Talk:List of Gold Coast suburbs

message: Permmision to make every entry on this page a link to the relevant article? I find the current setup a bit confusing and it would sure make some work for all those redundant wiki-contributers. Josh 05:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both. --WikiCats 03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope - Labrador, Maine Beach, Biggera Waters and Runaway Bay all have the same postcode. Sorry :P AQjosh 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm ...  

message: This list is very out of date and doesn't match the navbox either. However, it is hard to add the missing ones without a clear insight into the purpose of the current 4 column presentation. Is there any basis for the 4 lists here? In particular, the "pre and post 1994" suburbs, or suburbs-vs-localities. If there is a common way of organising the suburbs/localities by region (e.g. by the Gold Coast City Council or similar), it seems reasonable to mimic that here and and in the navbox, but otherwise wouldn't a straightforward alphabetic list be more useful to the reader? Kerry (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of suburbs and localities 

message: If you are keen on completeness, I did a little data mining for you (from a spreadsheet that is a few years old, so I cannot swear it is 100% accurate but should be close enough). What the list below tells you is the lat/long of probably centrepoint of the neighbourhood or tow. You have to put the lat/long into Google Maps or Google Earth to work out what suburb it is within. If you are not already doing so, you should install the Queensland Globe (which is really just a small file that you download and open within Google Earth. Then you can see precisely and authoritatively where the suburb boundaries are, etc. The Queensland Globe is the Wikipedian's friend! But I'd have to say that I am dubious that the lookouts are truly neighbourhoods (they may just have lacked a better type in the QPN framework). Kerry (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  list unbounded localities and towns in the City of the  Gold Coast 

message: The above discussion is transcluded from New9374's talk page. Please respond here.
:For the reasons provided I intend moving the article to List of suburbs and localities in the City of Gold Coast and removing the neighbourhoods/subdivisions. If you like, feel free to create a new article about the neighbourhoods/subdivisions. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles will only neighbourhoods/subdivisions will then be out of any context (in particular, the suburbs to which they reference). A better strategy would be to add a column in the table of suburbs to list any well-known neighbourhood. I am not aware of any precedent to put Australian neighbourhoods in separate articles. This article has been around since 2006 and neighbourhoods are present in the first version and all subsequent versions so there's a fair bit of historic support for the current practice. Kerry (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am advocating for the removal of neighbourhoods/subdivisions from this article because they do not fall within the scope or selection criteria of these lists of suburbs in Australia. I am indifferent about creating a new article... however context could be provided in the lede and in a "suburb" column just like List of municipalities in Florida does. I agree there is no precedent for such a standalone list. I think it's because Australian neighborhoods are rarely/sometimes/infrequently notable so "maybe a new article should be created or maybe not" but that's a different debate to "whether or not they should be removed from this article". As for the historic support, please do not appeal to tradition. I feel I have addressed all your rationale and that we are at a standstill so I intend to request an opinion from an uninvolved third editor. Do you agree/disagree with this process? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's unhelpful to readers to remove them from these articles, because readers won't necessarily know of their formal gazettal status, and if you're looking for a neighbourhood, this is the obvious place a reader would start. I feel like the fact that this has been in the - hardly unwatched - article for an entire decade reflects this logic. A column in the table of suburbs addresses the issue. Readers should be able to find the information easily, and a separate article is completely illogical since the casual reader won't get why Wikipedia has two articles about to the average person, the same thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

text: The above somewhat misrepresents my views. While my preference is to keep the title simpler and consistent with the :Category:Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland by just using "suburbs" rather than "suburbs and localities" (which would be more consistent with the naming of the navbox), I can live with it either way (it might be good to be consistent with list/category/navbox). Re: neighbourhoods. Some of these are former suburbs, many of these are used in an everyday way as addresses as if they were suburbs, many are officially gazetted (see the list above) and although not officially bounded, some are well-bounded in practice by natural features (e.g. Chevron Island) and some of them have articles. Historically this list has acquired these neighbourhoods by user contribution suggesting these names are significant in the geography of the Gold Coast and they expected to find them here (indeed, some have been present in this article since it was first created in 2006). I propose they should be included but presented in some way that (like the present article) clearly shows they are not the official suburbs and bounded locations but shows how they relate to them. For example, Chevron Island can be presented as being part of Surfers Paradise by use of an additional column in the table. I see no reason to take information away from readers or hide it where they might not expect to find it, when it can be represented within the framework of the current article. And contrary to what is stated about , there are certainly such list articles including non-suburbs. As a simple example, Magnetic Island is included in the list of suburbs of Townsville, which it is not, but I think its presence in the list introducing the suburbs on Magnetic Island is more helpful to the reader than presenting Nelly Bay and Picnic Bay etc as being suburbs without indicating they are on the island and not on the mainland where a person might normally assume the suburbs of Townsville would be (which is part of the principle of least astonishment). Finally, in terms of priorities, I note that many of the suburb articles themselves could use a lot of work; many are little more than stubs. Kerry (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you feel the above somewhat misrepresents your views. I spent a lot of time and took a lot of care in writing it. I have added your additional arguments to the above and added my counterarguments. I hope you feel it accurately represents your views now. I still feel that we are at a standstill so I have sought an opinion from an uninvolved third editor. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You just got an opinion from an uninvolved third editor, but apparently ignored it because you didn't like the answer. Long, argumentative responses that don't address the issues raised are unhelpful towards establishing consensus. Kerry's suggestion seems reasonable to me, and nowhere in that lengthy response does it really address why it wouldn't solve the issue entirely (or establish a logic for putting the information elsewhere). I will add two more things: firstly, the above indicates a serious misunderstanding of WP:RS (the gazetteer is not the only reliable source about geographical places, and finding reliable sources for articles about historical places is a piece of cake), and while you note that consensus can change, you have so far failed to demonstrate that it has (or gain so much as a seconder). The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Drover's Wife, third opinions must be neutral. You have had dealings here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here with Kerry that would bias your response. Nonetheless I did not ignore your argument, I included it in the summary and provided a counterargument just as I have with every argument Kerry has made and the three you just made. I am still seeking an opinion from an uninvolved third editor. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We both edit on Queensland topics, and frequently disagree, too. Posting "counterarguments" in this manner does not assist in developing consensus, which you need to make the changes you wish to make (regardless of whether it is in the form of a new article or not) and do not presently have. This is not an appropriate way to approach wanting to make controversial changes to an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be 100% clear about this. I did not solicit a response on this matter from User:The Drover's Wife or anyone else. Having written predominantly Australian topics for many years, of course I have had past interactions with many other Australian editors along the way (including TDW), sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, generally we converge on some kind of mutually acceptable solution. It doesn't alter the independence of their opinion. I had hoped our original conversations on this topic had the same goal of finding a mutually acceptable solution and was surprised to find it being labelled a dispute within such a short time. If you would like a wider range of opinions, why not solicit them at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board? I suspect this article doesn't have a lot of active page watchers. Kerry (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clearing up your involvements. I will wait for the third opinion before soliciting opinions at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and following other dispute resolution processes. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I will list the article at Requested moves. Secondly, Robert McClenon, you provided no reason why the list should include neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns other than "they should". Analogously, do you think that municipalities "should" be added to yesterday's featured list List of counties in New Jersey instead of in the stand-alone list List of municipalities in New Jersey? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why all of the types of suburbs should be listed in one article is that most editors don't know or care what the differences are.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an appeal to popularity. New9374 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Help:TRANSSECTION|Transcluded]] discussion from [[User talk:New9374#List of Gold Coast suburbs|my user talk page]]

message: The dispute involves issues regarding article content. There are three disagreements involving mainly two editors, New9374 and Kerry Raymond. An extra editor, The Drover's Wife, has had minimal participation.
The first disagreement is whether to re-name the article List of suburbs on the City of Gold Coast or List of suburbs and localities on the City of Gold Coast. Kerry Raymond argues for the former; New9374 argues for the latter.
* Arguments for List of suburbs on the City of Gold Coast:
# "Suburbs" is intuitive to most readers to whom suburbs and localities are the same thing.Counterarguments: The term suburbs is not used to include both suburbs and localities in the Queensland Government's Queensland Place Names database. Besides the similar term state suburbs although used to include both suburbs and localities are only approximates calculated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
# There are many exceptions to the supposed urban/rural distinction between suburbs and localities.Counterargument: Although there are a few exceptions, at least in the City of Gold Coast, suburbs are still generally located in the east and have smaller areas and higher populations and localities are located in the west and have larger areas and lower populations. Besides the exception proves the rule.
# The title and lede should be accessible. We can be more precise in the article body with suitable explanation.Counterargument: Why not be precise in the title and lede as well as the article body? Indeed to become a featured list the lede must introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria.
#Consistent with the :Category:Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland and :Template:Suburb lists in Australia.Counterargument: Could change category name and template name for consistency.
* Arguments for List of suburbs and localities on the City of Gold Coast:
# There is a distinction between suburbs and localities and that distinction is important. It would be false to state "every item on the list is a suburb in the City of Gold Coast" ― or even imply by including only the term "suburbs" in the title so we must include the term "suburbs and localities" in the title.
The second disagreement is whether to keep neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns in the article. Kerry Raymond argues to keep; New9374 argues to remove.
* Arguments to keep:
# Many neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns are listed in the Queensland Government's Queensland Place Names database as "unbounded localities".Counterargument: "Unbounded localities" are no longer named.
# Most readers don't know if a place is a suburb/locality or a neighbourhood/subdivision/town. They are the same thing to them.Counterargument: Will explain in the lede. Indeed to become a featured list the lede must introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria.
# Keep in a separate section or in a column in the suburbs/localities table to deflect unwanted edits like readers adding neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns to the suburb/locality table in a new row.Counterargument: A better way to deflect unwanted edits is to clearly define the selection criteria and to explicitly state it in hidden comments and the talk page.
# It is most useful to the reader because the reader may expect to find them.Counterargument: If the reader expects to find of a list of neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns for the local government area then that's an argument to have a list on Wikipedia but not necessarily in this article. If you like, feel free to create a new article about the neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns.
# Some of the neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns have articles so it's a pity to lose links to them. And most others are often mentioned in newspapers or advertising.Counterargument: If some of them have articles and most others are cited in reliable sources then that's an argument to have a list on Wikipedia (and mention them in individual suburb/locality articles) but not necessarily in this article. If you like, feel free to create a new article about the neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns. Besides advertising is not a reliable source.Countercounterargument: Finding reliable sources about neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns is a piece of cake.Countercountercounterargument: Great. If neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns are cited in reliable sources then that's an argument to have a list on Wikipedia (and mention them in individual suburb/locality articles) but not necessarily in this article. If you like, feel free to create a new article about the neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns.
#Some neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns are former suburbs/localities.Counterargument: Former suburbs/localities are listed in the Former suburbs and localities section of the article which should mention that they become a neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns in the Fate column. Also a "Formed from" column will be added to the suburbs/localities table just like today's featured list does mentioning the neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns it was formed from.
#Many neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns are used everyday in addresses, many are gazetted (see the list above) and some are well-bounded by natural features (e.g. Chevron Island).Counterargument: Everyday address use cannot be verified. Some neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns are listed in the Queensland Government's Queensland Place Names database as "unbounded localities" but "unbounded localities" are no longer named. Some neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns are well-bounded by natural features but that is original research found using the Queensland Globe or some other map. Wikipedia's content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than [...] the editor's interpretation based on but beyond what the source actually says.Countercounterargument: This indicates a serious misunderstanding of WP:RS. The gazetteer is not the only reliable source about geographical places.Countercountercounterargument: You misunderstand me. I argue that only places listed as suburbs/localities in the Queensland Government's Queensland Place Names database should be included in this article. I am not arguing that other sources (like the Australian Bureau of Statistics or the Council of the City of Gold Coast) are unreliable.
#Historically this list has acquired neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns by user contribution suggesting these places are significant.Counterargument: That selection criteria is ambiguous, subjective, and unsupported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.
* Arguments to remove:
# To meet the guideline for stand-alone lists by writing the article to satify the common selection criteria ― a short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group ― where items are suburbs/localities.Counterargument: I/Kerry Raymond tend to be indifferent to criteria as that is about satisfying editors rather than readers.Countercounterargument: That is an opinion; not an argument. Besides guidelines are supported by consensus.
# None of the other lists of suburbs in Australia include neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns.Counterargument: Magnetic Island is included on the List of Townsville suburbs to introduce the suburbs/localities located on the island and not the mainland which is part of the principle of least astonishment.Countercounterargument: I/New9374 accept your example but that other stuff exists in violation of policies and guidelines and not according to them. Besides the geographical location of a suburb/locality could be described by maps like the featured list List of counties in Florida does.
# The list will then only include items at the Third-level administrative division (states and territories then local government area then suburbs and localities).
The third disagreement is whether to create a new standalone list article for neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns. Kerry Raymond and The Drover's Wife argue not to create; New9374 is indifferent.
* Arguments not to create:
# Neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns will be out of any context without the suburbs/localities.Counterargument: Could provide context in lede and in a suburb column like the featured list List of municipalities in Florida does.
# Casual readers won't understand why there are two articles when suburbs/localities and neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns are the same thing to them.Counterargument: Could explain in the ledes like the featured lists List of counties in Florida and List of municipalities in Florida do.
# Kerry Raymond and New9374 are unaware of any separate articles for Australian neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns. Counterargument: Although there is no precedent, consensus can change and we should ignore precedent if it prevents us from making constructive edits. If I/New9374 were to create a new article about the neighbourhoods/subdivisions, I'd personally go through Articles for creation to ensure it is suitable for Wikipedia and is notable.Counterargument: You have failed to demonstrate that consensus has changed (or gain so much as a seconder).Countercounterargument: I am not arguing for creating a new standalone list article for neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns so I don't need to demonstrate that consensus has changed. If I/New9374 were to create a new article about the neighbourhoods/subdivisions, I'd personally go through Articles for creation to ensure it is suitable for Wikipedia and is notable. Besides Wikipedia is not a democracy and so we are not voting.
Thank you, New9374 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The above somewhat misrepresents my views. While my preference is to keep the title simpler and consistent with the :Category:Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland by just using "suburbs" rather than "suburbs and localities" (which would be more consistent with the naming of the navbox), I can live with it either way (it might be good to be consistent with list/category/navbox). Re: neighbourhoods. Some of these are former suburbs, many of these are used in an everyday way as addresses as if they were suburbs, many are officially gazetted (see the list above) and although not officially bounded, some are well-bounded in practice by natural features (e.g. Chevron Island) and some of them have articles. Historically this list has acquired these neighbourhoods by user contribution suggesting these names are significant in the geography of the Gold Coast and they expected to find them here (indeed, some have been present in this article since it was first created in 2006). I propose they should be included but presented in some way that (like the present article) clearly shows they are not the official suburbs and bounded locations but shows how they relate to them. For example, Chevron Island can be presented as being part of Surfers Paradise by use of an additional column in the table. I see no reason to take information away from readers or hide it where they might not expect to find it, when it can be represented within the framework of the current article. And contrary to what is stated about , there are certainly such list articles including non-suburbs. As a simple example, Magnetic Island is included in the list of suburbs of Townsville, which it is not, but I think its presence in the list introducing the suburbs on Magnetic Island is more helpful to the reader than presenting Nelly Bay and Picnic Bay etc as being suburbs without indicating they are on the island and not on the mainland where a person might normally assume the suburbs of Townsville would be (which is part of the principle of least astonishment). Finally, in terms of priorities, I note that many of the suburb articles themselves could use a lot of work; many are little more than stubs. Kerry (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you feel the above somewhat misrepresents your views. I spent a lot of time and took a lot of care in writing it. I have added your additional arguments to the above and added my counterarguments. I hope you feel it accurately represents your views now. I still feel that we are at a standstill so I have sought an opinion from an uninvolved third editor. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You just got an opinion from an uninvolved third editor, but apparently ignored it because you didn't like the answer. Long, argumentative responses that don't address the issues raised are unhelpful towards establishing consensus. Kerry's suggestion seems reasonable to me, and nowhere in that lengthy response does it really address why it wouldn't solve the issue entirely (or establish a logic for putting the information elsewhere). I will add two more things: firstly, the above indicates a serious misunderstanding of WP:RS (the gazetteer is not the only reliable source about geographical places, and finding reliable sources for articles about historical places is a piece of cake), and while you note that consensus can change, you have so far failed to demonstrate that it has (or gain so much as a seconder). The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Drover's Wife, third opinions must be neutral. You have had dealings here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here with Kerry that would bias your response. Nonetheless I did not ignore your argument, I included it in the summary and provided a counterargument just as I have with every argument Kerry has made and the three you just made. I am still seeking an opinion from an uninvolved third editor. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We both edit on Queensland topics, and frequently disagree, too. Posting "counterarguments" in this manner does not assist in developing consensus, which you need to make the changes you wish to make (regardless of whether it is in the form of a new article or not) and do not presently have. This is not an appropriate way to approach wanting to make controversial changes to an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be 100% clear about this. I did not solicit a response on this matter from User:The Drover's Wife or anyone else. Having written predominantly Australian topics for many years, of course I have had past interactions with many other Australian editors along the way (including TDW), sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, generally we converge on some kind of mutually acceptable solution. It doesn't alter the independence of their opinion. I had hoped our original conversations on this topic had the same goal of finding a mutually acceptable solution and was surprised to find it being labelled a dispute within such a short time. If you would like a wider range of opinions, why not solicit them at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board? I suspect this article doesn't have a lot of active page watchers. Kerry (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clearing up your involvements. I will wait for the third opinion before soliciting opinions at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and following other dispute resolution processes. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3|Third opinion]]

message: You already have a third opinion, that of User:The Drover's Wife.  (If you choose to discount it as non-neutral, then it still counts as a third editor.)  For that reason, I will be removing the request from the list.  However, I will be providing my own opinions as an editor.  The first issue has to do with naming.  A contested Requested Move is the appropriate way of resolving this.  The second has to do with whether to remove certain types of places, which appear to be unincorporated neighborhoods, from the list.  My opinion is no.  The list should include all of the places in the vicinity of Gold Coast that have articles, regardless of their status.  The third was whether to create a separate list article.  That is answered.  If the entries are not removed from the list, there is no need to put them in another list.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I will list the article at Requested moves. Secondly, Robert McClenon, you provided no reason why the list should include neighbourhoods/subdivisions/towns other than "they should". Analogously, do you think that municipalities "should" be added to yesterday's featured list List of counties in New Jersey instead of in the stand-alone list List of municipalities in New Jersey? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why all of the types of suburbs should be listed in one article is that most editors don't know or care what the differences are.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an appeal to popularity. New9374 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Request for Third Opinion