Talk:Meshblock

Should the title be Meshblock or Mesh Block?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for, and already moved to, Meshblock. --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I think that this article should be moved to the title Meshblock or possibly Mesh Block. Where an article is about something that can be both singular or plural a singular title is probably a better title. From what I can tell, the term meshblock is used by Statistics New Zealand, while the term Mesh Block is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They have fairly similar definitions. The only articles that currently link to the article about Mesh blocks are all related to Statistics New Zealand surveys. Also this article is ranked as a mid-importance New Zealand article. Currently there are two(2) Wikipedia articles relating to Australia that use mesh blocks or Mesh Blocks. Also when it is used elsewhere it is usually written as a proper noun Mesh Block, often as a pural, from Australian sources mostly concerning the Austrailan Census. However, there are at least ten(10) New Zealand related Wikipedia articles that contain Meshblock or Meshblocks. Elsewhere the term meshblock is dominated by material from New Zealand sources and while these are also generally related to the New Zealand Census, the breadth and scope of these sources are far wider than for Australia. There is no obvious evidence that meshblock or mesh block are used elsewhere in the world. Although other agencies may have a similar concept, they use different names and definitions. Considering this, my preferred title is Meshblock. At this stage I don't think there is a need for a separate Mesh Block article, as I suspect the Australian term has been borrowed from the New Zealand usage. Does anyone have any other thoughts before I move the page? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Either I think either singular works for now for the move, but I'm always leery about adopting style guidelines from outside sources unless a consensus among Wikipedians is reached for a new guideline in the manual of style. Additionally, unless this has been properly adjudicated, within the MoS or village pump or other venue (which requester's research suggests it hasn't been), citing other Wikipedia articles may be counterproductive because those editors were also adopting the outside sources' styles. However, this phrase seems to not be in wide use, in general; is this assumption true? If so, my qualms are mitigated. Also: this is a mid-importance stub, so it's a minor issue at the moment. The move, though, is needed. Fdssdf (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Summoned by bot. This discussion should not be an RfC but instead a WP:RM. Nonetheless, given the arguments above, I have no problem moving the page to "Meshblock". Meatsgains (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Meshblock – It should be meshblock as defined by Statistics New Zealand here. JaumeBG (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per proposal. Needs admin help; User:Gadfium, could you please move over the redirect? Schwede66 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meshblock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.councils.wa.gov.au/directory/news_room/lg_news/lgnews17.06/download
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719045643/http://www.apa.org.au/upload/2004-3C_Blanchfield.pdf to http://www.apa.org.au/upload/2004-3C_Blanchfield.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)