Talk:Australian

Adjective

I've cleaned up the dab, along the lines of the justification at Talk:Gujarati. Before it used piping correctly per MOSDAB, but now it serves readers better by linking at the start of entries and not being piped so the continent is clearly a different entry from the country. Widefox; talk 14:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not consensus. The nomination does not offer a policy-based reason, and given low input to the discussion, nothing seems currently broken. No such user (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Australian (disambiguation) → Australian – ambiguous 2601:541:4580:8500:3CA5:6C92:80AC:7AC0 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support the singular probably most often means the language which gets slightly more views (10,940) than the people (10,295)[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. No actual rationale has been provided. Ambiguity on its own is not an argument against a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As for the above comment, Citation Needed for "the singular probably most often means the language"... Nohomersryan (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Australian gets 4,736 views and Google results return that first followed by things for the country in general, do you have evidence to support the claim that the people are primary? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Australian redirect currently averages over 100 views a day, while Australian (disambiguation) only hits low single digits, so it is not likely any reader wants the current proposal. There is only one direct match on the DAB page, Australian (horse), which isn't a popular page. I do not find it realistic that all the redirect usages are seeking out things like "Australian language" and "The Australian", which are PTMs unlikely to be referred to as "Australian". Nohomersryan (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2021 (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.

Requested move 20 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Australian (disambiguation) → Australian – Per WP:CONSISTENT, for consistency with similar articles, such as: American, German, Italian, Russian, Albanian, Belgian, Croatian, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Serbian, Ukrainian, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. No need for the use of parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" within main title headers of such pages. A recent unsuccessful proposal at Talk:Austrian#Requested move 29 September 2022 had focused upon moving Austrian → Austrian (disambiguation). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Consistency is not a consideration for primary topics (the way it is e.g. for article title formats). However, I don't see a primary topic: the term is at least as likely to refer to the country as to its citizens. In the previous RM the point was raised that the redirect Australian gets a lot more views (30x in my reckoning [2]) than the dab page. But that is almost certainly down to the very high number of incoming links (just over 4,700 as of now). Whatever the outcome of this discussion, examining those links would be a good idea: I suspect the majority would be instances of overlinking (like this one), with loads of plainly incorrect ones (I've just fixed a few at random: [3] [4] [5]). – Uanfala (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my arguments last time though with disambiguation we generally take each case relative to other uses but it seems like there is indeed no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom—blindlynx 22:27, 20 October 2022 (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.