Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 2

message: Based on the discussions this appears to be whats developing as a consensus Gnangarra 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that his reflects the discussion. I'd oppose outright any format like TownName (State, town) or Geographic Feature (State, Feature).--cj | talk 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1 (withdrawn)

message: Further to Drew's suggestion above, I thought we could mould the second table into something that could be placed on the notice board.  What I am unsure about is whether we simply present it as a fait accompli, whether we present it as a disallowable instrument (so to speak), or whether we put it to the vote for some sort of ratification.  It seems to me that all we need to add is: 1.  Drew's discussion above; and 2.  perhaps some real examples against each point (if they exist).  I've decided to kick it off with I@n's opening remarks way, way above - so here goes - feel free to do whatever you wish with it...
----
We have a de facto standard for Australian town names at WP:AUSTPLACES#General_strategy_and_discussion_forums and at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28places%29#Australia, where we name articles in the format: Town/city name, State name (eg. Wagga Wagga, New South Wales).  However, there doesn't seem to be a standard or convention for geographical features such as lakes, rivers and mountains.  See for example:
*:Category:Lakes of South Australia
*:Category:Lakes of New South Wales
*:Category:Rivers of Western Australia
*:Category:Mountains of New South Wales
After much discussion, debate, toing and froing and general mayhem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places, the various views were distilled to the following logical and comprehensive decision tree:
*All City, suburb, town articles use the format Town, State, e.g. Mount Eliza, Victoria;
*Unambiguously named geographic features use Geographic Feature, e.g. Uluru;
*Ambiguously named features that cross state borders use Geographic Feature (Australia) format, e.g. Snowy River (Australia);
*Ambiguously named features that are unambiguous within a state use Geographic Feature (State), e.g. Mount Eliza (Western Australia);
*Ambiguously named features that are ambiguous within a state use districts or regions, Geographic Feature (LGA, State), e.g. Mount Eliza (Gippsland, Victoria) (although option may exist here of simply using Mount Eliza (Gippsland) where there is little risk of confusing the location of the feature);
*Ambiguously named features that are co-located and therefore cannot be distinguished on location use Geographic Feature (type), e.g. Wolfe Creek (crater) and Wolfe Creek (watercourse) (used only where there is no other Wolfe Creek anywhere else);
*Pathological case: Features that include co-located features of different types AND features in other states use Geographic Feature (State-ian type) e.g. Arthur River (Western Australian river);
----
Is a poll going to achieve anything if everyone here has agreed to the proposal above? The proposd system appears to be inline with other wikipedia conventions. I think if all interested parties involved in the discussion agree, we should add this to naming conventions, notify the noticeboard about additions, and get busy renaming articles.--Peta 06:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok by me!  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too! -- I@n 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good - SatuSuro 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bendemeer is midway between Tamworth, New South Wales and Armidale, New South Wales.  St Albans, NSW is about 50km north of Richmond, New South Wales around the Yengo National Park.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: hmmm, interesting...Bendemeer seems to be around the border of the North West Slopes and Plains and the Northern Tablelands; and St Albans, NSW is on the border of the Sydney Metro area and the Hunter...hmmm... πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: the LGAs are probably Tamworth  for the first, and City of Hawkesbury for the second. --πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for dissemination and ratification

message: While we are sorting out conventions, how should we deal with places that officially have two names like Uluru (where the name debate pops up quite frequently)?--Peta 06:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Ayers Rock already redirects to Uluru - wouldn't that be considered the correct solution in terms of most conventions? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, the name is officially Uluru/Ayers Rock, there are other similarly binary names for some Australian places. The argument on Uluru has been to put it at the more common name which I agree with - but the more common name can often be a point of contention. So should our convention explicitly be to put the article at the more common of the names?--Peta 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The preferred name should comply with the standard and the less preferred name, a redirect called whatever commonsense rule applies.  Decisions as to what is the preferred name are best made a case-by-case basis.  The Uluru/Ayers Rock naming debate was a case in point. -- I@n 07:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two names

message: Sorry to keep this dragging on; I'd like it to end too but we have a problem:
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia says:
*:"Geographic features will normally follow the Geographic feature (State) format"
*but Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23#Naming convention for geographic places - conclusion says:
*:"Unambiguously named geographic features use Geographic Feature, e.g. Uluru;"
These are contradictory and leave me unsure what we've agree upon.
Snottygobble 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough - but just to tease this idea out a little bit more, I note that there is a Blackwood Creek in Tasmania - now I can see we can simply call it Blackwood Creek, but I just want to double check that that is precisely what everyone is intending.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least noone suggested we try it with places name Emu, according to the article there 619 of them. Mind you most will never rate an article anyway. Gnangarra 10:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my apologies, I didn't expect to find an article on it, and it's actually the name of a town  correctly named and directed - but I guess the general principle I am trying to clarify in my own mind remains - can a name that is technically unamibiguous cross the threshold just as in the potential example I provided in the last point.   And in relation to Gnangarra's post above, well, I'm not even going to try and get my head around that one!  My brain cells are limited in number, and on the decline... πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only a convention; and WP:IAR. If you felt that there was a high probability of confusion between Sherbrook Creek and Sherbrooke Creek, for example, and you decided to clarify the situation by naming them Sherbrook Creek (Queensland) and Sherbrooke Creek (Victoria), I for one wouldn't mind in the slightest. But I think such matters can be handled on a case-by-case basis; we don't need to alter the convention to cover it. Snottygobble 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One last query?