Talk:Murchison (Western Australia)

This article

Will not be delated - the region articles are all poorly resourced due to the size of the state. It is an essential part of western australian mining history and state history. SatuSuro 11:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I moved this to Murchison Shire because that seems a better name for it and I've cleaned it up a bit.--Isotope23 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which shows little or no local knowledge at all. Please use talk first. There are quite few issues that this cleanup has ignored. SatuSuro 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets talk about them. What issues are ignored?--Isotope23 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Murchison Shire exists and will need an article, the article is/was social/political region of the Mid West of western Australia where significant mining activities exist and encompasses 6 shires including Murichison. Historically this area has been referred to as the Murchison Goldfields as well as Murchison region, its use by the western australian governemt and historical writers about provision of services to the region. A number of newspapers in the region have used the Murchison banner. Gnangarra 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for murking this up a bit; I didn't realise there was a shire and a region. I guess my not-so-expert opinion is that this should be moved either back to the original name or perhaps to just Murchison region as I'm guessing it is the only region by this name in the world, so designating it Western AU probably isn't necessary. I'd also say a revert to the former article on just the region is in order, though I'd like to see it formatted into a paragraph... Murchison Shire could just redirect for the time being and if nobody get to it first I'll start a stub on the shire tomorrow, but someone more expert on the topic should try and take over at that point...--Isotope23 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Moved back to Murchison region of Western Australia for now, and a stub created at Shire of Murchison. Discussion on the title of this article should continue; personally I'm not keen on the current name because it is not one of the regions of Western Australia as defined by the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993. In the early years of the Swan River Colony, the outlying areas were referred to as "districts" e.g. Champion Bay district, Augusta district, etc. Perhaps Murchison district would be a more appropriate name. Hesperian 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought more Murchison Goldfields though district does convey more than one specific mining action. Gnangarra 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, how about Murchison (Western Australia)?

"The Murchison is an area of Western Australia..."

Would probably need to mention the various ways in which it has been defined: catchment of Murchison River (Western Australia), Shire of Murchison, historic district. Hesperian 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

definately the best option so far, a side thought does the shire of murchison contain a population centre? Gnangarra 01:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No - thats what isotope found in the smh art - (What a relief to see you guys on it - the stub was atrocious) - the area idea I support - that was the intent of the original stub... thanks for the work guys! SatuSuro 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Will need to be carefuly editing to make sure the future form of this article dosnt repeat the shire article - there are quie a few features of the shire that can be informative that do not necessarily fit into the region/area article, please ask me if need be SatuSuro 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking to SatuSuro he thought The Murchison, which when I think about it is a good catch all name and is a common term for the region. This title would neutral enough encompassing the use of variants and thier dynamic areas. Gnangarra 10:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shame on me. I'm constantly nagging us to spend more time informing ourselves and less time discussing in ignorance, but this time I forgot to heed my own advice. The Gazetteer of Australia lists a town called "Murchison", a "Shire of Murchison" and an "unbounded locality" (i.e. code LOCU) named "Murchison".[1] The last of these places is literally an area with a name but with no defined boundary - a nebulous area, an area that SatuSuro might say "does not necessarily fit into the river catchment - the shire boundary or any official boundary - it is... problematic."[2] I suspect that this refers to what we're talking about here; that is, I suspect that the difficult-to-define area that is the subject of this article has in fact been gazetted as "Murchison". If so, then Murchison (Western Australia) is the correct title. But of course I'm only speculating here; I could be barking up the wrong tree without a paddle. Hesperian 12:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hesperian, thank you - it vindicates everything from the poorly written stub, and yours and gnangaras work and talk; as youve been just editing old jarrah tree - no its not the wrong one and there is no need for a paddle. In other words eureka! Thanks SatuSuro 12:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That enough for me I've been Bold and move the page, also dab/fixed redirects in articles left talk pages unaltered —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC). Ever get the feeling someones watching you, Gnangarra 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just wanted to say, nice work all around on the 2 articles. Murchison (Western Australia) could probably stand some expansion but I imagine sourced information to work from is the problem here...--Isotope23 14:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Never when Hesperian, Gnangarra and Henrietta [3] are at hand...:) SatuSuro 14:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt be an issue there a number of articles linked to this that have sources for expansion. The next problem will be how to define and then adjust that definition for each of the variants. Gnangarra 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murchison (Western Australia). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070920150649/http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/methodology/geophysics/murchison_1nov04.jsp to http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/methodology/geophysics/murchison_1nov04.jsp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge?

I raised this mainly because both leads say that the article refers to the IBRA region. There is further confusion of terms (biogeographic vs bioregion vs ecozone, in those articles), but I'm not going there. I'm hoping that some WA editors can decide what to do about these two - either distinguish them in the leads, or merge. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)