Talk:Light Square

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move all except University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide, which should be discussed separately. I've started a separate move request for that one at Talk:University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide#Relisted move discussion. Please continue the discussion of that article's title there. Jafeluv (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Light Square, Adelaide → Light Square — To remove unnecessary disambiguation from titles per WP:AT- some require admin. help, but the main reason listed here is that I anticipate some dispute and reversion should I proceed with these moves so have opened for discussion 203.45.170.194 (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) now i have logged in!, actually (Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)).

• Hurtle Square, Adelaide → Hurtle Square
• Whitmore Square, Adelaide → Whitmore Square
• Brougham Place, North Adelaide → Brougham Place
• University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide → University Oval (Park 12)
• Westerfolds Park, Melbourne → Westerfolds Park
• Yarra Bend Park, Melbourne → Yarra Bend Park
• St Vincent Gardens, Melbourne → St Vincent Gardens
• Yarra Park, Melbourne → Yarra Park

• Support all. Use of disambiguation terms is for resolving actual disambiguation, not for providing helpful and useful content in the title. Wikipedia uses article titles simply to tell readers the name of the subject of the article, plus give any necessary disambiguation. In all these cases disambiguation is not necessary, as there's nothing to disambiguate from, so adding the city is just unnecessary and potentially confusing complication. (paraphrase from Kotniski's comment here which summarises the argument well). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'd suggest University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide gets moved to University Oval, Adelaide. A double qualifier is a bit over the top, and the park number would be better in the body of the article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think (Park 12) is so much a disambiguation term as an alternate name. That is, the terms 'University Oval" and "Park 12" refer to the same thing. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight and more information, I'm able to state that "University Oval" is but a small part of "Park 12" - they are by no means "alternate names", and are most definitely NOT "the same thing". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question - In individual isolation, the proposal is logical. But taking a step back and taking a wider view, what about consistency? For example, look at the template:

Before this kerfuffle, they were ALL <xxxxxxx, Adelaide>. Now there is NO predictability about the name of a page. Isn't consistency and predictability an issue of any importance? (Yes Mattinbgn and Yeti Hunter, that question is aimed at you two.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a consistent naming protocol across all of Wikipedia and that is WP:AT. Disambiguation where is not needed, while locally consistent, makes the articles inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia and confuses readers. Park names are entirely predictable - they are at the actual name of the park! - this is not the case with Light Square which is a redlink. What do you think readers are going to type in as a search "Light Square" or "Light Square, Adelaide"? If the name of the park is shared, then the reader will hit either a disambiguation page or a hat note on the primary topic page. Either way, the reader will find their way to the desired article. We should not assume readers know every idiosyncratic naming protocol that editors decide to use for their own benefit, we should use the one, simple, consistent system encyclopedia-wide. It has been tested and it works. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What a pleasant change to have a reply that doesn't fall into the "If I repeat my own POV enough times, and ignore the other guy's questions, he will give up in frustration".

Hmmm. Whilst I don't agree with you, I can't fault your logic, and other than "local consistency", (which you have addressed), I have no counter argument. OK. Reluctanly, I have to concede the logic of your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)0

Pdf- as it happens, I had originally written a response weakly opposing, arguing along local consistency lines. However when I submitted, I edit conflicted with Mattinnbgn, and had time to reflect on his points. I reconsidered my position. There are only two squares in Adelaide that have names requiring DAB (Wellington and Victoria), many of the parks are likewise unique (even Botanic Park is dubious as a DAB page, incredibly). I find it hard to justify a city-wide naming strategy for the sake of the few that do require DAB.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have both come to similar conclusions. Would you agree? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note the somewhat animated discussion going on here regarding the current "PLACE NAME, STATE" naming convention for Australian articles.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do I have to? Is it adding any value to THIS issue? (I'll accept your judgement on the answer, but given a choice, I'd prefer to avoid it ...) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support all (with the caveat of using University Oval, Adelaide) per WP:PRECISION. I would also support adding Chambers Gully, Adelaide to this list. --JaGa^talk 12:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: University Oval is but a small part of Park 12 - they are NOT synonyms, hence the precision argument is not relevant in this particular case. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I don't understand your "would also support adding Chambers Gully, Adelaide to this list." comment. May I bother you to clarify your statement please? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Chambers Gully, Adelaide → Chambers Gully should also be on this list. --JaGa^talk 13:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Pardon? How does that help? What does that clarify? I'm not contesting if it should or shouldn't be "on the list". (BTW: What list?) I'm (politely) asking you to explain what: "I would also support adding Chambers Gully, Adelaide to this list." means. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It seems pretty obvious to me that the list being referred to is that of the proposed moves at the top of this section. Moving Chamber's Gully, Adelaide to Chambers Gully seems to be within the spirit of the proposal to drop automatic disambiguation. Speaking generally (ie, not directly at Pdfpdf), I have no strong preference either way (though it was probably me who started automatic disambiguation for Adelaide articles in the first place). But whether disambiguated or not, it should be standard -- so I think it's upon the proposer (Crusoe) to round up other applicable articles (and there are others). That discussion should take place in a more centralised forum (ie, WP:ADEL, WP:AWNB, WP:AUSPLACES).—cj | talk 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • wrt Park 12 (University Oval), I disagree. Please study the template, think about it, and see if you can suggest a solution that addresses more than ONE of the identified problems. Please. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The template is irrelevant to this discussion. Those entries are piped, so they'll look the same, regardless of the article title. You can use [[University Oval, Adelaide|University Oval (12)]] and the template will be consistent. --JaGa^talk 13:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. (Really!) I have NO idea what your point is. And I have even less idea how your answer relates to the question I asked. Could you try again please? (It would be appreciated.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • University Oval (Park 12) signifies a dual usage approach to its naming. The oval is called by both names.Ozdaren (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, Park 12 contains LOTS of things, only one of which is University Oval. The oval is IN Park 12, but it is not accurately called by both names.Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • Yeah, but is that the best WP:COMMONNAME? I'd say a user probably won't type that into a search box. But I'm not strongly opposed to University Oval (Park 12); I just thought we could have a better common name. --JaGa^talk 11:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose None of these are likely to be unique - possibly the Yarra one. Sydney and Edinburgh (apparently an area as well as a street) have "Brougham Places" that come higher on my google suggestions than Adelaide. Also Bath, Chatham etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• We don't disambiguate for every potential ambiguity (else just about every name would require some disambiguation) but only for actual ambiguity - i.e. two articles share the same name. If and when articles are written about the parks that you mention, then perhaps the articles may need disambiguation, but not at present. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Proposer's note- Chamber's Gully, AdelaideChambers Gully, Adelaide was one I moved so this is an implied inclusion as well; A bunch of others as well, which after a tad of revert and re-revert are now what I moved them to so not added to my list, but this discussion does involve them- see my log for details if you wish; Otherwise, I would have thought sufficiently advertised (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)).

• Oppose light square and st vincent gardens. Those are not unique to Australia. For instance, there's Botanic Gardens St. Vincent; there's light squares -- and square light can be rendered as light square, and ofcourse, square Light fixtures. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The chess term isn't going to be referred to with the capital-S Square. If someone took the trouble to capitalize, they're most likely looking for a place name. Botanic Gardens St. Vincent could be in a {{for}} hatnote per WP:TWODABS. --JaGa^talk 12:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support all moving all entries in the list as proposed per nom, WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION ("precise, but only as precise as necessary"). We also do not disambiguate for potential conflicts. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment See a similar proposal at Talk:Allied_Gardens,_San_Diego,_California#Requested_move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

stocktake

The current page names are:

Adelaide Squares

• Victoria Square, Adelaide - Victoria Square is a dab page
• Light Square, Adelaide - move to Light Square
• Hindmarsh Square
• Hurtle Square, Adelaide - Hurtle Square is a redirect
• Whitmore Square, Adelaide - move to Whitmore Square
• Wellington Square, North Adelaide - Wellington Square is a dab page

Adelaide Parks - refer to Adelaide Park Lands#Parks

• 10: Park 10
• 12: University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide - There is considerably more in Park 12 than University Oval
• 13: Rundle Park
• 14: Rymill Park
• 16: Victoria Park, Adelaide - Victoria Park is a dab page
• 26: Adelaide Oval - There is considerably more in Park 26 than Adelaide Oval
• 27: Bonython Park - There is more in Park 27 than Bonython Park
• 29: Brougham Place, North Adelaide (Park 29 is actually "Brougham Gardens" not "Broughham Place" - Both Brougham Gardens and Brougham Place are red links

Personal opinion: It's a bit of a mess, isn't it! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
See also: Park 1, Park 2, Park 3, Park 4, Park 5, Park 6, Park 7, Park 8, Park 9, Park 11, Park 12, Park 13, Park 14, and eventually, Parks 15-29 Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Park 15, Park 16, Park 17, Park 18, Park 19, Park 20, Park 21, Park 22, Park 23, Park 24, Park 25, Park 26, Park 27, Park 28, Park 29 Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, relevant categories are Category:Parks in Adelaide and Category:Squares in Adelaide. Beware that streets open up a whole other issue, for every Australian city. This again emphasises the importance of forming a broader consensus for local articles. So, I propose terminating this discussion and reopening one at WP:AWNB to settle the matter. — cj | talk 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to. This RM discussion should come to a conclusion based on the arguments made here that are supported by policy. Moving discussion to a centralised place, such as AWNB is a recipe for having the discussion diluted and dragged in a million different directions, the almost certain impossibility to come to a "consensus" that will satisfy everybody and the subsequent placement of the subject on the back-burner. RM discussions are much more likely to focus on the specific issues at hand, draw a more diverse set of views (it's the same old people at AWNB - I know, I am one!) and in time a trend at RM towards one preference or the other will become clear. Yes, using repeated RM discussions to come to a consensus will lead to some instability and (horrors!) some temporary loss of local consistency. But we are not consistent now - some classes of article are mandatorily disambiguated, others aren't and no real rationale for determining which method should be used has ever been articulated. Also, by allowing the guideline to reflect the (evolving) common practice as determined through RM rather than through a centralised discussion determining a statute-like decision, there is more chance that any consensus coming out of the RM process will have broad-based and long term support. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mattinbgn. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

I think we have consensus to move "xxxx, yyyy" to "xxxx". Does anyone disagree? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If so: "Speak now, or forever hold your peace".

If not, here is a (sorted) list of what I think we have achieved consensus about:

• Brougham Place, North Adelaide → Brougham Place
• Chambers Gully, Adelaide → Chambers Gully
  • Can anyone determine if the gazette uses Chambers, Chamber's or Chambers'? Yes! See below - the Gazette uses "Chambers"
• Hurtle Square, Adelaide → Hurtle Square
• Light Square, Adelaide → Light Square
• St Vincent Gardens, Melbourne → St Vincent Gardens
• Westerfolds Park, Melbourne → Westerfolds Park
• Whitmore Square, Adelaide → Whitmore Square
• Yarra Bend Park, Melbourne → Yarra Bend Park
• Yarra Park, Melbourne → Yarra Park

Personally, I think University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide is still unresolved. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article refers mainly to the University Oval (commonly referred to by the University as Park 12) and that the other areas have been added to pad out the article. I'm personally not adverse to having the article renamed to Park 12. This could then include University Oval as a part of the park. Ozdaren (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I don't think here is the best place to discuss it. I think Talk:University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide is a better place. Does anyone else have an opinion? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Chambers. Australian placenames no longer use the possessive apostrophe (Crusoe8181 (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)).

That resolves that one! Thanks!!! Pdfpdf (talk)

So, all that's left is University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide? Who is opposed to University Oval, Adelaide, and why? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf the University Oval (Park 12) talk page says to discuss it here. Ozdaren (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry about that. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As Born2cycle says, all that's left is University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide. Candidates are:

• University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide (i.e. Leave it as it is.) - I don't see any support for that option.
• University Oval (Park 12) - Crusoe8181 & Mattinbgn
• University Oval, Adelaide - Yeti Hunter, JaGa, Born2cycle
• Park 12
  • Ozdaren's opinion, (with which I (Pdfpdf) largely agree): My opinion is that the article refers mainly to the University Oval (commonly referred to by the University as Park 12) and that the other areas have been added to pad out the article. I'm personally not adverse to having the article renamed to Park 12. This could then include University Oval as a part of the park. Ozdaren (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pdfpdf's suggestion (which, if not identical to Ozdaren's, is remarkably similar), is based on the fact that University Oval is but a small part of Park 12. (Less than 20% of Park 12.) Hence, I suggest:
    • Move University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide to Park 12
    • Create University Oval, Adelaide as a redirect to Park 12#University Oval

Comments? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest this discussion is ready to be closed in favour of the proposed (by me) moves allowing that I will keep out of any argument on University Oval and leave that one for others better placed to judge. This started as simply a WP:AT which does seem to be resolved (Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)).

(Comment: I agree. In fact, the proposed moves have largely already occurred. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

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. No further edits should be made to this section.