Talk:Wilsons Promontory

hey, cn any one tell me why this land mark is not on the 'world heritage list'as it does have a large diversity for one location. And why dont many interstate people know about Wilsons promontory, isn't it a Australian icon, or at least a Victorian?

Just call it a well kept secret. Probably the best walking I've done, apart from the Overland Track, and Nepal. About equal to Milford Track, but without the Gestapo and the helicopters. Greglocock 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Should this article and Wilsons Promontory National Park be merged? They are almost identicle!

No, I don't think the two articles should be merged. Wilsons Promontory and the national park situated in it are two different things, and should be kept separate, shouldn't they? Slinky (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

In English orthography, the Saxon genitive/possessive case is denoted by an "s" affixed to the noun after an apostrophe to differentiate it from the plural. This is the Promontory of just ONE Wilson, as the article itself explains. Why does the name "Wilson's Promontory" redirect to "Wilsons Promontory" and not the other way around?

MiG-25 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the Guidelines for Geographic Names in Victoria, October 2004 [1]:

"An apostrophe should be deleted from place names written with a final `s’, or the possessive `s’ should not be included in the first instance. For example, Wilsons Promontory (not Wilson’s Promontory)."

"The apostrophe should not be used in names indicating the possessive case e.g. Richardsons Lane. This facilitates consistent matching and retrieval of names in database systems such as those used by emergency services." Melburnian (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the title of the page is "Wilsons Promontory", but throughout the entire article "Wilson's Promontory" is used. Could someone fix that please? --Rhys (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would think this should be fixed by "Wilsons" being changed to "Wilson's" throughout: title and text alike. I don't know about the "Guidelines for Geographic Names in Victoria" mentioned above, but I'd say that, if it is advocating ungrammatical usage, it should not be recognized for the purposes of this article. That is just irresponsible for official bodies to deliberately advocate bad grammar or usage, and it should be resisted. "Richardsons Lane"? - to me, that just looks sloppy and illiterate.

As for "consistent matching and retrieval of names", would that not be served just as well by consistently using the apostrophe in a clear case of the possessive case being used? I don't like to see Wikipedia serving to further the degradation of English grammar or orthography that is sadly all too widespread already - the situation with proper use of punctuation and grammar in society generally is already pretty dire. M.J.E. (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that confusing the hundreds of millions of people who use wikipedia as their primary reference for grammar and geography will really accomplish much that is positive. The placename, according to the people who define those placenames, has no apostrophe. Greglocock (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)