Talk:Transport in Perth, Western Australia

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. 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. Editors are evenly divided on the title of this page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

---

• Refers about transportation in Australian city of Perth, which is more notable. No disambiguation needed. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is also a notable city called Perth, Scotland. The disambig page is page Perth. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Google stats there are 60.4 million views on searching "Transport in Perth" (about the Australian city); while the search list of "Transport in Perth Western Australia" has 23.1 million views. As the Scottish city about the transport has around 4 million views. Lonely Planet points that showing about the "Transport in Perth" with this page.

And, here's the links in trains, buses and airports in Perth:

http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/

http://wa.gov.au/information-about/getting-around/buses-trains-public-transport

http://www.fremantleports.com.au/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.perthairport.com.au/index.aspx

http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/

• See Talk:Perth#Requested move 1 for the discussion on the previous RM between the Australian city and disambiguation.

ApprenticeFan ^work 23:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - primacy, google hits etc are not what wikipedia should be about - the previous mess of the shifts between Perth, Western Australia and Perth show an unhelpful approach for the reader. Anyone with the slightest memories of the arguments about Perth would understand that proposals and requested moves like these are not a productive or even useful exercise. It should be abandoned while there is hope... satusuro 12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just to mention that the fact "Transport for Perth" comes up with the most results is quite natural seeing as those results would include results for the 20-odd other places worldwide that are called Perth. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support dont even know why we are here with Perth] at Perth so should every other Perth, Western Australia related article should also be at Perth, along with categories, templates and so forth. Gnangarra 12:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose -given the sheer number of places actually called Perth, its just making the article name ubiquitous, confusing and unspecific. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose "Transport in Perth" should be a disambiguation page for "Perth, Scotland#Transport" and "Transport in Perth, Western Australia". IJA (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm a big fan of consistency, so – other things being equal – I would expect that "Transport in Perth ..." would match "Perth...", both with or without "Western Australia". By that logic we should also rename Category:Transport in Perth, Western Australia and many of the subcategories and pages thereunder, as well as Category:Perth, Western Australia and many of its subcategories and pages. It appears that "other things" (eg the number of categories and pages with "Perth" vs "Perth, Western Australia") may not be equal. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That level synchronicity normally happens when WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is resolved but as it involved WP:ARBCOM I think noone was actually willing to take on the task for fear of being caught in a backlash resulting from the unsatisfactory method in which the naming was resolved. Gnangarra 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Perth is the city in Western Australia, therefore move this. Zarcadia (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2014 (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.