Talk:Mungana

Requested move 13 June 2015

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: Move. We have consensus that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the plain term "Mungana"; the move is therefore suitable according to the relevant guidelines. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Mungana, Queensland → Mungana – Unique name not requiring disambiguation, as indicated by the fact that the plain name redirects to "Mungana, Queensland" - i.e. no disambiguation page. Was moved to "Mungana" then immediately moved back with the comment " huge need to disambiguate that" but no actual reason given. Both Mungana railway station and Mungana affair have natural names (both of which are derived names anyway) that can either be linked to in the article or hatnoted. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Mattinbgn (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Mungana affair is much, much more notable than the ghost town itself, and besides the railway station, and the railway line, there's also a current ASX-listed resources company. Outside of the context of en masse moves of place names that sound vaguely indigenous, it's an obvious candidate for a disambiguation page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment the current title is vastly more understandable in comparison than the proposed title. GregKaye 18:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. There is no need to disambiguate pages when the title is not ambiguous. Sovereign/^Sentinel 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom, clear primary topic. Cavarrone 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • How is it the clear primary topic? One is a long-forgotten ghost town, and the other is one of the most historically significant political scandals of the first half of the 20th century. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. the proposed name loses information that this is a place, and where it is. It therefor loses recognizability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

When searching Wikipedia for "mungana", the following are the top five titles returned for me.

1 Mungana affair

2 Mungana

3 Chillagoe, Queensland

4 Chillagoe-Mungana Caves National Park

5 Kagara Ltd

The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th are immediately recognisable as: a politcal event, a populated place, a national park, and a company. The second is unclear, I think it sounds like a material, and is therefore not a good title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, primary topic.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • How is it the primary topic? You are the third person to say this without giving the vaguest sense of a rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You can't call the Mungana affair just Mugana by itself, even though the Mungana affair is much more important. It is a derived name.--Grahame (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it's a pretty huge/unfounded judgment call to suggest that when someone searches for "Mungana" they're looking for the ghost town over the political scandal or the railway line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
        • You obviously did not read what I said. If you go to Mungana you will see a link to the scandal. Currently if you type Mungana in the search box you are offered both the town and the scandal.--Grahame (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
          • You're presented with a choice between the things you're probably looking for, yes. As SmokeyJoe said above, the village is just one of that list, it's not the most likely one, and "Mungana, Queensland" makes it clear that it is in fact a town and not, as he says it sounds like, a mineral. Mungana the ghost town is not the primary topic here and it doesn't make sense to treat it as if it is outside of a context of people trying to mass-move place name articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Primary topic or not, precision is needed. "Mungana" is not a familiar name to non-Aussies, like me. It could look like an African city or town, not Australian. Retaining "Queensland" clears that. Of course, you can redirect "Mungana" to this article. Sounds fair? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support There are no other places called Mungana and I don't know what the user above is implying by saying it could appear like an African city or town. Mungana is not African. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic, the Mungana affair is only a partial title match that's never referred to as simply "Mungana". Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.