Wikipedia

Talk:Federation Council (New South Wales)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Requested move 18 May 2016

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

– Where natural disambiguation is not available, disambiguation using parentheses is generally preferred. In Australia, towns and other localities are commonly disambiguated using a comma. These articles are not about localities however - they are about government instrumentalities. It should therefore be disambiguated using parentheses, I note there has been some reversions of pages moves on at least one of these articles - good to have this addressed properly Mattinbgn (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose - WP:NCAUST, which we thrashed out some time ago, does not differentiate between types of places. All it says regarding LGAs is "Local government areas are at their official name". We should be following the natural disambiguation, which is to use a comma in the first case, and parentheses in the second case, as recommended by NCAUST and as we commonly do for all Australian places. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. An LGA is not a place, it is a body of local government, therefore the naming criteria for towns do not apply. It doesn't mention LGAs for a reason and no one else in a decade has thought to argue that it does. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
An LGA is just as much a place as a town or suburb. Can you visit an LGA? Yes! Is it populated? Yes! Does it contain other places registered by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales on the Geographical Names Register? Yes! NCAUST is not a criteria specifically for towns. It covers all places in Australia and it doesn't mention many, or give specific guidance. As an example, the only mention of suburbs is "Localities (other than suburbs)". That's it. There is no guidance for the naming of suburbs, or other places for that matter, yet we use it across the board for all places.
It doesn't mention LGAs for a reason - That's incorrect. it quite clearly says "Local government areas are at their official name", so it obviously applies to LGAs as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
This doesn't make sense. No one would say, for instance, that they're going to "Federation Council". It is a governmental body. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
LGAs are not government bodies. They are bounded areas ("A" in "LGA" stands for "area") within the landscape, just like cities, towns, suburbs and localities. Where a person says they are going to is irrelevant to this discussion. Most people don't actually know the names of the places they are going. A TV program recently aired a segment about a trip they made to Port Stephens. At least 8 of the opening shots, including one emblazoned with information about Port Stephens, were of the Newcastle foreshore, harbour and beaches and they visited a market in Mayfield. Very little in the segment was actually about Port Stephens. A local group promoting Newcastle online had some nice photos of Redhead Beach, which is not in Newcastle. This isn't about what people say, it's about a naming convention that clearly applies and which should be followed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Adding emphasis to settlement doesn't negate the fact that NCAUST also says (emphasis added) Local government areas are at their official name. The convention doesn't provide minute guidance for each individual type of place. Instead, all places are covered under the one guideline and the entire instruction applies to all. Note that the guideline also refers to (emphasis added) train stations, parks, etc., which are not settlements either, yet the convention applies to them. It also refers to train stations as localities, which they are not. We shouldn't be picking and choosing how we apply the naming convention based on what parts of it we want to ignore. We should be applying it consistently to all articles, as it was intended to be applied. Two different methods of disambiguation for places serves no purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
You are right, it mentions places such as train stations, parks etc, and suggests the city, rather than the state be after the comma. The guideline presently gives little indication whatsoever on how to disambiguate LGA names, and Federation Council has the additional oddity that the conflicts are with things that are not LGAs. I won't edit WP:NCAUST during discussions that refer to it, but it looks like the sentence "Where further disambiguation is required, the local government area name is used in parentheses following the state name: Town, State (Local Government Area) (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges))." needs to be moved from the third paragraph (about LGAs) to the first one (about settlements). If this conversation reaches a consensus clarification for ambiguous LGA names, it could be added to the (much shorter) third paragraph. SA, Qld, Victoria and NSW (up until this week) seem to have favoured "(state)", but Tasmania has favoured ", Tasmania". The point of the sentence in the guideline is that "New South Wales" is not included in an LGA article title unless it is required for disambiguation. I believe this to mean it would be in parentheses if required, but that is not stated. --Scott Davis Talk 12:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I believe this to mean it would be in parentheses if required, but that is not stated. - And therein lies the problem with your argument. You're advocating parentheses without the convention stating that at all. However, the convention does say "articles are at Town, State/Territory" and we know that isn't limited to just articles on towns. It clearly expands to other places and yet you are drawing a line as to what places it refers to when there is no stated line. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, the written guideline does not specify either a comma or parentheses for ambiguous LGA titles. The undocumented convention had been to use parentheses. It appears that several of the Tasmanian LGA articles with a comma were moved to that name last month with a comment of "To align with naming coventions and fix category" and they were previously named without the state in the article title. --Scott Davis Talk 02:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
The article has a single sentence in the lead naming the administrator, and two sentences later on explaining how the new council body will be elected. The vast majority of this article talks about the area itself, so your argument is confusing. It is a new article and needs expansion. When expanded, after we have some information to include, it will no doubt include more information, as other LGA articles do but the overriding fact is that local government area articles are about areas. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
It does so purely in the context of explaining where the heck this particular local government body is responsible for. Information going beyond that would be irrelevant to the subject and should be removed anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
While these maybe new because of the merger the information will be that of the services the LGA provides, the Mayors, the politics and it history as a body not about the land mass which just indicate its area of responsibility. As per other amalgamations the LGA will adopt the history of the bodies its replacing depending on how much of that body it absorbs Gnangarra 08:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federation Council, New South Wales. 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:

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) 01:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federation_Council_(New_South_Wales)&oldid=1241143925"