac Australian project - where invoking policy without the diffs to show where and when it was established, is running on suppositions that are not firmly identified User:JarrahTree 00:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting discussions from 8 years ago over established policy sounds like an absolutely disastrous approach. If you think policy pages like WP:AT and WP:PLACE are "red herrings"—well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But that opinion is demonstrably wrong. --BDD (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that you're making up the "established policy". We have a naming convention for Australian place names. It noticeably does not say that they must go at an undisambiguated name; it says that they may be moved to it, and we're currently having the discussion as to whether that should take place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not making up WP:CONCISE or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's a well-accepted principle that we shouldn't use unnecessary disambiguation (e.g., Foo redirecting to Foo (bar)), and NATURAL disambiguation is still disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And neither of those overrule specific naming conventions, of which Australia has one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

But all the convention says is that unnecessary disambiguation may be used. Given those broader naming conventions, it behooves us to avoid such practices absent a really good reason to do so. I'm not seeing one—certainly appealing to discussions from many years ago isn't a compelling reason. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to interpret the naming convention in a way that doesn't support your argument. It may be moved, which was a compromise, changing what was a clear convention the other way. We are having the discussion as to whether it should happen, and numerous people have put forward arguments against. There is absolutely no basis that it should be moved "absent a really good reason to do so", and the attempt to address those arguments by pretending yours are grounded in a policy they're not is frustrating. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, I think BDD's point is that general title policy at WP:AT policy supports a move, and that the applicable specific naming convention here is essentially neutral about such moves. In any case, it says they may be moved; so you cannot reasonably rely on this convention to oppose this move. Many other Australian place names with unique names have had their article titles undisambiguated just as is being proposed here. --В²C ☎ 20:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - amazing how things can 'run' with a few misinterpretations. The Australian Place and Australian wikiprojects have had discussions up to 8 years ago to clearly establish a convention in Australian place names. What is a problem is we have a naming convention, but no one has shown the specific point where it was established, and where the most recent point of its either being challenged or clarified. It would be helpful. User:JarrahTree 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We had a formal convention (which was listed on that page) for the better part of a decade that all place names were at "Town, State", which was weakened relatively recently to the present wording to allow for it to be dealt with on a case by case basis where that was felt to be unnecessary. I don't mind the present wording, but I am frustrated at attempts to ignore it altogether. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:PRIMARY and WP:CONCISE, primary and (currently) only topic per Yellowdine, the mere existence of (notable??) redlinked alternatives for the Yellowdine name does not call into question that this one is clearly the primary topic, and noone of the oppose voters above has minimally tried to challenge this premise. Cavarrone 17:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The Australian geographic naming guidelines clearly allow "Yellowdine" as an article title. Given that and the fact that WP:AT, which is a policy and has overriding status over guidelines, prefers WP:CONCISE titles, this move better follows Wikipedia practice than the status quo. —seav (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, proposed title has been clearly demonstrated to hit more of the WP:AT criteria. Australian placenames are slowly but surely trending in this direction, the only question is will this article be moved at the end of this discussion or will we have to have another one in a couple of years. Jenks24 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  the real queston why is this move so imperative when there has been just 1 edit in the last 12 months, and over 6 years since the last edit added any content to the article itself. Gnangarra 04:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. While there is no mandate to go move all Australian places, once someone bothers with an RM for a particular place, it should be evaluated just like any RM - by asking which title meets WP:AT better? Yelllowdine is a unique name - no other topic with an article on WP has this name. Clearly the name of this topic is natural, recognizable and precise. Obviously it is more concise than the disambiguated current title. Since disambiguation is optional for Australian places, consistency is a wash. --В²C ☎ 00:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as optional and unnecessary. By itself the name conveys nothing to most people. Including the locality instantly makes it recognizable -- a case where the longer name is more concise. Omnedon (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There no consensus for this peculiar interpretation of WP:CONCISE. You can reasonably argue that an undisambiguated name lacks precision, if it's ambiguous, but even in such a case it would not be normal to say the longer name is more concise. The information titles of articles about named topics are support to convey is only the name of the topic. In any case, for unambiguous cases, like this one, no way can the longer name be reasonably be considered to be more concise. --В²C ☎ 20:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not peculiar. It's the meaning of the word. You are falling back to the old idea of "shortest" = "most concise". This has come up many times over several years, and you have at times acknowledged that these two terms are not equivalent; but you're ignoring that again now. Omnedon (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:AT notes that these articles typically follow the Town, State/Territory form, and a quick glance at the town's category confirms that this is indeed the form used by practically all such articles; continuing to consistently apply this form is preferable. Also agree per comments by Gnangarra and JarrahTree. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nonsense on multiple grounds.

• This is not a town, it is a road house 20 minutes east of Southern Cross, Western Australia. A railway siding. A misspelling of an aboriginal word of forgotten meaning.
• The proposed name massively reduces the recongizability of the place. The current format establishes it is a populated (at least one, once) place in Western Australia.\
• The alluded change in naming convention was a ruse by a small group with a strong philosophy of minimalist titling without reference to utility to the reader. Evidence for the weakness of the change (evidence of support, lack of thought of detailed consequence) is that it was agreed "yes, but as long as you don't go an change things base on this".
• Omnedon is right, attempts to drive these changes based on shouting WP:CONCISE are based on a false impression that concise means shorter. No, the comma state place naming convention, used near universally for non-famous places in Australia, just as in the US, and many other places, conveys important information that is lost if it is dropped. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, here is a randomly selected list of examples of making certain phrases more concise. Guess what? The phrase in the concise column is always shorter than the original column. Can you find a single example in a reliable independent source anywhere where the "more concise" thing is longer than the other? --В²C ☎ 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Absurd. The list of words on that page is under the heading "pruning the redundant". It opens by saying, "Avoid saying the same thing twice." And there is no "concise" column. That's an entirely different concept than what we're talking about here. Omnedon (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not different at all. That entire page is about concision in writing. Part of that is avoiding unnecessary words. For the purpose of conveying the name of this topic, and for the purpose of disambiguating with other uses on WP, the only purposes relevant in this context, "Western Australia" is unnecessary here. --В²C ☎ 01:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Of course it is different. To write concisely, one provides useful information briefly and without redundancy. The name "Yellowdine" with no context provides next to no information, so it cannot be said to be concise unless the context has already been established in some other way. And again I point out, there is no "concise" column on the page you reference; you misrepresented that. An article title does more than disambiguate: it identifies the subject of the article. "Yellowdine, Western Australia" does that without being redundant. It is concise. It has no unnecessary words. Omnedon (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The title "Yellowdine" provides 100% of the information most of our titles provide - the name of the article's topic. The only titles that provide more information than the name of the topic are all exceptions which fall under one of the following cases:

1. More information is necessary for disambiguation (e.g. Portland, Maine),
2. The topic does not have a name and so the title must be descriptive (e.g., List of areas in the United States National Park System),
3. A naming guideline requires the additional information (e.g., Watsonville, California), or
4. An anomaly requiring attention (e.g., the recently rectified Hillary Rodham Clinton, Yellowdine, Western Australia, etc.).

Disagree? Try to find titles that have more information than just the name of the topic and do not fit one of the above categories.

The most common titles provide no information other than the name of the topic, (e.g., Obergriesbach, Ngọc Sơn, Lidberg, Minden Hills, Busselton, etc.) These titles are all WP:CONCISE. Adding additional information to them would be unnecessary and would make them less WP:CONCISE. --В²C ☎ 22:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, The discussion on the move is currently over seven times longer than the article itself. Does pointless administrivium now outweigh adding content? What does this suggest about our priorities? Hughesdarren (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I, for one, seek to stabilize titles precisely so administrivium like this could be avoided. But that means defining clear and consistent rules for how to deal with such titles. Unfortunately, many are resistant to that, which leaves no clear guidance on which title an article like this should have, hence the pointless debates. But at least I'm motivated by a big picture purpose: stable titles. I can't speak for what motivates others. See my user page. --В²C ☎ 01:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  when the article was created there were also clear and consistent rules that everyone followed which is why the article is where it is, its not the article thats having problems but rather the fact the rules keep getting changed and not just on article names it permeating through many of the back ground areas where small groups set out to put their own stamp on each process mostly to the exclusion of the content contributors so its little wonder that backlashes for idiotic self fulfilling gnomism are common place. Gnangarra 01:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - strong support for comments by Hughesdarren and Gnangarra - this is the wrong place for a start - most of the conversation should have been at a central place like Australian places project, not here... JarrahTree 02:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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.