Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Infoboxes in by-election articles

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748854870}}

There is a proposal to change the statements of the convention for naming (and renaming) articles about Australian places. Innesw (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal:

A. There should be a single place for the statement of the convention for naming articles on Australian places. Proposed new page: Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Australian Places)

• The statements at Project Australian Places and geographic naming conventions, Australia should be replaced with 'see:' links to the new page
• The WP:NCAUST shortcut should be changed to link to the new page

B. The new page to read as follows:

[Reference numbers in [] have been added to the lines, for the purposes of the RfC discussion. They will be removed once a final text is agreed.]

{{box|wide=yes|background=white|

Below are the conventions for articles on Australian places.

== Naming of Articles ==

Australian Settled Places (towns, cities, suburbs, localities etc.)

:* [1] Articles about Australian settled places may have names in one of two forms: {{xt|"placename, state"}} or {{xt|"placename"}}

:* [2] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses, a link from the appropriate disambiguation page should be made (eg. Darwin contains a link to Darwin, Northern Territory, and Kingston contains links to several Australian towns).

:* [3] Where {{xt|"placename, state"}} is used, a redirect from {{xt|"placename"}} should be made whenever the name by itself does not presently require disambiguation (eg: Nowra redirects to Nowra, New South Wales), and from a nickname if it's extremely common (eg. Wagga).

:* [4] Where the {{xt|"placename, state"}} format still has conflicts (such as Springfield, Victoria and Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)) add a regional term to the secondary location. Often this can be the local government area, but a more general term may be necessary when the less notable one spans multiple LGAs.

:* [5] State or territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles.

:* New Articles

:: [6] For new articles, either form of article name is acceptable, unless disambiguation or other reasons require the use of {{xt|"placename, state"}}

:* Moving / Renaming Existing Articles

:: [7] For existing articles, renaming from one name form to the other should not be done unless there is some other good reason to do it

::* [7.1] existing articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}} should not be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it, nor based on an argument for 'consistency' with practice outside Australia

::* [7.2] existing articles using {{xt|"placename"}} should not be renamed based on an argument for 'consistency' with previous practice or to achieve the same form across Australian place articles. It may however become necessary for disambiguation.

:[8] Note: For a long period the convention for Australian settled places was that all articles (with only a few stated exceptions) should be named using the {{xt|"placename, state"}} form. Various statements of the convention have allowed the number of articles using the {{xt|"placename"}} form to grow in number. Both forms are now accepted.

Other Places

• [9] Local government areas should be at their official name.
• [10] Cadastral divisions should be at their name (eg: Hunter County or County of Bourke), with the state name appended if required for disambiguation
• [10.1] The form of name ('County of ...' or '... County') should be consistent within a single state.

== Infobox ==

• [11] All Australian place articles should use {{tl|Infobox Australian place}}. The infobox requires both {{para|type}} and {{para|state}} to be set. All articles should also set {{para|name|{{xt|placename}}}}.

See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads)

[Templates & Categories on the page]

{{Wikipedia subcat guideline|naming convention|Australian places|WP:NCAUST}}
naming, places
A

}}

• Support as Proposer:
• Part (A) ensures there is a single statement of the Australian conventions, to which editors can refer without ambiguity or finding conflicts between different texts
• Part (B) is largely derived from the two existing statements (at Project Australian Places and geographic naming conventions, Australia (= current WP:NCAUST)), in that it allows both name forms for articles. But it now also prevents unnecessary moves / renames between the two. (Moves are not banned outright, but using an argument for 'consistency', or an argument based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, is no longer sufficient to allow a move.)
• The number of articles with the {{xt|"placename"}} form, for Australian settled places, seems now to be about 15% of the total. The fact that form has grown so much means the number of articles using it is now too large to be reversible.
• Of the approximately 12,000 articles for towns and suburbs, that makes about 1,800 use {{xt|"placename"}}
• (For those interested, the percentage figure was derived from [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?action=valuelinks&wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+Australian+place¶m=type&value=town| template parameters data for Template:Infobox Australian place with type=town], then counting the number of articles on pages 1, 11, 21, 31, and 41 of the articles listing. The same was done for type=suburb. For the 500 articles listed in each case, the figure was 15.6% for type=town, and 14.0% for type=suburb. The data is as of 1 Apr 2025.)

::We now have so many articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}}, and so many using {{xt|"placename"}}, it is no longer sensible to enforce one over the other. The egg is now scrambled, we can't un-scramble it, we just need to get used to the use of either form of article name.

:* I am somewhat in two minds about [8]. On the one hand it detracts from a clean statement of Australian practice. On the other it explains why we now accept either of the two forms of article name. On balance I'd rather keep it.

:* The statement about allowing disambiguation using a city name instead of (as found at Project Australian Places) has been dropped, because the only existing case I could find was The Block (Sydney). All other examples now seem to be redirects to {{xt|"placename, state"}}.

:* Frankly, we are wasting a lot of time on move / rename requests that will not improve the ordinary reader's ability to find an article. If they don't know about the previous convention, {{xt|"placename"}} will be the article directly, a redirect to {{xt|"placename, state"}}, or a disambiguation page. And if searching in the WP search bar, the short descriptions should provide all the further detail they might need. If they do know about the previous convention, and the article is at {{xt|"placename"}}, in most cases there will be a redirect from {{xt|"placename, state"}} after a requested move. There may be a case for ensuring redirects exist in both directions, though I haven't added it to the proposed text of the convention - maybe getting those redirects in place is a task for a bot?

::Innesw (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• support as it documents accepted practice but still prefer placename, state and geographic(state) as default Gnangarra 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Proposal to close:

::There having been no responses to this RfC in the 7 days it has been open, I propose to close it within a few more days unless a discussion actually begins. Innesw (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have been thinking about this, and will leave a reply some time soon, there is a lot to address here however. Viatori (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure if this was the best fora for this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::no rush to close, school holidays, long weekends theres been lots of interuptions. Give people time to think it through even though its documenting the current practice. Gnangarra 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Innesw, please do not close. I am also intending on making a detailed reply, however there is much to consider here and life off wiki has been busy! Remember, there is no deadline. I would like to reply by giving this matter the attention it deserves to match the work you put into crafting it! Dfadden (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, no close, and thanks for showing interest. I was perhaps a bit early with that, but the apparent lack of interest was getting to me. Re: the correct forum, I've found other more specialist forums in the Australian space (including Australian Places) have so few participants that meaningful discussions just don't happen. We could move the discussion if people wish. Innesw (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No! Do not close! Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, thank you {{u|innesw}} for pulling the proposal together. I think it is a great first step towards resolving the issues and stopping us wasting time on considering so many RMs, but I do have some reservations that prevent me from fully supporting it as written. I have summarised my main concerns below and provided some amendments to the proposal for consideration:

:*[1] - As I have stated in the previous discussion, WP:NCAUST is not specific enough by saying that articles may use just {{xt|"placename"}}. This does not provide sufficient clarity around when it is appropriate to omit or include the state/territory. This has resulted in a number of grouped RMs being opened on the grounds of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however these discussions had limited participation, particular outside of Australian editors or those with a local interest. This proposal goes some way to address this by preventing RMs being opened on the basis of PRIMARYTOPIC alone. However, it does still not provide specific guidance around when state/territory should or should not be included.

:*[2] - see my proposed amendments below

:*[3], [4], [5] - Support as proposed.

:*[6] - Disagree. For new articles, the convention should continue to be {{xt|"placename, state"}}, except in cases where it is unambiguous (such as indigenous placenames). I refer to the many previous RMs at Talk:Mosman. While it was successfully argued in the most recent RM that the name is unique, several previous RMs also concluded that disambiguation was necessary to differentiate from Mossman, Queensland due to a very similar spelling (in fact, some historic sources use the same spelling for both places). Another example would be Castlecrag, New South Wales, which does appear to be unique and was listed in an RM, but was not moved as editors pointed out that there are numerous other places and landmarks with their own articles called Castle Crag/Castle Crags/Castlecrag Mountain/Castlecraig. A convention that requires disambiguation as the default would issues like the above, without requiring places like Ulladulla be unnecessarily disambiguated.

:*[7] - I have some reservations with regards to not restoring any of the recent changes that resulted from the RMs of large groups of articles. When I raised with closers that these RMs should be considered with caution in light of these ongoing discussions. Several closers were of the view that any changes could easily be reverted if a clear consensus emerged here. However, 7.1 and 7.2 appears to close the door on this entirely and locks in inconsistency, especially if the premise that PRIMARYTOPIC alone is not justification for a name change going forward.

:*[8] - I think we should drop 8, as I strongly believe that consistency should be something we strive for. As already stated at [7], we should only deviate from an agreed standard where there is a clear reason to do so. Most people reading an encyclopedia expect it to be formatted in a consistent way as that makes information easier to find. Codifying it this way allows deviation from style conventions because it is easier in some cases (or because an editor may not be aware of places outside of their home state/country with similar names) and harms the project overall.

:* [9], [10], [11] - Support as proposed.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO PROPOSAL

{{box|wide=yes|background=white|

Australian Settled Places (towns, cities, suburbs, localities etc.)

Inserts the following text in place of [2], while the existing text becomes [2.1};

:*Where a place name is clearly unambiguous, {{xt|"placename"}} may be used alone. This includes when the name is clearly unique, such as most indigenous place names; where the place is a capital or major regional city and also satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; or where there is otherwise no potential for confusion with another place (including outside of Australia), landmark or subject. In all other cases, {{xt|"placename, state"}} should be used as the default. This includes where there are similarly named places that vary only in spelling or spaces (eg. Castlecrag, New South Wales and Castle Crag, or Broadmeadow, New South Wales and Broadmeadows, Victoria

::* [2.1] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses, a link from the appropriate disambiguation page should be made (eg. Darwin contains a link to Darwin, Northern Territory, and Kingston contains links to several Australian towns).

Moving / Renaming Existing Articles

: [7] For existing articles, renaming from one name form to the other should not be done unless there is some other good reason to do it

::* [7.1] existing articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}} should not be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it. nor based on an argument for 'consistency' with practice outside Australia

::* [7.2] existing articles using {{xt|"placename"}} should only be renamed where it is clearly necessary for disambiguation.

}} Dfadden (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

: Thanks {{u|Dfadden}} for the detailed and considered response.

: My commentary on your comments (on my ... aagh! ;-) ):

:* [1] - My draft was just an introductory statement, and I don't think you are suggesting any re-wording.

:* [2] - in preference to my initial 'either form ... is acceptable' for new articles (my [6]), I'm happy to use your new [2] lines, though they possibly need a little further tightening up (remove 'may'?) to be more definite statements of when to use which form.

::* The 'reasons for just placename' and 'reasons for placename, state' can be separate points

::* I take your point about similar names (spelling and spaces) justifiying disambiguation. It's worth separating as a sub-point, with my initial [2] (your [2.1]), and [3], [4] and [5] as further sub-points.

:* [6] - dropped, see above

:* [7] - re: your re-wordings of [7.1] and [7.2], I agree with both of them.

:* Re your comments on reverting recent moves, I don't want to start another battle over how far we go back and do this. The wiki-lawyer in me says 'what was done was done under the old rules, let it stand', though for the very recent ones (those that acknowledge this discussion) if they want to apply the new rules instead of the old ones, that would be valid too.

:* [8] - Was intended just as a historical note explaining why we have the inconsistency we do. If you read it as justifying inconsistency, that was not my intention. Would 'Historical Note' help as a heading?

:* Re consistency generally, yes it would be great (I presume everybody supports it as a principle), but for existing Australian-place articles I think we have now missed that boat.

:* I've realised that, with the restrictions we are putting on renaming existing articles, most of the detailed guidelines on how to name an article only apply to new articles - so in the following draft I've moved the 'New Articles' heading to above [2]. Hopefully this will prevent statements about how to name articles being regarded as 'general', and used in RM arguments.

So, DRAFT 3 (just the 'naming of settled places articles' section) in short form (all full texts are above):

{{box|wide=yes|background=white|

: [1] Articles about Australian settled places may have names in one of two forms: {{xt|"placename, state"}} or {{xt|"placename"}}.

: New Articles

:* [2] Where a place name is clearly ... landmark or subject.

:* [2.0] In all other cases ... default.

::* [2.1] Where the place name has or is likely to have other uses ... Australian towns).

::* [2.2] This includes where there are similarly named places ... Broadmeadows, Victoria.

::* [3] Where {{xt|"placename, state"}} is used, a redirect from {{xt|"placename"}} ... Wagga).

::* [4] Where the {{xt|"placename, state"}} form still has conflicts ... multiple LGAs.

::* [5] State or territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles.

: Existing Articles

:* [7.1] Existing articles using {{xt|"placename, state"}} should not be renamed just because the state-name disambiguation is reckoned unnecessary, nor because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows it.

:* [7.2] Existing articles using {{xt|"placename"}} should only be renamed where it is clearly necessary for disambiguation.

: [8] Historical Note: ... forms are accepted.

}}

Innesw (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NCAUST is fine as it is, Additionaly, we should not be having seperate rules for new and exisiting articles. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Murder of Cassius Turvey § WA or WA's. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Districts&redirect=no Southern Districts] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. It may be to the interest of this project. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18#Southern Districts}} until a consensus is reached. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This sunday the 25th May will be the 20th anniversary of User:JarrahTrees first edit. We are inviting editors to make edits related to maintenance ie add categories, project tags, add structure data(on commons)or article ratings and then append ...thank you JarrahTree to the edit summary. Together we can clear some backlogs and maybe even approach Jarrah Tree's tally of around 400,000 edits. Gnangarra 01:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Lord Howe Island has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)