Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places
Latest comment: 17 years ago by ScottDavis in topic re-invent the wheel for every country?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Lakes, rivers and mountains

Latest comment: 17 years ago77 comments12 people in discussion

We have a de facto standard for Australian town names at WP:AUSTPLACES#General_strategy_and_discussion_forums and at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#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:

I see no reason why the standard for towns shouldn't also apply to geographical features and I therefore propose that being added to the above policy statements. eg. Avon River, Western Australia. I do accept that there may be occasional exceptions for iconic features like say Uluru however. -- I@n 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Having come across a range of place names that have had qualifying states names removed, I would support any re-instatement, or consistent policies across all places to remove any doubts as to the location - SatuSuro 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the commonality of place names not just within Australia using the state loaction as we already do for towns/cities this should be a nobrainer. There are going to be the obvious exceptions for structures like the Murray River, but then the Murray River, Western Australia is a seperate water course and is going to need a qualifier anyway. Gnangarra 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea. Two questions:
  1. Should features that cross state boundaries be automatically disambiguated using Feature, Australia, or disambiguated only if necessary?
  2. What is the scope? Water courses, water bodies, hills, mountains and valleys are all obvious geographic features that the rule should apply to. I'd also like to include islands, and coastal features such as bays, gulfs, points, capes and peninsulas. Do we agree with this? What about reefs? Caves? Dams? Mines? Roads? Trails? Railway lines? Railway stations? Forests? Sheep stations? National parks? Heritage listed places? Administrative regions? Political divisions? Statistical divisions? Parishes? (Yes, I know I'm going overboard, but we need to settle this if its going to work.)
Snottygobble 00:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On a related note, instead of using a comma separator, could we please use brackets. We can then use the pipe trick which is really marvellous and would save a lot of effort. I note Canadian places, such as Lake Claire (Alberta) use brackets for this disambiguation.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, I can see that I didn't fully think this through. What Snottygobble said is spot on, we need to resolve to do this across the board if at all. And AYArktos's pipe trick is new to me, and sounds like a great idea idea - you learn something everyday. The obvious issue is that we have possibly several thousand town articles using the Town, State format which I'm sure we don't want to change at this late stage. Perhaps we could just use Placename (State) for geographical feature articles. -- I@n 01:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I've changed my mind. Brackets look ugly. Despite the advantage of the pipe-trick, I'd like to see us being consistent and us the same format as towns. -- I@n 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    I like the parentheses format too. Not just because of the pipe trick but mainly because Margaret River (Western Australia) makes it immediately clear that the gazetted name is Margaret River and the rest is merely a disambiguation, whereas Margaret River, Western Australia does not. However, I am opposed to adopting different formats for different feature types. My first preference would be to adopt the parentheses format for everything. This would require taking a proposal to WP:AWNB and getting a lot of support. And it would require moving every town article. I could write a bot to do this if necessary, but I'm sure there are already bots around that could do it for us. My second preference would be to adopt the comma form across the board.
    Regarding the scope, I would like to see this rule imposed on every article on a feature that appears in the Gazetteer of Australia. This webpage lists the kinds of things I'm talking about. Snottygobble 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (after two edit conflicts, may not reflect latest state of conversation) The existing documented comma convention only applies to towns and cities. Therefore, in theory, any other types of places are covered by the general WP:NAME policy, which is not very specific. WP:DISAMBIG#Specific_topic offers that a disambiguating word or phrase in parentheses should be either the generic class of object (Mount Woodroffe (mountain) is a bit silly, but Mount Gambier (mountain) might make sense to distinguish it from Mount Gambier, South Australia about the town) or a subject or context, so we could use either (Australia) or a state name as required on a case-by-case basis. There is likely no need for preemptive disambiguation of most cases of non-town places in Australia. I support AYArktos that we should use parentheses not comma for non-town places, but only when required. --Scott Davis Talk 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (and another edit conflict) The Canadians and Americans seem to have a deliberate inconsistency between towns and other geographic features. For example Wainwright, Alberta is disambiguated by a comma but the lake in the above example is disambiguated with brackets. They also seem not to automatically disambiguate place names for lakes, mountains, etc. Wholesale changes to Australian geographical features could be made by a bot ie Xyz, New South Wales moved to Xyz (New South Wales) similar to when categories are renamed. The pipe trick is very very nifty so it would be my preference. However, Cooma, New South Wales looks better in an article than Cooma (New South Wales), so I can certainly see that side of the argument. I have not much difficulty with inconsistency between features and towns as per the Canadians, it would be better if all features souch as lakes, mountains etc were disambiguated one way or the other and I think many are already disambiguated with brackets as that is the normal disambiguation method, as for people also - eg William Buckley (convict)--A Y Arktos\talk 02:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    In my experience one tends to write "Cooma, New South Wales" if the state is relevant, and Cooma if it isn't. I virtually never write Cooma, New South Wales, so the comma gives me nothing. Snottygobble 02:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Back in the old days when I used to trawl lagre numbers of random arts, I would come across so many us geographical/place/county/etc entries with nothing in the title of the art, or the first three lines of the intro that would clarify the country (the brits are as good at this as well, or were...) I think if we Australian editors can show the way with this one, maybe some bright spark in the us can be convinced to create a bot to sort their gigantic place name heirarchy with something that qualifies all their millions of entries with nothing identifying their country - which is my way of saying whatever qualification to a place name in australia is amenable to a consensus among us - lets do it. As I have created entries with parenthesis and comma, I do hope there is a way to creating a stable and consistent criteria - and if there is a need to say so - long live the bot creators! SatuSuro 02:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not disambiguate geographical features unless there is actually an ambiguity. However, I'd support a standard format for disambiguating these articles when it is necessary; as above, I prefer the parentheses method.--cj | talk 04:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Margaret river is an interesting example Margaret River, Western Australia is the town then there is the river Margaret (Western Australia) but how do we identify the region Margaret River. This is a consisteant standard, I think the current town/city name should remain unchanged. Then the question is do we want to have pages titled Margaret River, Western Australia (river) Margaret River, Western Australia (tourist/agricultural region) and Margaret River, Western Australia, do we need to created a dab page Margaret River or does creating an alternative naming convention do that for us Gnangarra 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict), I do think that its better to be concise as early as possible in the name, it saves a lot of effort when conflicting subject matter arises. Gnangarra 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gnangarra's point is important. Whatever system we introduce must be flexible enough to handle this. The worst example I've come across is Mount Eliza. According to the Gazetteer, Mount Eliza refers to:
  1. One mount in NT
  2. One mount in QLD
  3. One mount in Tas
  4. One hill in ACT
  5. Four different mounts in Vic (one no longer official)
  6. One town in Vic
  7. Three mounts in WA
  8. One mount in NSW
The single state occurrences are easily handled, but how do we handle the Victorian case? The town can be disambiguated by Mount Eliza (Victorian town) or Mount Eliza, Victoria (town), but I can't see any reasonable way of disambiguating the four Victorian mounts under either system. Snottygobble 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For this case it would be better to have a single mountain article cover the four sites ie Mount Eliza (Victoria) and then where a more extensive article is required, link to the individual place names ie Mount Eliza, (Mornington Penninsula, Victoria). The WA instances one is the site of Kings Park as such that this is the more recognised name. The other instances would be treated as above with Mount Eliza (Western Australia) including a small sectionon Kings Park linking to an individual article. Gnangarra 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Victorian case, the town would naturally be at Mount Eliza, Victoria. The town article would link to the general disambig page at Mount Eliza. The four mounts would be claused by their immediate vincinity/region (eg, Mount Eliza (Mornington Penninsula)).--cj | talk 05:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That looks better for Mt Eliza, though I suspect that most of them wouldn't need more than a paragraph within another article. Gnangarra 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
cj, you said above that you support the parenthesis method, but down here you proposed Mount Eliza, Victoria for the town. Can you clarify? Snottygobble 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The naming conventions prescribe the comma method for Australian towns/cities/suburbs. I support the parenthetical method for geographical features (excluding settlements).--cj | talk 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for throwing my two Canadian cents in here, eh. Somehow Snottygobble's talk page is on my watch list (probably related to conversations about prospectors or gold rushes) and I just happened to look in it and saw the link to this page. Take a look at Winnipeg (disambiguation) (also affectionately known as Winterpeg) to see what we do. Please don't use commas for geographic features other than cities/towns/villages, it would be confusing to the rest of us used to the North American convention, which we have also imposed on the Brits (with county names) where needed. Please use brackets for geographical features. Take a look at Perth or Windsor or Niagara Falls (disambiguation) or Thames River (Ontario). There is a related discussion going on at the Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_wikipedians'_notice_board#Canadian_city_naming_convention about large cities with unambiguous names. I would appreciate you guys coming to a consensus and fixing City of Whitehorse near Melbourne since I do live in the original City of Whitehorse :-) Luigizanasi 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is only one river or whatever by that name, it really doesn't need to have the state in the page name. We got ourselves in the stupid situation where all the places where people live in Australia also have the state - I don't think we should apply that convention to natural features. If you call the Margaret River just that a big part of the above discussed problem goes away.--Peta 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I wouldn't support abolishing the current naming convention.--cj | talk 06:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I also think we shouldn't get too concerned about including and disambiguating all 315 000 gazetted places in Australia. :) --Peta 09:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, there may well be many physical features that can stand alone unambiguous with only one entry in the gazetteer, but we do need to have accepted credible means of getting around the exceptions that have been brought up above - I do not think we should default to us centric devices that have no identifier or clarifier in either the title or the first three lines of the intro - that's falling into the same trap of the us place name mess SatuSuro 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont think that there was any need to create Wagga Wagga, New South Wales and that Wagga Wagga would have stood alone unchallenged, but the decision to have the clarifier is about consistancy. What we need is a format that applies to 95% of all geographic articles, the other 5% being places like Uluru. For some places the qualifier will be unnecessary and others an additional qualifier will be required. Overall the use of a qualifier needs to be consistant and easily applied to all articles. Gnangarra 12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think "Lake/river, state" format is quite unnecessary. I think the "American naming conventions" could be used here. For example "Swan River, Colorado" for settlement/town and "Swan River (Colorado)" for river/natural feature. American conventions also don't use "Lake/river, state" format where it is not necessary. For example Wabash River but White River (Michigan). - Darwinek 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as you're not suggesting that Swan River, Colorado and Swan River (Colorado) may simultaneously host different articles; that would seem absolutely bizarre to any reader not intimately familiar with our naming conventions. In such cases convention must give way to common sense disambiguation e.g. Swan River (Colorado town) and Swan River (Colorado watercourse). Snottygobble 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On the point of pre-disambiguation, there is a guideline that disambigs should only be created when that it is reasonable to think that the article will be written at some point. There are a lot of places that probably don't require articles. Going back to to the Mt Victoria example, the towns in VIC and NSW, the NSW mountain (highest in the Blue Mountains) are probably the only ones of any real significance.--Peta 01:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Wikipedian Disambiguate Disambiguation convention
I@n Almost always pre-disambiguate Comma
SatuSuro Almost always pre-disambiguate
Gnangarra Almost always pre-disambiguate Comma Brackets
AYArktos Only as necessary Brackets
Snottygobble Only as necessary Brackets
Scott Davis Only as necessary Brackets
cj Only as necessary Brackets
Luigizanasa Brackets
Peta Only as necessary Brackets, due to use in other countries
Darwinek Only as necessary
Randwicked Only as necessary Brackets
Pippu d'angelo Only as necessary, but heavy weighting towards encouraging its use. Brackets for geographic names while retaining comma for towns/cities.

Regarding town names, it seems there are two positions. Some of us want to retain the current convention; some would like to change it. Perhaps we can set this issue aside for now? Those of us who like the current town naming conventions should be happy to set the discussion aside; those of us who don't like it will perhaps recognise that first formalising the geographic naming conventions will make this issue easier to tackle later.

If I can attempt a summary of the geographical naming conventions side of the discussion, there seems to be two points of view over geographic names. My Western Australian compatriots I@n, SatuSuro and Gnangarra think that we should always pre-disambiguate article titles, and favour the comma convention for doing so (I was with them initially but have flip-flopped). The rest of us favour disambiguating article titles only when necessary, and prefer the brackets convention.--Snottygobble 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My take after a first read. The <town/city, state> policy already exists, reads nicely and is consistent with our North American brethren. It is almost tempting to say that all geographic features should follow the same format - but I think some excellent arguments have been put forward for why we should not follow it. So, is there a problem with having one format for towns/cities and another for geographic place names? - I have to conclude that there is no real problem apart from communicating the policy and educating users. In fact, I would go a step further and say that it is desirable, because: 1. it provides the perfect solution to instances where the name is shared by both a town and a geographic feature - the format of the town automatically disambiguates betweeen the two; 2. the current format for towns/cities is now fairly well bedded down and should not be toyed with unless there is a very good reason; 3. there appears to be a consistency of approach emerging across all English speaking countries - which can't be a bad thing; 4. the two different formats for the two different areas of disambig appear to have an intuitive appeal.
That brings us to these two further questions (partly dealt with): 1. disambiguate always or only when necessary; 2. what to do when we have a particular geographic place name appear in the same state more than once (already having a solution for disambiguating from a town/city with the same name). With the first, I think it is a secondary issue that doesn't necessarily need a firm rule - there is very little consequence if one does always or doesn't - and I think in practice something will emerge over time in that regard - in other words, let's not allow this part of the discussion to slow down our decision making on the more important aspect. In any event, there is a general policy on disambigs already, if that were applied here, it would mean we are only doing it when necessary (although I would support a strict interpretation of that, meaning a preference to using the disambig format, unless absolutely clear that it is not necessary). With the latter, having decided to use brackets for geographic place names, it becomes clear that where more than one is in the same place, that another qualifier be used alongside the state name within the bracket, e.g. <apologising in advance for the stupid example>: Mount Eliza (Mornington Peninsula, Victoria) or something similar. Cumbersome? Yes, but its need will be a rarity, so let's agree the practice and move on. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: "it provides the perfect solution to instances where the name is shared by both a town and a geographic feature - the format of the town automatically disambiguates betweeen the two", do you really think it is appropriate to simultaneously have a town article at Boyup Brook, Western Australia and a watercourse article at Boyup Brook (Western Australia)? This would seem rather ridiculous to anyone not familiar with our naming conventions. Snottygobble 03:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, the Boyup Brook article could become the article about the stream, with a disambig link like {{for|the town|Boyup Brook, Western Australia}}
For the town, see Boyup Brook, Western Australia.
Or the plain one could remain a redirect to the town with {{redirect|Boyup Brook|the stream|[[Boyup Brook (stream)]]}}
"Boyup Brook" redirects here. For the stream, see [[:Boyup Brook (stream)]].
or {{redirect|Boyup Brook}}
"Boyup Brook" redirects here. For other uses, see Boyup Brook (disambiguation).
or make the primary term a disambiguation page like Crystal Brook, which allows space to later add Crystal Brook, Queensland, Crystal Brook railway station and Crystal Brook earthquake/train crash/serial killer. --Scott Davis Talk 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Snottygobble on this one. I'm not convinced that there is a need for this change at all, really. We needed the town and suburb standard because there was major problems with articles being at a bunch of different titles. I'm not seeing that issue here. Rebecca 03:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But isn't he actively exploring the need for a change? (or at least seeking clarification on what to do with names other than towns/cities). In just a quick scan, I have certainly come across a few different formats already in use in Aust-geo names, so we certainly need to take a good look at this. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't need to change if everybody already agreed on a convention, we'd only be formalising it. I've noticed a number of articles about natural features moved by someone else to <Mount Blah, State> form, citing an established naming convention, which clearly had not been established. I just never got round to asking why they thought it was. --Scott Davis Talk 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why in this instance the watercourse Boyup Brook needs to be disambiguated - are there more that one? I don't think you are supposed to make disambig pages when there are only two entries, if someone seaches for Boyup Brook they will get the water course and a link to the town article. When there are 10 of the same place you just need to create a disambig at the most basic name like Mount Victoria, and then diambigate everything there - since someone is highly unlikely to search for Mount Victoria (New South Wales) - they will in all probability find what they are looking for on the disambig.--Peta 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point. There's also the shire, but that could go at Shire of Boyup Brook. This is a good example of the difficulties caused by the clash between conventions. The town is far more prominent than the watercourse, so the town has the greatest claim to being at Boyup Brook. Oops, but we predisambiguate town articles using the comma convention. So the town goes at Boyup Brook, Western Australia. Since Boyup Brook is free, this is a logical place to put the watercourse. But this would result in anyone searching for "Boyup Brook" being directed to the watercourse when it is far more likely they were looking for the town. So we turn Boyup Brook into a redirect to Boyup Brook, Western Australia, which title is just as ambiguous. We then include a disambiguation notice pointing to Boyup Brook (watercourse). What a mess! Snottygobble 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This is precisely why Boyup Brook becomes the disambig page. From there you have the three choices: Boyup Brook, Western Australia, Boyup Brook (Western Australia) and Shire of Boyup Brook. Each of these would be fully explained in the disambig page - that's where the real difference is made - that's why the disambig page exists. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that there's a shire has let you out of jail. What would you do if there was no shire? - we don't have disambig pages when there's only two articles.
Better still, how do you propose to handle Arthur River, which is a town and watercourse in Tasmania, and a town and watercourse in WA? Snottygobble 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct on the first point, I think we would have to accept that at the end of the day there may be a handful of geo names that attract "creative" solutions (having exhausted all options as one progresses down the decision tree) - but the basic point remains that as long as there is a disambig page, that is less of an issue. On the second point: Arthur River (the disambig page); Arthur River, Tasmania, Arthur River (Tasmania), Arthur River, Western Australia and Arthur River (Western Australia). Will readers be confused by the differing uses of commas and brackets, maybe, but once again, the disambig page is there to direct them to where they really want to be - that will have less to do with the punctuation marking of the title and more to do with the brief explanation provided. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the ongoing issue of communication and education of policy, yes, I am saying that it provides a possible solution to disambiguating a name used for both a town/city and a geographic feature. Especially so if we accept the current format for Australian towns/cities (which I think most do), and we are also leaning towards using brackets for geographic features, then it seems to me that the town/city vs geographic feature problem no longer exists - the agreed formatting has effectively taken care of it. Afterall, these are all just naming conventions to disambiguate, they have no bearing on the actual content of the articles themselves, and it's the disambig page that serves as the primary navigation tool - everything else is mostly window dressing (i.e. use of commas, brackets, or whatever else). --ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
For the purposes of the discussion, may I highlight a few current titles that may inform the drafting of a policy. Firstly, Murray River points directly to the well known Australian river, and at the moment, this gets us around working out whether it is in NSW or Victoria (I presume it is in neither). If we did have to disambiguate, and I think we probably should, it might have to become Murray River (Australia), bearing in mind that there is already Murray River (Western Australia) and Murray River, New Zealand. I note also that the Snowy River starts in NSW and ends up in Vic, and that there is also a Snowy River in New Zealand (without an article) - so this too may one day end up as Snowy River (Australia) - if we accept we should use the "Australia" where there is a doubt about the state to use - that may need to be spelled out in the policy, and that is the main reason I raise both these examples. This also gets me to thinking, is there a separate New Zealand user group? Should we invite New Zealand views in framing such a policy? If we are to use brackets to disambiguate geographic place names, is it desirable that it be applied across both, or is it someone else's issue to sort out? Considering that a policy appears to be emerging across all English speaking countries (a good thing in my mind in this instance) - can we assist somehow in the policy also being taking up by our nearby brethren? Are there any formal links between the two groups? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
when considering the use of a Dab option you only need to read past discussion about the use of Perth and the number of page moves. That it re occurs all to frequently as different people use different criteria for whats the more significant subject. Gnangarra 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Also places like Perth Airport need to be considered as part of this discussion Gnangarra 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
yes, agreed, I had to learn the hard way with a lengthy discussion on Syracuse. I am now committed to avoiding all such discussions about which is more important/significant/most sought after, etc. A wise person on the wikipedia mail list said to me that if there is a discussion, then that is a sure sign that the name of the city should be the disambig page - everything else hanging off it. In summary, if Perth can be a disambig page - most cities can be (should be) as well - so work on the principle that that is (or is likely to be) the case, and focus on a sensible policy for all titles that will appear on that page. This means it is preferable to have a title like Boyup Brook being the disambig page, and for the other three contained therein with a brief description. This immediately avoids all debates about what should or shouldn't by primary, etc. and everyone can find what they are looking for on the disambig page (since 99.99% of people will search using the basic name). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel this discussion is becoming un-necessarily complicated. Some of the the above comments concern disambiguation in general and are matters already adequately dealt with by existing guidelines. This discussion was suppossed to be about (or at least I thought it was) whether geographic features should be predisambiguated and whether a particular format of disambiguation should be adopted for them.--cj | talk 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempt for consensus?

I think we're still a fair way from achieving consensus. Should we seek wider input e.g. WP:AWNB, or continue the discussion here for a while longer? Snottygobble 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call a straw poll here and draw the attention of AWNB to its existence.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've again refactored the discussion, chopping off a redundant part of AYArktos' above comment. I hope that's okay?
Yes, I think this ought to be settled. Someone care to post to AWNB?--cj | talk 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Initial proposal

Proposal 1 (withdrawn)

Based on the discussions this appears to be whats developing as a consensus Gnangarra 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Where names of towns are also geographic feature the format becomes

example

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)

Proposal 2

My understanding was something more like the below, although I accept that there are a number of view that differ. Snottygobble 06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the last one is a reasonable summation and offers a decent decision-tree. I would just add (apologising in advance for perhaps unnecessarily complicating matters): 1. in the last example, and I know it was only an example, but it seems to me that Arthur River (West Australia) covers it adequately without any other qualifier, seeing that the town would be Arthur River, West Australia, and the Tasmanian ones would have "Tasmania" in the title. Or do you mean, for example, if Wolfe Creek itself has other so-named features in other states, then we would need, say, Wolfe Creek (Tasmanian watercourse), etc. - is that the idea? 2. Using Arthur River as an example again, and you are correct in saying that this is covered already by general disambig policies, but this question is arising in any event, should we automatically make it the disambig page? Logic would say yes, but I'm not getting that clearcut impression from some of the discussion occurring here right across the board. Even in the unambiguous examples, I can see future articles arising with a need to have Uluru and Kakadu in the title. We would then create a separate DAB page, and current policies certainly allow that, but do we want to encourage their proliferation? Surely that is related to the current discussion and merits some attention as well? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was: if Example Creek was a WA crater, a WA creek and a Tasmanian creek; AND the WA crater and creek were co-located making it impossible to disambiguate on location; then the article titles would be:
Example Creek (crater);
Example Creek (Western Australian watercourse);
Example Creek (Tasmania);
Snottygobble 08:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
lets go with this one it is clearer when displayed Gnangarra 07:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this one as far as geographic features go. I think we may need some flexibility that a state is not always the natural disambiguator to put in parentheses. There are presently 11 links to Brisbane Water. Should 9 go to Brisbane Water (New South Wales) and two to Brisbane Water (Queensland), or would "(bay)" and "(utility)" be better disambiguators? The fact that four times as many links go to one of the meanings, and that's the meaning that presently has an article, makes it obvious which is the primary meaning, although I 'd guess most people outside eastern NSW get it wrong. --Scott Davis Talk 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Only one is a geographic feature, so only one is subject to the established convention that we disambiguate on administrative division in preference to feature type. Therefore I would go with Brisbane Water (New South Wales) and Brisbane Water (utility). Snottygobble 08:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Or Brisbane Water and Brisbane Water (utility). Snottygobble 08:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This proposal seems good to me. I think some binding poll should be set up soon to solve this issue. - Darwinek 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - Drew's additional examples make it clearer for me - does it follow automatically that Example Creek would become the disambig page? I have one other stupid question. A few people have mentioned that disambig pages should not be created for only two articles. Is that a specific Wikiproject Australia policy? I couldn't find anything in the general guidelines, and certainly all the other wiki projects I am involved in allow this. I sort of see some sense in allowing it because the page is then in existence for future additions (as invariably happens) and saves on a lot of future heartache and argie-bargie. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a guideline rather than a rule, and can be broken when there is good reason to do so. Snottygobble 11:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The remaining issue that's bugging me is whether it is appropriate to simultaneously have a river article at Arthur River (Western Australia) and a town article at Arthur River, Western Australia. I've expressed opposition to this; Pippu has expressed support; noone else seems to have commented either way. Snottygobble 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How will a joe blow reader know what the hell the distinction is? Surely thats the bottom line? SatuSuro 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much to Snottygobble and others for getting the discussion to this point and helping to clarify the proposal for us all. WRT to Arthur River, I can't see a problem with having a Arthur River (Western Australia) and Arthur River, Western Australia. So what's the next step in having a poll? -- I@n 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I also don't think it is a problem since they will both be on a disambig page that says that one is a town and the other is a river.--Peta 12:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we go with the second proposal for Australian articles and post it at WP:AWNB to see what the broader community thinks Gnangarra 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why it is necessary to double clause features which are ambiguous within a state. In other words, why not Geographic Feature (Region) instead of the cumbersome Geographic Feature (Region, State).--cj | talk 12:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think region is better than LGA - but I don't think we have a coherent set of Australian regions. I agree that X (Y,Z) is a bit contrived, can't we just give them an arbitrary I,II and III if the situation ever arises where three identicaly named features within the same state that are all interesting enough to need an encyclopedia article.--Peta 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that cj's query is just about the final thing to sort out. If I understand it correctly, this will arise when these sets of circumstances coincide: 1. the name is used for more than one geo feature within a state; and 2. the same name applies to one or more geo feature in another state. If the name applies to more than one geo feature within a state, we simply go with Geo feature name (noun). Is that right? But once the name is shared with a similar feature in another state, that's when we need to become a bit more creative. Are there any real examples anyone can think of? If it is an extremely rare occurrence, it probably doesn't matter too much which way we go. At one stage, didn't someone suggest Geo feature name (state-ian noun) to get around this problem? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry - I just realised the someone was cj in the actual proposal! so, the region thing is only an issue, where say there is more than one type of that feature with the same name in the one state. Is that right? Are there any examples? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Snottygobble listed this example earlier in the discussion for the name Mt Eliza. Gnangarra 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. One mount in NT
  2. One mount in QLD
  3. One mount in Tas
  4. One hill in ACT
  5. Four different mounts in Vic (one no longer official)
  6. One town in Vic
  7. Three mounts in WA
  8. One mount in NSW


Another thought: Where do islands sit? Are they geographical features or place names? I would assume we'd call them geo-features. -- I@n 14:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Islands are features that are not towns, the same as mountains, rivers, bays and lakes. I support CJ that if disambig is needed at a finer level than state, then a region name or nearby city should be enough. --Scott Davis Talk 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok - got it - the regional question arises in the case of the 4 mounts in Vic and thee three in WA - region or nearby town/city will do it. The town in Vic gets done as normal. The others might be something like Mount Eliza (Wimmera), Mount Eliza (Gippsland), etc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A close read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) indicates that the breakdown should be successive administrative units. We seem to have come to the consensus that we would rather just use whatever breakdown is sensible and easily recognisable. For example, one of the WA Mount Elizas is probably best disambiguated by region (Mount Eliza (Kimberley, Western Australia)); another by city (Mount Eliza (Perth, Western Australia); and the third either by shire (Mount Eliza (Ngaanyatjarraku, Western Australia)) or desert (Mount Eliza (Gibson Desert)). I'm happy with this outcome, and don't mind thumbing my nose at the overall convention on this point.
The naming conventions also establish that we should be using Mount Eliza (Gippsland, Victoria) rather than just Mount Eliza (Gippsland). I'll getting this from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Parenthetical method where it gives the example format "ShortName (HigherDivision, HighestDivision)". I think this yields a neater and more sensible disambig page:
Mount Eliza may refer to:
Mount Eliza (Australian Capital Territory)
Mount Eliza (New South Wales)
Mount Eliza (Northern Territory)
Mount Eliza (Queensland)
Mount Eliza (Tasmania)
Mount Eliza (Gippsland, Victoria)
Mount Eliza (Wimmera, Victoria)
etc
Mount Eliza, Victoria, town
Mount Eliza (Kimberley, Western Australia)
Mount Eliza (Ngaanyatjarraku, Western Australia)
Mount Eliza (Perth, Western Australia)
but I can see cj's and others' points too, and I have no objection to ignoring the convention on this point. Perhaps we could agree to take into account the ambiguity of the disambiguating term. e.g. "Perth" has many uses so Mount Eliza (Perth, Western Australia); "Kimberley" exists in both Western Australia and South Africa, so Mount Eliza (Kimberley, Western Australia), but "Ngaanyatjarraku" and "Gibson Desert" are both fairly unambiguous so Mount Eliza (Ngaanyatjarraku) or Mount Eliza (Gibson Desert). Snottygobble 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes good sense - I think you have successfully wrapped up the discussion - this represents just a minor addition to cj's decision tree above - ok - what do we do next? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess a collaborative attempt to explicate our consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places/Naming conventions. Snottygobble 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for dissemination and ratification

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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_(places)#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:

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)

ok by me! πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too! -- I@n 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good - SatuSuro 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • What about parks and gardens, can they stay as [[name, state]]? That's the way the Canberra ones are done at the moment, and on the face of it, that seems fine (because I presume we do not classify them as a geo feature). πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Two names

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)

re-invent the wheel for every country?

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

why not use things like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It does follow the US convention for naming rivers. Australia has a lot of places with the same name, so we have had to com up with some more complex naming conventions for multiple places of the same name.--Peta 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you give such a "complex" example where applying Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming does not work? IMO it's not at all a good idea to have special naming conventions for geographic features for every country. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This convention does follow the US convention, in that each is dab by the largest government area. The difference comes in that it is being applied to not just watercourse but to all geographic features and therefore needs to be clear and consistant. It isnt possible to say that it sohlud be dab by the watercours it which it discharges as this is possible for mountains. Gnangarra 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
By and large, I think we have followed the thrust of the above policy, but as Peta says, we simply have looked at a wider range of potential ambiguities than they ended up doing, not to mention that we considered all geo features, and not just rivers. I honestly do not think that there is any contradiction here. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the only part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming that is of concern the bit about disambiguating two rivers in Michigan by the name of what they flow into? Note that above that, it suggests disambiguating by region (Moldavia and Texas are the examples at the top). It says In practice, most rivers needing disambiguation have been identified by the smallest appropriate political entity. So Colorado River and Colorado River (Texas). Of course the "Principal river" for the two example St. Joseph Rivers is really the Saint Lawrence River anyway, so it has to be more specific. I think this proposed policy is quite in keeping with that one. --Scott Davis Talk 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to Tobias' comment, I propose we change
  • 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);
to
  • Ambiguously named features that are ambiguous within a state use more specific locations: [[Geographic Feature (Location)]], e.g. Mount Eliza (Gippsland, Victoria) (or Mount Eliza (Gippsland) where there is little risk of confusing the disambiguating location). The type of the disambiguating location should take into account other relevant policies; for example, tributary rivers should be disambiguated by their principal river per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming.
Snottygobble 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the example on the rivers naming convention page I have never seen a river that is disambiguated by its principal river. I don't think it's useful, unless all other options have been exhausted.--Peta 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to include, if nothing else, to highlight the existence of the WikiProject Rivers - but the likelihood is that in the Austalian context this convention will be little used. Also, I'm not sure how strongly the rivers project pushes this convention, it seems to be mentioned as a possible method of disambiguation, in which case, our "more specific location" guideline pretty much covers it. Your wording leaves it flexible so little harm in including the reference. Possibly useful if we have a stack of similarly named creeks both within the same state and in more than one state. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: "if we have a stack of similarly named creeks both within the same state and in more than one state". Here's a scary factoid for you: there are 540 places in Australia named "Spring Creek". Snottygobble 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Having said all that, I can recall last night when I was checking out where St Albans, NSW was, noticing how remote the immediate area surrounding this Macdonald River was, and thinking that both Yengo National Park and the Hawkesbury River were pretty good identifiers. As it happens, this Macdonald River is a tributary of the Hawkesbury, and given that St Albans, NSW is a fairly small town and has a namesake in Victoria (no doubt no where near as picturesque, I can assure you all from personal experience) - perhaps this represents the ideal scenario in which such a convention should be used? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I do think it's important to take other conventions into account, but I would be happy to remove the specific WikiProject Rivers example. Perhaps: "...the type of the disambiguating location should take into account other relevant naming conventions such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes#Naming, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Naming conventions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming." Snottygobble 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Only 540 Spring Creeks? - I bet there are plenty more, not to mention Breakfast Creek (43 according to GA) or Dinner Creek (67 according to GA. I wouldn't be able to work out what most of them were a tributary for either - if I indeed insisted on writing about them, I would much rather disambiguate by LGA and so I disagree with the naming convention at the Rivers project , though I can see why it might be necessary for other continents where rivers cross international boundaries. Most of ours don't even cross state boundaries.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One last query?

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Sorry to keep this dragging on; I'd like it to end too but we have a problem:

These are contradictory and leave me unsure what we've agree upon.

Snottygobble 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that unless there is ambiguity then the name should not be disambiguated.--Peta 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to now agree with Peta, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Australia needs to be changed slightly. -- I@n 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I would have thought our recently agreed convention automatically sat within broader wikipedia policy on disambiguation. This says to me that the points cited can actually live quite comfortably together - and a careful reading of both leaves me convinced that that remains the case. If that needs to be spelled out somewhere along the line for clarity, then I guess there is no harm in that. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • On a broader level, I note that there is a Blackwood, South Australia (a suburb), and I know that there is a little town called Blackwood in central Vic, not far from Daylesford which doesn't have an article. So this makes me wonder, yes, Blackwood River is certainly unambiguous as a title, but with so many other Blackwoods, is it better form to go with the longer title? I don't have a strong view, I simply ask to gain a better understanding, because these sort of situations are likely to occur over and over. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't see the problem, the towns aren't called Blackwood River. Make a Blackwood disambig and put all the towns and the river there for good measure.--Peta 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_places/Archive_2&oldid=1190098265"