Talk:Condobolin

message: I am removing references to "Condo".  I don't think it is that common.  If reinserted, please cite a source.--A  Y  Arktos 11:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condo 

message: *Support Condobolin is a unique name. Other uses of Condobolin (i.e. Condobolin railway station, New South Wales) are derivative. The name of the town is not, and never has been "Condobolin, New South Wales". The town is not referred to by anyone as "Condobolin, New South Wales" either in reliable sources or in common parlance. A similar discussion about a similar sized western New South Wales town with a similarly unique name was at Talk:Deniliquin#Requested move which saw that article moved to its common sense name. I should note the existence of  WP:NCGN#Australia which states that most Australian populated place names are at Name, State. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment It is not contrary to any convention. WP:NCGN#Australia states "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is" This does not mandate anything for any article nor does it say anything about consensus, it merely states the facts on the ground. Compare this with the US convention "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State" which specifically mandates a particular naming convention. I fail to see why discussion on individual articles should stop while the community tries to arrive on a agreed position. This may never happen. The individual RM discussions have been helpful in clarifying where consensus lies - much more helpful than the mass dung-flinging exercises that RfCs tend to degenerate to. Regardless of the wording of the Australian convention, more of these discussions will come forward because who would know if Mount Gambier, South Australia, Townsville, Queensland and Broken Hill, New South Wales are primary topics or not? I think they are, others may quite reasonably think otherwise. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *Comment: Can you confirm then that the only reason you oppose this move is that you believe that it contravenes the convention? More below on the matters you raise above, but I raise this particular question as part of the survey because I think it is relevant to the weight given to your vote. No change of my vote. Andrewa (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.chinci.com/travel/pax/q/2170841/Condobolin/AU/Australia/0/#. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed