Talk:Nambour

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: No consensus, Page not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Nambour, Queensland → Nambour — This article was moved to "Nambour" and then moved back to "Nambour, Queensland" recently. There is no disputing that Nambour is a unique name and does not need disambiguation. The only reason given for disambiguating is "per naming conventions for Australian towns/suburbs".

While currently Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia is the guideline for Australian places, I am not sure this reflects current consensus given the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention. Certainly given the two recent moves, some community consensus on the appropriate location for this would be desirable. Mattinbgn\^talk 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support d'oh! _talk 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. No compelling reason to go against the long-held national convention. Rebecca (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Nambour is notable as "Nambour" and not "Nambour, Queensland", also unnecessary and pointless disambiguation. I would hardly say that the "long-held national convention" is strong as it clearly doesn't have support by all Australians. Bidgee (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You couldn't get support to overturn the convention, so you're trying to circumvent it piece by piece by stacking votes on individual articles. Not cool. Rebecca (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith is not cool! Make as many allegations all you want as I couldn't give a toss but I will speak on what I neutrally feels as what would be the best title to use and you're entitled to your opinion but some good faith would be nice for once. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel it's the best title to use, then actually get a consensus to change the guideline instead of trying to move individual articles piece by piece when no one's looking. There wasn't a consensus when you put it to a larger forum; claiming that you can set consensus here is just pure forum shopping. Rebecca (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See it how you want but claiming no one is looking is a bit over the top as clearly yourself and Gnangarra seen it (no doubt others will as well), with the larger forum well it was more 50/50, I would love to say more on it but this isn't the place for that. Moving of individual articles, well what is the point in having Location, State/Territory when the Location is notable on its own? None, nothing stops individual requests. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Acutually there has been a wholesale shift from pre-emptive disambiguation but calling the request vote stacking is a bit of a stretch. Then I also agree that it should be whole approach rather than one article at a time, especially where there is no compelling element that requires urgent changes. Gnangarra 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rebecca. No reason to go against long held convention. If non-disambiguation started now for Australian town/suburb articles, it would just set the precedent for the argument that non-disambiguation would have to apply to every other suburb and town article in all countries world-wide that does not share the same name with any other town/suburb name in another country Sb617 (Talk) 13:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rebecca. Either we follow the guideline or we change it. We don't try to get around it piece by piece. As an aside, I personally find the compulsory disambiguation immensely helpful and would be sorry to see it go. Frickeg (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion about changing the guideline did not show support for the current guideline. How else can I demonstrate support for a change? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• It didn't demonstrate consensus for a move either, which I think is the key point here. Frickeg (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't exactly show support for the current guideline either. I feel the burden is on you to show thet the current guideline—which is at odds with the wider consensus across the encyclopedia—still enjoys wide support. I don't think it does and I don't feel that ypu shoud be able to rely on some sort of bureaucratic inertia and banal conservatism to support your position. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). I actually think the convention for Australia is wrong, but the way to tackle that is to change the convention, not to change individual articles at random. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment To address some issues. Firstly I didn't move this article. Someone moved it, someone moved it back. That is prima facie evidence of a dispute. This discussion is to resolve that dispute. Secondly, we had a discussion about changing the broader guideline and while there was not an overwhelming call for change, there was not overwhelming support for the status quo either. Indeed, if you read the discussion I would argue that the case for change was better made and more widely supported. Thirdly, there has been a broad-based movement for renaming Australian articles over the past month. This has not been a coordinated program but a series of individual editors in the main. This is evidence that the current guideline now lacks wide support and further, that it is confusing to the majority of Wikipedia editors. Lastly, I still have not heard any compelling evidence that the disambiguation policy that applies across the rest of the encyclopedia is somehow inadequate for Australian localities. The argument for keeping mandatory disambiguation is conservatism at its most banal: "We have always done it this way." Not good enough, to my mind. -- Mattinbgn\^talk
• Oppose The current system works quite fine, no need to change it or bog down the system with hundreds of potential page moves of Australian location articles. Calistemon (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

the system shouldnt bog down most moves just occur its only when theres a reason to question the move should rfm discussion occur. Gnangarra 01:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Needless disambiguation. Bleakcomb (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. Matt, I attempted to contact you on your talk page a few months back regarding these guidelines, but didn't get a response. Maybe we should have that administrator take a look at the discussion and announce a consensus? As I recall, there was substantial support for the change, with the exception of that one editor. Night w (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment See Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#RM -- moving forward for a straw poll on the subject, an attempt by the uninvolved editor Gnangarra (talk · contribs) to find consensus. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rebecca and Skinsmoke. Nambour is increasingly a suburb of the Sunshine Coast as much as it is a town, and as such, creates a maintenance and searching nightmare when linked with neighbouring suburb articles such as the utterly ambiguous Burnside (with SA) and Parklands (with WA and possibly others). Orderinchaos 09:57, 3 August 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.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nambour, Queensland. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111212137/http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1358528.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1358528.htm

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) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)